PDA

View Full Version : The History Thread


Pages : [1] 2

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 10:25 PM
I've been wanting to make this forever. Let's discuss all things history before the 19th century. I know we have a lot of history fans here so let's keep it fun and not bring modern politics into this. I'll start by saying my favorite American historical period is the American Revolution. What about everyone else?

fischbowl
01-06-2010, 10:28 PM
American for me would have to be immigration

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 10:28 PM
Why do I get the feeling this is going to turn into the "Ask CJ, he was there." thread.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
01-06-2010, 10:30 PM
I have a feeling you want it to turn into that

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 10:34 PM
I blame Benjamin Franklin for aids.

DoughBoy
01-06-2010, 10:34 PM
So CJ, Da Vinci was a cool guy right?

The Unseen
01-06-2010, 10:36 PM
And God said "Let there be light." And CJ said, "Get me another beer or get off my lawn!"

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 10:37 PM
I'm glad this started off on the right foot. :rolleyes:

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:37 PM
And God said "Let there be light." And CJ said, "Get me another beer or get off my lawn!"
"and goddamnit, if you get one of them ***** euro beers, I'll kick your ass!"

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 10:38 PM
I'm glad I could help.

CashmoneyDrew
01-06-2010, 10:40 PM
Aaron Burr was a real douche.

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:41 PM
seriously though, I would love to have a conversation about how I find Columbus Day offensive and disgusting because the guy was a piece of ****.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 10:41 PM
To help GF a bit here...

Did Catesby really believe the Gunpowder plot could actually be pulled off? I mean as close is it was to happening it probably never would have worked as well as he had hoped and would only have made things worse for his cause.

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:43 PM
To help GF a bit here...

Did Catesby really believe the Gunpowder plot could actually be pulled off? I mean as close is it was to happening it probably never would have worked as well as he had hoped and would only have made things worse for his cause.
terrorism isnt about how successful you are in killing, so much as it is about creating fear. if he killed a few people and scared the **** out of the rest, mission accomplished.

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 10:44 PM
Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 10:45 PM
To help GF a bit here...

Did Catesby really believe the Gunpowder plot could actually be pulled off? I mean as close is it was to happening it probably never would have worked as well as he had hoped and would only have made things worse for his cause.

Seemed like it had too many moving parts as well. Sort of like the Lincoln assassanation where so many things had to happen.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 10:46 PM
terrorism isnt about how successful you are in killing, so much as it is about creating fear. if he killed a few people and scared the **** out of the rest, mission accomplished.

I always thought more of Catesby and the rest (well not Fawkes) as above a simple act of terrorism.

I agree completely with the Columbus opinion however. He was a psychopath who happened upon a certain area of land and is basically responsible for acts that led to genocide.

dabears10
01-06-2010, 10:46 PM
seriously though, I would love to have a conversation about how I find Columbus Day offensive and disgusting because the guy was a piece of ****.

For all the education majors at our school almost all C&I200 classes had to read Lies My Teacher Told Me. After that all my friends, mostly girls, came to me with a 'crazy' truth that Christopher Columbus was a real asshole and killed a bunch of people. Made me chuckle.

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:50 PM
I always thought more of Catesby and the rest (well not Fawkes) as above a simple act of terrorism.
yeah I am not up on my British history to really discuss this beyond a surface level (looking for BF_51 to come in)

I agree completely with the Columbus opinion however. He was a psychopath who happened upon a certain area of land and is basically responsible for acts that led to genocide.
well, many of the early explorers thought they were the **** because natives didnt believe in ownership, and gladly shared what they had. throw in the numbers who died from european diseases & some modern technology, you have men who find themselves to be unstoppable.

For all the education majors at our school almost all C&I200 classes had to read Lies My Teacher Told Me. After that all my friends, mostly girls, came to me with a 'crazy' truth that Christopher Columbus was a real asshole and killed a bunch of people. Made me chuckle.
I dont see how people wouldnt assume this on their own. European with superior technology + unfamiliar diseases + ownership society = disaster for the natives.

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 10:54 PM
As Brent stated, Columbus wasn't the only explorer to commit genocide. There's a big problem of how we teach exploration to the younger generations.

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:55 PM
As Brent stated, Columbus wasn't the only explorer to commit genocide. There's a big problem of how we teach exploration to the younger generations.
well, I think there is a giant gap in how we educate kids with the "disney history" of America rather than what actually went down. no one wants to know they live in a country who tried to get independence because a few people realized they could make WAY more money if they didnt have to pay British taxes, and, instead, ran the place where they lived.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 10:56 PM
He's the only one with his own holiday.

dabears10
01-06-2010, 10:57 PM
As Brent stated, Columbus wasn't the only explorer to commit genocide. There's a big problem of how we teach exploration to the younger generations.

This is definitely true. Almost everything that is taught in schools is censored and kept from absolute truth. Some is redacted because it is not particularly important and there is a limited amount of time, some is not taught because the tests don't need that information, and some is left out because the teachers simply don't know themselves.

This may sound bad, but some of the dumbest people I met in College were Elementary Ed Majors. It made me think about the teachers I had in elementary schools and most of them were not the brightest people.

Brent
01-06-2010, 10:57 PM
He's the only one with his own holiday.
that's because someone, long ago, decide to celebrate the white man's accomplishments rather than acknowledge the natives who were here 10s of thousands of years prior to his trip.

scottyboy
01-06-2010, 10:59 PM
He's the only one with his own holiday.

that's because he discovered America. Obviously we had to give him the holiday.

And I always loved the story of the Lincoln assasination. Not the fact it happened, but the whole plot and that one of the assasins chickened out and got drunk instead of killing someone I can't remember. (Secratary of something IIRC)

The_Dude
01-06-2010, 11:01 PM
This is definitely true. Almost everything that is taught in schools is censored and kept from absolute truth. Some is redacted because it is not particularly important and there is a limited amount of time, some is not taught because the tests don't need that information, and some is left out because the teachers simply don't know themselves.

This may sound bad, but some of the dumbest people I met in College were Elementary Ed Majors. It made me think about the teachers I had in elementary schools and most of them were not the brightest people.

Good thing that we don't have standardized tests for Social Studies.... yet

dabears10
01-06-2010, 11:03 PM
Good thing that we don't have standardized tests for Social Studies.... yet

In Illinois we did, the Prairie State Exam had Social Studies questions in it.

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 11:03 PM
We do in LA. They are written by people no more intelligent then those writing the text books.

Brent
01-06-2010, 11:05 PM
We do in LA. They are written by people no more intelligent then those writing the text books.
standardized testing FTL

The_Dude
01-06-2010, 11:06 PM
That is one thing that I really like about my job. No one tells me what i have to teach. I just really have to stay within the context of 20th Century History and that is it. I am sure that will change when the geniuses at the MN Dept of Ed decide to force us to give yet another standardized test.

Brent
01-06-2010, 11:07 PM
That is one thing that I really like about my job. No one tells me what i have to teach. I just really have to stay within the context of 20th Century History and that is it. I am sure that will change when the geniuses at the MN Dept of Ed decide to force us to give yet another standardized test.
I hate the Texas Education system. So little emphasis on writing, too much on literary analysis.

Also, to keep this on track: William B. Travis was a ******* idiot.
Sam Houston: "hey, Travis, you should get out of the San Antonio area"
William B. Travis: "naw, I got this ****"
Sam Houston: "No, you dont, you're going to get killed at the Alamo"
William B. Travis: "naw, dude! we can win thi--" [transmission ended by canon fire]

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 11:08 PM
that's because he discovered America. Obviously we had to give him the holiday.

And I always loved the story of the Lincoln assasination. Not the fact it happened, but the whole plot and that one of the assasins chickened out and got drunk instead of killing someone I can't remember. (Secratary of something IIRC)

Close but not right. They sent somone to kill Secretary of State Seward and he got into the house and stabbed Seward but did not kill him. They sent another man to kill Vice President Johnson but he got drunk at the saloon and was too nervous to commit the crime.

CashmoneyDrew
01-06-2010, 11:08 PM
that's because he discovered America. Obviously we had to give him the holiday.

And I always loved the story of the Lincoln assasination. Not the fact it happened, but the whole plot and that one of the assasins chickened out and got drunk instead of killing someone I can't remember. (Secratary of something IIRC)

His VP Andrew Johnson I believe.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 11:08 PM
We do in LA. They are written by people no more intelligent then those writing the text books.

The people writing the text books are relatively intelligent, but they are forced to write the jargon they write.

Brent
01-06-2010, 11:10 PM
The people writing the text books are relatively intelligent, but they are forced to write the jargon they write.
not if you break out a little Howard Zinn

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 11:12 PM
The people writing the text books are relatively intelligent, but they are forced to write the jargon they write.

You have obviously never been on a textbook committee or been visited in your classroom by textbook company representatives.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 11:13 PM
You have obviously never been on a textbook committee or been visited in your classroom by textbook company representatives.

Does this disprove my point? I'm not really sure.

CJSchneider
01-06-2010, 11:14 PM
Does this disprove my point? I'm not really sure.

They may have knowledge, but certainly no wisdom; let's put it that way.

Smokey Joe
01-06-2010, 11:14 PM
Who is the greatest revolutionist? I think I gotta go with James Madison... but I do love me some James Otis.

The_Dude
01-06-2010, 11:17 PM
Close but not right. They sent somone to kill Secretary of State Seward and he got into the house and stabbed Seward but did not kill him. They sent another man to kill Vice President Johnson but he got drunk at the saloon and was too nervous to commit the crime.

On this line of discussion, i went to Ford's Theatre last year. Incredible to be in there. I guess pretty much all of DC was incredible.

dabears10
01-06-2010, 11:18 PM
On this line of discussion, i went to Ford's Theatre last year. Incredible to be in there. I guess pretty much all of DC was incredible.

DC was awesome. I wish I had a full day for every Smithsonian Museum.

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 11:19 PM
On this line of discussion, i went to Ford's Theatre last year. Incredible to be in there. I guess pretty much all of DC was incredible.

I love D.C. Besides the confusing roadways L'Enfant did a great job.

Smokey Joe
01-06-2010, 11:24 PM
I love D.C. Besides the confusing roadways L'Enfant did a great job.
I've never been, but I'd assume it'd be a lot better if the city itself wasn't infested with crime.

However, it must be quite historic.

One place that I definitely need to visit is Mount Vernon. Man, the whole state of Virginia is just crazy with all the great historic places they have of so many of the great revolutionists.

dabears10
01-06-2010, 11:26 PM
I've never been, but I'd assume it'd be a lot better if the city itself wasn't infested with crime.

However, it must be quite historic.

One place that I definitely need to visit is Mount Vernon. Man, the whole state of Virginia is just crazy with all the great historic places they have of so many of the great revolutionists.

Mount Vernon was kinda boring, Monticello is where its at.

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 11:26 PM
I've never been, but I'd assume it'd be a lot better if the city itself wasn't infested with crime.

However, it must be quite historic.

One place that I definitely need to visit is Mount Vernon. Man, the whole state of Virginia is just crazy with all the great historic places they have of so many of the great revolutionists.

The historic and "nicer" parts of D.C. aren't really the crime ridden parts and to answer your question earlier my favorite is Hamilton.

The Unseen
01-06-2010, 11:28 PM
hamilton?

ewwwww

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 11:31 PM
hamilton?

ewwwww

:) Yes, Hamilton.

Smokey Joe
01-06-2010, 11:44 PM
Mount Vernon was kinda boring, Monticello is where its at.
Mount Vernon is the home of the great George Washington. NEVER, ever talk bad about it.

The Unseen
01-06-2010, 11:46 PM
it's probably a product of my liking of Thomas Jefferson since they hated each other, but Hamilton was a douche

Smokey Joe
01-06-2010, 11:46 PM
The historic and "nicer" parts of D.C. aren't really the crime ridden parts and to answer your question earlier my favorite is Hamilton.
Im a big Hamilton fan to. There's just so many of them, its hard to choose.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 11:47 PM
it's probably a product of my liking of Thomas Jefferson since they hated each other, but Hamilton was a douche

A badass douche.

The Unseen
01-06-2010, 11:48 PM
badassery is not in question

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2010, 11:48 PM
Im a big Hamilton fan to. There's just so many of them, its hard to choose.

Hamilton and Washington were my favorites and I've read pretty much anything I could on them.

Unseen I figured you liked Jefferson. I'm glad these rivalries still exsist after 230 years.

Brodeur
01-06-2010, 11:49 PM
I've always liked Madison myself.

Smokey Joe
01-06-2010, 11:49 PM
it's probably a product of my liking of Thomas Jefferson since they hated each other, but Hamilton was a douche
If I recall correctly, Jefferson and Hamilton were great friends, but politics ruined their friendship. I think Jefferson was pissed because Hamilton was Washingtons right hand man and he wasn't.'

I don't care what anyone says, there has never been a greater group of politicians in this country like the revolutionists.

Shiver
01-07-2010, 12:39 AM
Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed
He liked to get naked while he smoked on the weed
He was a genius but if he was here today
The government would **** him up his righteous A!

diabsoule
01-07-2010, 12:53 AM
Hamilton and Washington were my favorites and I've read pretty much anything I could on them.

Unseen I figured you liked Jefferson. I'm glad these rivalries still exsist after 230 years.

I'm a big fan of TJ (Thomas Jefferson). My favorite president during the 1800s, however, was James K. Polk. He actually is my second favorite of all time.

Chucky
01-07-2010, 12:55 AM
hamilton?

ewwwww

Ha...I agree. I am also a Thomas Jefferson man myself...and well...you can't really agree with both.

SuperMcGee
01-07-2010, 01:13 AM
I'm a big fan of TJ (Thomas Jefferson). My favorite president during the 1800s, however, was James K. Polk. He actually is my second favorite of all time.

Most "somewhat-learned" people like Polk. His most basic facts make him pretty darn likable.

Jefferson > Hamilton for sure

The_Dude
01-07-2010, 07:07 AM
Mount Vernon is the home of the great George Washington. NEVER, ever talk bad about it.

Disregard what dabears said. Mount Vernon is awesome.

619
01-07-2010, 07:36 AM
So, who's familiar with history outside of the US? How about Latin America? I'm a second-year history major and to this point that's where I'm most versed in, although I'm adequate with European history (1300-1800ish). Fun thing about Latin American history is it is taught using a very politically-centered approach with so much discussion focused on its cultural ties to the US because of relentless intervention dating back to Columbus' days. Probably one of the most unappreciated histories in the world.

scottyboy
01-07-2010, 09:19 AM
Right, right, now I remember. It was the guy who didn't kill Johnson. Did a pretty sweet report on that some time ago.

And we all know that most badass guy was John Jay.

Brothgar
01-07-2010, 09:47 AM
Franklin /discussion

CJSchneider
01-07-2010, 10:12 AM
http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/portait.jpg

FTW

Giantsfan1080
01-07-2010, 10:49 AM
Hamilton did more for the country than Jefferson. Don't get me wrong I admire what Jefferson did but he was somewhat of a hypocrite and I'm not even talking about the slavery issue. He was 100% against big government but then he used all the governments money for the Louisiana Purchase. I'm glad he did but for someone who preached what he did it didn't make much sense. I also didn't like the smear campaign he used against Washington after he left his cabinet.

619
01-07-2010, 10:50 AM
I get it, this is more of a joke thread lol.

Alright.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-07-2010, 10:53 AM
So, who's familiar with history outside of the US? How about Latin America? I'm a second-year history major and to this point that's where I'm most versed in, although I'm adequate with European history (1300-1800ish). Fun thing about Latin American history is it is taught using a very politically-centered approach with so much discussion focused on its cultural ties to the US because of relentless intervention dating back to Columbus' days. Probably one of the most unappreciated histories in the world.

I took a history course on Colonial Latin America last semester, it was really interesting. I would have taken the follow up Modern Latin America course, but it was filed under the same category and I think I need 4 of them, I'm double majoring with history and polisci.

diabsoule
01-07-2010, 11:01 AM
So, who's familiar with history outside of the US? How about Latin America? I'm a second-year history major and to this point that's where I'm most versed in, although I'm adequate with European history (1300-1800ish). Fun thing about Latin American history is it is taught using a very politically-centered approach with so much discussion focused on its cultural ties to the US because of relentless intervention dating back to Columbus' days. Probably one of the most unappreciated histories in the world.

I took the required Latin America course in college but the professor was terrible. Dry as sandpaper, no wit, got off on tangents easily, etc... His tests were brutal as well. I didn't do well in the class.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
01-07-2010, 11:13 AM
A time before internet porn? No thank you

YAYareaRB
01-07-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm a big fan of TJ (Thomas Jefferson). My favorite president during the 1800s, however, was James K. Polk. He actually is my second favorite of all time.

I had a black friend that was related to him. Had all kinds of letters and whatnot dated back in those days.

gsorace
01-07-2010, 11:17 AM
Is it true the reason black people dominate most professional sports is because slave owners selectively bred the biggest and strongest slaves?

YAYareaRB
01-07-2010, 11:21 AM
Is it true the reason black people dominate most professional sports is because slave owners selectively bred the biggest and strongest slaves?

I always wondered that myself.

Giantsfan1080
01-07-2010, 11:25 AM
I am trying to keep this serious.

gsorace
01-07-2010, 11:36 AM
It was a serious question

Giantsfan1080
01-07-2010, 11:38 AM
It was a serious question

Ok Jimmy the Greek.

YAYareaRB
01-07-2010, 11:38 AM
Ok Jimmy the Greek.

I remember that **** hhahahhahaha

The Unseen
01-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Hamilton did more for the country than Jefferson. Don't get me wrong I admire what Jefferson did but he was somewhat of a hypocrite and I'm not even talking about the slavery issue. He was 100% against big government but then he used all the governments money for the Louisiana Purchase. I'm glad he did but for someone who preached what he did it didn't make much sense. I also didn't like the smear campaign he used against Washington after he left his cabinet.

My dislike for Hamilton would turn this political, but needless to say just because you do more for the country doesn't make you better. Also I'm not saying TJ was perfect. All these guys had massive flaws, slavery included.

Giantsfan1080
01-07-2010, 12:24 PM
Well yeah just because you do more doesn't make it better but what he actually accomplished was better. We're not the country we are today without Hamilton's systems. I understand how people think that's a bad thing though.

CashmoneyDrew
01-07-2010, 12:34 PM
Ben Franklin was a Syphilis *****. Did I learn this from a history class? No.
I learned it from the Office.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
01-07-2010, 04:30 PM
Is it true the reason black people dominate most professional sports is because slave owners selectively bred the biggest and strongest slaves?

Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.


The word "breeding" can also be incredibly offensive and rightfully so. Unfortunatly that's because of the level of truth in it.

I've always found this interesting and thought I'd try my best to express my views on it. Hope that's alright but I absolutely understand if it's not.

Brent
01-07-2010, 04:34 PM
If I recall correctly, Jefferson and Hamilton were great friends, but politics ruined their friendship. I think Jefferson was pissed because Hamilton was Washingtons right hand man and he wasn't.
it was Adams and Jefferson who were friends but hated one another because of politics.

I don't care what anyone says, there has never been a greater group of politicians in this country like the revolutionists.
I dont think any of them have ever been great, but a look at our track record doesnt exactly inspire greatness.

TitleTown088
01-07-2010, 04:42 PM
Meh, American history is boring. Give me Eurotrash history all day.

I want that imposter BF51 to come in here. I'll pwn him. :)

Twiddler
01-07-2010, 04:46 PM
Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.

I agree with this for the most part. The part that I'd add in is that I've always kind of thought that the different average economic situations for blacks in comparisons to whites might be a good foundation for their athletic success. Meaning that, the ability to make it to the pros and having a lifestyle that is supported by athletic success is much more important to a black child when the opportunities for the average white kid in the suburbs are compared. That and it just seems that kids that are well off spend most of their time playing video games instead of actually playing and being physically fit. Keep in mind that my entire perspective on black life in comparison to white life is based not on actual experience, since I'm a white kid from a small town in Wisconsin. Needless to say, I've been lacking in diversity, ha.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-07-2010, 04:48 PM
Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.


The word "breeding" can also be incredibly offensive and rightfully so. Unfortunatly that's because of the level of truth in it.

I've always found this interesting and thought I'd try my best to express my views on it. Hope that's alright but I absolutely understand if it's not.

I actually believe the reason for it dates back much further than slavery. It's just an idea I've had, so if anyone can disprove me, be my guest. I think it goes back to human evolution. The reason people from different parts of the globe look so different is because their bodies adapted to do different things.

In Europe, weather was much colder, and so white people usually have straighter hair that can blanket better than a black person's hair, and more body hair overall, it seems. Plus, the prey that white people hunted down in Europe were often very large mammals. Being so large, they were slow moving and didn't require speed to take down, just your usual cunning and strength to haul it back. You'll notice most "World's strongest man" competitors are white.

In Africa, the reason their skin was dark was because they got so much sun, basically. And the prey they hunted was generally smaller, because of the open plains. Gazelles and antelopes and ****. Anyway, because their prey was fast, I think that led to the development of their fast twitch muscles. Not because they physically chased down and killed their prey, but speed would undoubtedly help in co-ordinating a group trap on an animal.

The difference in athleticism isn't just circumstancial, it's an actual physical difference between blacks and whites in their muscles. Black people usually have more fast twitch muscles, and whites have more slow twitch muscles.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
01-07-2010, 05:30 PM
It's certainly possible, I guess. I'd like to hear if any of it's incorrect, as well.

TitleTown088
01-07-2010, 06:23 PM
You'll are a bunch of determinists.

Brodeur
01-07-2010, 06:32 PM
You'll are a bunch of determinists.

It is because somewhere at some time someone began a sentence with "you'll are."

Primetime21
01-07-2010, 09:41 PM
I'm a big fan of TJ (Thomas Jefferson). My favorite president during the 1800s, however, was James K. Polk. He actually is my second favorite of all time.

Polk? As in the weasel who schemed the Mexican-American War? Big ole schemer. And manifest destiny doesnt even make sense. I do like the idea that America always needs a frontier to conquer but not when it involves brutal tactics and straight scheming.

Giantsfan1080
01-07-2010, 09:47 PM
We can talk European history as well. Anything goes.

fischbowl
01-08-2010, 01:26 AM
Grover Cleveland: great or greatest president?

The guy so nice, he came in twice

TitleTown088
01-08-2010, 02:22 AM
It is because somewhere at some time someone began a sentence with "you'll are."

:( I meant to go with y'all.

TitleTown088
01-08-2010, 02:29 AM
We can talk European history as well. Anything goes.
Ok, we can go off the continent...How about how we talk about how the Royal Society ( or establishment of science) essentially was founded by a bunch of Christians. 'Science' founded by 'religion'? That would make for an interesting discussion I would say. haha.

diabsoule
01-08-2010, 02:41 AM
Polk? As in the weasel who schemed the Mexican-American War? Big ole schemer. And manifest destiny doesnt even make sense. I do like the idea that America always needs a frontier to conquer but not when it involves brutal tactics and straight scheming.

He set an agenda and achieved it. There aren't many that can say they successfully achieved most, if not all, of what they set out to accomplish.

Brothgar
01-08-2010, 07:32 AM
some say that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo due to hemeroids. No lie. Aparently, every battle that Napoleon himself was present he would personally go on horesback to view the battle grounds. Also, he had never lost a battle that he was present at prior to Waterloo. As the story goes, Napoleon had a bad inflamation of hemeroids prior to the battle and could not stand to ride horseback and thus was unable to survey the battle ground before the battle. Funny to think that the French empire died due to the lack of a hemeroid doughnut.

The Unseen
01-08-2010, 09:51 AM
You'll are a bunch of determinists.

oooo, do we need to have a philosophy thread again

TitleTown088
01-08-2010, 12:38 PM
oooo, do we need to have a philosophy thread again

History and phil can go together. Possiblists vs, determnists. I was actually first introduced with determinism in Geography.

The Unseen
01-08-2010, 04:51 PM
what is a possibilist

TitleTown088
01-08-2010, 05:26 PM
what is a possibilist

Pretty much the opposite of a environmental determinist.

Hate to use wiki, but..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilism_%28geography%29

Marcus Aurelius
01-08-2010, 08:23 PM
HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Hurricanes25
01-08-2010, 09:34 PM
HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Why even waste time and post something so stupid?

DoughBoy
01-08-2010, 09:38 PM
Dude look at his sig. Has to be a second account no one can be this dumb.

Marcus Aurelius
01-08-2010, 10:41 PM
Why even waste time and post something so stupid?
Why even waste time to post on a message board about something so meaningless, as you have no control over the draft?

Hurricanes25
01-08-2010, 10:42 PM
Why even waste time to post on a message board about something so meaningless, as you have no control over the draft?

Now you are taking shots at the draft? Why even sign up for an account then?

Marcus Aurelius
01-08-2010, 10:44 PM
Now you are taking shots at the draft? Why even sign up for an account then? To discuss history, movies, and youtube videos with 16 year olds....

CJSchneider
01-08-2010, 10:44 PM
http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/attacking_troll_trollcat.jpg

Hurricanes25
01-08-2010, 10:46 PM
You tell him CJ.

themaninblack
01-08-2010, 11:49 PM
This guy needs to be banned for nothing more than that Twilight sig. I'm sorry I cant even look at it without wanting to punch my computer screen.

Marcus Aurelius
01-09-2010, 12:13 AM
This guy needs to be banned for nothing more than that Twilight sig. I'm sorry I cant even look at it without wanting to punch my computer screen.
You're just mad that my sig is of higher quality than your own. Work on your photoshop skills good sir.

Plus im helping spread the demographic of NFLDC to the 15 female crowd to help Scott get more viewers!

diabsoule
01-09-2010, 12:15 AM
To discuss history, movies, and youtube videos with 16 year olds....

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m57/kuzbu/Animated%20Gifs%201/srsly-silence.jpg

Marcus Aurelius
01-09-2010, 12:35 AM
Do you have to post random pics just to say two words?

http://i48.tinypic.com/jrtrb9.jpg

brat316
01-09-2010, 12:47 AM
Moguals did not take over india...well kind of.


India has the world oldest civilization, but apparently people couldn't handle it, so they had to control them and rewrite their history.

Rosebud
01-10-2010, 02:32 PM
Moguals did not take over india...well kind of.


India has the world oldest civilization, but apparently people couldn't handle it, so they had to control them and rewrite their history.

It's cool, give them another couple of decades and then them and the chinese will be re-writing our history.

TitleTown088
01-10-2010, 08:54 PM
So, who's familiar with history outside of the US? How about Latin America? I'm a second-year history major and to this point that's where I'm most versed in, although I'm adequate with European history (1300-1800ish). Fun thing about Latin American history is it is taught using a very politically-centered approach with so much discussion focused on its cultural ties to the US because of relentless intervention dating back to Columbus' days. Probably one of the most unappreciated histories in the world.
If I remember correctly Spanish/latin American history is BF51's specialty.

CJSchneider
01-10-2010, 09:14 PM
You are correct.

themaninblack
01-11-2010, 01:38 AM
You're just mad that my sig is of higher quality than your own. Work on your photoshop skills good sir.

Plus im helping spread the demographic of NFLDC to the 15 female crowd to help Scott get more viewers!

I didnt make the sig, but I'm glad yours is gone.

Giantsfan1080
01-13-2010, 10:25 PM
If you were Robert E. Lee would you have fought for state or country?

Brent
01-13-2010, 10:28 PM
If you were Robert E. Lee would you have fought for state or country?
state, back then yo8ur state was a bigger deal, since the country wasnt nearly as connected as it is now.

Giantsfan1080
01-13-2010, 10:35 PM
state, back then yo8ur state was a bigger deal, since the country wasnt nearly as connected as it is now.

I agree. Just trying to get something going here.

The Unseen
01-13-2010, 10:47 PM
Yeah, state made complete sense from his perspective. If it were me I think I would've gone country if I recognized the slavery element, but people forget that the war was a lot more than the slavery issue. It was an old-fashioned turf war.

Giantsfan1080
01-13-2010, 10:49 PM
Yeah, state made complete sense from his perspective. If it were me I think I would've gone country if I recognized the slavery element, but people forget that the war was a lot more than the slavery issue. It was an old-fashioned turf war.

Mostly turf war because of slavery though. Another Civil War question...Could the war have ended without Grant becoming General in charge?

tjsunstein
01-13-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm taking World Civilization II this semester so I do like this thread.

Canadian_kid16
01-13-2010, 11:59 PM
I'll be majoring in history, and so far I've learned about pretty much every regional history out there, except for American history. It goes without sayign then that I really want to take an American history course at some point during unviersity

Brent
01-14-2010, 06:21 AM
Could the war have ended without Grant becoming General in charge?
Yes, the South only had one thing on the North: military leadership. The North had greater means of production, more soldier, better supplies and easier means of transportation. The best Southern leaders were rich sons who had parents who sent them off to the nation's best military academies at the time.

diabsoule
01-14-2010, 07:35 AM
If you were Robert E. Lee would you have fought for state or country?

State. To turn your back on Virginia (Lee's home state) would have betrayed everything I stood for (as R.E. Lee). However, there Southerners who fought for the North and Northerners that fought for the South.

Yeah, state made complete sense from his perspective. If it were me I think I would've gone country if I recognized the slavery element, but people forget that the war was a lot more than the slavery issue. It was an old-fashioned turf war.

A turf war that has its roots in slavery. Every grand debate between the people of the North and those of the South started over the peculiar institution.

Yes, the South only had one thing on the North: military leadership. The North had greater means of production, more soldier, better supplies and easier means of transportation. The best Southern leaders were rich sons who had parents who sent them off to the nation's best military academies at the time.

Yes, the South did have an advantage over the North but it was not what you would think initially. The South main advantage was that they were not the aggressor and could use interior lines to quickly reinforce threatened points. However, they only used this advantage a handfull of times during the war.
The military leadership is debatable. During the early years of the war and for the most part in the Eastern Theater the South had an advantage. But in the Western and Trans-Mississippi Theaters of the war the North held the advantage of military leadership. When looking at the generals on both sides, the Southern military leaders peaked early and maintained their performance, or dipped into valleys, until the end of the war or until they were killed. Union leaders gradually progressed through the war (Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan, Chamberlain, Hancock, etc) and by the close of 1863 all were bringing their A game.
Attrition to the top of Southern leadership added another disadvantage to the Confederacy. Mostly due to the way men of the Old South considered leadership, a lot of Confederate generals led from the front increasing their chances of being killed or wounded. Because of that practice, the South lost numerous bright and capable commanders that otherwise could have helped their cause if they would have led from behind (which is the proper way to lead militarily speaking).

TitleTown088
01-14-2010, 01:02 PM
I'll be majoring in history, and so far I've learned about pretty much every regional history out there, except for American history. It goes without sayign then that I really want to take an American history course at some point during unviersity

Always nice to see more History majors out there. In college you're likely to see that much of what you learned in high school was bullshchit, have fun.

Giantsfan1080
01-14-2010, 01:10 PM
I'm a history/poli sci major as well.

TitleTown088
01-14-2010, 01:12 PM
I'm a history/poli sci major as well. I'm done with my history major, finishing up my geography major this semester. Who would have ever thought so many history majors on a sports website...

EvilNixon
01-14-2010, 01:37 PM
Econ major/Poly sci minor :O

diabsoule
01-14-2010, 09:44 PM
Mostly turf war because of slavery though. Another Civil War question...Could the war have ended without Grant becoming General in charge?

As General commanding all of the Armies and being commander of the Army of the Potomac? The answer is a sound yes. After 1862, the South stood very little chance of winning the war.

The_Dude
01-15-2010, 09:05 AM
I'm done with my history major, finishing up my geography major this semester. Who would have ever thought so many history majors on a sports website...

Because History majors are easy to get... using them after graduation is the hard part.

diabsoule
01-15-2010, 09:38 AM
Because History majors are easy to get... using them after graduation is the hard part.

So ******* true. History degrees are worthless imo unless you want to teach.

The_Dude
01-15-2010, 10:20 AM
Then be like me and add in an addition 3 years of school to get a teaching license & masters degree.

When I graduated from UW Madison W a BA in History, i knew that my options were teaching or managing a McDonalds. I'm glad that i made the right choice

dabears10
01-15-2010, 10:22 AM
So ******* true. History degrees are worthless imo unless you want to teach.

Yep go me......

CJSchneider
01-15-2010, 12:56 PM
Then be like me and add in an addition 3 years of school to get a teaching license & masters degree.

When I graduated from UW Madison W a BA in History, i knew that my options were teaching or managing a McDonalds. I'm glad that i made the right choice

Good choice. The question "Can I super-size that?" does not require a history degree to answer.

diabsoule
01-15-2010, 03:27 PM
Then be like me and add in an addition 3 years of school to get a teaching license & masters degree.

When I graduated from UW Madison W a BA in History, i knew that my options were teaching or managing a McDonalds. I'm glad that i made the right choice

Yeah, I plan on either joining the police force or military this year. I'm taking a test on the 27th of this month for the police and will begin working out Monday to get in shape for either job.

tjsunstein
02-28-2010, 03:53 PM
There are obviously some smart people on these boards that have interest in history. I have a test tomorrow and have a couple study questions that I need some one else's voice on.

1. Explain the relationship of Manorialism and Feudalism. Use the example of William the Conquerer's feudal system in England to explain how the feudalism worked as an effective political system.

2. Discuss Pope Gregory VII's idea of the Papal Monarchy. Give examples of how Gregory and his successors attempted to enforce this concept on the Kings of Europe.

3. Discuss how the kings of Europe consolidated their power at the expenseof their vassals and the church. Choose a country and the techniques that successions used to consolidate their power.

4. Describe the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism. Did these events hurt the church? Explain your answer using specific historical examples.

Only two of those four are on the test. If you can answer any one or more I will give you reps for life.

tjsunstein
02-28-2010, 09:06 PM
Reps for life for the above post.

Mr.Regular
02-28-2010, 09:33 PM
Econ major/Poly sci minor :O
Econ major / Geography and Environmental Sciences minor here.

brat316
02-28-2010, 10:10 PM
if you would have posted taht like on friday you would have had better answers.

tjsunstein
02-28-2010, 10:24 PM
if you would have posted taht like on friday you would have had better answers.

I knowww. But I was doing the study guide and these were the only 4 of that tier that I needed some help on. Deal is still on until 11am est tomorrow morning!

Will still rep for life if anyone answers those questions before 11am est tomorrow.

TitleTown088
03-01-2010, 12:30 AM
Well, I'm doing this off the top of my head so they're going to be pretty basic answers but can maybe give you something to work off.

4. Describe the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism. Did these events hurt the church? Explain your answer using specific historical examples.
Babylonian captivity-I'm assuming this question is referring to the 'second' Babylonian captivity when the papacy moved to Avignon, France. This hurt the church because at the time there were multiple 'popes' ( 3 at one point I believe) in Avignon and Rome claiming the rights to the papacy and excommunicating each other. I think I'd probably note that certain nations and their secular leaders ultimately had to side with one position or the other and this probably undermined the position of the Catholic church in Europe because there was no clear leader of the Catholic church. So the church was essentially without a uniform pope until the problem was solved at the Council of Constance when Martin V was elected as the true pope. How was the church supposed to provide spiritual guidance for others when it was conflicting within itself?

tjsunstein
03-01-2010, 09:37 AM
Anyone else? Thanks Titletown, I appreciate it. Reps have been sent.

Addict
03-01-2010, 09:44 AM
Feudalism is a system where one family or nobleman (the King) is the owner of all the land, and it is 'given out' to nobles. As payment, these nobles pledge their allegiance to the king, providing him with income (through taxation of the peasents and other inhabintants of the lands) and, if necessary, armies.
That's essentially how it worked.

But there's probably history buffs here who can explain it better. I'm just a political science freshman.

fischbowl
03-01-2010, 09:45 AM
The answer to Question 4 is obvious. The Great Schism completely broke the church in half, with many in Eastern Europe and Russia forming the Eastern Orthodox Church based in Byzantium. This came after long debates about both the practice and theology behind Christianity.

tjsunstein
03-01-2010, 10:11 AM
Test was postponed until Wednesday! I have more time to write out essay response to these questions now and try to memorize them by Wednesday. Thanks for the help guys and any more input would be beneficial.

TitleTown088
03-01-2010, 11:08 AM
The answer to Question 4 is obvious. The Great Schism completely broke the church in half, with many in Eastern Europe and Russia forming the Eastern Orthodox Church based in Byzantium. This came after long debates about both the practice and theology behind Christianity.
If the question is asking about the Babylonian captivity in the same sentence as the great schism, I don't think its referring to the east-west schism but rather the great schism within the western church.


I'm real busy today TJ but if I get the chance I'll try to help ya out with some of the others if you want it. You'd probably hit the jackpot if you got BF51 in here to help ya out.

fischbowl
03-01-2010, 11:16 AM
If the question is asking about the Babylonian captivity in the same sentence as the great schism, I don't think its referring to the east-west schism but rather the great schism within the western church.


I'm real busy today TJ but if I get the chance I'll try to help ya out with some of the others if you want it. You'd probably hit the jackpot if you got BF51 in here to help ya out.

True, the time periods don't match

tjsunstein
03-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Bf can't be bribed with reps lol. I tried more than once.

Titletown is right in regards to the time period of the Great Schism.

The test is on Wednesday so I'll most likely be spending the majority of tomorrow studying for this.

Any help is appreciated.

619
03-01-2010, 11:31 AM
Feudalism is a system where one family or nobleman (the King) is the owner of all the land, and it is 'given out' to nobles. As payment, these nobles pledge their allegiance to the king, providing him with income (through taxation of the peasents and other inhabintants of the lands) and, if necessary, armies.
That's essentially how it worked.

But there's probably history buffs here who can explain it better. I'm just a political science freshman.

This thread is ******* awesome. I'm going to use this explanation in my history tutorial in about an hour or so lol.

Thanks, Addict. +rep

bearsfan_51
03-02-2010, 08:14 AM
Do your own work tjunstein, you might learn something. :)

bearsfan_51
03-02-2010, 08:16 AM
Although I would add that the Great Schism occured at the same time as the Hundred Years War and the Black Death, two events which also greatly undermined the existing political/cosmological/theological order.

It's important tomake the distinction that while these events likely hurt the CHURCH, they did NOT hurt Christianity (so much as something called Christianity could really exist), it mostly led to people looking for spiritual answers outside of the church, not the absence of religion altogether.

bearsfan_51
03-02-2010, 08:18 AM
Addict's feudalism answer is a good one, although a lot of scholars would argue there never was such a thing as feudalism (I wouldn't go there though, cause you would have to explain why).

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-02-2010, 08:22 AM
Feudalism was the second era on age of empires 2. Right after dark age and before castle age. That is the A+ answer.

brat316
03-02-2010, 12:36 PM
Feudalism was the second era on age of empires 2. Right after dark age and before castle age. That is the A+ answer.

I loved Age of Empires..i'm about to install taht on my laptop and play for hours on end.

Giantsfan1080
03-02-2010, 01:56 PM
Civilization is and always will be the best.

Brent
03-02-2010, 02:11 PM
Civilization is and always will be the best.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/sidlegacy/screens/civilization2.jpg

best Civ game evar!

Giantsfan1080
03-02-2010, 02:18 PM
That's the first one I had also. I bought Civ 3 also but haven't played a new one since then.

bearsfan_51
03-02-2010, 03:15 PM
Civ 4 is the best, hands down. Culture and philosophy ftw.

tjsunstein
03-02-2010, 03:29 PM
Do your own work tjunstein, you might learn something. :)

You make me a sad panda. lol.

619
03-02-2010, 04:43 PM
I'm so glad to have BF51 on these forums. :)

All of us current history majors must unite!

History really isn't that difficult compared to other social science majors, though it is nice to 'share' each others' gift of knowledge whenever possible.

It'd be nice to keep this thread active for those that enjoy the discipline.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-02-2010, 05:04 PM
Civ 2 was the bomb. This one time I started on my own huge island. I got so far on that one before my computer crashed. Starting on your own island is the best, there are no competitors and so you can build up a strong area full of roads and trade. From there, I moved to the closest island and wiped out eveyone along the way except for Carthage, my ally, and Persia, who I was at war with. That was a tough war since I had to transport an army across to a new continent and then found a base city there. But I was doing pretty well.

I miss that saved game :(

Giantsfan1080
03-02-2010, 05:09 PM
I'm so glad to have BF51 on these forums. :)

All of us current history majors must unite!

History really isn't that difficult compared to other social science majors, though it is nice to 'share' each others' gift of knowledge whenever possible.

It'd be nice to keep this thread active for those that enjoy the discipline.

It went the way of the dodo pretty quickly when I first started it. Rutgers has a good history department so I'm glad I was able to learn from some of the professors there. I'm also glad it's what I graduated with even though it doesn't help me get a job anywhere considering I don't want to be a teacher.

dabears10
03-02-2010, 05:27 PM
It went the way of the dodo pretty quickly when I first started it. Rutgers has a good history department so I'm glad I was able to learn from some of the professors there. I'm also glad it's what I graduated with even though it doesn't help me get a job anywhere considering I don't want to be a teacher.

I am in the exact same place. It rocks.

wogitalia
03-02-2010, 08:35 PM
Civ 2 was the bomb. This one time I started on my own huge island. I got so far on that one before my computer crashed. Starting on your own island is the best, there are no competitors and so you can build up a strong area full of roads and trade. From there, I moved to the closest island and wiped out eveyone along the way except for Carthage, my ally, and Persia, who I was at war with. That was a tough war since I had to transport an army across to a new continent and then found a base city there. But I was doing pretty well.

Civ 1/CivNet will always be my favourite, probably cause it was the first game I ever really played a lot. I still remember my save game that my mum deleted where I was about 10 turns from having a town in every spot possible basically(without overlapping grids) and the entire world irrigated and railroaded and one little Zulu town surrounded by tanks where Perth is in reality(they respawned in Australia). It was an epic adventure I was so pissed when it went bye bye...

TitleTown088
03-02-2010, 10:17 PM
I'm so glad to have BF51 on these forums. :)

All of us current history majors must unite!

History really isn't that difficult compared to other social science majors, though it is nice to 'share' each others' gift of knowledge whenever possible.

It'd be nice to keep this thread active for those that enjoy the discipline.
I don't know how much I buy that certain majors are really easier than others, you get out of any major what you put into it. That goes for college in general too. You can get much the same education at a state school for undergrad as you can at an expensive private school if you put the effort into it.


It all comes back to good Will Hunting.

"See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna staht doin some thinkin on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certaintees in life. One, don't do that. And Two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a ****** education you coulda got for a dollah fifty in late chahges at the public library "


On a unrelated note, I'm reading The Prince right now. I nominate Machiavelli 2012.

Canadian_kid16
03-02-2010, 11:00 PM
On a unrelated note, I'm reading The Prince right now. I nominate Machiavelli 2012.

Excellent book, it was a main source for one my essay's first semester, its a very insightful book for one that was written such a long time ago

619
03-03-2010, 07:42 AM
On a unrelated note, I'm reading The Prince right now. I nominate Machiavelli 2012.

I purchased the book for a European history class I had last semester, for all that I never came around to reading it in its entirety yet. The political/philosophical tone of his writings really isn't my kinda thing, but I realize I could stand to learn much about where current governing principles may have originated from, as his book is still very analogous in some forms to current states of political conflict around the world. Machiavelli was really ahead of his time for a late medieval thinker.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 11:32 AM
Machiavelli was really ahead of his time for a late medieval thinker. I don't know if you can really say he was ahead of his time when many of his 'theories' of government came from his observation antiquity, like much Renaissance thinking did. For example, in the Prince he draws heavily on the Greek and Roman methods of governance. Surely much of it came from his observation of contemporaries like the Medici but Renaissance= huge emphasis recovery of the classics. Especially for the humanists, which some argue Machiavelli was.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 11:37 AM
Machiavelli was really ahead of his time for a late medieval thinker. I don't know if you can really say he was ahead of his time when many of his 'theories' of government came from his observation antiquity, like much Renaissance thinking did. Surely much of it came from his observation of contemporaries like the Medici but Renaissance= huge emphasis recovery of the classics, especially for the humanists.

I feel like people sometimes mistake the Renaissance for a period of only " new" learning when in fact it was largely based on the recovery of classical knowledge that had been previously lost to much of Europe(not the East they still knew the Greek) in the "dark ages".

Giantsfan1080
03-03-2010, 11:48 AM
Hence Renaissance meaning Rebirth.

619
03-03-2010, 12:04 PM
I don't know if you can really say he was ahead of his time when many of his 'theories' of government came from his observation antiquity, like much Renaissance thinking did. Surely much of it came from his observation of contemporaries like the Medici but Renaissance= huge emphasis recovery of the classics, especially for the humanists.

I feel like people sometimes mistake the Renaissance for a period of only " new" learning when in fact it was largely based on the recovery of classical knowledge that had been previously lost to much of Europe(not the East they still knew the Greek) in the "dark ages".

That was a brain fart on my part, Machiavelli was most definitely a Renaissance man, and not associated with any medieval period lol. You're right, the Renaissance does often suffer from these misconceptions, and I'm just as much at fault for it.

Let's then say he revived much of the previously lost or forgotten political theories. History is weird that way, it goes through its own cyclical revivals of classical knowledge. Even moreso in the postmodern era, and much before that as well, with the rise of archaeology in aiding historical interpretation and study. That's why I love historiography.

619
03-03-2010, 12:09 PM
Forgive me, I made a common undergraduate error ... :)

You guys can definitely teach me a thing or two.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Forgive me, I made a common undergraduate error ... :)

You guys can definitely teach me a thing or two.

I've had profs who I felt had a bad understanding of what went on during the Renaissance. Listening to my art history proff try to explain the Renaissance was downright painful. I think I have a somewhat solid understanding of the period because I had an excellent history professor on the subject. Not that I'm any type of scholar on the subject though, haha.

It's funny how much history you learned in High school from your basketball coach/history teacher and textbooks was complete BS.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 12:36 PM
The first thing I tell my intro students is to forget everything they "learned" in high school. I think the consensus in academia is that it would be better if there were no history taught before college at all.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 12:37 PM
History is weird that way, it goes through its own cyclical revivals of classical knowledge. Even moreso in the postmodern era, and much before that as well, with the rise of archaeology in aiding historical interpretation and study. That's why I love historiography.
I would argue that almost everything is cyclical in terms of conventional thought, historians are just much more aware of it, because that's our job.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 12:38 PM
On a unrelated note, I'm reading The Prince right now. I nominate Machiavelli 2012.
You would.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 12:51 PM
You would.

What's your beef w Niccolo?

BTW, you know of any online databases for early Medieval maps,or slightly earlier? I'm doing a research project on early medieval England and the only ones I can find are from the university of Texas website.

Giantsfan1080
03-03-2010, 01:05 PM
Here you go:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbookmap.html

Site that I used at Rutgers a lot.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 03:40 PM
Here you go:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbookmap.html

Site that I used at Rutgers a lot.

Ya I found that one already too, Didn't find quiet what I needed. Thanks though.

tjsunstein
03-03-2010, 05:35 PM
Ya I found that one already too, Didn't find quiet what I needed. Thanks though.

Quite? ;)

Finally getting out of the renaissance in World Civ. 2. Time to move to Asia to get caught up with the time period. Should be interesting.

TitleTown088
03-03-2010, 07:07 PM
Quite? ;)


Ha. I try to help you out and you return the favor by publicly humiliating me? SOB.

Brent
03-03-2010, 08:12 PM
The first thing I tell my intro students is to forget everything they "learned" in high school. I think the consensus in academia is that it would be better if there were no history taught before college at all.
just start your first day by beating a student upside his head with A People's History of The United States ;)

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 08:15 PM
I'd rather give hand jobs on the street than teach U.S history.

diabsoule
03-03-2010, 08:17 PM
I'd rather give hand jobs on the street than teach U.S history.

I like U.S. History a lot. I found Latin American history to be the most boring out of all of the history classes I took. It might have had to do with the teacher.

Brent
03-03-2010, 08:18 PM
I'd rather give hand jobs on the street than teach U.S history.
why do you say that? Not that I would want to teach it, but I'm curious why you wouldn't.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 08:22 PM
Too recent, too unsophisticated, too lacking in culture/philosophy/originality, too warlike, too isolated, too conservative, and more than anything else simply overdone.

I also don't think I could stand teaching a subject where everyone thinks they already know something. Most Americans are too invested in what they believe to be their history to ever really learn anything.

Brent
03-03-2010, 08:27 PM
Well said, I've always had an interest in South America's history. I feel as if it's the one I learned the least about in school.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 08:34 PM
If I had more free time I would learn Russian and learn their earlier history, but as is I'm limited to the Romance languages.

Brent
03-03-2010, 08:40 PM
If I had more free time I would learn Russian and learn their earlier history, but as is I'm limited to the Romance languages.
I took a low-level Russian history in college. It was fascinating. That country has had some crazy **** happen.

Giantsfan1080
03-03-2010, 11:11 PM
Too recent, too unsophisticated, too lacking in culture/philosophy/originality, too warlike, too isolated, too conservative, and more than anything else simply overdone.

I also don't think I could stand teaching a subject where everyone thinks they already know something. Most Americans are too invested in what they believe to be their history to ever really learn anything.

What do you think is the biggest misconception in Pre 20th century American history?

yo123
03-03-2010, 11:30 PM
The first thing I tell my intro students is to forget everything they "learned" in high school. I think the consensus in academia is that it would be better if there were no history taught before college at all.

Well this makes a lot of sense to me. The first couple weeks of my first college history class was basically my professor telling us how everything we have ever learned is a misconception.

bearsfan_51
03-03-2010, 11:53 PM
What do you think is the biggest misconception in Pre 20th century American history?
Hmmm....

1) This country was founded as a Christian country (really anything to do with the constitution or the founding fathers. People love to attribute things to them they neither did nor said.)

2) Native Americans lived in harmony with nature.

3) Women never had legal rights.

4) The 13 colonies were important to the British.

5) Workhouses and public charity were sufficient means of alleviating urban poverty/abandonment/homelessness, etc.

6) Abraham Lincoln 'freed the slaves.'

7) Our heritage stems from the Pilgrims/Purtians

8) The Civil War wasn't, in the end, about slavery and almost nothing else.

9) That the concept of 'naturalization' stems from anything other than class and race.

10) Native Americans basically ceased to exist in the Eastern United States by the middle of the 19th century.

These are random musings off the top of my head, and I don't study or teach U.S. history, so take it for what it's worth.

Giantsfan1080
03-03-2010, 11:57 PM
Just looking over it quickly I diasagree with #4. I don't know your exact definition of importance but we did bring in a lot of money for the British.

619
03-04-2010, 12:14 AM
Just looking over it quickly I diasagree with #4. I don't know your exact definition of importance but we did bring in a lot of money for the British.

There are multiple perspectives you could approach that statement. If we're approaching it from a purely economic perspective then, yeah, I'd have to disagree as well.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 12:16 AM
There are multiple perspectives you could approach that statement. If we're approaching it from a purely economic perspective then, yeah, I'd have to disagree as well.

Disagree with me or BF?

619
03-04-2010, 12:18 AM
Disagree with me or BF?

Disagree with the prof. History is entirely based on one's interpretation, that's what I'm continuing to learn everyday.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 12:19 AM
Disagree with the prof. History is entirely based on one's interpretation, that's what I'm continuing to learn everyday.

You're right but facts still can help. It depends what you're arguing.

619
03-04-2010, 12:36 AM
You're right but facts still can help. It depends what you're arguing.

Yep. No better example than feudalism. As BF mentioned on the last page, there are scholars that don't believe it existed in the first place, while the rest argue over what is considered to be a feudal 'relationship' and what place and significance it held in society, as well as the feudal link of the king to a vassal, if it was even present at all.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 12:40 AM
Another major argument that I went through at Rutgers was whether or not the American Revolution was actually a revolution. I had many professors argue that it wasn't.

619
03-04-2010, 12:47 AM
Another major argument that I went through at Rutgers was whether or not the American Revolution was actually a revolution. I had many professors argue that it wasn't.

What do you remember as shaping their stances on that argument? Sorry, I have very limited knowledge of American history. I thought about taking it in HS here in Canada, but never came across to it. Now in university I've actually attempted to and the course ends up being filled when history courses typically don't fill up so quickly.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 12:50 AM
Most of it was based on the French Revolution. The French Revolution had major changes in everyday life plus different stages. I disagreed with most of the professors that said that about the U.S.

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 12:57 AM
just start your first day by beating a student upside his head with A People's History of The United States ;)

Howard Zinn was a 'historian' with an agenda to prove white people were mean to brown people.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 01:03 AM
I hope no one here likes McCullogh.

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 01:04 AM
Disagree with the prof. History is entirely based on one's interpretation, that's what I'm continuing to learn everyday.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. History is based more or less on facts, people's interpretation of those facts is what leads to discrepancies.

619
03-04-2010, 01:16 AM
True. Although the validity of said facts can attribute to discrepancies and leave a trail of doubt in the minds of historians, which is why they can never seem to come to a consensus on anything. The further you go back in time, the less reliable the sources used, even primary sources for that matter. You do not know for certain the biases or intentions of the author, and that's what makes this whole process of interpretation and analysis of historical studies so grueling.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 01:19 AM
"The winners of war write their own history."

619
03-04-2010, 01:22 AM
I'd also like to add that you American students have far too much of a recent view of history, particularly because of the emphasis on your own country's history, which is acceptable. ;)

For example, do you think when interpreting facts I'm actually going to stand here and believe that the Bubonic plague killed up to two-thirds of the European population?

619
03-04-2010, 01:28 AM
"The winners of war write their own history."

Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

the decider13
03-04-2010, 01:44 AM
"The winners of war write their own history."

I was thinking this while reading the first few posts on this page. I was going to post it, then I saw you beat me to it :(

There goes my chance to look smart.

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 10:31 AM
Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

Well when one's people get totally wiped out I think you can say who was victorious. In other cases, yes it's difficult.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 11:36 AM
The amount of money the 13 colonies brought into the empire absolutely pales in comparison to Jamaica, India, and basically every other colony they had. Those are simply facts. The loss of Haiti by the French was vastly more significant economically than the loss of the 13 colonies by the Brits, at least at the time.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 11:39 AM
TT, are you thinking of going into academia, because you're P.O.V. would be strongly rejected. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it would.

Also, most U.S. historians would say that the American Revolution really wasn't a revolution at its core. Ditto the Latin American Revolutions.

YAYareaRB
03-04-2010, 11:43 AM
The amount of money the 13 colonies brought into the empire absolutely pales in comparison to Jamaica, India, and basically every other colony they had. Those are simply facts. The loss of Haiti by the French was vastly more significant than the loss of the 13 colonies by the Brits.

Only because the people of Haiti were slaves to the French and everything done in Haiti was for France.

The people of the 13 colonies were never enslaved by the Brits or ordered to work for the king or anything. Most of the money the colonists did give to the king were from shipped goods and taxes. It definitely pales in comparison to the revenue from the sugar, coffee, and indigo industries of Haiti. I'm not a history buff or anything of that nature I just thought I would add my two cents. :)

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 11:47 AM
Only because the people of Haiti were slaves to the French and everything done in Haiti was for France.

The people of the 13 colonies were never enslaved by the Brits or ordered to work for the king or anything. Most of the money the colonists did give to the king were from shipped goods and taxes. It definitely pales in comparison to the revenue from the sugar, coffee, and indigo industries of Haiti. I'm not a history buff or anything of that nature I just thought I would add my two cents. :)
There were tons of slaves in the 13 colonies. Those that weren't slaves were frequently indentured servants, a short-term form of slavery. The form of economy in the colonies was less export based primarily because they were incapable of growing large staple crops outside of tobacco and cotton (which prior to the cotton gin was hard to mass produce), not due to any philosophical differences about labor conditions (see: Jamaica, a British colony)

LizardState
03-04-2010, 11:59 AM
Time for a former history major to chime in:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080
"The winners of war write their own history."

Exactly. In many cases, who is to really say who came out victorious?

Winners not only write the history but whitewash several different shades too. It's all interpretation & subjective, like any human activity.

When I took Military History way back in the day (1973) as an undergrad our textbook was the Wars of America by Robert Leckie. Leckie wrote it during the late 60s & took an immense amount of heat there in ultraconservative Texas for his so-called liberal slant where he said that the War of 1812 was an attempt by a young imperial America to expand at the expense of Canada, which failed, & the Mexican War was an attempt to expand at the expense of Mexico, which succeeded.

Controversial then, not so much now as both sides of the political spectrum seem to buy into the thesis of Manifest Destiny in 19th Century America = imperial expansionism, ironically begun wiht Jefferson & the Lousiana Purchase, the President who least wanted imperial possession or those infamous "entanglements with foreign powers" in any way, shape or form after his generation broke from Britain in our Revolution (which we wouldn't have won at all except for massive military help from the French). Leckie was a WW2 hero who has since passed on, I saw in my TV Guide magazine yesterday he's being played by an actor in a principal p/o the upcoming HBO Speilberg-produced series The Pacific, & he's being hailed as a major American historian of record.

Personally I highly recommend The Wars of America, the updated version covering Korea & Vietnam is the best one.

CJSchneider
03-04-2010, 12:03 PM
... that the War of 1812 was an attempt by a young imperial America to expand at the expense of Canada

Leckie needed to do more research on


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/20070118_napoleon.jpg

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 12:07 PM
TT, are you thinking of going into academia, because you're P.O.V. would be strongly rejected. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it would.


Probably not. I'm pursuing for a job in intelligence now believe it or not. But which opinion are you referring to?

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 12:10 PM
Probably not. But which opinion are you referring to?

Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)
Haha....I don't need proof that I like porn.

Your dismissive comments about Zinn for starters. I don't do U.S. history so I don't really care about Zinn, but its pretty hard to get anywhere in academia if you aren't writing about race, class, or gender (I study the church, so I work around it a bit). You also strike me as conservative, not in the political sense, but the intellectual sense. Most historians would wince at the idea that historiography is based on facts.

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Your dismissive comments about Zinn for starters. I don't do U.S. history so I don't really care about Zinn, but its pretty hard to get anywhere in academia if you aren't writing about race, class, or gender (I study the church, so I work around it a bit).

I can see that. But have you ever read Zinn? His bias is almost undeniable if you ask me.

However, Like you, I'm no US history nut, so i'm no expert on the subject. I am also primarily interested in the church(Greek orthodox especially), well as "interested" and in-depth as an undergraduate can get I suppose, and structured my classes around it pretty heavily.


You also strike me as conservative, not in the political sense, but the intellectual sense. Most historians would wince at the idea that historiography is based on facts.


Yeah, right after I worded it as based on facts I wanted to edit the comment because of how it would come off. I guess I was just trying to refute the point that history is based purely on interpretation. Anyone can interpret history in the manner they want ( Dan Brown and the idiots who think that crap is real for example), but it doesn't make them a historian.

LizardState
03-04-2010, 12:39 PM
Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

Or he's a Film/Drama/Literature major......

CJSchneider
03-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Also, you saying POV instead of typing out 'point of view' proves you watch tons of internet porn. ;)

My name is CJ Schneider and I approve of this message.

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 01:19 PM
Or he's a Film/Drama/Literature major......

Nope, he's a history guy. Busted. Wait can he be busted if he's proud of it? haha

My name is CJ Schneider and I approve of this message.

I think that goes without saying CJ.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 03:19 PM
I can see that. But have you ever read Zinn? His bias is almost undeniable if you ask me.
Zinn openly admitted he had an agenda, in fact, most historians do. Those that don't admit it are lying. Nobody dedicates their entire lives to studying something unless they have an end goal in mind.

The only time I think you can really say someone has a bias, however, is if it makes what they are saying fundamentally untrue. I haven't read enough Zinn to make that determination, but he's revered by most historians.

Halsey
03-04-2010, 03:22 PM
If you guys like history you should listen to one or more of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts. He gives a number of them away free and you can buy others for like a dollar a piece if you want more. Really informative and entertaining stuff for history enthusiasts.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 03:28 PM
Ugh. Pseudo pop-history.

The Unseen
03-04-2010, 03:33 PM
Ugh. Pseudo pop-history.

Or pop pseudo-history :D

Halsey
03-04-2010, 03:35 PM
Was that a reply to my post?

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 03:36 PM
It was. I'm not a fan of people without degrees "doing history." It's like having your gallbladder removed by an auto mechanic.

Halsey
03-04-2010, 03:40 PM
Yeah, "Hardcore History" is not pseudo pop history. It's target audience is people who want more than 'pop history'. Hence the name "Hardcore History". You should listen to an episode before you knock it. The episodes on The Eastern Front of WW2 and the Punic Wars are fascinating.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 03:59 PM
Just like a "hardcore" diet pill really isn't just made of sugar.

I know what Dan Carlin does. It's pop history. Honestly, that's being kind. The History Channel is pop history, Carlin is just a crank.

Halsey
03-04-2010, 04:02 PM
I get it. You're trying to play the part of the elitist history snob, right? You had me going for a sec. What are you gonna tell me next? You spend your free time pouring over old manuscripts and papyrus records? Good one! :D

Giantsfan1080
03-04-2010, 04:03 PM
The History Channel hardly has any history anyway.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 04:06 PM
You're trying to play the part of the elitist history snob, right?
I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population. Just like a doctor is better educated about medicine and surgery than a bus driver.

You spend your free time pouring over old manuscripts and papyrus records?
What exactly do you think historians do?

Halsey
03-04-2010, 04:12 PM
I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population. Just like a doctor is better educated about medicine and surgery than a bus driver.

What exactly do you think historians do?

Try to convince people on message boards of how educated and above the rest of the population they are?

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 04:16 PM
Z in fact, most historians do. Those that don't admit it are lying. Nobody dedicates their entire lives to studying something unless they have an end goal in mind.
Oh I realize that full well. But when people start placing their agenda into their historical work it becomes BS.

I haven't read enough Zinn to make that determination, but he's revered by most historians.

As far as the bold part, two of my history Profs were the ones who initially brought his bias to my attention when I asked a question pertaining his writing. Sure enough, I found it for myself reading it too.

I should probably state that as well, I am making somewhat of ignorant statement considered I haven't read 'a ton' by the guy, I just got the impression from what I did read, which was a few books and articles.
* You just got me to admit I was somewhat in the wrong. Admission of guilt= loss of power. My candidate, Machiavelli, wouldn't be proud of my tactics.

Edit- Also, LOL at someone calling a historian who puts down the history channel ( the same channel that has that Pawn shop show, AX men, American pickers and life AFTER people as part of their regular programing) an elitist. He's trying to show you that stuff is worthless drivel, dumb-ed down for people without the patience to make an attempt learn it for themselves.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 04:17 PM
I was answering your ******* question. Don't ask stupid questions if you don't want obvious answers.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 04:19 PM
Oh I realize that full well. But when people start placing their agenda into their historical work it becomes BS.
People that study, say, Nazi Germany, usually have a strong anti-Nazi agenda. Does that make their work BS?

Doctors that study disease usually are anti-disease, does that make their work BS?


* You just got me to admit I was somewhat in the wrong. Admission of guilt= loss of power. My candidate, Machiavelli, wouldn't be proud of my tactics.
If it makes you feel any better, the Bears suck.

tjsunstein
03-04-2010, 04:20 PM
I'm totally an elitist. I am verifiably more educated than over 99% of the population.

Count me in that 1%. :)

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 04:26 PM
People that study, say, Nazi Germany, usually have a strong anti-Nazi agenda. Does that make their work BS? Valid, but probably not as applicable, most people are anti-Nazi...

Doctors that study disease usually are anti-disease, does that make their work BS?

Yeah, if they're doing their work to push bogus pills for Pfizer so they get some scrilla on the side.

Actually, I don't think that one is too relevant to history.


If it makes you feel any better, the Bears suck.

Not really, I already knew that. They're gonna go hog wild in free agency though?

bearsfan_51
03-04-2010, 04:29 PM
Valid, but probably not as applicable, most people are anti-Nazi...
So an agenda is only ok if lots of people already agree with you? What's the point of doing scholarship then?

Brent
03-04-2010, 04:36 PM
I made that Howard Zinn remark because he's talking about telling students to un-learn everything they know about US history. Somewhat the premise of A People's History, whether or not you feel it's misguided.

Do I think he's %100 true about what he says? **** no, what historian is? Do I enjoy reading multiple views on a single event? Yes, I appreciate multiple interpretations, as I am a teacher of literary analysis.

DoughBoy
03-04-2010, 04:38 PM
I'm writing a paper for history tm and here is my question.


What rights, if any, were taken from the colonist by the British parliment or monarchy?


I might not be asking that correctly, but it looks like colonist had it pretty good. My middle and high school teachers lied to me. :(

dabears10
03-04-2010, 04:45 PM
What I think some are forgetting is that History is an on going debate. People who have interest in one topic is already going to have a predetermined opinion. TT you did not like the fact that people who study the Holocaust are anti-Nazi, but Women are predominant in Women's activism history as well African Americans in Civil Rights.

Every secondary source you are going to read is going to try to persuade you, whether you agree with what they present is up to you but the fact they are trying to persuade is not a negative belief.

TitleTown088
03-04-2010, 05:05 PM
So an agenda is only ok if lots of people already agree with you?

Stop making insinuations of what I'm saying, dagnabbit!

TT you did not like the fact that people who study the Holocaust are anti-Nazi, but Women are predominant in Women's activism history as well African Americans in Civil Rights.
.
Yes, I'm well aware people who study certain areas of history/academia in general have agendas.

LizardState
03-05-2010, 10:17 AM
Yeah, "Hardcore History" is not pseudo pop history. It's target audience is people who want more than 'pop history'. Hence the name "Hardcore History". You should listen to an episode before you knock it. The episodes on The Eastern Front of WW2 and the Punic Wars are fascinating.

I've heard of Hardcore History but never seen or heard it.

Hardcore History > History Channel? THC is very even-handed where the Liberal/Conservative biases are concerned, they've done a very good job imo of purging any agendas from their segments.

Giantsfan1080
03-19-2011, 12:04 AM
This needed a bump.


I like Beer Baron's rules.

3 rules of French warfare:

1.) They can win when led by a non-Frenchman
2.) When America does most of the fighting
3.) When they are fighting other french

FuzzyGopher
03-19-2011, 01:14 AM
I'm writing a paper for history tm and here is my question.


What rights, if any, were taken from the colonist by the British parliment or monarchy?


I might not be asking that correctly, but it looks like colonist had it pretty good. My middle and high school teachers lied to me. :(

England relied heavily on the colonies, they needed wood from America to build ships for trade and to build up their navy. America was also an integral part of the triangular trade system that brought new goods into England, which were then taxed. English merchant's also made loans to the colonies and charged them interest, this also helped strengthen England's economy.

After the capitalization of agriculture England turned all Warren Buffet and went from working to live to living to work...or something. Some guy named Weber believed in that anyway.

diabsoule
03-19-2011, 02:45 AM
The History Channel hardly has any history anyway.

I call it the Nazi Channel because most of their specials are of Germans during WWII

This needed a bump.


I like Beer Baron's rules.

3 rules of French warfare:

1.) They can win when led by a non-Frenchman
2.) When America does most of the fighting
3.) When they are fighting other french

That view is such an ignorant American view of the French military and includes, although not limited to, one major flaw: Napoleon. While born to a minor noble Italian family, Napoleon was educated in France from the age of 10, learned all of his military training from schools in France, commanding French armies, and conquered mostly non-French armies.

Also, if it wasn't for the French coming to the aid of America during the revolution then Cornwallis would have escaped Yorktown courtesy of the British navy and landed elsewhere in the colonies. France, recognizing a chance to strike at their hated British enemies, recognized an opportunity to strike them a blow (which was influenced by what England did to them during the French & Indian War) and lent their navy to the Americans cause. Their navy defeated the British outside of Yorktown which caused Cornwallis to surrender.

Sure, we can belittle the French military for being invaded twice from the same direction in two subsequent wars by the same enemy but our help in WWI and WWII was payback for what the French helped us accomplish during the revolution.

Shahin
03-19-2011, 03:17 AM
It is also laughable that the French built the Maginot line primarily on the German border to prevent getting raped by Germans after WW1. They did this even though the Germans attacked through Belgium and Luxembourg in that particular war.

They'd go on to repeat the same general strategy in world war 2, going just above the most fortified part of the Maginot Line, with hilarious effectiveness.


I don't think when people make fun of the French military that they are being 100% serious...they obviously have had more success than we give them credit for. They are extremely easy to poke fun at, though.

Brothgar
03-19-2011, 03:25 AM
I call it the Nazi Channel because most of their specials are of Germans during WWII



That view is such an ignorant American view of the French military and includes, although not limited to, one major flaw: Napoleon. While born to a minor noble Italian family, Napoleon was educated in France from the age of 10, learned all of his military training from schools in France, commanding French armies, and conquered mostly non-French armies.

Also, if it wasn't for the French coming to the aid of America during the revolution then Cornwallis would have escaped Yorktown courtesy of the British navy and landed elsewhere in the colonies. France, recognizing a chance to strike at their hated British enemies, recognized an opportunity to strike them a blow (which was influenced by what England did to them during the French & Indian War) and lent their navy to the Americans cause. Their navy defeated the British outside of Yorktown which caused Cornwallis to surrender.

Sure, we can belittle the French military for being invaded twice from the same direction in two subsequent wars by the same enemy but our help in WWI and WWII was payback for what the French helped us accomplish during the revolution.

Well I think the revolutionary war example falls under rule #2. While the French were vital in the US success in the war Americans did the vast bulk of the fighting.