CDZ Crash Course in U.S. History -- Economics, immigration, race, and class

[320 Years of History]

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Progressive Presidents: Crash Course US History #29

Civil Rights and the 1950s: Crash Course US History #39

 

[320 Years of History]

 

[Disir]

Is there a debate in there or are you simply hiding in the CDZ?

 

[Holos]

In my short time here I've see more folks raise more "stuff" that miscasts, God, so much about our national history, and they use their opinion of "how it was" to justify their beliefs about, of course, "how it should be now." Now much of the stuff that you'll encounter in this post has been addressed in a variety of the scholarly papers I've attached to "this or that" post over the course of my time here, but I don't think many folks actually read those papers, may of which are really "deep dives" on a given topic, and they're not exactly "fun" nor particularly easy reading, especially if one isn't used to reading scholarly journals.

Your introductory words are presenting incongruity, as if you had rushed to write and didn't take the time to proof-read it yourself and make sure the paragraph is cohesive in its delivery. The grammar is so off that the syntax has become elusive. Maybe you have not noticed it, maybe you did and thought the videos were of greater importance, but in any case I feel it would be more appropriate to the debate zone that our introductory words are very clear and expletive of our positions to be opposed or investigated.

I have experienced a similar situation with your other posts to which you refer here in this thread, especially when they are including the academic papers you share. You tell us your impression is that not many people read those papers, and that they are also tedious, but here you are attempting to present a course for us to learn, and at the same time taking the position that those papers are simply beyond people's natural capabilities. In all honesty, I have not seen you provide your own words to support or to criticize any scholarly work. All I see is you posting them and using your words to point at them, but nothing truly about what you personally have gathered from it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is there a debate in there or are you simply hiding in the CDZ?

Fair question....you got to post before I could get in a post to explain what the videos are for and the nature of envisioned discussion. A RL distraction took me AFK. Sorry about that.

First of all, the "Crash Course" series is 47 videos long (each about 10 minutes or so), but I just selected the ones that struck me as those most pertinent to the types of themes I see most often discussed on USMB:

• Economics and one's role and responsibility for one's success under capitalism
• Race/racism, minorities, slavery white privilege, and discrimination.
• The character and intent of the founding fathers
• The nature of American politics
• The Reagan era
• Foundations of Terrorism
• Liberty
• Immigration

If folks care to introduce other videos from the series, fine. The video on women's issues is great, but I can't recall actually seeing much ever discussed here about women's issues. (I don't generally and intentionally bother with more than the CDZ, SDF and Politics subforums; perhaps that's why.)

The videos provide a common framework for the discussion and ensures that everyone who participates at least has a commonly understood set of neutrally presented facts from which to delve into and reference as they present their ideas. Obviously there's vastly more detail about any of those topics than is covered in the videos, and folks are free to introduce other such objective/impartial references to supplement what I provided as a starting point and for use in making/corroborating whatever points they feel they must.

It's just discussion of historic events, their and modern circumstances etiologies, outcomes, and themes. There's ample fodder for discussion that compares, contrasts "then" with "now," or looking at "then" and drawing parallels, passing judgement, proposing models that may be worth returning to, etc.

If you're looking for something to argue about and win, this may not be the thread for you. If you are instead having a mature and broad ranging discussion about a current topic of interest that traces its origins to America's past, this is a good place for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Your introductory words are presenting incongruity, as if you had rushed to write and didn't take the time to proof-read it yourself and make sure the paragraph is cohesive in its delivery.

That is, in fact, what happened. Personal circumstances interrupted and I just hit "post."

 

[Ringel05]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

 

[Moonglow]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

That's why it's best that no matter how notorious in history, one must always get a slang word to help remind one of historical human moments, like Tricky Dicky..

 

[Ringel05]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

That's why it's best that no matter how notorious in history, one must always get a slang word to help remind one of historical human moments, like Tricky Dicky..

That's not the realm of history unless one is studying the cultural implications and events, the whys. Projecting modern cultural norms (morals) on historical events, peoples and persons is what I'm addressing, Tricky Dick would would be appropriate as the American cultural norms are mostly unchanged throughout the intervening years.

 

[Moonglow]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

 

[320 Years of History]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

That's why it's best that no matter how notorious in history, one must always get a slang word to help remind one of historical human moments, like Tricky Dicky..

"Slang words" are great, but they are best bandied about, IMO, by folks who know the full story. Unfortunately, too many folks who don't know and understand the details do indeed get the pithy gist of the "slang word" and incorrectly infer that the sentiment of the colloquialism is the main or real substance of the matter or man, that it captures all one really needs to know, as it were.

 

[Disir]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

Ringel, my kid watches Crash. It's geared for high school students.

 

[Ringel05]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

Unfortunately I only studied Asian history in general, my focus was primarily European and American history.

 

[yiostheoy]

Nothing beats actually going to college and leaning all these things at an accredited school with mainstream edited textbooks.

 

[yiostheoy]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

Unfortunately I only studied Asian history in general, my focus was primarily European and American history.

My focus was primarily ancient history of the Mediterranean and Near East -- Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria.

But I covered American History as well for a Humanities requirement in college.

I have had to read about Asian history on the Internet in Wiki.

I also have a world history book which covers Asian history in various sections.

 

[Ringel05]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

Ringel, my kid watches Crash. It's geared for high school students.

That's what I figured but unfortunately the instructor's modern bias is interwoven with the material, a common failing far too many history teachers have. Granted, teaching history as the dry subject matter it really is would bore most students to tears so his approach at least adds a degree of "modern relevance" to keep kids interested.

 

[Ringel05]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

Unfortunately I only studied Asian history in general, my focus was primarily European and American history.

My focus was primarily ancient history of the Mediterranean and Near East -- Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria.

But I covered American History as well for a Humanities requirement in college.

I have had to read about Asian history on the Internet in Wiki.

I also have a world history book which covers Asian history in various sections.

I did some more in-depth study of Japan during the Great Pacific War (WWII in their vernacular) but not nearly in-depth enough to make me an expert.

 

[yiostheoy]

You have to realize the vast majority of people never get past HS history, of those that do the vast majority take one or two generic college level history courses to satisfy curriculum requirements. There's a small minority of us that move beyond that and an even smaller minority that make history their life's work.
While the instructor in the videos has pretty much all facts correct (some are still contested) it's his approach that's suspect. Granted he's most likely taking the 20th/21st century mindset tact to make the material interesting though I suspect he's also unconsciously "politicizing" some, it's hard to escape one's bias when one doesn't recognize and try to suppress that bias.
History should be (but rarely is) neutral and studied within the context of the cultural norms of the time (Cultural Anthropology) to completely understand the whys. A background in psychology also comes in handy in understanding individual and group dynamics in historical context as human motivation and rationalization never changes.
Moral assessments/judgements of historical peoples and events are the realm of philosophy something that many historians themselves tend to forget.

The best book I have found for everyone to get up to speed is this one:

J.M. Roberts, "History Of The World," Penguin Books.

He covers everything from prehistory to UBL and Muslim extremism.

 

[yiostheoy]

Until college I had never studied Asian history, so it was nice to get out of European history...

Unfortunately I only studied Asian history in general, my focus was primarily European and American history.

My focus was primarily ancient history of the Mediterranean and Near East -- Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria.

But I covered American History as well for a Humanities requirement in college.

I have had to read about Asian history on the Internet in Wiki.

I also have a world history book which covers Asian history in various sections.

I did some more in-depth study of Japan during the Great Pacific War (WWII in their vernacular) but not nearly in-depth enough to make me an expert.

Japan is a case study in local militarism during their own industrial revolution.

Japan started out as isolationist, but was forced by the USA to accept foreign trade.

Japan used this then as an opportunity for technological development. The issue is similar to modern China as well.

Then the Japanese leadership realized that their island nation was want of many necessary natural resources so they looked to Manchuria as a source and took it by force.

None of the major world powers cared what Japan did in Asia, so Japan learned that they could get away with anything.

With Europe then mired in war against Adolf, Asia was free for Japan's taking. And that's what they did.

The stupidest thing that Japan ever did was follow Yamamoto's suggesting of attacking Pearl Harbor.

Had they NOT done that, they would be a world superpower by now, and instead of there being a cold war between the USA and China, it would be between the USA and Japan now.

Since WW2, Japan has merely been playing a speculative game of financial manipulation which is hamstringing their own nation. The population of Japan is aging and they are on the verge of a retirement crisis due to their low birth rates and low immigration rates, same as China now is as well.

Now you are up to speed.