As sbk pointed out, generalisations are an issue. As a Brit who has spent a good deal of time in the US (my dad was a septic) I have seen ignoramuses, fools and bright people on both sides of the pond.

I went to grammar school in London in the 70's and was taught almost nothing about English/British/European history. Instead, I learned about Rome, Egypt and Greece. I think it might have been a good move to throw in a bit of local history, too.

I am sometimes taken aback by the insularity of some Americans, though. I was at a dinner some years ago in a very small part of Michigan, sitting next to a 60-something year old man who was educated, articulate and absolutely charming. The first course arrived, and he said "this is spaghetti bolognese. It's Italian. You probably don't get that in England". I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. I'm not knocking him - he was simply trying to make me feel at ease, and I took his comments in the spirit in which they were given.

I had a giggle with my other American friends about it, but I'd bet that many septics have a similar story about Brits.

Now Latin I took to my heart and gained 98% in my final exam

That must come in handy in Pattaya

Yes Noodles....for example when someone calls someone else an IGNORAMUS I usually have a chuckle.....

....because the word is Latin and means.... WE DO NOT KNOW........and I often wonder if the orator of this much used word is including himself/herself.

Now Latin I took to my heart and gained 98% in my final exam

That must come in handy in Pattaya

Yes Noodles....for example when someone calls someone else an IGNORAMUS I usually have a chuckle.....

....because the word is Latin and means.... WE DO NOT KNOW........and I often wonder if the orator of this much used word is including himself/herself.

Actualy this is why yo did not score 100 percent in your test as your explanation is only half of the story.

The name was derived from the Latin, literally, "we are ignorant," from ignorare, "not to know," from ignarus, "not knowing," from ig- (for in-), "not" + gnarus, "knowing, acquainted with, expert in."

Cheers Noodles

Now Latin I took to my heart and gained 98% in my final exam

That must come in handy in Pattaya

Yes Noodles....for example when someone calls someone else an IGNORAMUS I usually have a chuckle.....

....because the word is Latin and means.... WE DO NOT KNOW........and I often wonder if the orator of this much used word is including himself/herself.

Actualy this is why yo did not score 100 percent in your test as your explanation is only half of the story.

The name was derived from the Latin, literally, "we are ignorant," from ignorare, "not to know," from ignarus, "not knowing," from ig- (for in-), "not" + gnarus, "knowing, acquainted with, expert in."

Cheers Noodles

Noodles...we are ignorant and we do not know mean the same thing.....Ignorant means not knowing.

So as I said the word means WE DO NOT KNOW.

You`ll be telling us next that there are not 23 letters in the Latin Alphabet

Now Latin I took to my heart and gained 98% in my final exam

That must come in handy in Pattaya

Yes Noodles....for example when someone calls someone else an IGNORAMUS I usually have a chuckle.....

....because the word is Latin and means.... WE DO NOT KNOW........and I often wonder if the orator of this much used word is including himself/herself.

Actualy this is why yo did not score 100 percent in your test as your explanation is only half of the story.

The name was derived from the Latin, literally, "we are ignorant," from ignorare, "not to know," from ignarus, "not knowing," from ig- (for in-), "not" + gnarus, "knowing, acquainted with, expert in."

Cheers Noodles

Noodles...we are ignorant and we do not know mean the same thing.....Ignorant means not knowing.

So as I said the word means WE DO NOT KNOW.

You`ll be telling us next that there are not 23 letters in the Latin Alphabet

Again i will state ignoramus means "we are ignorant" as in "ignoramus ignorabimus" meaning "we are ignorant, we will remain ignorant" and not "We dont know".

The verb is "ignorare" (first conjugation), meaning "to be ignorant." The stem is, therefore, IGNORA-. The BI- is the sign of the future indicative tense in the first conjugation. The -MUS is the first-person plural ("we") personal ending.

Thus: "we shall be ignorant." would actualy be a more precise offering than either of us first put forth.

... it is my opinion that much of history in America is taught with an east coast WASP-ish slant, some true, some omitting part of the truth and some probably not that accurate at all.

True indeed,

Unflattering details, failures, defeats, that did not dove-tail in the current mind-set at the time were conveniently omitted, .... what precipitated the conflict at the Alamo, ... Jefferson's and Washington's slave labor, ... the resettlement and near eradication of the Indian Nations, ...

So what did you learn in school today Bobby, ah, well, reading between the lines I think it sucked big time being an indigenous native or imported labor, but it was OK if you were any manner of white European, can I go play now ...

I went to grammar school in London in the 70's and was taught almost nothing about English/British/European history. Instead, I learned about Rome, Egypt and Greece. I think it might have been a good move to throw in a bit of local history, too.

What you were taught in the final couple of years before GCE O levels was decided by the exam board your school used in the 60s. We got Europe 1789-1870 which included everything from the Corn Laws to the rise of Garibaldi via Napoloeon and Bismarck.

Thus: "we shall be ignorant." would actualy be a more precise offering than either of us first put forth.

So Noodles what you are saying is that we have the label of "ignoramus" after all

Thus: "we shall be ignorant." would actualy be a more precise offering than either of us first put forth.

So Noodles what you are saying is that we have the label of "ignoramus" after all

yeh i guess so

Thus: "we shall be ignorant." would actualy be a more precise offering than either of us first put forth.

So Noodles what you are saying is that we have the label of "ignoramus" after all

yeh i guess so

...it`s back to school then for the other 2%

Amo

Amas

Amat..... Can`t even remember how to spell it now!

Hmmm.....I'm British but am interested in history in general. The number of US citizens that I've chatted to about American history in general and the Civil war in particular, who are ignorant of the facts, is astounding.

Many, many Americans think that the Civil war was fought to free the slaves, which is incorrect. It was all about States rights. Most of them don't know that the South ran rings around the North for the first three years of the war (literally ie. JEB Stuart).

Many Americans are gob-smacked when they are told that 50 to 60 percent of all the cowboys in 'the golden age' before rail took over from cattle drives, were black.

Other common errors:-

Dates of WW I 1917-1918.

Dates of WW II 1941-1945.

Yes, I realise that these are the years of American involvement, but WW does stand for something.

They weren't WORLD WARS until we yanks joined ...

Basically ... you get one hour a day of State history for a year ... then American History for a year ... then World History for a year ... and BEFORE High School where I was raised ... 7-9th grades

Can't even remember if they repeated that crap in High School

As sbk pointed out, generalisations are an issue. As a Brit who has spent a good deal of time in the US (my dad was a septic) I have seen ignoramuses, fools and bright people on both sides of the pond.

I had a giggle with my other American friends about it, but I'd bet that many septics have a similar story about Brits.

What was wrong with your dad?

septic

# Of, relating to, having the nature of, or affected by sepsis.

# Causing sepsis; putrefactive

sepsis

1. The presence of pathogenic organisms or their toxins in the blood or tissues.

2. The poisoned condition resulting from the presence of pathogens or their toxins, as in septicemia.

skep·tic also scep·tic

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

3. Philosophy.

1. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.

2. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

As an American, I'd have to say that the more I learn about history as an adult, the more I realise how little I learned about it as a child. On one hand, this is because there's simply so much of it; furthermore, much of history is complicated by very "adult issues" which are problematic at best to address in the lawsuit-riddled American school system.

One problem with history the way I learned it was its aristocratic focus: who ruled who, when, for how long, and what kinds of wars they had and what kinds of colonies. There was very little detail about actual daily life and how people had to live, or about connections to non-political topics (which are still, after all, historical). I fixed this problem by reading widely in politics and economics and seeking out history books with more people-friendly points of view. Also, more history programs have been developed which deconstruct this point of view of history- for example, I am aware now that most of the leaders of the American revolution were upper-class merchants who were simply jealous of the more upper-class parasites in their colonies and who eventually took their place; that "tea tax" that got everyone so exercised was less than a penny per person per year.

A second problem was the white-washing of American history, metaphorically in more than one way. Minorities are made invisible in most traditional textbooks, and what might be regarded as some major mistakes or bad moves on the part of America were virtually left out. I didn't know until I was an adult how horrifying the American occupation of the Philippines really was- most textbooks cover it by saying blithely, "the Philippines were ceded to America in the Treaty of Paris" or something like that. You don't normally get to read that William James made a public statement, "God ###### the United States for what they are doing in the Philippines," or that most major intellectuals of the time including Mark Twain were members of an association against the occupation. You also don't realise until reading this that American war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq are only repeats, possibly less extensive, of our war crimes in the Philippines.

I fixed this type of omission primarily by reading A People's History Of The United States, by Howard Zinn. Every American and every person interested in America should read it.

I presume that since people exist in living memory who are aware of the war atrocities in Viet Nam and in Iraq, that for at least a generation or so we will have to include them in history books. But in 100 years will they be "disappeared" like our history of war crimes in the Philippines? I fear it will be so. I also fear that I am an exception in terms of wanting to know the truth rather than swallowing the myth of virtuous, polyanna America.

"Steven"

You gotta go to an American college to get the real scoop. That is why so many right wing nut jobs don't like American colleges, because a class there is more like, let's see the US fcked over everyone that got in it's way, and a few that didn't.

My alma mater is UC Santa Barbara class of 1974 and it don't get more left-wing than that place back then. It was torture, believe me...

Main Entry: ignoramus

Function:noun

Inflected Form:-es

Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, we do not know, 1st plural present indicative of ignorare to be ignorant of * more at IGNORE

1 : an endorsement formerly written on a bill of indictment by a grand jury when it considered the evidence insufficient to warrant the finding of a true bill; also : a bill returned with such an endorsement

2 [after Ignoramus, an ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George Ruggle died 1622, English playwright] : an utterly ignorant person : DUNCE

Never forget to find out the etymology and the history of a word - the context in which a word was introduced to a language is often key to how it receives a meaning which differs from its origin.

Actually, I think it was the "WE" in the whole thing he was trying to make a point about, not the absolutely correct meaning of ignorant.

Anyway, winners always whitewash their history to make themselves look good. I am sure that the British don't discuss their actions in India or Burma nor the Dutch theirs in Java, or Africa. The French haven't had much success with human rights in their colonies either.

Actually, I think it was the "WE" in the whole thing he was trying to make a point about, not the absolutely correct meaning of ignorant.

Anyway, winners always whitewash their history to make themselves look good. I am sure that the British don't discuss their actions in India or Burma

Actually we (the British) are quite self critical about the more unpleasant side of our history.

we were in Burma??

(Just kidding... One of my favorite books of all time the the glass palace by Amitav Ghosh...

find an excerpt here

Actually, I think it was the "WE" in the whole thing he was trying to make a point about, not the absolutely correct meaning of ignorant.

Anyway, winners always whitewash their history to make themselves look good. I am sure that the British don't discuss their actions in India or Burma

Actually we (the British) are quite self critical about the more unpleasant side of our history.

How about Ireland?

How about Ireland?

How about.......S. Africa & Rhodesia

How about Ireland?

How about.......S. Africa & Rhodesia

If I recall correctly, wasn't South Africa the result of the Dutch (Boer's) ?

And, Rhodesia was doing pretty good, until Mugabe took over. It's been all downhill since then. We had a couple of former farmers from Zimbabwe working for us in Afghanistan. They used to own productive farms and employed lots of locals. Those locals were earning good wages (by local standards), had good accomodations and generally lived a better life than their fellow countrymen.

Until Mugabe decided that white-owned farms should be seized and given to his cronies and allies. Since then, many farms have been reduced to wastelands, poorly managed by people with no clue about farming. The locals that used to work the farms have been killed or chased away.

How bad is it ? Neighbouring countries have been inviting the displaced white farmers to come to their countries and reproduce the successful farms they once had in Zimbabwe ! Meanwhile, Zimbabwe sinks further into poverty and violence.

Not that this has anything to do with the OP, which was supposed to be about the teaching of American History (or lack of it) in their schools.

Many places, America included, are loathe to teach the worst events of their history. Japan refuses to acknowledge it's history regarding WW II. I'm sure China and Russia don't mention the purges and mass slaughters their own governments have comitted over the last century. Does Vietnam teach about the atrocities the VC comitted from the early 50's until well after the US left in '75 ? Not likely.

Very few people (or governments) like having their dirty laundry aired in public. It's OK to air someone else's dirty laundry, as long as there is no risk it's going to come back and slap you in the face.