When was US history?
Does that seem like a strange question?
I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the
Battle of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do.
But what about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
I could take the average of 1776 and the present. Or I could take the >average of 1776 and the year the book was published. Or I could open
it to the middle page and see what year that covered. But those all
have drawbacks. For instance did US history begin with the founding
in 1776, with the first English colony (Virginia) in 1607, or with
some other year?
Delaware apparently thinks it began in 1787 when that state signed the >present constitution, since otherwise they wouldn't call themselves
the first state. (Ironically, Delaware is the only state to be named
for another state's governor.)
I think history can best be measured in person-years. As such there's
ten times more US history each year now then there was when the US
had a tenth of the current population. But that gives a surprising
answer: US history was, on average, in 1983, during the Reagan >administration. At least this method makes it irrelevant whether we
start in 1607, 1776, or 1787, since the population before 1800 or so
was too low to make much difference. (Of course I'm not counting
Native Americans.)
Has anyone else worked out this number for various past and present
nations, cultures, continents, and ethnicities? Or for the whole
world? Of course past population is largely guesswork, but we can
do a lot better than implicitly assuming a constant population.
Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it predominately covers.
Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
When was US history?
Does that seem like a strange question?
I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the
Battle of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do.
But what about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it predominately covers.
There were too many books for that to be practical.
Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
president ever,
they'll probably name either the current president
or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
someone from their lifetime.
But that's mostly just because most
Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
presidents before anyone alive today was born.
Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.
On Oct 22, 2023, Keith F. Lynch wrote
(in article <uh4k0m$lmt$1@reader2.panix.com>):
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it predominately covers.
There were too many books for that to be practical.
Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
president ever,
Worst ever? Buchanon. Filmore, Pierce, Trump, and Andrew Johnson fill out the bottom five. (That’s _Andrew_, not _Lyndon_, Johnson. And Andrew _Johnson_, not Andrew _Jackson_. LBJ and Old Hickory had their faults, but they weren’t bottom five material.)
they'll probably name either the current president
or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
someone from their lifetime.
not necessarily. Donald Trump is pretty bad, but he’s not James Buchanon or Millard Filmore bad.
But that's mostly just because most
Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
presidents before anyone alive today was born.
The worst modern prez prior to The Orange One was Boy George Bush, and he’s a bottom third kind of guy. Bad, but not terrible. The last terrible prez was Wilson. The bugger was more racist than actual slaveholders. He made Andie ’Trail of Tears’ Jackson look positively progressive. Almost.
Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.
Ethelred the Unready would be a good candidate. Edward VIII, that fucking Nazi, wasn’t that long ago, but is another. Bloody Mary kinda stands out. A personal fav would be William Rufus.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
When was US history?
Does that seem like a strange question?
I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle
of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do. But what
about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
I tend to shelve history books covering a long period at the beginning
of the period. For example, Winston Churchill's history of WWII gets
shelved at the start of that era,
while books about Pearl Harbor get shelved as 1941, THE DAM BUSTERS as
1943, and so on.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 20:17:58 -0700, eleeper@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
When was US history?
Does that seem like a strange question?
I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle
of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do. But what
about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
I tend to shelve history books covering a long period at the beginning
of the period. For example, Winston Churchill's history of WWII gets shelved at the start of that era,
while books about Pearl Harbor get shelved as 1941, THE DAM BUSTERS as 1943, and so on.
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III, Edward
II, Richard II, and Edward VI (note that three were minors when they
became Kings and were subjected to Regency council for years, I
suspect that this wasn't a coincidence).
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
predominately covers.
There were too many books for that to be practical.
Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
president ever, they'll probably name either the current president
or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
someone from their lifetime. But that's mostly just because most
Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
presidents before anyone alive today was born.
Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.
In article<n4pZM.170983$2fS.60319@fx16.iad>, mailbox@cpacker.org
(Charles Packer) wrote:
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone Age.
School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone
Age.
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were that important?
In article <0001HW.2AE72DE60192A9B470000A84C38F@news.supernews.com>, >akwolffan@zoho.com (WolfFan) wrote:
School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone
Age.
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were that important?
:-)
Actually, when I was at secondary school (age 11-18) the Rolling Stones
had only just formed. Never was into pop music, but I did eventually
hear of them.
It took a while for information to trickle into text books. One of my
school history text books had a reference to Piltdown man and that was >exposed as a hoax the year I was born.
[Hal Heydt]
When I was in school, textbooks still discussed orogeny as being
caused by isostasy. That had be shown not to work some decades
earlier. Plate tectonics was a hot topic shortly after I
graduated from high school.
robertaw@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward) wrote:
My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III,
Edward II, Richard II, and Edward VI
(note that three were minors when they became Kings and were
subjected to Regency council for years, I suspect that this wasn't
a coincidence).
King Stephen is often considered a candidate. King from 1135 to
1154. Reigned in a period called The Anarchy.
Civil was with his cousin, Empress Matilda.
Curiously, his queen was also called Matilda.
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
How much of the world had been discovered by then?
All but Antarctica would be my guess.
NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
robertaw@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward) wrote:
My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III,
Edward II, Richard II, and Edward VI
But not Richard III?
"Elizabethan" refers only to Liz One, never
to Liz Two,
[Hal Heydt]
When I was in school, textbooks still discussed orogeny as being
caused by isostasy. That had be shown not to work some decades
earlier. Plate tectonics was a hot topic shortly after I
graduated from high school.
When I was in high school, a friend of mine insisted that humans had
48
chromosomes because that's what the biology teacher said in class.
(Don't know if he did or not; I only took hard sciences.)
In article <uhceq6$6le$1@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. >Lynch) wrote:
"Elizabethan" refers only to Liz One, never
to Liz Two,
There was a fashion in the fifties to refer to the new Elizabethans.
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
How much of the world had been discovered by then?
All but Antarctica would be my guess.
NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)
"Age of Discovery" refers to when people learned about the whole
world, or at least about most of it. For most of history, almost
everyone only knew about the part of the world that they lived in.
For instance New Zealanders living before 1500 had no clue that any
such places as Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas existed, or
any ocean except the Pacific. They probably didn't even know of
Australia, or that the world was round.
But thanks for reminding us that aboriginal people haven't all been
around since time immemorial. Tasman discovered (and named) New
Zealand in 1642, which means that that island group has been known
to Europe for most of the time that it was known to anyone.
In article <m24jide9fo.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, spcoltri@omcl.org (Steve Coltrin) wrote:
When I was in high school, a friend of mine insisted that humans had
48 chromosomes because that's what the biology teacher said in class.
(Don't know if he did or not; I only took hard sciences.)
According to Wikipedia, it was 1956 when they finally recounted. I think
the error in counting was mentioned in the book The Andromeda Strain
and I'm sure I recall an early Heinlein novel that uses wrong count.
and I'm sure I recall an early Heinlein novel that uses wrong count.
_Beyond This Horizon_?
I can't swear to this, but I think the last (latest) period of British history named for it's monarch was Edwardian, at the turn of the 20th century.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 01:42:42 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> wrote:
What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
How much of the world had been discovered by then?
All but Antarctica would be my guess.
NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)
"Age of Discovery" refers to when people learned about the whole
world, or at least about most of it. For most of history, almost
everyone only knew about the part of the world that they lived in.
For instance New Zealanders living before 1500 had no clue that any
such places as Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas existed, or
any ocean except the Pacific. They probably didn't even know of
Australia, or that the world was round.
But thanks for reminding us that aboriginal people haven't all beenNew Zealand was the southwestern corner of the Polynesian cultural
around since time immemorial. Tasman discovered (and named) New
Zealand in 1642, which means that that island group has been known
to Europe for most of the time that it was known to anyone.
area, a rough triangle the other corners of which were Hawai'i and
Easter Island.
I'd be surprised if they didn't know about the Indian Ocean, I mean,
it's right there on the other side of their islands.
If most of the 19th century was the Victorian period, most of the 20th >century should be the second Elizabethan period.
I'd be surprised if they didn't know about the Indian Ocean, I mean,
it's right there on the other side of their islands [New Zealand].
The worst modern prez prior to The Orange One was Boy George Bush, and he’s
a bottom third kind of guy. Bad, but not terrible. The last terrible prez was
Wilson. The bugger was more racist than actual slaveholders. He made Andie ’Trail of Tears’ Jackson look positively progressive. Almost.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:09:56 |
| Calls: | 9,800 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,752 |
| Messages: | 6,189,748 |