This is a "U.S. History" College Course?

self | self

[fideist]

My son started a "U.S. History" course in college this semester.

Sixteen-week course, one lecture a week. He has had three lectures so far --

1. Mayan Culture

2. Inca Culture

3. The Colonization of Africa by the Portuguese

-- I honestly don't get it. :?

[Tzimisce]

It's called "Political Correctness" and it's the result of voting Democrat for forty years.

Now pay your taxes and be happy.

[Richard Kimball]

Get a copy of the course syllabus. Find out what is supposed to be taught. If the information being taught isn't in the syllabus, and information in the syllabus isn't being taught, I would suggest complaining to the Dean of the college. There's a reason college courses are transferable, and it's because a defined curriculum is supposed to be taught. Although it would be trouble, you can also get the course number, and look up what is supposed to be taught, usually through your state's higher education coordinating board.

Of course, make sure your son is enrolled in a US History course. Particularly for lower division courses in required areas of study, the course information taught is pretty specifically defined. Failure of the school to adhere to these standards could be cause for them to get a bad mark on their accreditation evaluation, and that scares the h*ll out of schools. Lose your accreditation, your courses aren't transferable, and you aren't eligible for Federal funds.

[Izzy Dunne]

There was a typo on the schedule sheet.
He should be in room 116, not room 106.

[sphinx]

Sounds like convergence theory. You know: the New World is a happy amalgam of Native American, African, and European cultures. The Native Americans contributed deep spiritual wisdom, profound insight into nature, and advanced political theory in the form of the Iroquois federation. The Africans contributed deep spiritual wisdom, music, and a genius for creative language. The Europeans contributed guns, mass murder, and pizza. And so here we are.

[Arthalion]

Pretty standard fare. Most college history courses go a bit broader than the US history we learned in the 5th grade and attempt to put events into more of a historical context. The lessons on the Inca and Maya are important because they show the development of the gold bearing civilizations that existed in central America before Columbus arrived. Why is this important to the history of the US? Because it was the Spanish discovery of those civilizations, and more importantly their gold, that drove Spanish exploration and colonization of the America's. It was the stories of that incredible wealth that spurred England, France, and the other European countries to join in the exploration.

Portuguese colonization of the African coast is important because that colonization was a part of Henry the Navigators drive to bypass Muslim lands and find a sea based eastern trade route. It was that drive which led to the discovery of the south Atlantic crossing, Brazil and the South American continent, and the first realization that the explorers had actually found new continents and not just new outer Asian islands. That realization prompted many nations to switch their focus from trade and wealth gathering to conquest and empire building. Again, these are factors that directly influenced the founding of the US.

It's not PC BS, but actual historical facts laid out in a way to make the student understand WHY the Americas were colonized, not just when and by whom.

[lilylangtree]

Guess the Portuguese didn't make it to northern Africa. Sounds like the teacher doesn't know his/her butt from a hole in the ground. As a parent, I would demand to see his/her credentials to qualify the person to teach US History.

[The Fop]

I sure hope your kid is planning on being either a doctor, an engineer, an architect or pursuing some other legitimate profession. Otherwise, if he's spending four years to "find himself" or to "broaden his mind", I'm afraid that you'll be shelling out your hard earned cash for four years of Commie boot camp.

[Dianna]

It's not PC BS, but actual historical facts laid out in a way to make the student understand WHY the Americas were colonized, not just when and by whom.

My American History class proceeded in much the same manner. My complaint was that we spent a great deal of time on this early history, and rushed through everything else (up to the Revolution). Her explanation was that prior to college most students get a reasonable exposure to the pilgrims, Stamp Act, etc. The information was interesting though.

[formercalifornian]

THAT is an excellent idea!

[formercalifornian]

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

[SoCalPol]

-- I honestly don't get it. :?

was your question.
The answer and problem is he is in college.
Degrees are a dime a dozen.
I am ret. and did degree work without one.
Had enough left wing wack job teachers in high school
and had to much self respect to subject myself to college.

[sangrila]

"Get a copy of the course syllabus. Find out what is supposed to be taught. If the information being taught isn't in the syllabus, and information in the syllabus isn't being taught, I would suggest complaining to the Dean of the college. There's a reason college courses are transferable, and it's because a defined curriculum is supposed to be taught. Although it would be trouble, you can also get the course number, and look up what is supposed to be taught, usually through your state's higher education coordinating board.

Of course, make sure your son is enrolled in a US History course. Particularly for lower division courses in required areas of study, the course information taught is pretty specifically defined. Failure of the school to adhere to these standards could be cause for them to get a bad mark on their accreditation evaluation, and that scares the h*ll out of schools. Lose your accreditation, your courses aren't transferable, and you aren't eligible for Federal funds."







Perhaps they will throw in a few tickets to Fantasy Land.

[sangrila]

I would agree with most of what you posted, but I still have slightly less faith in America's higher education. I had US history classes that began with the Moors defeat at Granada, so I accept that a US history class should probably start sometime around 1492 and be a two semester course. I also accept that the Incas, Mayas, and other American Indians should be a considerable part of the curriculum. But there are only 30 or so classes in a semester, and the fact that the first 3 classes are comprised of these subjects sends off my liberal radar.

The first 3 classes should at least make some mention of the political atmosphere in Europe. I also feel the Maya and Inca should probably be covered in one class. They are extremely fascinating and rather extradordinary cultures, but should be covered in more advanced history courses. The Incas and Mayas should not be the point of departure in my opinion.

I also detect more sinister motives in this teacher opening with Portuguese colinization of Africa. I find it highly unlikely that the teacher's motives are to discuss the eastern trade routes to India. In fact, I would bet money that it was not even mentioned in that class about Portuguese colonialism in Africa. That lesson was probably entirely about the Portuguese' brutal exploitation of the Africans (and it really was very inhumane), and the Portuguese' role in starting the trade of African slaves in the New World. They were the first to bring slaves to the New Worls and they were the last to stop bringing them here. They brought more African slaves to the New World than any other nation.


With this said, I do agree that there is a possibility that this is a good teacher. I just think it is unlikely because of what I know about these schools. The poster of this thread should just let their son figure it out for himself. I am sure he will still learn things in the class.

[sangrila]

"was your question.
The answer and problem is he is in college.
Degrees are a dime a dozen.
I am ret. and did degree work without one.
Had enough left wing wack job teachers in high school
and had to much self respect to subject myself to college."



So people who go to college don't have self-respect? And if degrees come a dime a dozen, why do only 30% of Americans have Bachelors degrees? I have no doubt that one can be very successful without college, but your post was kind of ridiculous. If his/her son drops out of college he will have a much more difficult time finding a job and many doors will be closed. You offered bad advice. There are a few conservative teachers in liberal arts, and if he goes into business they will all be conservative for the most part. If he majors in science then politics will not even matter.

[nevadagril435]

"degrees are a dime a dozen"
..."and had too much self respect to subject myself to college"

What color is the sky in your world? You don't live in the same country as I do, and if you did you live under a rock. degrees are expensive, and I have not had a single employer who will consider me without my graphic design degree despite my huge portfolio and my skills on all the programs needed to be a graphic designer. I kep getting told "get your bachelors.." every time I job hunt. I have plenty of self-respect, in fact I have enough self-respect to not subject myself to a lifetime of saying "would you like fries with that?" at some burger joint, making minimum wage and milking the system via welfare benefits and food stamps.

To those of you who are having problems with liberal professors, I recommend you send any students in your life to ratemyprofessorsdotcom or have them ask around before they take a class. Here in UT we monitor the teachers who teach gen eds--especially the annoying "diversity" requirement, I already know what I will take when I get there and with what professor, because so many people are willing to share their experiences with bad professors. It is the only way we coeds can backlash against a whackjob professor. But it works--I have thus far avoided extremeists on either side and have had a good educational experience.