Exchanges with People that Make Your Brain Hurt

[Virg]

LazyDaisy wrote:

"I understand why too. From what I understand, the Native Americans are considered "sovereign nations" within the borders of the US."

Considering that the vast majority of the geography of the United States used to be Native American land and the whole concept of Manifest Destiny was wound up in conflict with Native American nations, this is too far a stretch to be valid.  For close to a century people born into NA tribes on reservations are considered American citizens by the U.S. government, so at least for the "present day" part of the class they're learning about a segment of the American population.

"In some areas of the south western US, we have a shared history with Mexico (think of all the Spanish missions along the California coast or the Mexican American war), but taking a course solely on Mexican history doesn't really = US history."

Since you mentioned it, would studying the history of California from the 1500's through the present day not count because a good portion of that would be Mexican history?  As I said, present day NA people (in the U.S. of course) are American citizens by birth.

Virg

[twiggy]

Just because the US government lied to and stole from the NA tribes doesn't mean they weren't sovereign nations. The US Government made treaties with the tribes because they were sovereign. After all, the government isn't going to make a treaty with the city of Chicago, right?

That's also why NA reservations can have casinos, they are not necessarily subject to state law, but still fall under federal jurisdiction. Technically any crime committed on the Rez can be investigated by the FBI, but it's not likely.

[MommyPenguin]

Would studying a specific state count as American history?  That is also the history of a specific group of Americans.  It also would cover the period of the entire history of the nation (maybe even colonial times).  It would also give you some insight into general happenings in the country as a whole, because of what was going on in that specific state.  In fact, I think following a specific group/people/place through history is a great way to learn history.  And yet, I'm guessing that studying the history of Virginia would not count as an American History credit, so I don't think that the history of Native America would, either.

[Diane AKA Traska]

Considering how many of our geographic names are Native American in origin, I'd say they count very much toward credit, for my money.

[mmswm]

Would studying a specific state count as American history?  That is also the history of a specific group of Americans.  It also would cover the period of the entire history of the nation (maybe even colonial times).  It would also give you some insight into general happenings in the country as a whole, because of what was going on in that specific state.  In fact, I think following a specific group/people/place through history is a great way to learn history.  And yet, I'm guessing that studying the history of Virginia would not count as an American History credit, so I don't think that the history of Native America would, either.

The community college where I used to teach would not count state specific courses towards the US history requirement either.  They counted for elective credit, and some specific requirements for history sub-specialties and some teaching degrees, but they didn't meet the requirement for US history, which, as  PP said better than I could come up with, was meant to be a course that focused on the country as a political entity.  All the related histories are great things, but not the point.  Virg, that goes for the example you gave as well. 

[Lynn2000]

So last week I went to lunch with my friend. I was wearing a long-sleeved t-shirt and my light raincoat. It had been in the 20s or lower all week.

As we sat down I said, "I'm not going to take off my coat, because I'll be cold."
She says, "Don't you have a winter coat??"
I said, "Yes, but I refuse to wear it. I set my clothes out the night before, and I always think, maybe I should wear a sweatshirt and t-shirt, and my winter coat. And then I think, NO!! I am mad at the weather for being so cold! So I'm going to wear only one layer, and my light spring jacket."

Her brain then cracked and oozed all over the table... Sadly, I was not telling a joke, but accurately describing my thought process.

[RebeccainGA]

I said, "Yes, but I refuse to wear it. I set my clothes out the night before, and I always think, maybe I should wear a sweatshirt and t-shirt, and my winter coat. And then I think, NO!! I am mad at the weather for being so cold! So I'm going to wear only one layer, and my light spring jacket."

I do this too. I'm wearing a short sleeved sweater today, and thin slacks. It was snowing when I came in the building.

[MrTango]

When I was a junior in high school, our social studies course was US History.  We took just a very small amount of time to discuss native populations, the earliest European settlers, but we really glossed over everything up to the start of the Revolutionary War.  Then, for some unknown reason, the curriculum stopped at 1935.

Apparently, nothing that happened in the 65 years from 1935 to 2000 was important enough to cover...  (a world war, the invention of the atomic bomb, US involvement in foreign wars, the Red Scare, six amendments to our Constitution, space flight...)

[Shalamar]

Speaking of winter wear, my daughter hurt my brain yesterday.  It was about -10 Celsius when she went out for a walk, and when she got back about 30 minutes later, she said "Boy, I'm cold."  She was wearing a thin hoodie, jeans, and gloves.  I said "Weren't you wearing your coat?"  "No."  "Well, honey, no wonder you were cold!  Why didn't you come back to the house and get it?"  "Because I didn't realize I was cold until I got back.  I was just fine while I was out there."

[TootsNYC]

I have a manager who will say something similar.  We live in NJ but she's from Long Island. We have had customers sometimes who are from there originally, and lets say their last time is something common, but not as common as Smith or Jones. Let's say Anderson. So she will then say, oh, I knew someone in x town on LI with that name. Are you related?

Or someone will comment about someone they know in a particular profession in an area, and she will pipe up and ask their name, since in spite of their being thousands of accountants in such and such a town, this one person she knows MIGHT be the one they are talking about.

One of my DH's cousins was visiting us and was invited to my friend's house with us for dinner. My friend that was hosting is from Texas. When Cousin found out, he said, "Oh I know 'so-n-so' from Texas. Do you know him?" My friend just blinked and I busted out laughing and reminded him how large Texas is to which he sheepishly smiled.

On a flip note a friend of DH's was visiting his wife's home town in Texas. He met her childhood friend and mentioned he was in a band (back in NYC). The friend said "I have a nephew in a band in NYC - do you know him?" and lo & behold the wife's childhood friend was my DH's aunt. It does happen.

Oh I agree. I had something similar happen to me one summer in college. I’m from NJ, but was living at the beach in DE, waitressing. We had someone new start, and while I forget where she was from, she went to school in SC.  So one weekend she mentions she was heading to NJ to see her boyfriend. Without even asking, I had this feeling I would know him. So I said where, and she mentioned my hometown, and then I asked who, and sure enough, it was someone I had gone to school with from 4th grade on!

I did this as a JOKE! and had it turn into a link.

I interned in NYC on a national program and met Danny T., a fellow intern. He was from Overland Park, KS; went to school at KU; member of a specific fraternity. So a few years later I'm at a roof party in NYC and meet someone from a suburb of Kansas City. Overland Park. So I say, jokingly, "Oh, do you know Danny T.?" (Overland Park is not the smallest town int he world!) She looks at me funny and says, "His mom and my mom play bridge!"

(Danny T. popped up several times like that, but in most of the other situations there was a link--same fraternity even if different schools; same profession. This one was really out of the blue)

[LazyDaisy]

LazyDaisy wrote:

"I understand why too. From what I understand, the Native Americans are considered "sovereign nations" within the borders of the US."

Considering that the vast majority of the geography of the United States used to be Native American land and the whole concept of Manifest Destiny was wound up in conflict with Native American nations, this is too far a stretch to be valid.  For close to a century people born into NA tribes on reservations are considered American citizens by the U.S. government, so at least for the "present day" part of the class they're learning about a segment of the American population.

"In some areas of the south western US, we have a shared history with Mexico (think of all the Spanish missions along the California coast or the Mexican American war), but taking a course solely on Mexican history doesn't really = US history."

Since you mentioned it, would studying the history of California from the 1500's through the present day not count because a good portion of that would be Mexican history?  As I said, present day NA people (in the U.S. of course) are American citizens by birth.

Virg

The US is a political entity with a defined beginning. If you only mean the geographic area of North America, then the study of paleolithic peoples would count as "US History." According to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, Native Americans have a dual citizenship. Attaining US citizenship is guaranteed by birth and attaining tribal citizenship depends on blood and heritage, and the rules governing it vary by tribe. They might have a shared history but that doesn't equal US History. If it did, you could argue then that studying British history is the same as US history since so many of our founding fathers and early settlements were British. Or then French and Spanish history is the same as US history since large parts of what is today part of the US, was once under their control. So no, I don't believe studying "California" history would count as US History prior to 1846 as it wasn't a part of the US until then, and not a state in the union until 1850.

[hobish]

Thanks to this thread I went and read Judges chapter 19, and now I need an adult. And brain bleach. And that machine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. 

Hi, I'm Tea Drinker, and I will be your adult for the afternoon. Would you like a cup of tea or hot chocolate?

(Sorry, I have no brain bleach, but maybe some nice soothing music?)

I just had to chime in and tell you how much i love this. 

[kherbert05]

Not a conversation exchange but something I read. On the website microaggressions.com (which requires massive sanity points and cans of diet coke to read  ), there was the following anecdote:

"At my school, the Introduction to Native Americans class, which covers the history of Native Americans from pre-Contact to present day, does not count towards the United States History general education requirement."

                  

Was it a history class? Or was it under a different department like sociology or some type of cultural studies? Also how in the world did they cover all the Native American cultures in one class. Even doing something general over the big cultural groups would be difficult.