Tfw your history teacher tells your class war movies and grand strategy games have "militarized" your minds

>tfw your history teacher tells your class war movies and grand strategy games have "militarized" your minds
>tfw your history teacher tells you that military history or war history isn't going to be taught in the class so the class can be "demilitarized" by the time they leave
>tfw your history teacher uses the words "plugging the school to militarization pipeline" describing her class

History without wars is boring

>tfw your college prof tries to convince the class that the space program was faked by a Jewish conspiracy

Well, you better tell her that microhistory ain't got shit on positivistic history and that she better starts teaching you about great persons and great events before you delve into historicism.

>tfw your history teacher was member of the Party
>tfw she said that holodomor never happened
>tfw she said that nazis were killing anyone who wasn't blonde with blue eyes
>tfw she genuinely thought that Poland won the WW2

>mfw my philosophy professor spends an entire week attempting to demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job

Not a single one of us protested, and we engaged in serious discussion on the topic. I was honestly flabbergasted, just stunned that the curriculum was passed after review.

>tfw you had a prof who kept calling both protestant and catholic Christianity "oppressive discourses" or "hegemonic narratives"

>tfw when your history teachrr thinks war of attrition and pyrrhic victory are the same thing
>tfw she thinks it was because of a battle between sparta and athens and one athenian was left

>mfw i don't want to seem like a dick so i just sit there

I bet he's a NU male

...

military history is literally the only reason why i like history

Report him to authorities
Depending on how old his students are he could be foreign spy or traitor trying to make children unpatriotic

that's not how you do things in a free society where people are allowed to express their opinions, buddy

Freedom is shit though.

How the fuck do you teach American history then.

"JESUS WENT TO AMERICA, WROTE A BOOK IN EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHS, AND THE ANGEL MORONI TOLD THIS TO A CONFIDENCE TRICKSTER AND KNOWN LIAR AND THIS WAS HOW AMERICA WAS BORN?"

Mormonism isn't even real, for fuck's sake.

>When the history teacher won't teach you any history, only what a Primary source and a Secondary source is for the entire year.

>The only thing I remember was the grauballe man

Important points, but drilling this into us killed any interest I had in history.

Anyone else suffer this?

>How the fuck do you teach American history then.

1. Slavery
2. Civil Right Movement
3. Obama

That's basically how we encompassed US history in my highschool
It was in English class (Im French), we learned English through studying US history (well, the parts mentionned)

>tfw your history prof is an angry Catholic neo-monarchist who tells protestant, atheist and jewish students they're damned for hell, and says he wishes the American revolutionaries and English reformers had been castrated and hanged
>tfw half the lectures are in Spanish because your prof says it's the language of "real men, with real family values" and calls English "the tongue of savages"

haha what. how is that philosophy?

Might have been a demonstration of the postmodern "anything can be true because reality is just made of discourses and ideologies" thought line

>Catholics are still assmad about Henry telling them to fuck off
>Spain is still assmad about getting BTFO by England

...

I wut.

Without the Revolutionary War, there wouldn't even be an America to begin with.

And while the Civil Rights Movement had its roots in slavery, it wasn't until after TWO World wars and a civil war which siwed the seeds for that to happen.

How in the world did you even learn how all of that happened without any context whatsoever.

>Her
Found the problem.

>Tfw your history teacher says the Praetorian Guard was made of "elite viking warriors"
>Tfw your history teacher says the Romans avoided conquering Sparta
>Tfw your history teacher said Spartans defeated an army of Vandals sacking Constantinople in AD428
>Tfw your history teacher said Rome could field 60k troops at the height of the Empire
>Tfw your history teacher said the Gladius was 6 inches long
>Tfw your history teacher says the EU was formed to restore the glory of the Roman Empire
What the fuck do I even do?

Quote Voltaire.

Tell that to the Texas school board

>Tfw your history teacher says the Praetorian Guard was made of "elite viking warriors"
How the fuck do they let someone who doesn't know the difference between 4th century Roman Republic and 10th century Byzantine Empire teach about Rome?

T. Godless commie bastard

Muy bueno jajaja

> the laziest nationality in the history of the world having anything to say about being manly

they conquered Mexico with a handful of guys.

Can't call me a spaniard lover either, i'm Alberto Barbosa. They have been our main enemy for centuries, and you can call them many things, stupid, intolerant, and lazy. But you can't call them cowards. Bravery is their one quality.

Spaniards are the laziest? C'mon now

To be fair, when I learned French history in a US school as part of World History class it was

>Based Lafeyette
>French Revolution
>WWI
>WWII

Those things were kind of taught in a vacuum. It's not like we covered the Franco Prussian war to discuss French history in WWI.

A history class shouldn't be soley centered around war. That would be stupid. If you were to take American history from 1980 to now and center the discussion on war you would learn very little about America.

Almost all major societal changes throughout our history have come from war. The fug.

>Gladius 6 inches long

How the hell does that even work?

>mistaking biological and identified gender

don't ever talk to me or my wife's son again

>tfw when I had a high school teacher who said the Armenian Genocide never happened.

>history professor
>openly expressing biases and omitting history because of biases

literally scum

War is an integral aspect of history, its got nothing to do with militarization or the military-industrial complex or whatever the fuck, its about understanding & interpreting the who what where when and whys of history. You cant do that for pretty much every period in human history because pretty much every period in human history has had wars define it to a degree.

I can underatand the vaccuum part

But did your teacher or you textbook at least give the context in passing?

im guessing your american but if not correct me
last i checked pushing ones political position on students as a teacher is illegal

>senior seminar course
>research anything
>only requirement is using an archive based source
>write paper
>she says it didn't meet the basic requirements if the class

I'm storming her office on Monday, what kind of self riteous douchebag prevents someone from graduating?!

>History without wars is boring
History without wars is limited in scope because wars are kind of important

did he died?

Real talk though my two least favourite history teachers were female. One was a fat jew who just kinda ignored most of the class. Giving alot of attention to a small circle of students. She was also a big Dr Who and BBT fan.

The other was an old lesbian who was big on the history of sexuality and gender roles. She was alright I guess, but I couldn't of given less of a shit about the shit she was teaching.

>Random user complaining about not having seen enough wars in the school
Not surprised.

>tfw history teacher sent you to the cotton fields to teach you about slavery
>tfw history teacher made you walk 1000 li to experience the long march first hand
>tfw history teacher made you spend a week camping in a ditch while he shot fireworks at you to simulate WW1
>tfw history teacher would designate students to be his 'secret police' and they would wedgie those who submitted essays he disagreed with, but they ended up just wedgieing whoever they personally disliked while the teacher turned a blind eye
>tfw he made all the nerdy kids wear giant badges because "that's how the jews were treated in Germany."

sounds pretty based desu.

It was pretty cool bullying the nerds.
That is until we started learning about the nuremberg trials.

This hole thread triggers me.

How the fuck are these cunts allowed to teach?

He deserved it if so.

>teacher wants to teach you about zimbabwe
>he's replaced by Mr Johnson, the PE Teacher who knows nothing about history
>bullied by the black students until you are forced to leave class

>enjoying military history
ha
ha
ha
Literally the most pleb aspect of history. It's just recitation of dates and events, there's no analysis or depth.

>TFW only history teacher worth a damn was a literal and unapalogetic 7" tall cultural marxist who was genuinely a Viet-nam-era hippie who unironically owned and quoted from a copy of Mao's Little Red Book
An interesting experience, desu

bullshit

>tfw learning about Chinese History
>Can't do too well otherwise the teacher will send you to learn from the Chinese peasents

but you get to act it out with miniatures or office supplies
granted you can do it with other aspects of history, but it's less dynamic

Good thing nobody has suggested that.

Are professors the only people in academia with these far out bordering on retarded beliefs?

Well, she's right. You're a fucking idiot if you seriously think that a basic video-game level of tactical vocabulary and familiarity with the names of a few generals in a few wars is the same as knowledge of history.

>wars are kind of important

Wars are the most important, in my honest opinion. Nothing is more world changing than wars.

What makes you think that's true?

>tfw Biochem professor launches into a rant about 9/11 being faked and nobody calls him out on it because his brother died in one of the towers
>50 min we should have been going over amino acids were spent dissecting how fast the towers had fallen and why WTC 7 collapsed when nothing was hittin it
>mfw he comes in the following day like nothing had happened

Because wars, especially the big ones of focus such as the Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, and obviously the World Wars have decided the political fate of the countries that participate, and then again of those who do or did not.

Everything within an operating country is the matter of politics above it. War is what happens when politics can go no further. That is why, I believe.

>mfw half of my history professors have told us all to pay attention to tabloids because they're as reliable as the mainstream media
>mfw this is part of my justification for browsing /pol/

That seems pretty stupid, though. Are you saying the most important changes happen during wartime?

they are
are you saying they are not?

>Are you saying the most important changes happen during wartime?
Literally yes.

Glad to see someone here isn't an idiot. Cheers friend.

>Tfw your history teacher said Rome could field 60k troops at the height of the Empire
How a history teacher be this delusion. There were 80k at the battle of Cannae alone.

>unironically owned and quoted from a copy of Mao's Little Red Book
One of our members of Parliament has quoted from it in a speech.

I'm saying this is an illiterate opinion. Economic development is significantly impeded by war. Economic change is the actual substance of history. Wars, especially in terms of the composition of armies, are caused by changes in economic structures and attitudes.

>Economic change is the actual substance of history
>Wars, especially in terms of the composition of armies, are caused by changes in economic structures and attitude

Yes, because the largest wars of all time, and thus the most catastrophic and overall affective ones, were all based on economic changes.

Yeah, and I'm the illiterate one.

What do you mean by 'based on' and what's your point? It honestly seems like you're supporting mine. What you've said is true. The 30 Years War was a consequence of class conflict between Protestant nobles benefiting from early capitalism and the Catholic Church's clerical grip over the HRE. The Cold War was a competition for control over various economic zones and a contest in keeping an economy expanding at a faster rate than the other side of the world. WWII was largely caused by the Great Depression, and also by the economic conditions forced on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles; the Pacific War was entirely about resources and the Japanese need to expand the Empire to sustain the production of its military.
I ask you again: what is your point?

Not the guy you're responding to, but I'm still not sure how you're making a point against teaching war as an important part of history - you're just arguing economics is the catalyst for war. If war is competition based on economics, then surely it logically follows that whoever wins that war/how that war is conducted is going to have some impact on the economic landscape.

>you're just arguing economics is the catalyst for war.
I'm not using a hamfisted analogy like that, I'm arguing that war is not the most important thing in history or in the study of history.
>If war is competition based on economics, then surely it logically follows that whoever wins that war/how that war is conducted is going to have some impact on the economic landscape.
Irrelevant. As important as what is destroyed in war is what is built up in the time between wars and what happens off the battlefield, outside of command hierarchies, and outside of supply lines during wars.

but it didn't

Ah I see. Well, to add to the debate, I imagine the reasons wars are honed in on is because they're the visible outcome of economic change - which (although enlighten me if I'm wrong) I imagine is a lot harder to quantify and track than wars.

In any case, and on a less academic level, it's relatively easy to know why historians focus on wars - they're the soap operas of history. They have all of the excitement and colourful characters. For obvious reasons it just captures people more.

That's true. So instead the teacher should be teaching them proper millitary history. Simply ignoring it will allow misconceptions of war to fester.

>I imagine the reasons wars are honed in on is because they're the visible outcome of economic change
They're discussed because they're significant events in and of themselves. It's absurd, however, to try to act as if military history is *THE* essence of history and *THE* area wherein historical reason is expected to demonstrate its powers.
>They have all of the excitement and colourful characters. For obvious reasons it just captures people more.
I think a more obvious reason is that an idiot who thinks military history is and should be the center of historical focus is more likely to join an army voluntarily. The "soap operas of history" are the daily lives of ordinary people.

Who cares if children have misconceptions about war? It isn't the duty of the school system to produce soldiers. We have armies for that. Students in school should be educated on how to maintain the country in the future, not on how to fight a war.
Fucking idiot.

>The 30 Years War was a consequence of class conflict between Protestant nobles benefiting from early capitalism and the Catholic Church's clerical grip over the HRE.
>class conflict between Protestant nobles benefiting from early capitalism
>Protestant nobles benefiting from early capitalism
Seriously? In short, The 30 Years War was entirely about political and religious power. At the beginning it was about religious control, and by the end, it was entirely about political control - they didn't even invite the Papacy to the peace signing in Westphalia because one of the largest developments of the war was European nations now showing the papacy that they were in control of their nations - not him.

>The Cold War was a competition for control over various economic zones and a contest in keeping an economy expanding at a faster rate than the other side of the world.
That's a part of the Cold War. I think you're decisively avoiding my point to assert your own here. The main target of the Cold War was politics, not economics. Economics is certainly a part under politics, but not the main and most important driving force. The two main blocs being obviously the US and USSR certainly wanted economic cooperation around the world from their own allies and partners, trying to get as many as possible, but economics is only decided by overhead politics.

1/2

2/2

>WWII was largely caused by the Great Depression, and also by the economic conditions forced on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.
>WWII was largely caused by the Great Depression
>caused by the Great Depression
I'm not even going to acknowledge this. This is truly your stupidest point, and you've clearly never even opened a fucking book or sat in a lecture before.

>the Pacific War was entirely about resources and the Japanese need to expand the Empire to sustain the production of its military.
What an annoyingly and ignorantly America-centric opinion. Sure, the Americans had once been important trade partners for the Japanese and the Japs needed that connection, and were angered by the US dropping it on them, but how can you so ignorantly disregard all of the Japanese expansion throughout the South Pacific Asian countries and their entire war in China, which mind you, was far more massive than the one in the Pacific? The Pacific War had numbers in the thousands, whilst the Sino-Japanese one had them in the millions. That war was entirely based on Japanese expansionism, whilst the Pacific War was started by Japan by trying to bloody America's nose, and as a threat to keep them out of the war (certainly a stupid and foolish 'threat' which backfired tremendously upon the Japs).

>Seriously?
Yes, you ought to read about it sometime.
> The main target of the Cold War was politics, not economics.
Fucking comical. Read a book.

> but how can you so ignorantly disregard all of the Japanese expansion throughout the South Pacific Asian countries and their entire war in China
But that's literally what I was referring to, you fucking idiot. Did you seriously think I was suggesting that Pearl Harbor was part of a Japanese plot to annex Hawaii for resources?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you seriously think it's healthy to have a nation full of people who know nothing about war? Do you want people to vote without understanding what war entails or the gravity of its consequences? How can you even teach history while skipping over wars?

>How can you even teach history while skipping over wars?
I don't understand why you think teaching children about a war means teaching children how to fight in one.

Where did I imply the teacher needs to teach kids how to fight a war?
I feel like either you or I misunderstand the term "war history"

What should they be taught, then?

well, what did you write about? maybe your paper just sucks.