Early in School We Celebrated Two Great Presidents in February...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Lincoln's Birthday passed without most people even considering the Great Emancipator, sadly we took two holidays and made them one taking away much of the meaning of the holidays. Next week on the 20th we'll celebrate "President's Day" clumping in crappy Presidents with mediocre ones to celebrate "all of the Great Presidents"...

While later that same week, on the 22nd another of the Greats will be ignored, Washington.

This sucks for so many different reasons. First that one of our school days off was ripped from us, the second that we ignore the actual reasons that we created those two holidays to begin with...

Just my two cents.
 
I hate the fact that it technically celebrates a traitor named John Tyler. Also, I really have a lot of issues with many of the men who have held the office (Jackson, Wilson, etc.). Washington and Lincoln deserved to have their birthdays honored.
 
I hate change just for the sake of hating, as much as as other reason.
Sarcasm, I agree with the above. I hate PC bullshit as much for the sake of hating...
 
Damocles said:
Lincoln's Birthday passed without most people even considering the Great Emancipator, sadly we took two holidays and made them one taking away much of the meaning of the holidays. Next week on the 20th we'll celebrate "President's Day" clumping in crappy Presidents with mediocre ones to celebrate "all of the Great Presidents"...

While later that same week, on the 22nd another of the Greats will be ignored, Washington.

This sucks for so many different reasons. First that one of our school days off was ripped from us, the second that we ignore the actual reasons that we created those two holidays to begin with...

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

It gets worse, unless the teacher is supplementing the lessons with outside materials beyond the text, no mention of 'why' they were great is really given. Lincoln scores slightly better because slavery was evil. Washington? An emphasis is placed upon his desire to 'appear' great, illustrations are included. Since most grammar school teachers have little history themselves, they are unaware of the text biases and indoctrination.
 
Its true that Washington put a lot of effort into appearing great, but its generally something you don't learn much about, so most people aren't aware. The book he published about proper manners is one example of Washington trying to appear very high class. However, the fact is that Washington managed to succeed at his ambition of becoming great, so it all works out in the end. His presidency was much more than him striving to appear "presidential" and to set a powerful precedent for the office.
 
General Chamberlain said:
Its true that Washington put a lot of effort into appearing great, but its generally something you don't learn much about, so most people aren't aware. The book he published about proper manners is one example of Washington trying to appear very high class. However, the fact is that Washington managed to succeed at his ambition of becoming great, so it all works out in the end. His presidency was much more than him striving to appear "presidential" and to set a powerful precedent for the office.
Click to expand...
Anyone under 20 is more than aware of these things, thus
its generally something you don't learn much about, so most people aren't aware.
Click to expand...
is not generally true or grammatically correct.
 
Annie said:
Anyone under 20 is more than aware of these things, thus is not generally true or grammatically correct.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean about my grammar, but I can see some problems with young people who study Washington. For one thing, as you aluded to, his presidency lacked a defining, moral absolute which needed combating, such as slavery (and the American South, if you are a good Yankee) or Nazism. In addition, Americans today have such a hard time understanding how the colonists felt threatened by the British that they might not even consider his military career as all that big of a crusade. Who cares if taxes are high, regulations are plentiful, liberties are restricted, and government is too involved? Just so long as SOPA doesn't pass, and we get to keep our internet, Washington's legacy just doesn't seem so important.
 
General Chamberlain said:
I don't know what you mean about my grammar, but I can see some problems with young people who study Washington. For one thing, as you aluded to, his presidency lacked a defining, moral absolute which needed combating, such as slavery (and the American South, if you are a good Yankee) or Nazism. In addition, Americans today have such a hard time understanding how the colonists felt threatened by the British that they might not even consider his military career as all that big of a crusade. Who cares if taxes are high, regulations are plentiful, liberties are restricted, and government is too involved? Just so long as SOPA doesn't pass, and we get to keep our internet, Washington's legacy just doesn't seem so important.
Click to expand...

You are a tool, who's? Debatable.
 
Annie said:
You are a tool, who's? Debatable.
Click to expand...

I think you are in agreement, but see a debate. 3D is a history major lamenting the fact that most people don't understand why these Presidents were singled out for such an honor and giving likely current reasons for the missing education on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top