Hillary Clinton displays astonishing lack of knowledge

[Broomstick]

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one.

Not even ancient history? No roman , greek or egyptian history?

Nope. Never required.

I took ancient Middle East history as an elective in college. It covered ancient Egypt along with Sumaria, Babylon, and a bunch of others, but consider that it was only one semester and we obviously spread the time over several civilizations so the depth on any one was limited.

Needless to say, nothing on Asia or pre-European invasion Americas, either.

[ray245]

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one.

Not even ancient history? No roman , greek or egyptian history?

Nope. Never required.

I took ancient Middle East history as an elective in college. It covered ancient Egypt along with Sumaria, Babylon, and a bunch of others, but consider that it was only one semester and we obviously spread the time over several civilizations so the depth on any one was limited.

Needless to say, nothing on Asia or pre-European invasion Americas, either.

Is there any other nation that has ensured that their people even have a brief idea what is going on beyond their regions if you are not pursuing a history degree? Like Learning about Roman History if you are living in Asia and learning about Japanese history if you are living and growing up in Europe?



I remember the only time we did anything related to the middle ages in Europe is a case study on Venice. Other than that, my seniors used to study about 18-19th century European history a few years back in Junior college, however now we are only learning about the cold war as a whole and the whole war in South East Asia.

[TC Pilot]

American public education has shifted back a bit more toward history, if only just so. Odds are, you'll cover American history in at least once in every level of schooling, with brief surveys of European history in junior high, and brief surveys of world history in high school, with emphasis on Europe and the major ancient civilizations.

Obviously, there's very little actual depth to any of them, and odds are you'll overdose on the Holocaust and black civil rights movement by the time you're done, but you can't really expect much more than a survey.

[Darth Wong]

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one.

Not even ancient history? No roman , greek or egyptian history?

Why is that any more important than, for example, ancient Korean history?

If Americans knew more about the last hundred years of their own country's history, they would be a lot better off. As it is, they're taught that American history has huge gaps in it. There's apparently a Revolutionary War, then ... nothing ... until the Civil War, and then ... nothing ... until a chapter or so on World War 1, and then ... nothing ... until World War 2, which was started by Pearl Harbour, evil because of the Holocaust, and ended by nukes, and then ... nothing ... until the Civil Rights movement. It's all the shit that happened in those periods of "uninteresting" history that people need to know more about.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why is that any more important than, for example, ancient Korean history?

In objective terms, not much at all. Though Roman history is important for its implications on modern Western law and political philosophy, and Greek history is mostly notable for its development of philosophy and early mathematics. As for the literal "what did they GREAT MEN of these cultures do?" - there's really no objective reason for that to be more important than the same for ancient Korean history, aside from ethnocentricism.

[Darth Wong]

Whenever I hear people go on about the importance of learning about Greco-Roman history, it is usually people who don't even like mathematics or philosophy. As for legalistic thinking (which is paradoxically popular even though people profess to hate lawyers), let's be honest, you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome. It seems more like cultural snobbery to me, like learning Latin and pretending it's really useful.

[Bounty]

It seems more like cultural snobbery to me, like learning Latin and pretending it's really useful.

It is useful when you're learning other European languages. Grammar and vocabulary make a lot more sense when you know where their initial construction comes from.

you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome

Perhaps nothing immediately practical, but it's still useful to know how and why things like written law arose. Knowing which systems failed in the past and why is still relevant knowledge today.

[Darth Wong]

It seems more like cultural snobbery to me, like learning Latin and pretending it's really useful.

It is useful when you're learning other European languages. Grammar and vocabulary make a lot more sense when you know where their initial construction comes from.

Bullshit. You can study the inter-relationship of related languages directly, rather than going two thousand years back to study a language from which they are now far more removed than they are from each other. This is like saying that you need to study the history of audio recording in order to know how to make an audio recording. You might learn a bit about it along the way, but it's totally inefficient and unnecessary.

Perhaps nothing immediately practical, but it's still useful to know how and why things like written law arose. Knowing which systems failed in the past and why is still relevant knowledge today.

That's a stupid defense. Any kind of knowledge is potentially "relevant" in some situation or other, but that doesn't mean it should receive priority.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Whenever I hear people go on about the importance of learning about Greco-Roman history, it is usually people who don't even like mathematics or philosophy. As for legalistic thinking (which is paradoxically popular even though people profess to hate lawyers), let's be honest, you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome. It seems more like cultural snobbery to me, like learning Latin and pretending it's really useful.

You won't learn much about math learning about Greece either. Philosophy is the main reason to discuss Greek and Roman thinkers, and that is just to cite the original people who wrote down such and such basic idea, as a primer before moving on to the real stuff of the Renaissance and scientific revolution. I agree, most of what people self-importantly call "important history" is an excuse for name-dropping and faux-Victorian aristocrat pretensions of having a well-rounded "classical education". Its really mostly trivia from a utility point of view. It would be nice if people thought through the adoration of the Founders for Republican Rome with real historical thinking - this was a bunch of modern slave-owning aristocrats who fancied themselves like the early Roman Republicans, of building a great nation from scratch in barbarism to protect their prerogatives and greatness, just like the aristocratic slave-owning Romans and their Republic before them.

[Bounty]

It seems more like cultural snobbery to me, like learning Latin and pretending it's really useful.

It is useful when you're learning other European languages. Grammar and vocabulary make a lot more sense when you know where their initial construction comes from.

Bullshit. You can study the inter-relationship of related languages directly, rather than going two thousand years back to study a language from which they are now far more removed than they are from each other.

Forget inter-relationships, Latin makes learning any language related to it easier. Hell, it even makes learning non-related languages easier; it's usually the first language people come across they don't understand intuitively and learning it teaches the methods and principles that apply to translating any language.

But hey, don't take my word for it; I only studied Latin for six years on top of German and French. I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say it has been extremely useful.

[Darth Wong]

Forget inter-relationships, Latin makes learning any language related to it easier. Hell, it even makes learning non-related languages easier; it's usually the first language people come across they don't understand intuitively and learning it teaches the methods and principles that apply to translating any language.

But hey, don't take my word for it; I only studied Latin for six years on top of German and French. I'm sure I have no idea what I'm talking about when I say it has been extremely useful.

Again, you spout bullshit. It doesn't have to be completely useless for my point to be valid. It only has to be more inefficient than simply studying those languages directly. The fact that you spent so many years studying it hardly substantiates your implicit claim that it cuts net time off the learning curve for languages.

[Bounty]

Again, you spout bullshit. It doesn't have to be completely useless for my point to be valid. It only has to be more inefficient than simply studying those languages directly.

So how do you determine what is "more inefficient"?

[Darth Wong]

Again, you spout bullshit. It doesn't have to be completely useless for my point to be valid. It only has to be more inefficient than simply studying those languages directly.

So how do you determine what is "more inefficient"?

Any time you spend learning Latin must be subtracted from the time savings in learning other languages. If it equals or exceeds those time savings, then it is inefficient. So, unless you shaved off so much time from learning French that it exceeded 100% of the time you spent learning Latin, it was inefficient.

PS. You're talking to a Canadian. There are millions of people in this country who learn French as a second language without learning Latin first.

[Thanas]

As for legalistic thinking (which is paradoxically popular even though people profess to hate lawyers), let's be honest, you won't learn much about law by studying the history of ancient Rome.

Actually, speaking as both an ancient historian and as a lawyer, you learn an extraordinarily huge amount of European laws and legal principles just by looking at the Codex Iuris Civilis and the different traditions.

Same goes for learning about Rome and ancient Greece in general because these two people are the cornerstone of European civilization. Admittedly, for canadians this might differ, but for Europeans I would say everyone should have covered it in school at the very least.

Again, you spout bullshit. It doesn't have to be completely useless for my point to be valid. It only has to be more inefficient than simply studying those languages directly.

So how do you determine what is "more inefficient"?

Any time you spend learning Latin must be subtracted from the time savings in learning other languages. If it equals or exceeds those time savings, then it is inefficient. So, unless you shaved off so much time from learning French that it exceeded 100% of the time you spent learning Latin, it was inefficient.

Well, IMO this would depend on how many foreign languages one learns. If one is learning both French, Spanish and Italian then Latin does come in handy, or at least it did for me. How many foreign languages did you learn, btw?
Now, as long as one only learns one foreign language, then he should only spent time learning that language, obviously.

EDIT: Bounty is right that Latin does save a lot of time learning romano-languages. And IMO, having learnt three, it is well worth the expense in time.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing you say substantiates the conceit that you can learn about A faster by learning about B and then learning about A, unless the time spent learning about B is very small and the time savings in learning about A are huge. Nobody is even willing to go on record claiming that you actually get 100% of your time back, because you don't know if you do, and if you're honest, you'll admit that it's pretty damned doubtful.

As for learning multiple languages, that doesn't fly either. Plenty of people learn those languages directly without learning Latin, because you pick them up faster once you know a couple of them, with or without Latin in your arsenal.

[General Zod]

Well, IMO this would depend on how many foreign languages one learns. If one is learning both French, Spanish and Italian then Latin does come in handy, or at least it did for me. How many foreign languages did you learn, btw?
Now, as long as one only learns one foreign language, then he should only spent time learning that language, obviously.

EDIT: Bounty is right that Latin does save a lot of time learning romano-languages. And IMO, having learnt three, it is well worth the expense in time.

Of course if you're learning anything that isn't a romance-based language, Latin's not going to be terribly useful since they aren't going to share any common roots that aren't loan words.

[Thanas]

Nothing you say substantiates the conceit that you can learn about A faster by learning about B and then learning about A, unless the time spent learning about B is very small and the time savings in learning about A are huge. Nobody is even willing to go on record claiming that you actually get 100% of your time back, because you don't know if you do, and if you're honest, you'll admit that it's pretty damned doubtful.

Eh...I think you are misreading my post. I am actually agreeing with you on that part, as I wrote in my post:

Now, as long as one only learns one foreign language, then he should only spent time learning that language, obviously.

Like I said, if you are learning just one foreign language, then go and learn that one directly.

As for learning multiple languages, that doesn't fly either. Plenty of people learn those languages directly without learning Latin, because you pick them up faster once you know a couple of them, with or without Latin in your arsenal.

I dispute this from personal experience. How many foreign languages have you learned? And I mean "learned enough to read a standard novel in"? Do you speak a romano-language or have you ever learnt latin?

Latin is the root for all romano-based languages. I maintain from personal experience that as long as you know one of them and Latin, you can get by in the other countries.

Of course if you're learning anything that isn't a romance-based language, Latin's not going to be terribly useful since they aren't going to share any common roots that aren't loan words.

That is of course correct and goes without saying, really.

[General Zod]

That is of course correct and goes without saying, really.

Except for Bounty's bizarre claim that it somehow makes learning languages not related to it easier.

[Darth Wong]

Nothing you say substantiates the conceit that you can learn about A faster by learning about B and then learning about A, unless the time spent learning about B is very small and the time savings in learning about A are huge. Nobody is even willing to go on record claiming that you actually get 100% of your time back, because you don't know if you do, and if you're honest, you'll admit that it's pretty damned doubtful.

Eh...I think you are misreading my post. I am actually agreeing with you on that part, as I wrote quote obviously in my post:

Now, as long as one only learns one foreign language, then he should only spent time learning that language, obviously.

Actually, I was talking about the bit you said concerning law. It may be interesting for personal reasons, but there's no way you would actually make up for it in time savings learning law directly, and you can't cite Roman precedent in a court case.

As for learning multiple languages, that doesn't fly either. Plenty of people learn those languages directly without learning Latin, because you pick them up faster once you know a couple of them, with or without Latin in your arsenal.

I dispute this from personal experience. How many foreign languages have you learned? And I mean "learned enough to read a standard novel in"? Do you speak a romano-language or have you ever learnt latin?

What part of it do you dispute? The part about how many people have learned multiple romantic languages without studying Latin? The part about how people get faster at it when they already have a couple of them under their belts? Admittedly, I'm taking the word of other people on this rather than having done it myself, but your appeal to personal authority is wearing thin. You aren't even saying what is wrong with my statement other than to vaguely imply that you must be right because you have learned Latin. You don't even have a control group so your personal authority is worthless: you don't know how quickly you would have learned those languages if you didn't know Latin.

[Thunderfire]

Believe it or not, throughout all my years of schooling, through the receipt of my college degree, I had not one class in European history. Not one.

Not even ancient history? No roman , greek or egyptian history?

Why is that any more important than, for example, ancient Korean history?

Most americans have ancestors from europe and these countries influenced western culture. e.g. the rise of christianity under emperor constantine.

[Master of Ossus]

If Americans knew more about the last hundred years of their own country's history, they would be a lot better off. As it is, they're taught that American history has huge gaps in it. There's apparently a Revolutionary War, then ... nothing ... until the Civil War, and then ... nothing ... until a chapter or so on World War 1, and then ... nothing ... until World War 2, which was started by Pearl Harbour, evil because of the Holocaust, and ended by nukes, and then ... nothing ... until the Civil Rights movement. It's all the shit that happened in those periods of "uninteresting" history that people need to know more about.

Actually, that's not at all how Americans are taught history, now. Have you looked at recent AP tests or US history textbooks? Various American Wars account for MAYBE 5% of school materials. The vast bulk of the test is taken up by various rights movements (huge), legislative actions (and a few court decisions), economic shifts and changes, and the political process and federal structure.

People might remember the wars because those are the things that stand out the most and they're what Steven Spielberg makes movies to showcase, but that's not what they're being taught in the classroom.

[Darth Wong]

So ... people just act as if they've never seen certain phenomena before because they're simply stupid, not because they're not being taught these historical precedents in school?

[Master of Ossus]

So ... people just act as if they've never seen certain phenomena before because they're simply stupid, not because they're not being taught these historical precedents in school?

People are REALLY fucking stupid. I'm sure if you asked most people about anything detailed about any of the wars you went over they'd have trouble going beyond "Washington once crossed the Delaware," and "We were fighting Germany and Japan." People just don't understand history, in general: it's not really a bias in the teaching.

[Bounty]

That is of course correct and goes without saying, really.

Except for Bounty's bizarre claim that it somehow makes learning languages not related to it easier.

If you study Latin, not just to translate it but to understand the basics, you get a feel for the way language itself is constructed, and you learn the methodology to analyse a sentence in any language and understand its structure. It's general principles you can transplant onto any other language.

[ray245]

Most americans have ancestors from europe and these countries influenced western culture. e.g. the rise of christianity under emperor constantine.

However, why should we give European history a greater weightage just because of the fact that most people have European ancestry as opposed to Asian or African ancestry?

A lack of study in regards to other cultures and region will only serve to reinforce a person's pride about his or her cultural background and have a greater disregard other people's ancestry as inferior so to speak.