History teacher dumb dumb...

[SCTiger]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

Well they did show a picture of the Morse Carbine. If you are uncertain about a topic concerning history, as a teacher you can call in in somebody with specialized knowledge. That shows your pupils that you don't everything and that you rely on other scholars to answer specific questions. This is the future as more and more Americans have less exposure to firearms and shooting hobbies.

[Backus]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

wow.... I now feel dead on the inside. I guess there is no hope for the educational system.

[Michael Comer]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

Wow! I really learned a lot from that! Now that's some education material!:sarcastic

I am at least somewhat heartenend by the comments calling attention to her complete lack of knowledge about the subject. Makes you wonder where they found this 'teacher'.

[Dbackfed]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

To this teacher:

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[lojafan]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

Jason:

Thanks for the laugh, I havnt had a good one in quite a while!

[tater_cuffie]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

ha ha wtf?

[MarkTK36thIL]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

ha ha wtf?

Billy Madison FTW

[rebpvt1864]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

Wow! I'm dumbfounded. i guess all i know is wrong!

[csuniforms]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

I laughed too....then I cried....I want to hear her discuss Civil War uniforms next.

CSuniforms
Tom Arliskas

[EasySam]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

Oh Nooooo. Don't ya'll know that this was a Saturday Night Live sketch. Wasn't it?

[BarryDusel]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

I'm flabbergasted. There are NO words to describe the stupidity of what we've all witnessed.

[Gallinipper]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

I want to hear her discuss Civil War uniforms next.

OK Tom, here you go.... Enjoy!

When the Civil War broke out, the US Army was wearing the same color blue uniforms which it had been wearing since the Revolutionary War, when blue was chosen to differentiate it from the red coats of the British soldiers. The typical basic uniform consisted of a small cap called a kepi, almost like a baseball cap but with a flat top which would fall down or "slouch" over the front, a long wool coat also called a "sack coat" because of the way it fit, a pair of lighter blue trousers also made of the same wool, and a pair of leather shoes which were made to fit easily onto either foot in case the soldier was in a hurry to put them on! The trousers were not like modern pants in that they did not have zippers and loops for belts. These trousers had to be held up by cotton suspenders instead, which were sewn directly onto the trousers. Large felt hats were also worn by some soldiers, to help protect the back of their necks from the elements. Judging from existing photographs, these were normally black or darker gray in color. Underwear and socks were not issued and the soldiers had to obtain their own or bring them from home. Normally a type of full length underwear called "long-johns" was worn and these also became popularly known as "union suits" by the Union soldiers who wore them. Since clothes would quickly wear out under the strain of battle, they would often be replaced at intervals depending on availability from the government. It would not be uncommon for some soldiers in a particular regiment to receive a new pair of trousers, while others in the same regiment might receive a new coat instead. Often this issued clothing would not fit, and soldiers had to trade among themselves to get an article which might provide a better fit.

In the Confederate army, things were much worse. The Confederate government did not have the clothing resources of the United States, and their soldiers usually suffered to stay adequately clothed and fed. At the start of the war, there was no prescribed uniform, and many of those who volunteered went into their first battle wearing uniforms they brought from home. Over time, a uniform color of gray was decided upon, to differentiate it from the blue coats of the Union soldiers. However, due to the blockade which was imposed by the North, both the clothing and the dyes for making this grayish color became more and more scarce. In many cases, Confederates had to resort to even capturing and dyeing their own uniforms. This dye was usually made in the field by grinding up nuts and other plants, and the result was usually more brown than gray! This is why the Confederates were often referred to as "Butternuts" later in the war. The typical Confederate uniform also consisted of the same items as the Union uniform, but were of much lesser quality. Generally, the same pattern of wool hats, coats and trousers were worn. Some Confederates also wore small jackets called "shells", which were shorter than coats and thus used less material. Many Confederate soldiers did not wear any underwear at all under their uniforms. Leather was also very scarce in the South, so often Confederates were frequently without shoes unless they could be obtained from captured Union prisoners or scavenged from the battlefield.

Source: Kid's First Reference Library

http://www.kidsreferencelibrary.com/civil_war/US.html

[John McPherson]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

I've noticed a few folks here indicting the entire profession or system based on this rather hilarious video or that of the anecdotal evidence provided within this thread. As a history teacher at the high school level in the Pacific Northwest, I take exception to blanket assertions such as those levied by a few here. The "guv'ment" or "public school" is not trying to dumb down the American student, much less take away your right to study the American Civil War. Frankly, the government doesn't have their act together enough to force such a thing. I think that they have their hands full chasing bin Laden, pacifying Iraq, interdicting illegal drug shipments, and bailing out failed banks & car companies.

I teach, or have taught, AP US History and standard US History. With the wide breadth of content that I have to cover within the confines of a school year, I do not have the luxury of spending two weeks to a month covering the material culture of the ACW, or any other war at that matter. Being a reenactor/living historian myself, this can be a challenge as I have delved liked many of you into the minutae of the common soldier's daily existence and possess a strong interest in communicating such things. But, I have to instead delicately weave this knowledge into conveying the broad ideas, main concepts, key turning points, and opposing viewpoints that define whatever period of we cover at the time.

What makes this video scary is its production & choice of speaker. First, the set design, that of a library of books behind the speaker seeks to portray the speaker (and whatever eminates from her lips) in a scholarly light. Try watching any cable news channel and their pundit interviews. Often you'll see this sort of set design/background when they want to convince you that the speaker actually knows something! A library of books in the background serves as a visual cue to the viewer that the speaker in the frame is a researched authority on the subject. Second, the woman in the video comes across as someone who is purportedly knowledgeable in history. Her tone, method of delivery, and body language evokes the professorial demeanor as seen in many historical documentaries. She shows comfort in the topic through her casual delivery, yet she is formal in the didactic pacing of her lines. At first glance, she sounds convincing. The scary part is revealed when one listens to her script. Her material is clearly incorrect.

Now, this video does not seem to be something that was produced in-house by a lone history teacher. It is too polished (set lighting, graphics, etc.). Furthermore, the speaker's accent indicates that she hails from the southeast. Could this video be a product of one state's department of education, a social studies council, or a textbook company? Whatever it is, this is the first time that I've seen it.

John McP

[GreencoatCross]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

My high school offered a Civil War history class which I was immediately excited about. Turns out that it was a depository for our class clowns and failing students. Despite the people in the class with me, I thought that at least I could enjoy myself and maybe learn something new; alas, the entire curriculum was based around watching The Blue & The Gray, and The North & The South. It was the saddest display of "education" I had ever seen, although definitely the Swayzest.

I went one step further and volunteered to give a series of talks about the general experiences of the Civil War soldier and was given the OK. Pretty hard stuff for an awkward Civil War nerd highschooler like me to do but I came in prepared for three days worth of talks. Imagine my surprise when the teacher completely forgot about my little program and let the class of hooligans loose on the sports fields outside for the duration of the class. :baring_te

That is why I cannot bring myself to watch a video that will make me hulk out in anger and shot-put my industrial sewing machine into the next county!

[Matt Woodburn]

Re: History teacher dumb dumb...

This is honestly so bad that as I watched I wondered if it could be a joke. If so, great! She got us. But sadly I think she's serious. If she's a real history teacher, I feel sorry for her students who have to listen to her drivel. Poor kids.