No, Slaves Didn't Build America

[YDB95]

If we think at all about the US war of Independence we think the US constantly understates the influence of the French - then the world's greatest superpower. The US War of Independence was a sideshow in the coninuing wars between the French and English.

We did learn that in school (in the US), although I can't speak to how many of the kids were paying attention.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We did learn that in school (in the US), although I can't speak to how many of the kids were paying attention.

Hadn't we and big brother just beat them and the Indians like two weeks earlier? Cus that how I remember it.

 

[YDB95]

Hadn't we and big brother just beat them and the Indians like two weeks earlier? Cus that how I remember it.

I remember learning about the French and Indian War, and then about how the French were on our side in the Revolution (and that we never would have won it without them). For good measure, I also learned General Pershing said "Lafayette we are here," which in fact he didn't - but everyone knew what it meant nevertheless.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well I learned about that. But the Tea Tax was taught to me much closer to Daddy was mad for no reason, much less that he went broke keeping us out of jail and took away our allowance which seems to be a lot closer to what really happened.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Its probably always been broken. I would be interested when I have some cash to burn to buy, or see if they are available online what education looks like in say the UK. Do they teach the Revolution as "These punks we just spent the entire treasury on just refuse to pitch in a little money? Oh and now they're cool with the French!" Which isn't inaccurate.

In my day,we took a little on the American war for Independence, since it fits into how Canada became a Nation under our own Flag and Governance. We started with the French, first, then the British, then on to the French and Indian war, then on the war of Independence, then the War of 1812...yada yad yada Our history tended to stay within the envelope of how Canada evolved into a Nation under Britain ( or you could say how Britain stole/took it from France) , as opposed to the French rule, or Canada following the path of the Americans.

If you wanted further formal historical education then you needed to take that in either high-school or college or university.

 

[YDB95]

Well I learned about that. But the Tea Tax was taught to me much closer to Daddy was mad for no reason, much less that he went broke keeping us out of jail and took away our allowance which seems to be a lot closer to what really happened.

That's the version I remember from elementary school. In high school we learned it was much closer to what you say here, and for good measure our teacher noted that British kids our age were learning a rather different lesson about the whole thing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Guess education really did go down hill cus I Was only slightly exaggerating. At no point were we taught that the Brits had a quality reason to be pissed at us.

 

[oggbashan]

Guess education really did go down hill cus I Was only slightly exaggerating. At no point were we taught that the Brits had a quality reason to be pissed at us.

We Brits are also pissed off that the low standards of UK education (and it is even worse in Scotland under the SNP-led devolved government).

I took the old style O levels and later the Australian Matriculation.. Both examination systems are long gone and the current standards are so much easier than they were then. Over the decades the examinations have been progressively dumbed down so that more 'pass' and employers are fed up with the examination results which prove little.

 

[JohnEngelman]

We Brits are also pissed off that the low standards of UK education (and it is even worse in Scotland under the SNP-led devolved government).

I took the old style O levels and later the Australian Matriculation.. Both examination systems are long gone and the current standards are so much easier than they were then. Over the decades the examinations have been progressively dumbed down so that more 'pass' and employers are fed up with the examination results which prove little.

Employers need to be allowed to be able to give objective tests to job applicants. They should be tested for mental aptitude and for the knowledge they will need to perform adequately.

 

[oggbashan]

Employers need to be allowed to be able to give objective tests to job applicants. They should be tested for mental aptitude and for the knowledge they will need to perform adequately.

In one career I used to review and devise tests for employees.

Later, in another career, I had to take three tests for every job application. They were devised to test for the 'average' British manager who should score 50%. But it was local government. The usual scores were 30%, 30% and for finance and mathematics - 20%.

My results for the first 3 tests were 100%, 100% and 99%. I was rejected fror the job as being 'overqualified'. My scores for the three was higher then the sum of the three people interviewing me and I scared them stiff.

I applied for six more posts. I took the same tests again, word for word, and not surprisingly scored 100% in all because I had seen the questions before. I was rejected for every job for being 'overqualified'.

 

[ll74]

Employers need to be allowed to be able to give objective tests to job applicants. They should be tested for mental aptitude and for the knowledge they will need to perform adequately.

Johnny Eagle's aptitude test:
Question 1: Are you an Oriental?
Question 2: Are you a Negro?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Employers need to be allowed to be able to give objective tests to job applicants. They should be tested for mental aptitude and for the knowledge they will need to perform adequately.

I'm ot sure about in your neck of the woods but employers here have that ability, with some caveats.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

In one career I used to review and devise tests for employees.

Later, in another career, I had to take three tests for every job application. They were devised to test for the 'average' British manager who should score 50%. But it was local government. The usual scores were 30%, 30% and for finance and mathematics - 20%.

My results for the first 3 tests were 100%, 100% and 99%. I was rejected fror the job as being 'overqualified'. My scores for the three was higher then the sum of the three people interviewing me and I scared them stiff.

I applied for six more posts. I took the same tests again, word for word, and not surprisingly scored 100% in all because I had seen the questions before. I was rejected for every job for being 'overqualified'.

How can someone be overqualified for pooping in diapers?