Day 89 - Talk History
Today in WHAP we had a talk history day.
At the end of today's class, Mr. Profitt was going over some of the blogs in this period, and notably he quickly mentioned mine (www.whapjack.blogspot.com) and Garretts (Daily WHAP Commentary). After a solid 30 seconds or so, he finally thought of Asher's blog, as an afterthought. Afterthought Asher, a suitable nickname for the person and the blog.
For today's entry, I'm going to mainly go over the debate by providing my version of the transcript. You will see my comments in red while the transcript will be the default.
The debate started off with Garrett, as it usually does, with him saying that being Eurocentric is more than giving and overemphasizing examples from European places, but the idea that Europe is inherently better.
Will Nickols than said how he felt tat the reason we look at Europe with more depth is because they are changing the most. I agree with this, and it's clearly shown in what we study in class/Strayer. Europe seems to be going through such rapid change, coming from small little dark places to bustling centers of trade and commerce. The one point I found interesting about this would be that maybe the other places are changing during this period, but we just don't know because they aren't mentioned.
Antonio then said how Eurocentrism is an excessive focus on the history of Europe, giving the example of this when he said that West Africa is only important because that's where Europe gets their slaves.
Matt Owens then mentioned how Eurocentrism defines Europe as a single identity with diversity. I kind of disagree with this one, because Europe wasn't really a single identity, as the many countries didn't always cooperate well, leading to tension between them. To state an example, your body isn't really a single identity if your arms choose to not listen to your brain whenever you order them to move.
John Patee then said how society, perhaps incorrectly , tells us what's important, not fostering an environment for outside the box thinking.
Cameron then stated how people are simply driven by economics, so people doing things at the time would do things strictly motivated by proffit margins. He also felt that the Renaissance did happen, because of the wealth in Italy. He then noted how while many people talk about the marvelous art of the Renaissance, they don't really talk about where the wealth comes from, which in this case was the Ottoman empire.
Mr. Profitt then started talking about how many schools were dropping WHAP because it wasn't necessary for one to graduate anymore, and many people chose to take APUSH instead of WHAP because it was an easier class and more colleges would accept the credit. In my case with all internal benefits of the class aside, I'm not really taking this class for the college credit, but just would rather challenge myself rather than be coasting in a non-AP class. The college credit is a nice cherry on top though. Mr. Profitt then mentioned how the changes in the curriculum and textbooks call slaves servants in the books, in order to not make the Southern plantation owners look too awful. Not really a fan of that, I mean in a way it's kinda like brainwashing kids in saying that slaves are servants, as that implies that they were there of their own free choice rather than being ripped from their families, shipped across the ocean, sold like property, and forced to do hard labor for their whole life.
We then started a new prompt over if we should learn world history or not.
John started the argument off by saying that WHAP honors the spirit of skepticism and questioning of the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution.
Jack Carroll then said that WHAP helps up break out of cultural narcissism.
Matt followed this up by saying if only one perspective is taught, then are you really being educated or simply given a chance to be educated.
Garrett then said, in contrast with some of the early POVs, that learning from one perspective fosters unity rather than disunity, because then we wouldn't ask questions. I thought this was a really good point, and I agreed with it. It really clicked with me, as if everyone is the same in their paradigm, who will there be to shake things up, think of new ideas, and spur independent thought. Along this same line of logic, if everyone is the same in their views, then the few outliers who have different views will be either forced into the same perspective or ignored.
Nickols then mentioned how tensions come from using collective agreement to attack outsiders.
Emilio mentioned how WHAP is very valuable for many reasons.
Mr. Profitt then voiced the questions on why is WHAP such a hard sell?
Caroll mentioned how he thinks WHAP is important, but focus too much on the minor details. I personally disagree with this one, I think in WHAP I probably have had to memorize the least amount of specific details than I ever have in my SS career.
Florer than mentioned how the course fosters empathy, but this empathy won't take root immediately until we are apart of those changing the world.
Scheibe then said how having too many other things to care about makes it difficult to solely focus on WHAP, and in his opinion he only cares about the grade he receives.
P.J. then made a point how reading at home is where we put most of our energy, and because we put in so much work outside of class we may not be paying as much attention in class.
Garrett then said how teaching an intrinsic value in a system prioritizing grades doesn't work very well, and while the system may not be right, it currently revolves on you having good grades to have an easier path to success.
Emilio then mentioned how it's not really healthy for us to be sitting around all day, and that if he had the choice to go to school or not he wouldn't, choosing instead to be outdoors. He felt that classes aren't interest based like they should be, but more curiosity based.
Matt then concluded the discussion by saying how STEM is the new "name of the game", while humanities isn't. Society fosters egotism that non STEM professions aren't worth considering.
A lot to think about with all the points made in today's talk history day. I'd say it's probably the most interesting one to date, as in some of the past ones it has gotten a bit dull, versus today where I personally was interested during the whole debate.
STUDY FOR THE QUIZ TOMORROW
With that, the bell rang and we were dismissed. Until Tomorrow!
At the end of today's class, Mr. Profitt was going over some of the blogs in this period, and notably he quickly mentioned mine (www.whapjack.blogspot.com) and Garretts (Daily WHAP Commentary). After a solid 30 seconds or so, he finally thought of Asher's blog, as an afterthought. Afterthought Asher, a suitable nickname for the person and the blog.
For today's entry, I'm going to mainly go over the debate by providing my version of the transcript. You will see my comments in red while the transcript will be the default.
The debate started off with Garrett, as it usually does, with him saying that being Eurocentric is more than giving and overemphasizing examples from European places, but the idea that Europe is inherently better.
Will Nickols than said how he felt tat the reason we look at Europe with more depth is because they are changing the most. I agree with this, and it's clearly shown in what we study in class/Strayer. Europe seems to be going through such rapid change, coming from small little dark places to bustling centers of trade and commerce. The one point I found interesting about this would be that maybe the other places are changing during this period, but we just don't know because they aren't mentioned.
Antonio then said how Eurocentrism is an excessive focus on the history of Europe, giving the example of this when he said that West Africa is only important because that's where Europe gets their slaves.
Matt Owens then mentioned how Eurocentrism defines Europe as a single identity with diversity. I kind of disagree with this one, because Europe wasn't really a single identity, as the many countries didn't always cooperate well, leading to tension between them. To state an example, your body isn't really a single identity if your arms choose to not listen to your brain whenever you order them to move.
John Patee then said how society, perhaps incorrectly , tells us what's important, not fostering an environment for outside the box thinking.
Cameron then stated how people are simply driven by economics, so people doing things at the time would do things strictly motivated by proffit margins. He also felt that the Renaissance did happen, because of the wealth in Italy. He then noted how while many people talk about the marvelous art of the Renaissance, they don't really talk about where the wealth comes from, which in this case was the Ottoman empire.
Mr. Profitt then started talking about how many schools were dropping WHAP because it wasn't necessary for one to graduate anymore, and many people chose to take APUSH instead of WHAP because it was an easier class and more colleges would accept the credit. In my case with all internal benefits of the class aside, I'm not really taking this class for the college credit, but just would rather challenge myself rather than be coasting in a non-AP class. The college credit is a nice cherry on top though. Mr. Profitt then mentioned how the changes in the curriculum and textbooks call slaves servants in the books, in order to not make the Southern plantation owners look too awful. Not really a fan of that, I mean in a way it's kinda like brainwashing kids in saying that slaves are servants, as that implies that they were there of their own free choice rather than being ripped from their families, shipped across the ocean, sold like property, and forced to do hard labor for their whole life.
We then started a new prompt over if we should learn world history or not.
John started the argument off by saying that WHAP honors the spirit of skepticism and questioning of the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution.
Jack Carroll then said that WHAP helps up break out of cultural narcissism.
Matt followed this up by saying if only one perspective is taught, then are you really being educated or simply given a chance to be educated.
Garrett then said, in contrast with some of the early POVs, that learning from one perspective fosters unity rather than disunity, because then we wouldn't ask questions. I thought this was a really good point, and I agreed with it. It really clicked with me, as if everyone is the same in their paradigm, who will there be to shake things up, think of new ideas, and spur independent thought. Along this same line of logic, if everyone is the same in their views, then the few outliers who have different views will be either forced into the same perspective or ignored.
Nickols then mentioned how tensions come from using collective agreement to attack outsiders.
Emilio mentioned how WHAP is very valuable for many reasons.
Mr. Profitt then voiced the questions on why is WHAP such a hard sell?
Caroll mentioned how he thinks WHAP is important, but focus too much on the minor details. I personally disagree with this one, I think in WHAP I probably have had to memorize the least amount of specific details than I ever have in my SS career.
Florer than mentioned how the course fosters empathy, but this empathy won't take root immediately until we are apart of those changing the world.
Scheibe then said how having too many other things to care about makes it difficult to solely focus on WHAP, and in his opinion he only cares about the grade he receives.
P.J. then made a point how reading at home is where we put most of our energy, and because we put in so much work outside of class we may not be paying as much attention in class.
Garrett then said how teaching an intrinsic value in a system prioritizing grades doesn't work very well, and while the system may not be right, it currently revolves on you having good grades to have an easier path to success.
Emilio then mentioned how it's not really healthy for us to be sitting around all day, and that if he had the choice to go to school or not he wouldn't, choosing instead to be outdoors. He felt that classes aren't interest based like they should be, but more curiosity based.
Matt then concluded the discussion by saying how STEM is the new "name of the game", while humanities isn't. Society fosters egotism that non STEM professions aren't worth considering.
A lot to think about with all the points made in today's talk history day. I'd say it's probably the most interesting one to date, as in some of the past ones it has gotten a bit dull, versus today where I personally was interested during the whole debate.
STUDY FOR THE QUIZ TOMORROW
With that, the bell rang and we were dismissed. Until Tomorrow!
Comments
Post a Comment