U.S. History College Class

  • Thread starter Thread starter bauer890
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bauer890

Guest
Greetings,

I am currently taking a U.S. History class in college and noticed some significant issues in the textbooks that I am finding hard to read or continue taking the class. Those changes are the use of “Before Common Era” instead of "Before Christ " and “Common Era” instead of “Anno Domini”. The other issue, is that a lot of the blame for slavery and the murder and death of societies in the Americas as well as throughout the Colombian Exchange are because of the Catholic Church.

Here is an example: "In the late sixteenth century, French, Dutch, and English investors became increasingly interested in gaining a foothold in North America. But until Catholic Spain’s grip on the Atlantic world was broken, other nations could not hope to compete for an American empire. It was the Protestant Reformation that helped shape the alliances that shattered Spain’s American monopoly. "

I am having a hard time buying into this class because of the heavy rhetoric against the church and this is the first I have heard that the Catholic Church is to blame for the majority of the worlds problems.

Did I just not pay enough attention in school and missed the whole part of how the Catholic Church was responsible for everything bad in the world? Or is this really what happened?

Lost in the re-writing of history,
Mike
 
BCE and CE have been pretty common for years. I’ve heard it is about avoiding the use of one religion’s terminology on a matter shared by people outside that religion…but it still centers in that religion’s central figure… Granted, there are calendars not centered on Christ, but it’s a lot harder convincing people to start speaking about the current year in terms of 12019, soon to be 12020.

And as for the quote, not sure the issue. Yeah, it’s a bizarre commentary that is perhaps inaccurate, but I don’t see where it is blaming the Catholic Church for anything horrible.
 
BCE and CE are not a big deal and have been in common use for a long time.

As for your other example, Spain was Catholic, Spain was a major world power that colonized much of the new world, and Spain in those days did a lot of rot as well as some good things. Factually it’s correct that the Reformation era did correspond with other countries such as England becoming as powerful or more powerful than Spain, although the quote you posted is pretty funny considering that France was heavily Catholic and sent many Catholic missionaries and Catholic settlers to the New World.

Yes, there are history books with big biases whether they’re anti-Catholic or anti-some other group. One of your tasks as a student is to learn how to identify such biases in a source. We don’t just up and walk out of a class every time the textbook says something stupid, which is about half the time.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies everyone. To add some context, I’ve been on a 15-year break from academics and only recently have started back up again. I appreciate the responses!
 
One last addition before hold my tongue, pass this class and pray on this.

“The conflicts between commerce and conversion so evident in Spanish America were far less severe in New France. Not only did French traders rely on Indian allies, but French missionaries also sought to build on native beliefs and to learn their language and customs. Although the Jesuits assumed that their own religious beliefs and cultural values were superior to those of the Indians, they did seek to engage Indians on their own terms. Thus one French Jesuit employed the Huron belief that “our souls have desires which are inborn and concealed” to explain Christian doctrines of sin and salvation to potential converts. Still, French traders and missionaries carried deadly germs, and Catholics sought conversion, not mutual adaptation. Thus while Indians clearly benefited from their alliances with the French in the short term, the long-term costs were devastating.”
 
Unless it’s a requirement or if you want to study history to teach, research or some other field you are better off reading history on your own. It will be mostly one sided when you take courses. I wasted much time and money taking these courses. I got a more balanced view reading on my own.
 
Great advice, I am most likely going to do just that. Thanks!
 
bauer890 said:
Lost in the re-writing of history,
Click to expand...
Please don’t take this as hostile criticism…take it from just one gal with an opinion and a history degree.

Hopefully, this is an undergraduate General Ed course, and history is not your major.

“Re-writing” or “Revisionist History” does not exist.

History is a culmination of Chronology, Events, and Historiography.

You seem to be falling prey to the sophomoric believe that “history” is single faceted.

Chronology cannot be revised. Events cannot be revised. Historiography (the interpretation of Chronology and Events) is a dynamic, not static, process.

And, the study history is a pure academic pursuit.

If you can’t get over the whole Before Common Era versus Before Christ, or Common Era versus Anno Domini, and you are a History Major, I would highly recommend you change majors.

Good luck in your studies!
 
Thanks for the advice and well wishes. Congratulations on your history degree! This is my first time seeing “Before Common Era” or “Common Era”. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been out of the loop for a bit and to add more fuel to the fire, I am history major. Well, I am trying to be a history major, lets see how this plays out.
 
It’s best for Catholics to come to grips with her dirty laundry in history.

Yes, there were bad popes, cardinals and bishops who did not serve Christ, but served their own political interest

That being said, it should not weaken your faith in Jesus Christ. Keep in mind that Jesus followed his religion perfectly, yet look what the leaders did to him ?

As St Teresa of Avila wrote back during the Spanish Reformation, “when the Church is in crisis, our job is to be better Catholics.”

Jim
 
Jim,

Thanks for the reply! I agree, with the dirty laundry and not losing faith.
 
I’m another history degree-holder chiming in. Reading historical accounts is like watching or reading news media. It will always have a bias or spin to it, sometimes overt like Fox or CNN, and other times quiet or even subconscious.

If your readings or lectures present anything that make you raise an eyebrow, find a non-confrontational way to ask your professor for clarification - either during class, after class, or during office hours.

“It’s brutal that so many Native people died of European diseases and sad that they lost so many of their traditions. Even despite all of this, did the missionaries bring any positive contributions to the Americas?”

Remember that despite anything you hear, read, or think, history is rarely black and white.

I suggest you stick with the class and enjoy the learning!
 
Thank you for the post! I like the way you phrased and related historic accounts to watching the news. Again, thank you everyone for your insights, recommendations, critiques and wishful thoughts, they were well received! Take care everyone and God Bless Ya!
 
It’s best to keep in mind that when reading about a point in history, to try and understand the mindset of the people of that era.

Too many people judge the people of the past using a 21st century mindset

I don’t have a degree in history, but it’s more of a hobby of mine.

Jim
 
bauer890 said:
I am currently taking a U.S. History class in college and noticed some significant issues in the textbooks that I am finding hard to read or continue taking the class. Those changes are the use of “Before Common Era” instead of "Before Christ " and “Common Era” instead of “Anno Domini”.
Click to expand...
This is not a “significant issue” and I’m not sure why this would impede you from taking the class.

Christians traditionally use BC and AD. However, we live in a plural society and many people are not Christians. Therefore, in academic settings, we use BCE and CE.
bauer890 said:
The other issue, is that a lot of the blame for slavery and the murder and death of societies in the Americas as well as throughout the Colombian Exchange are because of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
If you want to argue facts, learn the facts and then discuss them. Authors bring with them certain biases. You can have meaningful discussions about these biases.
bauer890 said:
"In the late sixteenth century, French, Dutch, and English investors became increasingly interested in gaining a foothold in North America. But until Catholic Spain’s grip on the Atlantic world was broken, other nations could not hope to compete for an American empire. It was the Protestant Reformation that helped shape the alliances that shattered Spain’s American monopoly. "
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your issue is here. It’s true that Spain dominated the New World and it’s true that Protestant alliances helped to end the monopoly Spain had on it.
bauer890 said:
I am having a hard time buying into this class because of the heavy rhetoric against the church
Click to expand...
The above example isn’t rhetoric against the Church. It is an explanation of 15th and 16th century politics and how they impacted the New World. Politics and religion were heavily intertwined.
bauer890 said:
this is the first I have heard that the Catholic Church is to blame for the majority of the worlds problems.
Click to expand...
Well then, polish your thinking skills, read broadly, and learn to defend the Church when warranted, and learn to not be offended when real past sins of those in the Church are discussed. There are many.
bauer890 said:
Did I just not pay enough attention in school and missed the whole part of how the Catholic Church was responsible for everything bad in the world?
Click to expand...
There were many bad people in the Church over the last 2000 years, many in positions of authority. Also, many historian fail to distinguish between the institutional Church and the people in it.
bauer890 said:
Or is this really what happened?
Click to expand...
Learn to think critically and read Catholic and non-Catholic authors.
 
Also, there are some great Catholic authors in the field of history:

Hilaire Belloc
Regine Pernoud
Warren Carroll
 
1ke, appreciate the run down and numerous recommendations. I will certainly take them into consideration as I progress through the class. Thanks again!
 
bauer890 said:
The other issue, is that a lot of the blame for slavery and the murder and death of societies in the Americas as well as throughout the Colombian Exchange are because of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Do they mention there was a political party in the United States that defended slavery as a “positive good” and remained in control of the former Confederate States and introduced segregation and other forms of legal discrimination?

I bet they don’t.
 
I’m of mixed racial and ethnic background, but my family has always identified as American Indian. Well, at least my mom’s my dad was mixed blood, but his family identifies as white. If the Catholic church was so terribly racist, why do countries like Paraguay, Brazil, and Mexico, predominantly Catholic countries, have such large mixed race populations? it is true, that for a long time Spain did hold an iron grip on the Americas, but it was actually the Protestants from England and the Netherlands, that treated American Indians amongst other people as lesser people, seriously when you get the chance, read Columbus’s diary, he had a very high opinion of American Indians. Although a lot of people don’t like to admit this, it was actually the Catholic church that originally led the Abolitionist Movement. I once had a history book that called Catholic beliefs on the Eucharist, and sacraments “magic”, so I know how you feel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top