U.S. History (rejection of the “rule by atheism” model)

[temporal1]

It might be available in PDF.

THE AMERICAN PAGEANT / THOMAS A BAILEY KENNEDY-COHEN

QL,
do these look familiar? edition?

https://ngl.cengage.com/esamples/16235/24003/index.html

https://cdn.bookey.app/files/pdf/book/e ... ageant.pdf

https://archive.org/details/americanpag ... 0kenn_t0h0

[Bootstrap]

That was probably The American Pageant by Kennedy and Cohen. It was widely used and I used it as the anchor text when I taught AP US in district schools in the NYCDOE in the aughts. I also used it for a few years at my current Mennonite School. It is known for its literary flair and not being the typical dry textbook.

I browsed this using Temp's links - the one from the publisher and some archive.org links - and it really does look good. It's also interesting to see how this has evolved over time, it has been used for decades, and the content has evolved over time.

Thanks for mentioning this, Quietlylistening!

[QuietlyListening]

You are welcome
And thanks joshuabgood for finding the book.

[barnhart]

It does seem like a worthy history.

[temporal1]

PRESENTISM - (my view: a bane of human existence)

P.5: “Why aren't Mennonites Constantinian?”

I will list what I think are some undisputed facts.

1. Constantine's mother was a Christian according to Eusebius.
2. There is no record of Constantine mentioning anything about the sign he saw on the sun until ten years after his historic victory against Maxentius. Following the victory, there is no record that Constantine gave God or Jesus any credit for the victory until 10 years later.
3. The sign he had his soldiers paint on their shields was the chi-rho symbol, not a cross. The chi-rho symbol was a pagan good luck symbol.
4.Constantine the Great made Christianity popular.
5. Constantine joined church and state, then used force to punish those who would not toe the line of his Christian government.
6. Constantine ordered the death penalty for those he considered heretics, people who defied his version of church.
7. Constantine paved the way for the rise of a religious Roman government that would prove to be horrific for many years.
8. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

If anyone has evidence to dispute these, feel free to bring it forward. When I say evidence, I am not talking about supposition.

I'm not going to dispute these per se. I do take issue with the framing, statements which I have placed in bold text in the quote. What I am about to describe are not necessarily arguments, but an alternative frame of certain things. So, if I recall correctly, Constantine breaks years of pagan Roman emperor tradition by not sacrificing to Jupiter upon his ascension (2) so if he isn't crediting Jupiter, who is he crediting? The chi-rho symbol was also one of the earliest Christograms (3) and, if you ask a linguist, words and therefore anagrams, can change meaning over time. Constantine never attempted to function as a priest in the Church (6) which means he very deliberately was not functioning as a church hierarch. Finally, the Christian Roman government was not "horrific"...if you compare it to the previous Roman governments (7 & 8).

I do not know enough about this period to engage in an in depth discussion regarding Constantine. However, I would encourage a more comprehensive framing of the situation. Constantine's immediate predecessor was Diocletian - arguably one of the worse emperors for Christians in history. To say the regime change was whiplash would be an understatement. My main critique would be to avoid presentism - reading history in lieu of modern times. For example, saying that Constantine unified church and state assumes that people 1700 years ago separated religious life and state life into two different categories like we do today. That is an assumption that has to be justified and definitely should not be taken at face value.

Ernie, you've asked a question in the Denominations subforum about Constantine. That one is next on my list to respond to. I will get to it once I get a chance.

Dad Saves America / ”American History Has Been Weaponized Against Us” - Jack Henneman / 2hrs 31+min
8:00 min mark: PRESENTISM

“I sat down with Jack Henneman, host of the “History of the Americans” podcast,
to discuss
the early history of the American colonies,
the weaponization of history for political purposes,
and why judging the past by today's standards corrupts our ability to understand it.

We get into:
Why Jack launched a podcast to read American history from the very beginning

How the New York Times weaponized the 1619 Project to reshape history education

How Spain's conquest of the New World set the stage for English colonization

Why the Puritans and the Virginia planters built two completely different Americas

How the Dutch built the most important city in history trading beaver fur and guns

What the arrival of Africans at Jamestown in 1619 actually tells us about the origins of slavery

Why conflicts broke out between Native Americans and European settlers

What the great men of history can teach us about our own blind spots

- - -

250 Years in Pursuit -
Thanks to our partners at the Heritage Foundation for helping produce this video.”

Presentism has shown up on forum, mostly in: (Politics)
https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?t=5045

[Bootstrap]

PRESENTISM - (my view: a bane of human existence)

This is a real issue in history. Maybe not quite a bane of human existence ;->

Presentism is the interpretation of the past through the values, assumptions, knowledge, and concerns of the present, rather than trying to understand people in the context of their own time. We talk about the time before a war as though people knew a war was coming, or as though the war were inevitable. Or we talk about the past as though it existed mostly to support our present views.

And it keeps us from experiencing the story more like they did back then.

[temporal1]

PRESENTISM - (my view: a bane of human existence)

This is a real issue in history. Maybe not quite a bane of human existence ;->

Presentism is the interpretation of the past through the values, assumptions, knowledge, and concerns of the present, rather than trying to understand people in the context of their own time. We talk about the time before a war as though people knew a war was coming, or as though the war were inevitable. Or we talk about the past as though it existed mostly to support our present views.

And it keeps us from experiencing the story more like they did back then.

yes.
as one who dabbles in history, and scriptures, i’m both intrigued and baffled at how hard it is to separate myself from my lived experience, i believe similar challenges the most accomplished scholars.

[Bootstrap]

"The Rest Is History", a British history podcast, produced this fascinating series on the American Revolution from a British perspective - a very different perspective from what we learned in school.

1. The American Revolution (Part 1)
   https://therestishistory.com/episodes/t ... ion-part-1
2. The Boston Tea Party (Part 2)
   https://therestishistory.com/episodes/t ... rty-part-2
3. The Birth of the United States (Part 3)
   https://therestishistory.com/episodes/t ... tes-part-3
4. The Triumph of George Washington (Part 4)
   https://therestishistory.com/episodes/t ... ton-part-4

[Coifi]

PRESENTISM - (my view: a bane of human existence)

Logged in for the first time in a couple years and I see a comment of mine recently quoted.

[temporal1]

PRESENTISM - (my view: a bane of human existence)

Logged in for the first time in a couple years and I see a comment of mine recently quoted.

Don’t be a stranger!