orichalcum (
orichalcum) wrote2008-10-06 08:39 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Just ooc?
Two questions to judge whether I have a bad understanding of common historical knowledge:
1. Do you have any idea who the Borgias were?
2. Did you read Machiavelli in high school?
1. Do you have any idea who the Borgias were?
2. Did you read Machiavelli in high school?
no subject
2. Only brief excerpts.
Are your ducklings shocking you?
no subject
no subject
(Woohoo, Samuel Shellabarger!)
no subject
no subject
As a high schooler, I had a general idea of who the Borgias were, and I heard about Machiavelli a lot in both middle and high school -- so I knew who he was, I just hadn't read him.
no subject
no subject
no subject
i read machiavelli in DS. and in another yale college class. if i read any in high school, it was only snippets (heck, at my high school, we only got through 8 books in AP english, 4 of which i'd read on my own in middle school...)
no subject
We read all about the Borgia popes in AP European History and were duly scandalized.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And the answers to your questions are Yes and No, respectively. I think we read about Machiavelli in AP European History, but not any of his actual work.
no subject
no subject
if so, honestly, no. it's absolutely the right time period, but i do everything but scholasticism 1500-1550. I spent a bit of time this summer looking at what the scholastics were up to, only to find out that all they were interested in was commenting on Aquinas' Summa Theologica 2.2, the section on human nature (i.e., anthropology), in response to the Spanish empire and the need to determine whether indigenous people were human enough to treat as human. Since this topic doesn't lead to Christology or Mariology (though it should), I shrugged and quit looking. There is a big biblio on the human rights topic, though I was mostly looking in Spanish and can't give you English-speaking names offhand.
no subject
no subject
2. No, but we learned who he was and what his place was in European history.
no subject
no subject
I think I heard about Machiavelli in high school, but didn't read any excepts until college. Knowing about him could just be one of those general knowledge things I picked up somewhere along the line, though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
2. No (and i went to a humanities magnet...)
no subject
no subject
2. I think there was a short exerpt in one of my world history courses, but we did not read the entire book.
no subject
no subject
2. Hell NO.
Even if you learned these in non-AP courses, your high school was pretty much all college prep, and a WAY better school than what most of America had. Sad, but it pays to remember that.
no subject
no subject
2) No Machiavelli in high school for us. In high school we did almost all American authors, except for Shakespeare.
no subject
no subject
2) Learned about, but didn't actually read any in high school. Although history was my least favorite subject and I dropped it for extra science classes Senior year of HS.
And as someone who was raised Catholic and is now an active Lutheran, I would not be at all shocked if none of your Catholic students knew how similar/different the two are. I grew up in an Irish Catholic family from Long Island, and can honestly say that I learned nothing about any other forms of Christianity until college. I didn't happen to have any active Protestant friends in high school (although I did learn a lot about Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism-New Jersey is an interesting mix) and there is no discussion about other faiths, even in a historical sense, in Sunday School/CCD. I was shocked when I went through my "conversion" classes, since there was one night dedicated to the history of the Lutheran Church, and one night dedicated to comparing and contrasting the Lutheran faith with other Christian denominations. If not for that class, I would have no idea of the differences in Christian beliefs.
And as a frame of reference, when my mom found out I was going to a Lutheran Church, instead of being happy that I was spiritually happy, she was concerned that I had joined a cult and they were trying to steal my money. A cult. Of Lutherans. Sigh.
no subject
no subject
no subject
My Congregationalist training sort of muddled my attempt at a strictly objective answer about the Catholic idea of priests' special relationship with God.
no subject
2. No
But I don't think your friends list is representative. We're all unusually well-read and most of us have independent interests in history. I would say the vast majority of the US public would answer no to both of these, particularly 2 (though more would know what it was than would have "read it in high school" - I don't think of it as typical public high school fare, because it doesn't fit - it's not really literature to be read in "english" and yet it's too long and specific to be read as an assignment in history) and even at an elite university you're going to get a non-trivial number of nos to one or both.
no subject
no subject
(1. Yes, but not via coursework, not till halfway through college, and my undergrad reading range doesn't map to anyone's I know. 2. No, I read The Prince as the first text in an upper-div political survey, Machiavelli to Marx, because I needed an elective outside of my home department.)
If it helps any,
no subject
2) Yes, private high school.
no subject
2. No, but at some point (maybe before high school or earlier) I learned about his philosophy in the process of learning what the word "Machiavellian" meant.
no subject
2. We actually got to read The Prince, but I'm not sure we really understood it. People seemed to engage with it on a very superficial level.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-10-07 07:34 pm (UTC)(link)Math and Science high school. Excellent english classes (heavy on the Campbell-myth stuff and poetry), crappy history depending on who you got as a teacher. I started to read The Prince once a few years ago, but don't think I finished it.
no subject
no subject
2. yes (but not as an assigned txt, I read it because my friends were reading it and we talked about it at breakfast. Ditto Gibbons and Suetonius and stuff like that) I was in the science stream, so only did humanities up till age 16, when we covered some shakespeare (Macbeth, merchant of venice, julius caesar and a few others), lord of the flies, things fall apart, canterbury tales (which was painful for kids who mostly speak chinese at home), that sort of stuff.
Admittedly, we only covered the Reformation and Counter-Reformation rather superficially in high school in the science stream. The arts/humanities types got a lot of that. We got multivariable calculus instead (which I can no longer remember) It's all in the GCE 'A' level curriculum.
no subject
2. Yes, but that was all about my social circle.