Ursula Stange wrote: >. . . . Whose history is the most 'true'? I've never lived >in the South, but I suspect that the history of the civil war looks >different there than it did in Chicago. > FINALLY a question I actually know something about! I grew up in north Florida, graduating from high school in 1964. I took American history and "Civics" in high school from an excellent teacher, and I actually remember quite a bit of both. I remember that there was NO MENTION of "The Civil War" in any of our textbooks whatsoever! Oh, we did study Grant and Lincoln and Lee and Gettysburg and Atlanta and reconstruction. But the term "Civil War" NEVER appeared. What DID appear was the term "The War Between the States." This is still a live issue in the South, and was partly what the war was fought over: Were the "United States" individual sovereign states which had voluntarily associated with each other like the "United Nations" in a way that retained individual states' sovereignty, or was the "United States" a single entity with primary sovereignty residing at the Federal level. Calling the war a "Civil War" implies acceptance of the "Northern" view of sovereignty: There is ONE entity, the "United States," and parts of that single entity are at war with other (internal) parts. A "civil" war. But in Florida in 1964 the people in charge of textbooks thought that the "Southern" view was still correct: The war was fought between various sovereign states that had the right to go their own way when the voluntary association with the "United States" proved harmful. My point here is that THIS is history, both ways. Students need to know BOTH viewpoints. History isn't just one "true" picture, it is a mosaic of clashing colors. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html