Mommy sent me some new earrings - nearly identical to the old ones. :)
Thanks Mom!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
History!
Somewhat of a debate going on on one of the message boards I read. It spawned from a poll someone posted asking folks to vote on who they thought Queen Victoria's husband was.
Anyhow, the poll poster stated that she thought it was an important historical event for people (Americans, in this case) to know. She was challenged on that point, and she brought up cultural impact (Germanic culture being brought in, such as Christmas trees) and, later, also brought up the resultant strengthening of hemophilia in the lineage, which, when her granddaughter became Czarina of Russia, led to children with the trait, and thus Rasputin's influence upon the royal family (when they were looking for a cure) - and who knows what may have happened had Rasputin never entered the picture. She wasn't necessarily stating that everyone should know all of that, mind you, but that there was obviously some importance and consequences to the marriage.
It goes on, but I think there were some misunderstandings about how important people thought that particular fact (Queen Victoria's husband) was, and why, and perhaps also some misunderstandings/misreadings of emphasis.
Either way, I wonder how much comes from how folks learned history? Did they learn it as a collection of facts, people, and dates? Was it more of a cause/effect "big picture" course? Of course, there are always going to be parts that lean more one way or the other -- I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a history class that required students to memorize the presidents, for instance (let's face it, memorized as a list of names, it has little overall importance vs. being able to know who was responsible for or oversaw some key events, such as who was president during the depression). I'd be shocked if, even in the most "memorize names and dates" style of class, there wasn't some cause/effect in discussion of the events leading up to the Civil War and during reconstruction, or how the Treaty of Versailles was a pretty major cause of WWII.
Still - in a course taught largely by looking at cause and effect, and tying in with the culture of the times, I'd think that the students would be more likely to see Queen Victoria's choice of husband as an important point. Students who learned history largely as memorizing dates/names/events, well...perhaps not so much.
Or maybe I just watched waaaayyy too many of the shows from the various Connections series to look at the question objectively. :D
Anyhow, the poll poster stated that she thought it was an important historical event for people (Americans, in this case) to know. She was challenged on that point, and she brought up cultural impact (Germanic culture being brought in, such as Christmas trees) and, later, also brought up the resultant strengthening of hemophilia in the lineage, which, when her granddaughter became Czarina of Russia, led to children with the trait, and thus Rasputin's influence upon the royal family (when they were looking for a cure) - and who knows what may have happened had Rasputin never entered the picture. She wasn't necessarily stating that everyone should know all of that, mind you, but that there was obviously some importance and consequences to the marriage.
It goes on, but I think there were some misunderstandings about how important people thought that particular fact (Queen Victoria's husband) was, and why, and perhaps also some misunderstandings/misreadings of emphasis.
Either way, I wonder how much comes from how folks learned history? Did they learn it as a collection of facts, people, and dates? Was it more of a cause/effect "big picture" course? Of course, there are always going to be parts that lean more one way or the other -- I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a history class that required students to memorize the presidents, for instance (let's face it, memorized as a list of names, it has little overall importance vs. being able to know who was responsible for or oversaw some key events, such as who was president during the depression). I'd be shocked if, even in the most "memorize names and dates" style of class, there wasn't some cause/effect in discussion of the events leading up to the Civil War and during reconstruction, or how the Treaty of Versailles was a pretty major cause of WWII.
Still - in a course taught largely by looking at cause and effect, and tying in with the culture of the times, I'd think that the students would be more likely to see Queen Victoria's choice of husband as an important point. Students who learned history largely as memorizing dates/names/events, well...perhaps not so much.
Or maybe I just watched waaaayyy too many of the shows from the various Connections series to look at the question objectively. :D
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Nifty!
This video shows engines from Thomas the Tank Engine (some from the shows, and some from the book illustrations) and the real engines they were based upon. Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Take a survey!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Luck of the Irish?
One of our friends from church just got back from a trip to Ireland. While there, she bought me a claddagh necklace (pretty!) which goes with the claddagh earrings that I already had, which I wear constantly.
Wore, I should say. I looked down on the floor today to notice that one of them had fallen out. This is the one that I was still wearing:
This is the one I saw on the floor:
Bah. Now I need a new pair of earrings.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
