Is This Proof That Civics Classes Matter

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   According to a National Survey:
   
   NATIONAL SURVEY FINDS JUST 1 IN 3 AMERICANS
   WOULD PASS CITIZENSHIP TEST
   
   The details are worth reading, such as; Twelve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War
   
   It seems the age demographics tell the real story. 75% of respondents over age 65, (went to school when we still had Civics classes), could pass the Citizenship test, but only 19% of respondents under 45, (most likely did not have Civics classes), could pass the test.
   
   National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I was curious to see how well I would do on such an exam, there is a CNN link is folks are interested. Seems pretty easy, I aced the 10 questions put to me.
      
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/us/us-ci … index.html
      
      
      I recall working with a young lady( mid twenties) about 25 years ago at a federal facility in Denver. I and a friend of mine decided to play a ruse on her not thinking should would seriously go for the bait. She was studying American History as a part time college student and was perplexed by actions that occurred during the  Civil War.  We told her to go to the library and investigate the CNN recordings that were taken during the time. She actually did go and later told us that the librarian laughed her out of the library.
      
      I have heard stuff like this before but was reluctant believe that either younger people are not paying attention or basic civics is not taught anymore.
      
      Ignorance is always the top soil that is the foundation for nurturing tyrants and tyranny.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I think the CNN quiz was easier than the questions indicated in the National survey results. I also aced it.
         
         Try this one from the National Survey—without going to look for the answer: Be honest!
         
         When was the U.S Constitution ratified?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            In the 1700's.  Do I get the prize?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Only if you were shooting at the broad side of a barn. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I like a great test, GA I'll be honest not having peaked anywhere, that ratification year should be 1787

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It was precisely on September 17, 1787.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Not bad, Miebakagh, you probably know more about American civics than most who live here.

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I am skeptical you did not Google your answer. I would also point out that that was just the first ratification. The 9th ratification needed to officially adopt the new Constitution happened in 1788.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     GA, you're welcome. As a student of history, and as a person who has study the American war of independence(I think a month or so ago. I said you should not my tea into Boston Harbor), the facts were at my finger tip.

                     replyreport
            2. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You are probably right. It depends on how you interpret "ratified."
               
               I said 1788 because that was when the required 9 colonies/states ratification threshold was met. But, the first ratification was Delaware in 1787, and the last was, (damn, forgot the state, maybe Rhode Island(?)), in 1790.
               
               So which date is the correct answer? The first ratification? The required 9th ratification? Or the last and final ratification?
               
               *When I discovered 1788, (my answer), wasn't the "survey's" right answer I had to go look-up the other dates. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  It was just a wild guess, if memory served....
                  
                  I have heard 1787 often when this question arose.

                  replyreport
               2. 69

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "When I discovered 1788, (my answer), wasn't the "survey's" right answer. I had to go lnk-up the other state dates;-"                                                    GA, while. I'm going basic deep too. I'm going beyond 1788.                                            Before I went to university, America history facnated me due to the slave trade connection with West Africa states.                                    The Emanicipation Proclaimation by Abraham Lincoln, like the Abolitim by Lord Mansfield is likewise basic in America History.                                                                    The ratification of the America constitution took a long time. It is a step by step process, taking 5 3/4 years. The initial date of ratification 17 September, 1787 is the most important upholding date. All other subsequent dates are subordinate.                                                     The September 17 date set the steps. 31 delegates signed the constitution...

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     12 states except Rhoda Island signed. John Dickinson was  the only not present due to a sickness. But had George Reed sign for him by proxy.                                                      After the Sept date, ratifying is no longer by delegate. Conventions were held for state-by-state ratifications.                                                December 7, 1787 is the day. Daleware is first to ratify the constitution, follow by Pennyslva, New Jessey, Georgina, Connecticut, Massachsetts, Maryland, Sovh Carolina  Nem Hampshire the 9th state.                                                                  These 9 states out of 13 gave mometum to constitution.                                                          The 10th state to ratify the document is Virgina. Then New York the 11st state, North Carolina after the presidential election that bring George Washington and John Adams as first  President and Vice President respectively. Rhode Island is the final ratifying state on May 29,1790.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        "Ratifying/ratification" was never by state delegates to the Convention. The delegate signatures on the final document had value only as a sign of agreement that the proposed document was agreed upon for presentation to the states for acceptance, (ratification).
                        
                        Also, those nine state ratifications didn't give the Constitution "momentum," they gave it legal authority to become the law of the land.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           GA, we're were discussing basic civics and not constitutional history, right? So, I can agree with the wording 'legal backing.'  In history 'momentum' in situ is welcomed.

                           replyreport
                  2. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Hi there Miebakagh57. The specifics of your comment didn't sound quite right, but your specific dates were too much of a test for my memory so I freely admit I asked my friend Google to help. ;-)
                     
                     So, specifically speaking"
                     
                     Sept. 17, 1787, was the date the U.S. Constitution was signed by its Framers, (most of them)
                     
                     Dec. 7, 1787, was the date Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution.
                     
                     June 21, 1788, was when the 9th state needed for adoption ratified the Constitution.
                     
                     March 4, 1789, was when the Constitution legally came into force
                     
                     And lastly, 1790 was when the last state ratified the Constitution.
                     
                     As you can see, from start,(written and presented),  to finish, (came into force as the law of the land), was only 1 3/4 years. (maybe your "5" was aa typo?)
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        GA, fact is that I just gave a summary of the event briefly, and do not want to go into detail.                                    Again, I realised the typo "5" hours laler and  I could not edit it and the others. Thanks and you are welcome.

                        replyreport
   2. 69

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      A civic class is a good learning tool. It will help one responsible to his/her country.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It is so much worse than that.   There was a youtube poll asking millennials what countries won World War II.  Only 1 in 10 answered the question correctly.   Even worse, many don't know the capital of the United States.  Idiocy in motion.
      
      I would like to add that with the proliferation of information on youtube, there is no excuse for such ignorance in historical matters.  There are also books on history to read.   It is sad to announce that people are becoming mentally lazier each day.  There is so much information out there that there is NO EXCUSE not to be historically literate.   My advice, people stop listening to & reading subpar tabloids.   People should read & listen to educational books & programs- there are plenty of such books & programs available.

      replyreport
2. 77

   Ken Burgessposted 3 years ago

   That is a key component to making sure a society is fractured into its tribal components, ensure that they do not have a common bond, a shared history, or even a nation.  Remove it from being taught in the school systems.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know that we do have a common bond, Ken, as I had to learn, rote, distortions about history as presented from the viewpoint of just one side.
      
      It took many years for what was called "revisionist history" or ethnic studies to be even seriously considered, the 1970's.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And now that everyone identifies along the lines of race, injustices done to prior generations, sexual identifications, and political ideals we are all so much better off as a nation.
         
         It was the great unifier that we were all Americans, that we all bled red, that we all stood up and fought for the country together that helped push past the segregation and discrimination that still existed in the 1960s.
         
         And now that we have done away with our common unifiers,  now that so many are taught disdain for the idea of being Americans and have given them up for tribal identifiers based on victimhood, race and gender. 
         
         Now that so few young Americans understand our history, have little idea of how our government really works, and have no sense of loyalty to the Nation.
         
         It will be easy to "burn it all down" and then the real tyranny can begin, the purges, the re-education camps, the confiscation of property, the lock-downs and arrests for violating them.
         
         These horrors won't be perpetuated against the wealthy or the elites, they will not impact the corporations or banks, they will suvive it relatively unsacthed, as the rest of us are allowed to destroy one another with the help of whatever faction has control.
         
         The only ones that will suffer, the only ones that will pay, are the ones without the wealth or connections to insulate themselves from the mobs and political zealots.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "And now that everyone identifies along the lines of race, injustices done to prior generations, sexual identifications, and political ideals we are all so much better off as a nation."
            
            Ken, it has, in reality, always been this way. The unified status you talk about is basically one group of people writing the narrative with the others just suppose to sing along.
            
            Can you point to one period of American history when everybody was on the same page, with the exception of the World Wars, where certain people agreed to put their grievances on the shelf because they were told that either the Kaiser or the Fuhrer were the overriding priority.
            
            As for Vietnam, for which I almost had to participate, I and many like me asked why was I worried about Communism thousands of miles away when I was having so many unresolved issues right here? Mohammed Ali courageously put the system to task to get that question answered.
            
            Our history have many facets, both good and bad. All the facets should be a part.
            
            What does avoiding a sugar coated version of American history have to do with "tearing it all down"? For too many of you, the choice is keeping an untenable status quo or "tearing it all down". Can there be a middle course, why are conservatives so stubborn and stodgy all of the time?
            
            Young people are just following the example set by your fearless leader, putting their interests as first and foremost ahead of the needs of society in general. Fitting example, huh?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It is a shame, that I can see what is being lost better than you can.
               
               What was it that Martin Luther King was looking to achieve?
               
               What was it that the Civil Rights Movement was about?
               
               What was it that Sammy Davis Jr. hoped for?
               
               I thought it was to be seen as an equal, treated as an equal, to not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character...
               
               Today's movement is the exact OPPOSITE of what those men, and that movement was about.
               
               Today's movement is all about the color of one's skin, and it doesn't care at all about the content of one's character.
               
               And we see this playing out in our society, in the messaging bombarded by our liberal MSM sources, and by movements like BLM.
               
               We are making martyrs and heroes out of Rapists and Murderers because of the color of their skin, and we are vilifying those that are sworn to protect the people from such criminals.
               
               We have a ideological movement demanding reparations based on the color of one's skin, not the merit of their efforts, nor the worth of what they contribute to society.
               
               I believe the likes of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King would look upon the Democratic Party and BLM and what they stand for with disgust. 
               
               There is no one from those times that had the courage and character to champion the Civil Rights Movement that would stand with an organization like BLM whose leaders claim things like:
               
               Aug 11, 2020 · A Black Lives Matter Chicago organizer said Monday that the mobs who vandalized and looted downtown businesses the night before did nothing wrong, calling it “reparations” for Black suffering…
               
               Aug 13, 2020 · Ariel Atkins told WBEZ that her group “100 percent” supports the violent looters who trashed chunks of the Windy City on Monday, again repeating her claim that it is reparations.
               
               Jun 25, 2020 · Head of BLM NY, Hawk Newsome said : If change doesn’t happen, then ‘we will burn down this system’ ... “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.
               
               This is not a movement worthy of respect, these are not leaders worthy of being listened to.  They should be treated like the spoiled, ignorant,  bloviated radicals and ideologues that they are.  And when they burn, or assault, or murder others, they should be prosecuted with the full force of the law.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, you see, Ken, through amber colored glasses.
                  
                  What these men you speak of seek to accomplish and what has been accomplished are two different things.
                  
                  I am black man, who can discern the difference between rhetoric and reality. I think I know more about the problems that afflict me and my community over that of "conservative white people" who couldn't,  by their very nature, ever understand and really just as soon not be troubled with having to understand.
                  
                  That is what this is all about as we have yet to attain to a society where people are judged solely on their merit and not on superficial attributes. The goal is to continue on that path and not revert or veer away from it which appears to be all so evident under the realm of Trump.
                  
                  I have disowned the BLM tactics but sympathize with the larger goal of attacking festering inequities within this cultural milieu. So, Voila, there you have it.
                  
                  I agree with you that any violence and vandalism need to be dealt with sternly. Just make sure that it is BLM or Antifa that is directly responsible, because I will be watching.
                  
                  Just like I tolerate your boogaloo boys, QAnon and any number of right wing racist authoritarian, trigger happy goons, so it should be that Left leaning people have the right to peacefully protest grievances.
                  
                  But, as I suspect, the Right has always been fearful of any kind of dissent and that is where I will snare the rightwinger advocates in their own traps.

                  replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Go deeper and more basic than that Cred. Do you think the Black volunteer soldiers of the civil war felt a common bond? Or the Tuskegee Airmen?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I am going deeper and more basic. I did say that wartime was an exception. Short of an invasion from Mars the human race will always squabble amongst themselves.
            
            Why does it have to take a wartime scenario to begin to believe that you are a part of the whole?
            
            The Blacks of the Massachusetts 54th had a team spirit and comraderie based on no small part to its commander, and the fight for their right to be freemen, a little different reason for them to engage but it was fortuitous that they and they white counterparts had an ultimate objective that was the same.
            
            Funny about the Tuskegee Airman, I only learned of their existence and contribution as crackerjack bomber escorts during the 1970's ethnic studies classes. How did I miss this? I knew about Eddie Rickenbacker and Charles Lindbergh and the "Red Baron" long before this.
            
            So, we can only find common ground and purpose when there are guns pointed at both of our heads?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Your point about only when threatened with war illustrates my point of going deeper, to core basics. War may have been the situation that forced consideration of our basic ideals—because war threatened them, but the basics were there to be found before the war forced everyone to look.
               
               I think Ken's comment to this point, ie. we all bleed red, was spot on, and your reply, although containing valid points only reinforced his comment's perspective—division by all the factors he mentioned, and that you proved, by using examples of them to rebut his thought.
               
               Yet, you admit, (by your reference to it only happening when threatened with war), that these mentioned common core values and ideals are there all along. It just takes something more than topical divisive issues to find them.
               
               Imagine where we might be if we focused on that thought when seeking solutions to our national problems instead of the social politics of group divisions; race, skin color, sexuality, etc.
               
               Considering recent examples, imagine how the demanded police reform conversation would go if it was directed at specific cops, practices, and events rather than blanket label charges of systemic racism in our law enforcement organizations.
               
               GA

               replyreport
3. 69

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   My opinion is this: people should read widely on current affairs and related historical publications, instead of comics as Tom and Jerry.                                                   Tom and Jerry is good food to eat when the mind and body gets tense and needs relaxing.                                               Years back, I regularly read the Newsweek and Time magazines. Both are an American publication. I notice too much search light on history and current affairs.  And I pass my history and government exam as a private candidate at the Advance Level.                                        This is the age of the internet, and, I and you are just  'seconds' apart. Nearly 80% of the populace who internet savvy will be watching football action online or offline on tv for example. We lost the reading culture.                                                           Laptops, tablets, smart phones, and others though widely used in educational system are apply more outide the 'classroom' than is intend

   replyreport
4. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   I suppose none of you have had the experience of having a relative come here...speak little or no English, then get a job, got through the entire immigration process and get their citizenship.
   
   It is a VERY proud day for them.  They view the United States from their experiences in their mother country and know what a special place America is and always has been.
   
   I know my relative will defend the United States against anyone who talks it down.  Why?  They know what life is like in other countries.  Some of the older relatives lived under Stalin.  Americans have NO idea how good they have it here.  You like socialism...go spend time in Venezuela or Cuba.  THEN see what life is like under a socialist government.
   
   Too many Americans take too much for granted. Liberals especially have no idea what they are talking about.
   
   So,
   
   The citizenship test is important and those who can't pass it only confirm the level of ignorance that exists in our country today.  Funny how everyone is free to leave who thinks this place is awful...but they don't.  I've offered to liberals if they want to go to live in a socialist country...I'd pay their way.  But nobody goes...what other country on the planet would put up with American liberals?  I can't think of any.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So, what is it about, Mike, "love it or leave it" mindless jingo patriotism without a purpose but to intimidate a side of the political spectrum that you don't approve?
      
      I don't have to come from another country to realize that America is OK. But, for you, it would be a lot better if you could silence all those ungrateful liberals who dare speak their opinion within the Trump universe.
      
      When Obama took office, I was pleased that so many Rightwingers became expats. Don't think that this can't happen again, and again I invite you all to leave. So, it works both ways.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Actually no.  I don't care who speaks their opinion about anything.  What I don't understand is when people say they absolutely hate the United States and everything about it. When I hear this, I say, what country do you think is better and why aren't you there?  My ancestors left and came here.  You go to Canada, New Zealand  or even Australia and you meet people who left their home country and moved there to live.  So, my question always is, if you hate this country and think it is so terrible, what country is better and why aren't you there?
         
         I think you would struggle to find any conservative who left the country because obama was elected.  I think that is a bit of a fantasy.  Conservatives got organized, got their message out and worked hard on electing people with their views.  That is the American way.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Well, Mike, I would like to live in Tahiti and have vestal virgins ply me with grapes as I repose. All things are not possible for everybody. So, I will roll up my sleeves and prepare to confront the Right and its nonsense without fear.
            
            I lived in Panama for 6 months and every other American expat I met referred to former President Barack Obama as a socialist that was going to destroy the country, thus they believe it best to leave while still having their proboscis' covered by the milk and honey from the trough of benefits from this "socialist" country. It was most interesting that they had the temerity to tell me these things when they probably were smart enough to know that I wouldn't be on the same page.
            
            As I considered them the worse sort of hypocrites, me and the wife were determined to learn Spanish quickly an align with locals and not take on the spirit of the "gringo".  These people intimidate the Panamanian government for concessions just because they were now there.
            
            Whether it be in Hawaii, U.S mainland or Panama, the rightwinger is one sort that is to be avoided whenever possible.
            
            We progressives need to organize and learn to play the same "hardball" and strike below the belt tactics that the Right has been so comfortable employing if we are to prevail. I fear that Biden may prove to be too much of a pu$$y to do what is necessary to move the agenda forward.
            
            That is going to have to be our American way as well.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               "Well, Mike, I would like to live in Tahiti and have vestal virgins ply me with grapes as I repose. " 
               
               Okay...you made me laugh.  I've never been to Panama, but people have told me it is a great place.
               
               We do agree.  Work within the system to get your views heard. That is the American way.  The problem with the left seems they are not able to accept it when their views are rejected by voters.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I have been meaning to get a hub out about my experiences in Panama, but it has been like nuclear fusion, just around the corner.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I look forward to reading it when you have it done.

                     replyreport