why not say why you disagree with first guy???????????
I'll be honest James, I thought this:
->When we study history and think about history
this is what should concern us, primarily.
Was so absurd that I thought it was self-evident why it would be rejected. I thought maybe by clarifying it further, you'd have made it sound more reasonable.
I happen to think when we study history, we should primarily be concerned about a broad exposure to history, much on the U.S., but also ancient history, world history, etc., and about the process of history itself (science, bias, rewriting history, etc.), etc. The sum of human history we summarize and learn and should teach, is so much broader than those two things, that the idea it's what we should "primarily be concerned with" when talking about history, just seems crazy to me. Like, not real that someone could actually think that.
Does that answer your question? I felt it was a little more compassionate to simply disagree.
I do think it's important, but historically its just a drop in the bucket. I think it should be touched on in sociology, economics, politics, and especially philosophy too though, and it usually is. It's overly important sometimes when we Americans think about it from our perspective...but that's natural.