<p>UC Berkeley (!) has American History and Institutions requirements.</p>
<p>A knowledge of American history and of the principles of American Institutions under the federal and state constitutions is required of all candidates for the degree of A.B., B.Arch., and B.S.
But nearly all incoming freshman satisfy the requirements with course work completed in high school.
[American</a> History and Institutions - Office Of The Registrar](<a href=“http://registrar.berkeley.edu/?PageID=ahi.html]American”>http://registrar.berkeley.edu/?PageID=ahi.html)</p>
<p>lookingforward, I was under the impression that the debate here was rather narrow. </p>
<p>Another perspective that has not been offered in this thread and that I would not expect to see from the CC regulars would be that during the time of the Soviet Union the movers and shakers promoted Christianity and traditional US history in order to increase the “love” that US citizens had for their system and the animosity towards the Soviet system and others like it. Now that the Soviets have been vanquished, Poppy Bush’s “New World Order,” run by a number of giant corporations using world resources, a world labor market, and a world full of consumers, is upon us, and it calls for a different approach.</p>
<p>Now, the movers and shakers prefer that US citizens and others think in terms of the entire world and deemphasize what made their country unique or different. Furthermore, there is value in creating some level of social chaos and division by promoting different and often irreconcilable perspectives and values in segments of the population in the US in order to minimize the possibility that the “little people” can find enough common ground to build enough political power to make a stand and successfully resist their domination.</p>
<p>Anyway, that is one perspective out of the innumerable possible perspectives on contemporary trends in US society, one that is not nearly as broadly shared in the US as those which are popular on CC.</p>
<p>What’s your point, Beliavsky? Is it possible that someone could be partially Native American AND (gasp) be smart too? Or are you going to trot out some IQ study showing that Native Americans have lower IQ’s so therefore if 1/32 of your blood is NA it downgrades your IQ by x points and yada yada?</p>
<p>Hmmm, in California, both UCs and CSUs have American history and institutions requirements. However, the UCs only require college courses in those area if the student has not had them in high school (as is typically required in high schools in the US). The CSUs require college courses (and also have a California government requirement), but allow both general survey courses and more specific courses to fulfill the requirement (example: [url=<a href=“http://info.sjsu.edu/web-dbgen/narr/schedules/rec-255.html]Info.sjsu.edu[/url”>http://info.sjsu.edu/web-dbgen/narr/schedules/rec-255.html]Info.sjsu.edu[/url</a>] ).</p>
<p>The NA controversy around Warren is a byproduct of the same assumptions about how URMs are taking seats from better qualified applicants. Who really believes it was the basis on which she was hired? Some are so quick to dismiss her qualifications. That’s emotional.</p>
<p>I would question why Elizabeth Warren’s 1/32 Native American heritage is relevant to anything. What is a 1/32 relation, anyway? Isn’t it 5 generations removed, and one of 32 equal relatives of that generation? Why was it noted by anyone at all?</p>
<p>Elizabeth Warren is within her rights and with in the extended bounds of ‘honesty’ to put NA on her application just as those very blond and blue eyed kids born in South Africa are allowed to put African-American on theirs. Since a good number of folks claim ‘it made no difference’ then there is no issue. All is fair in love and war…oh and in college admissions.</p>
<p>^^Curious…so if a child from Ghana or Nigeria immigrates… then they would put 'Ghananan African American or Nigerian African American…and would the blond and blue eyed kid from either Ghana or Nigeria give the same designation?</p>
<p>I want to acknowledge that I stand corrected on the question of whether an American history requirement in college is unusual. Caught once again with my narrow, elitist bias showing! No wonder I and my fellow Old Elis are so well known for our hatred of America and everything it stands for – no one ever made us take an American history course in college! (Of course, lots of people did it anyway, but not I.)</p>
<p>Re: Thomas Jefferson, @ConfusedMom: Would you care to elaborate a bit on what difference it makes whether Jefferson was cutting out all references to Christ’s resurrection from a Bible to be given to Indians vs. one he intended for his own personal use? I am not certain which hypothesis is less consistent with any kind of current understanding of what it means to be a Christian.</p>
<p>What’s the real beef here? That we celebrate differences? If some don’t know enough about America and Americans, back to blaming the system? And though it is called “AH,” a component today is to bring the timeframe to the present, acknowledge the immigration that flavors our country and history. And the real impact of that. We are not one unilateral definition.</p>
<p>Fyi, without going into too much detail, my D at Yale focussed her studies on American history, including her senior thesis. She loves America, but of course she does, because she’s a [shocker] <em>conservative</em> Eli. :)</p>
<p>Well, my kid is a history major and will hear shortly if he made it into an honors American Studies program that he applied for, so no shortage of American history in his studies to date!</p>
<p>I’d bet even the advocates here for a litmus test can at least somewhat identify their own family roots and immigration. And that labels such as Irish-American or whatever it may be, hold some (identity) value. Ie, that we are, indeed, aware of the melting pot. This idea that we have to morph into one prototype is curious.</p>
<p>Conservatives do not have a monopoly on loving America, nor do all conservatives love America. Some of them seem to love a particular vision of America that is not necessarily what America actually is (not necessarily any different from some liberals, except in how the particular vision is defined).</p>
<p>White people can’t claim to be African Americans whatever country they are from. This question comes up periodically from a South African white kid. The answer is “forget it.”</p>
<p>Native Americans are a more complicated issue, because there is the issue of whether a tribe is recognized, whether the person is registered with the tribe, etc. If Elizabeth Warren was registered with a tribe, then she has every right to indicate that on forms. Whether it was ultimately prudent for her to do that is debatable.</p>