Years in History #1 - Multiple Choice

Yeah, I had no clue on that one. Pure guess work. Though I did have the same issue with the lightbulb, plague and the last four. I managed to narrow a few down to one of two dates, but needless to say, picked the wrong date each and every time.

I did the same thing, Algernon. I knew the general time, but sometimes chose the wrong one of two that looked likely.

BCE and CE are brain-dead dating systems that ignore their own base years, academic or no

AD and BC are more recognizable. Also the Common Area system is still based around the same event, the birth of Jesus.

Agree, especially since Jesus Christ wasn't actually born in 1 AD.

Either system is fine in my opinion. While AD and BC may be more recognisable if you have never seen CE and BCE or aren't used to them, I think most people would understand the meaning of either. The idea that CE and BCE are "brain-dead" is wrong though, and what they actually stand for is more accurate than "anno Domini" and "before Christ", as when Jesus was actually born (or conceived, depending on which you think constituted the beginning of his life) is unknown. While the base year was intended to be the year of Jesus' birth or possibly conception, it actually is more accurate to call the years since (AD) 1 (CE) the "common era", as the entire world uses it now and not just Christians.

Kalbahamut, if Kiwiquizzer didn't know the year of the Chilembwe uprising or that of Malawian Independence from British rule, would you be saying that there was a deliberate bias in New Zealand history education against Malawian history?

I think the difference is that the US is the most influential country in the world. Malawi doesn't affect world events on nearly the same scale. It's just a fact that a handful of countries--the US, Russia, Germany, France, UK, China, India, Japan, Iran, and a few others have an outsized impact on world affairs. That's why their leaders and, yes, their histories are better-known. To compare US history to Malawian history in the way you're doing is intentionally obtuse. Do you consider the Magna Carta merely "British history"? Or do people study it because of the impact it's had on history since it happened? The American Revolution is likewise a huge event because without it, the last century would be very different than it was.

smh...

There is not a deliberate bias in NZ history education against teaching anything about America. Just not the American Declaration of Independence. Of course there is a big focus on the Treaty of Waitangi. The curriculum here regarding USA includes Black Civil Rights in the USA, the Vietnam War, and World War I and II.

Pretty big omission, kiwi. The British Empire losing her North American colonies (the first time any such declaration of independence from the European colonial powers happened - and it's not like it was just some small island backwater that did it - this was huge), let alone the founding of the United States, is easily one of the most important events in world history. And my being an American has nothing to do with that statement. Any British, French, Russian, or Chinese historian worth their salt would absolutely tell you the same. It is indeed weird that basic history curricula anywhere would ignore it. Or focus on the Civil Rights movement or Vietnam War instead. I know Oz and NZ were involved in Vietnam and the World Wars so that makes some sense, but, Civil Rights over the American Revolution makes no sense even down under.

should clarify: the bulk of her North American colonies. The empire still had Canada, several Caribbean islands, and Belize...

Because there is a “the”? I hope you’re joking.

Wow you really aren't a genius!

Elaborate?

The Wright Brothers invented the airplane. Dumont didn't. I'm not going to elaborate on something so easy to look up...

mfw

https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon#gref

There's nothing to settle. This has never been in question among serious persons.