i mean it's not a huge difference but still

anonymous asked:

We don't really learn about other countries. And if we do it's world history that's pretty outdated, roman culture and the ottoman empire for example.

Well, in fairness I think every country focuses on their own history and culture for the most part. I mean even with the Roman Empire, we mostly learnt about Roman Britain and not the the empire as a whole. So whilst it is 2000 years ago, it is still the history of our country.

I think almost all school studies will have a major focus on the culture its coming from. But the difference is, whilst we did mostly study things related to the UK, America has such a huge cultural dominance that it was inevitable it would slip in. If you study the economic struggle of the 30s, you have to start with the Wall Street Crash and the American economic policies that led to it. If you study commercialisation in Geography, then most of the huge companies dominating the world are American. You study literature, so many of the ‘classic’ texts that schools want to teach are American that some kind of study of American culture is inevitable.

In my school you only had to study history until you were 14, and after that it was optional if you wanted to take the GCSE and A-Level, which I did. Before that, when it was compulsory, it was almost all British history through the years, I mean starting with the Romans and moving forward to WW2. But once I got to the optional stuff it was entirely 20th Century studies - and it was almost all American. We studied the Korean War, the Vietnam War, a thrilling unit called ‘American Economic Policy 1914-1945′… even when we did our unit on Germany 1918-1945, America was there. Because whilst it was essentially a unit on WW2 from the German perspective, America had such a huge role in the war that it couldn’t be ignored.

We all focus on our own countries and cultures. Its probably just a lot easier for Americans to learn by focusing only on their country. Because its their country that has been the worlds largest superpower for over a century.

Terminator Genisys Review Follow Up

By Andrew Lefferts

***Slight spoilers below***

Originally posted by sarutor

Andrew here just writing a follow up on the review. I have the same opinions on the film that Greg does. After I saw the film I started thinking about it I went home and started researching some of the reviews to see why the film currently sits at a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. I know everyone has their own opinions on film. That’s why all film is subjective. But I think people have been a little harsh on this film. I mean I have to ask were people really expecting a film that would surpass T2? That film is from a different era of film making where the techniques used to create effects were still relatively new to us as an audience. Whereas now we are accustomed to huge blockbusters with the huge effects its just the way it is we’ve seen it all. In my opinion if we are going to compare this movie to Terminator 3 and Salvation this film ranks as the actual Terminator 3. I re watched the original Terminator after viewing Genisys and I have to say I have respect for what Alan Taylor was trying to do. While watching the film i was saying to myself that’s really cool they’re paying respect to what came before while trying to breathe new life into this franchise. Terminator 3 was basically a poor rehash of T2 and Salvation was not a Terminator film in any way if you ask me. People are being very harsh on Jai Courtney’s portrayal of Kyle Reese with one critic saying he acts to much like bro and not a enough like a hardened vet. After thinking about it, he has to give a different portrayal than  Michael Biehns fantastic performance. The Kyle Reese in the original film comes from a future where up until he traveled back in time lived in a future where there was no hope whatsoever. Where everyday could be his last. The only time he was ever at peace was when he was looking at that picture of Sarah Connor. Where as the Reese in this film has seen visions of another timeline where he has lived a life before the war, where there may not even be a war now. He has a chance to change not just humanity’s fate but his own as well. And as for Emilia Clarke I think i can see what she was doing. I always think of Sarah Connor as the Sarah Connor from T2 where thinking she can help john from having to carry the burden has basically become a terrorist and has been locked away leaving him without a parent and left to fend for himself. Where as in this film i think they were trying to make her out to be a mix between T1 and T2 sarah. shes not a woman who has been locked up she already knows her future and has had horrible things happen to her but still has some innocence. She sort of takes on the John Connor role from T2 here. I really enjoyed the film a lot I think they were trying to do what J.J. did with Star Trek still a 3.5 quarts of cool juice!!