主题：【文摘】北美独立战争: 美国人编出来的神话 -- 李根

是史mm的大学里的文

郁闷啊

很有意思。不知您有没有更具体的资料或者亲身体会。能不能讲的更具体一点？

我在另一个贴子里也提了这个问题。链接

For example, if you teach Economics, there are at least 20 textbooks available in the market (check amazon.com) written by different professors at different schools. Some are more pro-free market, some are more neutral, some are of Keynesian school thus more in favor of governmental regulation and intervention.

Coverage of classical economics is very similar, but when it comes to modern topics, the differences start to appear in different textbooks.

At university level, textbook selection is the POWER OF PROFESSOR who teaches one specific course, not of administrative staff or school president. If administration intervenes, it will be perceived as interference of academic freedom with backlash from many professors.

BTW, Marx political economics is still taught at some schools, though not in the mainstream.

So it is common that 12 universities can use 12 different textbooks and publishers/authors compete against each other.

As to the high-school level(public sector), US does have federal level department of education, but with limited power. The school book selection is in the hand of local educational board who get its finance through real estate tax (China should collect this tax too so that local gov. do not have to sell land to get ONE-TIME concession to finance local government expenditure).

As to private high-school, of course, government can say nothing in terms of textbook selection. But keep in mind: you can not teach useless religious fundamentalism stuff because no mid-class parents want to pay hard-earned after-tax 20-30k per year for this kind of useless crap.

That's why it is very difficult to implement federal-level educational reform. You can try to talk to different groups to get more and more consensus, but do not expect uniform textbook/syllabi...

What Americans excel is self-governance, that's a 250-year tradition. You will see that if you live in one place long enough.

是史MM的文章，《餐桌上的华盛顿》。。。

当然将二者比也有不合适之处。依我看，从军事角度，独立战争时美国和朝鲜战争时朝鲜得到东西主要功劳在法国和中国，但美朝是主，法中是客，朝美碍于自尊当然会强调自己在战争中的重要性。至于是不是正规军倒不重要，当年打日本大老蒋时TG很多也不是正规军，关键是战争中实际起的作用。只能说美国人渔翁得利，运气太好了---其实法国不像中国那样高尚，只是为了削弱英国霸权，自己又吞不（能吞下的话法国早把美国吞了），才帮美国，英美之战本是日耳曼兄弟之争、母国与子国之争，就像母鸭与鸭儿子咬仗。一只高卢公鸡帮鸭儿子。呵呵。

国内详细的美国史研究，和中学历史教材上的宣传差距很大。有不少学者认为美国独立战争，与其说是一场民族独立战争，还不如说是一场政治分离运动。也很少人否认法国荷兰在美国独立战争中的作用。

楼主与其说是打媚美精英的脸，还不如说打教育部的脸。中学历史注重的是对孩子们价值观的塑造，贯穿的是tg的主流历史观，是对革命和民族解放战争的歌颂。教材编成那样，不是因为崇美，而是为了宣传一种革命和反抗的历史观。

“独立战争”没有产生一个强势人物，只能搞三权分立

所以苦涩的开始，不一定意味着失败的结束

之所以成功，得感谢美国独特的地理位置。如果不是远离欧洲强权，没有强势人物领导绝对是致命的不足。看看法国大革命有拿破仑跟没拿破仑的分别吧。

新制度在身边出现对旧势力是个不可容忍的挑战，列强绝不会袖手旁观。如果不是隔着一个大西洋，英国不会放手让北美殖民地独立，也很难想象其他君主制强权会站到大陆军一边对抗英军。对欧洲大陆的旧权贵来讲，革命永远比英国危险，后者只是外部威胁，前者分分钟可能从内部要了自己的命。一旦身边国家爆发革命，欧洲强权们总是放下分歧，合力对付革命。

法国大革命如此，十月革命也是如此，西班牙内战中英法虽然遮遮掩掩，还是如此。

所以文明的产生就像生命的进化一样，充满巧合

现在看来不可救药的缺陷很可能却成为将来可怕的优势

请参考穿越小说 《一八九三》中

第二百一十三节 去华盛顿[上]

第二百一十四节 去华盛顿[下]

所谓的“平民国会”是不存在的，华盛顿只是把权力给了北美土豪们组成的分赃会。他本人获得了俄亥俄的三万英亩土地。凯撒救济罗马穷人，给所有人以罗马公民权，这是他被腐朽的元老们痛恨的主要理由。拿破仑虽然做了皇帝，但是他为法国资本主义发展开辟了道路。

如果中国的开国元勋们选择与所谓的“平民国会”共治天下，他们还是直接进历史的垃圾堆为好。

链接出处