Thoughts on racism

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

I'm talking about political America. America as a country. I assume you just mean the land.

I don't.

Look, either Political America (THE UNITED STATES you moron, it already has a name) started with the Revolutionary War or it didn't; if it did, then there's no need to give preference to European history, just teach pre-Revolutionary American history.

If the United States started before the Revolution, in some nebulous proto state, maybe you should consider teaching more than just your favourite foreign countries' involvement in there.

Quote:

You are missing the point. The point there is no point in learning about how a bunch of fucking tribes in Africa killed eachother in why in an American history course.

You racist nigger.

Quote:

Gee, you think that just might be the SLAVE TRADE? Something I've repeatedly emphasized should be taught in American History courses?

Are slaves the only commodity Europe raped from Africa? Also: do you think there are no political paralells between the two, because damn

Quote:

Africans were brought here direct from Africa due to the slave trade. Slave traders stripped most of their cultural identity from them basically causing them to have to re-create their own unique culture.

You are a no-nothing. That is also a history term!

Quote:

West African culture is an entirely different story. It is something that EXISTED IN AMERICA. Something with a DIRECT effect on American culture.

West Africa is a place in America. there are many black people living there. They enjoy "soul food" and they preach voodoo. They sing very good well.

Originally Posted by Magi

How old are you son?

19 1/2. I took my last American history class my junior year of high school.

Quote:

No, we got music, food and religion from there too. Unless you conveniently ignored my post about Voodoo again.

African food, music, and religion as part of mainstream American culture derived from African Americans.

You are getting into the realm of World History now.

Is there any problem with talking about stuff in West Africa in an American history class? Hell no. Is there a problem with spending an entire class going in depth as to all the specifics of history in West Africa? I believe so. There are much larger parts of American history.

Quote:

History is ALWAYS about questioning what is given to us, do you really believe those textbooks you read are the absolute truth?

Where did you learn all this information from? Who taught you this?

History is what we all choose to believe. The texts in the history are what we all get taught, and so the generation goes forward with similar knowledge of the world. Sure you can try and stir up people to adopt a completely different historical mindset, but its like trying to shove a baseball bat down your cat's throat; it's just not gonna succeed 100%.


I almost used Hitler in my argument. .

Originally Posted by CrunchyNachos

I almost used Hitler in my argument. .

I assume the denotes the sadness we all feel that you did not use this arguement.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I don't.

Look, either Political America (THE UNITED STATES you moron, it already has a name) started with the Revolutionary War or it didn't; if it did, then there's no need to give preference to European history, just teach pre-Revolutionary American history.

Thank you. At least we are on the same playing field now. I don't know where you went to school, but we didn't learn about European history in American History class. Did we learn about pre-revolutionary American history? Sure. Did we mention some of the stuff going on in mainland england at the time? Hell yes, they had a direct effect on the soon-to-be United States.

Quote:

Are slaves the only commodity Europe raped from Africa? Also: do you think there are no political paralells between the two, because damn

There isn't enough of a bearing on American History to put a big emphasis on it.

Quote:

West Africa is a place in America. there are many black people living there. They enjoy "soul food" and they preach voodoo. They sing very good well.

WHO is a racist nigger????

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Am I happy about this? No. And it isn't a sentence or two. Usually its a small separate section sandwiched between everything else. It should just be intergrated with the rest of the sections. There isn't any need to separate important American women just because they are women.



They have a larger role in American history, and men in general have a larger role in other country's histories also. You are so pissed off about historic injustice towards women that you can't just acknowledge this simple fact.

I and I hope noone else is denying the importance of women in american history. I don't see why its just a huge injustice just to acknowledge that due to the social status of women in the past, it has pretty much made it close to impossible for them to have a massive part in history until recent times.

You need to be much more specific in your wording, mate. Women had very small pressures on political history, but a massive impact on social history. Which is just as important as political history in explaining how a society worked. I could sit back and explain to you how the Muinane tribe of South America organise their tribal government, but without explaining the societal organisation, it would just be placements and large movements with no context. Until you can put those political movements into a contextualized surrounding, they're just facts in a book. Your problem is that you seem to only look at the large, obvious bits of history as relevant. You're looking at the peak and missing the iceberg, mate. History is about context, and you're just giving it concept.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

19 1/2. I took my last American history class my junior year of high school.



African food, music, and religion as part of mainstream American culture derived from African Americans.

You are getting into the realm of World History now.

Is there any problem with talking about stuff in West Africa in an American history class? Hell no. Is there a problem with spending an entire class going in depth as to all the specifics of history in West Africa? I believe so. There are much larger parts of American history.

Why are you getting into an argument about time, when no such thing has been brought up?

It's not World History dipshit, the African culture assimilated into the South is part of American History and development. Unless of course you also want to ignore large parts of America and focus on New England, since all you care about are revolting anal religious folk.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

19 1/2.

Is that really necessary? The half, I mean?

I'm going to ask again. If you know very little about African history or culture, why do you feel fit to judge whether it might be relevant to an American history course?

I will also ask, why don't you feel it's relevant to discuss pre-whitey settlers while discussing American history?

Originally Posted by CrunchyNachos

I almost used Hitler in my argument. .

Please do.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Am I happy about this? No. And it isn't a sentence or two. Usually its a small separate section sandwiched between everything else. It should just be intergrated with the rest of the sections. There isn't any need to separate important American women just because they are women.

And with this, you speak nonsense since you just admitted your last class was 3 years ago.

Quote:

They have a larger role in American history, and men in general have a larger role in other country's histories also. You are so pissed off about historic injustice towards women that you can't just acknowledge this simple fact.

I and I hope noone else is denying the importance of women in american history. I don't see why its just a huge injustice just to acknowledge that due to the social status of women in the past, it has pretty much made it close to impossible for them to have a massive part in history until recent times.

I'm not pissed off. I'm not so much a feminist as a woman who happens to enjoy touting racial injustice

Women were a large part of prohibition yet they aren't mentioned. Women's suffrage (like I mentioned above). The 1960's movement. The numerous women politicians and historical figures. I'm not talking about a 50/50 portrayal because that would be mad and I'm well aware of the hurdles women had to overcome to get to where we are now but even with recent times, they are barely mentioned with any sort of historical significance.

Why won't you just admit it's because of EXTENUATING factors in the portrayal of history rather than history itself.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

There isn't enough of a bearing on American History to put a big emphasis on it.

You don't even know what the history is, though. Why do you feel an authority in these matters? Why do you get a say?

Quote:

WHO is a racist nigger????

You think white people don't worship cars. That's pretty niggardly to me.

Originally Posted by Eleo

Please do.

No, but Godwin's Law would say I lost. And I want to continue to ponder the question.

Some interesting information I found just now reading Godwin's Law. The Fifty Hitler Post, "which is simply an outrageous number of images of Adolf Hitler in close succession. This is almost guaranteed to get you banned from the thread, thus ending your involvement. Like Vegas, quit a flame war when you're ahead."

Originally Posted by lurker

You don't even know what the history is, though. Why do you feel an authority in these matters? Why do you get a say?

It's an opinion. It's like asking why you feel you have to put him on the spot on an internet forum. Can you answer the question better than him?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You need to be much more specific in your wording, mate. Women had very small pressures on political history, but a massive impact on social history. Which is just as important as political history in explaining how a society worked. I could sit back and explain to you how the Muinane tribe of South America organise their tribal government, but without explaining the societal organisation, it would just be placements and large movements with no context. Until you can put those political movements into a contextualized surrounding, they're just facts in a book. Your problem is that you seem to only look at the large, obvious bits of history as relevant. You're looking at the peak and missing the iceberg, mate. History is about context, and you're just giving it concept.

Touche, mate .

I was thinking of political history rather than social history. Socially women are a massive part of American history, and I spent a good amount of time in my junior American History class learning about Women's suffrage, and other rights women won for themselves.

I'm not saying smaller, less obvious bits of history aren't releveant or important. I've repeated this over and over, yet nobody seems to catch this:

These smaller, less obvious bits do NOT need to have the same amount of importance and time put on them as the large, obvious bits of history.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by a lurker

You don't even know what the history is, though. Why do you feel an authority in these matters? Why do you get a say?



You think white people don't worship cars. That's pretty niggardly to me.

Are you actually trying to tell me that political ties between Africa and Europe have a large enough impact on American history to require more than a passing sentence in a textbook?

Something like that is common sense. I don't need to be Mr. History Channel TV Historian to tell you that isn't as important as the Civil war.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

These smaller, less obvious bits do NOT need to have the same amount of importance and time put on them as the large, obvious bits of history.

You didn't read Deni's post well good enough if you still think this.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Touche, mate .

I was thinking of political history rather than social history. Socially women are a massive part of American history, and I spent a good amount of time in my junior American History class learning about Women's suffrage, and other rights women won for themselves.

I'm not saying smaller, less obvious bits of history aren't releveant or important. I've repeated this over and over, yet nobody seems to catch this:

These smaller, less obvious bits do NOT need to have the same amount of importance and time put on them as the large, obvious bits of history.

But are we talking in a highschool all-encompassing history class, or are we talking a political history course in university? The latter, I completely agree with you. Sadly, women don't play as large a role in political history. However, if it's for say, a basic history course like a survery course, or a high school course, I think it should be given fair time. Those courses are about giving you a taste of all the historical options open to you.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

Are you actually trying to tell me that political ties between Africa and Europe have a large enough impact on American history to require more than a passing sentence in a textbook?

I said 'relevant', not 'impacting', carboy.

I tend to agree with the basic sentiment of the e-mail in question. I have, for years, found it reprehensible that historical error - admitted error - could be used to justify modern intolerances. I don't even want to get into the minute, pedantic particulars of history and its sociological implications. That's just an unending hellhole of futility.