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.

You racist nigger.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

WHO is a racist nigger????

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.

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?

Please do.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

For the larger part, all those who were involved with slavery and the greater era of segregation are dead. On all sides of the fences. We now realize and agree that such a practice was inhumane. I, personally, have never been involved in slavery, segregation, apartheid or any movement aimed at reducing the freedoms of another race or creed. I find it ludicrous that anyone could assume otherwise based simply by my apparent lineage. The retaliatory derogation applied by some groups is almost Biblical in its dogma; I have been cursed with the "sins" of my forebearers. Only this time, there's no sacred ritual that would cleanse the "taint" from my soul.

The tragedy is that, even for having this opinion, it could be construed that I've some axe to grind against minorities. I could be called a racist. I could be accused of pointing a wagging finger at someone who meant me no ill will. Ironic, no?
Yet even more bothersome is the idea that, for those who do judge my intent by my color, there is seemingly little I can do to refute their opinion. I am bound by perceptions of historical wrongdoing, trapped inside my invisible box, unable to dodge or return jabs from pointy sticks thrust inward. Doing so would only validate their claims against me.

So why, as a white person, am I a racist for not liking the way other groups demonstrably regard me?

Many companies directly benefited from slavery in the past, and they are still kicking around. They might not be individuals, and this might have nothing to do with paleface / darkies, but there you go.

Words are just words. It's intent that is harmful. I believe that people who get offended by terms are perpetuating a dangerous concept of syllables of sound being dangerous. It isn't the syllables being used, it's how they're used. The hate behind them, if you will.

For example, if Mr. Landon were to say I was his nigger, we'd chuckle and move on. If he was to spit angrily "I fucking hate that nigger" it would be different. I think people work themselves up too easily over what really doesn't matter.

Fuck you and your 3 brain cells.

Go to bed and then re-read my posts when you have a scrap of intelligence. The current emphasis put on native american history, government, culture, etc, is not called for in current American history curriculum.

Not everything is black and white, all or nothing.

I never once said this, nor do I think this. You have the reading comprehension of a fucking brick. I'm not even sure how you could even get such an assinine idea out of what I said.

kat - I'm not sure where you live, but we spent a good deal of time on Women's suffrage, women's involvement in prohibition, etc, in my class. If your teacher is just passing that stuff by like it isn't important, bring it up. Or if it's too late for that, then yeah, you have a reason to be pissed off at that matter :).

Maybe other people are different, but stuff I learn in history class doesn't just magically disappear from my brain.

--------------------------------------------------

Goodnight, I'm done here. I'm down to endlessly repeating myself because I can't get certain points through lurker's and devo's skull.

What. History is what we choose to believe? Then I'd like believe that China never went Communist and the Nationalists won. It doesn't make it fact but if I teach enough ignorant people, then I might just get my way.

Look, you're not realizing that in the scope of history, there is one and only one truth. Situation A happened at Location B during Time C. It's humans who take this raw data and skew them to their liking. Person D was the hero, Person E was the victim. It (I guess you can say) humanizes this data and creates bias. This is the history we're taught. I'm not saying what we learn is all filth but most of it is warped in some way by several factors and what comes out in the end, is not what happened originally.

Like the herofication of most historical figures. Washington actually was not as good a military man as books make him out to be, but we wouldn't know because we're all told how his actions saved the Revolution. History, at its essence, is like a really bad game of telephone. Each person who get their hands on it changes it in some way to their liking while the original person is the only one who knows what really happened.

By accessing first-hand sources, even second-hand sources or simply information without bias, we are able to furthur acheive knowledge of that original raw data. We're not getting people to adopt a different historical mindset but a historical mindset that is at its core, is pure and true. This may be impossible but by even beginning to strive for it, it's still better than having to read the stuff they give you in school.

So why don't you think we should learn about injuns? Aren't they Americans too?

You did say it. I posted a link previously in regards to that. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you shouldn't have used car worship as an example of differences between hispanics and white folks. I mean, is it that difficult to say what you mean?

Don't fucking patronize me, especially since you're the bigot in this scenario.

And I'm really amazed you still remember the layout of your history book from 3 years ago that woman's suffrage was in a box off to the top right side on page 392.

Do you think you're convincing anyone?

I personally believe that knowledge of the Native American history and culture is vital to understanding of later conflicts between them and European settlers, which persisted for a very long time even after the Union has been established.

Its easy to frame the term in European perspective during that time, however, we are not dealing with bunch of animals when we are talking about native Americans, without knowledge of their relationship to the land and how they lived, its easy to get into the same mind set of the settler and justify the type of atrocity that follows.