Ah, gee, because that's where black history begins in America?

You don't need to tell me that.

What you need to get through your thick skull is that the existence of political America was fueled by the colonists. The EUROPEAN colonists. This is why french & spanish interests in the Americas don't play such a big role in history textbooks.


I'm saying people don't need to learn the culture of West Africa, period. This is American History, not "Lets-throw-every-possible-minority-link-into-this-class-so-nobody-can-bitch-about-minority-injustice" class.

The culture of AFRICAN-AMERICANS is important to American History.

If you want to learn about the culture of West Africa, take a Black History class, or a World History class.

You know that if we're talking the blacks that wound up in the south, that the majority of them are directly influenced by their lives in Haiti, which was used as a staging ground for west african slaves, right?

No, I want them to keep learning the same things. At least the things they learn in this part of the country. You seem to want to either keep/add the entire history of West Africa, which is completely pointless. Although in California or other shit-for-brains states like that, I don't doubt they already do that, and in that case, YES, they should be learning LESS.

Good for you, after several weeks, you finally found a couple of fucking exceptions.

France and Spain are not part of Europe.

You heard it here first, folks!

what

Like Deni said, for a survey class, it absolutely is important to throw every possible aspect of America (minorities lol) in there so the student gets a grasp of a well-rounded history. You don't understand this? I don't know why. You're so wise for your nineteen-and-one-half years.

But why should this play a major part in American History? Why do we need to learn about the entire history, development, and culture of Haiti (or any other country mentioned in the past hour or so) just to understand that the African slaves brought some aspects of Haitian culture with them to Southern USA?

I don't think we should, but I also think that in survey courses it should at least get some time spent on it. If all we offer is your brand of history, we'll only get one kind of history student.

So you do not feel that the attention paid to minorities' roles in American history is overblown and takes too much time? I am now confused.

http://www.picsofdetroit.com/albums/...Watchables.jpg

Much like these people, who grew up believing they were not hispanic.

"It's not completely pointless you damn bigot"
it's pointless to include it in AMERICAN history

[QUOTE]I wasn't very clear there at all. Meant the immigrants, mostly english, which started the colonies in America.

French and Spanish interests in America, while also playing a role in the development, are not near so important and don't play near such large a role in the beginnings of America as a country of independant rule.

That was after I realized that when they said 'West Africa' they didn't mean 'Southern USA.' I'm not even sure where I made the link there. First quote I meant West Africa as in the actual West Africa, second quote you listed, I meant Southern USA. I have no idea what I was thinking, probably west = western hemisphere, or something like that.



A well-rounded history does not include a disproportionate idea of the importance of french, spanish, black, english, etc, influences in the history of america.

Double Post:
WITH RESPECTS TO AN AMERICAN HISTORY CLASS.

Goddamn, try to keep the same fucking mindset for 10 seconds.

I don't mean completly pointless overall.

There is no point in learning the history of West Africa in an American History class, and I stand by that.

Godwin's Law would suggest that it was highly probable of you using it.

Maybe next time!

... Do you not understand the nature of my post was being ironic? Because you yourself said that HISTORY IS WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. People believe tons of shit but there is only one clear cut edition of history. Some people do believe the Holocaust didn't exist, but we have thousands of first hand accounts including diaries, pictures, etc. from the victims and, soldiers that rescued them. And because of these accounts by actual people who experienced the horrors and witnessed them, we are able to accurately construct the truth from this set of information. If we were to go off what the Germans wanted history to be, we would have been all lead to believe that the Jewish were tickled to death with sunflowers.

I hope you don't think calling me darling makes you sound like a fucking man. So shut the fuck up.

What are people's stories' impressions thoughts etc? A soldier's autobiography on his mental state? OH FUCKING YEAH, PRIMARY SOURCES.

Wrong, primary sources are from participants in the event like diaries, letters, etc., not only eyewitness accounts.

Eyewitness is a compound word, let's break it up.

EYE = Either of a pair of hollow structures located in bony sockets of the skull, functioning together or independently, each having a lens capable of focusing incident light on an internal photosensitive retina from which nerve impulses are sent to the brain; the vertebrate organ of vision.

WITNESS = One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced

I have no clue how you decided an eyewitness account would be biased, unless they were to, you know, LIE. So you've basically negated your entire argument with this entire post. Marvelous job, darling.


And DarkLink2135, Devo is right. You have several people in this thread on you like a pack of rottweilers so stop blaming everyone else and recognize it's not our problem.

RIGHT!

SOME time. But we don't need an in depth study on every aspect of Haiti, just because the Southern USA has Haitian immigrants. Even in a survey course.

You're right. It's not my problem people are throwing my words around. It isn't my problem Devo is too fucking stupid to understand the concept of relevence, that there isn't any point in spending a week learning about the history, culture, economics, politics, etc, of West Africa just because many slaves came from there to America. It's not my problem people take my words out of context so they can believe I don't think blacks have any importance in US history, so we should just throw them out of the curriculum.

These sources, while "primary sources", will still hold the bias of the author.

So the entire time you've been confusing Europe with England. I mean, I got that from the context (see how useful that is?), but maybe you're just retarded.

I mean, wow. So, uh, France doesn't really factor into American history during the Revolution much, huh?

No, it does, that's the definition of a well-rounded history class actually.

But you don't feel that it is very important to learn about native american history in an American history class.

Please. Oh please, ELABORATE.

Please re-read the quoted box, it did not say what you thought it said.

Naturally, we always get only one point of view and never has any understanding of the historic context in which they are set, oh no.

You corrected his semantics but ignored his main point, that primary sources are still biased. Unless you view an incident yourself, it is impossible to get an unbiased report of it.

[QUOTE=a lurker]No, I've been using Europe where it makes sense to do so. Not all of the colonists came from england. Rather than just list off all the countries, I used the word 'european'. In the future, I'll remember to be extremely specific as you have a complete inabllity to understand contextual clues.

With that single post, I used the wrong word, yes.

I was talking about pre-revolutionary history, which is why the primarily ENGLISH colonists are the major focus in pre-revolutionary history rather than the French or the Spanish.

Disproportionate does not meet my definition of well-rounded.

Learn to fucking read. This is probably the 5th time I've said that the current importance we place on every aspect of native american culture in American history class (United States History....meaning political America in this case) is uncalled for.

It's not unimportant. It should be studied, as the US had direct conflicts with Native Americans due to areas of government, economics, and culture. I just don't feel that the current in depth study students get is called for. In an American History class, I expect to primary learn about colonization and beyond.

You know, DarkLink, the more I read you the more I realize how much you're projecting. No one said anything about learning the nooks and crannies of Haiti or West Africa, except you; you want people to learn less about minorities than they already are, and currently they are barely scratching the surface on black etc history. Seriously sir, get help.

http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart...liminatorf.jpg

ZZ Top is a well-known Mariachi band.

Double Post:
If witnessing something imparts an unbiased account of the situation, but writing it down will taint it with the author's bias... how do we get eye-witness accounts of history?