In the grand scheme of the racist agenda, the Native American involvement is pretty unidirectional. They were here, were brutally ravaged by European invaders, herded and treated as property, then left to exist on only the most unusable land that Europeans didn't want. It was an unwillingness to learn about the people, their ways and a self-superior need to subjugate them with European values that led to their mass slaughter. Other than casinos, the Indians have had little opportunity to effectively strike back. (Although many tribes would rather not engage in further violence and dissent in the first place.)

Objectively speaking, even calling them Native Americans is kind of an insult. This is maintaining a label that doesn't truly apply to their heritage. "America" is a term derived from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian, who had nothing to do with their culture, or even their discovery.

Christopher Columbus was an Italian, in service to the Portuguese crown. His knowledge of the Portuguese language is believed to be fairly limited and all his known documents were written almost entirely in Spanish.

In Columbus's documents, when he came into contact with indigenous people (From either continental America or Carribbea, depending upon your opinion of the matter), he referred to them as a "people in God", or, "en Dios".
It's conceivable that the term "en Dios" could've been colloqualized by the Portuguese into "Indians" ("en Dians"), which would coincide with the region of Columbus's true destination, the country we now call India. Except in the 15th and 16th centuries, India wasn't known by that name. It called itself "Bhāratavarsha". The fact that it laid upon the Indus river lent weight to the term "India", which is how it came to be known as the English colonization transpired.
The political term, "Indian", as refers to India, didn't come into use until around the 17th century, well after Columbus' voyage.

So it's very conceivable that calling Native Americans "Indians" is a more accurate, and not politically incorrect, statement. "In Dios" is compliment, even if it does juxtapose a European concept of Christianity upon a more polydeistic culture. But, if you want to call them anything, then they should be referred to by their individual tribal names, ones they chose for themselves. There is a vast amount of difference between a Sioux, a Hopi and a Seneca. To lump them into one category is tantamount to assuming that all people with narrow eyes are Japanese.

I feel that if any groups have a legitimate reason to be upset today, it's the tribes of America. They remain on their reservations, sometimes by choice yet often not, and receive token benefits but have not been given the same level of apology and advancement initiatives as have been offered to other races.
Despite this, almost all Natives that I've met are warm folk, unhurtful and eager to make friends. Fucking inspirational. But calling them "Native Americans", that, in my opinion, is a bit ignorant. (But not racist, as ignorance does not indicate intolerance.)

I think this is the first time I've ever given a political history lesson on GFF.

I assumed since you fought so visciously back against my idea that the history of West Africa is not important to an American History class, that you placed a very high importance on it.

You do not need to learn the entire history of another country just to learn about minority groups in America. Simply learning that a certain cultural aspect was carried over with them is enough. If you want to learn more, Black History classes, encyclopedias, and many other repositories of knowledge exist for you to do exactly that.

THIS is what I don't agree with.

I love ZZ Top.

But France and Spain are not nearly, by half, as important as England is, and therefore aren't nearly worth mentioning.

And after?

Your definition, and your face, is flawed.

Most people barely learn anything about the indians, other than they had A Bad Time Of It. That's uncalled-for? It's called 'genocide', sir, and our ancestors propagated it; I think we could stand to do a section or two on them at the very least.

Person A stabbed Person B in the chest.

Just like if you were to appear as a witness in court, unless you are to lie, what happened is what happened and you can't really leak any prejudice into the account since by nature, it would be neutral. Oh you can glorify or codify it with language and such but at its core it'll always be what happened.

You can interpret it different way, theorize it differently but what you witnessed will always be for what it was.

I swear you two are the same people.

They are worth mentioning, but not nearly so high of an importance as you want to place on them. You just seem to be pissed off because white englishmen played the largest part in founding this country.

This was never my point, and you can't seem to realize that. My point is emphasis, not whether you learn about something or not. Learning about the French and Spanish explorations into mainland America, sure. There is no point in learning all about those countries, simply because they have a link to us. My point is that there is a lot of excessive knowledge that has nothing to do with American history, directly due to people placing too high of an importance on certain parts of American history.

Afterwards the French take a good part in the Revolutionary War. I'd hardly call this a need to start learning about French history, politics, economics, government, etc, though.


You have different schooling than I did.

So wait, why are we learning about Engurope again? I mean, the majority is just a larger percentage of the minority; we don't need to learn everything about them just to know that they're here, they're queer, get used to it.

And politics is stuffy tripe. Ask any high schooler about various acts, taxes or battles and he'll give you a blank stare. Just like you are right now. The only english act you can even remember is the Stamp Act, admit it.

As is with whites.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...opcwalk2mm.gif

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Hancock are very well-known Britons, yes. You got me there.

Wow.

Why? They have a reason for being there; shouldn't we know what that was?

We aren't learning EVERYTHING about europe. We are learning about events in Europe that have direct influence on developing America. Europe, specifically England, had very large ties to America at that time, much more so than West Africa.

I don't believe we should learn in-depth about every possible link to America. Simply knowing those specific links is all that is needed in an American History classroom. Knowing that African-Americans brought the beginnings of blues/jazz music with them is good. I don't think we need to learn exactly how those forms of music arose in Africa to get a good grasp of American History.

Basically I just don't see the need for that sort of knowledge in an American history class. Learning about it is great, but keep it in the proper subject, learn about it on your own, etc.

no offence Lurker, but i've noticed everything you said in this thread is complete and utter Bull. same goes to Devo. just lettin you know, you didn't seem to think about what you're saying. you should probably try to put a little un-deniable truth in your arguments, instead of just blatting out what you think with no facts to back it up. you shouldn't base everything you say off of picking apart your opponent's words and rewording them to say what you want them to say (also known as lying). you'll see what i mean if you get sober and read everything you've said. either that or you're just stupid.

BTW, this isn't about a particular post you made, you're just such a duche.

bye now, i have better things to do than talk to dumbasses :)

This is my understanding of what the word bias means in this discussion. You just handily proved my point.

I'm assuming you and I were taking "bias" to mean different things.

Their reasons for being there as related to different aspects of France (government, history....), yes. We don't need to know all about France at that time though, simply knowing that Country A had vested interests, or Country B wasn't getting along with Country A is enough.

Thanks! It'll be added to our records.

You are not ignoring this post. I will call attention to it by posting the ass of a white person who likes cars. Apparently she is also another exception:

http://www.pictures-of-cars.com/max-...icker-Babe.jpg

Congratulations on ignoring the same warnings I gave others.

You're now banned from this thread.

I may have been inferring more than what you actually said then.

I know that other people than just English colonialists have had influence on America's politics and society. But I don't think putting just as much emphasis on them is giving people a realistic view of how this country came about. Sure, there were French pressures during the Revolution, but the descendents of those English colonists, and their existing tensions between them and England were the primary driving force. They played the most important role in beginning America, or rather, the United States. Thus, we should learn more about THOSE roles, THOSE events, and THAT time in history, rather than everything that was going on in France at that time to make them want to help out. Simply knowing a primary reason or two is enough - more time should be invested on the more important points.

Of course, actually mentioning France as part of the revolution might be nice, I don't think most curriculum do.

Double Post:
These were direct descendents of the English. What's your point? The main bulk of Americans at that time consisted of English decendents.

Stop bringing completely unrelated crap into this thread, please. "Car worship" has nothing to do with this.

I will accept this as admittance that you were wrong yet again in regards to my previous post.

I am still not grasping why we need to learn about contemporary English politics when we are discussing Americans. At this point there is a distinctly American culture going, so, I'm just not seeing it. You're an Anglophile; you were taught that England is inseperable with the US's start, and you firmly believe that even though many other countries were important, crucial, and that many other races had a more profound impact on the resulting culture than debating taxes with a cash-strapped king ever had.

And you go on with all this ignoring all the other history after the Revolution. It's amazing. I mean, if we're dedicating time based on your definition on what had the most profound impact, England's politics and religion would get what, fifteen minutes? We have a timetable to keep, here.

Double Post:
My point is that Jefferson would spit in your face if you called him an Englishman, which you did. You want to talk political relevance, talk about that.

Double Post:
Do you honestly think that England's political climate was more important to American history than the genocide of the native population? Please answer that.

http://www.leectysch.com/VT/Assets/G...HANIC%2015.jpg

The rare and sought-after Blonde Hispanic Mechanic needs to know.

To THAT one? How so?

Are you trying to say English politics had nothing to do with the Revolution?

Let's stick to one period in time. At the revolutionary time period, England WAS the most important part, other than America, as far as the existence OF America goes.

The only history I want to ignore is that which is irrelevant, and it should only be ignored in the context of an American History class. It shouldn't just be ignored or forgotten period.

England had a VERY profound impact on the way we formed and ran our government. When we were setting everything up - what was the only model we had to follow? It was what we were familiar with - England. We based our government off of a free-er England. Albiet, the concept of adding in freedom did radically change the government :). But it was still based off of what they were familiar with.

Are you trying to say that all these colonists, directly descended from the English, didn't carry over any English cultural customs?

Double Post:
Stop changing perspectives.

England should be given far more consideration than any other country during the revolutionary time period, as they had the biggest impact. It was breaking of two different mindsets - of English people. I don't care what they considered themselves - they WERE of English descent. The political climate/attitude of England was precisely what ticked off the colonists to the point where they wrote up the Declaration of Independance.

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

The genocide of the Native Americans took place well after we got here and established our country. It wasn't until the westward expansion when things really started heating up. Knowing the precise origins and development of all the Native American tribes is not important to American history. Their political atmosphere, culture, (especially this, most people view the Native Americans as having been savages, when the opposite is true), and governmental/social structure at the time of the westward expansion is VERY important to American History.

I don't need to learn how they all arose and got here and developed. I would prefer to learn that, I consider it interesting, but not in a class where I'm supposed to be learning about American History. American as pertaining to the country of The United States of America.

Current American History curriculum begins with the arrival and development of the Native Americans. I don't feel that should be an entire unit/section. An overview would be fine, just so you get an idea of what was to be America was like at the time the colonists arrived, and then a more in depth study of the Native Americans would be great - when you get to the time where they became a very large part of American history. Yes, there are a few interactions between them before the westward expansion - but nothing major, and nothing involving a massive political dispute over land.

Not as much as American politics, since we started the fight.

No, let's not. The revolution is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things; if we're going to teach your way and assign class time by relevance, how many days will we assign to the Revolution? We have one year in which to fit ~300 or so years of history, if you include pre-revolution history.


Are you honestly suggesting to me that the framers of the Constitution were men uneducated in that which they did not grow up in?

Even France?

That is a profoundly ignorant statement, sir.

Due to political differences....with England. But we are talking about how much should be included in American history that is directly outside of America. Obviously American politics had more to do with it.

The forming and beginnings of our country???

I think you read something wrong.

Considering the primary fight was the USA vs England, I'd say France plays a MINOR role in that war. You only really need to cover reasons why they got involved.


So what twisted version of history were YOU taught where the English didn't tax the crap out of the American colonies, where the English were trying to butt in every situtation where the Americans didn't feel they belonged, where the English were trying to gain excessive control over the colonies?

Do you think writing the Declaration was just a simple matter? Where they just said "Oh, Screw it, we don't need England" and whipped it up? These men were committing TREASON, and could have all been executed. There were a LOT of people against this in the continental congress.

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

Good night, I have to get up in 3 hours for work. It's been a fun...however long. If I feel like it, I'll write more if you have written back by then. I at least hope I've made myself fairly clear, if I've done that, that's all I care about anymore.

Minor parts of history should have minor parts of the curriculum.