Thoughts on racism
 

I got this in an email today. I found it quite interesting. I thought I'd share. It is not my intention to offend anyone but only to enlighten them! In the intention to not offend anyone I have edited ALL the racist slangs so that the whole word is not used.


I think what this it trying to tell us is that racisim is a 2 way street and all sides should let it go!

Because niggers are inherently violent, am I rite?

Double Post:
This email was composed by an idiot, and I hope you didn't actually forward it to anyone.

Somehow I don't think these are the ones getting the blacks only college funds. Oh and it's totally a one way thing right? The shooting crajacking and robbing.

I'm all for lol'ing at backwards or one-way treatment on these things since it is often inherently stupid or showing extreme favoritism, but the fellow who wrote this has a good deal of hate I can tell. The line in particular that RAB quoted is quite. Uhm. Odd. Every race does that I'm afraid =I

Ahaw. Racisim.

I am proud to be white and I'm not a racist??????

Why would you be "proud" to be white. Its like saying I'm proud that i have brown hair, or proud that I'm 6 feet tall..its stupid. How can you be proud over something you had nothing to do with, proud of a genetic roll of the dice? Its one thing to be proud of ones accomplishmnets, but taking pride in your race is kind of stupid.

Just out of curiousity, is the writer or you aware of the amount of struggles and stuff that had to go in order to get these things?

most of the current living black people didn't do squat to get those. they're getting celebrated for what they're ancestors did. i'm not racist or anything but the US seems to be a little racist against whites

I love how that forward didn't mention slavery. At all.

The time of sympathy toward slavery has long passed. Blacks just like any other race have equal rights now, so there are no longer excuses.

Jewish people have the Holocaust which is probably worse than slavery and you don't see them crying about everything.

I have a lot of black and minority friends so I'm not racist, but I have to call it how I see it. Living in a highly populated city of minorities, a lot tend to want things handed to them very often without any effort in earning it.

The race card is too often pulled in today's society. IMO, some blacks and other minorities use it as a crutch to be lazy and get things handed to them. Not all, but a fair share. At least here in Philly.

No race is perfect though.

As far as racism goes, people are too often in society called racist. If someone says something like "blacks are more athletic than whites" they would be called racist by a large majority of people in today's society. Even though that above statement is so obviously true. IMO, to be racist you have to show obvious hatred or undermining of a race. Saying I hate this race or this race is a disgrace to the planet and are animals, then that is racist. But logically comparing two races and giving one an advantage over the other in terms of something(like athleticism), it is not racist.

lol *waits for a troll to show up*

This was the best line of all.

So, Gumby...was there some kind of point to your post? You wasted my time.

I also believe the race card is played a bit too much in society, but the name-calling thing can be justified...nigger, for instance, is a term of sheer condescension, while cracker is a word that refers to white people. The fact that whites have never been the minority means that we cannot be insulted by somebody of a supposed "higher order" than we.


Race superiority is a fact in some fields, but it doesn't make one man better than another man overall. That's the truth, and it shoudl be upheld by everyone, ideally

A few things do bug me about the double standard regarding racism. Whomever wrote this e-mail actually listed a couple of my complaints. However, the biggest one I always have is that there are televised "African-American" award shows. By themselves, it's okay to have them. However, once I take into account that either there aren't any award programs for other races or that such programs aren't televised, I find a problem.

I'm not racist. I just hate the double standard.

You do not understand the historic context of racism, or socio-economic cost of slavery on the population that was enslaved, nor the cascading factor of political discrimination and poverty over the generations and the fact that such discrimination still exists.

Because so much has been dependent upon the ability of certain groups to intergrade into the "main stream society", in which certain minority groups has never been able to accomplish, not because unwillingness or lack effort, but because it was never been acceptable in the public sphere.

Bah, there's no such thing as a 100% pure race, so why bother. Even if somebody is 'pure _____,' chances are that somewhere in their history they were conquered by some other race, and then they got mixed in. I say I'm Portuguese, but the Azores island my great-grandparents come from was mixed with Moors at one point - so I could have some African blood in there. I know at least 20 people who are some percentage Cherokee, but they're whitewhitewhite.

I agree that saying things about certain races being more prone to certain diseases or better at sports or whatever should not be taken as a racial remark. I mean, sometimes it's just stating the facts.

Racism exists and always will..on all sides. The biggest problem with blacks claiming racism today is when they claim it and who is usually chosen to fling the term around. You can depend on some poverty pimp like Al Sharpton, Quannel X (local Houston shit stirrer) and others to shout racism everytime there is an incident where a black guy, usually after committing a crime or fleeing the police on a high speed chase, is apprehended and touched up a bit. Same thing happens when a white guy fucks up, but theres no poverty pimp there to swoop in and call the police a bunch of racists.

Cynthia Mckinney, the moronic congresswoman, slugs a cop, then claims the cop was racist, all because she was rushing into the capitol without I.D.

A bunch of people get stuck in New Orleans after katrina and of course thats was racism too. God sent a racist hurricane I guess.

The point is all these whining claims of racism do nothing about real racism, except to make other non-blacks feel less inclined to want to trust or deal with blacks at all. It's also not all white on black..there is no love lost for the blacks among the Asian or Hispanic communities either.

As far as there being a lack of effort among blacks to integrate, this is partially true. A 75% illegitimacy rate, along with high unemployment and the worship of the thug lifstyle among black men leads to a generall unacceptance in society..and for good reason. If illegal aliens are streaming here and finding work, why are so many young black men unemployed?

I don't even care about certain minorities having their own days. It doesn't effect me, so I really don't even care.

The thing that bothers me is that if a white history month was put into effect, a lot of minorities would pull a race card saying whites are forcing their history onto minorities.

I agree with the poster that said there are too many double standards. A lot of things are ok in one instance, but not in the other.

Double Post:
I agree with a good deal of this post. The term racism by minorities, including blacks is too loosely thrown around. Like when there are protests when a black serial killer is about to be executed. The protests aren't anti-death penalty, they are anti-killing blacks. The excuses pour out about how the guy is innocent and how everyone around him is racist and just wants to see a young black man get killed.

Not all blacks do this, but the fact is a select amount throw the term racist around WAY too loosely. The race card is just pulled far too often.

Truth.

This appears to be a case of pulling out the "Reverse discrimination" complaint. Sadly, I almost was swayed o think accordingly by the lines such as when white people are called stuff like "Wh*teboy" it's like racism.
I read on though, and realized how ridiculous that email was when lines like "I have lots of black and minority friends so I'm not racist at allno not ME! Impossible!" were quoted, as well as that silly "we get shot at and robbed part"
"Tsk!" at the originator.

I wouldn't say the originator is racist. The post reeks of anger about certain issues, but it doesn't mean the anger is directed toward minorities. He can just be sick and tired of the double standards.

He didn't come flat out and trash minorities. I think it would be ignorant to call the guy racist.

The "shot and robbed" part isn't all that silly. Here in Houston anyway the vast majority of violent crime is done by blacks..mostly black on black, but also most of the random car jackings and robbery/murders are done by blacks. It's a sad fact, not racism. Houstons violent crime rate is up 23%, highest increase in the counrty, mostly becuase of the 150,000 (mostly black) katrina refugees Houston has taken in.

Whites are forcing their history onto minorities, every history class in America from elementary school to high schools about white American and European history. It really says something when most minorities know more crap about England and France than they do about their own country (or their parent's country, parent's parents, etc.).

Racism does still exist in this country but the country is probably not becoming more or less racist but more classist. A lot of predominately black neighborhoods dangerous because of the extreme poverty level correlates to the rise of drugs and crime. I'm sure in the same respect there are poverty stricken white or asian neighborhoods you wouldn't want to be walking around at night.

If you're puttering about the suburbs and saw a giant black guy coming towards you in a suit, you're far less likely to walk over to the other side of the road than if it's a homeless white guy in rags. Nowadays, people are just assholes about race because they assume stereotypes of you in regards to it, but context is becoming increasing more and more important. But two races under the same context, well racism nearly always wins.

That's how racism still exist, it's just more subtle, like the whole concept of the corporate glass ceiling and the "token" character in the media or politics and racial quotas in academics or the job market. When two different races compete in the same context, the "superior" race in the eyes of the social norms usually win. And whites are on the top of that pecking order.

And with New Orleans, I'm sure all the rich black people got out in time, while poor white people were left behind. George Bush doesn't not care about black people, he just doesn't care about poor people.

We tried to let you have your own little white pride clubs, but then you lost the privilege when you started killing people. Don't blame me, kike.

Way to cottoncherrypick, there.

It honestly doesn't matter whether you're racist or not, when you say such mind-numbingly stupid things.

I don't know how anyone could say there isn't reverse racism going on in this country. I read 6 months ago about a scholarship someone tried to start up for Caucasians only, got shot down because it was racist.

African-Americans are going to always have their inferiority complex if we keep shit like affirmative action up, which TELLS them that everyone thinks they are inferior.

I'm definitely tired of double standards.

But on a slightly different note, there's too much shit being called racist that isn't. You dare make a funny joke on a black guy's expense, or a mexican's expense, you get labeled as an ignorant racist. Why can't it just be FUNNY and nothing else? Heck, I make mexican jokes around my mexican friends, they think it's funny, THEY make mexican jokes. Racism is actively denying people constitutional rights based solely on their race. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm also sick and tired of seeing a race card pulled in courts where race has nothing to do with the matter.

Double Post:
I'm sorry, but this is just extremely ignorant. We aren't forcing 'white' history on anybody. We are teaching the history of how America came to be, and like it or not, we started off with a colony of WHITE people coming to this country for the freedom to practice their religion without hamper. Race has nothing to do what is being taught. HISTORY has everything to do with what is being taught.

There isn't any reason to learn about black history outside of a black history class, unless you are talking about slavery/civil rights. Anything back further than that is pointless in a history class.

kat's post proves my point. People are interjecting race issues into things that have nothing to do with it. No wonder there's still so much racism in this country. People don't want to let the issue just die.

Around where I live we have this really cool program called "Celebrate Diversity." At first I thought it was one of those stupid things where minority oppression just gets shoved in your face, where they tell you how much stuff needs to be changed, etc, but I couldn't have been more wrong. They have this massive festival every year, it's probably the biggest thing around my area. I showed up when one of my friends (who is an excellent drummer) was playing in a band there invited me to come see him. It's just a time to hang out, get to know members of the community, eat some ethnic food, watch the air show, etc. This whole festival was just as much about hispanics (our main minority group) as it was other minority groups, and whites. It was just to show how awesome the blending of all these different cultures can be - including everyone's favorite - the terrible, oppressive, racist, whites.

I'm definitely planning to show up next year, hopefully for all of the festival. They have the whole race issue viewed from a very positive, and very correct angle.

Such as?



That right there is fucking ignorant. Just to disgregard any amount of history is completely asinine. Blacks have as much importance to the history of America and the world as much as whites, Native Americans, Asians, Indians and any other culture and/or race of the world. To leave out one in favor of the other only leads to the same mistakes being made.

Race is still an important issue and even in the rest world, as the riots in France has shown. It may seem like racism is gone but it's just pushed under the radar, away from the public concscience, wrapped in the warm blanket called 'political correctness'.

Sure, some of the issue does lay within the individual. The ghettos could be improved with the support of the community. However, the fact that the stereotypes and ignorance permiates within many whites agrivates things. Attributing statistics such as crime and arrests to race doesn't show that such a race is more troublesome, it just shows that that race is generally in a disadvantageous situation. I can guarentee you that the situation would be exactly the same with only the skin color changed.

I'm very fortuante to be where I'm at, and no I don't know what it's like to be persecuted, harassed or discrimated on the basis of my skin color. I wish I did, it would be easier to empathize.

lol, kike. Sorry, but I'm not even 1% jewish. I am 100% italian, so if you are going to call me anything call me a dago.

What history are we disregarding? Slavery and Civil rights are VERY important parts of American history, and SHOULD be taught, and we should definitely learn about important Black people in American History. Which we do. As well as important people of OTHER races.

But there is no reason for the importance to be based on race. If the person was an important contributor to American History, learn about them. I don't give a crap whether he was black, white, asian, or an oompa-loompa.

Black importance should NOT be the FOCUS of American History classes. AMERICA'S development into today's world should be. Black participation in that is just one small part of a larger whole. Involving native americans, asians, etc.

Black cultural development in Africa has absolutely NOTHING to do with American history whatsoever, and should NOT be taught in an American History class. That's best left for a Black History class.

In many parts in Philly, it's literally considered suicide for a white person to walk the streets at night. If you walk the streets and get shot, you are considered at fault for walking there, not the actual shooter.

But good neighborhoods like mine have a lot of minorities who aren't bad. There are plenty of blacks, hispanics, asians who I am friends with that live around me that wouldn't hurt anyone. Just good people.

To me, the bad neighborhoods are just corrupted with bad parenting, drugs, and bad influences. Young kids growing up not knowing right from wrong. It's a trickle down effect from parents being in jail for doing drugs, etc.

Things leading to the cause of the first pilgrims leaving Europe to start a new colony in the Americas has EVERYTHING to do with American history. You have to start somewhere.

Even English colonization of Africa could be considered part of it, as a brief section, to explain how the slave trade arose.

What exactly is your level of reading comprehension? Go 2 posts back and read again, this time, very carefully.

I apologize. I didn't realize you couldn't count to two.

Black cultural development (in Africa) has nothing to do with American history. Civil Rights, the development of jazz music, etc...all that DOES.

English colonization of Africa and them starting up the slave trade, and us shipping African slaves to America DOES.

Go read my posts. I've clearly stated that if important to American HISTORY, then include it. Irish immigration - sure, talk a little about the potato famine. Slavery? Sure, talk about how the slave trade started up. Going in depth to how black culture arose in Africa is going way off course.

However I've dealt with your immeasurable stupidity in the past, and I know that such a simple thing as actually reading someone's post in its entirety and getting the whole picture is an impossiblity for you. You just take one statement out of context and endlessly bitch about it.

I'm not going to shit around with you, good night.

The slave trade did not arise with the British colonization of Africa. Slave trading has been an almost universally accepted practice since the dawn of civilization.

Oh wait, WEREN'T THERE PEOPLE HERE ALREADY.

You want to talk about HISTORY, the HISTORY that you know was written by white people about white people. How about the real American history? How much Native American history do you know? Mexican history?

Don't make it sound like America was a vast wasteland before the pilgrims came and made it into what it was today. America was built on the backs of numerous minorities already living here, most that were killed or at best, taken advantage of and they are totally written out of history textbooks because it is an "unsavory" topic. History is not full of angelic hero figures like Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson. They're just written that way because of the culture's glorification of these "legendary" figures when Washington was an inept military figure, Lincoln was probably insane and partly racist and Jefferson had like 3 kids with one of his slaves.

History ain't that great. History 50 years ago didn't even mention slavery in school. History is a reflection of society and while society still has racism, there will be racism in the way the truth about history is portrayed.

Read Lies My Teacher Told Me by Loewen. Guess what. COLUMBUS WAS AN ASSHOLE.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and volunteer myself as being scared out of my wits, not by racism, but by the fascism of multiculturalism. I'm more of a racist than most anyone with whom I've come into contact - but that doesn't mean I hate black or asian people; it's simply a matter of putting value on one's heritage. The real tragedy of the African population of North America isn't that they haven't attained social equality with Europeans, it's the fact that in striving for it they've abandoned their racial identity.

This is because the history of America (as in, the U.S. and Canada) is largely European history. These country's were formed out of the heritage of the people who founded them. The heritage of the African peoples in the United States, in the context of that countries history, is one of slavery. If they'd had any sense of their own history, they shouldn't have been content to accept the ridiculous idea of citizenship in the land of their slavemasters. But what you have to realize is that the African culture they'd emerged from was one of tribal (read: racial) violence, where one group of blacks would slaughter another, slightly different group of blacks, and even sell them into slavery to other groups, including Europeans and Americans. To better themselves and build a better heritage for their future generations, the African situation is what they have to change, not the North American one. Instead of endeavoring to do this, they either:

"integrate", which essentially means they adopt a European history in becoming just a slightly peculiar part of a white culture, or:

move into the ghetto and join a gang, continuing their history of group-based violence.

Neither of these does any good for blacks or whites, in the long run. Ironically, the natural outcome of a nation of multiple races, is hatred toward other races, and this shouldn't be the case. A people should have it's own history, and not merely assimilate someone else's.

But slaves in most cultures before American weren't property. Their kids weren't slaves. They could buy their freedom and also, slavery in America was race based because whites felt superior to blacks. That was rarely, if ever the case in past slave cultures.

They were not minorities at this point, actually. This is a very good example of subtle racism that people don't notice. We think of the Natives as minorities, even at a point in time where there were a hell of a lot more of them than Europeans.

I didn't ask for your family history, you useless nigger. You honestly think we should just drop the whole racism thing.

So, like, are we going to pay the blacks restitution for slavery, or make any effort to bring them and other minorities to equal socioeconomic status with whites when we decide to stop calling each other mean things, or what?

Double Post:
lol racism

I like how you don't even bring up pre-whitey American history. Will that be a brief section too?

What? So all other races besides White Europeans should PACK UP and move back to their countries? WHAT? Blacks have been here for GENERATIONS, their history IS American history but they've been largely excluded from US history because of their race. WHITE CULTURE IS NOT THE DOMINANT CULTURE. American culture as it is TODAY is a mixture and conglomeration of MANY MANY different racial cultures. As much as I hate the term, America is an "melting pot" or "salad bowl " and we are made up of immigrants and our culture reflects that.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.

I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure that--especially with respect to tribal racism in Africa--the enslavers felt superior to the enslaved a good bit of the time.

I don't think you can realistically assume this. The master will always feel superior to the slave. The fact is, they found a whole shitload of people that they could take advantage of, and they did it. If Africans had white skin, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference.

knkwzrd - The british, however, were primary responsible for setting up the slave trade which provided the American colonies with slaves.

Yamam - In an American History class, there is no need to go in depth with African culture. African-American culture? Sure. That's part of American history.

kat - There's a simple matter of ratios here which you and several other people are completely missing. American history is LARGELY white-based. European history. African culture is part of American history, yes - but there is no reason for it to be some huge massive focus because a few radicals can't get past the fact that their ancestors of 150+ years ago were enslaved. The development of African culture in Africa is such a far out loose end that there's no point in even covering it in an American History class, where the primary focus should be on AMERICA.

I'm not denying the importance of blacks in American history.

I am saying that there is no reason to put as much emphasis on it as some people want to.

Nobody is shoving 'white' history down anyone's throats. They are teaching AMERICAN history, which proportionately has much more to do with europeans, as I just noticed Gwaehir mentioned.

Oh wait, now I remember you, DarkLink2135. You're the guy way back when that thought cars aren't worshipped by white people in America.

BE CAREFUL, MINORITIES ARE DIFFERENT.

I believe that we shouldn't even teach History. Why teach someone about what happened in the past? Don't even say "So the same things don't happen again".

Instead invest the time preparing kids/adolescents for the future, the right decisions, things that PARENTS should be doing but unfortunately aren't.

Bad choice of words on my part. They were obliterated into the minorities as we now see today, then shoved onto reservations and left to rot.

--------

Look, my whole point was that we are putting far too much emphasis on parts of American history that just WERE NOT important enough to justify the amount of time we spend on them. Sure the native americans were cool, it's neat to learn about their customs, government, etc - but that has little bearing on the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which didn't really exist until the Declaration of Independance, and the events leading up to that separation. There isn't any need to spend an entire month studying native americans in a class about American History. A brief summary is enough.

Same with African History. There isn't any point. African History doesn't really meld at all with US History until the slave trade, thus, there isn't any need to talk about it in an American History class.

The big problem in this idea is that YOU CAN'T SEE INTO THE FUTURE.

I think it would have but since history is contingent in nature and we can't assume anything.

People have enslaved their own for thousands of years and that was largely based on a class structure instead of the race. The one in America was based, at least in it's climax, solely on race and not much else.

The justification for slavery was that whites in general were superior to blacks, that they were a "lesser" breed of people, barely man and therefore, only suitable for being controlled by whites.

What the FUCK are you talking about.

I never said that.

I don't think that.

That wasn't even my point nor something I ever even touched on. Way to bring in a completely unrelated topic.

And now I remember you. You were the guy that thinks a black guy and a white girl aren't going to have any differences arising from culture.

The idea in teaching these is that they were precursors to the United States. An important part of understanding the history of any nation is knowing the things that caused that nation to come about. You certainly aren't arguing against learning about European colonial life, but I'll be damned if that wasn't pre 1776.

Tell me what you know about African history and culture. I have a lot of time, I can wait.

I'm not talking about West African culture. I'm talking about AFRICAN culture, you dumbfuck. As in, the continent of AFRICA. West African culture has much to do with American History. AFRICAN culture does not have much to do with American History.

I just about didn't include that redundant clause, but I didn't want to give you any reason to start up another bitch storm.

This is the second time in 10 minutes you have failed to actually read through a post.

If you want to fucking talk proportions, PROPORTIONALLY men and women are ~50/~50 in this nation. Why are American history textbooks like 99% about men?

Yeah I'm sure men are far more important and do a lot more shit than women.

You have be the most fucking stupid person I have ever met in my life. I'm not even going to give you the dignity of responding to your shit anymore. Way to completely miss the point.

Traditionally, men have written textbooks.

Then again, for awhile, any accomplishments that women made probably weren't recorded at all, so they're likely not to be reflected in today's textbooks.

American Colonial life is part of what caused our nation to come about. It existed HERE. In MAINLAND America. A fairly large part of the whole deal, but that's also something I think we spend a bit too much time studying.

Well, historically, the effort to differentiate the black slave came later. So one could say the modern understanding of the race differences is rather a result of the use of skin color as a marker in which to keep specific group under control, rather then the other way around. Although not all anthropologist would agree with that assertion. Others believe the root of this concept come earlier.

No, the justification for slavery was "we need cheap labor". It's just that, since most Africans at that point didn't speak English, and they didn't have guns, you're not going to get any bitching about human rights.

You don't even know history, who are you to say what's important and what's not? you think some religious pissing contest in England is actually important to American history. I mean christ.

Then there's no need for European history at all, since we're teaching a vaccuum.

Now you're just cherrypicking, eskimo.

America started on the backs of slaves.

Still want you to tell me what you know about African history and culture. Go ahead and be as lengthy as you want. Doublespace if it makes you feel better.

Accomplishments by women have been largely ignored in the past, or they took on the name of a man so they could recieve those accomplishments. Part of it is that we just don't know how much women did.

But also, by raw numbers, men have done a lot more in American History. That's not to deny the importance of women in American History, that's just simple fact. Men were just in better positions to do so because of the low position of women at that time in history.

Which proves my point. White men write the textbooks that are largely about white men.

And plenty of accomplishments that women did were recorded, most just don't know about it because they keep reading white man books. Just like there have been many different accomplishment by different races.

You brought up car worship as a viable cultural difference between whites and hispanics (and blacks (thx Alice)) that could adversely affect relationships. As in, you don't think any white people drive H2s.

Tell me about Africa, please.

Explain why the hell African culture needs to have an in-depth explanation in an American History class.

West African culture? Sure, plays a major part in a lot of American culture.

So you're a racist AND a sexist. How do the girls keep their hands off you.

Ok, let's assume that men have done more in the past. But you said yourself that women were important in American history yet are hardly ever mentioned in the textbooks. Are their efforts somehow less important than the ones by their male counterparts? American history textbooks go up well into the later 20th century, which women have already begun to take a larger part in history yet their mentions in the text are still ridiculously low.

It's because of the chauvinistic caucasian perspective of history that modern textbooks display that is the reason behind it.

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

What's important is what helped this nation arise to the point where it is today. And I'm sorry, but black culture is not as major of a part of that as what you want to think it is. Where our nation started was with a disagreement with england over religous rights. Pilgrims came here, founded a colony, eventually got pissed off at england, won our independance. In short. Obviously there's a shitload more in between there, but I'm going to assume you hopefully know all that and that I don't need to repeat 100 years of history.

Native Americans are part of America. Westward expansion? Interactions with the first settlers? European history which needs to be known to explain certain actions by Americans needs to be a part of curriculum. I'm with you (at least I think I am) though on saying that we do place too much emphasis on pre-american history.


No. How on earth are you going understand the need for the Declaration of Independence if you don't know about the tensions beforehand? That's very much a part of how America arose.

America started with the deaths of militiamen in the revolutionary war. Regardless, I hope you don't honestly think I think we shouldn't learn about slavery in American history classes. It's a large part of what America was, and what some people seem to want to keep it as today.

Read a fucking book if you want to know about it.

I know African history as it pertains to America. I don't give a shit about how Kenya arose, it has nothing to do with America.

And you have no fucking brains.

Please, explain to me why the hell I need to spend a week learning about AFRICAN history in an AMERICAN history class.

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

Learn the difference between the two.

Definitely so. But I'm talking about early American history :).

How, exactly, do we then go about fixing it? The problem with encompassing everything required to accurately--if such is even possible--teach American history comes in its massive scope: how can all of that--plus anything that's already taught, minus any revisions for accuracy's sake--be fit into current course time? Or, are students to spend 75% of their time taking history classes... which really wouldn't be all that bad.

I'm racist and sexist simply for acknowledging the FACT that men and europeans play a larger part in American history than women or minorities?

Get a dictionary. Look up racist. Look up sexist.

Racism and Sexism are actively discriminating against people simply because of their race and sex, respectively.

Realizing that men and europeans proportionately have a larger role in our history, and wanting our history classes as a result to spend an equally proportionate time learning about this isn't sexist or racist.

At least read the post, I was talking about AFTER THE FACT. African importation for slavery started for we need cheap labor and Africa was a convenient human source but after generations and generations of slave culture in America, the justification for keeping THEN to keep the slave culture alive and well was predominately RACE. And greed but they really touted the race thing because it appealed to the hearts and minds of fellow racists.

I use the words interchangably. God forbid I actually do something the rest of the fucking country does.

If you believe that cock and bull about pilgrims, you don't know a damn thing about history.

Do you honestly think that a whole new landmass ripe for the taking wouldn't attract other kinds of visitors, just a cult of people who hate sex and niggers? I mean christ.

But you don't want us teaching about the settlers before whitey, the tensions between them and the europeans; you don't want us teaching about the slave trade outside of America and how it impacted America. I don't know why you're so against education, maybe it takes funding away from auto class (lol whitey car worship).

America existed before those men were a twinkle in their fathers' eyes.

So I'm justified in assuming you know fuck-all about African history? No wonder you think it's not important in understanding American history or colonial politics.

Okay, honestly, listen to me here: America was a colonized continent, right? And so was Africa during the same time frame. DO YOU THINK THERE MIGHT BE POSSIBLY SOME RELEVANT PARALELLS BETWEEN TWO COLONIZED AND OPPRESSED CONTINENTS DURING THE SAME ERA OF TIME POSSIBLY?

No, you don't, because you're stupid and you're racist. Go buy a Dodge Ram.

Double Post:
Can you tell me about West Africa; the culture, the history, the location?

YOu can't be serious! You can't. Are you telling me that slavery and the pressures (tensions) between whites and blacks TO THIS VERY DAY have nothing on religious hissy fits in England back in the early 18th century?

The spanish and the french among others.

What became political America started with that colony, which is why it is given focus. The disagreements with those Puritans and England basically just grew until the Revolutionary war erupted.



You haven't been reading any of my posts.

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

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.

Gee, you think that just might be the SLAVE TRADE? Something I've repeatedly emphasized should be taught in American History courses? Or have you been too busy blowing your top to read what I've been saying for the past hour?

Fixed.

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. Most of this developed in the deep south. A different African-American culture developed in the North due to different ideals, beliefs, practices, etc, even after the conclusion of the civil war when freed slaves migrated to the North.

Fuck this. I'm not here to give you a history lesson. What do you want me to say, that they are all a bunch of fucking niggers with huge lower lips that like spicy cajun food and fried chicken? Would that satisfy you? Would that make you more secure, to think that I'm a racist?

Whatever makes you happy.

The feminist movement has at most a paragraph in most texts. Only Susan B Anthony is mentioned because she's on a coin, while other figures aren't even acknowledged and women's suffrage is reduced to several sentences at best. Also women's important role in many of wars and many important women politicians and other public figures are hardly mentioned.

And yet you have these huge chapters on bad meat practices when I'd argue that women's rights would be a much more important topic for the ~50% of students that are girls that are reading it.

You said yourself that women had an important role in American history, why aren't they portrayed more then? Instead they are barely mentioned and the instances they are, it's only a sentence or two.

The fact that you stubbornly insist that men and europeans have a larger role in history shows your innate ignorance on history as truth. You are lead to believe that history, or the history that is important anyways, is largely male and caucasian and you don't question it. History is ALWAYS about questioning what is given to us, do you really believe those textbooks you read are the absolute truth? Because history is not just one story from a couple very exclusive people, first hand sources, second hand, an unbiased view (because what we are reading IS biased), I'm sure you'd get a much broader and larger ranged and eventually, a history that is much closer to the real fact.

But for girls reading the textbooks, they are lead to believe that women aren't important because they haven't been in history. That's the real underlying issue, the sort of subtle inferiority you are giving the minorities and women because they don't see their own portrayed in what they are reading, in the history they are given. But it's so far from the truth because minorites and women HAVE been important but they just aren't accurately portrayed.

Apologies. For some reason I heard West Africa and made a completely illogical leap to the southern united states. Late night brain farts =/.

If you are learning about American history, in a standard 1 year high school course, all you really need to know about West Africa is that that is primarily where we got our slave labor from.

If we are talking about a college course for a history major, maybe a little more knowledge would be called for.

I was under the impression we were just talking about basic American history.

How old are you son?

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.

I think the way history is portrayed is just a by-product of society's attitude towards race and until we change that, we can't really make drastic changes.

But a more well rounded view of history would be nice. The role the teacher has in teaching the students is also key, because a textbook is largely created to appeal to the masses and be as sanitary as possible when history is neither. To have a teacher more devoted to a more multicultural and bi-gender history would be the first step, who would supplement the text with his/her own information that the book leaves out. When you change kid's attitudes towards race and gender, it will eventually filters all through society.

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.

Just as a further note on my last post, I'm going to toss this up. I imagine no one cares, but hey, for the sake of completion:

SOURCE

Why, because I have a bunch of fucking idiots who can't realize that when I say that the current emphasis on subject A isn't called for, I don't mean that we shouldn't learn about it at all?

Because I'm realistic enough to realize that men played a larger role in history in women? That isn't being a bigot, that's admitting to the truth, and not being a bitch because I'm pissed about how little women are mentioned in a stupid textbook.

Way to take what I say out of fucking context. That seems to be the rule of thumb on this forum.

if (braincellcount < 100 )
makeupbullshit(rand(5));
if (braincellcount < 200 )
putwordsinmouth(rand(5));

It isn't that difficult to remember that I learned a fair bit about women's suffrage.

Maybe you shouldn't try to pull a bunch of bullshit out of people's posts that was never there in the first place.

Why the fuck is everything black and white with you? If one culture worships cars, the other CAN'T. Saying something shouldn't have AS MUCH importance means I'm saying that it shouldn't be taught at all.

My point was the hispanic culture in general takes much better care of their cars, and puts a lot more money into them than white people do. Notice the key word "in general" there. There's obvious exceptions to every rule.

It means you think we should learn less of it, and more (I guess) of your favourite European countries and dudes. Do you honestly think you're convincing anyone of anything other than your inability to read context? Look, that is a trait most folks have; if you don't, I guess you can't help it, but that doesn't mean you ought to be dictating curricula when you barely know the history yourself.

http://www.blackstonelimo.com/images/h2/tunnelh2.jpg

I bet there's a lot of hispanics in this car.

I have a Dodge Stealth and a 99 Benz that would argue with your statment. I think that mexican culture puts emphasis on a different kind of car usage. It's comparing apples and oranges and expecting to classify them as pomegranates. Blanket statements are as bad as polarizing everything into two categories.

How is that a cultural thing? I thought some people just take good care of thier cars. Especially when you live in the south west that you have to drive everywhere.

I've explained myself as much as I would need to to anyone of normal intelligence. You are just too fucking stupid to understand what I've been saying, despite me repeating it numerous times over the past hour, very clearly. All you care about is latching on to a single sentence that I post, trying to make it look like THAT is my primary emphasis, and PMSing all over it.


Which I've already said and agreed to. Way to completely turn my words around in a different direction.

When I realize that people aren't getting what I'm saying, I KNOW it isn't something that needs changing on my end. I'm sick and tired of you and others putting words in my mouth, bringing in random subjects, turning my words around in another direction, etc. Who knows, maybe I do need to be more clear. Reading back over it, it doesn't seem to be too hard to comprehend.

You used it as an example of the differences between those two races, though. One can only assume that if you feel hispanics worship cars, then whites do not, or to not nearly a severe degree; if you did not feel this way you would not have said it.

Am I explaining contextual clues to you.

http://www.drivenbyboredom.com/bling/dumbasses1.jpg

If you would stop repeating the same thing over and over ("The empathesis of this minority group in history class is way over-represented, I feel that we should learn more about the whites because they had the biggest impact on America") maybe we would too. But since that's your only point, well.

Double Post:
Are you Simply Majestic. Serious question.

Goddamit you are a fucking retard.

Why is so hard for you to realize that there is no point in spending an insanely large amount of time learning about the entire history of the slave trade in an AMERICAN HISTORY COURSE, which includes hundreds of other subjects.

I am NOT saying people should learn less of it, I am NOT saying people should learn more of Europeans, race has NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THIS.

Relevance to American History is what is important. Slave trade is a big part of American History. But not such a big part that we need to start learning the entire history of West Africa instead of other, more relevant parts of American History.

I didn't say that, I said that there are still entites around that benefited directly from slavery.

Double Post:
So you feel the amount of time spent learning about slavery in America is unjustified (a week is unjustified? Two weeks?) but you don't think the amount of time should be lessened any.

Well then.

How about you stop putting lies in my mouth directly contradicting that exact point, so I don't have to repeat myself to some fucking braindead prick who can't seem to grasp a very simple concept ->

"The emphasis of this minority group in history class is over-represented, I feel that we should learn more about European immigrants because they had a bigger impact on American society & politics."

Fixed.

Such as the crusades and the King James' book.

Hmm.... no, that's exactly what we got from what you said. No lies there sir.

Time != Content.

There you go again. I never SAID this, nor do I think we should learn about this in AMERICAN HISTORY. No wonder you don't fucking understand a word of what I'm saying, you are to hung up on some apparant misconception of white superiority in what I've been saying.

Realizing that European immigrants played a larger role in the forming of American society isn't white superiority, its the fucking truth.

i'm not gonna do much arguuing or flaming, but here's my scoop on racism.

since yall seem to think history has everything to do with modern racism, so here's what's up with blacks and whites in history and why whites rightly get more attention:

-whites moved from white europe to a big chunk of land known today as the U.S.

-more whites moved over here from europe and helped build the US

-white king george taxed the white colonies so they had the whites vs. whites revolutionary war.

-white thomas jefferson and his white buddies founded the US.

-later on, the white spanish brought over blacks from africa

-the blacks were enslaved and the whites from the north didn't like that so they had the whites vs. whites civil war (union vs. white confederates)

-black martian luther king did his stuff

-US got in a war with japanese and white germans and white italians

-US got in a power struggle with white russions

-all that communism stuff happened with US vs. orientals (not africans)

so you can plainly see why whites get more attention than blacks in history; they were simply more involved.

And on a more practical note, blacks have a higher crime rate than whites. that's a plain a simple fact. nobody is enslaving them or any of that BS so they have no valid excuse for their crime rate. i'm not saying all blacks are criminls (far from it), but some of them (enough to give their race a generally bad reputation) do abuse their rough history just to try to get what they want instead of actually working for it.

It's really more of a contextual thing. A Just Sayin' sort of thing. Why?

No, you & others have been REPEATEDLY stating my opinions as though I think we shouldn't learn jack shit about Black history.

Well, okay, I'll grant that you probably want children to learn an amount less than zero about blacks, but you want them to learn less than they're learning now and right now that's not a whole hell of a lot.

I'm saying that you base your arguments on ignorance of very simple things, and somehow feel qualified to keep going about it.

http://www.sauder.com/images/site/misc/intro_garage.gif

This man does not care about the quality of his car.

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?

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.

yes. How many days? How many days would you put to the Articles of Confederation and that clusterfuck, and then the writing of our Constitution? I'd put more empathsis on the latter, actually, but that's just me.

No, you quite clearly said that the framers decided to use a 'free-er' version of England's poltical system because that's what they're used to. That is an affront to their intelligence.

You did not learn your own history very well.

You are making it sound like the Americans were very passive, and they were anything but, considering they were what we would consider terrorists today. You are also making it sound like Americans behaved as one cohesive unit, and that no stress internal to American politics was relevant or noteworthy to the war. You can pay lip service all you want about how you 'know' that isn't the case, but you keep going on about England, as if I ever said they weren't important.

And yet for all that you still couldn't name any specific acts the English passed over the colonies that riled them so, as you have been asked to earlier. Just saying, but you're talking out of your ass and it shows.

You are not and never have been the boy to judge this.

Time has nothing to do with importance. Where did you get this idea? Dropping the atomic bombs only Japan took a VERY short while from the launch order to the drop, and yet you could hardly call that an unimportant aspect of American History. Massive turning point in WWII as far as USA vs Japan goes, massive social & economic impacts for both Japan & the United States.

EDIT-> I read this wrong. The specific time spent on the Revolutionary war isn't something for me to decide. However, I think it goes without saying that it should be one of the primary parts of American History class - since that is the beginning of America as a country.

I said our government used parts of the English political system. That isn't an affront to anyone's intelligence. It's the damn truth. They took parts of the english political system that worked, and added, changed, & worked with what was needed.

I'm confused. Maybe the Revolutionary war actually wasn't primarily a fight between the English, who still thought they owned the colonies, and the colonists themselves.

No, in fact, I said exactly the opposite. Read my entire post before you respond next time. There was a lot of opposition to the Declaration. The American colonists incited a lot of strife.

And again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Stop jumping to conclusions. Because I mention the importance of English politics at the time of the Revolutionary war doesn't mean I said American politics weren't relevant. In fact I stated exactly the opposite.

The simple fact of the matter is we are talking about things that are relevant to American History outside of the direct unit of "America." What external factors are relevant to the development of America. It goes without saying the American political system plays a major part of ALL American history.

I'm not going to repeat what every 8th grader ought to know.

There isn't anything TO judge. Saying France played a minor role in the revolutionary war as compared to England and the USA isn't judging anything. It's fact. You seem to think all of this is subjective, when most of it isn't.

It has been surmised that, in the revolutionary war itself, the French were a key component to the colonials' victory over the English. Perhaps the French were not a key player in the motivators of the war itself, but they did play a bigger role than that, or so I have been taught.

For god's sake, does a mod want to correct the spelling in the title? I thought it would have been done by now.

EDIT: Thank you.

Which is what I meant, although I didn't explain it that far in depth. They weren't key players in the motivations of the war, thus it makes more sense for a history class to spend more time about the reasons America & England went to war. We shouldn't just drop the importance of French aid during the war, and just not teach it because of that, but....well yeah I'm repeating myself again.

EDIT-> I don't mean to say the French were just almost unimportant to the war. As compared to England and the USA, they are a minor player. That doesn't mean we should drop the reasons France decided to help us gain independance, it just means that as far as the beginnings of America, England and the USA, being the primary players, are more important in a history class. The focus should be on the tensions between America and England, and American and English battles. I'm not trying to say the French victory in Chesapeake, one of the major battles leading to the English surrender in Yorktown isn't unimportant.

France had a smaller OVERALL role, and the reasons for their involvement in the war aren't as important as Englands to bear an in-depth study about the tensions between them and England.

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

Regardless, that was just an example to say that there isn't anything to be judged about this. The history of West Africa, while interesting and probably enlightening as well, just isn't important or very relevant to an American history course. That isn't judgement, that's just common sense. The cultural aspects that were carried from West Africa are important, but for American History, it isn't relevant to learn how exactly those cultural aspects developed. Learning how they developed and influenced American society? Yes.

Does the Seven Year's War have an influence on the development of America? Sure. But it's a very minor part. There isn't anything judging in saying that, it's just FACT. American history students don't need to study in depth about the seven year's war, the different battles in the war, etc. That isn't to say they don't need to know it period - but that's best saved for a different class. Knowing that England needed to tax the American colonies in order to recover from that war is all that needs to be taught in such a class - because it has relevance to American history.

My feelings basically are that in current American History curriculum we spend too much time learning about mostly external affairs - like the Seven Year's War - when we should be spending more of that time learning specifically about America.

Wow. This thread went from a discussion on reverse racism to American history, lol. What a twist!!!

To try and link it back in - I think we are spending too much time learning things like the entire social and political structure of the Native Americans, because we feel an overwhelming feeling of guilt for what was essentially a massacre of their entire race. I'm not saying it isn't important to learn about the social & political structure of Native Americans before the colonists arrived - I'm saying that the current curriculum spends far too much time on this. And I feel it's basically because of a guilt feeling. Same with someone suggesting we learn about West Africa - why? There isn't any need to learn much about this in an American History course. I think it's just a feeling of guilt that we once enslaved African-Americans.

But someone also said in their class they just skimmed over the top of Black history in America, which is WRONG. I personally never had this happen, in fact, I had the opposite happen. It's just a different perspective due to different schoolings. There's just disproportionate amount of learning, and a lot of external learnings being brought in, time I feel would be better spent learning about AMERICA. For instance, we spent a good deal of time learning about the countries from which the African-Americans came - and virtually skipped over the entire Industrial revolution.

Because the founding of the nation is so much more hardcore, right?

When a country is greatly responsible for victory in a war, I think they play a bigger part than you think. It's not like the colonists had some massive superarmy, you know. Plus, I don't think anyone was ever saying, "we need to teach the entire history of France in American history classes."
Sure, England and the colonies were "major players," but France is more than deserving to be included as well.

The Seven Years' War then, deserves to be studied even a bit due to the influence it had, transitively, on the French helping the colonials in the revolutionary war. (Sure, France didn't like England, but that conflict was one of France's main motivators to help the colonials at all.)

Also, please be careful with what you call "FACT"; history is not so one-sided--much depends on who you ask, of course.

It is a FACT that Cleopatra was hittable. No, I already confirmed it.

Double Post:
And previous political systems never factored into their consideration; they took what they were used to, right?

And in your opinion, England is king; the rest of Europe is a distant second, and neither Africa or previous indigious people in America matter much at all. That is a horribly ignorant statement, sir! I have already told you this.

Why didn't you learn it then?

You're judging whether or not educators should ignore the rest of the world while talking about America's origins, based on one high school class that you felt had an excessive amount of attention devoted to non-white men but wouldn't change it. I mean, I don't know here. Do you have a valid complaint or don't you?

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/...7_91518415.jpg

You can't tell very well, but the people in this photo are eating burritos.

Well, it is hard to deny that the history courses being taught in American schools are wholly inadequate. It is true that too much time is spent teaching politically correct history as opposed to real history. The entire month of February, for example< is spent teaching so called black history, since its black history month, as if black history is something seperate from the rest of history. kids are taught about obscure histroical figures, instead of real history changing people, in the name of being diverse. Same thing happens around Cinco d' Mayo and the like. I mean lets be honest here..does George Washington Carver deserve equal billing as a scientist with Albert Einstein, yet thats how its presented in schools because the belief is that black kids need black heroes to shore up their self esteem. Did Martin Luther King do more for the United States that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or FDR for that matter, yet the teaching on them is relegated to secondary status, and they don't even get a holiday thats recognized in any way as much as MLK.

This crappy, politically correct history teaching is why people have no idea what a huge role the french played in the American revolution, or that the hessians fought with the british, or that black troops fought for both sides. And thats just one tiny aspect of history that is neglected in order to appease the special interest groups that all demand history be taught their way.

PC history is the reason we ignore the French? wait what

Your emphasis on Black History Month out of fucking nowhere is a bit telling.

This is a thread about racism, not the French, I was using the example of the French to refer back to previous posts which you apparently chose not to read.

Black History month is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to percieved racism. Some "enlightened" thinkers figured, Gee..not enough prominent blacks in American history, lets devote a month to teach all about black history, as if black history is somehow not integral with American history.

As to you're "a bit telling" comment...I guess you're insinuating that I'm racist. well, honestly I am..a bit. Most people are to some degree. I am very prejudiced against the thug culture of many inner city blacks, but I', equally appalled by the meth monkey trailer trash culture of many whites..so is that racism..or is it just a natural aversion to certain people.

Yes, and you're being an idiot at it. The current topic of conversation is the French and how much they smell, and you're going off on some bullshit rant about Black History Month that you assume people to care about. To make it look connected to the topic at hand, you throw in the line that "PC HIST IS THE REASON WE INGORE THE FRENCHIES." Never mind that it makes no sense. Take it to your fucking journal if you're that bitter.

Shut up.

French is not a race. Shocking I know.

I think Christopher Kincade said it best, "I'm not racist. I just don't like punks. PUNKS." I don't like the thug/gangsta culture that some African Americans embrace, but that doesn't mean I'm racist. Heck, some of the sweetest people I've met on campus were very dark-skinned people from Sudan and the Carribbean Islands. I also dispise the trailer trash culture of a bunch of hillbillies who make meth in their kitchens while slapping their underage pregnant wives for not makin' em dinner. Does this mean I'm racist toward Caucasians?

If it's ok for preppy cheerleaders to hate punk culture and vice versa without being harrassed and/or abused profusely for being "anti-spirited" or "anti-punk" then why is it not ok to dislike a culture that many people think relates to a certain race?

I haven't been able to read all of the posts in this thread, so my thoughts on racism are within the spoil so I won't have to hear about it being addressed already. I apologize if it offends anyone, but I seriously believe that there are more oppressed races than African American or Caucasian Americans and I'm sick and tired of many of the African Americans within my region and college region that think they are more oppressed than anyone else in the world.

Damn, this thread totally got out of control.

It's crazy how one subject can lead completely into another.

How much did you smoke today???...The topic is not about the French, its about racism. I don't give a shit if the french get ignored, but their role in American history...along with many other aspects of American history are overlooked in favor of politically correct teaching. Jeez..if it makes you feel any better we can substitute how the Poles are over looked for their role in the American revolution..its all the same. Or perhaps your school overlooked Lafayette and Kosciousko too???

Christ, you're dense.

People are currently talking about the French. The current conversation is about the French. You understand, yes? It does not matter what the topic has started as. People have been talking about the French and their place in history textbooks since post 155. Therefore, it is dumb for you to barge in at Post 210 and whine about Black History Month. It has nothing to do with the current conversation, you idiot. Your weaksauce attempt at connecting ignored French with PC history does not suffice.

Wesker, why do you hate black people?

It's because they're hung, isn't it?

The tals was not about the french..it was about the role of the french in American history, and the overall teaching of accurate American history. It had nothing to do with, as you so adroitly put it "how bad the french stink".
So, Mr. French expert, maybe you wouldn't mind telling us how our allies the French fought against the U.S. in WWII, since it relates to French/American history. You, it seems are quite the victim of PC history teaching sinvce you seems to have little knowledge of actual histroy. So please..educate us with your great knowledge.

And I don't hate black people...Sepia people, yeah, they're nasty, and those burnt umber people suck, but black people are just fine.

yea, the tragedy that is wesker

Asking me to prove my knowledge about Vichy France is a pretty keen distraction from the fact that you have no tact.

So you hate indians and mulattos.

Neither is "White". "White" is a social-economic class. How else can it be explained that the Irish and Italians immigrants were originally not considered "White" in the US? Everyone here no matter their ethnic origins would classify Irish and Italian as being "White". So they eventually gained admission into the country club.

People in this thread are essentially debating the disparity of class/gender issues.

Why is this not caled a "hate crime?"

http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/

Go to the "Vicious beating" video...

A black beats the crap out of a white for no reason..its no big deal. If it was the other way around..and lets be honest here..the so called community activists would be screaming hate crime at the top of their lungs.

Incidents like this are what prompt more racism.

OK, why are you calling this a hate crime? A guy on one team hits a guy on the other team. That's not motivated by race. And no one would say it was a hate crime if the white kid hit the black kid, either.

Incidents like this only prompt racism because people like you tie racism into them.

I don't believe that it's a hate crime, but you're wrong about things being turned around if the white kid hit the black kid. Just look at the news and you'll see that almost anytime there is white on black crime its labeled a hate crime. There's a double standard as to when the term "hate crime" is applied.

How about the most infamous non-hate crime, the Wichita massacre, where the defendants admitted they abused the victims because of race, but it is not a hate crime of course becuase it was black on white

http://www.wichita-massacre.com/