Thoughts on racism

Originally Posted by DragoonKain

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Gwaehir

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Snowknight

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

No, I think it's a fair assumption to make. Men were in positions of power throughout society, and there were not very many women who had the power to create change in society through politics or policy. What is so hard to accept about that? That's the way it was then, this is the way it is now. Times change.

2084: Women take over the fucking planet and rewrite history to place feminism at the forefront of it all. Get ready for it.

Quote:

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Snowknight

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 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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

Yes, you have a very valid point there. There are people just like you believe the fucking Holocaust was a myth, and that blacks should still be slaves to whites. That's their opinion, and trust me, they are stickin' to it, darling. The thing is, they are a fucking minority. Believe whatever you want.

... 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.

Quote:

Calling people Heroes or victims isn't always a case of bias. The slaughter in Darfur has a set of agressors and victims; don't try and tell me 300, 000 dead people were actually the agressors; THAT would be ridiculous. If history wasn't coloured by people's impressions, thoughts, or stories, there wouldn't be any fucking history worth remembering. For instance, how would anyone know what a soldier went through mentally, unless he related his experiences in a book? Noone could fully appreciate what he/she suffered through.

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

Quote:

It's interesting you bring this up, because in your first quote that I responded to, you said that history should be a clear cut set of facts, and tallied and analyzed. But in this quote, you advocate first hand sources and second hand sources. Do you understand what a first hand source is? It's an eyewitness account, which is biased.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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

Please. Oh please, ELABORATE.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.