Thoughts on racism

Originally Posted by kat

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by kat

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by kat

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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

Originally Posted by Yamamanama

And apparently America's ascendancy to the status of superpower isn't anywhere as important as the founding of the country. Go figure.

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

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

...

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots