Thoughts on racism

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.



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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

So why, as a white person, am I a racist for not liking the way other groups demonstrably regard me?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

Quote:

Sacred and profane
Commentary
by Lucas M. McWilliams
the Carillon

The usage of “cunt”
–––

There are few words that garner the sort of ire that cunt does. As an insult, it is second to none. It has come to signify the basest of insults that can be hurled around a room, and is absolutely venomous when snarled properly. It is, however, just a word. And like all words, it has undergone radical changes since its initial foray into the lexicon, and will continue to shift in future. I’m not about to go into the etymology of the word, as it is both highly contested and incredibly broad. (There is, however, a wonderful history available at http://www.matthewhunt.com/cunt/etymology.html that manages to encompass the main theories while offering a historical context.)

The word was not always as profane as it is now; long before it was a taboo, it was used in medical journals and existed in the common vocabulary of English speakers. So, when did this liberal use of cunt become so maligned? Around the same time we began saying “white meat” instead of “breast meat.” This switch from the sacred to the profane came with the rise of Puritanism and has stayed strong ever since. Although words like fuck and prick have become much less grotesque over the years, cunt has managed to hold its sway over us.

It is this enduring ability to be offensive that makes the c-bomb so intriguing. With the re-appropriation of words like wog and queer we have seen how hateful words can be taken from the domain of the abusers and become empowering for the abused, and cunt is not far behind. As comedian Lenny Bruce said, “the word’s suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.” There is also a large movement that agrees with him. Within the domain of the so-called “cunt-power” movement, there have emerged many strong voices decrying the defamation of the word, such as “Cuntfest” at Penn. State and the “Cunt Club” at Wesleyan University.

Many people credit the modern student movement of Megan Goudy and Ashley Newton for the modern swing of taking cunt from the profane to the sacred, as their paper released in 2004, spoke of how the history of the word had become largely forgotten and that “by recognizing and reclaiming the etymological connotation of the word ‘cunt,’ women can take back part of the language that keeps them in their socially determined subordinate position.” Though this position is nothing new, it does bring one point to light that should definitely be stressed. Cunt is a word. It is not but letters arranged in a left-to-right fashion and nothing more. The meaning is entirely what you make of it, and by hiding it in a corner and shuddering whenever it is pulled to light you empower it.

Language is an ever-changing thing, and we all have the ability to prescribe our own meanings to it. I am not saying that you should not be offended if someone calls you a “raving cunt,” but be offended by the hate behind it, not the word itself. The word is nothing. At least Shakespeare got that right.

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

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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