Thoughts on racism

Originally Posted by a lurker

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?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

So instead of explaining yourself better you're going to assume we're the inept ones (despite more than 3 people telling you different). Could you try trolling harder, I didn't the message.

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.

Quote:

The point isn't how much one sex did more than the other. The point is realizing just how much women have been ignored within history and by the history writers.

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

Quote:

When several people are on your case about your wording and attitude, you think it could possibly be something needs changing on your end?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

Time != Content.

Quote:

Such as the crusades and the King James' book.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

Why do you insist on thinking we're referring to the slave trade? Especially when we've specifically told you there is more to America than revolting Puritans?

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.

Quote:

Why do you think in order for kids to learn about West African culture, something else has to be removed? You're assuming that school teaches you all you need to know, and it doesn't. Read up on your own like much of GFF does. Just because it wasn't taught in your Junior History class you think it's "not as relevant" to American history. Guess who writes Historic Standards.

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

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

Good for you, after several weeks, you finally found a couple of fucking exceptions.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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?

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by a lurker

France and Spain are not part of Europe.

You heard it here first, folks!

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.

Quote:

what

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Devo

It's not completely pointless you damn bigot.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE=a lurker]

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

Quote:

I mean, wow. So, uh, France doesn't really factor into American history during the Revolution much, huh?

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.

Quote:

No, it does, that's the definition of a well-rounded history class actually.

Disproportionate does not meet my definition of well-rounded.

Quote:

But you don't feel that it is very important to learn about native american history in an American history class.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

ZZ Top is a well-known Mariachi band.

I love ZZ Top.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Quote:

And after?

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.

Quote:

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.

You have different schooling than I did.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Let it be noted only you have mentioned knowing "everything" about a country. This was your addition, not mine, nor lurks. We have yet to be specific about just how much about a country students need to know. The point is, it's not just English colonialists that added much to American politics or society. Why is this so hard to understand?

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:

Originally Posted by a lurker

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:

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

To THAT one? How so?

Quote:

I am still not grasping why we need to learn about contemporary English politics when we are discussing Americans.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Quote:

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.

The forming and beginnings of our country???

Quote:

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

I think you read something wrong.

Quote:

Even France?

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.

Quote:

That is a profoundly ignorant statement, sir.

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

You did not learn your own history very well.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Snowknight

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?