Thoughts on racism

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.



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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

=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.

France and Spain are not part of Europe.

You heard it here first, folks!

Quote:

I'm saying people don't need to learn the culture of West Africa, period.

Quote:

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

what

Quote:

This is American History, not "Lets-throw-every-possible-minority-link-into-this-class-so-nobody-can-bitch-about-minority-injustice" class.

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.

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

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

No, I want them to keep learning the same things.

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.



Much like these people, who grew up believing they were not hispanic.

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

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

There is no point in learning the history of West Africa in an American History class, and I stand by that.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

Please re-read the quoted box, it did not say what you thought it said.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.



ZZ Top is a well-known Mariachi band.

Double Post:

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.

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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

Quote:

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.

And after?

Quote:

Disproportionate does not meet my definition of well-rounded.

Your definition, and your face, is flawed.

Quote:

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.

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?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

You do not need to learn the entire history of another country just to learn about minority groups in America.

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.

Quote:

Simply learning that a certain cultural aspect was carried over with them is enough.

As is with whites.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Hancock are very well-known Britons, yes. You got me there.

Wow.

Quote:

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by daguuy

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,

Thanks! It'll be added to our records.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Hancock are very well-known Britons, yes. You got me there.

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:



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

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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:

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

These were direct descendents of the English. What's your point?

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.



The rare and sought-after Blonde Hispanic Mechanic needs to know.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

England should be given far more consideration than any other country during the revolutionary time period, as they had the biggest impact.

Even France?

Quote:

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.

That is a profoundly ignorant statement, sir.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

The forming and beginnings of our country???

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.

Quote:

I think you read something wrong.

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.

Quote:

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.

You did not learn your own history very well.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

Minor parts of history should have minor parts of the curriculum.

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Snowknight

Also, please be careful with what you call "FACT"; history is not so one-sided-

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

Double Post:

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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

Quote:

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."

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.

Quote:

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

Why didn't you learn it then?

Quote:

There isn't anything TO judge.

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?



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

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

Wesker, why do you hate black people?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

So you hate indians and mulattos.

There's nowhere I can't reach.