|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
"It's not completely pointless you damn bigot"
it's pointless to include it in AMERICAN history What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
[QUOTE]
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.
Double Post:
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? FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:17 AM.
Reason: Automerged additional post.
|
Maybe next time! What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
I hope you don't think calling me darling makes you sound like a fucking man. So shut the fuck up.
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. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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.
There's nowhere I can't reach. FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:22 AM.
|
How ya doing, buddy? |
I mean, wow. So, uh, France doesn't really factor into American history during the Revolution much, huh?
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Naturally, we always get only one point of view and never has any understanding of the historic context in which they are set, oh no. FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
[QUOTE=a lurker]
With that single post, I used the wrong word, yes.
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. Jam it back in, in the dark. FGSFDS!!! |
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:
How ya doing, buddy?
Last edited by Sarag; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:30 AM.
Reason: Automerged additional post.
|
Objectively speaking, even calling them Native Americans is kind of an insult. This is maintaining a label that doesn't truly apply to their heritage. "America" is a term derived from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian, who had nothing to do with their culture, or even their discovery. Christopher Columbus was an Italian, in service to the Portuguese crown. His knowledge of the Portuguese language is believed to be fairly limited and all his known documents were written almost entirely in Spanish. In Columbus's documents, when he came into contact with indigenous people (From either continental America or Carribbea, depending upon your opinion of the matter), he referred to them as a "people in God", or, "en Dios". It's conceivable that the term "en Dios" could've been colloqualized by the Portuguese into "Indians" ("en Dians"), which would coincide with the region of Columbus's true destination, the country we now call India. Except in the 15th and 16th centuries, India wasn't known by that name. It called itself "Bhāratavarsha". The fact that it laid upon the Indus river lent weight to the term "India", which is how it came to be known as the English colonization transpired. The political term, "Indian", as refers to India, didn't come into use until around the 17th century, well after Columbus' voyage. So it's very conceivable that calling Native Americans "Indians" is a more accurate, and not politically incorrect, statement. "In Dios" is compliment, even if it does juxtapose a European concept of Christianity upon a more polydeistic culture. But, if you want to call them anything, then they should be referred to by their individual tribal names, ones they chose for themselves. There is a vast amount of difference between a Sioux, a Hopi and a Seneca. To lump them into one category is tantamount to assuming that all people with narrow eyes are Japanese. I feel that if any groups have a legitimate reason to be upset today, it's the tribes of America. They remain on their reservations, sometimes by choice yet often not, and receive token benefits but have not been given the same level of apology and advancement initiatives as have been offered to other races. Despite this, almost all Natives that I've met are warm folk, unhurtful and eager to make friends. Fucking inspirational. But calling them "Native Americans", that, in my opinion, is a bit ignorant. (But not racist, as ignorance does not indicate intolerance.) I think this is the first time I've ever given a political history lesson on GFF. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:34 AM.
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
Most amazing jew boots FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:40 AM.
|
DarkLink:
I have read through this entire thread and am sick of seeing your bilous, vulgar and inflammatory attacks on people. You call them "fucking retards", say that they have "thick skulls" and have been downright rude to anyone with a contrary opinion. Say what you will about my perceived "agenda", but I see you as the one who is causing problems. Everyone else has maintained a civil tone. They may disapprove of you, but they haven't sworn at you or insulted you directly. If I see ONE MORE CURSE OR DIRECT INSULT from you, you will be banned from this thread. Learn how to debate in a calm manner or don't debate at all. Do you understand? EDIT: Upon further review, Devo has been insulting in a similar manner. It's only fair that you too, Devo, will be banned if you do it again. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Crash "Long-Winded Wrong Answer" Landon; Jun 20, 2006 at 01:46 AM.
|
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
Wow.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? FGSFDS!!! |
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, you didn't seem to think about what you're saying. you should probably try to put a little un-deniable truth in your arguments, instead of just blatting out what you think with no facts to back it up. you shouldn't base everything you say off of picking apart your opponent's words and rewording them to say what you want them to say (also known as lying). you'll see what i mean if you get sober and read everything you've said. either that or you're just stupid.
BTW, this isn't about a particular post you made, you're just such a duche. bye now, i have better things to do than talk to dumbasses I was speaking idiomatically. |
I'm assuming you and I were taking "bias" to mean different things. How ya doing, buddy? |