|
|
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 |
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? FGSFDS!!! |
But a more well rounded view of history would be nice. The role the teacher has in teaching the students is also key, because a textbook is largely created to appeal to the masses and be as sanitary as possible when history is neither. To have a teacher more devoted to a more multicultural and bi-gender history would be the first step, who would supplement the text with his/her own information that the book leaves out. When you change kid's attitudes towards race and gender, it will eventually filters all through society. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Look, either Political America (THE UNITED STATES you moron, it already has a name) started with the Revolutionary War or it didn't; if it did, then there's no need to give preference to European history, just teach pre-Revolutionary American history. If the United States started before the Revolution, in some nebulous proto state, maybe you should consider teaching more than just your favourite foreign countries' involvement in there.
Most amazing jew boots |
You are getting into the realm of World History now. Is there any problem with talking about stuff in West Africa in an American history class? Hell no. Is there a problem with spending an entire class going in depth as to all the specifics of history in West Africa? I believe so. There are much larger parts of American history. FELIPE NO FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 12:17 AM.
|
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Most amazing jew boots FGSFDS!!! |
There's nowhere I can't reach. John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
I'm going to ask again. If you know very little about African history or culture, why do you feel fit to judge whether it might be relevant to an American history course? I will also ask, why don't you feel it's relevant to discuss pre-whitey settlers while discussing American history? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Women were a large part of prohibition yet they aren't mentioned. Women's suffrage (like I mentioned above). The 1960's movement. The numerous women politicians and historical figures. I'm not talking about a 50/50 portrayal because that would be mad and I'm well aware of the hurdles women had to overcome to get to where we are now but even with recent times, they are barely mentioned with any sort of historical significance. Why won't you just admit it's because of EXTENUATING factors in the portrayal of history rather than history itself. I was speaking idiomatically. |
How ya doing, buddy? |
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. Double Post:
Are you actually trying to tell me that political ties between Africa and Europe have a large enough impact on American history to require more than a passing sentence in a textbook? Something like that is common sense. I don't need to be Mr. History Channel TV Historian to tell you that isn't as important as the Civil war. FELIPE NO FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 12:26 AM.
Reason: Automerged additional post.
|
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
I tend to agree with the basic sentiment of the e-mail in question. I have, for years, found it reprehensible that historical error - admitted error - could be used to justify modern intolerances. I don't even want to get into the minute, pedantic particulars of history and its sociological implications. That's just an unending hellhole of futility.
For the larger part, all those who were involved with slavery and the greater era of segregation are dead. On all sides of the fences. We now realize and agree that such a practice was inhumane. I, personally, have never been involved in slavery, segregation, apartheid or any movement aimed at reducing the freedoms of another race or creed. I find it ludicrous that anyone could assume otherwise based simply by my apparent lineage. The retaliatory derogation applied by some groups is almost Biblical in its dogma; I have been cursed with the "sins" of my forebearers. Only this time, there's no sacred ritual that would cleanse the "taint" from my soul. The tragedy is that, even for having this opinion, it could be construed that I've some axe to grind against minorities. I could be called a racist. I could be accused of pointing a wagging finger at someone who meant me no ill will. Ironic, no? Yet even more bothersome is the idea that, for those who do judge my intent by my color, there is seemingly little I can do to refute their opinion. I am bound by perceptions of historical wrongdoing, trapped inside my invisible box, unable to dodge or return jabs from pointy sticks thrust inward. Doing so would only validate their claims against me. So why, as a white person, am I a racist for not liking the way other groups demonstrably regard me? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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? John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |
Go to bed and then re-read my posts when you have a scrap of intelligence. The current emphasis put on native american history, government, culture, etc, is not called for in current American history curriculum. Not everything is black and white, all or nothing.
kat - I'm not sure where you live, but we spent a good deal of time on Women's suffrage, women's involvement in prohibition, etc, in my class. If your teacher is just passing that stuff by like it isn't important, bring it up. Or if it's too late for that, then yeah, you have a reason to be pissed off at that matter .
-------------------------------------------------- Goodnight, I'm done here. I'm down to endlessly repeating myself because I can't get certain points through lurker's and devo's skull. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Jun 20, 2006 at 12:35 AM.
|
Look, you're not realizing that in the scope of history, there is one and only one truth. Situation A happened at Location B during Time C. It's humans who take this raw data and skew them to their liking. Person D was the hero, Person E was the victim. It (I guess you can say) humanizes this data and creates bias. This is the history we're taught. I'm not saying what we learn is all filth but most of it is warped in some way by several factors and what comes out in the end, is not what happened originally. Like the herofication of most historical figures. Washington actually was not as good a military man as books make him out to be, but we wouldn't know because we're all told how his actions saved the Revolution. History, at its essence, is like a really bad game of telephone. Each person who get their hands on it changes it in some way to their liking while the original person is the only one who knows what really happened. By accessing first-hand sources, even second-hand sources or simply information without bias, we are able to furthur acheive knowledge of that original raw data. We're not getting people to adopt a different historical mindset but a historical mindset that is at its core, is pure and true. This may be impossible but by even beginning to strive for it, it's still better than having to read the stuff they give you in school. FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
And I'm really amazed you still remember the layout of your history book from 3 years ago that woman's suffrage was in a box off to the top right side on page 392. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Its easy to frame the term in European perspective during that time, however, we are not dealing with bunch of animals when we are talking about native Americans, without knowledge of their relationship to the land and how they lived, its easy to get into the same mind set of the settler and justify the type of atrocity that follows. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD. |