Thoughts on racism

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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:



Jam it back in, in the dark.

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, 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

Congratulations on ignoring the same warnings I gave others.

You're now banned from this thread.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad 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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

For god's sake, does a mod want to correct the spelling in the title? I thought it would have been done by now.

EDIT: Thank you.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Yamamanama

And apparently America's ascendancy to the status of superpower isn't anywhere as important as the founding of the country. Go figure.

Because the founding of the nation is so much more hardcore, right?

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

...

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.

When a country is greatly responsible for victory in a war, I think they play a bigger part than you think. It's not like the colonists had some massive superarmy, you know. Plus, I don't think anyone was ever saying, "we need to teach the entire history of France in American history classes."
Sure, England and the colonies were "major players," but France is more than deserving to be included as well.

The Seven Years' War then, deserves to be studied even a bit due to the influence it had, transitively, on the French helping the colonials in the revolutionary war. (Sure, France didn't like England, but that conflict was one of France's main motivators to help the colonials at all.)

Also, please be careful with what you call "FACT"; history is not so one-sided--much depends on who you ask, of course.

Most amazing jew boots

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well, it is hard to deny that the history courses being taught in American schools are wholly inadequate. It is true that too much time is spent teaching politically correct history as opposed to real history. The entire month of February, for example< is spent teaching so called black history, since its black history month, as if black history is something seperate from the rest of history. kids are taught about obscure histroical figures, instead of real history changing people, in the name of being diverse. Same thing happens around Cinco d' Mayo and the like. I mean lets be honest here..does George Washington Carver deserve equal billing as a scientist with Albert Einstein, yet thats how its presented in schools because the belief is that black kids need black heroes to shore up their self esteem. Did Martin Luther King do more for the United States that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or FDR for that matter, yet the teaching on them is relegated to secondary status, and they don't even get a holiday thats recognized in any way as much as MLK.

This crappy, politically correct history teaching is why people have no idea what a huge role the french played in the American revolution, or that the hessians fought with the british, or that black troops fought for both sides. And thats just one tiny aspect of history that is neglected in order to appease the special interest groups that all demand history be taught their way.

FELIPE NO

PC history is the reason we ignore the French? wait what

Your emphasis on Black History Month out of fucking nowhere is a bit telling.

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

Originally Posted by Interrobang

PC history is the reason we ignore the French? wait what

Your emphasis on Black History Month out of fucking nowhere is a bit telling.

This is a thread about racism, not the French, I was using the example of the French to refer back to previous posts which you apparently chose not to read.

Black History month is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to percieved racism. Some "enlightened" thinkers figured, Gee..not enough prominent blacks in American history, lets devote a month to teach all about black history, as if black history is somehow not integral with American history.

As to you're "a bit telling" comment...I guess you're insinuating that I'm racist. well, honestly I am..a bit. Most people are to some degree. I am very prejudiced against the thug culture of many inner city blacks, but I', equally appalled by the meth monkey trailer trash culture of many whites..so is that racism..or is it just a natural aversion to certain people.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Wesker

This is a thread about racism, not the French, I was using the example of the French to refer back to previous posts which you apparently chose not to read.

Yes, and you're being an idiot at it. The current topic of conversation is the French and how much they smell, and you're going off on some bullshit rant about Black History Month that you assume people to care about. To make it look connected to the topic at hand, you throw in the line that "PC HIST IS THE REASON WE INGORE THE FRENCHIES." Never mind that it makes no sense. Take it to your fucking journal if you're that bitter.

Quote:

Black History month is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to percieved racism. Some "enlightened" thinkers figured, Gee..not enough prominent blacks in American history, lets devote a month to teach all about black history, as if black history is somehow not integral with American history.

Shut up.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

French is not a race. Shocking I know.

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

Originally Posted by Wesker

As to you're "a bit telling" comment...I guess you're insinuating that I'm racist. well, honestly I am..a bit. Most people are to some degree. I am very prejudiced against the thug culture of many inner city blacks, but I', equally appalled by the meth monkey trailer trash culture of many whites..so is that racism..or is it just a natural aversion to certain people.

I think Christopher Kincade said it best, "I'm not racist. I just don't like punks. PUNKS." I don't like the thug/gangsta culture that some African Americans embrace, but that doesn't mean I'm racist. Heck, some of the sweetest people I've met on campus were very dark-skinned people from Sudan and the Carribbean Islands. I also dispise the trailer trash culture of a bunch of hillbillies who make meth in their kitchens while slapping their underage pregnant wives for not makin' em dinner. Does this mean I'm racist toward Caucasians?

If it's ok for preppy cheerleaders to hate punk culture and vice versa without being harrassed and/or abused profusely for being "anti-spirited" or "anti-punk" then why is it not ok to dislike a culture that many people think relates to a certain race?

I haven't been able to read all of the posts in this thread, so my thoughts on racism are within the spoil so I won't have to hear about it being addressed already. I apologize if it offends anyone, but I seriously believe that there are more oppressed races than African American or Caucasian Americans and I'm sick and tired of many of the African Americans within my region and college region that think they are more oppressed than anyone else in the world.

Spoiler:

Frankly, I think that racism still exists and that some blacks are about as racist if not more than some whites. I have personally seen African American women play the "race card" in order to stop receiving CSV's b/c they were screaming "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!!" at 2 a.m. almost every night (if you get 3 or more at my college then you could get suspended on first offense). I have seen African Americans call one another "Ni**er" and then go off on a Caucasian person for calling another Caucasian a "Wi**er". I have seen store clerks keep focus on non-Caucasian people more often than Caucasian people in stores (I was a victim of this along with my Asian buddy). I have even seen Caucasian students say in class, "I want to be a police Sheriff and the president of the KKK when I graduate" and, "dem ni**ers don't know nothin' but how to rap and rape our women."

My problem is mostly with some of the African Americans who believe they are more oppressed (even in current society) than any other race/group of people in existence. A former roommate of mine received a scholarship given only to African American students who excel in their field of study but she looked Caucasian b/c her mother was African American but her father was Caucasian American. However, I also know full-blooded American Indians who were not given scholarships b/c they were not registered to a specific tribe (ex. not just Cherokee, but you had to have papers proving you belong to the Deer Clan of the Cherokee). Why doesn't she have papers? Because her ancestors--like some of mine--hid in the Appalachians during the "Trail of Tears" and were separated from their main tribe...so their tribes are considered to be "extinct", and it's hard to be part of a group that's listed as extinct. My roommate didn't have to have papers to prove her mother was from the Zulu tribe or anything. I once heard an African American in class claim that slavery was worse than what the Jews went through during World War II.

From what I have seen and heard, African Americans (and many Caucasians) are given more benefits than Hispanics, American Indians, and Asian Americans. I believe that racism still exists on both sides and that they are too busy fighting one another to realize that there are other races that have even fewer rights than they do.

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

Damn, this thread totally got out of control.

It's crazy how one subject can lead completely into another.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Yes, and you're being an idiot at it. The current topic of conversation is the French and how much they smell,

How much did you smoke today???...The topic is not about the French, its about racism. I don't give a shit if the french get ignored, but their role in American history...along with many other aspects of American history are overlooked in favor of politically correct teaching. Jeez..if it makes you feel any better we can substitute how the Poles are over looked for their role in the American revolution..its all the same. Or perhaps your school overlooked Lafayette and Kosciousko too???

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Christ, you're dense.

People are currently talking about the French. The current conversation is about the French. You understand, yes? It does not matter what the topic has started as. People have been talking about the French and their place in history textbooks since post 155. Therefore, it is dumb for you to barge in at Post 210 and whine about Black History Month. It has nothing to do with the current conversation, you idiot. Your weaksauce attempt at connecting ignored French with PC history does not suffice.

FELIPE NO