Thoughts on racism

"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]

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 BigHairyFeet

I almost used Hitler in my argument. .

Godwin's Law would suggest that it was highly probable of you using it.

Maybe next time!

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

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

Yes, you have a very valid point there. There are people just like you believe the fucking Holocaust was a myth, and that blacks should still be slaves to whites. That's their opinion, and trust me, they are stickin' to it, darling. The thing is, they are a fucking minority. Believe whatever you want.

... Do you not understand the nature of my post was being ironic? Because you yourself said that HISTORY IS WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. People believe tons of shit but there is only one clear cut edition of history. Some people do believe the Holocaust didn't exist, but we have thousands of first hand accounts including diaries, pictures, etc. from the victims and, soldiers that rescued them. And because of these accounts by actual people who experienced the horrors and witnessed them, we are able to accurately construct the truth from this set of information. If we were to go off what the Germans wanted history to be, we would have been all lead to believe that the Jewish were tickled to death with sunflowers.

I hope you don't think calling me darling makes you sound like a fucking man. So shut the fuck up.

Quote:

Calling people Heroes or victims isn't always a case of bias. The slaughter in Darfur has a set of agressors and victims; don't try and tell me 300, 000 dead people were actually the agressors; THAT would be ridiculous. If history wasn't coloured by people's impressions, thoughts, or stories, there wouldn't be any fucking history worth remembering. For instance, how would anyone know what a soldier went through mentally, unless he related his experiences in a book? Noone could fully appreciate what he/she suffered through.

What are people's stories' impressions thoughts etc? A soldier's autobiography on his mental state? OH FUCKING YEAH, PRIMARY SOURCES.

Quote:

It's interesting you bring this up, because in your first quote that I responded to, you said that history should be a clear cut set of facts, and tallied and analyzed. But in this quote, you advocate first hand sources and second hand sources. Do you understand what a first hand source is? It's an eyewitness account, which is biased.

Wrong, primary sources are from participants in the event like diaries, letters, etc., not only eyewitness accounts.

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by kat

Wrong, primary sources are from participants in the event like diaries, letters, etc., not only eyewitness accounts.

These sources, while "primary sources", will still hold the bias of the author.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

These sources, while "primary sources", will still hold the bias of the author.

Please. Oh please, ELABORATE.

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?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

These sources, while "primary sources", will still hold the bias of the author.

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

Originally Posted by kat

Wrong, primary sources are from participants in the event like diaries, letters, etc., not only eyewitness accounts.

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.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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 Magi

I personally believe that knowledge of the Native American history and culture is vital to understanding of later conflicts between them and European settlers, which persisted for a very long time even after the Union has been established.

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.

In the grand scheme of the racist agenda, the Native American involvement is pretty unidirectional. They were here, were brutally ravaged by European invaders, herded and treated as property, then left to exist on only the most unusable land that Europeans didn't want. It was an unwillingness to learn about the people, their ways and a self-superior need to subjugate them with European values that led to their mass slaughter. Other than casinos, the Indians have had little opportunity to effectively strike back. (Although many tribes would rather not engage in further violence and dissent in the first place.)

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.

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.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Person A stabbed Person B in the chest.

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?

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

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?

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 a lurker

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by kat

You can interpret it different way, theorize it differently but what you witnessed will always be for what it was.

This is my understanding of what the word bias means in this discussion. You just handily proved my point.

I'm assuming you and I were taking "bias" to mean different things.

How ya doing, buddy?