[werewolfv2]

 Cold Iron, on 11 May 2010 - 12:17 AM, said:

Firstly it has been known since 1997 when successful Neanderthal DNA sequencing began that there is no evidence of cross breeding. The last common ancestor of sapiens and neaderthal is at least a half million years ago, long before the first common ancestor of modern humans.

that was true, till 2010 rolled in

http://www.time.com/...1987568,00.html


"The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago. If that is the case, it occurred significantly earlier than scientists who support the interbreeding hypothesis would have expected.

Comparisons with DNA from modern humans show that some Neanderthal DNA has survived to the present. Moreover, by analyzing ancient DNA alongside modern samples, the team was able to identify a handful of genetic changes that evolved in modern humans sometime after their ancestors and Neanderthals diverged, 440,000 to 270,000 years ago."

[Cold Iron]

Gah press release 4 days ago? Too up-to-date for me. I'm not that into this shit. Interesting that it seems only to be a one way transfer. The dirty bastars.

@stormy, all of your criteria for intelligence are aquired skills and thus heavily influenced by education and thus socioeconomic standing. These skills are developed by all people in order to carry out everyday tasks but can be improved somewhat by performing specific tasks such as those completed during schooling.

Anecdotally and disregarding a few outliers such as those with genetic disorders I have not encountered any piece of knowledge or any mental skill that could not be understood or acquired by anybody given the time and inclination.

[worry]

That is some crazy interesting info right there. I guess the real Clan of the Cave Bear was a lot freakier than Jean Auel let on.

[werewolfv2]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 05:05 AM, said:

That is some crazy interesting info right there. I guess the real Clan of the Cave Bear was a lot freakier than Jean Auel let on.

yeah, for the "racial purity" folks out there this can translate to the people staying in Africa being more pure human then the rest of humanity

[werewolfv2]

 Cold Iron, on 11 May 2010 - 05:02 AM, said:

Gah press release 4 days ago? Too up-to-date for me. I'm not that into this shit. Interesting that it seems only to be a one way transfer. The dirty bastars.

sorry i kinda dig the news and it was all over the place for a few days

[Shinrei]

 Illuyankas, on 10 May 2010 - 06:06 PM, said:

I always viewed it as being Black History Month to contrast with the White Other Eleven Months. I don't know why more people don't see this. Just because it doesn't say White on it doesn't mean it's not focused on it for the majority of programmes.

Either research every single ethnic group and devote the same amount of time to each through the year - America Day in White History Month, Korea Day in Asian History Month etc - or admit it's a laudable but misguided attempt at bridging the gap between majority and minority and think of something better. Like Dickbag History Year.

But is it America's (or Britain's) fault that the majority population was white, and so the majority of major history relevent today was made by those white people? (I'm speaking in the context of American history, not World history, which is what "black history month" is all about in the US). I am not downplaying the contributions of all races in the history of the US, but it should be obvious that more events/wars/treaties so on and so forth were presided over by the race that was largely dominent.

Obviously if we're talking world history, it would be retarded to have 11 months be only about white majority nations.

[worry]

Perhaps the focus on wars and treaties etc. in history classes is part of the problem. Why exactly should they constitute the "major history relevant today"? Who exactly had a voice in those meetings where it was decided this particular set of events was major and others were minor? And that the curriculum should reflect that. Perhaps the fact that history is taught this way has obfuscated "major" events that weren't dominated by white people even though they were the majority population and the primary mainstream political power. Perhaps Sacajawea and York were major figures of the Lewis & Clark expedition and not just a couple of sidekicks. Maybe Frederick Douglass made more valuable contributes to US history than Lincoln and Grant combined. It's not simply that whites happened to be the dominant race through much of American history -- not that I'm discounting that notion all together -- but that we have been taught that America's major events are the ones whites contributed so much to. It's almost a tautological argument. I mean you can say you're not downplaying non-white contributions to US history, but how do you know that? Do you even know enough about non-white American history to make that statement definitively? I'm not saying the deficiency is with you, the individual, but I do think the argument is rooted in a winners-write-history set of information. That said, even white losers dominate the curriculum though, because white history is default history. Thanks for the lesson on Custer's arrogance, 8th Grade Social Studies class, but why the hell is his failure the lesson in the first place? Oh yah, because he's the white guy in the story, regardless of the fact that he's a jackass nobody footnote who got owned by those extinct noble magical savage mascot models we learn about in storybooks and occasional Graham Greene cameos. It's too bad they didn't do anything major though.

In conclusion, American History is Black History with perhaps a few white-centric events along the way. A few somewhat significant corralaries to the black experience, and a few interesting bits of trivia here and there. An eloquent statesman or two, some activists that kinda blend together, some inventors, some artists/writers. That's it.

[HoosierDaddy]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 08:40 AM, said:

Perhaps the focus on wars and treaties etc. in history classes is part of the problem. Why exactly should they constitute the "major history relevant today"? Who exactly had a voice in those meetings where it was decided this particular set of events was major and others were minor? And that the curriculum should reflect that. Perhaps the fact that history is taught this way has obfuscated "major" events that weren't dominated by white people even though they were the majority population and the primary mainstream political power. Perhaps Sacajawea and York were major figures of the Lewis & Clark expedition and not just a couple of sidekicks. Maybe Frederick Douglass made more valuable contributes to US history than Lincoln and Grant combined. It's not simply that whites happened to be the dominant race through much of American history -- not that I'm discounting that notion all together -- but that we have been taught that America's major events are the ones whites contributed so much to. It's almost a tautological argument. I mean you can say you're not downplaying non-white contributions to US history, but how do you know that? Do you even know enough about non-white American history to make that statement definitively? I'm not saying the deficiency is with you, the individual, but I do think the argument is rooted in a winners-write-history set of information. That said, even white losers dominate the curriculum though, because white history is default history. Thanks for the lesson on Custer's arrogance, 8th Grade Social Studies class, but why the hell is his failure the lesson in the first place? Oh yah, because he's the white guy in the story, regardless of the fact that he's a jackass nobody footnote who got owned by those extinct noble magical savage mascot models we learn about in storybooks and occasional Graham Greene cameos. It's too bad they didn't do anything major though.

In conclusion, American History is Black History with perhaps a few white-centric events along the way. A few somewhat significant corralaries to the black experience, and a few interesting bits of trivia here and there. An eloquent statesman or two, some activists that kinda blend together, some inventors, some artists/writers. That's it.

Paragraphs, please Worry. 12 block sentences make a nearly unreadable statement.

Just on it's own, and perhaps out of context, "Maybe Frederick Douglass made more valuable [sic] contributions to U.S. History than Lincoln and Grant combined." Being someone that I have a B.A. in History with the vast majority of it being in American studies, I'd say this statement is one that grabbed ahold of roots and never let go. Douglass is an indispensable part of the Civil War era. However, to compare him to the Lincoln and Grant in terms of effect, is to overplay ones hand by so much that it becomes ridiculous.

[Silencer]

There is one thing you want to be careful of there, though.

Down here in NZ, our history/social studies classes teach Maori history with a side of colonialism (in a purely negative light, mind - the colonialism that is) right up until 3 years prior to University. All well and good, except we get nothing more than a brushing over of: China, Greece, Rome, Russia, Egypt, Persia, the Ottomans (let's face it, they don't even get mentioned) and so on. Let alone England, France, Italy, Spain, or other European countries. America doesn't even get mentioned until the Civil Rights section for a week in our tenth year, or via the Cambridge curriculum offered at my school in 12th year. Now consider that we cover the same two-hundred year period of history for TWELVE YEARS.
It wouldn't even be so bad except that the focal point of our studies is a civilisation that had no written language until white people got here. So everything pre-1800's is speculation, usually wildly inaccurate and self-contradictory.

Can't say I'm really in support of *that* system, either.

[Shinrei]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 08:40 AM, said:

Perhaps the focus on wars and treaties etc. in history classes is part of the problem. Why exactly should they constitute the "major history relevant today"? Who exactly had a voice in those meetings where it was decided this particular set of events was major and others were minor? And that the curriculum should reflect that. Perhaps the fact that history is taught this way has obfuscated "major" events that weren't dominated by white people even though they were the majority population and the primary mainstream political power. Perhaps Sacajawea and York were major figures of the Lewis & Clark expedition and not just a couple of sidekicks. Maybe Frederick Douglass made more valuable contributes to US history than Lincoln and Grant combined. It's not simply that whites happened to be the dominant race through much of American history -- not that I'm discounting that notion all together -- but that we have been taught that America's major events are the ones whites contributed so much to. It's almost a tautological argument. I mean you can say you're not downplaying non-white contributions to US history, but how do you know that? Do you even know enough about non-white American history to make that statement definitively? I'm not saying the deficiency is with you, the individual, but I do think the argument is rooted in a winners-write-history set of information. That said, even white losers dominate the curriculum though, because white history is default history. Thanks for the lesson on Custer's arrogance, 8th Grade Social Studies class, but why the hell is his failure the lesson in the first place? Oh yah, because he's the white guy in the story, regardless of the fact that he's a jackass nobody footnote who got owned by those extinct noble magical savage mascot models we learn about in storybooks and occasional Graham Greene cameos. It's too bad they didn't do anything major though.

In conclusion, American History is Black History with perhaps a few white-centric events along the way. A few somewhat significant corralaries to the black experience, and a few interesting bits of trivia here and there. An eloquent statesman or two, some activists that kinda blend together, some inventors, some artists/writers. That's it.

With whites being the dominant power, keeping blacks as slaves, and later 2nd class citizens, doesn't that necessarily mean that the large players in American politics and the shaping of the US in the past were more likely to be white? The focus on major historical events isn't (for the most part) based on a racial paradigm.

I don't think an unfair definition for "major history relevant today" would be things that changed the world and the lives of many people in some significant way. If whites had greater power and influence because of their victor's dominance, it stands to reason they were in a better position to influence the world in major ways. If blacks had been the dominant race, it would be the other way around. Of course the contributions of any race, who changed the future for many, should be included in a good history curriculum. With whites keeping blacks down, they just gave themselves more opportunities.

I agree with you about Custer. There are definately points about history where it's taught from a white perspective and is therefore unfair or narrow.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 08:40 AM, said:

<big ol' paragraph>

Here's the thing: If it wasn't recorded or noted, it isn't history. That's why we talk about ancient history in terms of the Roman Republic and Greek city-states, and Carthage, and Egypt, China, India, and virtually absent are the germanic tribes, goths, finno-urgic cultures, early slavic peoples, aborigines, etc. not because they didn't happen, but because there's almost nothing to say about them for lack of evidence or impact. Sometimes the former, sometimes the latter.

It is undeniable that <insert racial epithet here> history is something that should be understood. But history books are written by the victors (and the literate), and the historical evidence is preserved by them, at their whim.

You would be betraying history, as a narrative of the world (or parts of it), if you insist that the greatest (in magnitude) events are invalid or mis-identified because they don't include one or more subdivision of it. That's not to say that the subdivision is not worth studying. Everything (that you can find evidence for) in history has historical merit, but if you're doing an overview study you have to prioritize in importance. If a group is not influential in the large slice of the world you're studying (America, Europe, Africa, etc.) then you should, in a separate setting from the general, study the specific. But if you're doing an overview study of world history, you've got to hit the high points. There's too much history to cover to dwell in minutiae or on minor players.

[worry]

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that long paragraphs contribute most to major discussions and short paragraphs play a lesser -- though distinctly noble en masse -- role. But I'll try.

Why exactly would the most important leader of the Abolitionist movement not be at least on par with Lincoln and Grant? Because the Civil War is more important than the Abolitionist movement. I didn't make that judgment, but had it made for me. This isn't meant to be a pun, but it seems to me WASP America has the most histrionic way of preserving their dominance in the historical record. Wars are sensational, they really tend to make the biggest historical headlines. Perhaps white people are genetically predisposed to being rat bastards.

It's not something that's easily quantified, of course, but white actors are by default taught to be the prime movers. I don't accept the argument that it's because, objectively speaking from the ever-observant Heavens, those are the facts. I don't accept that the prioritization of events, as Stormy suggests so practically (and with whom I don't disagree, in terms of barest principle), was made with any good faith. And the trend is moving towards bad faith rather than away, thanks to the Texas Board of Ed.

Shinrei, I don't think that's an unfair definition, but I think it's unfair to call that the only definition of any import. And I definitely think even accepting that definition, it's biased beyond justification what is included in and excluded from history. With whites keeping blacks down? How about, with blacks keeping America alive? It's a real point of privilege that you can suggest whites kept blacks down, and the whites still remain the heroes of the story, and that doesn't raise most people's hackles. Those wacky founders disagreed on slavery so they compromised to stabilize the union, what a neat little bit of minor trivia that is. Of course it blew up for them later, that's the important part. I'm sure if I were an African American student I would accept that tidbit with the very same bit of historical curiosity as my white peers, and not at all as a reflection of my value in America's narrative.

The fact is, white history is serious history, and non-white history is cartoon history. Blacks were slaves, and then they tried really hard not to be. The Chinese built our railroads. Native Americans sure had it rough, but now that they're extinct we don't have to worry about them except at Thanksgiving. Not that any of this stuff affected the lives of many people in some significant way. But in case it did, let's make sure to get the white perspective. But mostly let's focus exclusively on politics and wars, since that's what preoccupies white American history. There's a lot of information to pack into a high school survey course, but white history is summarized in text books, non-white history is summarized in paragraphs and sentences. And it's not because white people did the most important things, it's because history text books are essentially tabloids and whites make up most of the celebrities. I don't disagree with Stormy's point about Greece and Rome vs. the Goths, but frankly in terms of the United States the history is there, it's written, it's documented, and it's still not taught. And when it is, it's taught in the most humiliating, paternalistic tones possible, because it just isn't valued against the traditional, glossy narrative.

I mean, you can say I'm overreaching when I say Douglass is more important than Lincoln and Grant, but why should I accept that at face value?

This post has been edited by worrywort: 11 May 2010 - 10:12 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 10:07 PM, said:

Why exactly would the most important leader of the Abolitionist movement not be at least on par with Lincoln and Grant? Because the Civil War is more important than the Abolitionist movement. I didn't make that judgment, but had it made for me. This isn't meant to be a pun, but it seems to me WASP America has the most histrionic way of preserving their dominance in the historical record. Wars are sensational, they really tend to make the biggest historical headlines. Perhaps white people are genetically predisposed to being rat bastards.

The problem is not that nobody talks about the abolitionist movement, but rather it is seen as an addendum to the Civil War, correct?
The argument could be made that we're not bastards, but do have a penchant for war.

Quote

It's not something that's easily quantified, of course, but white actors are by default taught to be the prime movers. I don't accept the argument that it's because, objectively speaking from the ever-observant Heavens, those are the facts. I don't accept that the prioritization of events, as Stormy suggests so practically (and with whom I don't disagree, in terms of barest principle), was made with any good faith. And the trend is moving towards bad faith rather than away, thanks to the Texas Board of Ed.

Shinrei, I don't think that's an unfair definition, but I think it's unfair to call that the only definition of any import. And I definitely think even accepting that definition, it's biased beyond justification what is included in and excluded from history. With whites keeping blacks down? How about, with blacks keeping America alive? It's a real point of privilege that you can suggest whites kept blacks down, and the whites still remain the heroes of the story, and that doesn't raise most people's hackles. Those wacky founders disagreed on slavery so they compromised to stabilize the union, what a neat little bit of minor trivia that is. Of course it blew up for them later, that's the important part. I'm sure if I were an African American student I would accept that tidbit with the very same bit of historical curiosity as my white peers, and not at all as a reflection of my value in America's narrative.

What is a good justification for what goes into history books?
TBH few people are truly slavery apologists, but really most people don't care about history enough to get riled up about it. We do have to keep perspective, though. Highschool history is really a brief summary of events. And unfortunately for a great deal of US history it was white people running the show, being the events. Not going to moralize about it, though.

Quote

The fact is, white history is serious history, and non-white history is cartoon history. Blacks were slaves, and then they tried really hard not to be. The Chinese built our railroads. Native Americans sure had it rough, but now that they're extinct we don't have to worry about them except at Thanksgiving. Not that any of this stuff affected the lives of many people in some significant way. But in case it did, let's make sure to get the white perspective. But mostly let's focus exclusively on politics and wars, since that's what preoccupies white American history. There's a lot of information to pack into a high school survey course, but white history is summarized in text books, non-white history is summarized in paragraphs and sentences. And it's not because white people did the most important things, it's because history text books are essentially tabloids and whites make up most of the celebrities. I don't disagree with Stormy's point about Greece and Rome vs. the Goths, but frankly in terms of the United States the history is there, it's written, it's documented, and it's still not taught. And when it is, it's taught in the most humiliating, paternalistic tones possible, because it just isn't valued against the traditional, glossy narrative.

I will grant you that in history there is a great deal of inertia when it comes to things that are considered well-covered. And highschool history is, in your words, celebrity based. But that's because the frame is cast so large, only the most obvious points of history get covered. (on average). The things, people, and social movements that get covered are the biggest, or the most powerful, or the most influential (influence as perceived by the judge, jury, and executioner of whoever's writing the text).

A partial solution is to get a better text.

Quote

I mean, you can say I'm overreaching when I say Douglass is more important than Lincoln and Grant, but why should I accept that at face value?

Watch out, we've got Gem Reincarnate here!
We aren't asking you to accept it at face value, but in terms of power Lincoln and Douglass don't really compare. Lincoln's actions were bigger, badder, and uncut. Not qualitatively better but more obvious. Highschool history is a study of the obvious. Douglass gets a page to Lincoln's chapter, IMHO, for two reasons: 1) Studying Douglass is a more complex endeavor than learning the events of Lincoln's presidency, and it really really merits a book by itself. And highschoolers are dumb. 2) Politics, government, and economics are the bread and butter of history. Social issues get less coverage because the hearts-and-minds factor in history is way more debatable than the super-apparent, almost mechanistic motions of government, war, and economics. You can't argue the event. It's like compromising on slavery - the political impact is the end-game in that historical anecdote.

Not saying that, historiographically, history as presented is everything important that happened.

[worry]

I know I'm using the pronouns "you" and "I" a lot, but I'm not asking you guys to prove something to me re: Douglass vs. Lincoln. I'm only suggesting that Douglass isn't taught (except occasionally in American Lit. classes), Lincoln is, and that's because the value judgment has already been made. I mean it's one example (I don't find it extreme, some of you do) of a million such decisions down the line, and white history always wins. The option to choose another "text" doesn't exist for most schools, so I think that suggestion was a bit blithe. College courses where professors have more liberty and students purchase the books are another matter.

You are right that high school history is a brief summary of events, but it's the summary that the vast majority of Americans -- of all races -- get to hear. My point isn't that it's not all-encompassing enough, it's that the prioritization of the most important events is all wrong, because the definers of the mainstream narrative were beyond limited in terms of POV. You say white people were "running the show"...which show is that? The one in Washington? Was that the only show in America? Not by a long shot. We skip from the Civil War to WWI because in between are the boring presidents. Even when the white men in charge are disappointing nobodies, they still dominate the discourse (or the absence of discourse).

I mean, you can say studying Douglass is more complex than Lincoln, high schoolers are dumb, and most people aren't turned on by history. I don't find any of that to be an excuse. Either way a whole lot of people -- American people -- are left out of the narrative all together. I mean, the point I'm trying to make is still within the context of this thread, at least in part, and the Black History Month stuff in particular. High school textbooks of course aren't written by slavery apologists (except those ordered by Texas), but slavery is still the backdrop to "bigger," whiter events. In a United States History course, the Holocaust is taught more extensively than the entirety of Black American experience. Why should even a bright, eager history buff who happens to be black be interested at all in what the curriculum is offering? Not that members of every race should be taught predominantly their own contributions, that's not my argument at all. But in a survey course, whole swaths of major events, institutions, and even people are deliberately excluded. I'm not talking about the minutiae here, I'm saying white major and minor events top all other major events in terms of what's considered valuable. As a matter of fact. And I'd go so far as to say that history is taught in a way that suggests white supremacy wasn't so much the problem (let alone the greatest crime in human history), but an unfortunate side effect of the presence of more problematic races. And that non-white students (among the pool of students in general who enjoy learning, so we can cast aside the "dumb" students of all races) are well aware of their place (and absence) in the narrative.

They're just so easy to dismiss.

[Shinrei]

@worrywort

This all begs the question, what does your US history course or summary textbook include if we limit white contributions to a single chapter?

[worry]

I dunno, that's a strange question. Why would we limit white contributions to one chapter?

[Shinrei]

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
Your argument is that history is taught from a white-centric point of view, because of white majority domination and that things we interpret as major historical events are only such because they are white people events.
My argument is white domination means that whites were in position to create a greater number historical events as relevent to US history with "major historical events" being a more absolute concept.*
Therefore, it seems that you are saying you could (or feel someone should) create a curriculum that would be the teaching of American history from a black-centric point of view. So I'm curious what that would look like and include.




*when put this way, I am now questioning this TBH. I tend to hate "absolutes".

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 12 May 2010 - 06:11 AM

[worry]

If you're referring to my comment that "American History is Black History" then I wasn't exactly being literal. I don't support a black-centric curriculum. It's just that it's the exact same point non-whites hear all the time and it's taken as a given, there's zero controversy, nobody bats an eye, but suddenly when the roles are reversed it's something to be confronted. You can say you're not trying to downplay the contributions of other people, and I'm sure you're not trying to, but they get downplayed anyway. It's beyond your control. But why be satisfied with that?

What's frustrating is that statement about "major history relevant today" as if that relevance was a universal given. Sure it's important that Ben Franklin harnessed electricity. Teach it. But should George Washington Carver really be relegated to that guy who invented peanut butter? Is there perhaps a reason this reconstruction era southern black man was interested in developing alternative crops to cotton? Teach it. Is Frederick Douglass more important to American History than Anne Frank (I'll drop Lincoln)? Heck yah he is, teach him. As an aside, big thanks to American Lit. classes for making Uncle Tom's Cabin the foremost novel on the horrors of slavery. How much do we learn about Thomas Nast, Horace Greeley, W.R. Hearst, and the rise of yellow journalism? We couldn't spend a little less time on political cartoons to make room for Ida B. Wells? I seriously just heard some dude complaining that Granddad from the Boondocks was anachronistic because he witnessed a lynching...this was an adult white male who was had no clue that black Americans were lynched well into the Civil Rights movement, and occasionally still are.

Also, just to clarify, my argument has less to do with white majority population than it does white hegemony, which leads to "white" events and institutions being favored in the record over all else -- meaning even minor "white" events/figures/perspectives outweigh major non-white actors and events. I simply don't believe that a majority population necessarily means a greater contribution to important events, just an imbalance in which events are even considered important. It's not that (some, many of) these traditionally taught events aren't vital, it's that the perspective is tragically one-dimensional, and the imbalance is unjustifiable. But it's self-perpetuating, as the unchecked narrative gets set in stone.

Just as a note, when I mention "balance" I am not talking about perfect symmetry or even particularly proportional representation. The imbalance is just so extreme as it stands now that I mean balance relative to that, however vague that might seem.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 12 May 2010 - 07:36 AM

[Cause]

 worrywort, on 11 May 2010 - 10:07 PM, said:

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that long paragraphs contribute most to major discussions and short paragraphs play a lesser -- though distinctly noble en masse -- role. But I'll try.

Why exactly would the most important leader of the Abolitionist movement not be at least on par with Lincoln and Grant? Because the Civil War is more important than the Abolitionist movement. I didn't make that judgment, but had it made for me. This isn't meant to be a pun, but it seems to me WASP America has the most histrionic way of preserving their dominance in the historical record. Wars are sensational, they really tend to make the biggest historical headlines. Perhaps white people are genetically predisposed to being rat bastards.

The last line is unacceptable. There is enough proof throughout history to show that Blacks, Coloureds, Indians, Asians would and indeed have acted the same way as their white counterparts. Every race on earth has when their power allowed it and the opportunity presented itself been involved in wars, colonization and slavery. Ghenghis Khan ravaged Asia. The moari of new Zealand conquered and enslaved the moriori who lived on a neighboring island. Blacks from Africa were most likely to be captured by other black Africans before being sold to whites to be shipped the Americas as slaves. The crusaders took jerusalem, their opposites conquered spain. Your argument is sensationalist but in no way grounded in fact.

It is unfair to say that simply because whites most successfully and most recently conquered and enslaved half the world that they are spectacularly more rat bastardly than any other race. It is fair to say that it provides them with a disproportionate ,and rightly so I would add, effect on history.

Quote

It's not something that's easily quantified, of course, but white actors are by default taught to be the prime movers. I don't accept the argument that it's because, objectively speaking from the ever-observant Heavens, those are the facts. I don't accept that the prioritization of events, as Stormy suggests so practically (and with whom I don't disagree, in terms of barest principle), was made with any good faith. And the trend is moving towards bad faith rather than away, thanks to the Texas Board of Ed.

I believe an objective measure of what history is most important is indeed possible and in fact easy to discern. Those events of the past which most shaped todays present are most applicable and useful to study. Gutenberg did not invent moving type but his invention shaped Europe and then the world in a way that it did not elsewhere, such as Asia where I believe it was first invented. As such his pre-eminince in history is understandable.

Quote

Shinrei, I don't think that's an unfair definition, but I think it's unfair to call that the only definition of any import. And I definitely think even accepting that definition, it's biased beyond justification what is included in and excluded from history. With whites keeping blacks down? How about, with blacks keeping America alive? It's a real point of privilege that you can suggest whites kept blacks down, and the whites still remain the heroes of the story, and that doesn't raise most people's hackles. Those wacky founders disagreed on slavery so they compromised to stabilize the union, what a neat little bit of minor trivia that is. Of course it blew up for them later, that's the important part. I'm sure if I were an African American student I would accept that tidbit with the very same bit of historical curiosity as my white peers, and not at all as a reflection of my value in America's narrative.

Here I think your losing objectivity entirely. Blacks keeping america alive? Black slavery undoubtedly contributed to america's super power status today. However they did it against their will and callously if they failed to do what was required their was always more where they came from. Slavery forced on black people was a crime. We all know that today, however assigning them a greater importance or part in history as some sort of atonement or apology is intellectual dishonesty.

Quote

The fact is, white history is serious history, and non-white history is cartoon history. Blacks were slaves, and then they tried really hard not to be. The Chinese built our railroads. Native Americans sure had it rough, but now that they're extinct we don't have to worry about them except at Thanksgiving. Not that any of this stuff affected the lives of many people in some significant way. But in case it did, let's make sure to get the white perspective. But mostly let's focus exclusively on politics and wars, since that's what preoccupies white American history. There's a lot of information to pack into a high school survey course, but white history is summarized in text books, non-white history is summarized in paragraphs and sentences. And it's not because white people did the most important things, it's because history text books are essentially tabloids and whites make up most of the celebrities. I don't disagree with Stormy's point about Greece and Rome vs. the Goths, but frankly in terms of the United States the history is there, it's written, it's documented, and it's still not taught. And when it is, it's taught in the most humiliating, paternalistic tones possible, because it just isn't valued against the traditional, glossy narrative.

I think this paragraph speaks specifically to something I have noted about American history at least in so far as it is taught by Americans to Americans. America is shown to have a manifest destiny, its founding fathers portrayed as more than human, the country is personified and holds a spirit of its own. Your history has been turned into a story.

This post has been edited by Cause: 12 May 2010 - 08:37 AM

[worry]

1. That last line was half-joking, but I find it strange that you seem unwilling to accept that some people are simply bigger rat bastards than others. Nurture undoubtedly plays a role in the development of a child's rat bastardy but we can also see from rat bastard prodigies that the luck of the draw on genes can play a role as well. Jews, blacks, indians, white people all form groups which while not sexually distinct from the other groups do seldom share genetic material with each other. Why not a race of total rat bastards?

2. And I believe you are 100% wrong. It's a pat, completely depersonalized, completely un-nuanced perspective that would describe history in any other terms but as a debate.

3. I'm not striving for objectivity. In fact, if one can say I have a thesis at all, it's that POV is vital to historical study and that the more POVs you marginalize in the debate (to an extent, not going overboard here), the weaker your overall grasp on history will be. It's not really taught as a debate at all in grade school, which is one of the great disservices to young inquiring minds as far as I'm concerned. On another note, I'm not atoning to anyone, and your accusation ain't appreciated. America survived on tobacco and then "King" Cotton, the latter not at all exclusive to the South given northern textile manufacture and the overall cash intake to the US from exports. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the colonies wouldn't have had their revolution without slavery turbo-charging the economy.

4. I can only partially disagree. Many of America's heroes were indeed truly heroic, though not exactly superhuman or entirely righteous. A lot of our history is romanticized, some want to kill that trend entirely and others want to carve it in stone, some people appreciate the complexity, and a lot of people simply don't care at all (Stormy and I agree on that one).