This is MY America!
Who can truly say this?
The original Americans were obviously Native Americans. Next, the Spanish arrived with African slaves. The slaves revolted and the Spanish left. The Africans stayed, making them the first non-native Americans. Next, the Spanish came back to stay, making them the second non-native Americans. Spanish and Native peoples mixed, making Hispanic peoples the third non-native Americans. Next, the Dutch made settlements here, as the fourth non-native Americans. Many years later, the British came and established settlements, as the fifth non-native Americans.
If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here. It's especially ridiculous to people living in Texas, which is technically a part of Mexico.
History is written by the victors; and revisionist history by the victors descendants. Eurocentricism is so pervasive, it's transparent.
If you want to get technical,
i don't
the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here. It's especially ridiculous to people living in Texas, which is technically a part of Mexico.
no it's not
just abt every country on the planet has it's boundaries decided thru conflict
first thing that I want to say is that I AM NOT here to sell anyone anything. I think that it is quite RUDE that my previous membership was cancelled for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It just said, "sell it somewhere else." Another user asked me if I joined the cellar to get more traffic into my Haiti group, I said, "No, but if people want to join that is ok also." Maybe I don't fit into the "click" that they want in here.
first thing that I want to say is that I AM NOT here to sell anyone anything. I think that it is quite RUDE that my previous membership was cancelled for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It just said, "sell it somewhere else." Another user asked me if I joined the cellar to get more traffic into my Haiti group, I said, "No, but if people want to join that is ok also." Maybe I don't fit into the "click" that they want in here.
:rant:
Another user asked me if I joined the cellar to get more traffic into my Haiti group, I said, "No, but if people want to join that is ok also." Maybe I don't fit into the "click" that they want in here.
I was the one who asked you that last week, but never saw your response anywhere. There was none in the thread where I asked that question.
Your post today about the Yoko One CD looked a lot to me like SPAM, so I don't blame the moderators for banning you.
Welcome to the Cellar. What are your interests, besides promoting tourism to Haiti and also promoting CDs?
I designed this thread as a shit-magnet, but I didn't know the Thread Drift would set in so quick!
The irony is: Haiti. The native people of Haiti were the first people to be enslaved and wiped out by . . . who else? Our hero: Christopher Columbus! He was so effective at sucking the life and wealth out of this "new land" that his methods became the industry standard. The same methods that were later to be admired and emulated by . . . guess who? Hitler! There, I've done it! I've invoked Hitler!
Soon this thread will collapse upon itself and drag us all into a hellish netherworld...
i dont know what this previous drama is about, but regarding your post:
The Vikings were here well before anyone, they planted the grapes at Marthas Vineyard. :vikingsmi:
The Vikings didn't settle permanently here.
They lacked the pandemic biological advantage of more disease-ridden Europeans, as the Vikings came through the decontamination zone of frigid lands where nasty microbes cannot survive outside the human body. Incidentally, the same reason the Natives had no resistance to Europeans sicknesses, they had come through the decontamination zone of the Bering Strait, and peopled a continent with no resistance to common bugs.
Flint, there are some historians who contend the Vikings left more here than a few outbuildings. Farley Mowat, love him or hate him, in
The Farfarers sets up a convincing argument that Viking blood lines are spread all over the North Atlantic along with Albans, Celts and Picts. Some Paleo-Inuit sites have skulls that are more Euro than Inuit.
It's an interesting topic. Essentially I agree with your point about history being rewritten by the victors, probably many times over.
I don't think any of us can claim a birthright of this land. The Seminoles in my state are rather like the Zulu in that they did not exist before, what, 1800 or later. Some will tell you that Seminoles are Creek descendants with black runaway slaves and white deserters mixed in. I don't think it matters much anymore. It might have been a point of distinction at one time, but they are what they are now, not 150 years ago.
Two of my grandparents were the Canadian born children of Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famines. I may have an interest in the history and the culture, but it's not personal at this remove. If Mowat and others are right, I must have Alban, Norse, and Pict mixed in with the Celt. And descended from a sea faring country that was visited by other cultures, I probably could claim some Moorish blood as well.
lizzymahoney is my nom, not my heraldic shield.
Looking at it that way, I should have said the Vikings were first genetically assimilated, followed by the Africans slaves of the Spanish and shortly thereafter by the Spanish themselves. The French got in there somewhere, as well. But it was the Spanish who managed to implant their culture more effectively; the French (and presumably the Vikings as well) sort of melted into the Native pot. Along the way, there were plenty of isolated tri-racial communities (and not-so-isolated as you mentioned), and the very idea of a "frontier line" ignores the cultural engagement zone. Also, the reason British didn't get in the mix more often was that the colonies enacted harsh draconian policies to prevent their own people from defecting.
Blah blah blah we all get the point. The persecution of "aliens" we're undertaking now is tragically ironic. Hispanic people pre-date us on this continent by hundreds of years, and carry in them the blood of the original Americans. It won't change a thing, but that's the facts.
I designed this thread as a shit-magnet, ~snip
Say it ain't so Flint, say it ain't so.
The persecution of "aliens" we're undertaking now is tragically ironic. Hispanic people pre-date us on this continent by hundreds of years, and carry in them the blood of the original Americans.
So what? Lineage is not the point. Who cares who anyone's ancestors are?
ILLEGAL aliens are the point and making them abide by the rules is hardly persecution.
If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here.
I'm so tired of that lame arguement about heritage and this and that. Look at now. Look at the present. Who cares where we originated. This is where we are now. Our kids have to deal with this illegals and their disease and their scrounging, and their sucking our nation dry of money. Don't you care about you and your family now? If you want to live like a person in a third-world nation, go to one and quit biching about things that happened long before anyone you know or care about was alive. NOW is what matters.
It would be simple to cast aside the past, wherever it makes us feel uncomfortable; but you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from. It's something that is worth thinking about.
It would be simple to cast aside the past, wherever it makes us feel uncomfortable; but you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from. It's something that is worth thinking about.
As long as you don't ask me or my family to ever pay reparations, or apologize for slavery, or blame me for the plight of every historically oppressed person in the US, I'm cool with it.
I'm not asking you to do anything, apologize for anything, or feel guilty about anything that had fuck all to do with you personally. I don't even have any suggestions as to what conclusions you should draw from any of this. All I'm saying is: you gotta start from a place of honesty, in order to move forward with integrity. That's all. White-washing the past with a contrived American "creation myth" about the noble Pilgrims doesn't help anybody.
Who can truly say this?
The original Americans were obviously Native Americans.
Which native americans are you talking about?
For half a century, textbooks and scientists had agreed on a common theory that hunters following large herds of game wandered across the Bering Strait land bridge 12,000 years ago.[18] While some still believe the old hypothesis, many other scientists hold that there were numerous waves of migration to the Americas. The different cultures discovered through ancient skeletal remains support this latter theory and the Kennewick Man was one of the many cultures to roam the Americas before disappearing into history.[19]
Radiocarbon dates from the site indicated occupancy as early as 16,000 years ago and possibly as long as 19,000 years ago. The "Clovis First" camp has tried to dispute the age of the findings, but generally their efforts have been dismissed. Although the dates are still controversial to some, archaeologists familiar with evidence from the site agree that Meadowcroft was used by Native Americans in the pre-Clovis era, and as such, provides evidence for very early human habitation of the Americas. In fact, if the 19,000 years ago dating is correct, Meadowcroft Rockshelter is the oldest known Native American cultural site. However, archaeologists agree that the 11,000-13,000 date for the rockshelter is accurate and widely accepted, which makes the concept of "Clovis First", simply not possible.
Until recently, the standard theory among archaeologists (known as Clovis First) was that the Clovis people were the first inhabitants of the Americas. The primary support of the theory was that no solid evidence of pre-Clovis human inhabitation had been found.
White-washing the past with a contrived American "creation myth" about the noble Pilgrims doesn't help anybody.
Noble Pilgrims? Of course. Noble and pious, they were. They were also the most intolerant and oppressive bunch to ever arrive on these shores.
The dude that first settled Boston then welcomed the second set of Pilgrims, had to leave town within a year of their arrival.
Everyone knows bad boys wear black.
...guys so uptight even the British didn't want them.....
Say it ain't so Flint, say it ain't so.
So what? Lineage is not the point. Who cares who anyone's ancestors are?
ILLEGAL aliens are the point and making them abide by the rules is hardly persecution.
:thankyou:
As long as you don't ask me or my family to ever pay reparations, or apologize for slavery, or blame me for the plight of every historically oppressed person in the US, I'm cool with it.
I agree with this but we have to work to stop all the institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US today. It won’t completely go away until our society is totally racially integrated but we can still fix a lot of it now.
Which native americans are you talking about?
The 10 to 20 million people living in an advanced, complex North American society before the "settlers" arrived to "tame the wilderness" ...
I agree with this but we have to work to stop all the institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US today. It won’t completely go away until our society is totally racially integrated but we can still fix a lot of it now.
And we can start by teaching our high-school history students
the truth about how this country started, instead of a romanticized myth that places an emphasis on European superiority. We have educated our society with "history" that isn't based on facts; it has been based on what makes us feel more comfortable about how we got here.
How do you think the myth of European superiority to "savage" indigenous people is connected to:
institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US today
How can students educated with innacurate history textbooks grow into adults capable of making informed decisions about the nature of their society?
Personally, I think white supremacy today has massive similarities to the
Stanford Prison Experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was where a random group of college students were either given a duty of prison guard or prisoner for a psychology experiment. After a while, these kids started actually acting upon their assigned positions, sometimes very violently. The prison guards were very dominant and abusive while the prisoners were very submissive and rebellious.
When white kids of today learn about history and "great" people, all they see are whites. So they start subconsciously assuming that whites are better than all the other races. When they are given this assumption, they will start to subconsciously acting upon it.
The 10 to 20 million people living in an advanced, complex North American society before the "settlers" arrived to "tame the wilderness" ...
:notworthy:
Personally, I think white supremacy today has massive similarities to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was where a random group of college students were either given a duty of prison guard or prisoner for a psychology experiment. After a while, these kids started actually acting upon their assigned positions, sometimes very violently. The prison guards were very dominant and abusive while the prisoners were very submissive and rebellious.
When white kids of today learn about history and "great" people, all they see are whites. So they start subconsciously assuming that whites are better than all the other races. When they are given this assumption, they will start to subconsciously acting upon it.
Amazing that you brought that up. Over the weekend I read "High School Confidential" by Jeremy Iverson. The author posed as a high school student, and referred to the Stanford experiment (Iverson also graduated from Stanford) to point to this very phenomenon.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was where a random group of college students were either given a duty of prison guard or prisoner for a psychology experiment. After a while, these kids started actually acting upon their assigned positions, sometimes very violently. The prison guards were very dominant and abusive while the prisoners were very submissive and rebellious.
I saw a very disturbing movie based on this scenario... I cannot remember, at the moment, what it was called.
When white kids of today learn about history and "great" people, all they see are whites. So they start subconsciously assuming that whites are better than all the other races. When they are given this assumption, they will start to subconsciously acting upon it.
And conversely, how do you think non-white students feel about what they "learn" in "history" class?
Amazing that you brought that up. Over the weekend I read "High School Confidential" by Jeremy Iverson. The author posed as a high school student, and referred to the Stanford experiment (Iverson also graduated from Stanford) to point to this very phenomenon.
I will put it on my list, thanks. I am assuming that you liked it?
I saw a very disturbing movie based on this scenario... I cannot remember, at the moment, what it was called.
If you can think of the name could you please give me it?
And conversely, how do you think non-white students feel about what they "learn" in "history" class?
Yes, they get the opposite (prisoner) personality. That could be one of the reasons why it is hard for many to breach the "glass ceiling" and why so many are in jail (submissive and rebellious).
Stanford Prison Experiment
I saw a very disturbing movie based on this scenario...
If you can think of the name could you please give me it?
Got it:
Das Experiment ... "based on the infamous "Stanford Prison Experiment" conducted in 1971"
I will put it on my list, thanks. I am assuming that you liked it?
I did like it. I found on the net that the "actual" high school he went to was all up in arms, crying "foul." I didn't look at it as a scientific model of a social experiment. Of course any HS wouldn't like the drinking and drug use exposed, though we all know it is what it is (and in most ways is no different than it was for us "old skoolers." He admits that some activity was a conglomeration of people. It's not like Mr X said everything he said Mr X said, rather Mr X may have played a part with contributions from Ms Y and Mr T. :rolleyes:
In fact, the reaction I read from the administrators of the school just lent more credence to Mr Iverson's story, imo.
I would be interested in your take, pierce, from a more recently graduated from HS perspective!
Das Experiment is going on my movies I want to see list.
Yes, I will definitely read it this summer. Thank you a lot, it sounds very interesting.
The 10 to 20 million people living in an advanced, complex North American society before the "settlers" arrived to "tame the wilderness" ...
But they weren't the
first, so why do they have any more right to claim this land than the european settlers? Your argument is not about who was first, just who was here before the british???
Who can truly say this?
The original Americans were obviously Native Americans. Next, the Spanish arrived with African slaves. The slaves revolted and the Spanish left. The Africans stayed, making them the first non-native Americans. Next, the Spanish came back to stay, making them the second non-native Americans. Spanish and Native peoples mixed, making Hispanic peoples the third non-native Americans. Next, the Dutch made settlements here, as the fourth non-native Americans. Many years later, the British came and established settlements, as the fifth non-native Americans.
If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here. It's especially ridiculous to people living in Texas, which is technically a part of Mexico.
History is written by the victors; and revisionist history by the victors descendants. Eurocentricism is so pervasive, it's transparent.
None of that has
any bearing on our current law enforcement problem.
Pilgrims were naughty, some of my ancestors owned slaves, some were slaves, some killed natives, some were natives bad things happened a long time ago... am I supposed to feel bad about it? Why?
I don't own anyone anything for the past, no one does.
The 10 to 20 million people living in an advanced, complex North American society before the "settlers" arrived to "tame the wilderness" ...
But they weren't the first, so why do they have any more right to claim this land than the european settlers? Your argument is not about who was first, just who was here before the british???
The
Native Americans weren't here first??? Be it 12K, 19K, or as much as 40+K years ago; via land voyage across the Bering Strait, or skipping along the extreme Northern coastline in small boat voyages, people got here somehow. They were here, and well-established in a complex, advanced culture of 10s of millions (as opposed to a nomadic scattering of primitive savages) when the Europeans began to arrive circa 1500.
It's not "my argument" - it's what happened. I mention the British specifically because they mark the beginning of the "creation myth" of America.
... am I supposed to feel bad about it? Why? I don't own anyone anything for the past, no one does.
No. I didn't say you should feel bad, or that you owe anybody anything. Read the thread. I'm talking about how historical myths are taught as fact.
Fine. As long as you are not trying to connect it to illegal immigration in any way. I was under the impression you were, perhaps I was mistaken.
That was the shit-magnet aspect of it. Sorry, I've got some hand sanitizer for guests.
The Native Americans weren't here first??? Be it 12K, 19K, or as much as 40+K years ago; via land voyage across the Bering Strait, or skipping along the extreme Northern coastline in small boat voyages, people got here somehow.
So, no matter where they came from or how they got here - they were all
Native Americans, right up to and excluding the european settlers?
Yes, that's what Native American means.
Fine. As long as you are not trying to connect it to illegal immigration in any way.
So what if he is? It's worth discussion.
Indigenous people have migrated back and forth for millennia, long before and even while Europeans and their descendents came in and started establishing and moving around the borders. That's kind of what's still happening with the migrant workers; but because of the restrictions put in place in the 90s, it became too difficult to go back and forth. So now a lot of them stay, and have become part of the undocumented immigrant population in the U.S.
They were here, and well-established in a complex, advanced culture of 10s of millions
That's the low end of the estimate; other estimates put the population at more than 100 million, pre-Columbian and pre-disease epidemics.
I would think it was closer to the 100 millions, the Americas weren't empty when we came and there is a lot of land.
Sad that the worst holocaust of all time goes so unnoticed and no one seems to give any second thought...
Yes, that's what Native American means.
But at first you said it meant only the people who came across the bering straight - now you're saying that people from africa, spain, netherlands etc... who got got here prior to the brits are all NA's. I guess I just don't understand your line in the sand. What exactly were you taught in school that you're refuting?
...now you're saying that people from africa, spain, netherlands etc... who got got here prior to the brits are all NA's. I guess I just don't understand your line in the sand.
No, I'm not saying that. You're confused about what "European" means. Spanish, French, and Dutch people are
Europeans. The Africans were slaves of, and thus came with the Europeans. The millions of people who had already had an established civilization here were
Native Americans.
Then why do you say this;
If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here.
Why do you accept that many different peoples came here different ways at different times (yet call them all one thing) but have an issue with the brit colonists?
You're arguing with yourself. I can't help you.
I'm not arguing at all, I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're on about.
Jinx does have a point there--that quote of yours she noted is confusing, Flint.
That slight of hand...slight of keyboard?.... is part of his charm. Ask him.
So, no matter where they came from or how they got here - they were all Native Americans, right up to and excluding the european settlers?
Yes, that's what Native American means.
no it isn't. native means they were always here. that they evolved here. I THINK jinx's point is that the people that crossed the land bridge, and came into this country did the same thing as the european colonists. they invaded, and took over. because they could. might means right on an historical sense.
(I don't blame him for having an issue with the Brit Colonists, though :D)
Well it was Europeans, primarily Brits, that came here and formed what became the United States. They were what we call the founding fathers. That said, they were able to accomplish that on the sweat and labor of all the other people here at the time. A lot of different people had a hand in building the nation but the credit for the forming of the United States goes to them.
From that point, the history of the United States and the history of North America, run parallel and are complimentary but not the same thing. There was a whole lot of history going on in NA, outside the the US. What they teach in schools is primarily the US history and touch on NA history when the two mesh... or should I say rub..... OK, clash.
So, no matter where they came from or how they got here - they were all Native Americans, right up to and excluding the european settlers?
Yes, that's right.
...now you're saying that people from africa, spain, netherlands etc... who got got here prior to the brits are all NA's.
No, I'm not.
Then why do you say this;
If you want to get technical, the Native-Americans (and to a lesser degree: Africans, Spanish, Hispanic, Dutch) should be the ones asking whether British descendants should be allowed to stay and work here.
I am
clearly making a
distinction between Europeans and Native Americans. It's not
confusing, there is not
slight of hand. In fact,
right above the quoted portion, I listed
all Europeans specifically as
NON-NATIVE Americans:
The Africans stayed, making them the first [SIZE="3"]non-native [/SIZE]Americans. Next, the Spanish came back to stay, making them the second [SIZE="3"]non-native [/SIZE]Americans. Spanish and Native peoples mixed, making Hispanic peoples the third [SIZE="3"]non-native [/SIZE]Americans. Next, the Dutch made settlements here, as the fourth [SIZE="3"]non-native [/SIZE]Americans. Many years later, the British came and established settlements, as the fifth[SIZE="3"] non-native [/SIZE]Americans.
Why do you accept that many different peoples came here different ways at different times (yet call them all one thing) but have an issue with the brit colonists?
I included
all Europeans as
non-native Americans. I shouldn't have to explain this; this is not really debatable.
Why do I single out the British? Becuase of some special prejudice, some malice on my part against them? Or... could it be...
because the British Colonies became the basis for the United States, the country we live in today! Our American "creation myth" begins with the arrival of the British; this isn't something I'm just pulling out of my ass. My
whole point was:
...you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from...
I'll admit, there hasn't been much focus to my various ramblings in this thread; but don't tell me I said things I didn't say.
OK, now I got it.
The people that came her from Europe are non-native Americans.
Native Americans are all the people that came here from Asia, Polynesia, and Africa.
Thank you for 'splaining that.
I didn't invent the term Native American. It has a universally accepted meaning.
universally false meaning, that.
Yes it does.
I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.
I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose. Russell Means
But the fact remains, all those groups came from somewhere else, over thousands of years. Some of them were forced to move because they were pushed out by other groups. Some of the groups disappeared completely. Some coexisted and some fought continually.
The world over, since the beginning of time, all territory was controlled by the group of people that could win and hold that land.
Why is it when the Europeans entered the fray, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to continue the tradition that had held sway in the Americas since the first human set foot here?
Why is it when the Europeans entered the fray, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to continue the tradition that had held sway in the Americas since the first human set foot here?
I never said that. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
What I think is important is to be honest about our history,
not so that we can beat ourselves up about it; but so that we can gain some perspective about the origins of our society,
so that we can better understand where we are today.
The common belief, whether stated outright or
implied, is that Europeans prevailed because they were "superior" to the "savages" - does it serve us to teach a "history" that perpetuates white superiority? Does that benefit us,
today, in a multi-cultural society?
...you can't understand where you are, or where you are going, without first understanding where you came from...
OK, now I got it.
The people that came her from Europe are non-native Americans.
Native Americans are all the people that came here from Asia, Polynesia, and Africa.
Thank you for 'splaining that.
Sort of like African-American? :D
I never said that. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?
I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.
What I think is important is to be honest about our history, not so that we can beat ourselves up about it; but so that we can gain some perspective about the origins of our society, so that we can better understand where we are today.
I agree.
The common belief, whether stated outright or implied, is that Europeans prevailed because they were "superior" to the "savages" - does it serve us to teach a "history" that perpetuates white superiority? Does that benefit us, today, in a multi-cultural society?
Does it serve us to state outright or imply, the Europeans prevailed because they were savages compared to the noble, peace loving, at one with nature, natives?
People being people, the only difference was the Europeans had more reserves and a little better technology.
So what if he is? It's worth discussion.
Indigenous people have migrated back and forth for millennia, long before and even while Europeans and their descendents came in and started establishing and moving around the borders. That's kind of what's still happening with the migrant workers; but because of the restrictions put in place in the 90s, it became too difficult to go back and forth. So now a lot of them stay, and have become part of the undocumented immigrant population in the U.S.
That's the low end of the estimate; other estimates put the population at more than 100 million, pre-Columbian and pre-disease epidemics.
Immigration is a legal issue, nothing more.
I am all for legal immigration, good for them, I'm happy they are here.
I don't care where someone is from, there is only one human race regardless how much melanin they may, or may not, have... as long as they do not break the law.
Yes it does.
But the fact remains, all those groups came from somewhere else, over thousands of years.
It is not a fact that all Native American groups came from somewhere else--only a theory. So far, DNA and language roots of some groups can be traced to other origins, but not all.
as long as they do not break the law.
rk, you said you broke the law when you jaywalked...I don't care where you're from, either, but what should we do with you? :rolleyes:
It is not a fact that all Native American groups came from somewhere else--only a theory. So far, DNA and language roots of some groups can be traced to other origins, but not all.
It is a fact. There are theories on what paths they took, but they did come from somewhere else.
rk, you said you broke the law when you jaywalked...I don't care where you're from, either, but what should we do with you? :rolleyes:
I paid the fine.
It is a fact. There are theories on what paths they took, but they did come from somewhere else.
Yes, there are theories based on very good evidence that some, even many, groups came from somewhere else, particularly Asia. But all the evidence found so far doesn't support as fact that
all groups came from somewhere else.
Whoa Nellie. I've always been told that mankind started in Africa. Everyone on Earth is descended from that spot. Are you saying there was more than one beginning????
Yeah, and mankind starting in Africa is a theory. A widely-accepted theory, but a theory nonetheless.
That DNA project, National Geographic is doing, is looking for people that didn't decend from Africa as one of their goals. I'm under the impression that all the Indians they tested are tied to Asia. Maybe the Asians started here. Interesting.
But all the evidence found so far doesn't support as fact that all groups came from somewhere else.
Yes it does.
Flint, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with your point. I thought you were really gonna go somewhere, show us some new stuff, or something... Your facts are exactly what I was taught in school. :(
And further;
I didn't invent the term Native American. It has a universally accepted meaning.
No it doesn't.
In April 2005, United States Senator John McCain introduced an amendment to NAGPRA which, in section 108, would change the definition of "Native American" from being that which "is indigenous to the United States" to "is or was indigenous to the United States."[4] By that definition, Kennewick Man would be Native American, whether or not any link to a contemporary tribe could be found. Proponents of this argue that is in accord with current scientific understanding, which is that it is not in all cases possible for prehistoric remains to be traced to current tribal entities, not least because of the social upheaval, forced resettlement and extinction of entire ethnicities caused by disease and warfare in the wake of European colonization. Doing so, however, would still not remove the controversy surrounding Kennewick Man as then it would have to be decided which Native American group should take possession of the remains if he could not be definitively linked with a current group. To be of practical use in a historical and prehistorical context, some argue further that the term "Native American" should be applied so that it spans the entire range from the Clovis culture (which cannot be positively assigned to any contemporary tribal group) to the Métis, who only came into being as a consequence of European contact, yet constitute a distinct cultural entity.
Yeah, and mankind starting in Africa is a theory. A widely-accepted theory, but a theory nonetheless.
Widely accepted because there is no evidence of it starting anywhere else. Sort of like the clovis first theory being based on a lack of evidence of anyone coming before, until recently. Its amazing, but for almost a century no one bother to dig past the clovis layer because they assumed there would be nothing there. Crazy.
One theory of pre-clovis people suggests that the
first americans were austrailians.OK HM, I look forward to reading your fact-proving dissertation.
The shape of the skulls changes between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago from being exclusively negroid to exclusively mongoloid. Combined with rock art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears that the mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the original Americans.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2]The identity of the first Americans is an emotive and controversial question. But the evidence from Brazil, and a handful of people who still live at the very tip of South America, suggests that the Americas have been home to a greater diversity of humans than previously thought - and for much longer.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT]
Wow, I hadn't seen the Australian origins thing before--how interesting.
How about
European origins?
The hypothesis proposes that Ice Age Europeans could have crossed the North Atlantic along the edge of the pack ice that extended from the Atlantic coast of France to North America during the last glacial maximum. The model envisions these people making the crossing in small watercraft, using skills similar to those of the modern Inuit people, hauling out on ice floes at night, getting fresh water by melting iceberg ice or the first-frozen parts of sea ice, getting food by catching seals and fish, and using seal blubber as heating fuel.
Supporters of the hypothesis suggest that stone tools found at Cactus Hill (an early American site in Virginia) indicate a transitional style between the Clovis and Solutrean cultures. Artifacts from this site are estimated to date from 17,000 to 15,000 years ago, although some researchers dispute their definitive age. Other sites that may indicate transitional, pre-Clovis occupation include the Page-Ladson site in Florida and the Meadowcroft rockshelter in Pennsylvania.
The Smithsonian suggests that too--the
"X factor" (long, but worth a read).
Flint, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with your point.
I'm not going to squabble over semantics. I don't have anything to say about archeology. I won't try to impress you with any fancy links or quotes I Googled to "prove you wrong" ... it doesn't have a thing to do with what I'm talking about here.
If you take a few steps back and look at the big picture, you might see all the meaningful discussions we could have had about the nature and origins of our American culture.
I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.
...
Does it serve us to state outright or imply, the Europeans prevailed because they were savages compared to the noble, peace loving, at one with nature, natives?
Am I allowed to respond to that one?
What I've been discussing is a comparison of
primary historical sources (what people who were actually there wrote about what was happening at the time of our two cultures meeting) versus the feel-good narrative provided by history textbooks.
In answer to your question: an honest, balanced look at history would serve us best. Today, we don't have that.
You, like anyone, can respond to anything you feel you want to, but why bother to defend yourself against things you weren't accused of?
When you starting adding detail to K-12 history books, where do you stop?
If I was back in school, I'd be mad as hell if I had to read all those primary sources. There was quite enough crap I was expected to remember.
History text books are outlines of the subject. It's sufficient to say Jefferson wrote the constitution without speculating on his inspiration or comparisons to all the other systems in detail, until you're a college history major.
It would be naive to think the people writing those primary sources didn't have bias of their own, or were necessarily aware of parallel events impacting, or being impacted by, what they were witnessing. While they are the best description of the play by play, the effect on history sometimes isn't understood for decades or longer.
I agree with this but we have to work to stop all the institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US today. It won’t completely go away until our society is totally racially integrated but we can still fix a lot of it now.
If you think whites are the only racists, you have a problem. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the most racist people on the planet, but because they are black it's okay. Racism is racism no matter what color your skin is. For as much as so many blacks talk about how bad it is, they exhibit racist speach quite a bit and get away with it thanks to the Clinton administration.
Why didn't we see this in the news? If it were whites that killed two blacks the whole nation would shut down and some racist blacks like Sharpton and Jackson would be demanding a national day of mourning.
News Coverage? Not on your life!!!
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]There is no need to post the entire article when you already started a thread with it, just link it.
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=350036#post350036[/COLOR]
There are a few things you have to remember, all racism or discrimination (you can play with words) produced by blacks or minorities is in response to white supremacy. It is still bad but you can not attack a product, you have to go for the source.
Second, while blacks may get some media attention (I'm sure it can go the other way around as well...whites get more news coverage then blacks), they are still discriminated against in almost every respect in American society. The way we are raised and taught in schools, especially suburban, teaches whites to be white supremacist.
Every law that is supposed to help minorities is just a kick in the balls. AA helps white women more than minorities. Black History Month is a plain out insult. Hopefully you can agree that every month is white history month so we in return give them one? Why isn't every month black history month just like it is white history month?
The groups like NAACP, while I sometimes disagree on how extreme they can go, are, usually, trying to point out racism by whites like the situation with the "nappy headed hoes". Their "race" (I don't believe in race) has so many negative stereotypes that this will hurt them more because there aren't many negative stereotypes about whites.
If you want to play with definitions you can say that only whites can practice racism and blacks can only discriminate because only whites have the power to control people now. I don't totally agree with that but it works 95% of the time.
I really hope you don't believe that blacks have it easier than whites because of stupid things like the nappy headed hoe comment and the controversy that followed. The playing ground for blacks and whites are not even close to even so don't get too worked up over this.
The events you posted are tragic but it works the other way around like I mentioned before. I wouldn't classify anything you said as racism, just selective news coverage.
I'm not going to squabble over semantics. I don't have anything to say about archeology. I won't try to impress you with any fancy links or quotes I Googled to "prove you wrong" ... it doesn't have a thing to do with what I'm talking about here.
So you want to get technical, but not
too technical... got it.
I'm sorry Flint, I wasn't trying to fuck up your thread, but it is some facinating shit... I didn't have to google - I've been follwing the Kennewick story for years. I'm pretty sure I've posted about it before too, in reference to McCain's pandering.
And I took my kid's to the PA State museum in Harrisburg a few weeks ago, where they have an exhibit (reconstruction) of the Meadowcroft rock shelter - I've been thinking about it, and how long man has been on this continent ever since.
So anyway, carry on, don't let me stop you from having your meaningful discussion. :3eye:
because there aren't many negative stereotypes about whites.
AAAAaaahhaaaahahahahahahaah!!!!!
If you think whites are the only racists, you have a problem. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the most racist people on the planet, but because they are black it's okay. Racism is racism no matter what color your skin is. For as much as so many blacks talk about how bad it is, they exhibit racist speach quite a bit and get away with it thanks to the Clinton administration.
Why didn't we see this in the news? If it were whites that killed two blacks the whole nation would shut down and some racist blacks like Sharpton and Jackson would be demanding a national day of mourning.
News Coverage? Not on your life!!!
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]There is no need to post the entire article when you already started a thread with it, just link it.
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=350036#post350036[/COLOR]
Yeah, I agree with Edge. I was working for Hurricane Relief and I saw some racism on both sides. I don't care really about where it all came from anymore. Yes, I'm aware of all the arguements and history. The fact remains:They were both wrong and I don't want to hand out excuses for this type of bad behavior to anyone anymore. I'm not going to go into any particulars of the incidents, but it was very political and very racist.
Did you know that some people here in New Mexico openly refuse to do business with white people? I was told by a client that they were going to give all their money to "their own kind". Yeah, I wasn't too happy.
The playing ground for blacks and whites are not even close to even so don't get too worked up over this.
Correlation does not equal causation. In almost every single set of success/failure statistics gathered, the imbalance disappears when you control for
socioeconomic status, not race. That is, the playing field is not level for
poor people, not blacks. Solve the economic issues, and the perceived racism disappears.*
*As an example of how to do this, in Texas everyone who graduates in the top 10% of their class gets automatic admission to any state university. Doesn't matter if they graduated from the poorest ghetto high school and couldn't hold a candle to the bottom 25th percent of a rich suburban school. This way kids who do the best they can with the environment they're born into are given a chance to succeed, regardless of their race.
While I somewhat agree with you, when the poor schools are 98% non-white, it is very difficult to keep race out of it. It is very difficult to separate racism from classism today because you can make a racist law in the form of a classist law since a big majority of the poor are non-whites. White supremacy is still around and that can be seen because of
white privilege.
*As an example of how to do this, in Texas everyone who graduates in the top 10% of their class gets automatic admission to any state university. Doesn't matter if they graduated from the poorest ghetto high school and couldn't hold a candle to the bottom 25th percent of a rich suburban school. This way kids who do the best they can with the environment they're born into are given a chance to succeed, regardless of their race.
That is a very good idea. I am certain that racism in this country will go away when the classes (upper, middle, lower) are all racially integrated.
There are a few things you have to remember, all racism or discrimination (you can play with words) produced by blacks or minorities is in response to white supremacy. It is still bad but you can not attack a product, you have to go for the source.
Second, while blacks may get some media attention (I'm sure it can go the other way around as well...whites get more news coverage then blacks), they are still discriminated against in almost every respect in American society. The way we are raised and taught in schools, especially suburban, teaches whites to be white supremacist.
Every law that is supposed to help minorities is just a kick in the balls. AA helps white women more than minorities. Black History Month is a plain out insult. Hopefully you can agree that every month is white history month so we in return give them one? Why isn't every month black history month just like it is white history month?
The groups like NAACP, while I sometimes disagree on how extreme they can go, are, usually, trying to point out racism by whites like the situation with the "nappy headed hoes". Their "race" (I don't believe in race) has so many negative stereotypes that this will hurt them more because there aren't many negative stereotypes about whites.
If you want to play with definitions you can say that only whites can practice racism and blacks can only discriminate because only whites have the power to control people now. I don't totally agree with that but it works 95% of the time.
I really hope you don't believe that blacks have it easier than whites because of stupid things like the nappy headed hoe comment and the controversy that followed. The playing ground for blacks and whites are not even close to even so don't get too worked up over this.
The events you posted are tragic but it works the other way around like I mentioned before. I wouldn't classify anything you said as racism, just selective news coverage.
You are drinking the Kool-Aid my friend. Blacks in the US do not want equality, they want to be the masters and make whites the slaves, only then will they be happy. I am all for equality, but role reversal and discriminatory behavior by large groups of blacks, reinforced by stereotypes that their black hommies have taught them are not the cause of The White Man Keeping Them Down. The only people keeping them down are the people who need to profit off of such situations, the Farakan's, Jessie Jackson's, and Sharpton's of the world. MLK would roll over in his grave if he could see how his great ideas have been bastardized by so called "civil rights" leaders of today. Blacks have no one to blame for their failure to take advantage of the opportunities afforded minorities in the US but themselves. Choose other very successful legal immigrants, and some illegal, and the examples of their ability to grab hold of opportunities and advance their own personal success abound. Stop playing the race card and tell them to make something of themselves.
Merc, please tell me you didn't mean the whole black population.
If you said
some want to switch the roles around I would agree with you but from the people I've talked too, that is not true. Most just want equality and not to be discriminated against just as most whites want the same for them.
Stop playing the race card and tell them to make something of themselves.
This is much easier said then done. To start from the bottom to get to top or even the middle is extremely hard for anyone. They have social pressures that are unheard of in most white schools and there is a feeling of hopelessness for many of their futures.
If you talk to kids in mostly white schools and ask them what they want to be in the future, many say doctors or lawyers while if you go to a mostly black school and ask the same age kids the same questions you will get more basketball players and rappers*. This is a prime example of a social force that is holding blacks down, not the poor, because of representation. It is a trap that will hurt them until something is changed.
It is our job to help get rid of the white supremacy and it is their job to take advantage of that when they do get an equal chance.
*I got this from an essay I read in English class this year. I tried to find the essay but I can’t, it may not be open to the public or I just can’t find it. It explained the struggles of minorities in America very well
Merc, please tell me you didn't mean the whole black population.
No, I don't mean to imply that anymore than you do when you make generalizations about the white population.;)
This is much easier said then done. To start from the bottom to get to top or even the middle is extremely hard for anyone. They have social pressures that are unheard of in most white schools and there is a feeling of hopelessness for many of their futures.
If you talk to kids in mostly white schools and ask them what they want to be in the future, many say doctors or lawyers while if you go to a mostly black school and ask the same age kids the same questions you will get more basketball players and rappers*. This is a prime example of a social force that is holding blacks down, not the poor, because of representation. It is a trap that will hurt them until something is changed.
And this is the fault of white people? This is a cultural failing on their part. What is the percentage of two parent families in black culture? How about teen pregnancy? Drug use, crime? Sooner or later the Black culture will need to stop blaming others for their situations and look for solutions within. Few black leaders have stepped up to the plate to call their own culture on these short comings, I know Bill Cosby has, other than that, not very many.
It is our job to help get rid of the white supremacy and it is their job to take advantage of that when they do get an equal chance.
I would agree, but note that changes will not occur until blacks recognize that many of the problems that exist today are problems that
they are responsible for, not some esoteric White Man on a plantation keep them down.
No, I don't mean to imply that anymore than you do when you make generalizations about the white population.;)
I meant white by white-controlled system. It is something that neither of us have any control over.
I meant white by white-controlled system. It is something that neither of us have any control over.
Well, do you think that the majority of "systems" that are "white controlled" are controlled with the thought of "whiteness" and how can we oppress blacks today? I am not about to state that discrimination does not occur. I am just saying it is a two way street and that we need to stop blaming others for our current plight in life
and that much of the current situation is the fault of our own upbringing. I am one that believes that hard work and determination can overcome much of these lost opportunities. I see it all the time.
For the people with power (as of now) , it is only a one-way street because only whites have power.
The white supremacy is institutionalized, that is the problem, we don't notice it. You don't have to be against minorities to hurt them, you just to not have to notice that you are thinking that (white=normal and white=better) subconsciously.
I need to stress the last word again, subconsciously.
For the people with power (as of now) , it is only a one-way street because only whites have power.
The white supremacy is institutionalized, that is the problem, we don't notice it. You don't have to be against minorities to hurt them, you just to not have to notice that you are thinking that (white=normal and white=better) subconsciously.
I need to stress the last word again, subconsciously.
I think you give it to much credibility. I think that most leaders of comercial business care more about price and product than the color of someone's skin. I would be interested to see if there is emperical data out there that
proves, other than a casual observation that general relationships occur, other than a sort of Bible Code relationship if you will, that choices by leaders in business, who happen to be white, are made because of skin color. I do not believe they are. I think it is more of a statistical observation based on simple majorities.
Commercialism has nothing to do with this.
The people that write history books are the ones that have to do with this among other people.
Commercialism has nothing to do with this.
The people that write history books are the ones that have to do with this among other people.
Commercialism has everything to do with it. It is about money and opportunity, which leads to advancement and prosperity... the American Dream. People come from all over the world for it.
As far as history books are concerned, there are some definate problems there. We could open a whole other thread to discuss that subject. I do know that there are significant attempts by many special interest minority organizations to re-write history. And I am not just talking about race here, religion as well. Even in the UK: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23398688-details/Don't+teach+that+marriage+is+best+say+academics/article.do
Commercialism has nothing to do with this.
The people that write history books are the ones that have to do with this among other people.
That's the lamest excuse in the world. Stop looking back and start looking forward, if you want to accomplish something. Listen to Bill Cosby, he was shouted down for telling the absolute truth. The only way to oppress someone in the US today, is convince them they can't because someone is holding them down. Convince them they are powerless and shouldn't try. That's been the formula since the first slave/servant/peon in history.
Did you know that some people here in New Mexico openly refuse to do business with white people? I was told by a client that they were going to give all their money to "their own kind". Yeah, I wasn't too happy.
Uh huh, and there are people there who openly refuse to do business with, associate with, and/or are hostile toward non-whites--I've experienced it a few times myself; very ugly. New Mexico has long suffered from its share of racist attitudes, unfortunately.
Um...how the heck did this thread turn into a racism same-old-crap rehash anyway? I liked what we were talking about before.
National Geographic Atlas of The Human Journey
That is a fascinating presentation...I'm now looking forward to seeing if they turn up anything else at Boqueirao de Pedra Furada, the cave in Brazil.
That's the lamest excuse in the world. Stop looking back and start looking forward, if you want to accomplish something.
How is that an excuse? Only learning about white history is something that may seem small but has big effects. That is the racism that hurts America.
Listen to Bill Cosby, he was shouted down for telling the absolute truth. The only way to oppress someone in the US today, is convince them they can't because someone is holding them down. Convince them they are powerless and shouldn't try. That's been the formula since the first slave/servant/peon in history.
You like Bill Cosby because he is saying what you want to hear. He is saying one extreme while other people say the other when it is the middle ground. Not many blacks can relate to Bill and the person I've heard criticize him the most comes from someone who got a graduate degree from Yale recently so it isn't just an excuse.
...and the person I've heard criticize him the most comes from someone who got a graduate degree from Yale recently so it isn't just an excuse.
Come on you know that doesn't hold water in public opinion. Cosby is a leader in the black community. Many people respect him.
Don't tell me why I do anything, got it?
White history? What the fuck is white history? US history? Do you want to change George Washington to Chinese?
Cosby speaks the truth, if you go to a job interview dressed like a hood with your hat on sideways and speaking ebonics, you're not going to get hired. It that so hard to understand?
There's no future in sitting on your ass whining how the man is keeping you down, that's complete bullshit. Dropping out of school guarantees poverty.
Not working for something better because you think you have to work harder than somebody else, is hurting nobody but yourself. Guess what, everybody has to work harder than somebody, that's life.
The problem has moved from the "man" keeping people down to the culture keeping itself down. Bruce has got it.
Black "ghetto" or "gangsta" culture is just as damaging as any post-60s discrimination. It's a culture that centers on crime, a culture that values idiocy, a culture that supports poverty - a culture that creates and enforces all the negative stereotypes.
When people buck the "ghetto" culture, they buck the tendency to fail.
Don't tell me why I do anything, got it?
White history? What the fuck is white history? US history? Do you want to change George Washington to Chinese?
No, just the sole focus on white history by leaving out all other cultures.
Cosby speaks the truth, if you go to a job interview dressed like a hood with your hat on sideways and speaking ebonics, you're not going to get hired. It that so hard to understand?
That is not what people are criticizing him for. Most people actually agree with what you just said. It’s about his lack of understanding of where most blacks are coming from.
There's no future in sitting on your ass whining how the man is keeping you down, that's complete bullshit. Dropping out of school guarantees poverty.
Do you have any idea why these kids drop out of school or the pressures involved? Do you have any idea what their lives are like? It is easy to criticize from an outside standpoint when you have no understanding of what their world is like. Obviously, there will be work involved and I, with most other people, do not want to give them a free ticket if they do not earn it I am talking about the obstacles engrained in society that are holding them back. Every source I've heard has said that the general feelings in inner city schools are much different than suburban which will cause great effects in the future.
Not working for something better because you think you have to work harder than somebody else, is hurting nobody but yourself. Guess what, everybody has to work harder than somebody, that's life.
If blacks have to work harder than whites that is racism within the system.
If you were more careful with your punctuation, you would sound less like a crazy person. just a tip.
If blacks have to work harder than whites that is racism within the system.
Please...
No, just the sole focus on white history by leaving out all other cultures.
Assuming you're talking about k-12, I had the history of the World, it was pretty condensed which would be expected and the history of the US which was pretty white. There weren't a lot of important slaves in US history. Others, like the Indians, Mexicans, Canadians, Hawaiians are mentioned when they were significant to the US history. The fact that the US was created by white people, and it's leaders have been white people should be altered to bolster the minority self esteem? There has been some minority inventors and entrepreneurs who made big contributions to lifestyle, but they were not our leaders. History class can't cover all the other people, non leaders, that contributed to building the country, because there are other subjects they have to learn too.
That is not what people are criticizing him for. Most people actually agree with what you just said. It’s about his lack of understanding of where most blacks are coming from.
Bullshit, he knows exactly where they are coming from. He came from a poor family when there really was discrimination, when it really was tough for a black kid to get anywhere. His advantage was, it was a time when parents parented and didn't allow their kids to give up 'cause the man was holding them down. They were told to get their ass in gear and do the best they could... if they wanted to have something they would have to work for it... that the people they should look up to were not gangsta's, drug dealers and asshole athletes. They were more worried about disappointing their parents or getting a trip to the wood shed than their self esteem.
Do you have any idea why these kids drop out of school or the pressures involved? Do you have any idea what their lives are like? It is easy to criticize from an outside standpoint when you have no understanding of what their world is like. Obviously, there will be work involved and I, with most other people, do not want to give them a free ticket if they do not earn it I am talking about the obstacles engrained in society that are holding them back. Every source I've heard has said that the general feelings in inner city schools are much different than suburban which will cause great effects in the future.
The obstacles they face today are lack of parenting and largely created in their own society. Rap/gangsta culture, screwed up values, blame the man instead of taking personal responsibility and buying into the 'poor me' mentality is what is killing their chances to make it, not whitey.
If blacks have to work harder than whites that is racism within the system.
They don't, they have to work harder than people that are smarter than they are. They have to work harder than people that will settle for less. They have to work harder than the people that sit on their ass collecting welfare, street hustling and blaming whitey.
I see minorities, every day, promoted to their level of incompetence... and beyond... because cultural diversity is politically correct. As a matter of fact my boss is black. He doesn't strike me as a genius, just a regular guy that worked hard to get what he's got. He's successful because he EARNED it.
Since you're so convinced it's all my fault, tell me what you expect me to do about it? Yes you are... I'm white, I'm part of the oppressive system, I'm the man.
I'm the man.
Yes, yes you are, and you do a fine good job of it. :fumette:
For History, I am talking more about world history. It is very euro-centric and the only time Africa comes up is when they talk about religions and Egypt.
Here’s an example how white supremacy is in history. Of course, there is Columbus discovery America, and then the Vikings, and very rarely will they say anything about the Arabs, but what about the Africans that have been to America before Columbus? Never in history class was something like that even close to being mentioned.
Yes, most Americans are European but it is insane how euro-centric history classes are.
I am not 100% certain but I think Bill Cosby is criticized because he is does not the address the racial inequalities that do exist, but blames it all on the community. There is a difference from pointing out what is there, blowing it out of proportion, and saying what isn’t there. He just does the opposite of what most known black leader’s do, which isn’t necessarily better, but I will say a step up.
And I was talking about K-12. I understand that college history is usually a lot different than K-12 history.
This is what I am talking about with institutionalized racism. Ever heard of
Jane Elliott
Watch all five videos. Its long (50 or so minutes) but it gives a good idea of how institutionalized white supremacy works and effects of it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l0gUchvopOcFor History, I am talking more about world history. It is very euro-centric and the only time Africa comes up is when they talk about religions and Egypt.
How is Africa's or Asia's, or India's or Australia's history important to American K-12 students? World history can only be alloted so much time in a full curriculum. US history is more important for American students to understand and US history is eurocentric.
Here’s an example how white supremacy is in history. Of course, there is Columbus discovery America, and then the Vikings, and very rarely will they say anything about the Arabs, but what about the Africans that have been to America before Columbus? Never in history class was something like that even close to being mentioned.
You're right there, I never heard of it. Are you talking about Thor Heyerdahl theory? Tell me how this effects US history any more than the people that have been here 10, 20, 30 thousand years?
Yes, most Americans are European but it is insane how euro-centric history classes are.
well duh, US history is eurocentric.
I am not 100% certain but I think Bill Cosby is criticized because he is does not the address the racial inequalities that do exist, but blames it all on the community. There is a difference from pointing out what is there, blowing it out of proportion, and saying what isn’t there. He just does the opposite of what most known black leader’s do, which isn’t necessarily better, but I will say a step up.
Unlike Mr Cosby, "Most Black Leaders" are making a tidy living off perpetuating inequality.... it's their bread & butter. How did these people become the black leaders? By telling people to get off their asses and make something of themselves then turn around and help those that follow? Of course not, it was by telling People what they wanted to hear. Tell them it's not their fault, it's whitey keeping them down. There's a fortune in perpetuating the 50's. Black people of my generation, that I work with, had it tough, damn near intolerable. I don't think I could have gone through what they did without exploding. Even they are disgusted with these whining kids.
And I was talking about K-12. I understand that college history is usually a lot different than K-12 history.
This is what I am talking about with institutionalized racism. Ever heard of Jane Elliott
Watch all five videos. Its long (50 or so minutes) but it gives a good idea of how institutionalized white supremacy works and effects of it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l0gUchvopOc
Yeah, I'm aware of Elliots games, and no it doesn't translate to the real world without intentional application. That ain't happening.
How is Africa's or Asia's, or India's or Australia's history important to American K-12 students? World history can only be alloted so much time in a full curriculum. US history is more important for American students to understand and US history is eurocentric.
And Europe's history is very dependant on Africa's, Asia's, and India's history. World history is important because it shows how everything came to be with foreign policy and current events.
You're right there, I never heard of it. Are you talking about Thor Heyerdahl theory? Tell me how this effects US history any more than the people that have been here 10, 20, 30 thousand years?
well duh, US history is eurocentric.
It affects world and African history. If you do not want world history to be taught fine, but I personally think we should learn about other lifestyles so we can understand current events and other countries.
Unlike Mr Cosby, "Most Black Leaders" are making a tidy living off perpetuating inequality.... it's their bread & butter. How did these people become the black leaders? By telling people to get off their asses and make something of themselves then turn around and help those that follow? Of course not, it was by telling People what they wanted to hear. Tell them it's not their fault, it's whitey keeping them down. There's a fortune in perpetuating the 50's. Black people of my generation, that I work with, had it tough, damn near intolerable. I don't think I could have gone through what they did without exploding. Even they are disgusted with these whining kids.
Or you could go for the middle ground, which neither of them hit.
Yeah, I'm aware of Elliots games, and no it doesn't translate to the real world without intentional application. That ain't happening.
I'm calling you out on that. It may not be as intensive as that but there is no way that it doesn't apply. Just because you don't recognize white supremacy in America doesn't mean that it isn't there.
And Europe's history is very dependant on Africa's, Asia's, and India's history. World history is important because it shows how everything came to be with foreign policy and current events.
Are you going to spend the whole day on World history? There's only so much time, that's not going to increase, so tell me what you want to cut? US history? English? Math? Science? What is less important than World history?
It affects world and African history. If you do not want world history to be taught fine, but I personally think we should learn about other lifestyles so we can understand current events and other countries.
Then major in it when you get to college. You still haven't told me about these Africans that came to the Americas before Columbus, I'm all ears.
Or you could go for the middle ground, which neither of them hit.
Sure you could do that, but the truth would be better.
I'm calling you out on that. It may not be as intensive as that but there is no way that it doesn't apply. Just because you don't recognize white supremacy in America doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Just because you imagine the nation is rife with white supremacy doesn't make it so. But white supremacy is such a nebulous term, what the fuck is the definition white supremacy in your little world? Whites are still the majority, am I supposed to be ashamed of that?
Of course people have prejudices, that's the way people are, you can't change that. That doesn't make it institutionalized. And guess what, with the rise of the gangsta/rapper culture there's a lot more prejudice than there was 30 years ago. But it's still a lame excuse for quiting.
Don't tell me that minorities can't get out of poverty if they are willing to work for it. Perhaps you missed the thread on Billion Dollar Roundtable, a handful of companies that spent over $24Billion, with a B, buying stuff from minority and women's businesses last year. Are you telling me these businesses aren't hiring qualified minorities and women? Qualified, not drop outs. Not ebonics speaking thugs, either.
Are you going to spend the whole day on World history? There's only so much time, that's not going to increase, so tell me what you want to cut? US history? English? Math? Science? What is less important than World history?
I learned about world history and we didn't cut anything.
Then major in it when you get to college. You still haven't told me about these Africans that came to the Americas before Columbus, I'm all ears.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/4chapter3.shtml
Just because you imagine the nation is rife with white supremacy doesn't make it so. But white supremacy is such a nebulous term, what the fuck is the definition white supremacy in your little world? Whites are still the majority, am I supposed to be ashamed of that?
White Supremacy is where the people with power are white and act in the intrests of whites. The news corporations assume all white readers. Is America ready for Obama? No, is white America ready for Obama? Black America is more than ready for Obama. The assumption that America = white America is white supremacy.
Don't tell me that minorities can't get out of poverty if they are willing to work for it. Perhaps you missed the thread on Billion Dollar Roundtable, a handful of companies that spent over $24Billion, with a B, buying stuff from minority and women's businesses last year. Are you telling me these businesses aren't hiring qualified minorities and women? Qualified, not drop outs. Not ebonics speaking thugs, either.
I'm not saying that it is impossible, just the difficulty is unreasonable. A white suburban kid can get to graduate school without a sweat but a black inner city kid has to work his ass off, sometime with multiple jobs to get to that point. Scholarships go about 50/50 so it isn't much of an advantage either.
They lacked the pandemic biological advantage of more disease-ridden Europeans, as the Vikings came through the decontamination zone of frigid lands where nasty microbes cannot survive outside the human body. Incidentally, the same reason the Natives had no resistance to Europeans sicknesses, they had come through the decontamination zone of the Bering Strait, and peopled a continent with no resistance to common bugs.
Interesting point, but here's another that seems even more valid: Europe, Africa, and Asia are all land-connected and in each of these places, animal husbandry is practiced. Smallpox in particular is associated with keeping cattle, as in all likelihood it's a small mutation of cowpox. Waves of smallpox infections can travel back and forth from one end of a continent and then back, like reflected waves off a seawall. Multiple continents, inhabited by humans, seem to mean a deeper pool of varied human diseases. Add in some other vectors (by a roll of the genetic dice) and look what you come up with.
Nor did it, we suspect, all go one way. In the early 1490s, syphilis, then present in Europe, suddenly turned virulent and a plague of it swept across the Continent. The timing seems more than a little suspicious.
I learned about world history and we didn't cut anything.
So why are bitching it's not taught?
Didn't cut anything, yet people study World history their whole lives and never learn it all.
Don't be fooled into thinking what you thought you learned, is all there is. I guarantee it's not.
I say 'thought' you learned, because you might have gotten it wrong, as far as it's effect on the World that's not always apparent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/4chapter3.shtmlYour link says...
"So Abubakar equipped 200 ships filled with men and the same number equipped with gold, water, and provisions, enough to last them for years…they departed and a long time passed before anyone came back. Then one ship returned and we asked the captain what news they brought.
He said, 'Yes, Oh Sultan, we travelled for a long time until there appeared in the open sea a river with a powerful current…the other ships went on ahead, but when they reached that place, they did not return and no more was seen of them…As for me, I went about at once and did not enter the river.'
The Sultan got ready 2,000 ships, 1,000 for himself and the men whom he took with him, and 1,000 for water and provisions. He left me to deputise for him and embarked on the Atlantic Ocean with his men. That was the last we saw of him and all those who were with him.
And so, I became king in my own right."
Mansa Musa, talking to Syrian scholar Al-Umari.
This is your evidence Africans came to North America before Columbus? Nigga, please.
White Supremacy is where the people with power are white and act in the intrests of whites. The news corporations assume all white readers. Is America ready for Obama? No, is white America ready for Obama? Black America is more than ready for Obama. The assumption that America = white America is white supremacy.
You don't think the papers know down to the gnat's eyebrow, who's buying their papers?
Is white America ready for Obama... because the country is what, 12% black and I doubt many of the Ganstas and gang bangers vote so take off some for them. Take some more for children and people that don't bother. Limited power base, isn't it?
Do you understand why they aren't targeted more by the politicians. Not saying their votes aren't important or sought, just limited. I'll bet more Hispanics vote than blacks.
I'm not saying that it is impossible, just the difficulty is unreasonable. A white suburban kid can get to graduate school without a sweat but a black inner city kid has to work his ass off, sometime with multiple jobs to get to that point. Scholarships go about 50/50 so it isn't much of an advantage either.
Where the fuck did you grow up? Graduate school without sweat? And pay for it too?
Now I see your problem, grew up privileged and are suffering guilt pangs. Here's a tip, don't. Just take it and run with it, make a fortune and put some ghetto kids through college. It'll make you warm and fuzzy, plus you'll become part of the solution.
So why are bitching it's not taught?
Because I want to improve the system...
Didn't cut anything, yet people study World history their whole lives and never learn it all.
Don't be fooled into thinking what you thought you learned, is all there is. I guarantee it's not.
I say 'thought' you learned, because you might have gotten it wrong, as far as it's effect on the World that's not always apparent.
The same goes for US history and you still want that taught.
This is your evidence Africans came to North America before Columbus? Nigga, please.
If you want more, here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Africans
http://www.jannah.org/articles/precolumbus.html
You don't think the papers know down to the gnat's eyebrow, who's buying their papers?
Is white America ready for Obama... because the country is what, 12% black and I doubt many of the Ganstas and gang bangers vote so take off some for them. Take some more for children and people that don't bother. Limited power base, isn't it?
Do you understand why they aren't targeted more by the politicians. Not saying their votes aren't important or sought, just limited. I'll bet more Hispanics vote than blacks.
That has nothing to do with "White America = America" and how that is white supremacy. You just said they are the minority, which is pretty obvious. You can't just ignore the minority or issues like racism and effects of it will show up.
Where the fuck did you grow up? Graduate school without sweat? And pay for it too?
Now I see your problem, grew up privileged and are suffering guilt pangs. Here's a tip, don't. Just take it and run with it, make a fortune and put some ghetto kids through college. It'll make you warm and fuzzy, plus you'll become part of the solution.
I am not just talking about suburban kids. I will have to take out loans and pay for it just like most of the rest of the middle class in America.
Guilt pangs? Or maybe I see the system as unfair and want to help to change it. You can view them as the same for all I care but I'm not just going to say "fuck you" to everyone that isn't me or isn't like me.
I'm not saying "fuck you" either.
I'm also not saying "after you".
You want it, earn it like I do.
Interesting point, but here's another that seems even more valid: Europe, Africa, and Asia are all land-connected and in each of these places, animal husbandry is practiced. Smallpox in particular is associated with keeping cattle, as in all likelihood it's a small mutation of cowpox. Waves of smallpox infections can travel back and forth from one end of a continent and then back, like reflected waves off a seawall. Multiple continents, inhabited by humans, seem to mean a deeper pool of varied human diseases. Add in some other vectors (by a roll of the genetic dice) and look what you come up with.
Excellent point.
These cattle-vector disease were not present in the Americas; because #1 no cattle! and #2 the aforementioned decontaminated populace.
A curiously overlooked factor in the "settling" of the "new lands" was that everywhere the Europeans went, there were
empty villages and
crops already planted! At the time, the massive scale of biological depopulation was well-documented, usually attributed to a gift from God. It is questionable whether European culture would have been able to sustain an outpost of their civilization, had it not been for nature's "helping hand" ...
Our history textbooks, by omitting the disease factor, leave a story in which the Europeans, even if not sqeaky clean on a moral basis, at least prevailed due to some inherent superiority over the Native people. This is Eurocentricism, in other words White Supremacy.
I thought the diseases that wiped out many of the tribal villages came from the Spanish explorers that traveled all the major river in the Americas for a look-see. This was well before anyone came with the intension of staying.
Yes, the diseases came from Europe with the Europeans that came from Europe.
OK, just pointing out it wasn't a start at the east coast and sweep across the continent. They were strategically bombed.
I wonder, since there were apparently many group migrations to the Americas, over thousands of years, could this have happened more than once?
Yeah, that's a good point. It was strategically placed, and strategically timed. Who can blame them for thinking it was the hand of God?
White Supremacy is where the people with power are white and act in the intrests of whites. The news corporations assume all white readers. Is America ready for Obama? No, is white America ready for Obama? Black America is more than ready for Obama. The assumption that America = white America is white supremacy.
Pierce, with all due respect, you are stuck on stupid on this issue.
Yeah, that's a good point. It was strategically placed, and strategically timed. Who can blame them for thinking it was the hand of God?
What do you mean by timed? The Spanish were running all over the place a hundred years before the Pilgrims.
What do you mean by timed? The Spanish were running all over the place a hundred years before the Pilgrims.
That's right. That's why the Pilgrims showed up to find cultivated fields and empty villages. Couldn't time it better than that.
There wasn't enough land for them because the locals already had that under cultivation. But just to the South there was plenty of good land so they told Massasoit they wanted to farm that land. Massasoit said have at it, because the village that had been there had been wiped out by disease, and non of the other Indians wanted anything to do with it.
But that village was wiped out in 1617, three years before the Pilgrims arrived. As a matter of fact, it was Squanto's village and they were gone when he came back in 1619. So yes, there were fields that had been cultivated but had laid fallow for several years.
....And then the holiday of Thanksgiving was born. And every November for hundreds of years after that the white man and indian gathered under those tree at those wooden picnic tables and broke bread, and ate colored indian corn, and kentucky fried chicken. And there was peace.
And pumpkins, all children of the Great Pumpkin.
Charlie Brown: I supposed you spent all night in the pumpkin patch. And did the Great Pumpkin ever show up?
Linus: Nope.
Charlie Brown: Well, don't take it too hard, Linus. I've done a lot of stupid things in my life, too.
Linus: [furious] STUPID! What do you mean "stupid"? Just wait 'til next year, Charlie Brown. You'll see! Next year at this same time, I'll find the perfect pumpkin patch and I'll sit in that pumpkin patch until the Great Pumpkin appears. He'll rise out of that pumpkin patch and he'll fly through the air with his bag of toys. The Great Pumpkin will appear and I'll be waiting for him! I'll be there! I'll be sitting there in that pumpkin patch and I'll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait and see, Charlie Brown. I'll see the Great Pumpkin. I'll SEE the Great Pumpkin! Just you wait, Charlie Brown, the Great Pumpkin will appear and I'll be waiting for him...
http://thisischris.com/uploaded_images/Halloween%20Punkins%202006-753900.jpgAwwww, I always wanted Linus to see the Great Pumpkin. Then again, I was glad that for once they weren't calling Charlie Brown an idiot. I've always been a sucker for an underdog.
(I got a rock.)
ya know what? i like shawnee. she makes sense. plus, she's a naughty girl.
Like me.
I like you too Bri. Glad to see you back.
We should get a free pass, if for nothing else than surviving living in OHIO.
shawnee-- YOU R SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO RIGHT!
no one, NO ONE! understands the hell that is OFUCKINHIO! esp in the summer!
I went back to ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The farms of ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And muzak filled the air
From seneca to cuyahoga falls
Said, a, o, oh way to go ohio
shawnee-- YOU R SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO RIGHT!
no one, NO ONE! understands the hell that is OFUCKINHIO! esp in the summer!
Of course we do, that's why we don't live there.
Maybe It's something in the air there in Ohio that makes people funny or witty. I should move there. I'm tired of my analytical self.
Maybe if I had a brain to go around the block with it would be a different story.
Sky, it's just the sheer boredom that causes us to find other outlets.
But seriously, Ohio has some great places, like any state. Cincy and Columbus are wonderful cities. We have beautiful countryside, from lakes to rolling hills. Where I am, not so much. :p It's kind of flat and dull and conservative with a lot of sheep. Not the bleating kind.
S'okay. When I win big I'm living in Maine in the summers, then I'll yacht down to the keys for the winters.
The powers that be
that force us to live like we do
Bring me to my knees
when I see what they've done to you
I die as I stand here today
Knowing that deep in my heart
They'll fall to ruin one day
For making us fall ap-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a . . .
When I win big I'm living in Maine in the summers, then I'll yacht down to the keys for the winters.
sounds good :) crab, chowder the cool salt air...then those hot summer nights on a yacht.
:drool: yum
ps. what' ya
really trying to say flint?
.....no...don't answer that. The answer will only confuse me.
no, flint! i will NOT make out with you!
Dont get me wrong
If Im looking kind of dazzled
I see neon lights
Whenever you walk by
Dont get me wrong
If you say hello and I take a ride
Upon a sea where the mystic moon
Is playing havoc with the tide
Dont get me wrong
Dont get me wrong
If Im acting so distracted
Im thinking about the fireworks
That go off when you smile
Dont get me wrong
If I split like light refracted
Im only off to wander
Across a moonlit mile
Once in awhile
Two people meet
Seemingly for no reason
They just pass on the street
Suddenly thunder, showers everywhere
Who can explain the thunder and rain
But theres something in the air
Dont get me wrong
If I come and go like fashion
I might be great tomorrow
But hopeless yesterday
Dont get me wrong
If I fall in the mode of passion
It might be unbelievable
But lets not say so long
It might just be fantastic
Dont get me wrong
(excuse the threadjackage)
The favorite parts of Pretenders songs are these bridge sections:
Once in awhile
Two people meet
Seemingly for no reason
They just pass on the street
Suddenly thunder, showers everywhere
Who can explain the thunder and rain
But theres something in the air
Nerd Trivia: In
Homer Goes to College, who used to play what instrument for The Pretenders? Who wrote that episode?
Absolutely! That's running through my head right now!
Entre Nous
I think it's time for us to recognize
The differences we sometimes fear to show
Just between us
I think it's time for us to realize
The spaces in between
Leave room for you and I to grow
We are strangers to each other
Full of sliding panels
An illusion show
Acting well rehearsed routines
Or playing from the heart?
It's hard for one to know
The favorite parts of Pretenders songs are these bridge sections:
Nerd Trivia: In Homer Goes to College, who used to play what instrument for The Pretenders? Who wrote that episode?
My son would have that answer but he's sleeping right now.
{edit}
I googled it....
Dean Bobby Peterson claims that he used to be the bass player for The Pretenders.
Written by Conan O'Brien
ok whatever. I can post lyrics too
You have to have Flint's expressed written consent. ;)
Nerd Trivia: In Homer Goes to College, who used to play what instrument for The Pretenders? Who wrote that episode?
Dunno. Homer's dad played Sax? Written by Kenny G? :rolleyes:
Nerd Trivia: In Homer Goes to College, who used to play what instrument for The Pretenders? Who wrote that episode?
{edit}
I googled it....
Dean Bobby Peterson claims that he used to be the bass player for The Pretenders.
Written by Conan O'Brien
You're right, of course. I didn't realize you had answered, because edits don't bump threads...
![http://thisischris.com/uploaded_images/Halloween%20Punkins%202006-753900.jpg]("http://thisischris.com/uploaded_images/Halloween%20Punkins%202006-753900.jpg"){kind=link}