Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Topic closed

2011-08-27 13:27:36
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6949|England. Stoke

lowing wrote:

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with the study of American history and the contributions made by all Americans to that history. But you simply can not discuss the civil rights movement and those involved without discussing the course of action that drove it to existence. and that is American history. Not some special consideration footnote. We are all Americans and our past is as one nation.

No one told me how we could discuss white history without discussing how white people fucked over everyone else. So how can we discuss a single thread in a tapestry of history without discussing the tapestry itself? You can't.
Seriously what the fuck are you on about, "black history" is simply a "module" of American history like all the others that make it up. Each of which can be studied individually/specifically, and yet at the same time they will all still look at their wider context within history as a whole.
Generally when you study history as an academic subject (as I have) you can't just go "derp, I studying all the history", you look at certain facets and how they relate to the picture as a whole and there impact on the modern world, and in these terms "black history" (the civil rights movement) certainly deserves to be its own area...
no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Black history isn't just the civil rights movement, but it's the area that is most current and socially important so it's bound to be the "public" focus, black history month seems to more of a celebration of civil rights, and what's wrong with that? You seem to be confusing that with the actual academic study of black history.

Edit: And if a WW2 history course did start on Dec 7 '41, it would be a pretty shitty one, but I guess in America you all think that's when it started...
I suggest instead of worrying about people not looking at the whole "tapestry of history", you start taking a wider look yourself, rather than thinking American History is "History".

Last edited by coke (2011-08-27 13:31:50)

2011-08-27 13:35:12
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5941|College Park, MD
Obviously a WW2 history course would look at the big picture. A, say, WW2 in the Pacific course would have a much more narrow focus.

There's a reason that most history departments at universities have several history major concentrations. Just scroll down a bit and look:

http://www.history.umd.edu/Programs/majWorksheet.html
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-08-27 13:35:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:

coke wrote:


Seriously what the fuck are you on about, "black history" is simply a "module" of American history like all the others that make it up. Each of which can be studied individually/specifically, and yet at the same time they will all still look at their wider context within history as a whole.
Generally when you study history as an academic subject (as I have) you can't just go "derp, I studying all the history", you look at certain facets and how they relate to the picture as a whole and there impact on the modern world, and in these terms "black history" (the civil rights movement) certainly deserves to be its own area...
no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Black history isn't just the civil rights movement, but it's the area that is most current and socially important so it's bound to be the "public" focus, black history month seems to more of a celebration of civil rights, and what's wrong with that? You seem to be confusing that with the actual academic study of black history.
Then you must agree that is American history, an not black history you re  studying.

no I am not confusing anything. Face it, if you want equality, acceptance, etc then you need to stop setting yourself apart from everyone else.

There is no white history month. It is the same notion that I have that there is no such thing a African American, we are all Americans. Period.

Good god, now they want to institute a fuckin' gay history course. Where exactly do you say enough of this bullshit. It is history and will be taught as history and not a "celebration" of a specific race?
2011-08-27 13:38:49
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

lowing wrote:

no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
2011-08-27 13:39:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:

coke wrote:


Seriously what the fuck are you on about, "black history" is simply a "module" of American history like all the others that make it up. Each of which can be studied individually/specifically, and yet at the same time they will all still look at their wider context within history as a whole.
Generally when you study history as an academic subject (as I have) you can't just go "derp, I studying all the history", you look at certain facets and how they relate to the picture as a whole and there impact on the modern world, and in these terms "black history" (the civil rights movement) certainly deserves to be its own area...
no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Black history isn't just the civil rights movement, but it's the area that is most current and socially important so it's bound to be the "public" focus, black history month seems to more of a celebration of civil rights, and what's wrong with that? You seem to be confusing that with the actual academic study of black history.

Edit: And if a WW2 history course did start on Dec 7 '41, it would be a pretty shitty one, but I guess in America you all think that's when it started...
I suggest instead of worrying about people not looking at the whole "tapestry of history", you start taking a wider look yourself, rather than thinking American History is "History".
You think so? Why is that? remember, I am the one that is truly an advocate of equality and acceptance. I am not the one who is trying to label myself, my nationality, or my history by fuckin race. maybe it is you who should check your agenda at the door.
2011-08-27 13:47:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
No you are not the one who is getting this. If it happened in America, it is part of all of our history as Americans. Not the blacks alone. and if you can not discuss "black history" without the broader spectrum of surrounding events and timelines, then you are not studying black history.  really, it is nothing more than another American historical event or timeline and should be taught as such. American history is broken down quite enough as a field of study. There is no need or reason to break it down into race history, since all of the races in America contributed to make up American history
2011-08-27 14:07:38
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6949|England. Stoke

lowing wrote:

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:


no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
Which is exactly what I'm saying. Black history isn't just the civil rights movement, but it's the area that is most current and socially important so it's bound to be the "public" focus, black history month seems to more of a celebration of civil rights, and what's wrong with that? You seem to be confusing that with the actual academic study of black history.

Edit: And if a WW2 history course did start on Dec 7 '41, it would be a pretty shitty one, but I guess in America you all think that's when it started...
I suggest instead of worrying about people not looking at the whole "tapestry of history", you start taking a wider look yourself, rather than thinking American History is "History".
You think so? Why is that? remember, I am the one that is truly an advocate of equality and acceptance. I am not the one who is trying to label myself, my nationality, or my history by fuckin race. maybe it is you who should check your agenda at the door.
I have no agenda here, frankly I couldn't give a fuck over the whole affair, this is an entirely American issue that doesn't concern me in the slightest. But for whatever reason seem to agitate you. The fact that people are still debating basic issues such as this, is why things such as "black history" month and even the use of the term itself are still needed.
In Britain there is black history which in itself is even more focused than it is in America, with the mass immigration of the 50's, and the subsequent "civil rights" movement (although it was on nowhere near the same scale, as it frankly it didn't need to be). It is British history, but it is black British history, because it looks at a group who have had a unique experience, view and contribution to British history, which is exactly the same for American Black history.
I did several courses and then subsequent study and essays on American history, some of which were clearly focused upon specific socio-economic and racial groups, simply because they all have unique perspectives and experiences, which all sit under the umbrella of America History which by it's very nature is separated (particularly in early American history) divided and defined by the mix of ethnic backgrounds. 
Unnamed summed it up in his post.
2011-08-27 14:16:38
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6949|England. Stoke

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
No you are not the one who is getting this. If it happened in America, it is part of all of our history as Americans. Not the blacks alone. and if you can not discuss "black history" without the broader spectrum of surrounding events and timelines, then you are not studying black history.  really, it is nothing more than another American historical event or timeline and should be taught as such. American history is broken down quite enough as a field of study. There is no need or reason to break it down into race history, since all of the races in America contributed to make up American history
It does look at the surrounding events and time lines though, for you to say it doesn't is simply ridiculous. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the main reason that black history is seen as a more defined aspect of American History than many others, is simply because whether you like it or not black people have played such a massive role in American history. Add in the fact that up until (in the grand scheme of things) relatively recently in several states there was a form of apartheid. And before that the ancestors of the majority of black people in America today were kept as fucking slaves, a fact which led to the civil war and the foundation of modern America... Facts that people need to remember.

Last edited by coke (2011-08-27 18:52:50)

2011-08-27 14:46:52
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6872|949

OrangeHound wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who cares that it was built by Chinese people or designed by a Chinese artist or that the King family got paid?  Workers got exploited, and it's another instance of government mismanagement of money.  There's so many other incidents of monetary indiscretion, mismanagement of funds, graft, corruption  and cronyism in the government and you choose an $800k statue built using the classic American technique of importing and exploiting immigrants to bitch about?

Oh yeah, and the statue IS ugly.
I don't think the government had much to do with this, other than approving the site (and perhaps the architecture).  This was all done through a private foundation.
From the second article in the OP -

Congress matched up the to the first $10 million. So taxpayers funded the project, too. Or rather, they funded the King family
2011-08-27 17:49:44
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

no what you do is you study the history that came before the topic at hand, then you study the after affects of the topic.

ou do not study WW2 without discussing WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, the events that lead to invasion of China and ultimately Pearl Harbor etc.

or let me guess, your WW2 history course started on Dec 7 41 and went forward right?
I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
No you are not the one who is getting this. If it happened in America, it is part of all of our history as Americans. Not the blacks alone. and if you can not discuss "black history" without the broader spectrum of surrounding events and timelines, then you are not studying black history.  really, it is nothing more than another American historical event or timeline and should be taught as such. American history is broken down quite enough as a field of study. There is no need or reason to break it down into race history, since all of the races in America contributed to make up American history
You're still going off on some oddball tangent. You don't paint a detailed portrait with a four-inch house brush. Our point is that black history is American history, but that to study American history, you have to set your focus on specific events and issues.

I (at least) am not arguing in favor of "black history month." I think it's both patronizing and insulting to American black culture, which was itself horribly damaged by entitlement programs and special treatment taken too far. I merely recognize that black history it is a valid thread in the tapestry of American history.

If you were to do a write up of the history of the Coca Cola company, horseshoes in the 1870's and the Spanish-American War in a classroom report about President Kennedy, it would be rejected. The history of a thing can be linked to related topics or to the broader topic it is a part of, but focus is required when speaking of it specifically. Same with the "state history" courses offered in high school.

I can't think of any other way to sum this up to you other than the broader the topic you're studying, the less time you will have to get into specifics.
2011-08-27 18:02:19
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6651|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Who cares that it was built by Chinese people or designed by a Chinese artist or that the King family got paid?  Workers got exploited, and it's another instance of government mismanagement of money.  There's so many other incidents of monetary indiscretion, mismanagement of funds, graft, corruption  and cronyism in the government and you choose an $800k statue built using the classic American technique of importing and exploiting immigrants to bitch about?

Oh yeah, and the statue IS ugly.
I don't think the government had much to do with this, other than approving the site (and perhaps the architecture).  This was all done through a private foundation.
From the second article in the OP -

Congress matched up the to the first $10 million. So taxpayers funded the project, too. Or rather, they funded the King family
But it was managed/decisions were made by a private foundation, not the government.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-08-27 19:14:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:

coke wrote:

Which is exactly what I'm saying. Black history isn't just the civil rights movement, but it's the area that is most current and socially important so it's bound to be the "public" focus, black history month seems to more of a celebration of civil rights, and what's wrong with that? You seem to be confusing that with the actual academic study of black history.

Edit: And if a WW2 history course did start on Dec 7 '41, it would be a pretty shitty one, but I guess in America you all think that's when it started...
I suggest instead of worrying about people not looking at the whole "tapestry of history", you start taking a wider look yourself, rather than thinking American History is "History".
You think so? Why is that? remember, I am the one that is truly an advocate of equality and acceptance. I am not the one who is trying to label myself, my nationality, or my history by fuckin race. maybe it is you who should check your agenda at the door.
I have no agenda here, frankly I couldn't give a fuck over the whole affair, this is an entirely American issue that doesn't concern me in the slightest. But for whatever reason seem to agitate you. The fact that people are still debating basic issues such as this, is why things such as "black history" month and even the use of the term itself are still needed.
In Britain there is black history which in itself is even more focused than it is in America, with the mass immigration of the 50's, and the subsequent "civil rights" movement (although it was on nowhere near the same scale, as it frankly it didn't need to be). It is British history, but it is black British history, because it looks at a group who have had a unique experience, view and contribution to British history, which is exactly the same for American Black history.
I did several courses and then subsequent study and essays on American history, some of which were clearly focused upon specific socio-economic and racial groups, simply because they all have unique perspectives and experiences, which all sit under the umbrella of America History which by it's very nature is separated (particularly in early American history) divided and defined by the mix of ethnic backgrounds. 
Unnamed summed it up in his post.
you don't give a fuck yet you have no problem calling me a racist for my opinion.. Curious as to how you come that conclusion after I point out that I am not the one that wants to define my existence, my nationality, or my history by race. That I am the one that seeks true equality among the different races.

My issue with this whole black history month is exactly what I said, in every aspect of our society the struggles of black people in our history have been met with an insistence that not only are they now equal that they now deserve special recognition. They fought for acceptance and equality yet today insist they are a separate identity a separate history, separate, magazines, separate awards, etc.. the list goes on forever. They fought for inclusion yet insist by their own accord they be treated different and recognized as different. THen call us racists when it is pointed out. Kinda like what you are doing.

Last edited by lowing (2011-08-27 19:33:06)

2011-08-27 19:17:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

coke wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
No you are not the one who is getting this. If it happened in America, it is part of all of our history as Americans. Not the blacks alone. and if you can not discuss "black history" without the broader spectrum of surrounding events and timelines, then you are not studying black history.  really, it is nothing more than another American historical event or timeline and should be taught as such. American history is broken down quite enough as a field of study. There is no need or reason to break it down into race history, since all of the races in America contributed to make up American history
It does look at the surrounding events and time lines though, for you to say it doesn't is simply ridiculous. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the main reason that black history is seen as a more defined aspect of American History than many others, is simply because whether you like it or not black people have played such a massive role in American history. Add in the fact that up until (in the grand scheme of things) relatively recently in several states there was a form of apartheid. And before that the ancestors of the majority of black people in America today were kept as fucking slaves, a fact which led to the civil war and the foundation of modern America... Facts that people need to remember.
Then it is AMERICAN history that is really being studied then. Glad we cleared that up
2011-08-27 19:25:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I don't think you're quite getting this. Once you move beyond general American history, there are multiple branches of study. Coke and I are not saying that it's more important than the broader spectrum of American history, just that it is an important aspect of it.

Nobody is saying that black history can stand on its own; only that it is a thread worth studying and among and linked to many that are also worthwhile in their own right (broader civil rights, women's suffrage, history of maltreatment of ethnic European and Asian groups, etc.).
No you are not the one who is getting this. If it happened in America, it is part of all of our history as Americans. Not the blacks alone. and if you can not discuss "black history" without the broader spectrum of surrounding events and timelines, then you are not studying black history.  really, it is nothing more than another American historical event or timeline and should be taught as such. American history is broken down quite enough as a field of study. There is no need or reason to break it down into race history, since all of the races in America contributed to make up American history
You're still going off on some oddball tangent. You don't paint a detailed portrait with a four-inch house brush. Our point is that black history is American history, but that to study American history, you have to set your focus on specific events and issues.

I (at least) am not arguing in favor of "black history month." I think it's both patronizing and insulting to American black culture, which was itself horribly damaged by entitlement programs and special treatment taken too far. I merely recognize that black history it is a valid thread in the tapestry of American history.

If you were to do a write up of the history of the Coca Cola company, horseshoes in the 1870's and the Spanish-American War in a classroom report about President Kennedy, it would be rejected. The history of a thing can be linked to related topics or to the broader topic it is a part of, but focus is required when speaking of it specifically. Same with the "state history" courses offered in high school.

I can't think of any other way to sum this up to you other than the broader the topic you're studying, the less time you will have to get into specifics.
Tried to help you out but I can't.

There is no such thing as black history just like there is no such thing as African American.

You can not have a black history any more than you can possibly have a white history. You can not have an African American any more than you can have a European American. We are all Americans and it is all of our history. It is so intertwined that you can not claim to study JUST black history in America. You can not study and call it black history, as the other side of slavery was very much white people. You can not study the civil rights movement as the opposing side of it was very much white people. If you want to study the events of the civil rights fine be my guest but call it what it is, American history. To suggest anything other than that is racist.

Last edited by lowing (2011-08-27 19:34:40)

2011-08-27 19:30:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
Words can not describe...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-08-27 19:33:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

Words can not describe...
you got some homework to do their slick... You failed to link me to your david duke website. Get to it.
2011-08-27 19:34:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Words can not describe...
you got some homework to do their slick... You failed to link me to your david duke website. Get to it.
You do it yourself with every post you type.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-08-27 19:34:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
lowing, I hope you children grow up and marry black people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-08-27 19:36:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Words can not describe...
you got some homework to do their slick... You failed to link me to your david duke website. Get to it.
You do it yourself with every post you type.
Well I asked already a few times maybe with your self proclaimed  superior intellect you will answer.

How can you call ME the racist when I am the one that is against identifying myself, my nationality and my history by race?

Last edited by lowing (2011-08-27 19:37:30)

2011-08-27 19:37:02
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing, I hope you children grow up and marry black people.
Wouldn't care if they did, as long as they were decent people, like I would expect for anyone they marry.
2011-08-27 19:38:20
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956
None of you would have made a fuss if this was a statue about a white guy
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-08-27 19:39:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Cybargs wrote:

None of you would have made a fuss if this was a statue about a white guy
Since there is no such thing a s white history month we will never know will we?
2011-08-27 19:40:04
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

None of you would have made a fuss if this was a statue about a white guy
Since there is no such thing a s white history month we will never know will we?
Every heard of euro-centrism?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-08-27 19:40:21
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5276|Massachusetts, USA

Cybargs wrote:

None of you would have made a fuss if this was a statue about a white guy
This statement doesn't affect me, I'm white.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-08-27 19:41:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

None of you would have made a fuss if this was a statue about a white guy
Since there is no such thing a s white history month we will never know will we?
Every heard of euro-centrism?
nope

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard