the white man is the most repressed person in history.War Man wrote:
I'm white and I feel we are being oppressed, currently. Where is "White History"?
Tu Stultus Es
lowing would make an awesome muslim.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
No, being gay is no more a class of people than being fat. and whatever historically relevant accomplishments that were made was not made BECAUSE they were gay. Their sexual preference is NOT historically relevant. Black accomplishments are historically relevant because so much of our nations history was driven by the oppression of blacks, and any accomplishments made by blacks was done in spite of that oppression.AussieReaper wrote:
It is a class of people. Why do you think they were denied the right to marry? That was based on the classification of gay.lowing wrote:
Gay is not a class of people. It is not a race and being gay has nothing to do with their accomplishments in history. Bullshit like this is the same thing as teaching the "fat people history" Highlighting the accomplishments of fat people, when their weight has nothing to do with their accomplishments of finding a cure for polio or inventing the light bulb.
Secondly, the have accomplishments when you look at the challenge for equal rights. Same as the struggle for equal rights for blacks. And before that, for women.
You're really on a roll lately with ignorant posts.
No, you can not stand up to inequality by fighting for special preference, recognition, rights etc.....Shocking wrote:
I prefer to steer clear of any equal rights / racism / oppression argument tbh. If you disagree people are going to label you as being intolerant / racist and so on, it's a quagmire. People want their special day? Let them.
oh I agree, but arguing with people who advocate them is absolutely pointless.
Granted this specific case in the original post is over the top and I think it's wrong. But as long as the needs for special rights don't affect me or anything of value I'll let everyone have their way.
Granted this specific case in the original post is over the top and I think it's wrong. But as long as the needs for special rights don't affect me or anything of value I'll let everyone have their way.
inane little opines
tranny history next ?
I don't really give a shit what said persons sexual preference was .... I would rather know what historical achievement said person did then know they were either a rug muncher or a brown eye captain
I don't really give a shit what said persons sexual preference was .... I would rather know what historical achievement said person did then know they were either a rug muncher or a brown eye captain
richard the lion heart was a gay
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo wrote:
richard the lion heart was a gay
Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-06 08:43:06)
inane little opines
Wrong attitude, because special right, privileges etc. comes from somewhere and if someone is getting MORE rights and freedoms, then that means someone else is getting less and one day that could be you.Shocking wrote:
oh I agree, but arguing with people who advocate them is absolutely pointless.
Granted this specific case in the original post is over the top and I think it's wrong. But as long as the needs for special rights don't affect me or anything of value I'll let everyone have their way.
We're not exactly living in Animal Farm here, there is no scheme to put one group in a privileged position. Almost all 'equal rights' initiatives are harmless.lowing wrote:
Wrong attitude, because special right, privileges etc. comes from somewhere and if someone is getting MORE rights and freedoms, then that means someone else is getting less and one day that could be you.
If they do actually have a negative effect on others I'll consider participating in the discussion. Gay pride parades, feminist parades, special history months are all fine by me.Shocking wrote:
as long as the needs for special rights don't affect me or anything of value I'll let everyone have their way.
inane little opines
Maybe harmless to YOU, but if it is important to the ones getting special treatment to actually care about it, chances are it is important to some else who isn't.Shocking wrote:
We're not exactly living in Animal Farm here, there is no scheme to put one group in a privileged position. Almost all 'equal rights' initiatives are harmless.lowing wrote:
Wrong attitude, because special right, privileges etc. comes from somewhere and if someone is getting MORE rights and freedoms, then that means someone else is getting less and one day that could be you.If they do actually have a negative effect on others I'll consider participating in the discussion. Gay pride parades, feminist parades, special history months are all fine by me.Shocking wrote:
as long as the needs for special rights don't affect me or anything of value I'll let everyone have their way.
I don't give a shit about gay pride parades feminists parades etc...thy have that right just like we ALL do. but to expect and demand that you get recognized and treated special over anyone else officially by the govt. is wrong. and I believe shoving the fact that someone was gay in history as being a relevant factor in history is horseshit.
lowing it's just another module, essentially, to history and sociology. it's just trying to incorporate recent social progressions and historical movements into the official syllabus of history teaching. what's the problem? some of the most definitive social change of the 20th century have been for civil rights of the individual. do you have a problem teaching about black rights in school? the fact is, whether or not you like it, that most of the cultural change and academic 'progress' since the 1960's onwards has been in the disciplines of feminism and homosexuality. i see no problem in trying to address the historical 'black hole' from the 1950's onwards (or the decline of the official civil rights movement) to acknowledge that, yes, what has actually been happening has been a smaller and quiter revolution in sexuality. what's the problem? are you opposed to teaching history as it stands and as it factually is, or are you offended because much of later 20th century western social history concerns queers? i suspect it's the latter, old man.
we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.
we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-06 09:31:30)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I never had a history course, either in high school or college, that went much past World War II. Considered too controversial.Uzique wrote:
lowing it's just another module, essentially, to history and sociology. it's just trying to incorporate recent social progressions and historical movements into the official syllabus of history teaching. what's the problem? some of the most definitive social change of the 20th century have been for civil rights of the individual. do you have a problem teaching about black rights in school? the fact is, whether or not you like it, that most of the cultural change and academic 'progress' since the 1960's onwards has been in the disciplines of feminism and homosexuality. i see no problem in trying to address the historical 'black hole' from the 1950's onwards (or the decline of the official civil rights movement) to acknowledge that, yes, what has actually been happening has been a smaller and quiter revolution in sexuality. what's the problem? are you opposed to teaching history as it stands and as it factually is, or are you offended because much of later 20th century western social history concerns queers? i suspect it's the latter, old man.
we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
youre an outlier
Tu Stultus Es
You already learn about the Ancient Greeks in school.
There's no problem with this as long as they carry it out well so you won't even notice. My APUSH book was written in such a sense that they shoehorned the accomplishments of women in every single event to the extent that it became a running joke in the class. The law seems a bit strange though, because there's always people who get screwed out of history by whatever reason. I reckon you can't talk about the Bletchley Park operation without mentioning Alan Turing and, like someone said, discuss 19th century literature without Wilde.
There's no problem with this as long as they carry it out well so you won't even notice. My APUSH book was written in such a sense that they shoehorned the accomplishments of women in every single event to the extent that it became a running joke in the class. The law seems a bit strange though, because there's always people who get screwed out of history by whatever reason. I reckon you can't talk about the Bletchley Park operation without mentioning Alan Turing and, like someone said, discuss 19th century literature without Wilde.
i get the feeling that lowing would prefer teaching of history to be 'traditional', by which he blindly accepts and means the quasi-hegelian, amero/eurocentric, western-cultural view of history... in the same way that 'traditional' history teaching and traditional conceptions of history in 1880's france or 1920's england were essentially imperialist epistemological annexations. no thanks. i'm all for open history.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
and the only black people that are mentioned are crispus attucks, george washington carver, martin luther king and bill cosby
Tu Stultus Es
it's pretty easy to talk about 19th century literature without wilde.DesertFox- wrote:
You already learn about the Ancient Greeks in school.
There's no problem with this as long as they carry it out well so you won't even notice. My APUSH book was written in such a sense that they shoehorned the accomplishments of women in every single event to the extent that it became a running joke in the class. The law seems a bit strange though, because there's always people who get screwed out of history by whatever reason. I reckon you can't talk about the Bletchley Park operation without mentioning Alan Turing and, like someone said, discuss 19th century literature without Wilde.
also this huge misconception that all greeks were flaming homosexuals is really, really stupid. clearly people don't learn much about ancient greece. pederasty in militant sparta and poetic decadence in other city states =/= the entire of ancient greece. ancient greece was pretty much one of the most intolerant collectives of belligerent and narrow-minded tribes. stupid ignorance.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
don't forget frederick douglasseleven bravo wrote:
and the only black people that are mentioned are crispus attucks, george washington carver, martin luther king and bill cosby
or du bois
Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-06 09:39:46)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
he might be a little too militant for him, plus he got with a white woman and interracial relationships are too taboo
Tu Stultus Es
uncle tom's cabin is the second most popular book ever sold in america next to the bible
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
du bois was hardcore anti assimilation. he didnt want black people to try and act like white people.
Tu Stultus Es
i spent 4 months reading just about everything worth reading in the harlem renaissance. mumbo jumbo is the best, imo.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Because wether or not George Washington was gay has absolutely no bearing regarding his contributions to history. I do not care, nor does history, what Lincoln did in the bedroom as straight guy, but if he were gay, NOW it is historically relevant and we are supposed to consider that? Yeah right.Uzique wrote:
lowing it's just another module, essentially, to history and sociology. it's just trying to incorporate recent social progressions and historical movements into the official syllabus of history teaching. what's the problem? some of the most definitive social change of the 20th century have been for civil rights of the individual. do you have a problem teaching about black rights in school? the fact is, whether or not you like it, that most of the cultural change and academic 'progress' since the 1960's onwards has been in the disciplines of feminism and homosexuality. i see no problem in trying to address the historical 'black hole' from the 1950's onwards (or the decline of the official civil rights movement) to acknowledge that, yes, what has actually been happening has been a smaller and quiter revolution in sexuality. what's the problem? are you opposed to teaching history as it stands and as it factually is, or are you offended because much of later 20th century western social history concerns queers? i suspect it's the latter, old man.
we are constantly revising our account of history according to current social norms, views and expectations - constantly looking backwards to review what has happened through a different, shifting perspective. just as most historians were keen to view everything through the lenses of marxist criticism when it enjoyed a left-wing academic vogue, so now people are keen to look back at gender politics and the influence of sexuality on history. i see absolutely no problem with looking at history through a varied method of different critical perspectives. no one account of history is necessarily any more important or right than the other-- it's all a matter of application.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-06 10:29:36)
There is some debate as to whether Lincoln was bisexual or not.