|
The Tucson Unified School District has stated that it did NOT ban any books: The texts in question have not been removed from the school libraries. They were removed from classrooms and placed in storage because Mexican-American Studies (the course that used them) is not currently being taught.
According to the AZCentral news website (Quoting a statement from TUSD spokeswoman Cara Rene):
Rene said the seven books removed from the classrooms were: "Critical Race Theory" by Richard Delgado; "500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures" edited by Elizabeth Martinez; "Message to AZTLAN" by Rodolfo Corky Gonzales; "Chicano! The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement" by Arturo Rosales; "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos" by Rodolfo Acuña; "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire; and "Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years" by Bill Bigelow.
Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, was not banned either.
Many of the ideas in this thread are very worthy of discussion, and I think it's vital that the conversation amongst us continue.
Nonetheless, if the above information from Sir_Wulf is correct, the original premise and direction of this thread has been invalidated.
Unfortunately, new readers will open it, read my originating post, and become immediately inired.
It may be best to close this thread and someone might begin a new one to continue some of the ancillary aspects under discussion.
It is important to note that the students are continuing their respective lawsuit against the state of Arizona.
If a teacher teaches to hate, you take his arse in court as it's a criminal offense (incitation to hate)That's not a crime in the us, in fact its protected speech as far as criminal charges go. (what the school districts want taught on their dime is another mater)
About the only thing you can be criminally charged with for speech in the us is "Go kill that guy!" . "That guy killed your dog , took your job, and wants to BBQ your children on a spit!" is very hard to prosecute even AFTER someone has taken the obvious steps to remedy the situation.
Thanks for the information. As "incitation to hate" is a serious crime here in Canada, I assumed it was also the case in the USA.
It is important to note that the students are continuing their respective lawsuit against the state of Arizona.
That's because they have a case.
There's a strong revisionist element to far-right politics, and the decision to remove the texts is a political one.
It is important to note that the students are continuing their respective lawsuit against the state of Arizona.That's because they have a case.
There's a strong revisionist element to far-right politics, and the decision to remove the texts is a political one.
I believe that to be true of BOTH sides.
After having read the article you linked to I can't see why the students think that this is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
Unless the school system has changed dramatically since I went 20+ years ago students didn't get to chose what classes they took other than electives.
You could go into shop or carpentry if you were a guy and the girls could chose either home ec. or dance/drama. Everybody had to take English, Math, science and the other core subjects. I don't think Mexican American studies qualifies as a core subject so I fail to see why they feel it's a free speech issue. To quote a passage from the article "Course titles and curriculums changed immediately. Chicano history became American history. Chicano literature became English literature"
I see nothing wrong with this broader focus.
Provided it actually is a broader focus and not just whitewash, I'm all for it. Hit me up with some evidence and I'm all good.
It is important to note that the students are continuing their respective lawsuit against the state of Arizona.That's because they have a case.
There's a strong revisionist element to far-right politics, and the decision to remove the texts is a political one.
I believe that to be true of BOTH sides.
After having read the article you linked to I can't see why the students think that this is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
Unless the school system has changed dramatically since I went 20+ years ago students didn't get to chose what classes they took other than electives.
You could go into shop or carpentry if you were a guy and the girls could chose either home ec. or dance/drama. Everybody had to take English, Math, science and the other core subjects. I don't think Mexican American studies qualifies as a core subject so I fail to see why they feel it's a free speech issue. To quote a passage from the article "Course titles and curriculums changed immediately. Chicano history became American history. Chicano literature became English literature"I see nothing wrong with this broader focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a strong revisionist element to far-right politics, and the decision to remove the texts is a political one.
I believe that to be true of BOTH sides.
I 've never seen anyone really going left enough for a high school course. An accurate assessment of us history and the tale of a genocidal expansionist empire that quickly became the very thing it allegedly rallied against are pretty much the same.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The kids don't need any class other than a true broad overview of U.S. History with all the mistakes and triumphs included.All the mistakes? Have mercy! They're just kids - they don't deserve the punishment of having to endure the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Phillipines occupation and the history of tetra-ethyl leaded gasoline!
Yes. Yes they do. Learning that your government will take a bribe to hand out our collective natural resources to line their private pockets, commit genocide for its own benefit, and let companies sell you things that will kill everyone around you should be the entire POINT of history class. If you don't walk out of a history class thinking "well that's just *&%(&'ed up" the teacher probably isn't doing their job.
People have this idea of a supernaturally moral government that existed in the past (at the revolution, the civil war (on both sides), and world war two. Then they wonder why our current government isn't that great. It gives them the idea that they can somehow return our government to that level of morality. That of course is patently absurd because that level of morality existed. IF its even possible to achieve the way has to be forward, not back.
...The kids don't need any class other than a true broad overview of U.S. History with all the mistakes and triumphs included.All the mistakes? Have mercy! They're just kids - they don't deserve the punishment of having to endure the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Phillipines occupation and the history of tetra-ethyl leaded gasoline!Yes. Yes they do. Learning that your government will take a bribe to hand out our collective natural resources to line their private pockets, commit genocide for its own benefit, and let companies sell you things that will kill everyone around you should be the entire POINT of history class. If you don't walk out of a history class thinking "well that's just *&%(&'ed up" the teacher probably isn't doing their job.
People have this idea of a supernaturally moral government that existed in the past (at the revolution, the civil war (on both sides), and world war two. Then they wonder why our current government isn't that great. It gives them the idea that they can somehow return our government to that level of morality. That of course is patently absurd because that level of morality existed. IF its even possible to achieve the way has to be forward, not back.
+Infinity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The kids don't need any class other than a true broad overview of U.S. History with all the mistakes and triumphs included.All the mistakes? Have mercy! They're just kids - they don't deserve the punishment of having to endure the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Phillipines occupation and the history of tetra-ethyl leaded gasoline!Yes. Yes they do. Learning that your government will take a bribe to hand out our collective natural resources to line their private pockets, commit genocide for its own benefit, and let companies sell you things that will kill everyone around you should be the entire POINT of history class. If you don't walk out of a history class thinking "well that's just *&%(&'ed up" the teacher probably isn't doing their job.
People have this idea of a supernaturally moral government that existed in the past (at the revolution, the civil war (on both sides), and world war two. Then they wonder why our current government isn't that great. It gives them the idea that they can somehow return our government to that level of morality. That of course is patently absurd because that level of morality existed. IF its even possible to achieve the way has to be forward, not back.
It's a common them on the right to "restore" America to some past greatness. Apparently, we were once a Christian nation, and a beacon of all that is good to the whole world.
If that's all you want kids to learn, you have no business legislating history curricula at all. Teaching a past that never was falls under religion, which should not be taught in public schools.
Freehold,
Lets check back in 10-12 years and see. The new program has been in place days? weeks? not the years that the other questionable program had.
BigNorseWolf;
I 've never seen anyone really going left enough for a high school course. An accurate assessment of us history and the tale of a genocidal expansionist empire that quickly became the very thing it allegedly rallied against are pretty much the same.
? I think you and I must have gotten different teachings in our high schools. I don't remember anything like that. Sure we forcibly relocated the Indians, expanded westward AFTER purchasing the land from the french, then we bought the rest of the west from the government(at that time) of Mexico or in the case of Texas and California they joined the union after being granted their own sovereignty. Everything the government did as far as expansion was legally purchased.
I understand the crimes and atrocities committed against the Indians didn't stop just from herding them onto reservations or the kidnapping of their children to force them to assimilate but the agreements between the governments that owned the land took precedent and ownership was then changed.
...The kids don't need any class other than a true broad overview of U.S. History with all the mistakes and triumphs included.All the mistakes? Have mercy! They're just kids - they don't deserve the punishment of having to endure the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Phillipines occupation and the history of tetra-ethyl leaded gasoline!Yes. Yes they do. Learning that your government will take a bribe to hand out our collective natural resources to line their private pockets, commit genocide for its own benefit, and let companies sell you things that will kill everyone around you should be the entire POINT of history class. If you don't walk out of a history class thinking "well that's just *&%(&'ed up" the teacher probably isn't doing their job.
People have this idea of a supernaturally moral government that existed in the past (at the revolution, the civil war (on both sides), and world war two. Then they wonder why our current government isn't that great. It gives them the idea that they can somehow return our government to that level of morality. That of course is patently absurd because that level of morality existed. IF its even possible to achieve the way has to be forward, not back.
It's a common them on the right to "restore" America to some past greatness. Apparently, we were once a Christian nation, and a beacon of all that is good to the whole world.
If that's all you want kids to learn, you have no business legislating history curricula at all. Teaching a past that never was falls under religion, which should not be taught in public schools.
*super heavy snark* Kind of like the mythical place called Aztlan. *end snark*
I think you and I must have gotten different teachings in our high schools. I don't remember anything like that. Sure we forcibly relocated the Indians, expanded westward AFTER purchasing the land from the french, then we bought the rest of the west from the government(at that time) of Mexico or in the case of Texas and California they joined the union after being granted their own sovereignty. Everything the government did as far as expansion was legally purchased.
O_O You actually believe that? Wow.
Remember Indian Territory?
*super heavy snark* Kind of like the mythical place called Aztlan. *end snark*
Except it's not religion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
? I think you and I must have gotten different teachings in our high schools. I don't remember anything like that. Sure we forcibly relocated the Indians, expanded westward AFTER purchasing the land from the french, then we bought the rest of the west from the government(at that time) of Mexico or in the case of Texas and California they joined the union after being granted their own sovereignty. Everything the government did as far as expansion was legally purchased.
Thank you.
This is exactly WHY we need to teach history and not the pap they get in highschool.
Would you care to explain how exactly we purchased land that the native Americans had been living on for 10,000 years, were still living on, and that neither the french nor americans had even SEEN yet from Napolean Bonapart?
I understand the crimes and atrocities committed against the Indians didn't stop just from herding them onto reservations or the kidnapping of their children to force them to assimilate but the agreements between the governments that owned the land took precedent and ownership was then changed.
The native americans had 100% of the land east of the mississippi. They now have less than 1%. What were they given for that? The US set one tribe against another, slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death, raped pillaged and raided them onto reservations, and then as soon as we wanted that reservation repeated the process over and over.
Kelsey,
The Indians didn't have a recognized form of government. They were exposed to the concept of higher government but didn't participate because the idea was too foreign to them.
BDEspada,
Ok ya got me on that one. It isn't a religion but it's still a belief based on myth of past events that never occurred. The concept of Aztaln being in what is now the U.S. was never even thought of until the 60's or early 70's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kelsey,
The Indians didn't have a recognized form of government. They were exposed to the concept of higher government but didn't participate because the idea was too foreign to them.
Never had higher government? Patently false. Ever heard of the Five Civilized Tribes? The Iroquois Confederacy?
Plus, not having higher government doesn't change the fact that the land was stolen from them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW,
as to your first question: Would you care to explain how exactly we purchased land that the native Americans had been living on for 10,000 years, were still living on, and that neither the french nor americans had even SEEN yet from Napoleon Bonaparte?
Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government.
I remember it being a big deal that the Indians had a written language AFTER the concept was introduced by the settlers.
your second question: The native americans had 100% of the land east of the mississippi. They now have less than 1%. What were they given for that?
they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers and other atrocities that can't be undone. I agree with your sentiment but I ain't giving my land back and I don't think anyone else is either.
The US set one tribe against another, I will have to disagree with you on that one because they were waring amongst themselves long before settlers came over. The ones that allied themselves with the superior technology are still here.
slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death,the buffalo were out of control and disrupting commerce. Nonlethal methods were used to try and remove them from the railroad tracks but they had to be culled just like any other over populated animal species.
raped pillaged and raided them onto reservations, and then as soon as we wanted that reservation repeated the process over and over.
their still there aren't they. I recall many times passing through this res or that when I was partying throughout the 4 corners area and elsewhere. One thing noone can seem to explain to me is. If the reservations are so horrible why not leave. Move to a city and get a better job, start a farm do something instead of sitting back and collecting a government check because you belong to a certain ethnic group. I don't recall seeing armed guards stopping the native peoples from leaving the reservations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BDEspada,
Ok ya got me on that one. It isn't a religion but it's still a belief based on myth of past events that never occurred. The concept of Aztaln being in what is now the U.S. was never even thought of until the 60's or early 70's.
Right, Kelsey. And I'll take this one.
In Chicano folklore, Aztlan is often appropriated as the name for that portion of Mexico that was taken over by the United States after the Mexican-American War of 1846, on the belief that this greater area represents the point of parting of the Aztec migrations. In broad interpretation, there is some truth to this in the sense that all of the groups that would subsequently become the various Nahuatl-speaking peoples of central Mexico passed through this region in a prehistoric epoch, as attested by the existence of linguistically related groups of people distributed throughout the US Pacific Intermountain region, the US southwest and northern Mexico, known as the Uto-Aztecan-Tanoan group, and including such peoples as the Paiute, Shoshoni, Hopi, Pima, Yaqui, Tepehuan, Rarámuri (Tarahumara), Kiowas and Mayas.
Ten twelve YEARS!? You are far more patient than I. Let's compromise on ten twelve months. And how long was the original program in place? I'm curious.
Freehold,
Lets check back in 10-12 years and see. The new program has been in place days? weeks? not the years that the other questionable program had.BigNorseWolf;
I 've never seen anyone really going left enough for a high school course. An accurate assessment of us history and the tale of a genocidal expansionist empire that quickly became the very thing it allegedly rallied against are pretty much the same.? I think you and I must have gotten different teachings in our high schools. I don't remember anything like that. Sure we forcibly relocated the Indians, expanded westward AFTER purchasing the land from the french, then we bought the rest of the west from the government(at that time) of Mexico or in the case of Texas and California they joined the union after being granted their own sovereignty. Everything the government did as far as expansion was legally purchased.
I understand the crimes and atrocities committed against the Indians didn't stop just from herding them onto reservations or the kidnapping of their children to force them to assimilate but the agreements between the governments that owned the land took precedent and ownership was then changed.
Given the history, i can see why they would be reluctant to leave a plot of land en mass. I would also add your pov is a bit simplistic -reservations and their history are a complicated matter.
BNW,
as to your first question: Would you care to explain how exactly we purchased land that the native Americans had been living on for 10,000 years, were still living on, and that neither the french nor americans had even SEEN yet from Napoleon Bonaparte?Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government.
I remember it being a big deal that the Indians had a written language AFTER the concept was introduced by the settlers.your second question: The native americans had 100% of the land east of the mississippi. They now have less than 1%. What were they given for that?
they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers and other atrocities that can't be undone. I agree with your sentiment but I ain't giving my land back and I don't think anyone else is either.
The US set one tribe against another, I will have to disagree with you on that one because they were waring amongst themselves long before settlers came over. The ones that allied themselves with the superior technology are still here.slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death,the buffalo were out of control and disrupting commerce. Nonlethal methods were used to try and remove them from the railroad tracks but they had to be culled just like any other over populated animal species.
raped pillaged and raided them onto reservations, and then as soon as we wanted that reservation repeated the process over and over.
their still there aren't they. I recall many times passing through this res or that when I was partying throughout the 4 corners area and elsewhere. One thing noone can seem to explain to me is. If the reservations are so horrible why not leave. Move to a city and get a better job, start a farm do something instead of sitting back and collecting a government check because you belong to a certain ethnic group. I don't recall seeing armed guards stopping the native peoples from...
Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government.
I remember it being a big deal that the Indians had a written language AFTER the concept was introduced by the settlers.
Oh common, that land was stolen.
Why in the world the natives would have to have bowed to foreign laws?And besides US is not particularly recognized for it adherence to international laws
international law? A bit sketchy. Treaties with natives of this land? Laughably bad.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because according to the governing bodies of international law the land was NOT theirs due to the fact that they had no standing army, no government, none of the basic qualifications for a government.
I remember it being a big deal that the Indians had a written language AFTER the concept was introduced by the settlers.
WHAT governing bodies of international law? The UN was still 200 years away.
Are you familiar with the concept of a quit claim deed?
England, France, and all get together in a room and decide "this is what you need in order to be considered a government.. great! everyone's in agreement. Now we can take everyone elses land"
If an alien showed up and said "Hi. I now own your planet. All 6 billion of you are going to have to move to alaska. Our Federation has declared that you're not really a government since you're not planet wide. We'll be genetically engineering diseases to whipe out your food supplies and putting drop pods of protien paste into alaska every 6 months or so." would that be fair?
What you're saying is the very ideas that a good history education is supposed show the absurdity of.
The idea that they didn't have governments is patently false.
It would be a strange thing if Six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a scheme for such an union, and be able to execute it in such a manner as that it has subsisted ages and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies, to whom it is more necessary and must be more advantageous, and who cannot be supposed to want an equal understanding of their interests.-Ben Franklin
Nor is the idea that if only they had had governments and a civilized way of life they wouldn't have been pushed off their land.
In 1827, the Cherokee Nation drafted a Constitution modeled on the United States, with executive, legislative and judicial branches and a system of checks and balances. The two-tiered legislature was led by Major Ridge and his son John Ridge. Convinced the tribe's survival required English-speaking leaders who could negotiate with the U.S., the legislature appointed John Ross as Principal Chief. A printing press was established at New Echota by the Vermont missionary Samuel Worcester and Major Ridge's nephew Elias Boudinot, who had taken the name of his white benefactor, a leader of the Continental Congress and New Jersey Congressman. They translated the Bible was translated into Cherokee syllabary. Boudinot published the first edition of the bilingual 'Cherokee Phoenix,' the first American Indian newspaper, in February 1828.[27] -wiki
They did have governments.
They did try assimilating.
Governments halfway around the world have no right to give away other people's stuff.
None of that matters, because people had the strength to FORCE them to give up their stuff.
they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers and other atrocities that can't be undone. I agree with your sentiment but I ain't giving my land back and I don't think anyone else is either.
And note that I have not said, stated, or even implied that this is should be done. That's not the point of history class. The point is to figure out what happened and WHY it happened. You're wrong on both fronts: Your information is incorrect and your argument doesn't even follow from those premises.
The US set one tribe against another, I will have to disagree with you on that one because they were waring amongst themselves long before settlers came over. The ones that allied themselves with the superior technology are still here.
The Europeans severely exacerbated the situation. They fought each other, they raided for women, livestock, and corn
I can look up the exact quote and circumstances if you want, but there was one incident when the colonists were allied with one indian tribe against another. The colonists fought the enemy tribe into one of that tribes forts , and set fire to it, killing everyone. The allied tribes reaction was basically "... what the hell? You're taking this war thing WAY too seriously" and the european response was "Huh? I thought these guys were your enemies?"
I don't think that this is because of any kind of genetic superior morality: I think its just a matter of a lack of power disparity. When you have bows and arrows and they have bows anr arrows genocide isreally more trouble than its worth. When you have guns and they have bows, it becomes worth it. When you have tanks and they have guns, it becomes worth it again.
slaughtered the buffalo to starve them to death,the buffalo were out of control and disrupting commerce. Nonlethal methods were used to try and remove them from the railroad tracks but they had to be culled just like any other over populated animal species.
... what on earth makes you think that the bison were overpopulated? They'd been maintaining a more or less stable population for ~40,000+ years (when the native americans whiped out most other megafauna) with the native americans, wolves, disease etc. maintaining the population.
If anything the re introduction of the horse into america and its adoption by the natives for hunting would have been dropping their numbers.
The buffalo were only "overpopulated" in that you couldn't put cattle on the land. Cattle do well with being fenced in in comparatively small areas.
Why do you need to fence them in? So you can keep YOUR cattle separate from everyone elses.
I recall many times passing through this res or that when I was partying throughout the 4 corners area and elsewhere. One thing noone can seem to explain to me is. If the reservations are so horrible why not leave. Move to a city and get a better job, start a farm do something instead of sitting back and collecting a government check because you belong to a certain ethnic group. I don't recall seeing armed guards stopping the native peoples from...
This would be a question for a modern social studies class, not history. The fact is that squeezing them into smaller and worse land time after time is what happened. How much blame you want to assign to individuals and how much to historic circumstances is up to you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Indians didn't have a recognized form of government. They were exposed to the concept of higher government but didn't participate because the idea was too foreign to them.
Read THIS. The Founding Fathers got a lot of their ideas of how a representative government should look (strong states rights, but a central government contributed to with representatives from each) from the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations. Don't take my word for it; read theirs -- much of the Framers' correspondence has been preserved, and it makes for interesting reading.
Well if they had governments, and those governments signed treaties giving up their ancestral lands, well what is the issue again?
Yeah, I know, they were forced into those treaties by a superior and belligerent force. And how is that different than 99% of the interaction between groups of people throughout human history, including things that happened before the blue-eyed devil ever made it to the "new world".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a museum in New York, near where John Jay used to live, I saw a wampum belt and accompanying treaty between the Iroquois and the United States. IIRC, it promised the Six Nations would retain their lands into perpetuity, unless they wanted to join the U.S., in which case their lands became states (rather than being part of New York State as actually occurred), and they could send representatives to Congress like any other states. We can see how well the U.S. kept the terms of that treaty. The only nod to it now is that some of the reservations require passports, and they're allowed to have casinos even though the rest of NY isn't.
In other words, they didn't sign a treaty that gave up their lands. They signed a treaty that made them partners, and THEN the U.S. dicked them over. And, yeah, there's a historical precedent for dicking over one's neighbors -- but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or that we should teach it doesn't happen. Lots of people have committed murder in the past, too, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) go out and do it.
Well if they had governments, and those governments signed treaties giving up their ancestral lands, well what is the issue again?
Yeah, I know, they were forced into those treaties by a superior and belligerent force. And how is that different than 99% of the interaction between groups of people throughout human history, including things that happened before the blue-eyed devil ever made it to the "new world".
Speed, brutality, totality, and the ability of people to write it down and pass it onto history as it was happening.
Take the romans for example. Evil expansionist empire. They move into an area, force people to cede their land, the armies rape and pilliage a bit.
What you don't see is them exterminating people. 1) they can't 2) there's no point to it. Romans spread out, but there wasn't enough military advantage between the legions and the peasants and a whole bunch of angry germans with big axes to make any sense to wipe them out. Its better to take their taxes home than kill them all.
With the native americans not only is the technology different, but far more importantly was the disease resistance. Decimated is an understatement for what european diseases did to the native populations (and outside of a few smallpox infected blankets, this at least wasn't the europeans fault. The idea that a healthy person could spread diseases they weren't suffering from was a few centuries away). It opened up a lot of empty space that was already cleared and ready farm, and left the remaining natives unable to push back against the waves of incoming Europeans.
In other words, they didn't sign a treaty that gave up their lands. They signed a treaty that made them partners, and THEN the U.S. dicked them over. And, yeah, there's a historical precedent for dicking over one's neighbors -- but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or that we should teach it doesn't happen. Lots of people have committed murder in the past, too, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) go out and do it.
We definitely should teach it, and we should teach that such things happen through out history between all kinds of people. Europeans aren't the only ones to "dick over" others. I have no doubt that the Six Nations probably did plenty of "dicking over" other native american nations long before the blue-eyed devils ever made an appearance.
Does that make it right? Certainly not. But it does make it human. Humans often "dick over" each other and other groups of humans. Let's learn from the lessons of the past, but lets not keep heaping blame on people that weren't even a thought in their ancestors' (many of which have various bloodlines of different groups of people) wildest dreams. Whites didn't suppress the native americans, the whites of that time that were in power did.
We definitely should teach it, and we should teach that such things happen through out history between all kinds of people. Europeans aren't the only ones to "dick over" others
Not the only, just the best. Why?
We definitely should teach it, and we should teach that such things happen through out history between all kinds of people. Europeans aren't the only ones to "dick over" othersNot the only, just the best. Why?
Do you mean "Eurasians" are the best at this?
Off-Topic: You know this discussion reminds me of the Man-Kzin series. Man had given up warfare. After the Kzin began attacking them, the Kzin learned why Man had given up warfare, they were too damn good at it and would have destroy themselves. That ability was then turned on the Kzin.
We definitely should teach it, and we should teach that such things happen through out history between all kinds of people. Europeans aren't the only ones to "dick over" othersNot the only, just the best. Why?
Do you mean "Eurasians" are the best at this?
Off-Topic: You know this discussion reminds me of the Man-Kzin series. Man had given up warfare. After the Kzin began attacking them, the Kzin learned why Man had given up warfare, they were too damn good at it and would have destroy themselves. That ability was then turned on the Kzin.
Who's the author and how old is the series. It sounds imteresting.
Who's the author and how old is the series. It sounds imteresting.
Larry Niven is the original author, but main series of books about the War actually has had several other sci-fi writers work in it, always with Niven's final say over what happens in his universe. The Kzinti even made a showing on the Star Trek: The Animate Series back in the day (so Niven's work has been around for several decades). The Kilrathi from Wing Commander are basically a rip off of the Kzinti.
Agricultural tangent:(Many of the civilizations in north america were agricultural before the advent of european colonization. They regressed a bit more towards hunting and gathering because Europeans were so much better at farming with horses and plows )From what I understand, it wasn't so much because the Europeans were better as because the population had been, as you said, more than devastated by disease. Population levels crashed below the point where intensive agriculture was necessary. This happened in advance of European colonization. The first explorers infected those they met on the coastlines and the diseases were passed westward along native trade routes.
Nope. Remember that the natives were showing the pilgrims the benefits of fish as fertilizer, and that the pilgrims were raiding burried stores of corn (along with the dead people) when they got off the boat.
Horses, oxen and plows WORK. Very very well. Once the europeans started going, there simply wasn't any reason for the natives to grow food for them, or even their own. It was far, far easier for the natives to hunt deer or fur and trade it to the colonists for grown food, metal weapons/tools, and alcohol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Continuing off-topic, if anyone hasn't caught Niven's fantasy stuff, it's as good or better than his SciFi -- his story "What Good Is a Glass Dagger" is a classic in the genre. His SciFi/Mystery blends ("Gil the ARM") are awesome as well, if you like mysteries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whites didn't suppress the native americans, the whites of that time that were in power did.
This is true, just as the whites of the time I was in high school who were in power suppressed the history of what happened, to make those previous whites look better. I'd agree it's equally egregious to "blame it all on whitey" -- but that still leaves a VERY wide area in between.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real reason I see in not teaching the historical events in the most objetive way is that deniying the mistakes of the past people would not recognize the mistakes in the present.
And besides if somebody is cool with not teaching those events for any reason, why that somebody have to be bottered with the events in the WW2? it sees that the only event that are worthy tobe narrated are the ones on where the U.S. is the heroe.
Teaching just one side of the coin is a mistake, for example how much of the population of the US have problems understanding the hatred that so many people of the middle east have against the US?
to be more especific, how many people in the US understand the severe repulsion that a lot of people from iran have against the US? ( a tip, it have to be with democracy and oil)
Well said.
I would think that most, if not all countries with educational systems try to teach history in a light that makes their country seem "righteous," by at least some measure.
A friend told me that in Japan, they don't teach that Japan started the war with the US until college. I don't know this from personal observation, so I may be wrong. Let's not argue the fact that the US played a major role in making that happen.
"Blood for oil" has been a big part of our "foreign policy" since Bush I, and well before.
This sort of whitewashing of history is a disservice to kids everywhere, and letting politicians and zealots decide curriculum is, and has always been, a bad thing in Iran or the US.
At least here, it can be debated. We are, however, inundated with the drums of war IRT Iran, and this is another case of an underinformed populace going along with media propaganda. Iran's no more a threat to our security than Iraq was. Smoke and mirrors, based on blind patriotism.
to be more especific, how many people in the US understand the severe repulsion that a lot of people from iran have against the US? ( a tip, it have to be with democracy and oil)
Very few. Because America doesn't bomb people for oil. We fight for freedom and democracy, mom, apple pie and tight jeans! Just look at all that stuff where America has been the good guy: the American revolution, the civil war, world war two. I've never seen anything in history class where America was the bad guy, so why should I think we're the bad guy now...
A couple of years ago there was a polemic in asia because japan erase from their books of history the part that describe the atrocities that the japan army did during WW2.A friend told me that in Japan, they don't teach that Japan started the war with the US until college. I don't know this from personal observation, so I may be wrong. Let's not argue the fact that the US played a major role in making that happen.
There are a lot of things about Japan vs. Us that haven't been taught until recently. Few people know of the rather sketchy embargo the US placed on Japan either.
There are a lot of things about Japan vs. Us that haven't been taught until recently. Few people know of the rather sketchy embargo the US placed on Japan either.A couple of years ago there was a polemic in asia because japan erase from their books of history the part that describe the atrocities that the japan army did during WW2.A friend told me that in Japan, they don't teach that Japan started the war with the US until college. I don't know this from personal observation, so I may be wrong. Let's not argue the fact that the US played a major role in making that happen.
There we were, a nice, peaceful country, just minding our own business and enjoying all the freedom and prosperity our government creates, when out of the blue, those nasty _______________s just attacked us for no reason, except to enslave the world to their inferior political and/or religious system.
|
There are a lot of things about Japan vs. Us that haven't been taught until recently. Few people know of the rather sketchy embargo the US placed on Japan either.
There we were, a nice, peaceful country, just minding our own business and enjoying all the freedom and prosperity our government creates, when out of the blue, those nasty _______________s just attacked us for no reason, except to enslave the world to their inferior political and/or religious system.
Wow, really? I've held my tongue at the 'blame America first' sentiments loudly and proudly voiced in this thread but I can't let that one go.
The embargo, while perhaps misguided in the belief that it may prevent a war with Japan, was hardly 'sketchy'. Japan had been invading their Asian neighbors for NINE years by that point. Cutting off gas and oil was intended to halt the conquest, not serve some 'white devils are going to take over the world' master plan.
But was it some '9/11 was an inside job' style conspiracy to bring us into WW2? Give me a break, go back and watch your 'Loose Change: Nth edition- All new allegations after all our old ones have been debunked!' video.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it has been pointed out that education is mostly decided on the local or state level in US, so there can certainly be wide differences in what is taught, so I won't try to say my education experience is the same as everyone elses. But when I went to school, a couple of decades ago, we certainly learned about some of the less than flattering things in the past of the country. Not all of them of course, who has the time, but it wasn't just honey and roses either.
|
|
Husein was supported because iran was percieved as a threat > Iran was percievedas a thread because of the iranian revolution > people form iran rebelled against the Shah because he was a Tyrant (it is a shame that the ayatollah stole that revolution) > The Shah governed iran because US and Britain Puted im in charge > they do it because they want cheap oil.
So US and anothres destroyed a good democracy just for cheap oil.
In this case we can blame US first.
At risk of derailing the thread I'll have to go ahead and say 'Nu-Uh.'
I assume you're taken in by modern (21st century) revisionism. There's plenty of it to go around.
You'd be more correct to say:
Hussein was supported because Iran was perceived to be a threat. Plus, he was one of 'our despots' as opposed to one of Russia's (Syria, Egypt..)
Iran was perceived to be a threat because of the Iranian Revolution (at least we didn't need to worry about the USSR moving in, the Ayatollahs hated 'godless commies' even more than we did.. hence settling for supporting a petty despot such as Hussein as a counter against them. We even encouraged him to invade Iran...)
The Shah was overthrown because he lost control of the clerics and was demonized as being 'too secular' for doing things like recognizing Israel's right to exist, giving women the right to vote etc. Sure, he could uncharitably also be labelled a tyrant.. and that he was installed by the west certainly didn't help his case. It's not too bad the Ayatollahs took over.. they engineered the revolution to begin with. (college studends then and especially now just so hate to think they'd be gullible enough to be the pawns of 'backwards, old curmudgeons'..)
So, to be clear, yes the UK and the US overthrew a democratically elected government because it nationalized a British Oil company in Iran. Most noble of endeavors? Clearly not. Was that Iranian government a 'good democray'? Well if nothing else, they broke contract with Britain and one might uncharitably say they stole the oil infrastructure (if not the rights to the oil in the ground itself) from the Brits... one might similarly say the UK and US were stealing it back with the coup. If one were inclined to paint the UK in the bad light, one might say they exploited the 1950's American paranoia with the USSR and convinced us that the Reds were behind the post WWII crumbling of the British empire.
But anyway.. what's my point?
My point is it's hardly a case of 'blame the US first' due to the rather substantial role and involvement of the UK. Secondly, we're talking ancient history for many webbies.. this stuff happened >60 years ago, hardly the 'in the past 10 years' it's made to sound.