White history month?

[Hiroji]

Within the calendar year we celebrate black history etc...

Do you think it’s only fair that we should include a 'celebrate white history' month?

Are you proud to be a white person? Or is our history too steeped in negativity to be celebrated?

Do you think it holds true that most of the bad in the world today is a creation of the white man? Or is it a case of the white man developing the means necessary in fairly recent times to influence the way we have, and if another race had developed it they would have done the same?

Be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

[slipthejab]

*makes a big tub of popcorn and get sets for a nice long thread of sparks flying. :D

[tom pain]

Do you think it’s only fair that we should include a 'celebrate white history' month?

I don't think we celebrate 'white history' because we didn't have the problems to overcome that the blacks did.

[Ular Sawa]

Generally, the history of Europe is what is focused on in most school systems so it's not necessary. Many people in the States are proud of their European heritage whether it's Irish, Scottish, Polish, Italian or in my case English. It's not a case of being proud to be white.

[Chimpcheng]

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. The minute I feel my chimpy sense tingling then it's locked and the key thrown away forever.

Keep it nice peeps. :)

[slipthejab]

forever even. :p

[Su lin]

*watches the BNP people rubbing their hands together in glee*.............

[Satsui_No_Hadou]

What is the purpose of black history month? To remember the struggles they have faced as a race? What recent struggle have whites as a race had?

[Chimpcheng]

forever even. :p

Dunno what you mean slips... :confused:

[slipthejab]

Dunno what you mean slips... :confused:

hahaha... you changer-after-typer :D

[Davey Bones]

*sigh*

I'm not even sure I want to comment on this issue, so all I'll say is this: We spend one month of the year on Women's history, Black history, or Gay history. We spend 11 months of the year studying the history of white, straight men.

[Tommy-2guns...]

I dont agree with a white history month but saying that im not to keen on the concept of black history month either, i would rather German history month,french history month,(insert nation here) history month, i think that would be a lot less problematic and doesnt have the stigma attatched to a race history month.

The idea of a black history month seems crazy to me, i mean the term 'black' could apply to any number of African nations with their own history,so to have an umbrella 'black' history month seems wrong, i think focusing on a certain country/nation would be better such as 'Nigerian history month'or 'the history of Uganda week'.

If the project is on the key slave trade years,then have 'slave trade month ' and focus on the aspects of the trade and the ethics of it, perhaps it might be good to talk about the slave trades of many countries aswell, i mean Mostnations have enslaved people,whatever the race of them.

But ethically, i think having a Race/Colour month is flawed in many ways however to Talk of countries give's the country its own sense of identiy within the world without the Race label, i mean i woud rather do 'British culture/history month' rather than the catch all title of 'white week' which could really apply to any number of differing european nations all wth a unique history to itself.

[BGile]

I don't think we celebrate 'white history' because we didn't have the problems to overcome that the blacks did.

Yea, now that is priceless. LOL

Gary

[Satsui_No_Hadou]

We spend 11 months of the year studying the history of white, straight men.
Unless you study ancient greek or roman history. In that case you study bisexual/homosexual white history :P

[Moosey]

We spend 11 months of the year studying the history of white, straight men.
We do?

[Angelus]

*sigh*
We spend 11 months of the year studying the history of white, straight men.
for the most part, yes....

[Chimpcheng]

What recent struggle have whites as a race had?

Caucasians have had in rough in the world of Hip-Hop. If it wasn't for the likes of pioneers such as Eminem and, erm, Vanilla Ice they'd be no where. :D

[cheesypeas]

Caucasians have had in rough in the world of Hip-Hop. If it wasn't for the likes of pioneers such as Eminem and, erm, Vanilla Ice they'd be no where. :D

pmsl!!! :D

[Tommy-2guns...]

What is the purpose of black history month? To remember the struggles they have faced as a race? What recent struggle have whites as a race had?

You cant compare struggles like that,i mean white people face the same hardships as black people, white and black people have been in all the recent wars, face the same diseases,face the same threat of poverty and starvation in some countries. I think your making a racial divide where it isnt necessary in the issue, anyone can suffer,anywhere, of any race and it will happen and happen again until the world ends,white and black people suffer all the time and you cant just out of thin air say black people struggle more.

I dislike the hole concept of the race month!

[bcullen]

As a proud Scandinavian let me say, we are starting to think about almost being sorry for what we did to the English. :D :p

...or not. :D

[Davey Bones]

Unless you study ancient greek or roman history. In that case you study bisexual/homosexual white history :P

True, but we can only mention that aspect of Greco-Roman culture here in the states in June, when schools are out and the kiddies don't have to hear about it ;) Otherwise it's art, architecture, and mythology. We so got the short end of the stick in drawing June as our history month... no one is in school to learn it!

[tom pain]

Yea, now that is priceless. LOL

Gary

What?

[Hiroji]

I don’t agree with any '<insert race> history month'.

I think at school history should be taught in such a way that all the negatives and positives of all cultures and races in the past should be portrayed.

We should learn about the history of the world in a positive and balanced manner.

That way as young people we may grow up with a more educated and balanced sense of what, where and how our history has led us to today, and might help in stopping the 'us and them' factor a little.

[cheesypeas]

As a proud Scandinavian let me say, we are starting to think about almost being sorry for what we did to the English. :D :p

...or not. :D

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :love: :D

[Blake_AE]

All month outside in Toronto, guys are on the sidewalk with pamphlets or booklets on black history month, trying to pass them out. Once I decided I'd take one to read to see what they were focusing on. As I took it, I said thanks and started off. He grabs my arm and says "hey man... we expect a donation!" I said "oh" and handed it back. He got all uppity and says "so what... you thought it was gonna be free for you?!" all condescending like. Well pssshhh... you're sticking it in my face, yeah I thought it was free. I thought you wanted to enlighten me. Everyone ELSE out here handing stuff out is trying their best to give it away free. Except the homeless who sell their paper as a source of income.

So thats my experience with black history month. Nothing to do with race, just poorly managed expectations I suppose.

I think Tommy-2Guns hit the nail on the head though. Black History Month would have to cover an awful lot and seems to miss the point. I think more specific targets should be covered - specific country history, specific time-frame history, specific event history, etc...

I do enjoy reading history, but I don't care to pay for sidewalk history from a guy in a suit shoving it in my face with no indication he is actually selling it.

[Davey Bones]

I don’t agree with any '<insert race> history month'.

I think at school history should be taught in such a way that all the negatives and positives of all cultures and races in the past should be portrayed.

We should learn about the history of the world in a positive and balanced manner.

That way as young people we may grow up with a more educated and balanced sense of what, where and how our history has led us to today, and might help in stopping the 'us and them' factor a little.

In a perfect world, you are 100% CORRECT. Let's lock this down now before Hiroji goers back to his old self and demands a "Transformers History Month"

[Hiroji]

In a perfect world, you are 100% CORRECT. Let's lock this down now before Hiroji goers back to his old self and demands a "Transformers History Month"

LOL!!! :D

[Blake_AE]

As a proud Scandinavian let me say, we are starting to think about almost being sorry for what we did to the English. :D :p

...or not. :D

As an O'Brien, I'm reading some Irish historical fiction (for fun) that is supposed to be historically accurate. Its about Brian Boru so obviously written to make him out to the glorious warrior king he was. :love:

I have to say the "northmen", in particular the Danes are made to look like the most viscious gang of pillagers, murderers, rapists, that ever walked the earth. I can't wait to get more into Scandinavian history. As far as I can tell, any country that set out to expand their empire did the same to whatever natives they found, regardless of whether they set out from a Scandinavian country, England, France, Spain, Portugal... they all seemed to go kill the locals and claim the land as their own.

The Irish however, were happy to stay home and eat, drink and be merry... and fight with themselves whenever they weren't fighting the Danes.

Damn humans are a violent lot. I suppose we wont be around long in the grand scheme of things.

[Yohan]

I think that having any kind of racial history month actually serves to highlight conflict between races and to alienate them from each other. Why not incorporate contributing black inventors and social revolutionaries and whatnot in American history, incorporate cultural history of Africa into world history, etc. I think that EVERYONE (whites, blacks, latinos) all deserve to have a well-rounded historical education, and part of that education should be learning about African culture, and how it has been incorporated into American culture due to the unfortunate slave trade.

[cheesypeas]

I have to say the "northmen", in particular the Danes are made to look like the most viscious gang of pillagers, murderers, rapists, that ever walked the earth. I can't wait to get more into Scandinavian history. As far as I can tell, any country that set out to expand their empire did the same to whatever natives they found, regardless of whether they set out from a Scandinavian country, England, France, Spain, Portugal... they all seemed to go kill the locals and claim the land as their own.

I can only speak about mainland Britain and the 'Vikings'.....The written accounts are almost exclusively written by British Monks, whose Abbeys were destroyed and whose religious artifacts and books were either stolen or trashed. Therefore, the accounts are (very unusually) from the vanquished pov.

Certainly in the Scottish Isles and parts of Eastern England, modern DNA testing has conclusively shown that there was no genicide of the local population, instead there was a great deal of integration.

This is, in part, confirmed by archaeological findings.

The Irish however, were happy to stay home and eat, drink and be merry... and fight with themselves whenever they weren't fighting the Danes.

Errrr...when they wern't repeatedly crossing the sea to raid Cymru. :Alien:

[southern jester]

this could have very easily been why not a white entertainment television or united white college fund kind of argument.

my thoughts on the matter is that blacks represent a minority in this country and would like for thier race to be represented a little more.

have no problem with as much provided there are no racial agendas on either side.

then again if we have months for different races where does it end? native american history month. latino history month......

lets just all be Americans for a change.

[tom pain]

lets just all be Americans for a change.

No thanks. Being Welsh is just fine! :D

[cheesypeas]

No thanks. Being Welsh is just fine! :D

Seconded!! :D :love:

[Tommy-2guns...]

No thanks. Being Welsh is just fine! :D

lol not when your trying to understand a welsh lady talk you through a student loans form its not!

[Angelus]

First Nations Month.....?

[bcullen]

lol not when your trying to understand a welsh lady talk you through a student loans form its not!

Huh? :confused: The Welsh are capable of speech? :D

Have they discovered fire yet? :D :saz:

[adouglasmhor]

As an O'Brien, I'm reading some Irish historical fiction (for fun) that is supposed to be historically accurate. Its about Brian Boru so obviously written to make him out to the glorious warrior king he was. :love:

I have to say the "northmen", in particular the Danes are made to look like the most viscious gang of pillagers, murderers, rapists, that ever walked the earth. I can't wait to get more into Scandinavian history. As far as I can tell, any country that set out to expand their empire did the same to whatever natives they found, regardless of whether they set out from a Scandinavian country, England, France, Spain, Portugal... they all seemed to go kill the locals and claim the land as their own.

The Irish however, were happy to stay home and eat, drink and be merry... and fight with themselves whenever they weren't fighting the Danes.

Damn humans are a violent lot. I suppose we wont be around long in the grand scheme of things.

You ever here of Scotland - it was taken from ancient Britons by Irish Pirates! Scot is even old Irish for pirates.

[wrydolphin]

That's it! I declare July to be Cajun History month. Where we learn of the fine contributions made by....... erm....... er........ Justin Wilson and.... er..... yeah.

[dormindo]

People, grab your popcorn.

First, I think that it might have been better to have provided some historical context to the genesis and evolution of Black History Month in the OP, so that there is a context in which to respond. You see, it start as just a bunch of people getting in a huff and saying 'we want our own month'. There is a historical context that informs the creation of the event.

Secondly, I may be totally ignorant on this, but is not Black History only celebrated in the States, and as such wouldn't seem to affect Europeans at all?

Thirdly, while coverage of African and African diasporic history has improved, particularly at the university level, there is still not a lot covered in secondary education save for those (typically same old stale and trite) things trotted out for Black History Month Programs in the schools.

Fourthly, it would seem knee jerk reactionary just to advocate a White History Month just beacause there's a Black one, even though...

Fifthly, I wouldn't have a problem personally if there were to be such a thing, as long as it was truthful in what it taught.

Finally, I think that the things that Carter G. Woodson and others wanted Black people to learn during Negro History Week/Black History Month should just be the type of things that Black parents know about already and supplement their children's educaton with if they're not getting it at school. I can't stand that it is always the same old icons trotted out and given lip service each year without much in-depth exploration. Further, I can't stand the commercialization of BHM with the likes of, say, McDonald's blame near wrapping your grilled fish sandwich in Kente cloth. Lastly, I can't stand when people insinuate that if a person wants to celebrate anything about their ethnic heritage, that they care nothing about nation where they live.

/rant of the typically lurking dormindo.

paz, meu gente,

dormindo

[Emil]

Certainly in the Scottish Isles and parts of Eastern England, modern DNA testing has conclusively shown that there was no genicide of the local population, instead there was a great deal of integration.

This is correct. Archeology has found that after the Vikings got kicked out of verious parts of Ireland, many of the Vikings stayed behind. The Vikings were fantastic traders, and so many settled in good trade routes suce as Dublin (trade routes being the main reason for invasion in the first place). There was an integration. The prescence of the Vikings, Danes, English etc, etc, etc can be felt throughout all Irish culture, and in partyicular the names of places. For example, the name Dublin has received many derivations from it's original form. It's original gaelic form was very long and hard to pronounce. The Vikings couldn't pronounce this, and so altered it. Nation after nation made alterations until Dublin became called Dublin.

[LJoll]

Well I guess it's because we usually only study european history, yet there are a lot of black people.

[PlasmaShock]

Sometimes I wish I was wasn't white because whites are the minority at my school.

[2E0WHN]

Actually we do have a "White" history month. When the black history is told, it does not involve the other black nations, just us. You get to hear about the slave trade, the Slave triangle, William Wilberforce from Kingston upon Hull who was one of the major contributers of the banning of slaves.

If you wish to learn about Wilberforce go to Hull in East Riding off the M62 and drive to the High Street (first left after you go over the iron bridge). It is a narrow lane but you get to see Wilberforces house, museum and how white were hand in hand in making money while poopulating the western world.

For if we want "white" history, we better off saying how we managed to make a black history month possable.

[g-bells]

Seconded!! :D :love:
up both of yours :yeleyes: :yeleyes: :yeleyes:

[cheesypeas]

up both of yours :yeleyes: :yeleyes: :yeleyes:

whaaaaaaaaat?? :confused:

For being a Cymraes/Welshwoman? :cry: :p :D





:saz:

[Cait]

ugh, can we just ban all flavored months please??? :bang: how about we just teach history and leave it at that?

btw, to whomever said all we teach is the history of white males.. there's a history month for blacks, women, native americans, mid-east-south-asians, literacy, asian-pacific-americans, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender, hispanic, and probably several others i'm forgetting.

history taught in schools now (in the usa, anyways) is broken into 2 years - ancient world history and modern world history. and yes, it really is WORLD history. the first year (ancient) covers all the major civilizations, including african, asian, and south american history - not just greco-roman and european. the second year (modern) is just as comprehensive. yes, year 3 is american history, but it starts with the incan/mayan/etc. civs, chronicles their destruction by the conquistadors, (yes, actually shows the white conquerors in a bad light.. shocker!!), and continues to present day. there's plenty on blacks, latinos, asians, etc. and while most of history is still about the men, that's because MEN were the ones that wrote the histories!! we can't change that women aren't mentioned, now can we? but as much as they are mentioned, they're also taught.

so with that said... WHY THE BLANK DO WE NEED HISTORY MONTHS??????

[Pacificshore]

WHY THE BLANK DO WE NEED HISTORY MONTHS??????
It is 'Political Correctness' gone BAD :bang:

[Ular Sawa]

It is 'Political Correctness' gone BAD :bang:

or historians gone mad :D .....

[Johnno]

Within the calendar year we celebrate black history etc...

Do you think it’s only fair that we should include a 'celebrate white history' month?I'm curious to know what would be taught in 'White History' month. :confused:

Are you proud to be a white person? Or is our history too steeped in negativity to be celebrated?

Do you think it holds true that most of the bad in the world today is a creation of the white man? Or is it a case of the white man developing the means necessary in fairly recent times to influence the way we have, and if another race had developed it they would have done the same?

Be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.I suppose if you taught 'Black History' in Africa then it would probably be rather meaningless. People would want to know about the history of their own area, tribe, nation, etc. It would be a totally different kettle-of-fish from black people in (say) the UK being taught 'Black History'.

Similarly, teaching 'White History' to European schoolchildren would be pretty meaningless. They are taught the history of specific countries, regions etc.

To say that the 'white man' is responsible for most of the bad in the world today is far too simplistic. I suppose the farthest you could go would be to say that Europeans have had a greater negative effect on other parts of the world than other groups have done, due to colonialism etc. but the whole question is a potential minefield.

[Hiroji]

I'm curious to know what would be taught in 'White History' month. :confused:



Me too.

[Johnno]

Me too.But it was your idea! :D

[Hiroji]

But it was your idea! :D

No you misunderstand!

I was asking if people thought there should be one and why, not that i thought there should be one...

[Johnno]

No you misunderstand!

I was asking if people thought there should be one and why, not that i thought there should be one...Sorry - my misunderstanding then!

I think the reason why Black History Month came about is because there was always a tendancy in the past to airbrush black figures out from British history ('Mary Seacole vs. Florence Nightingale' being a prime example) or to only represent black people as victims. If having Black History Month leads to a more truthful and relevant representation within the mainstream history curriculum then it will have done it's job and will no longer be necessary.

PS: I only heard of Mary Seacole for the first time when my son learned about her during...... Black History Month.

[Langenschwert]

To say that the 'white man' is responsible for most of the bad in the world today is far too simplistic. I suppose the farthest you could go would be to say that Europeans have had a greater negative effect on other parts of the world than other groups have done, due to colonialism etc. but the whole question is a potential minefield.

And a slippery slope. What's the moral difference between Europeans colonizing other parts of the world, and internal violent conflicts in other regions? Or the Mongols despoiling Europe? Or the war of unification that led to the first Emperor of China? People killing other people to advance themselves is no new thing. It's just a matter of scale and locale.

As for white people/Europeans not having had the same amount of hardships as blacks or whoever... that's utter rubbish and nonsense. What about the bubonic plague? World Wars I and II? The overthrowing of Communism in Europe? The Reconquista? My dad survived WW II as a child in the Netherlands trying to avoid trigger happy German soldiers while looking for firewood. No hardship there, eh? What about the settling of the U.S. and Canadian prairies? Must have been a cakewalk. :rolleyes:

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

As for white people/Europeans not having had the same amount of hardships as blacks or whoever... that's utter rubbish and nonsense. What about the bubonic plague? World Wars I and II? The overthrowing of Communism in Europe? The Reconquista? My dad survived WW II as a child in the Netherlands trying to avoid trigger happy German soldiers while looking for firewood. No hardship there, eh? What about the settling of the U.S. and Canadian prairies? Must have been a cakewalk. :rolleyes:No-one would question the fact that all races and colours have had their share of hardships over the course of human history. The obvious difference is that Europeans have persecuted and exploited other peoples on the basis of their race/colour, and done so on an industrial scale, while professing to be 'civilised'.

[Langenschwert]

No-one would question the fact that all races and colours have had their share of hardships over the course of human history. The obvious difference is that Europeans have persecuted and exploited other peoples on the basis of their race/colour, and done so on an industrial scale, while professing to be 'civilised'.

So what's the difference? They didn't persecute based on race... they found those they could conquer, and took advantage. Equal opportunity oppression. Just like every one else has done from time immemorial. The Irish aren't a different colour, nor are the Welsh, nor are the Scots, and the English persecuted them all. The Japanese persecuted the Chinese, the Chinese persecuted the Tibetans, Africans sold each other into slavery during colonialism, the Native North Americans fought each other like demons (the Aztecs, for examplem, persecuted their neighbors as well), Mongols oppressed the Balkans, and the list goes on. Europeans happened to have the technology and the martial excellence to pull it off on a larger scale, but the intent was no different than any other culture with similar aspirations.

Don't slag Europeans because they managed to accomplish what everyone else was trying to do anyways. Europe had a martial culture, and they played to their strengths. Kudos to them for that. If we're going to criticize European peoples for their hard-earned conquests, then we have to criticize every culture that's made war on another, which includes just about everyone from the dawn of time.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

So what's the difference? They didn't persecute based on race... they found those they could conquer, and took advantage. Equal opportunity oppression. Just like every one else has done from time immemorial. The Irish aren't a different colour, nor are the Welsh, nor are the Scots, and the English persecuted them all. The Japanese persecuted the Chinese, the Chinese persecuted the Tibetans, Africans sold each other into slavery during colonialism, the Native North Americans fought each other like demons (the Aztecs, for examplem, persecuted their neighbors as well), Mongols oppressed the Balkans, and the list goes on. Europeans happened to have the technology and the martial excellence to pull it off on a larger scale, but the intent was no different than any other culture with similar aspirations.

Don't slag Europeans because they managed to accomplish what everyone else was trying to do anyways. Europe had a martial culture, and they played to their strengths. Kudos to them for that. If we're going to criticize European peoples for their hard-earned conquests, then we have to criticize every culture that's made war on another, which includes just about everyone from the dawn of time.

Best regards,

-MarkMark,

Sure, people have made war with their neighbours, and mistreated them, as one tribe or country against another.

But I can't think of anything else on the scale of the Atlantic slave trade where the victims were selected on the basis of their colour, regardless of their nationality. To say that it wasn't based on race simply ignores the facts. May I suggest that you should look into the legislation relating to slavery in the relevant countries, if you don't believe me. Slavery was very specifically about whites owning blacks - there is absolutely no wriggle-room here.

To assert that other countries would have done it if they could have is totally hypothetical, because it isn't what happened.

[Davey Bones]

-US Slavery was obviously race-based. For a good while, many laws in the US were written with specific racial ideas. Segregation, Jim Crowe laws, and let's not forget the Dred Scott case, where African-Americans were barely considered people.
-The Native Americans were warriors, yes. But the Europeans were the ones who engaed in the full-scale slaughter of them.
-Japanese internment camps during WWII.

And to lamaTKDcat, I think you missed the point of my post (I was the one who talked about teaching the history of straight white protestant males). It doesn't matter about "flavour-of-the-month" history lessons. That's the problem. I shouldn't have to have one month of the year where I learn about the contributions of the Harlem Reniassance to literature, George Washington Carver to science, etc. It should be standard fare!

[Langenschwert]

-US Slavery was obviously race-based. For a good while, many laws in the US were written with specific racial ideas. Segregation, Jim Crowe laws, and let's not forget the Dred Scott case, where African-Americans were barely considered people.

Keep in mind that it was local Africans who often sold each other into slavery in the first place. Europeans found willing local suppliers of slaves (collaborators), and slavery was nothing new. As horrible and inexcusable as slavery is, it was a virtually worldwide practice for thousands of years. China used a lot of forced labour to build the Great Wall. Wholesale subjugation of populations for labour has a long history. Tragically, the U.S. made it into a science, in the worst way possible, stretching the bounds of perversion. It's probably the greatest mistake ever made by a people. The U.S. is still paying for it every day.

-The Native Americans were warriors, yes. But the Europeans were the ones who engaed in the full-scale slaughter of them.

The Aztecs wiped out the Tepanecs, and had an empire designed to provide ritual sacrifices from conquered peoples, just to keep the rivers of blood flowing. Wholescale slaughter, presided over by the State. Nations and people slaughter each other, in droves. It seems humans just can't stop doing it. The Rwandan genocide, the mess in the Balkans both come to mind.

-Japanese internment camps during WWII.

Rape of Nan King, Japanese POW camps. Displacement of the Ainu.

I shouldn't have to have one month of the year where I learn about the contributions of the Harlem Reniassance to literature, George Washington Carver to science, etc. It should be standard fare!

Yes, yes it should be standard fare. As a jazz musician myself, I'm disheartened that the New World's greatest art form hardly gets any respect in the place of its birth.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

Keep in mind that it was local Africans who often sold each other into slavery in the first place. Europeans found willing local suppliers of slaves (collaborators), and slavery was nothing new. As horrible and inexcusable as slavery is, it was a virtually worldwide practice for thousands of years. China used a lot of forced labour to build the Great Wall. Wholesale subjugation of populations for labour has a long history. Tragically, the U.S. made it into a science, in the worst way possible, stretching the bounds of perversion. It's probably the greatest mistake ever made by a people. The U.S. is still paying for it every day.Slavery in Africa bore no resemblance whatsoever to the system of slavery created by Europeans in the Americas. It was closer to the European systems of indentured labour. Slaves in Africa had rights under the law, whereas slaves in the Americas could be tortured, maimed, raped and killed with no legal consequences.

Blaming slavery on the USA isn't fair, as they inherited it from Britain. You could blame them for not dealing with it better, but not for creating the problem in the first place!

[Hiroji]

Hows about we have a 'white working class history month' then! We could celebrate the brave soldiers who died for wars waged by rich leaders, sent to slave down the pit, celebrate the dedication of the british nuclear family!!

As most of the cruelty in the past that the white race has expelled has been orcastrated by the ruling classes! :D

[Johnno]

Hows about we have a 'white working class history month' then! We could celebrate the brave soldiers who died for wars waged by rich leaders, sent to slave down the pit, celebrate the dedication of the british nuclear family!!Yoiu were born a generation too late mate! The traditional working class was destroyed in the 1980's. Ask your Dad and your Grandad what it was like in the days before Maggie the milk-snatcher replaced jobs with McJobs. :bang:

But at least working class history gets taught in schools nowadays, instead of just king-so-and-so beat Johnny foreigner at this-that-or-the-other battle, what-ho!

[Davey Bones]

Langschwert, I fail to understand how you can miss the difference between intertribal warfare and European/American colonization.

-I expect neighbouring tribes to slaughter each other. I can even, on a certain level, accept the sitch in Africa as many unfriendly tribes got stuck in the same country by the dumb Europeans who cut the continent up; of course there will be conflict. I certainly don't expect someone from another continent to swoop in and do the ass kicking. Maybe that's where I'm stuck. I accept certain thigs as part of human nature, but the Europeans went around the world doing this stuff.

-So Japan had POW camps for enemy soldiers. Are you familiar with Internment camps in the 40's? They weren't for enemy combatants, they were for Japanese-Americans! People who did nothing except migrate over here from Japan. They weren't enemy combatants, spies, or anything else. They were taken from their homes and placed in camps because they were Japanese.

-Legalized slavery in the US was more akin to Apartheid that anything you listed. If you're going to compare US segregation to anything else in the world, get it right, lol.


I understand some of your points about atrocities committed in other countries, I'm just not sure how relevant some of it is to the fact that the US educational system is seriously skewed when it comes to dealing with minority historical figures.

[Johnno]

Hows about we have a 'white working class history month' then! We could celebrate the brave soldiers who died for wars waged by rich leaders, sent to slave down the pit, celebrate the dedication of the british nuclear family!!Yoiu were born a generation too late mate! The traditional working class was destroyed in the 1980's. Ask your Dad and your Grandad what it was like in the days before Maggie the milk-snatcher replaced jobs with McJobs. :bang:

But at least working class history gets taught in schools nowadays, instead of just king-so-and-so beat Johnny foreigner at this-that-or-the-other battle, what-ho!

[Hiroji]

Yoiu were born a generation too late mate! The traditional working class was destroyed in the 1980's. Ask your Dad and your Grandad what it was like in the days before Maggie the milk-snatcher replaced jobs with McJobs. :bang:

But at least working class history gets taught in schools nowadays, instead of just king-so-and-so beat Johnny foreigner at this-that-or-the-other battle, what-ho!


Do you think this is the reason working class white kids are now the lowest achievers at school nowadays?

The whole work ethic of the white working class is still there...but the workplace has changed and is now more geared towards higher professional jobs

The white working class parents such as my dad is still from a generation when school was a means to an end, and work was easy to get, plenty of it...therefore the culture of the white working class is still the same (with little emphasis on education) even tough the old school working class jobs have now all but vanished?

sorry for the ramble!

[Langenschwert]

Slavery in Africa bore no resemblance whatsoever to the system of slavery created by Europeans in the Americas. It was closer to the European systems of indentured labour. Slaves in Africa had rights under the law, whereas slaves in the Americas could be tortured, maimed, raped and killed with no legal consequences.

That's why I said that it "stretched the bounds of perversion".

Blaming slavery on the USA isn't fair, as they inherited it from Britain. You could blame them for not dealing with it better, but not for creating the problem in the first place!

I'm not blaming the U.S. for slavery. It certainly was inherited, but as I said, slavery is nothing new, though I don't personally I don't know of a slave system that was much harsher than that of the colonial period. If anyone does, please chime in. Being a libertarian type myself, I find it abhorrent to keep human beings in such a state. That being said, the U.S. had a huge slave economy, and the system was brutal to say the least, and the effects are still being felt. But that's not my point.

My point is, that Europeans hardly have a historical hegemony on genocide, slavery, warfare, oppression of minorities, totalitarianism, fanaticism and general brutality. Humans in general are really good at that kind of thing, and rare is the culture that hasn't participated wholesale in such atrocities. It's popular to blame Europeans for the shortcomings of their history, while overlooking there were (and are) other cultures doing the same things, just on a smaller scale. The moral implications are the same regardless of scope, whether you're a Conquistador, Mexica, Mongol, or Hutu.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

Do you think this is the reason working class white kids are now the lowest achievers at school nowadays?

The whole work ethic of the white working class is still there...but the workplace has changed and is now more geared towards higher professional jobs

The white working class parents such as my dad is still from a generation when school was a means to an end, and work was easy to get, plenty of it...therefore the culture of the white working class is still the same (with little emphasis on education) even tough the old school working class jobs have now all but vanished?

sorry for the ramble!I think your assessment is spot-on. Traditional 'blue-collar' jobs have largely disappeared in this country, leaving the option of get a good education or else end up with a McJob or on the dole.

[Langenschwert]

Langschwert, I fail to understand how you can miss the difference between intertribal warfare and European/American colonization.

I don't miss the difference, I just don't think it's significant. People colonize. That's how it works. The ancestors of the modern Japanese displaced the Ainu, the Angles displaced the Britons, and so on. If one tribe eliminates a neighboring tribe and takes the land as their own, what's the difference if they had to get on a boat to do it? Is conquest only acceptable on a contiguious landmass? Is population migration only acceptable within a certain distance? When the Aztecs destroyed the Tepanecs, how is that different from the Spanish destroying the Aztecs? It isn't. They just had to get on a boat to do it. If morals are universal, then it doesn't matter whether you destroy a neighboring tribe or one a thousand miles away... it's all the same.

-I expect neighbouring tribes to slaughter each other. I can even, on a certain level, accept the sitch in Africa as many unfriendly tribes got stuck in the same country by the dumb Europeans who cut the continent up; of course there will be conflict. I certainly don't expect someone from another contininet to swoop in and do the ass kicking. Maybe that's where I'm stuck. I accept certain thigs as part of human nature, but the Europeans went around the world doing this stuff.

Let's not forget the Persians who attempted the same. Pesky Spartans, eh? Or the Assyrians and Babylonians who dismantled whole civillisations and sent the inhabitants packing the the four winds, and took the rest into bondage. Or the Egyptians who went messing around as well. Or the mongols who invaded and conquered Russia from a continent away.

So Japan had POW camps for enemy soldiers.

Which were nearly as brutal as German concentration camps. To go to one was nearly a death sentence. The Japanese didn't view the Allied troops as "real" human beings either. Go do some research on that.

Are you familiar with Internment camps in the 40's? They weren't for enemy combatants, they were for Japanese-Americans!

We did the same in Canada. Unfortunate, but true. But we didn't execute thousands of Japanese-Canadian civillians, did we? Did we conduct medical experiments on them? Did we gas any of them? Compared to what the Japanese did to the Chinese and to Allied POWs, it doesn't even rate.

Argh. I have to go deal with a pain in the ass, be right back...

I hope your glutes recover. I am enjoying the civil discourse, BTW. :)

Best regards,

-Mark

[Davey Bones]

I don't miss the difference, I just don't think it's significant. People colonize. That's how it works. The ancestors of the modern Japanese displaced the Ainu, the Angles displaced the Britons, and so on. If one tribe eliminates a neighboring tribe and takes the land as their own, what's the difference if they had to get on a boat to do it? Is conquest only acceptable on a contiguious landmass? Is population migration only acceptable within a certain distance? When the Aztecs destroyed the Tepanecs, how is that different from the Spanish destroying the Aztecs? It isn't. They just had to get on a boat to do it. If morals are universal, then it doesn't matter whether you destroy a neighboring tribe or one a thousand miles away... it's all the same.

For whatever reason, I do see the difference as significant. I can't explain why, maybe it has to do with the fact that there are reasons other than racism involved. It just seems worse to me to go halfway around the globe to institute a system of slavery when compared to land grabs from the next door neighbours. My own personal views make allowances for certain things, I guess.

Let's not forget the Persians who attempted the same. Pesky Spartans, eh? Or the Assyrians and Babylonians who dismantled whole civillisations and sent the inhabitants packing the the four winds, and took the rest into bondage. Or the Egyptians who went messing around as well. Or the mongols who invaded and conquered Russia from a continent away.

Yes, I know. Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. The irony is that they get mentioned all the time in textbooks! Seriously, I know logically that we can go back to the dawn of civilization to find examples, but I guess I don't see what it has to do with *this* topic.


We did the same in Canada. Unfortunate, but true. But we didn't execute thousands of Japanese-Canadian civillians, did we? Did we conduct medical experiments on them? Did we gas any of them? Compared to what the Japanese did to the Chinese and to Allied POWs, it doesn't even rate.

Again, feel as though we're on two different pages here...

[Langenschwert]

For whatever reason, I do see the difference as significant. I can't explain why, maybe it has to do with the fact that there are reasons other than racism involved. It just seems worse to me to go halfway around the globe to institute a system of slavery when compared to land grabs from the next door neighbours. My own personal views make allowances for certain things, I guess.

So is there an absolute mileage beyond which one may not conquer or grab land? A distance of the earth's circumference related to one's population or military prowess? A certain amount of nautical miles that one's naval force may not cross in anger? Do boats make warfare immoral? Are we only allowed to attack our neighbours like one big game of Risk? Surely we should be courteous to our neighbours above all else! Are we only allowed to enslave members of our own ethnic or religious group? It's a big slippery slope. If North America were connected by land bridge to Europe, would that justify European colonization, since Native Americans would then be Europe's neighbours? If the Vikings had stayed in North America and founded a thriving colony, would it be OK for the following Europeans to wipe them out, since they're ethnically similar? I fail to see how getting in a boat to conquer is any different than taking a walk to do so. Do you see what I'm getting at? Read some Kant if you get a chance. Categorical Imperative and all that.

But if land grabs from neighbours are OK, then is the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia is somehow more "moral" than colonial slavery? I doubt you think that. You seem far too reasonable to hold such a position.

Yes, I know. Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. The irony is that they get mentioned all the time in textbooks! Seriously, I know logically that we can go back to the dawn of civilization to find examples, but I guess I don't see what it has to do with *this* topic.

It doesn't. I was merely pointing out that Europeans as a culture haven't been any morally better or worse than anyone else, on average. They were just better at conquering their rivals.

Again, feel as though we're on two different pages here...

I don't think we are, really. It just seems that you believe if the West commits atrocities, they're by nature more "atrocious" then atrocities commited by other cultures, by virtue of being European, even if they're functionally the same. I don't see any logic in that at all.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Davey Bones]

But if land grabs from neighbours are OK, then is the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and Bosnia is somehow more "moral" than colonial slavery? I doubt you think that. You seem far too reasonable to hold such a position.

The reason I personally see a difference is the fact that many of these peoples were squashed together into a country, like it or not. Many warring African tribes didn't volunteer to become Rwanda, nor did the various ethnic groups volunteer to become Bosnia. These arbitrary distinctions were forced upon them by other countries. The slave trade, on the other hand, involved actively seeking out other people from other countries to kidnap and exploit. *shrug* I'm not saying that Bosnian ethnic cleansing is more "moral" than slavery in the US; what I am saying is that it at least is more understandable to me.

[Langenschwert]

The reason I personally see a difference is the fact that many of these peoples were squashed together into a country, like it or not. Many warring African tribes didn't volunteer to become Rwanda, nor did the various ethnic groups volunteer to become Bosnia. These arbitrary distinctions were forced upon them by other countries. The slave trade, on the other hand, involved actively seeking out other people from other countries to kidnap and exploit. *shrug* I'm not saying that Bosnian ethnic cleansing is more "moral" than slavery in the US; what I am saying is that it at least is more understandable to me.

Now we're getting somewhere. It could be argued that English colonialism was more destructive than some others, using modern Iraq as an example, with Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds all in the same campground, as it were. As opposed to Spanish colonialism, which although rougher in the beginning due to genocide, has led to more stable results in the long term. So whether colonialism or outright genocide is more destructive in the long run is a good question, which I'm not qualified to answer.

As to seeking out people to kidnap and exploit, that's not unique to colonial slavery. Look at the Jannisaries, for example.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

It just seems that you believe if the West commits atrocities, they're by nature more "atrocious" then atrocities commited by other cultures, by virtue of being European, even if they're functionally the same. I don't see any logic in that at all.I think it's a question of context and perception.

For example, we'd probably put the pillaging of the Vikings roughly on a par with the pillaging of the Mongol hordes, because even though they weren't of anything like the same scale, they were both carried out by what we would view from our 21st century perspective as a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians. Whereas if the 21st century Norwegians or Mongolians were to behave like that then we'd shocked and horrified.

We like to think of modern Europe as being a 'civilized' place - despite two horrific general wars and several attempted genocides within the last hundred years. I think that's why we feel shocked and disgusted by atrocities that were carried on as a normal part of life in the relatively recent past - especially when it was attempted to justify them on the basis that we were more 'civilized'. Very hypocritical - and far too 'close to home' for comfort.

[CKava]

Which were nearly as brutal as German concentration camps. To go to one was nearly a death sentence. The Japanese didn't view the Allied troops as "real" human beings either. Go do some research on that.
As far as I've read that's not true the Japanese troops tended to few the Chinese as 'sub human' but everyone else in particular the Europeans were just 'inferior'. I think it was either Lawrence Rees book 'Horror in the East' or Herbit Bix's biogrpahy of Hirohito that explicitly made the point that the Japanese treated the allied POW's much better because than the Chinese. What source has told you different?

[Langenschwert]

Very hypocritical - and far too 'close to home' for comfort.

Indeed. :) Human beings are not, and have never been perfectly "civilized". And we never will, gods willing. It's the twin capacities for barbarism and civil behaviour which ensures our survival, IMO.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Johnno]

Indeed. :) Human beings are not, and have never been perfectly "civilized". And we never will, gods willing. It's the twin capacities for barbarism and civil behaviour which ensures our survival, IMO.

Best regards,

-MarkSurely it is a battle between two polar opposites? Civilised behaviour (by countries and groups as much as by individuals) is a force for progress; while the 'barbaric' side of our make-up is only a benefit when we have to fight for our survival against others who are exercising their own 'barbaric' side.

[Langenschwert]

As far as I've read that's not true the Japanese troops tended to few the Chinese as 'sub human' but everyone else in particular the Europeans were just 'inferior'. I think it was either Lawrence Rees book 'Horror in the East' or Herbit Bix's biogrpahy of Hirohito that explicitly made the point that the Japanese treated the allied POW's much better because than the Chinese. What source has told you different?

Numerous documentaries, but here is a literary equivalent:

http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Japanese-Pows-World-Pacific/dp/0688143709

I'm not well-informed enough to comment on the distinctions the Japanese made between non-Japanese people, my point is that they viewed non-Japanese as inferior and treated them accordingly. Some of them were literally worked to death. Contrast this with the treatment German POWs got from the Allies. Some were sent to Canadian prairies to help with the farming, but were treated reasonably well, some said too well. Some former prisoners emigrated back to Canada after the war to the country they had grown to like, and their descendants are still here. Not that our POW system was perfect, as some camps were hotbeds of Nazi brutality towards the rank and file of German soldiers.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Langenschwert]

Surely it is a battle between two polar opposites? Civilised behaviour (by countries and groups as much as by individuals) is a force for progress; while the 'barbaric' side of our make-up is only a benefit when we have to fight for our survival against others who are exercising their own 'barbaric' side.

I see them both as tools to be used when necessary. Too much barbarism and we never progress, too much civilization, and we become soft and weak-willed, and easily manipulated.

Best regards,

-Mark

[CKava]

Im not arguing against the general gist of your argument Im only calling you on a specific detail because the historical works I've read directly contradicted the assertation you seemed to be making about the Japanese regarding the allied prisoners as not 'real' humans. All I've read showed that the Japanese offered a begrudging respect towards the europeans and americans and reserved their harshest treatment for the 'sub human' Chinese. I am willing to review this opinion if good evidence was provided but so far you've just linked me to a general book on Amazon about POW camps. I don't doubt the Japanese camps were nasty places heck being a Japanese soldier in the Japanese army was bad enough at the time. What I do doubt is your asseration that the Japanese didn't see the allied prisoners as human. It's a pedantic argument but you seemed to use it to reinforce one of your points: i.e. White prisoners have been regarded as sub-human just like black slaves and I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. If I misread your point feel free to correct me.

[boards]

I dont know exactly how the Japanese regarded non-chinese people during WWII, but I can say that a large number of Australian refugees died in Japanese POW camps due to starvation, neglect, inadequate medical treatment, and having heads cut off (a pic of which exhists in the War Memorial in Canberra). Conditions were, by all reports absolutely horrific, but I have never heard how they compared to how the Chinese were treated.

[adouglasmhor]

Many Chinese prisoners were worked to death with no food at all, used in medical experiments or just caged and left to starve.

[Johnno]

The more I see people trying to downplay the effects of the slave trade, then the more I think that we really do need to have a Black History Month!

[boards]

Many Chinese prisoners were worked to death with no food at all, used in medical experiments or just caged and left to starve.

I dont know if Australians were treated quite that bad. Not fed enough, yes, but no food at all?

[Johnno]

I dont know if Australians were treated quite that bad. Not fed enough, yes, but no food at all?It's possible that some were starved to death, but lots of POWs survived years in captivity, so obviously they were fed something.

[Langenschwert]

The more I see people trying to downplay the effects of the slave trade, then the more I think that we really do need to have a Black History Month!

I haven't seen anyone in this thread downplaying the effects of the slave trade. As I said before, the effects are still being felt, particularly in the U.S.

-Mark

[Johnno]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread downplaying the effects of the slave trade. As I said before, the effects are still being felt, particularly in the U.S.

-MarkMark,

When I made that remark, I didn't have you in mind as much as some other people - although no-one in particular, more of a general observation really.

On reflection, I don't think my remark applies to in the slightest. You simply picked up on one particular point I made and we've been following that tangent together - and a very interesting discussion it's been too! :)

Regards,
@

[southern jester]

when do the native americans get thier month? thier tribes and cultures were nearly wiped out completely. and even today native americans are not being treated by the same standard other americans are. not a native american myself yet think if anybody has a right to complain about prior treatment of thier peoples and the lack of equality even now they do.

seriously every race and culture has been oppressed at some point in history. the nazis treated the jews badly. the romans treated celts badly. the list of offenses could go on all day. now is a time for people to forgive not open the old wounds of past. we need to concentrate on getting along. if we tried to set a month designated for a culture that has suffered in the past a very significant number of months would have to be added to calender.

btw. saying 'treated badly' doesnt really cover the kind of abuse that different peoples have suffered by thier oppressors. just pointing out that most every culture has suffered at the hands of another. not trying to be specific in detail.

[Johnno]

when do the native americans get thier month? thier tribes and cultures were nearly wiped out completely. and even today native americans are not being treated by the same standard other americans are. not a native american myself yet think if anybody has a right to complain about prior treatment of thier peoples and the lack of equality even now they do.

seriously every race and culture has been oppressed at some point in history. the nazis treated the jews badly. the romans treated celts badly. the list of offenses could go on all day. now is a time for people to forgive not open the old wounds of past. we need to concentrate on getting along. if we tried to set a month designated for a culture that has suffered in the past a very significant number of months would have to be added to calender.

btw. saying 'treated badly' doesnt really cover the kind of abuse that different peoples have suffered by thier oppressors. just pointing out that most every culture has suffered at the hands of another. not trying to be specific in detail.I suppose the issue isn't about whether a particular group has been 'treated badly' in the past, it's about what happens here and now.

To take your example, if native Americans are still getting a raw deal then maybe teaching ALL American children about native American history would be a good thing.

[southern jester]

somehow in the 'land of opprotunity' there are still major problems here with equality between races. native americans are still being treated badly. yet so are hispanics. there seems to be racism on every side. making an effort for teaching history about native americans or for that matter many other races does make sense. yet setting aside a whole month for a single group?

the problem here is that people here of every race seem to be subject to racism. and worse that kind of thinking is being taught to our youth. if we are going to make an effort to really teach something usefull we need to start with teaching racism of any form is wrong. using examples of previous kinds of treatment toward other races is a good start. yet the continued racism that exists needs to be addressed too.

[Polar Bear]

Racism cannot be addressed, the best you can hope for is for it to be managed. Humans are designed to be racist, it is an early defense mechanism to allow tribes to identify who were us and them. You cannot remove the instinct but you can socalise individuals to react less badly to a percieved outsider.
As for Black History month I think it's a great idea, but more of the positive and less on slavery. Some amazing cultures arose in Africa let look at what they gave the world.

The Bear.

[Johnno]

As for Black History month I think it's a great idea, but more of the positive and less on slavery. Some amazing cultures arose in Africa let look at what they gave the world.I agree, it shouldn't be all about slavery - and it isn't, as far as I'm aware. (It started long after I left school, so my knowledge is mainly based on what I've heard from my son.)

[southern jester]

hey polar bear,

hope and pray that your wrong about how racism cannot be addressed. first and foremost the subject needs to be talked about at home. not attempting to tell everyone else how to raise thier children yet we (spouse and self) have made real effort to explain to our kids that racism is wrong. second the problem needs to be addressed in schools. children have more than enough issues to deal with already. and dont need feeling threatened and being left out because of skin color. third racism needs to be a subject that our media and goverment should focus on. the negative effects of something that wrong (and stupid) need to be seen by the public at large. both our federal and local goverments should send a message that racism is not acceptable by passing anti-descrimination laws.

racism is taught not natural. although i have a good family there are several family members that are not only racist they promote such behavoir. far too often my wife and self have repeatadly made our position clear about thier ethnic jokes and thier attitude in general. we dont want to hear as much or know are children are. despite having grown up around some of the racist members in my family i have not learned to share thier point of view. some of my friends grew up in families that had no racism and have never 'naturally' been inclined to have negative feelings toward others.

[slipthejab]

As for Black History month I think it's a great idea, but more of the positive and less on slavery. Some amazing cultures arose in Africa let look at what they gave the world.

The Bear.

Interesting stuff. I think if more of that sort of stuff was focused on or even put on the plate their would be... over time... a whole lot less of the us and them problems. From what I can remember in school... not much if any of that was even remotely touched upon. It's sad that it takes a person until their in their mid life to be able to get the heads up on the amazing diversity of African culture and what it's produced.

Heck... even if they introduced more information on contemporary (ok lets say in the last century or so) African American intellectuals/artists/writers it'd go a long way towards giving people something to be inspired by.

[Johnno]

Interesting stuff. I think if more of that sort of stuff was focused on or even put on the plate their would be... over time... a whole lot less of the us and them problems. From what I can remember in school... not much if any of that was even remotely touched upon. It's sad that it takes a person until their in their mid life to be able to get the heads up on the amazing diversity of African culture and what it's produced.

Heck... even if they introduced more information on contemporary (ok lets say in the last century or so) African American intellectuals/artists/writers it'd go a long way towards giving people something to be inspired by.
The impression that I get (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is almost a parallel culture for African-Americans, and African-American intellectuals/artists/writers etc. would be seen as either 'ours' or 'theirs' depending on what colour you are. The same seems to be true of music, films, TV programmes etc.

I would imagine there must be a growing Hispanic 'parallel culture' too.

[KenpoDavid]

La Rasa - "The Race" Hispanic Supremicists... that seems to be OK (politically)

Black history month, Black-only scholarships, "Black Homes for Black Babies" campaign (adoption)... Put "white" in any of those and it will be like a nuclear bomb going off... but these are all OK too??

I've got one black daughter and 2 white ones. Guess who will get the most scholarship money for college!


it's crazy

[Incredible Bulk]

i'm all for getting kids to learn black history, but a month is more than enough education about africa as they have done next to sod all since inventing the wood spear and mud hut.

their civilisation is ground to a hault and they are happy living as they are so fair play, more power to them. Blue Peter has done a good job of keeping them on the map

black history should not be labeled as black history, its another form of segregation and division that i find highly amusing and ironic seeing that its something they have 'worked' so hard at trying to remove

no doubt this post will be twisted to sound like i'm racist, so all the PC nut huggers get a free teddy for the best 'way off the mark' reply.
Soap boxes available at the front of the hall, high horses are tied up out back

[Davey Bones]

Heck... even if they introduced more information on contemporary (ok lets say in the last century or so) African American intellectuals/artists/writers it'd go a long way towards giving people something to be inspired by.


I mentioned the Harlem Reniassance a few pages back; that alone is worth an entire semester of study.

The impression that I get (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is almost a parallel culture for African-Americans, and African-American intellectuals/artists/writers etc. would be seen as either 'ours' or 'theirs' depending on what colour you are. The same seems to be true of music, films, TV programmes etc.

I would imagine there must be a growing Hispanic 'parallel culture' too.

That will always be the case, Johnno. No matter what, there will always be segments of any minority community quick to accuse each other of "selling out". Hence the derogatory terms like "banana" or "oreo" (do the math.. white on the inside...).

[Moosey]

The impression that I get (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is almost a parallel culture for African-Americans, and African-American intellectuals/artists/writers etc. would be seen as either 'ours' or 'theirs' depending on what colour you are. The same seems to be true of music, films, TV programmes etc.

I would imagine there must be a growing Hispanic 'parallel culture' too.
Gawd bless The Cosby Show and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air - bringing black culture to the white masses!

[Johnno]

Gawd bless The Cosby Show and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air - bringing black culture to the white masses! :D

Personally, I find The Cosby Show pretty dull, but The Fresh Prince is pretty good. I wonder if white Americans watch 'black' programmes, or just 'white' ones? :confused:

[Johnno]

i'm all for getting kids to learn black history, but a month is more than enough education about africa as they have done next to sod all since inventing the wood spear and mud hut.

their civilisation is ground to a hault and they are happy living as they are so fair play, more power to them. Blue Peter has done a good job of keeping them on the map

black history should not be labeled as black history, its another form of segregation and division that i find highly amusing and ironic seeing that its something they have 'worked' so hard at trying to remove

no doubt this post will be twisted to sound like i'm racist, so all the PC nut huggers get a free teddy for the best 'way off the mark' reply.
Soap boxes available at the front of the hall, high horses are tied up out backI don't think anyone is going to try to twist your post round in any way. It speaks for itself.

There's a sort of horrible fascination in watching someone cram their foot so far into their mouth. How much further can it go?

[Incredible Bulk]

I don't think anyone is going to try to twist your post round in any way. It speaks for itself.

There's a sort of horrible fascination in watching someone cram their foot so far into their mouth. How much further can it go?

some have different opinions, adds to the spice and variety of life :p

[Johnno]

some have different opinions, adds to the spice and variety of life :pI suppose so. Every village has it's idiot, right? ;)

[NaughtyKnight]

Within the calendar year we celebrate black history etc...

Do you think it’s only fair that we should include a 'celebrate white history' month?

Are you proud to be a white person? Or is our history too steeped in negativity to be celebrated?

Do you think it holds true that most of the bad in the world today is a creation of the white man? Or is it a case of the white man developing the means necessary in fairly recent times to influence the way we have, and if another race had developed it they would have done the same?

Be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

Every day is white history day!

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a603/a603_bm.gif

[southern jester]

although dont watch a lot of tv (old fashioned book reader) have no problem with watching 'black programs' any more than 'white programs'. would rather see tv shows that have diversity of race like 'house' or 'csi'.

not a racist by any means. yet have to argree with kenpodavid that blacks in america keep talking about equality yet insist on having thier own television channel, college fund, history month, etc. and if whites did the same it would be called racism.

perfect example. have never called myself euro-american or some other kind of nonsense. why african-american then? what is problem with everyone here being called just americans?

[NaughtyKnight]

I think the whole "African American" thing is a white thing.

[Johnno]

although dont watch a lot of tv (old fashioned book reader) have no problem with watching 'black programs' any more than 'white programs'. would rather see tv shows that have diversity of race like 'house' or 'csi'.

not a racist by any means. yet have to argree with kenpodavid that blacks in america keep talking about equality yet insist on having thier own television channel, college fund, history month, etc. and if whites did the same it would be called racism.Does anyone actually 'insist' on racially-oriented TV programs, or is it just the way that the networks organise it? :confused:

perfect example. have never called myself euro-american or some other kind of nonsense. why african-american then? what is problem with everyone here being called just americans?Surely it's because the USA is basically a nation of immigrants? So you've got Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans etc, etc.

[Incredible Bulk]

I suppose so. Every village has it's idiot, right? ;)

glad you have taken it on the chin :D

[bcullen]

Does anyone actually 'insist' on racially-oriented TV programs, or is it just the way that the networks organise it? :confused:

We have whole networks devoted to it like BET (Black Entertainment Television).

[Johnno]

We have whole networks devoted to it like BET (Black Entertainment Television).Wow! :eek: I never heard of that.

Do any other groups have their own 'dedicated' networks? :confused:

[Moosey]

Wow! :eek: I never heard of that.

Do any other groups have their own 'dedicated' networks? :confused:
Dutch-Irish-Catholic Sports Network?
Amish Music Video Channel?
Polish-American Jewish Cookery Network?

[cheesypeas]

I think the whole "African American" thing is a white thing.

:confused: :confused:

Is it because I is Welsh?? :D

[bcullen]

Wow! :eek: I never heard of that.

Do any other groups have their own 'dedicated' networks? :confused:

The Hispanic population has about as many if not more channels as they would if they were in Mexico. Although, considering our proximity to the border what would you expect. I know that they at least have one channel for Latin programming in any state and we have some channels that alternate programming, mostly Asian; it will be Korean from like 12:00 to 3:00 and then go to Chinese, Thai, Japanese, it even does some Russian and Middle Eastern programming occasionally.

We even have BBC America, so we can get the true flavor of British culture by watching EastEnders. :D

[Johnno]

The Hispanic population has about as many if not more channels as they would if they were in Mexico. Although, considering our proximity to the border what would you expect. I know that they at least have one channel for Latin programming in any state and we have some channels that alternate programming, mostly Asian; it will be Korean from like 12:00 to 3:00 and then go to Chinese, Thai, Japanese, it even does some Russian and Middle Eastern programming occasionally.I'm glad to hear that the Roman-American community isn't being neglected! :D

We even have BBC America, so we can get the true flavor of British culture by watching EastEnders. :DWould you Adam and Eve it! :eek:

[Davey Bones]

Wow! :eek: I never heard of that.

Do any other groups have their own 'dedicated' networks? :confused:


BET for African-Americans
Univision is Latino/Hispanic
LOGO is LGBT programming

[Moosey]

LOGO is LGBT programming
24 hours of Will and Grace!?! :eek:

:D

[Davey Bones]

Does anyone actually 'insist' on racially-oriented TV programs, or is it just the way that the networks organise it? :confused:

Depends on who you ask. "Survivor:Cook Islands" is the perfect example. A majority of the contestants were actually drafted from local malls and shopping centers and didn't go through the standard application procedure. Why? Mark Burrnett wanted a racially diverse cast, amd apparently he wasn't getting much diversity in the applications. So we ended up with 5 Latinos, 5 Asians, 5 African-Americans, and 5 Caucasians. The most racially diverse cast ever, 4 minorities in the final four.

Were people hapy about it? Depends. Some groups thought it was very noble of CBS to seek out a racially diverse cast, others saw it as nothing more than a sheer marketing ploy, and others were offended that CBS ignored the applications and drafted folks. It didn't offend too many people, though, because the most recent season was set up the same way originally, but changed at the last minute due to a Caucasian contestant dropping out as the boat landed on the island.

Another example would be the CW. "Girlfriends", "Everyone Hates Chris" and other Monday nite programming aimed at the African-American community. This was formerly UPN and the WB, and both stations did try to get the minority viewers. Otherwise, most of the shows aren't per se geared at minority viewers, although many organizations do keep tabs on the number of minority characters on major network television. The numbers have gotten better, apparently.

[Davey Bones]

24 hours of Will and Grace!?! :eek:

:D

Nope, lots of original programming (and reruns of "Queer as Folk"). There is also "Here TV", another gay channel, which has a lot of "Melrose Place"esque type serials. Also a lot of documentaries, music, news shows, etc. I don't get eirther channel, I refuse to get digital cable just for queer tv.

[bcullen]

I'm glad to hear that the Roman-American community isn't being neglected! :D

Would you Adam and Eve it! :eek:
D'OH!
I missed the "o" at the end; kind of like NK's girlfriends. :D

[NaughtyKnight]

D'OH!
I missed the "o" at the end; kind of like NK's girlfriends. :D

LMAO!

thats because its an "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

[Polar Bear]

i'm all for getting kids to learn black history, but a month is more than enough education about africa as they have done next to sod all since inventing the wood spear and mud hut.


Well lets look at the historical impact of the spear. Before the spear the ability to kill large game was about digging pits and chasing them in. This was a hit and miss affair so I rate the spear pretty highly in technology terms.
The mud hut again what we are talking about is the ability to manufacture dwelling near useful resources before this humans had to travel back and forward to the resources. Another massive technological leap.

I'll add a couple of my own:
The is a good chance writing was first done in africa.
The wheel if not invented had many important improvements by the africans.

Also lets add some interesting african civilizations:
Egypt, Carthage, Numidia, Abbysinia.

I haven't even began on cultural significance.

The Bear.

[Johnno]

Polar Bear,

You'll only confuse him by taking him seriously. He's probably not used to people doing that. ;)

[Polar Bear]

Ignorance is only a crime after somebody has tried to enlighten you.

The Bear.

[slipthejab]

i'm all for getting kids to learn black history, but a month is more than enough education about africa as they have done next to sod all since inventing the wood spear and mud hut.

Hmm... spoken like a true ignoramus.

Whatever respect I had for you... has just gone out the window. :(

[PASmith]

The wheel if not invented had many important improvements by the africans.

Well for a start "Africans" is just way to general a term to be used in such a way.
And I'd really like to hear how "The Africans" improved the wheel. Please.

[slipthejab]

Well for a start "Africans" is just way to general a term to be used in such a way.


Agreed.
As if Africa was one big homogenous group of people. :rolleyes:

[Polar Bear]

The wheel if not invented had many important improvements by the africans.

Well for a start "Africans" is just way to general a term to be used in such a way.
And I'd really like to hear how "The Africans" improved the wheel. Please.

The Egyptians are credited with the invention of the spoked wheel. Wheels originally were of solid construction which while being strong was extremely heavy. The invention of the spoked wheel allowed for faster more manueverable vehicles namely the egyptian war chariot. Anyone with Alloy wheels on their car will understand the benefit of this invention to humanity.

The Bear.

[boards]

Given that people have been talking about Black History Month is Ancient Egypt really relevent. While some people argue otherwise, Ancient Egypt was not really dominated by black people and as such can hardly be used as a shining example of their achievements.

And yes before you say it I am well aware that Egypt is a part of Africa.

[Davey Bones]

The Egyptians are credited with the invention of the spoked wheel. Wheels originally were of solid construction which while being strong was extremely heavy. The invention of the spoked wheel allowed for faster more manueverable vehicles namely the egyptian war chariot. Anyone with Alloy wheels on their car will understand the benefit of this invention to humanity.

The Bear.

But more importantly to most of you...

The Egyptians invented BEER.

[NaughtyKnight]

But more importantly to most of you...

The Egyptians invented BEER.

And condoms. :cool:

[NaughtyKnight]

Given that people have been talking about Black History Month is Ancient Egypt really relevent. While some people argue otherwise, Ancient Egypt was not really dominated by black people and as such can hardly be used as a shining example of their achievements.

And yes before you say it I am well aware that Egypt is a part of Africa.

Why is "black" automatically African? What about the West Indians nations, Australian Aboriginals etc etc.

[adouglasmhor]

Well west Indian nations Black People are descended from Black Africans and either Europeans (including Scottish and Irish slave workers it was not all mass rape by the overseers) and Chinese people and South Asian Indians and the native Amerindian people (I am not sure that is an OK term now, feel free to put me straight if it's offensive in any way) or a mix of the whole lot.

[boards]

Why is "black" automatically African? What about the West Indians nations, Australian Aboriginals etc etc.

Sure "black" doesnt only mean African. But the guy mentioned Africa and we have been talking about Black History Month I am fairly sure that he wasn't referring to Aboriginals, Southern Indians, West Indians etc.

[NaughtyKnight]

I just find the whole "African American" thing stupid. If I was an Aboriginal living in America, it would definatly insult me to be called "African".

[southern jester]

the egyptians should get a month for inventing beer!

[cheesypeas]

the egyptians should get a month for inventing beer!

HUH!!!!!!!

They nicked it from the Mesopotamians, apparantly... :D

[southern jester]

being an amateur winemaker saw a website a while back that did claim the egyptians invented beer. even had this recipe for ancient beer. sounded nasty and never tried duplicating recipe though.

serious research needs to be done to resolve this issue. who invented beer? must have been a very advanced civilization. truly a milestone in the ongoing advancement of society.

my favorite is sam adams (too expensive though) next comes budweiser (not that sissy lite or ice stuff) then amber bock. in a pinch the best is anything cold. although my friends maintain any free beer is best.

[cheesypeas]

The proof lies with archaeology.....food and drink remains found in pottery (in situ, therefore datable) can be analysed and then identified.

All that can be said at this moment in time, as a find tomorrow could push the time backwards, is that the Mesopotamians have the earliest identified beer to date. :D

[g-bells]

is white history month over? :p

[southern jester]

this sounds more like world history to me. not sure if the mesopotamians were of any specific race. thought it covered lot of ground.

maybe the history of beer month!

[Brian R. VanCis]

Personally I think we should just study history in an overall context and see different viewpoints based on different people's (insert race, ethnicity, etc.) experiences. Having an extra month is really not the point but getting to understand everyone's overall experience is. :cool: Only then will we hope to understand each other in a better light. :D

[southern jester]

outstanding post there brian r. vancis.