The right’s desire to have us all in blinders strikes again.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oh No, Teachers Are Talking About Non-White Males In History Class!
November 27th, 2008
49 Comments
it is said that history is written by the winners. in this case, isn’t it time American History books got a little re-write?
1 Response to “Oh No, Teachers Are Talking About Non-White Males In History Class!”
It’s NOT FAIR!!
NOBODY UNDERSTANDS how DIFFICULT it is to be a white male in America, boo hoo!
Sometimes a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do.
Even if he’s a woman named Rosa Parks. Looks like it’s not only men that got a “pair.”
Rosa – good on ya!
Conservatives = whiners.
Why does so much of US and world history revolve around white males?
Because for most of it, white males were the dominant demographic.
Often for the better, often for the worse, but that is the way history has been unfolding for centuries.
Did non-whites and non-males do things of great import and historic significance during those times? Absolutely. But part of the reason that they are often remembered is precisely because they were NOT white males — that made them exceptions, and exceptions are always noteworthy.
There are no news accounts of the thousands of planes that land safely every day.
There is no running total on how long two nations have not been at war.
There are no studies on how many children go to bed full every night.
Reporters don’t rush to a building to breathlessly announce that it didn’t burn down.
Right or wrong, for better or worse, white males have been the dominant force in history. And there are those of us white males who are more than glad to shed that role — with the privileges and burdens it carries — and just be like everyone else.
Unfortunately, there are also those who think that we should pay some kind of “penalty” for being the descendants of those who had centuries of privilege and should spend some time watching others get the preferential treatment. No, thanks.
J.
Jay, the reversal of unjust enrichment is not a penalty, but the very definition of justice. The “those of us” who are “glad to shed that role” do not include the overwhelming bulk of your fellow conservatives who, on tactics, strategy and principle, keep their teeth firmly clenched on white male privilege for dear life.
For this reason and for their failure to offer anything more than honkey patriarchy, theocracy and war, your conservatives have been sentenced to a period of solitary masturbation in the political desert, if I have my way, for forty years. Hold your pick, your shovel, your camel and your ass: you have reached your Promised Land.
Wow, that Bruce guy is good.
You go, dude.
“And there are those of us white males who are more than glad to shed that role — with the privileges and burdens it carries…”
Burden? Yeah, it sucks not being oppressed and instead being the oppressor.
You are an idiot and you do real damage to the world every time you speak.
Mexico and Sweden have not been at war for over 300 years.
“Why does so much of US and world history revolve around white males?
Because for most of it, white males were the dominant demographic.”
Right on US history, wrong on world history. The last 500-600 years were not “most” of world history, and before that, white men were mostly restricted to a relatively small part of the world.
Jay Tea: Unfortunately, there are also those who think that we should pay some kind of “penalty” for being the descendants of those who had centuries of privilege and should spend some time watching others get the preferential treatment.
Yes, but they are in the minority. But don’t let that stop you from presenting a minority view as popular opinion so you can portray yourself as the poor victim in all of this.
Most who have been discriminated against don’t want to turn the tables completely around and penalize those who benefited from the way things were. Most just want to not be discriminated against any more. Look at those campaigning for gay marriage, for example. They aren’t advocating against traditional marriage, they don’t want to ban it. They just want the same as everyone else.
The problem lies in how do you get those who have been kept off the level playing field onto it when they start with literally centuries of conditions that, should they actually be placed on the field, make them less adept competitors? To keep with the sports analogies, yes, you can start both runners at the same starting line but when one has been coached and and the other has no training is it really a fair race? And how do you make it fair? If you spot that second runner a couple of seconds to make it a more competitive race, is that helping him or hurting the other?
If anyone ever needed concise evidence of the curious mixture of arrogance, self-aggrandizement, victimhood and idiocy that makes up the conservative base these days, look no further than Jay Tea’s comment above.
When I was at school, we learned about the great Nurse from the Crimean War, Florence Nightingale (the lady with the lamp she even was on our currency for a while)
Turns out that she wasn’t that good of a nurse, and that a self-taught, self-funded carribean black woman (Mary Seacole) did more to help the soldiers in this war than Nightingale dreamed of.
She was shunned by the establishment (thanks to Nightingale), even though the soldiers feted her on many occasions. She was forgotten by our historians until recently.
“Did non-whites and non-males do things of great import and historic significance during those times?”
Yes, many did. Hogarth and Benjamin Bannaker to name but two. Remember that most of the population of the Bible were probably black or brown, and if you don’t believe, that the first great library was in Africa, and Egypt is there too.
“Hogarth and Benjamin Bannaker to name but two.”
Are we talking William Hogarth here, Bryan? The British painter/printmaker?
LOL,
By what metric do we measure accomplishment? Since the dawn of the industrial revolution the overwhelming majority of accomplishments that have shaped our modern world have come from white males.
This country’s greatest accomplishment, our Constitution, which is the foundation upon which this country was built likewise an accomplishment of white males.
Every culture needs heros. There is nothing wrong with mentioning blacks and giving them a role in the national narrative. But it is outright revisionism and utter PC folly to over emphasize minority accomplishments if you do not accurately chronicle how and who actually built this country.
Bruce, all I’m asking is not to be singled out for any special treatment — plus or minus. I want to be judged not by the color of my skin or the shape of my chromosomes, but the content of my character. And I do not wish to be rewarded or penalized for my choice of ancestors.
Oh, and I said “world history,” not “the history of the world.” “World History” has, at least to me, meant a broad overview of the history of the nations and peoples of the world. It sounds like Raphael is thinking of paleontology or archaeology.
J.
“Since the dawn of the industrial revolution the overwhelming majority of accomplishments that have shaped our modern world have come from white males.”
It is true that white males, which is to say European and European-descended males, have wielded unprecedented global power ever since the Renaissance. But this has been a two-edged sword: sure, they’ve built and discovered and industrialized and modernized, but they’ve also exploited, destroyed and murdered whatever populations got in the way of their greed, all this on an unprecedented scale, too.
Who would dare to contradict this point?
There is a Eurocentric, myopic view of what “history” is, fellas, and then there is the self-congratulatory tone of your discussion that is totally twisted. I would give points to all the conservative, traditional non-white cultures (more “civilized,” perhaps?)who DIDN’T murder and destroy on a grand scale during this period.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Jay Tea is a right wing, talk radio kind of white guy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Jay Tea is a fuckin’ idiot.
Fixed, Ed.
“I want to be judged not by the color of my skin or the shape of my chromosomes, but the content of my character.”
Jay Tea, trust me. You are being judged on the content of your character which you’ve proven to be minimal, at best.
You are habitually wrong about the basic, foundational facts of most of your arguments, which is kind of sad, given how simplistic your arguments actually are.
I don’t think anyone need go any further than your struggle to exert a difference between the phrase “world history” and “the history of the world.”
Raphael pointed out:
You responded:
Jay Tea, how long would you say there have been “peoples” on the planet? And how long would you say there have been “nations”? How are you even defining those two terms? For that matter, how are even defining archaeology? Or paleontology?
Wikipedia offers this definition:
By that definition, recovering the artifacts of early European settlements in America and even later colonial settlements constitutes archeology. Hell, man, there are archeologists at work in New York city digging up the history of that city: http://r2.gsa.gov/fivept/fphome.htm
And what about Paleontology? Wikipedia says this: “Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, including organisms’ evolution and interactions with each other and their environments.”
Jay Tea, paleontology isn’t necessarily interested in human culture or society at all. So why the fuck would you think Raphael was talking about paleontology?
Basically, Jay Tea, Raphael called you on your bullshit and you threw out a bunch of words — “peoples,” “nations,” paleontology” “archeology” — that have absolutely zero temporal or in the case of paleontology, conceptual, correlation.
“Peoples” have certainly been around a lot longer than “nations” while archeology encompasses the study of everything from ancient greek ruins to the old subway tunnels of New York. Paleontology, on the other hand, isn’t necessarily interested in human culture, society or history at all. It’s focus is on the much, much larger development of living organisms and their environments.
Without any further explanation of these terms as you deploy them, Jay Tea, your entire response to Raphael is meaningless drivel.
Why anyone pays any attention to anything you write is beyond me.
“LOL”
Amused Observer, almost nothing you think is funny is funny. So stop starting so many of your posts with “LOL.” It makes you look even dumber than you are. And you are very, very dumb.
“Why anyone pays any attention to anything you write is beyond me.”
This is why I suggested responding to Jay Tea with nothing more than the phrase, “Shut the fuck up, Jay Tea.”
He is clearly not worth any more effort than that.
“Bruce, all I’m asking is not to be singled out for any special treatment — plus or minus. I want to be judged not by the color of my skin or the shape of my chromosomes, but the content of my character. And I do not wish to be rewarded or penalized for my choice of ancestors.”
Two points…
1.) There are racist people today, so this has nothing to do with your ancestors.
2.) You are one of those racist people, Jay Tea. Anyone who complains about the White Man’s Burden is a racist fucktard.
Jay Tea: I want to be judged not by the color of my skin or the shape of my chromosomes, but the content of my character.
And you are. Here you are judged by the content of your character as expressed in your comments. Your race and sex enter into it only if you choose to include them. If you don’t want to be judged on them, don’t bring them into the conversation.
For myself, I want to be judged here only on my character as expressed in my comments. From any comment I’ve ever made here can you tell my age? My sex? My marital status? Where I live? What I do for a living?
“Why anyone pays any attention to anything you write is beyond me.”
It’s the same attraction as a slow-motion car wreck. Or someone getting hit in the balls.
“It’s the same attraction as a slow-motion car wreck.”
I know. So horribly fascinating isn’t it.
CSS,
I find the intolerance and ignorance of the left to be a never ending source of humor in a sad sort of way. This is a perfect example, “Anyone who complains about the White Man’s Burden is a racist fucktard.”
The first sign of a weak arguement is to attack the messenger instead of the message. Thus even your opinions regarding my intelligence are funny.
I find the intolerance and ignorance of the left to be a never ending source of humor in a sad sort of way.
As I do when right-wingers pretend to lecture the left on intolerance and ignorance.
It’s the same attraction as a slow-motion car wreck. Or someone getting hit in the balls.
Or a slow-motion hit to the balls.
Amused 0: The first sign of a weak arguement is to attack the messenger instead of the message.
So, over here where you chose not to answer any of the questions but rather attack me, you’re conceding that you have a weak argument.
Good. Glad to have that cleared up. Thanks.
Amused,
Suggesting you are an idiot for writing things like this:
Every culture needs heros. There is nothing wrong with mentioning blacks and giving them a role in the national narrative.
Is not attacking the messenger. The sentiment is so elitist, patronizing, racist and ridiculously myopic that only an idiot would write it with any seriousness.
Sean,
It’s obvious the last thing you desire is a objective system where an individual is judged on merit without regard to group identity.
“It’s obvious the last thing you desire is a objective system where an individual is judged on merit without regard to group identity.”
This from the asshole who wrote:
In other words, sorry black people. We’ll try to squeeze you in somewhere but our main focus is white people.
AO: “I find the intolerance and ignorance of the left to be a never ending source of humor in a sad sort of way.”
And as I said above, you are (nearly) constantly wrong. So starting so many posts with “LOL” makes you look far dumber than you actually are. And you are frighteningly dumb to begin with.
“This is a perfect example, ‘Anyone who complains about the White Man’s Burden is a racist fucktard.’”
I noticed you never challenged the substance of my argument. Or do you agree with the concept of “The White Man’s Burden”?
“The first sign of a weak arguement is to attack the messenger instead of the message. Thus even your opinions regarding my intelligence are funny.”
Yes, cause we all know the personal biases of the messenger have nothing to do with evaluating the reliability of the message. Moron.
If someone says, “2 2=5″ you shouldn’t listen to their opinions on economics. Saying, “You are a moron when it comes to math, so your opinion on Keynesian economics is moot.” is not an ad Hominem attack as you implied above.
Likewise, if someone is racist, as Jay Tea demonstrated he was, you don’t listen to their opinions on subjects where race plays a factor. Like this thread, for instance.
Fafaroo,
You might not like reality but that’s the way it goes. The American story is not primarily about blacks. Ignorance about history is still ignorance even if it is P.C.
“It’s obvious the last thing you desire is a objective system where an individual is judged on merit without regard to group identity.”
Projection. Look it up.
“The American story is not primarily about blacks.”
That’s like saying that the history of Egypt, at least as told in the Old Testament, isn’t primarily about the jews.
The last 500-600 years were not “most” of world history, and before that, white men were mostly restricted to a relatively small part of the world.
Oh, and I said “world history,” not “the history of the world.” “World History” has, at least to me, meant a broad overview of the history of the nations and peoples of the world. It sounds like Raphael is thinking of paleontology or archaeology.
JT, in 1492:
The Chinese explorer Zheng He had ships several hundred feet long with citrus trees growing on board, and trained seals to catch fish. Columbus was crossing the Atlantic with his three boats, the largest of which had a storage space as large as a three-car garage. They were trading with the East African Swahili and the Indian Mughul Empire; the Europeans had nothing they wanted and had to engage in what is euphemistically known as ‘armed trading.’ The Sudanic Empire of Meroe had worked iron, kept cattle and used an alphabet hundreds of years previously. Google “Golden Age of Islam” if you’re interested; they’ve too many contemporary accomplishments to list here.
The way history is usually taught is racist.
AO: There is nothing wrong with mentioning blacks and giving them a role in the national narrative. But it is outright revisionism and utter PC folly to over emphasize minority accomplishments if you do not accurately chronicle how and who actually built this country
[snip]
You might not like reality but that’s the way it goes. The American story is not primarily about blacks. Ignorance about history is still ignorance even if it is P.C.
AO, nobody’s advocating giving Sally Hemmings an equal role to Thomas Jefferson. But minorities as a whole and several individuals don’t get the ink they deserve. I wasn’t even taught about W.E.B. Dubois or Malcolm X in high school (in a small conservative town, with a conservative school board); not until my first of college were they even mentioned.
“AO, nobody’s advocating giving Sally Hemmings an equal role to Thomas Jefferson.”
Exactly. But the question to AO is how can you fully understand Jefferson without knowing who Hemmings was?
How can you fully understand the nature of the Constitution and its full significance unless you understand the history of slavery and the struggle for civil rights in this country?
The answer to both questions is that you can’t.
Amused 0: Sean,
It’s obvious the last thing you desire is a objective system where an individual is judged on merit without regard to group identity.
Amused,
It’s obvious the last thing you desire is acknowledging reality and recognizing that there is no simple system, objective or otherwise, that can meet the supposed goal.
And just where in the questions I’ve asked (which you still avoid making any attempt at reponding to since the next to last thing you desire is having to deal with them) have I suggested some individual be judged based on a group they belong to? On the contrary, I’ve been saying an individual’s particular circumstances should be taken into account if true fairness is to be attempted.
Amused 0: You might not like reality but that’s the way it goes. The American story is not primarily about blacks.
Who said it was? If it weren’t so commonplace this ability you and others on the right have to turn yourselves into the victims in your own minds would be astounding.
Folks say blacks of achievement should be recognized for those achievements and you seem to believe that means whites of achievement won’t be. When did recognition become a zero-sum game?
Is it just that you truly believe lifting anyone else means you get lowered?
Sean,
I responded to Oliver’s intentionally provacative lead in for this post. Oliver chooses to mock conservative positions and I respond in kind.
General history classes that are supposed to give the citizens a common grounding in the history of thier country, how it was formed and what shaped it. Recognition is not a zero sum game. But an overemphasis on minority roles in history that crowds out the teaching of general history is a zero sum situation. Which I believe is what Mr. Steyn ws trying to point out and is what Oliver chose to pillory.
Is it just that you truly believe lifting anyone else means you get lowered?
That’s exactly what he’s saying.
If a black dude gets a position that a white guy doesn’t, the white guy is less.
WAAAH! IT’s not FAIR!
The conservative problem is that you guys think history should be taught from the perspective of white guys civilizing the world and the furthest concession you’re willing to make is for kids to learn who Harriet Tubman is during the shortest month of the year. Any more complex view of history, as in what actually happened, is always derided as a PC attempt to shoehorn in minorities. It’s a patently ridiculous way to look at the issue, but its the conservative position.
The right way to teach history is to discuss major figures, their ideas and policies and how it affected the course of history.
“Is it just that you truly believe lifting anyone else means you get lowered?”
“That’s exactly what he’s saying.
If a black dude gets a position that a white guy doesn’t, the white guy is less.”
I get the feeling that he thinks if a white dude gets the position it is because of personal merit, where if the black guy gets it, it’s because of affirmative action.
“Any more complex view of history, as in what actually happened, is always derided as a PC attempt to shoehorn in minorities.”
I think Oliver sums it up well. History isn’t just what the people at the top did. It’s also who their policies impacted and how. Those at the bottom of society can wield as much influence on the course of a nation’s history as those at the top, especially when those at the bottom begin to start asking for and then demanding their equal rights.
History is never shaped by one dominant force. It is shaped by multiple, competing forces of various power pushing against one another. Good history includes the complex interactions of all these forces.
Bozo, I think I do mean that Hogarth. I may well be muddled up though. There was definitely a black painter in the same era as Hogarth (if it’s not him). He used to paint himself in to some of his work as well.
“The right way to teach history is to discuss major figures, their ideas and policies and how it affected the course of history.”
Exactly!