Exactly!

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.

“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.

The right way to teach history is to discuss major figures, their ideas and policies and how it affected the course of history.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s like saying that the history of Egypt, at least as told in the Old Testament, isn’t primarily about the jews.

Projection. Look it up.

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.

This from the asshole who wrote:

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.

In other words, sorry black people. We’ll try to squeeze you in somewhere but our main focus is white people.

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.

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.