Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

White Male History Month

jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:13:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just stop, please.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:13:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Just stop, please.

He basically copy and pasted my space alien thread. This is spam.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 1:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:14:50 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:13:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Just stop, please.

He basically copy and pasted my space alien thread. This is spam.

I'm on to your little game, sir. O.o
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 3:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?
A- Racism
Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:
B- Racists in office
White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.
C-Democrats
But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.
D- we deserve a month
In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

F- politics are filled with idiots who elevate minorities and bash majorities
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:07:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Do you care about any issue that doesn't have to do with identity politics?

2. Are you actually the real Jimtimmy?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 11:16:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:07:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
1. Do you care about any issue that doesn't have to do with identity politics?

2. Are you actually the real Jimtimmy?

It could be bubba the clown. You know how much he likes impersonating people, plus he's racist.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:39:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:07:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
1. Do you care about any issue that doesn't have to do with identity politics?

Yes.


2. Are you actually the real Jimtimmy?

Yes.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:40:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:16:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:07:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
1. Do you care about any issue that doesn't have to do with identity politics?

2. Are you actually the real Jimtimmy?

It could be bubba the clown. You know how much he likes impersonating people, plus he's racist.

I am, indeed, the real jimtimmy.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 8:44:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

How do history classes stress the shortcomings of white males? Folks like the Founding Fathers or Aristotle or Alexander the Great are usually taught about as if they could do no wrong. (It isn't until you take higher-level history classes that they begin to tell you that these men weren't at all perfect.) As you say, white males are in the history books because they did things that changed history, and obviously not all of them did so in a positive way. So it's only logical that you get more "evil" white males than "evil" folks from other demographics-- because the majority of the people we learn about are white males.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.
You do understand that a lot of the "doings" that made history are things like wars, imperialism, etc.? We practically teach history by the wars, it's only logical for there to be more stories of white males oppressing everyone else, because they were the ones doing most of what goes down in history (which is, like I said, wars, imperialism, political corruption, etc.). It's not an attack on your people, it's a logical result of white males dominating the history books.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 2:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 11:16:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:07:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
1. Do you care about any issue that doesn't have to do with identity politics?

2. Are you actually the real Jimtimmy?

It could be bubba the clown. You know how much he likes impersonating people, plus he's racist.

Because I'm totally a racist. WHITE MALE MURICUH!!!!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 3:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Oh yes you have had many accomplishments, White Male! Exterminating races, spreading diseases, enslaving peoples all over the world! Stealing a vast majority of your inventions and ideas from the original people then turning around and declaring them a savage people. Creating a society that specifically is designed for you, then complaining about the consequences of that and how your burden of privilege is so irritating and dehumanizing. White males seemingly "dominate" history because history today is told by the "victor" and that is unfortunately them. White males also seemingly "dominate" history because in this society western ideals and history is upheld as the epitome of civilization. You know praising things like the fact way back when there were kings and queens in Europe they wouldn't bathe for a year, instead they would powder to the point where their necks would mold. Yeah that sort of thing. And who was marrying with these women left and right and doing the same. White Males. So classy and civilized. No please Jimmy please tell us more about how important and upstanding you are and how you have earned a place in history because your ancestors committed the worst form of savagery the world has ever seen :)
Please stop complaining about the fact that people do that because evidently your ancestors made a bed for you to lie in.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 8:44:07 AM, Harper wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

How do history classes stress the shortcomings of white males? Folks like the Founding Fathers or Aristotle or Alexander the Great are usually taught about as if they could do no wrong. (It isn't until you take higher-level history classes that they begin to tell you that these men weren't at all perfect.) As you say, white males are in the history books because they did things that changed history, and obviously not all of them did so in a positive way. So it's only logical that you get more "evil" white males than "evil" folks from other demographics-- because the majority of the people we learn about are white males.

You simply have not been in a history class recently. Even the good white males are slandered. The Founding Fathers are painted as racist, classist, sexist oppressors who only cared for their own economic self interest.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.
You do understand that a lot of the "doings" that made history are things like wars, imperialism, etc.? We practically teach history by the wars, it's only logical for there to be more stories of white males oppressing everyone else, because they were the ones doing most of what goes down in history (which is, like I said, wars, imperialism, political corruption, etc.). It's not an attack on your people, it's a logical result of white males dominating the history books.

No. Every people has wars. We just tend to win them a lot more. We also contributed a lot more in inventing, discovering, thinking, etc.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.

They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.


But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.

Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.

Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 3:11:41 PM, AFism wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.


Oh yes you have had many accomplishments, White Male! Exterminating races, spreading diseases, enslaving peoples all over the world! Stealing a vast majority of your inventions and ideas from the original people then turning around and declaring them a savage people. Creating a society that specifically is designed for you, then complaining about the consequences of that and how your burden of privilege is so irritating and dehumanizing. White males seemingly "dominate" history because history today is told by the "victor" and that is unfortunately them. White males also seemingly "dominate" history because in this society western ideals and history is upheld as the epitome of civilization. You know praising things like the fact way back when there were kings and queens in Europe they wouldn't bathe for a year, instead they would powder to the point where their necks would mold. Yeah that sort of thing. And who was marrying with these women left and right and doing the same. White Males. So classy and civilized. No please Jimmy please tell us more about how important and upstanding you are and how you have earned a place in history because your ancestors committed the worst form of savagery the world has ever seen :)
Please stop complaining about the fact that people do that because evidently your ancestors made a bed for you to lie in.

The only possible response to this:

https://www.youtube.com...
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You simply have not been in a history class recently. Even the good white males are slandered. The Founding Fathers are painted as racist, classist, sexist oppressors who only cared for their own economic self interest.

I'll actually have you know that I am enrolled in a U.S. history class and the prevailing attitude in the books we read about the Founding Fathers is that, sure they did some questionable things, but they were overall good people with good intentions. That's the attitude. I don't know what country's history class you're talking about, but it certainly isn't America.

No. Every people has wars. We just tend to win them a lot more. We also contributed a lot more in inventing, discovering, thinking, etc.
Okay, now you're just defeating your own logic. Follow this:
1. You say that white males are in history books because they've done things that get them into history books.
2. It is a fact that wars are dominant part of what makes history and what gets you into history books.
So following this logic, the best conclusion is that:
3. More white males in history books = you're going to see more wars initiated and involving white males.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:14:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

I believe that is because "discriminated groups months" are precisely to vindicate the fight against discrimination of certain groups. As the whites are not a group historicaly discriminated by virtue of being white, and I think (and I'm white) that white people rarely feel discriminated or part of a discriminated group for being white, I doubt that "pro-white" celebrations will succeed among the population. In other words, if you don't see any white month celebration is because white people aparently are not very interested in having such event. But of course you are free to start such claims and see for yourself whether or not there are many people who feel like you. Personaly I don't find a "white month" very useful for anything, since I don't see discrimination against white people anywhere but in a few exceptions. But I wouldn't be against the movement if you started it and I felt it was really a vindication of fighting against racisim.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

That may be true and I encourage you to open a thread about it in the history section, but that is not the only reason. The fact that discrimination exists, both against other races and against women, is evidence enough to be, at least skeptical, about the accuracy of "white-male made history". Moreover, as a teacher, I never see history classes making it clear that civilization was invented by people "of color", that our culture is a copy of the non-white mediterranean culture, that no major religion has ever been born of a white person, etc.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

I don't see the shortcomings of all white males being stressed, in fact the nobel prize is still given to mostly white males if you take groups into consideration. As for elevating the achievement by women, blacks, etc. I don't think it's elevating it either. You simply point out this or that was discovered by a female or a black, because we come from an era in which women are blacks were sadly considered inferior to whites and males, and therefore we need to do our best to make people understand that this is not true, that women and blacks can also be as good as whites and males. It is not a matter of "exaggerating" their achievements, only a matter of mentioning that different races can achieve equaly great things.

white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history.

Again I encourage you to put that affirmation to test in the history forum. It seems a very interesting topic.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 12:27:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 6:14:12 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

I believe that is because "discriminated groups months" are precisely to vindicate the fight against discrimination of certain groups. As the whites are not a group historicaly discriminated by virtue of being white, and I think (and I'm white) that white people rarely feel discriminated or part of a discriminated group for being white, I doubt that "pro-white" celebrations will succeed among the population. In other words, if you don't see any white month celebration is because white people aparently are not very interested in having such event. But of course you are free to start such claims and see for yourself whether or not there are many people who feel like you. Personaly I don't find a "white month" very useful for anything, since I don't see discrimination against white people anywhere but in a few exceptions. But I wouldn't be against the movement if you started it and I felt it was really a vindication of fighting against racisim.

Okay.


White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

That may be true and I encourage you to open a thread about it in the history section, but that is not the only reason. The fact that discrimination exists, both against other races and against women, is evidence enough to be, at least skeptical, about the accuracy of "white-male made history". Moreover, as a teacher, I never see history classes making it clear that civilization was invented by people "of color", that our culture is a copy of the non-white mediterranean culture, that no major religion has ever been born of a white person, etc.

Nonsense. Modern civilization was built by, yes, white men. All of the institutions like republicanism and free markets are white male institutions and they are wonderfully effective institutions despite the frequent slandering of them.


But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

I don't see the shortcomings of all white males being stressed, in fact the nobel prize is still given to mostly white males if you take groups into consideration. As for elevating the achievement by women, blacks, etc. I don't think it's elevating it either. You simply point out this or that was discovered by a female or a black, because we come from an era in which women are blacks were sadly considered inferior to whites and males, and therefore we need to do our best to make people understand that this is not true, that women and blacks can also be as good as whites and males. It is not a matter of "exaggerating" their achievements, only a matter of mentioning that different races can achieve equaly great things.

Simple nonsense. If all races and both genders were equally capable of achieving great things, there would not be a disparity in achievements.

We often hear that white men oppressed everyone else. But, how did they get into a position where they could oppress others in the first place?

A few facts are relevant:

1.) Whites have an average IQ about 15 points higher than blacks. So, no, whites and blacks are not equally capable.

2.) Male dominance is a human universal. It stems from men having more testosterone, being more competitive, more willing to take risks, and less conformist.

The reason white males accomplished so much is because they, unlike most other groups, were actually capable of it.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:54:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 12:27:43 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 6:14:12 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

I believe that is because "discriminated groups months" are precisely to vindicate the fight against discrimination of certain groups. As the whites are not a group historicaly discriminated by virtue of being white, and I think (and I'm white) that white people rarely feel discriminated or part of a discriminated group for being white, I doubt that "pro-white" celebrations will succeed among the population. In other words, if you don't see any white month celebration is because white people aparently are not very interested in having such event. But of course you are free to start such claims and see for yourself whether or not there are many people who feel like you. Personaly I don't find a "white month" very useful for anything, since I don't see discrimination against white people anywhere but in a few exceptions. But I wouldn't be against the movement if you started it and I felt it was really a vindication of fighting against racisim.



Okay.





White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

That may be true and I encourage you to open a thread about it in the history section, but that is not the only reason. The fact that discrimination exists, both against other races and against women, is evidence enough to be, at least skeptical, about the accuracy of "white-male made history". Moreover, as a teacher, I never see history classes making it clear that civilization was invented by people "of color", that our culture is a copy of the non-white mediterranean culture, that no major religion has ever been born of a white person, etc.



Nonsense. Modern civilization was built by, yes, white men. All of the institutions like republicanism and free markets are white male institutions and they are wonderfully effective institutions despite the frequent slandering of them.

Well that simply isn't true. Republicanism was created by mediterraneans, which are latins, which were already a civilization of epic proportions when "whites" (nordics and saxons) were still in "infancy" as far as civilization is concerned. In the same sense, this latin civilization inherit the foundations of their civilization from middle-easterns like babilonians.

Historicaly white countries happen to be the leading economies these days, but still no country in history has gathered as much power as Rome, which was composed mainly of latins. No country in history has been as big as Ghengis Khan's mongolia, also composed by non-white people, etc.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

I don't see the shortcomings of all white males being stressed, in fact the nobel prize is still given to mostly white males if you take groups into consideration. As for elevating the achievement by women, blacks, etc. I don't think it's elevating it either. You simply point out this or that was discovered by a female or a black, because we come from an era in which women are blacks were sadly considered inferior to whites and males, and therefore we need to do our best to make people understand that this is not true, that women and blacks can also be as good as whites and males. It is not a matter of "exaggerating" their achievements, only a matter of mentioning that different races can achieve equaly great things.

Simple nonsense. If all races and both genders were equally capable of achieving great things, there would not be a disparity in achievements.

We often hear that white men oppressed everyone else. But, how did they get into a position where they could oppress others in the first place?

That's quite funny, I can portray romans saying the same about all the civilization, whites included, that they oppresed through history. The same goes for egiptians, with slaves of all colors. I can perfectly see Ramses saying: well, they deserve to be slaves, look at their laughable civilizations! They are clearly below us.

A few facts are relevant:

1.) Whites have an average IQ about 15 points higher than blacks. So, no, whites and blacks are not equally capable.

That depends on the veracity of the IQ tests performed. Were the IQ tests performed on people with same socioeconomic characteristics in order to ensure the only different thing between them was race? Or were they performed on average blacks and average whites, knowing average blacks are in a lower socioeconomical position that can lead them to a worse outcome in any test.

And the other thing about IQ tests, is that they are pretty useless to measure intelligence. Although I could agree they could "kind of" measure some logical capabilities.

2.) Male dominance is a human universal. It stems from men having more testosterone, being more competitive, more willing to take risks, and less conformist.

I don't think that is necesary to dominance. Hitler was a tiny man and Merkel an old hag. None of them are big men and still I see both as more dominant than any man I know. Moreover, you contradict yourself with this argument, since by that logic, blacks should be the dominant race, not whites, since blacks are clearly more phisicaly powerful than whites.

The reason white males accomplished so much is because they, unlike most other groups, were actually capable of it.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:57:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.



They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.

Also not true. Much of our knowledge of maths and medicine and astronomy was derived from "Asian" sources--I guess that you don't count anyone who lives across the Bosphorus as being "white"--and there's a lot of great philosophy and literature that's from Asia.





But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.



Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

Self-flattery?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

Same as above.

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?

Ditto.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.


Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.

In many universities--though not all--they do teach you history from a more universal perspective, and you can specialize in different epochs and countries. People in the West complain about Eurocentrism because we, thankfully, live in multicultural and enlightened societies; and we therefore should try to teach history from a universal perspectice.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 3:57:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.



They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.

Also not true. Much of our knowledge of maths and medicine and astronomy was derived from "Asian" sources--I guess that you don't count anyone who lives across the Bosphorus as being "white"--and there's a lot of great philosophy and literature that's from Asia.





But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.



Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

Self-flattery?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

Same as above.

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?

Ditto.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.


Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.

In many universities--though not all--they do teach you history from a more universal perspective, and you can specialize in different epochs and countries. People in the West complain about Eurocentrism because we, thankfully, live in multicultural and enlightened societies; and we therefore should try to teach history from a universal perspectice.

In other words, Western societies teach universal history because we're superior to those barbaric nations that focus on their own nations history.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:28:37 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:57:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.



They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.

Also not true. Much of our knowledge of maths and medicine and astronomy was derived from "Asian" sources--I guess that you don't count anyone who lives across the Bosphorus as being "white"--and there's a lot of great philosophy and literature that's from Asia.





But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.



Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

Self-flattery?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

Same as above.

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?

Ditto.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.


Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.

In many universities--though not all--they do teach you history from a more universal perspective, and you can specialize in different epochs and countries. People in the West complain about Eurocentrism because we, thankfully, live in multicultural and enlightened societies; and we therefore should try to teach history from a universal perspectice.



In other words, Western societies teach universal history because we're superior to those barbaric nations that focus on their own nations history.

No, good universities--in Japan or in the US--teach universal history because it is the enlightened thing to do. Since most western educational systems--excluding those in place in good universities--your claim that Western societies are superior is unwarranted. And insofar as they do it is because they are not racist societies anymore, but multicultural, and multi-ethnic, ones.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 10:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:36:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:28:37 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:57:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.



They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.

Also not true. Much of our knowledge of maths and medicine and astronomy was derived from "Asian" sources--I guess that you don't count anyone who lives across the Bosphorus as being "white"--and there's a lot of great philosophy and literature that's from Asia.





But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.



Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

Self-flattery?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

Same as above.

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?

Ditto.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.


Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.

In many universities--though not all--they do teach you history from a more universal perspective, and you can specialize in different epochs and countries. People in the West complain about Eurocentrism because we, thankfully, live in multicultural and enlightened societies; and we therefore should try to teach history from a universal perspectice.



In other words, Western societies teach universal history because we're superior to those barbaric nations that focus on their own nations history.

No, good universities--in Japan or in the US--teach universal history because it is the enlightened thing to do. Since most western educational systems--excluding those in place in good universities--your claim that Western societies are superior is unwarranted. And insofar as they do it is because they are not racist societies anymore, but multicultural, and multi-ethnic, ones.

Ok. So the rich (mostly western) world is just more enlightened than the racist masses in the third world.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:34:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 10:21:56 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:36:25 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:28:37 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:57:41 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/8/2015 4:56:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 2/8/2015 2:43:57 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

You answered your own question, not question begging is involved.

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

Nonsense. The Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empires, the Chinese and Indian Empires achieved as much as the empires and nations of western Europeans (the people, I believe, that you consider to be white). Your bias shows through your words.



They had empires. But, in terms of inventions, ideas, etc, while males are simply dominant.

Also not true. Much of our knowledge of maths and medicine and astronomy was derived from "Asian" sources--I guess that you don't count anyone who lives across the Bosphorus as being "white"--and there's a lot of great philosophy and literature that's from Asia.





But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

The point is that we must teach a more universal version of history rather than the Eurocentric version which still largely dominates the education curricula of most, if not all, western countries.



Why would European countries teach a Eurocentric version of history?

Self-flattery?

At the same time, why does my family teach me more about my own family lineage than everyone elses?

Same as above.

And, why do asian countries teach an asiancentric history?

Ditto.


In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Again, it is about trying to teach history from different perspectives, which is the whole point of the study of history. And again, you think the West is superior because that is what you were taught in your Eurocentric history class.


Again. No country in the world that teaches history does it from a "universal" perspective. Yet, people only seem to complain about Eurocentrism.

In many universities--though not all--they do teach you history from a more universal perspective, and you can specialize in different epochs and countries. People in the West complain about Eurocentrism because we, thankfully, live in multicultural and enlightened societies; and we therefore should try to teach history from a universal perspectice.



In other words, Western societies teach universal history because we're superior to those barbaric nations that focus on their own nations history.

No, good universities--in Japan or in the US--teach universal history because it is the enlightened thing to do. Since most western educational systems--excluding those in place in good universities--your claim that Western societies are superior is unwarranted. And insofar as they do it is because they are not racist societies anymore, but multicultural, and multi-ethnic, ones.


Ok. So the rich (mostly western) world is just more enlightened than the racist masses in the third world.

No, good history courses in good universities anywhere in the World are more enlightened than parochial universities anywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with race.

You keep trying to make your "race" appear superior, but if you had it your way and history was taught as you want it to be taught history courses in universities in the US would go back to being the parochial unenlightened institutions of yore.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 1:03:16 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
We have a special month carved out to celebrate the history for women, blacks, hispanics, gays, and even asians. Why, I ask, are white males the only group deprived of a month deprived of their history?

Well, you say, regular history is, in effect, white male history. They don't need a month carved out to celebrate their history. I should say "we", since I am (gasp!) a white male. This begs the question: Why do white men not need their own history month? The answer is much more simple than most assume:

White men dominate regular history because white men have accomplished a lot more than any other group, at least in the past 600 years or so. So, absent any bias, white men would naturally dominate historical narrative.

But, the logic of affirmative action has penetrated our history as well. We must elevate every achievement by a woman, black, hispanic, or anyone not a white male. This is regardless of how much these achievements actually mattered. We must also stress the shortcomings of all white male achievements.

In essence, this fits a grander narrative of evil white men oppressing everyone else. But, in truth, white men dominate history because they, more than any other group, did things that actually changed history. So, no, we don't need a white male history month. We earned our place in history the old fashioned way: doing important things.

Are you crazy? Celebrating white male history month will violate that one law that says that you can't celebrate whatever holiday, festival, et cetera that you want on your own time...
...Oh wait.

You understand why black history month exists, correct? It exists because black people had to go through some hard stuff in the recent past. Not because they did more stuff than white males.