Ah, pants. Clearly that should read:
[nitpicky hijack]
Bonobos and Chimpanzees are two different, albeit closely related species of primate. The term “Bonobo” is not synonomous for “Chimpanzee”.
Brought to you by the Pedents Society. (Well, not actually literally brought, as such, that is just a figure of speech.)
[/nitpicky hijack]
…And now I’ll stop wasting bandwidth.
Lets all come together in a harmonious way and just agree that bitches are stupid
lol
I think a lot of high school or college age people go through a stage when they see nothing but injustice - or they want to question everything. I probably said some similar things when I was 17 or 18…even in college. Its part of growing up. And the teenage “I know it all already” attitude is nothing new either.
What’s bad is when one enounters 45 year olds with this attitude.
I think history is poorly taught at the high school and college freshman level. It mainly consists of survey courses that basically try to summarize everything. I think we would be better off if we just had each class do one specific time period or subject and really delve into it, so students will understand the process of history itself, and then be able to approach whatever other areas of history their curiosity will lead them into from there.
Preach it syncrolecyne! And it doesn’t just apply to history either. English/literature is like that as well.
BTW, sync, did you get the email I sent about Talleyrand?
LOL, nicely done Skillet. Just the right thing to say when a Pit thread turns into a pseudo-GD 
“Pedant”
Sorry.
Most people today would not understand how people a hundred years ago could deny others the right to live and work where they wished just because of the color of their skin. OTOH, the same people who cannot understand that, are perfectly OK with the notion that people can be denied the same rights on account of their nationality. Being black may not be a good excuse to deny you the right to live and work here but being Mexican certainly is. personally, I find race would be a much more valid reson than nationality. If race is a artificial construct, so much more artificial is nationality. And yet, most people today are fine with that and plenty of people on this board defend that discrimination. Personally I think denying someone the right to live/work in a certain place on account of him being Mexican is just as bad, if not worse, than doing it on account he is black.
How should history judge the USA of today?
In one of those great ironys, the image of “Lincoln as racist” was first brought up by John Vardeman, a flamboyant racist from Mississippi, in the early 1910’s, and then was revived by black radicals in the 1960’s.
For the record, I try my hardest not to judge historical figures by their views unless they were regarded as extreme at the time.
It seems to me the standard should be “Did he make (Or at least try to) things better?” And by any measurable standard, Lincoln did. No one’s holding him up as Jesus, I don’t think.
LOL! I wish I used a sig…
Oh, uh, no, I won’t bother with a serious contribution
You can, but it is a great and pointless folly. I can also hate the 6th Emperor of China because I don’t like monarchies, but that doesn’t mean I have a logical or valid reason for doing so. Likewise, hating Jefferson because he was wrong about something is foolish, at best. We are all wrong. Past societies would think us buffoons and moral midgets, and future ones will do the same, often over the same issue in various ways.
Although the HS’er in question was probably not using the “newfangled” definition of racism, ironically enough, Lincoln was probably less of a racist by the far left college liberal standards than by the commonly accepted definition.
i.e. while he DID partake of the benefits of being white, which would automatically make him a racist under far-left standards, he thought that these should not be enforced, while he did believe in the superiority of whites to blacks, which the far-left definition doesnt address at all!
Shakespeare was racist, too – an anti-semite. And perfectly normal for his time in it…Ever read The Merchant of Venice? Shylock is an appalling bastard. Othello’s not so bad, but I don’t think there was anything like the sort of white superiority we got later on around Queen Elizabeth’s England. Feel free to correct me, though; I don’t know that much about that culture. Probably figured “At least they ain’t Catholics.”
He was sexist, too. Check out The Taming of the Shrew, especially the end of it. It’s a fabulous play, but it’s nigh impossible to play now because of the social structure it seems to encourage. Of course, it can be read as an elaborate joke, but that’s rather subtle…
Yeah! Fuck you, Liu Heng! Oh, um…sorry.
<d&r>
There are those who wouldn’t understand how a rational person like yourself would profess to believe in a God that creates human beings. They would say, “Isn’t that an ancient superstition, created by men to account for natural occurences? Why do you, a rational, logical person of the 21st century, still believe in a deity?”
All I wanted to point out was that hey, - it’s all perspective. Your background in any given area will skew your view of Any Given Issue accordingly.
That high school student in the OP has probably fell victim to the crappy way the US public education system has educated children about, say, slavery and the Holocaust. Big fat controversial issues concerning prejudice and discrimination. I can remember how every year for school-assigned summer reading, a book about Jews in the Holocaust and blacks in slavery would be offered. We would read one of each almost every year in class without fail. We were fed the same generalized, stereotyped perceptions about those time periods, from first grade until twelfth. (Unless you were lucky enough to escape to higher-level courses, which might have made a difference.) It’s not surprising to me when I hear high school students present an argument on oversimplified, faulty logic.
What bothered my friend, (and what also bothers me) is that the girl seems to be of the mind that Lincoln’s work with the Emancipation Proclamation is utterly insignificant compared to the “racist values” that he held, despite the fact that those values were quite in the mainstream way of thought and action for the time.
And while the Emancipation Proclamation does not entirely excuse or forgive whatever racist thoughts/values Lincoln may have held, it goes a damn long way to show how he tried to change, not just himself, but also the country.
Whether Lincoln was racist or not is rather diminshed by the fact that he did the right thing at the time. Who was to know what he may or may not have done afterward? Mayhap that he had done something so awfully wrong afterward that proved the uninformed and immature HS Student correct?
Thank God we have changed in attitude since then.
Whoa- “vehemently racist”? What specifically were they guilty of, other than living in the wrong century? Would you expect Jefferson and Washington to not have slaves and if so, how would they have competed economically?
Washington and Jefferson founded a nation and created a government that to this day works better than any conceived before or after. Washington could have been king, instead he voluntarily declined to run for a third term. At the time, this was revolutionary. Jefferson wrote the longest lasting constitution in the history of mankind. It’s hard to hate these men that gave so much to us. Again, what faults do they have other than being born at the wrong time?
So it’s okay to be wrong as long as your point of view is understandable?
How about she gives Lincoln a freakin’ break?
The only fair way to judge people is relative to their time. Relative to racism, again it depends on the era. In the 1600s, one could hardly be expected to oppose slavery. But in the 1850s, yes you should be expected to do so. In the 1870s, you wouldn’t be expected to endorse voting rights of blacks. But by 1920, you should. In the 1930s, you wouldn’t be expected to think of having integrated armed services. By 1950, you should have accepted it. In the 1950s, you wouldn’t be expected to support integrated schools. By 1970, you would. And so on. You could draw similar arguments for sexism. Should we condemn 19th century Americans for having no women on the Supreme Court and for suppressing women’s rights to vote? Of course not. But you’d be a laughing stock if you ran for office on a platform of sexism today.
Lincoln even today would hardly be considered “vehemently” racist. But whose fore-fathers weren’t “racist”? If everyone was “racist” the word loses all meaning. Lincoln was far less racist than most other political leaders fo his time. They were great men for their time. We cannot & should not judge them by todays standards. Note that by “tomorrows” standards you, Monstro (and me and everyone else here) will very likely be considered racists & “specie-ists” and hardly better than Cro-magnons. Are you in favor of giving Dolphins the vote? Ha! I thought so! SPECIE-IST! :rolleyes:
Kombuchca, I am sorry you are wrong, but you get credit for being PC. :rolleyes: There are two sub-species of chimpanzees, extremely closely related (in fact, the DNA is almost- if not- identical). The “pygmy” subspecies is, indeed sometimes called a “bonobo”- however, “bonobo” is a subset of chimpanzee. For various political reasons, some primatologists have been pushing to make them a separate species- altho they are about as much a separate “species” as I am from an Ainu from Japan. Likely, even the “sub-species” label is incorrect, they are just different populations. They are on the forefront of the battle between the “lumpers” and “splitters”, but if they are two species, then humans are also several species. Which of course, they aren’t. (However, if the same justifications used by the most radical “splitters” were applied to the human species, we would have several different species).