Only one I can answer offhand for sure is the greek one. Andromeda, if I recall correctly, of Perseus and Andromeda. I think the first man to set foot atop Everest was the sherpa, whose name I know but can not recall at the moment.
Fort Stanwix is in New York… Darned if I know. Old. Lemme guess, it was the western boundary of the Thirteen?
K. III… He declared Christianity the country religion?
Eboue… uh… Ethopia?
For better or worse, the conquerers get to write history. What is significant is a matter of personal interpretation. I happen to feel that Napoleon was more significant than Dumas, Polycarp may disagree. My criteria is that if Napoleon had never lived, the difference in history would have been greater than it would have had Dumas never lived. Shakespeare’s plays have influenced modern western culture in ways that unknown (to westerners) authors have not if for no other reason than that Shakespeare got into the curriculum.
I’m perfectly aware that Native Americans were present when the white man arrived. However, they were not producing a great document (the Constitution) that spelled out the rights of men. And I’m aware of the contributions of others in the westward expansion of America. Collectively, these people all contributed to the wealth of American culture but individually, none rivalled Lincoln. The deeds of the mighty would not be possible without the efforts of the many nameless followers, however history only records those that are the leaders.
To be quite honest, I’d never heard of Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky. Reading about his life, it was quite remarkable. Typing a translation of the Bible with one finger while largely paralyzed over twenty years is an amazing feat. But his influence on history is less than the least of our presidents.
So, you really *are[//i] saying that what you consider history is what white people did. Everybody else is just backdrop.
That’s a pretty narrow view of what constitutes history, especially what you consider “important history” did not occur in a white western vacuum. But hey, so long as I know where your coming from and can evalute your posts without scratching my head in puzzlement.
Why’d they put the submit button so close to the preview button? That up there should look more like this:
So, you really are saying that history is what white people did. Everybody else is just backdrop.
That’s a pretty narrow view of what constitutes history, especially since what you consider “important history” did not occur in a white western vacuum. But hey, so long as I know where your coming from and can evalute your posts without scratching my head in puzzlement.
Only if we let them. One big reason for a push for change in the way history is taught is that serious scholars of history realize that if you want to really learn about and understand the past you can’t just go by what the conquerors wrote. If we let what the conquerors wrote and nothing else be our history then we’re depriving ourselves of all sorts of useful and fascinating information about ours pasts and human beings in general.
Yeah, because if we let the conquerers write history, everyone ends up believing you said “ain’t” when you really said "aren’t.
Questions for biggirl:
1- Do you believe that each individual contributes to history?
2- Is history the sum of the contributions of each individual?
3- If the answers to 1 and 2 are yes, do you still believe that whites have contributed less than 50% of the history of western civilization ?
4- If that answer is yes, then you must by necessity believe that each white individual contributes significantly less than each non-white individual, since the majority of individuals in the western world are white.
5- Do you believe that blacks have not made the most history in African civilization? If yes, then why is that different than the above? If no, then who did?
I find the tone of your arguments quite disappointing. First you put words in my mouth “You think history is what white people did”, then you compare me to a kindergarten child “You’re (sic)theory of what is history reminds me of one of my children’s kindergarten classmates.” Why do you feel the need to personally attack those that disagree with you?
You know, its rather ironic that Biggirl is proposing reparations for history.
Certainly, but don’t expect Joe Schmoe the opressed farm hand to be raised on a pedestal like Mr. Twain.
History is the study of the past. Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition, which explains what history is quite well
No. History is what happened. It is the “chronological record of events” or “the branch of knowledge that explains past events”. It is not some highlight reel or Greatest Hits Album.
See answers to one and two.
Once again-- history is not a Greatest Hits Album. History is the record of past events. Your claim that whites had the “better” past events or “more” past events is ridiculous.
Once again, we are speaking here about BHM and American history. Blacks have the same amount of history in this country as any other race. American Indians have more. Your new and improved definition of what is history is narrow and confining. Your claim that white people make the “most” history is elitist and patronizing.
And I find the tone of your arguements narrowminded and somewhat childish.
Proposing “history reparations”? Putting Joe Schmoe on a pedistal? You don’t think the history of our farmers should be studied, but Mark Twain should? Again, some people’s idea what what is history leaves me completely puzzled.
Biggirl, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Only one of us is attempting to be rational and courteous. Rather than descend to your level, I shall take the high road and not engage in battle with an unarmed opponent.
But not every farmer.
But in a given medium–given its limits–what events should be chronicled? Doesn’t the study of history emphasize those persons, events, etc. that have had the greater impact on the world? Some hits are greater than others.
There is something to be said for emphasizing the lives and contributions of ordinary people, and doing so by examinig the life of a slave, frontier woman, etc. The issue is how much event-driven history should be de-emphasized to make room for this kind. Minorities and women are biased in favor of this approach because they stand to gain more. Blacks in particular have their identities bound up with history and identify with their past race-mates to a much greater degree than most whites do. Very backward-looking. One problem with black history–though this isn’t the fault of the presenters–is that blacks get angry all over again, so it’s important to learn to put things into perspective.
Black History Month does present a lot of “greatest hits”, but a lot of the persons and events are of mid-level significance many of which would not be noted if they were white. These get regurgitated every February along with the more truly significant aspects of black history which get plenty of play during the rest of the year.
We’ve gone from “the victors write the history books” to “the victims write the history books”.
Hmm. Which history books?
I’m not the one advocating the “great person” approach to history.
And does this “great impact” involve only the recognized “winner” of history? Really, where did this "since white people did A, then everyone else’s history is irrelevant or unimportant and impactless come from?
No where have I said that history should be about ordinary people. History is the study of past events. I’d be glad when BHM or Women’s History Month or American Indian History month isn’t needed. And the people saying that the highlight reel approach to history is the easiest and most expediant way to teach history sure seem to have their identities bound up real tight with how history represents them.
Because American history that involves blacks and American Indians and those of the non-European persuasion is only peripheral? Because everyone else’s history stops or is unimportant if Europeans arent involved directly? The history of blacks and Hispanics and the Chinese and the American Indians in this country is American history. It shouldn’t be some special “give them a month to explain themselves” kind of history.
How about Americans write American history books?
Yea, I’d like to see these special “victim history books” too.
To a certain extent, this has some truth in it. Garrett Morgan is not the only person to design, build, and patent a gas mask or to design, build, and patent a traffic signal.
However, a common refrain among a lot of people is that blacks “didn’t do anything” other than labor-intensive farming and that this demonstrates that they are not capable of doing anything. George Washington Carver nearly single-handedly saved Southern agriculture, yet some white farmer’s kid from the South posted here a couple of years ago that Carver was being lionized for something trivial like playing with peanuts.
And there is an additional aspect to the stories of the people of “mid-level significance.” It is instructive to see how their “mid-level” achievements were treated at the time. Morgan used his gas mask to save the survivors of an explosion in the tunnel being built to provide Cleveland with water. He and his brother went into the tunnel and dragged out several survivors along with the bodies of the slain. In the newspaper account of the rescue, the police and fire department members were noted and quoted and named and honored; a single line noted that “two colored men helped in the rescue.”
I do not believe that Morgan’s gas mask or his traffic signal set the world on fire. (He had more luck with his patents on sewing equipment–many of which were revolutionary, if little remembered or credited.) The original gas mask design ultimately did not triumph over those of competing inventors; the traffic signal was also developed in multiple places (although his eventually did beat out the competition). However, with people continuing to pretend that blacks made no contributions beyond sweat, it does become important to recognize the contributions of individuals in order to see how the selective writing of history, to this point, has shaped our perceptions of who has contributed.
Oh, nevermind. That was a throwaway line.
Lord Ashtar:
Deadly Nightlight:
No, every other month is football or baseball season, which is why BHM is held in February.
Another throwaway line.
Biggirl:
The case hasn’t been made that it is.
I have no idea what you mean by that, but even so, history isn’t about representin’.
Who the hell is saying that?
There is plenty of black history in the media throughout the year, and when I was in school in the 70s there was plenty of black history in the curriculum. If anything, there’s more these days. Why isn’t plenty enough?
If it can be shown that a lot of significant black history is being ignored by the mainstream while no-more-important white history is included, I’ll change my tune.
The fact that more people learn in school about Custer’s Last Stand than Chief Joseph’s march; people know about Robert Moses’ effect on our urban landscape and no one knows about Sara Josephine Baker’s far reaching impact on our health and sanitation; that supposedly intelligent people think that GW Carver invented peanut butter; that so many really believe that white people have more history in the US than any other ethnic groups seems to make a pretty good case to me.
Weren’t these your words?
I was just commenting on the fact that whites seem very involved and their identities intrinsically bound to their “victor” status. (P.S. “Backward-looking” is a bad thing when talking about history? Talk about puzzling!)
Obviously your idea of “plenty” of black history and my idea of an intergrated American history are not the same. Can I ask what you consider “plenty” of black history?
Well, how much do you know about the Navy being integrated up until the beginning of the 20th century? How much do you know about the number of blacks who held responsible positions in the government bureaucracy until thrown out during Woodrow Wilson’s terms in office? How much do you know about the villages and neighborhoods of blacks throughout the South and West that were destroyed in the period 1900 - 1930 (causing a serious dislocation, amounting to destruction, of a nascent black middle class at that time)? How much do you know about the forced labor imposed on blacks throughout the South between the end of Reconstruction and the 1940s?
These events all had a very significant impact on the number of blacks who are poor (and the culture that developed within black communities to avoid the appearance of success to avoid having it taken from them). Any general history text that spends any ink on Davy Crockett, Paul Revere, Buffalo Bill Cody, Amy Semple McPherson, or a host of other famous Americans (all of whom are certainly worthy of study, but none of whom affected the direction of U.S. history in the way that the events I related in my previous paragraph did) has elevated white history above U.S. history.
Now, I will fault the people who produce the little history snippets on TV and radio for spending all their energies on feel-good tales of individual success stories rather than finding ways to produce a genuine history. (Just as I fault the middle school and high school history text publishers for failing to mention those repressive events, the potential contributions of the Iroquois Nation to the development of the Constitution, the ongoing and persistent efforts to destroy indian culture after the closing of The West, the real-life effects of the anti-citizenship laws passed exclusively against east Asian immigrants, and numerous other events that have shaped the country.)
However, until we can get the history texts changed, I still maintain that any group that wants to spend their own money to publicize their own history should have that right. (I can wish that they, along with the school boards and text publishers, would pay more attention to actual events that made a difference, rather than to platitudes or feel-good sound bites, but I can’t fault them for making some attempt.)
Whenever you open a history book and read about horrible crimes committed against your ancestors, it’s pretty hard not to feel linked to something.
But you’re wrong when you say whites don’t have their identities wound up in history. In my first English class in college, we read an excerpt from the “Autobiography of Malcolm X” where Malcolm X talks about the white-washing of American and world history. I was utterly shocked by our classroom discussion. I was told by my classmates that European history is the most important because it explains our present-day laws and form of government. I was told that African cultures don’t lend themselves to study by archaelogists, and anyway, there were no civilizations there that are worth studying.
I was told by people just as old as I was that slavery “wasn’t all that bad”. And then I was told that Malcolm X was a nasty racist, and the professor was wrong for assigning the book to us in the first place (makes you wonder if they had even read the book).
A few years later, the black history professor (that I talked about a few posts back) suffered from criticism from her US history students because she was teaching that Thomas Jefferson was a racist. I mean, people were actually complaining to the department chair! Apparently, these students felt they knew more about history than a Ph.D in the field. How dare this woman denigrate the image of our Lord and Savior Thomas Jefferson!
These people had their identities wound up in something. It just ain’t black people who care about how their history is told.
>The fact that more people learn in school about Custer’s Last
>Stand than Chief Joseph’s march; people know about Robert
>Moses’ effect on our urban landscape and no one knows about
>Sara Josephine Baker’s far reaching impact on our health and sanitation
This is all completely incidental, but I (student at public school) have observed the opposite.
>Well, how much do you know about the Navy being integrated
>up until the beginning of the 20th century? How much do you
>know about the number of blacks who held responsible
>positions in the government bureaucracy until thrown out during
>Woodrow Wilson’s terms in office? How much do you know
>about the villages and neighborhoods of blacks throughout the
>South and West that were destroyed in the period 1900 - 1930
>(causing a serious dislocation, amounting to destruction, of a
>nascent black middle class at that time)? How much do you
>know about the forced labor imposed on blacks throughout the
>South between the end of Reconstruction and the 1940s?
Speaking for those in my class, nothing is known. However, it is known that blacks are always the better and oppressed class, whites are the evil angry males.