Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46
  1. #31
    DreddeyeKnight courtney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Bond View Post
    Shouldn't it be ironic that after the Black civil rights movement that fought long and hard for integration there is now a movement for segregation?

    i dont think that having an afrocentric, eurocentric etc viewpoint or wanting an afrocentric school and being for intergration are mutaully exclusive.
    i see myself as pro human 1st and pro black 2nd, and that is because they are the foundations of who i am. getting a balanced view of history (which essentially places black people at the bottom rung of a ladder that only gets going when the greeks arrive for instance), or colonialism (where people of darker colour were deemed inferior and in need of benevolent control and capitalism, and were, in the case of black people, little more than monkeys) is very different when looking at it from the side of the conquered or "inferior". and i do feel that there is still a lot of subconcious racism in all peoples. but if you look at the feminist argument that if you live in a world dominated by men, where most political, economic and cultural decisions over the last few hundred years have been made by men, for both genders, then you would have to conclude that even the most enlightened souls will carrry sexist attitudes and ideas subconciously.
    thus, in this world, if you're led to belive one side of history where you either have no value or are the discoverers and builders of the "new world", you, and those on the other side of that colour fence will both be affected by this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bond View Post
    Do blacks need a special curriculum to succeed. If so why don't Asians?

    do you mean that all racial minority experiences are the same and should yield similar results? because i fell there are marked differences between asian experiences and black on so many levels the biggest being (and i feel almost sorry for bringing it up) when you htink that 100 million (black)slaves made it to new shores away from africa, but the majority of each ships "cargo" (3/4) died on the voyage, you are looking at 300 million on the seabed. a holocaust like that is going to really affect you, since it forms your recent history and sense of self. and that doesn't even begin to dig into the psychological morass of slavery in action.

    then if you look at the gangster culture that has pervaded popular culture, there's a whole other story going on. basically a&r people, and record execs control what facets of an act they want to promote, to the extent where (because its all about the bottom line: PROFIT) they encourage groups- here in the uk, the states etc- to "be more gangster" have "more hoes" and "talk gun business", because that is what sells. ironically it sells most to middle class white suburban audiences and always has, but they can put it away at night and go to bed in a world far from that. this makes it easier to to see it as pure entertainment (though many take on the roles just as eagerly as kids from black, asian, and poor white backgrounds. for those that are stuck in ghettos though, as with anything, if you're told something enough it becomes real, and the realnees in a lot of this music is that acting a certain way and following a dream will get you economic freedom.
    if that dream is selling drugs, being in a gang, rapping, whatever, then you struggle to attain that.
    i think the school might help with the psychological, socialogical and economic problems that exist for black people in the african diaspora. but i would also say that i belive that the problems faced by the black toronto community is actually a lot to do poverty and everything that goes with that. this means that there are poor people all not getting good grades, and this is certainly becoming more apparent in britain as more and more poor white males are dropping out of the education system, and slipping into gang culture etc....
    all members of a society are not equal so to say if this school goes ahead then what about asians, whites etc is kinda missing the point a little. if we lived in a society that had set everyone on an equal footing from birth then maybe this school would sem ridiculous to me, but as it is i can understand why some might want to push it and see if it can help be a solution rather than adding to a problem that surely needs something to change on a much deeper societal level.

    no offence to you bond whom i quoted, just those comments were something i had to respond to with my own thoughts on the subject

  2. #32
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    That's why I said in the very beginning of this thread:

    ...the success of such a program will hinge upon the perspective of the administrators who set policy and tone.

    When you live in a society in transition, as you do Zorobice, and one with such clear racial priorities in order to correct or readjust centuries of disparity, programs like this one may seem more hopeful. In other more mature societies, they may seem divisive.

  3. #33
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Welcome to the discussion

    From your post, I'm not 100% sure which "version" of history you're referencing. So I'll tell one of the version I know, you tell me if it matches yours, and then if it changes the questions involved in this idea of a uniquely black history for black centric schools.

    ---

    Something to remember is that the slave-trade was well underway well before the slave-trade moved into Africa. European colonisation of Africa started more than a 100 years after the colonisation of the Americas. In fact, the slave-trade continued to oppress people of all races -- not just blacks -- throughout most of its history. When it started, it didn't matter what your colour was so long as you were owned by somebody. This included peasants from across Europe, not just slaves from Africa. And it's important to point out that most of the original African slaves were already slaves in Africa -- ownership was just exchanged.

    Now, this isn't an excuse in any way -- it's just important to point out. The figure you supply in African dead on the sea floor is easily matched by the number of European dead, and the number of Asian dead. The unfortunate reality of the '60's civil rights movement is that in taking the power back, black leaders claimed ownership of a somewhat false version of history. This just makes sense, of course -- to power your movement you need to focus on the forces that affected you and your people, and so the truth about everyone else was necessarily ignored.

    So then the question is how did slavery get associated with blacks almost exclusively? There's one reason for this that's bigger than all the others -- democracy. The French Revolution, and the fall out from it across Europe, really is what started the modern concept of nationalism and race. How do you identify the natural racial citizenry and enfranchise them with the right to vote, but not enfranchise foreigners? How do you know who is yours, and who is not? So on come physical characteristics, and colour is the most obvious of all.

    Pseudo-scientific practices that claimed to prove one "race" of Europeans was better than another show up with things like phrenology, and this is shaped by and shapes the time's archaeological methodology. They also needed a way to explain the vast differences in technological advancements between different peoples. It was all innocent enough. It was just a question of economics and identifying who "we" are and who "you" are.

    This all triggered a shift in the flow of slaves, and black slaves coming out of Africa were the most obviously non-European. European slaves were actually being shifted from heading to the Americas into Africa. That's right, white slaves in Africa -- you never hear anyone talk about them. That's because it stopped altogether relatively quickly because soon even the lowest class of white people (men particularly) were given the right of citizenship in their home countries.

    So now you've got a false racial divide that's been created based on easily observable differences between insiders and outsiders. You've got pseudo-medical/scientific excuses for why some are "inferior" to others. And suddenly it's not just blacks that are part of the slave class, but it's also the ostensibly mentally deficient. So now slavery suddenly means Dark and Stupid and Deficient... maybe a bit evil? And this is now our lowest class.

    Then we see the rise of fascism and the eugenics movement across the world after some of the world's governments abolished slavery, and guess which visible "minorities" get lumped into that pile? While the actual holocaust was horrifying for the Jews, it also sucked pretty royally for these people -- some guesstimates place the deaths of blacks and people with physical and mental disorders at at least a third of the Jewish number. But we don't want to reduce the significance of the holocaust for Jews, so we politely ignore the fact that at least 2 million or more people were killed and experimented on for other reasons entirely.

    So slavery started off as a question of class and ends up as both a question of belonging and perceived intelligence. Over time, slavery and superiority -- in American particularly, but also in Europe -- became associated with a couple of physical characteristics. The most obvious of all of them was dark skin.

    As I said above, the civil rights movement in the '60's necessarily looked only at specific facts. The feminist movement focused on issues relating to femininity. There was a margin of feminism that looks at the history of race as comparable, but it was opposed quite violently by black leaders because it was perceived as lessening the black cause by invalidating black history. Plus, patriarchy being what it is, who care about the women...

    The black civil rights movement has also ignored -- and even publicly denigrated -- the injustices of the Asian slave trade. The entire west coast of the Americas was run by Asian slaves, not black slaves, in almost equal numbers and with just as many horrors. In fact, during the world wars, Asians were forced into concentration camps on Canadian and American soil. Blacks, by comparison, were for the first time being given enfranchisement because they were allowed to serve in the military. Asians were not allowed.

    ((The above history is paraphrased from the French sociologist, a feminist and whose area of expertise is racial history studies -- who also happens to be a black lady -- Colette Guillaumin.))

    The grand irony of all of this is that the Africentric idea pushes out the truth about Asian history in the slave-trade, which is grossly unfair to say the least. It also ignores the the history of the white slave-trade. The history of slavery is impossible to understand without this information, yet the popular (and predominantly American) version of black history routinely ignores all other questions of race, class, and democracy, and regard it merely as power hoarding by white people -- which is neither accurate nor exactly fair.

    It is possible that Africentrism can only continue to exist by maintaining these false divides, and its systems of misinformation.

    So what I want to know is this: The incorrect Africentric version of African history is fueling the desire for Africentric schools. Classic racial stereotypes are being referenced, particularly SES -- so which version of history will an Africentric school teach? One that continues to support the existence of Africentrism? Or, one that works toward an eventual removal of all racial lines?

    Systems tend to find ways to support themselves....


  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by courtney View Post
    i dont think that having an afrocentric, eurocentric etc viewpoint or wanting an afrocentric school and being for intergration are mutaully exclusive.
    This statement of yours and the rest of the paragraph that follows it doesn't seem to address the issue presented in my question. There is value in integration that is lost with segregation. Why cannot that afrocentric or eurocentric viewpoint be presented and experienced together with everyone else? The Jewish Holocaust is taught to all not just Jews. Is it better to have it taught only to Jews? Are others more or less likely to sympathize with Jews knowing what they went through? If it is a lesson worth teaching and learning then it should be possible to do so with everyone. Separation removes opportunities for Blacks to work with and understand the rest of the population and vice versa.

    do you mean that all racial minority experiences are the same and should yield similar results? because i fell there are marked differences between asian experiences and black on so many levels the biggest being (and i feel almost sorry for bringing it up) when you htink that 100 million (black)slaves made it to new shores away from africa, but the majority of each ships "cargo" (3/4) died on the voyage, you are looking at 300 million on the seabed. a holocaust like that is going to really affect you, since it forms your recent history and sense of self. and that doesn't even begin to dig into the psychological morass of slavery in action.
    We are all human and that common link should be able to bridge a lot of gaps. By saying our experiences differ and using that as justification for a separate curriculum you are then obligated to specify what exactly it is in our experiences that differs. You postulate poverty later on but in the above you pretty much argue it is history. Frankly I do not see how placing a special emphasis on saying your ancestors were slaves helps any. In fact I think that the above message breeds a feeling of victimization and a view that society owes them. After the period of time that has elapsed it should have no direct relevance anymore although indirect relevance is a different matter.

    then if you look at the gangster culture that has pervaded popular culture, there's a whole other story going on. basically a&r people, and record execs control what facets of an act they want to promote, to the extent where (because its all about the bottom line: PROFIT) they encourage groups- here in the uk, the states etc- to "be more gangster" have "more hoes" and "talk gun business", because that is what sells. ironically it sells most to middle class white suburban audiences and always has, but they can put it away at night and go to bed in a world far from that. this makes it easier to to see it as pure entertainment (though many take on the roles just as eagerly as kids from black, asian, and poor white backgrounds. for those that are stuck in ghettos though, as with anything, if you're told something enough it becomes real, and the realnees in a lot of this music is that acting a certain way and following a dream will get you economic freedom.
    if that dream is selling drugs, being in a gang, rapping, whatever, then you struggle to attain that.
    i think the school might help with the psychological, socialogical and economic problems that exist for black people in the african diaspora. but i would also say that i belive that the problems faced by the black toronto community is actually a lot to do poverty and everything that goes with that. this means that there are poor people all not getting good grades, and this is certainly becoming more apparent in britain as more and more poor white males are dropping out of the education system, and slipping into gang culture etc....
    all members of a society are not equal so to say if this school goes ahead then what about asians, whites etc is kinda missing the point a little. if we lived in a society that had set everyone on an equal footing from birth then maybe this school would sem ridiculous to me, but as it is i can understand why some might want to push it and see if it can help be a solution rather than adding to a problem that surely needs something to change on a much deeper societal level.
    My own limited experience makes me think it is mainly a matter of cultural thinking. How will segregating blacks improve that? I don't see how. Instead of broadening cultural viewpoints it will lead to a more insular outlook. Also saying that everyone doesn't start off on an equal footing and the answer therefore is special treatment (segregation) is ultimately unhelpful. Whereever possible the better solution is to treat people equally and not introduce opportunities for stigma.

    no offence to you bond whom i quoted, just those comments were something i had to respond to with my own thoughts on the subject
    None taken.

  5. #35
    I didn't do it! Fantasyeatergal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Québec, Canada (yes, I'm a french speaker, so you guys be nice when I'm not grammatically correct)
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Fung Koo View Post
    So what I want to know is this: The incorrect Africentric version of African history is fueling the desire for Africentric schools. Classic racial stereotypes are being referenced, particularly SES -- so which version of history will an Africentric school teach? One that continues to support the existence of Africentrism? Or, one that works toward an eventual removal of all racial lines?

    Systems tend to find ways to support themselves....

    That’s what I fear about that Afrocentric School, for something very similar happened, and is still happening, in Quebec’s school. I remember my high school national history class. Today, I realize that my teacher promoted a biased version of Quebec/Canada history, probably not even consciously. The way he put the facts couldn’t but make the students exit his class thinking “Damn those English people who ruined our lives!” It reinforced the feeling of being a victim. Consequently, we now have an important amount of Quebecers who despise English Canadians but couldn’t for the life of them explain what is so despicable about them. If you ask them, they will probably throw you some historical nonsense about the Evil English plotting to bring the poor Holy French Canadians down. Not that there have never been disparities between English and French Canadians, but the subtle feeling of conspiracy is what many of us (mostly the older ones, for the national history’s program has slightly changed over the last few years) retained from our history class.

    Some decades ago, when the national history program has been build, a Quebec-centric history class seemed like a good idea. The schooling level of Quebecers was very low, keeping the great majority of them in precarious posts. The teaching of a new view of their own identity did help to increase their schooling level, but it also led them to distance themselves even more from the Other, namely English Canadians.

    I’m not against the reinforcement of one’s identity, but it shouldn’t be made on altered/false basis. Sadly, it’s seems to be the common pattern to do so.
    Last edited by Fantasyeatergal; April 24th, 2008 at 10:31 AM.

  6. #36
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,696
    Been out-of-pocket for a couple of weeks but have been mulling this thread. Went out to acquire textbooks from Canada and the U.K. to pursue a question in my mind.
    Acquired a copy of “Forming a Nation, the Story of Canada and Canadians, Book 1 to 1867” published by Gage Publishing Limited, in 1977. There is much to admire in this book including the preface which outlines the book’s objectives:
    • A knowledge of Canada’s multicultural tradition
    • An appreciation of the Canadian experience
    • An understanding of the physical, social, and economic strands that are interwoven in the story of Canada
    • An appreciation that the Canadian nation was formed by a process of evolution, not revolution
    • An awareness of values through time
    • An ability to distinguish fact from fiction
    • An ability to differentiate between prejudice and point of view.

    I was also impressed that 1/7th of this text deals with Canada before and up to the time that European immigrants appeared on the scene.
    I presently own three U.S. history text books from the 70s and 80s and two from the 00s and not one of them sets out any objectives. Evidently, U.S. history textbook objectives are so obvious that no identification of such is necessary.
    There are some similarities between my textbooks and this Canadian textbook. Despite the stated objectives, there is no mention in Forming a Nation of the practice of slavery in Canada, a fact that sabotages almost all, if not all, of the text’s stated objectives.
    I bought two English history textbooks before noticing they had been written and produced in the U.S. The fact that they do not mention slavery is therefore not a valid critique of English history. Am off to find an English history textbook produced and published in the U.K.

  7. #37
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Sounds interesting. What's the question in your mind? "Where did I leave my pants???"

    Question: You say the title of the book is "...Book 1 to 1867" -- so is the book mostly pre-confederation history? How early does it start? Slavery was fully abolished in Canada about 40 years before confederation in 1867, and in addition, according to historian Marcel Trudel, there were only ever about 4,100 slaves in what is now Canada throughout its history (that number very likely doesn't include indentured servants). Of that number, about 2,700 were aboriginal people, and most slaves (about 75%) were owned by the French.

    In addition, the majority of Canada's 1400 or so black slaves were "offered safe passage"/deported to Sierra Leone when slavery was abolished in the 1840's.

    So slavery is not particularly resonant in white anglophone history in Canada, since (if that data is correct) there were perhaps only 500 slaves in the entirety of the British colony (which is the majority of Canada today) in total. I have no figures on how many emancipated black slaves remained in Canada, but probably not much more than 100-200.

    Compare that to the USA in 1860, when black slaves accounted for about 25% of the national population (over 4 million slaves). Canada's number at the time of the abolishment of slavery is about .001% for all slaves (includes the abo's).

  8. #38
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,696
    Instead of Book 1 I should have typed "pre-history to 1867".
    And I'm not interested in an "our slavery is better than your slavery" contest. I am interested in mulling how history books tend to convey an attitude, an assumption about the history being described. I long ago came down on the side of James Loewen and Howard Zinn in that I believe all sides of a question in history ought to be taught. In other words, if we want to discuss Columbus, then we should discuss the geo-politico-religio-scientifc-and economic arguments that made his journey possible as well as the impacts on each of the areas that resulted from his multiple journeys, e.g., we ought to discuss the Arawaks and what their POV might be.The obvious examples, people knew the world was round and the uses of slavery long before Columbus undertook his voyage.
    In the case of "Forming a Nation" then
    • A knowledge of Canada’s multicultural tradition
    • An appreciation of the Canadian experience
    • An understanding of the physical, social, and economic strands that are interwoven in the story of Canada
    • An appreciation that the Canadian nation was formed by a process of evolution, not revolution
    • An awareness of values through time
    • An ability to distinguish fact from fiction
    • An ability to differentiate between prejudice and point of view.

    ought to include a discussion of slavery including the practices of the First Canadians, the French and then the British prior to the 1834 British law enactment.

  9. #39
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Didn't mean to suggest there needed to be a pissing contest! Just pointing out the enormous differences in the actual histories as a partial explanation for the elision.

    Because of the "true" stats on slavery in Canada, and because of the emphasis placed on it in American culture, and our need to differentiate ourselves from y'all, Canada tends to avoid the topic because any attempt to explain to the average person that "Canada pretty much didn't have slavery" sounds like an awfully big lie and terrible thing to say, and would probably result in an awful lot of righteous anger... Don't rock the boat, man!

    Slavery is clearly a far more important historical issue than it is made out to be for both my nation and yours, especially because when we're talking history under the British we're largely talking only about geographical differences, and especially because of the Underground Railroad -- which, PS, is an integral part of Canadian history curricula starting about grade 3 and mentioned on and off again until grade 9. (After grade 9, curricula changes to mostly world history.)

    One thing to keep in mind when approaching Canadian text books in general is that, depending on the publisher and date, they are crafted to reflect grade-specific curriculum goals. Do you have a copy of the Ontario Curriculum? You can order it from the Ontario Ministry of Education website if you'd like. It is a standard for many provincial curricula, and it's a widely used international standard. If the book you have is from '77, there's a good chance it doesn't follow a set curriculum, though.

    As for Columbus... The Norse settlements in NFLD from the 1100's really aught to be mentioned too, eh?

  10. #40
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Flung Poo
    What's the question in your mind? "Where did I leave my pants???"
    Hey, I'm not so old I can't remember where to find my pants. TLWSHLWM always hangs them in the same place.
    What I wanted to do was to compare the treatment of a specific incident, say King George's War. For example,
    Quote Originally Posted by Forming a Nation:
    "Then, in May of that same year, a group of militia led by a young officer from Virginia called George Washington, surprised and captured a small French patrol that had bivouaced for the night. In retaliation, the main French force attacked Washington's little makeshift fort (appropriately called Fort Necessity) in July, and the Virginian commander was forced to surrender."
    Quote Originally Posted by American History, Revised Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers 1986:
    "Washington should have turned back at this point or at least called for reinforcements. But he was young, ambitious, and headstrong. He marched strsaight toward Fort Duquesne. On the way he surprised a small French scouting party, killing their leader. The main French force then advanced against him. He set up a defensive post, Fort Necessity, but the French easily surrounded it. After an all day attack, Washington had to surrender."
    Now, we need the U.K. history books to see their take on the incident. But even with this sample of two, I think you can see the respective mythologies coming through.
    Last edited by Hereford Eye; July 11th, 2008 at 03:51 PM.

  11. #41
    Fulgurous Moderator KatG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    In a Cloud
    Posts
    12,383
    The Canadians are quite obsessed with their history, much more than the U.S. While a good bit of it is promoting how they had important inventors, brave people, etc., they're not afraid of their warts. Canadian slavery is not an ignored subject in museums. Nor is it necessarily ignored in the classrooms. A history textbook is not the only thing used to teach kids about the subject.

    You don't mention what grade the book is for, or what province it was used for, but I'm assuming these are high school texts? Since in lower grades, it would be more workbooks. And in high school, kids are taught from a range of stuff and do not cover the whole book, but use parts of it for whatever the overall curriculum is. Of particular interest to Canadians are their aboriginals, whose cultures and history kids learn about, as well as bad things done to them, how they were involved in wars as scouts, etc. And in the U.S., go to a school in February, during black history month, and you might get a different picture.

    As for textbooks in countries being nation-centric, well, yeah. Especially something from the 1970's. The Canadians learning Canadian history aren't going to see Washington the same way U.S. people do. Texans like to talk about the War of Mexican Aggression.

    Which of course may be part of the argument for the blacks only schools -- that black people in North America have a different viewpoint. But I don't think it helps to have black Canadians being taught over there with their viewpoint and white Canadians being taught over there with their viewpoint. Multiculturism requires contact, sharing, mutual respect. Which seems to be often beyond many humans, though it's better than it was.

    But there is a problem -- black North Americans are statistically overall in worse economic shape than whites. There's been a decline in black doctors in the States, for instance. So the question is, how do we get these kids stability, education and opportunity? And the same for Amerindians. A black-centric school is a way at looking at that. I don't think isolating them is the best answer. I think my kid has enormously benefited from being in classes with considerable racial and cultural mixes. That contact helps banish stereotypes and diminishes prejudices. And it's all too possible that a black-centric school will find itself with less funding a few years down the road and its kids at a disadvantage.

    But special programs for black students may be a possibility. Problem is, we have a lot of needs for special programs -- special needs kids, kids who need language help, etc. So setting it up, having teachers for it, funding it -- difficult. Especially when both the Canadian and U.S. governments and their provincial and state governments cut funding for schools at every opportunity. But at least they are trying and thinking about it, which is a good deal better than not giving a rat's fart.
    Last edited by KatG; July 12th, 2008 at 02:12 PM.

  12. #42
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,696
    I have no idea what grade Book 1 is intended for. I can tell you that the series has 4 volumes:
    Book 1: Forming a Nation: The Story of Canada and Canadians - Pre-history to 1867
    Book 2: Forming a Nation: The Story of Canda and Canadians - ?
    Book 3: The People We Are: Canada's Multicultural Society
    Book 4: Forging a Destiny: Canada Since 1945.
    I only have a copy of Book 1.

    Methinks you're missing my objective. If not, then ignore what follows. I'm not doing comparative history to determine who tells their story better. To me, that's a don't care. I'm doing it to determine how our national perspectives color what we write into out text books.

    BTW, I've just ordered (1) Medieval Britain (Access to History) [Paperback] and (2) Crown, Parliament and People 1500-1750 (Access to History) [Paperback] from Amazon.UK So, soon, I'll be able to continue the quest.

  13. #43
    Fulgurous Moderator KatG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    In a Cloud
    Posts
    12,383
    Methinks you're missing my objective. If not, then ignore what follows. I'm not doing comparative history to determine who tells their story better. To me, that's a don't care. I'm doing it to determine how our national perspectives color what we write into out text books.
    Okay. Have fun with that.

  14. #44
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by KatG View Post
    The Canadians are quite obsessed with their history, much more than the U.S.
    Wow, now that's not a perspective you ever hear in Canada!!! We talk all the time how we don't have enough history, and how our own history is so overshadowed by the overwhelming ABUNDANCE of American pseudo-History (i.e. - "The Patriot" or "Born on the 4th of July" or "Cold Mountain" or "Friday Night Lights" etc etc etc).

    Canadian's have traditionally had a tenuous relationship with history. We get so inundated with American history that our own seems drab and boring by comparison. "Not much happened" is the average Canadian's sense of Canadian History -- which is why we've maybe gone rather overboard on mythologizing our history over the past 20 years? So it's extremely interesting to see this particular PoV...

    Canadian slavery is not an ignored subject in museums.
    And we're positively "history-lite" when compared to our commonwealth brothers and sisters in Australia. The Melbourne Museum was like a slap in the face. They have a wall of nothing but pictures of the faces of aboriginals with quoted text about white oppression and the colonial invasion. I almost couldn't look at it, it was so painful.

    And it's all too possible that a black-centric school will find itself with less funding a few years down the road and its kids at a disadvantage.
    ...and will scream "racism!" when the funding dries up.

    I'm so happy that the Ministry said no to extra funding for the project. It's a dangerous economic precedent, as it essentially approves institutional racism. When we give public funding for schools based on race, to lower that funding is inarguably racist. Its dutch-door action, hitting you on the way in and the way out. Racism to get in, racism to get out.

  15. #45
    >:|Angry Beaver|:< Fung Koo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    The Fung Küniverse (Currently: İstanbul)
    Posts
    2,473
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Hereford Eye View Post
    I'm doing it to determine how our national perspectives color what we write into out text books.
    Another aspect of this you might be interested in is how history determines our values and concepts of "success." Certainly, if history is written by the victor then "success" is inseparable from biases in historical perspectives.

    You might be interested in this article from Maclean's 2 or 3 weeks ago:

    "Special Canada Day Report: How Canada stole the American Dream. The numbers are in. Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too."

    http://www.macleans.ca/canada/nation...25_50113_50113

    If there was a similar article published about this research in an American magazine, I'd love to see their cultural spin on the study's findings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •