Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...now to the young that attend our public schools.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33266425/ns ... ?GT1=43001

I hope the day comes when all white people are gone from this planet so that FINALLY every hater of all things caucasian, every minority liberal FINALLY gets to be judged on what they can do with the planet.

I mean, now the kids get to hear about evil CC was and all the diseases he brought..........well what if he'd never showed up..

I mean, when will it end? I HOPE IT KEEPS UP THOUGH. I WANT, NO WAIT, I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THIS WORLD WHEN WHITES ARE GONE.........

picking on Christopher Columbus? ARE U FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!!!!!!!!!!

PROUD TO BE WHITE AND AIN'T APOLOGIZING FOR A FUCKING THING!!!!!!!!!!

As we continue to look back at history through our ethnic-colored prism, the white man is in a no-win situation. That ain't gonna change any time soon, catty. Never mind that what he did (and how he acted) was completely normal and accepted (for his time and for about another 100 years after his death)....don't make no never mind to the revisionist historians of the world.

without the white race, western civilization never exists. PERIOD. END OF THE FUCKING STORY!!!

The Hispanic flag Columbus sailed under should be ashamed.

Angry white man syndrome.

Grizalltheway wrote:Angry white man syndrome.

Agreed:
It's fun to watch...

AZGrizFan wrote:As we continue to look back at history through our ethnic-colored prism, the white man is in a no-win situation. That ain't gonna change any time soon, catty. Never mind that what he did (and how he acted) was completely normal and accepted (for his time and for about another 100 years after his death)....don't make no never mind to the revisionist historians of the world.

"ethnic-colored prism" WTF???

catamount man wrote:...now to the young that attend our public schools.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33266425/ns ... ?GT1=43001

I hope the day comes when all white people are gone from this planet so that FINALLY every hater of all things caucasian, every minority liberal FINALLY gets to be judged on what they can do with the planet.

I mean, now the kids get to hear about evil CC was and all the diseases he brought..........well what if he'd never showed up..

I mean, when will it end? I HOPE IT KEEPS UP THOUGH. I WANT, NO WAIT, I DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THIS WORLD WHEN WHITES ARE GONE.........

picking on Christopher Columbus? ARE U FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!!!!!!!!!!

PROUD TO BE WHITE AND AIN'T APOLOGIZING FOR A FUCKING THING!!!!!!!!!!

Is there anything in the article that you KNOW to be untrue?

I always thought it was stupid that he got credit for discovering America when there were already people here. And then of course there's the fact that the Vikings beat him here by 300 or so years.

BlueHen86 wrote:Is there anything in the article that you KNOW to be untrue?

I always thought it was stupid that he got credit for discovering America when there were already people here. And then of course there's the fact that the Vikings beat him here by 300 or so years.

In 1421 the Chinese sailed the ocean blue and discover america from the Eastern Civilization point of view.

I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids negative aspects of revered individuals. That article mainly discussed disease... and I don't think Columbus or anyone else can be blamed for that... they didn't intentionally give the natives smallpox. But, Columbus did enslave Native Americans, forcibly converted them to Christianity, and declared their land and resources for himself and Spain. What's wrong with teaching that part of the story? Should we just sugar coat it and only tell the story book versions?

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids negative aspects of revered individuals. That article mainly discussed disease... and I don't think Columbus or anyone else can be blamed for that... they didn't intentionally give the natives smallpox. But, Columbus did enslave Native Americans, forcibly converted them to Christianity, and declared their land and resources for himself and Spain. What's wrong with teaching that part of the story? Should we just sugar coat it and only tell the story book versions?

Even as a superpatriot who believes in American exceptionaism, I believe we should also teach revisionist viewpoints.

The problem is that the NEA and popular culture have gone overboard against what used to be a traditional view of American history, replacing it with a completely anti-American revisionist point of view. They have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids negative aspects of revered individuals. That article mainly discussed disease... and I don't think Columbus or anyone else can be blamed for that... they didn't intentionally give the natives smallpox. But, Columbus did enslave Native Americans, forcibly converted them to Christianity, and declared their land and resources for himself and Spain. What's wrong with teaching that part of the story? Should we just sugar coat it and only tell the story book versions?

I've read about instances where blankets that were exposed to small pox sufferers were given to the indians in an effort to kill them off.

I've have never heard Columbus' name attached to this practice however.

I have no problem with trying to teach our children the full story about people and events, good and bad, as long as we're being as honest as possible and not making stuff up.

native wrote: Even as a superpatriot who believes in American exceptionaism, I believe we should also teach revisionist viewpoints.

The problem is that the NEA and popular culture have gone overboard against what used to be a traditional view of American history, replacing it with a completely anti-American revisionist point of view. They have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Is anything about Columbus being taught inaccurate?

And, what does the NEA have to do with anything?

I'm not about to defend popular culture... and you may have a point there... but, honestly... I find the "story book" kind of history presented far more in popular culture than an anti-American "revisionist" history trying to make the US look bad. Maybe a difference of perspective, though?

BlueHen86 wrote:I've read about instances where blankets that were exposed to small pox sufferers were given to the indians in an effort to kill them off.

I've have never heard Columbus' name attached to this practice however.

I have no problem with trying to teach our children the full story about people and events, good and bad, as long as we're being as honest as possible and not making stuff up.

The blanket thing supposedly took place in the French and Indian War... and probably didn't happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... .html?_r=1

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:I've read about instances where blankets that were exposed to small pox sufferers were given to the indians in an effort to kill them off.

I've have never heard Columbus' name attached to this practice however.

I have no problem with trying to teach our children the full story about people and events, good and bad, as long as we're being as honest as possible and not making stuff up.

The blanket thing supposedly took place in the French and Indian War... and probably didn't happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... .html?_r=1

Interesting.

Thanks.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids negative aspects of revered individuals. That article mainly discussed disease... and I don't think Columbus or anyone else can be blamed for that... they didn't intentionally give the natives smallpox. But, Columbus did enslave Native Americans, forcibly converted them to Christianity, and declared their land and resources for himself and Spain. What's wrong with teaching that part of the story? Should we just sugar coat it and only tell the story book versions?

The problem with "telling the whole story" is that it usually isn't done equitably. You can bet that anyone that tries to tell a balanced story about The American Civil War and about how Abraham Lincoln is responsible for more death than any U.S. president in history is going to meet with a lot more complaining than someone who complains about Columbus. Same thing with Martin Luther King Jr. Sure he accomplished his goals without killing a single American (unlike Lincoln who killed 620,000), but just the same he had his flaws.

CM is right that there is a double-standard. Usually the sacred cows of political correctness don't get as full of a look as traditional sacred cows do.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids negative aspects of revered individuals. That article mainly discussed disease... and I don't think Columbus or anyone else can be blamed for that... they didn't intentionally give the natives smallpox. But, Columbus did enslave Native Americans, forcibly converted them to Christianity, and declared their land and resources for himself and Spain. What's wrong with teaching that part of the story? Should we just sugar coat it and only tell the story book versions?

I have no problem with the teaching of this info. The problem is, we view it (and typically teach it) through a 21st century prism, with all our self-righteousness and political correctness, and put Columbus (and anybody else like him) on a skewer for doing what was considered routine, standard practice for the day. IT'S WHAT CIVILIZED COUNTRIES DID. Yeah, it sucks when we compare it to TODAY'S world and today's moral standards, but that's just pure bs. Enslaving natives, converting them to Christianity, and declaring their land and resources for the king were standard practice by EVERY explorer of the period. Hell, the ability to DO that was about the only impetus to get these guys to sail off the edge of the world and risk life and limb.

AZGrizFan wrote: I have no problem with the teaching of this info. The problem is, we view it (and typically teach it) through a 21st century prism, with all our self-righteousness and political correctness, and put Columbus (and anybody else like him) on a skewer for doing what was considered routine, standard practice for the day. IT'S WHAT CIVILIZED COUNTRIES DID. Yeah, it sucks when we compare it to TODAY'S world and today's moral standards, but that's just pure bs. Enslaving natives, converting them to Christianity, and declaring their land and resources for the king were standard practice by EVERY explorer of the period. Hell, the ability to DO that was about the only impetus to get these guys to sail off the edge of the world and risk life and limb.

Wow...
I actually agree with you - I have to admit it feels weird

As a history Major at the University of Montana I know, I know - you can stop laughing
There was a tendency to have multiple historical perspectives from different authors for the same class - this tended to show all varieties of historical research... painted a more complete history

this was way back in the 80's not sure if they still do that anymore

The book I'm reading right now is called "Over the Edge of the World", and it's about Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-1522. This was 30 years after Columbus, and absoutely NOTHING had changed. And for 150 more years, nothing would. Hell, it wasn't until 1910 that they even realized and acknowledged the causes of scurvy. Explorers did what explorers did for the chance to get rich and be able to have a decent life. Period. And all the crap that is heaped upon them NOW is hypocritical bullshit viewed through a 21st century mindset. The books of that period are VERY enlightening....we have NO idea.

AZGrizFan wrote:The book I'm reading right now is called "Over the Edge of the World", and it's about Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-1522. This was 30 years after Columbus, and absoutely NOTHING had changed. And for 150 more years, nothing would. Hell, it wasn't until 1910 that they even realized and acknowledged the causes of scurvy. Explorers did what explorers did for the chance to get rich and be able to have a decent life. Period. And all the crap that is heaped upon them NOW is hypocritical bullshit viewed through a 21st century mindset. The books of that period are VERY enlightening....we have NO idea.

The world was a lot more dangerous then... we weren't so insulated or shielded from its harshness as we are today - we forget it wasn't long ago it took months to cross North America and you figured 20% of the people coming with you weren't going to survive the trip...

Sailing the globe had to be BRUTAL... creating harsh men of little patients and zero tolerance
It's the way things were - it's not good or bad - it just is...

Cleets Part 2 wrote: Sailing the globe had to be BRUTAL... creating harsh men of little patients and zero tolerance
It's the way things were - it's not good or bad - it just is...

In the book I'm reading, there was an attempted mutiny....Magellan put it down, and the penalty for 2 of the mutineers was to be DRAWN AND QUARTERED on the deck of the ship while still alive. Brutal doesn't even begin to describe it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote: Sailing the globe had to be BRUTAL... creating harsh men of little patients and zero tolerance
It's the way things were - it's not good or bad - it just is...

In the book I'm reading, there was an attempted mutiny....Magellan put it down, and the penalty for 2 of the mutineers was to be DRAWN AND QUARTERED on the deck of the ship while still alive. Brutal doesn't even begin to describe it.

That is a good book. Truth is much more fascinating than fiction. Those fuckers had balls.

AZGrizFan wrote:The book I'm reading right now is called "Over the Edge of the World", and it's about Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-1522. This was 30 years after Columbus, and absoutely NOTHING had changed. And for 150 more years, nothing would. Hell, it wasn't until 1910 that they even realized and acknowledged the causes of scurvy. Explorers did what explorers did for the chance to get rich and be able to have a decent life. Period. And all the crap that is heaped upon them NOW is hypocritical bullshit viewed through a 21st century mindset. The books of that period are VERY enlightening....we have NO idea.

Your point is valid. They were cocksuckers and it was what it was.

IMO, the problem is that he did not discover America - he discovered America for white people to ravage.

Columbus was just as much a khundt as any dozen racist presidents we've had. They all suck.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:The book I'm reading right now is called "Over the Edge of the World", and it's about Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-1522. This was 30 years after Columbus, and absoutely NOTHING had changed. And for 150 more years, nothing would. Hell, it wasn't until 1910 that they even realized and acknowledged the causes of scurvy. Explorers did what explorers did for the chance to get rich and be able to have a decent life. Period. And all the crap that is heaped upon them NOW is hypocritical bullshit viewed through a 21st century mindset. The books of that period are VERY enlightening....we have NO idea.

Your point is valid. They were cocksuckers and it was what it was.

IMO, the problem is that he did not discover America - he discovered America for white people to ravage.

Everything was discovered for civilized people to ravage. That's WHY they went to discover it.