# Decolonization



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

'Decolonization' what is it? and what does it look like?

I have been asked to attend a series of courses that teach from within the echo-chamber of Native peoples oppression.

I agree that many minority groups have been oppressed by our culture.

What is the end goal of Decolonization?


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

In general, all such efforts are to topple whomever is in power now and replace with whichever group wants such.

it is never about equalizing anything.

many politicians have figured out if they pretend to be for all such efforts they might get to stay up on top and look down upon the riffraff and so they also just want to remain in power, not actually look for any equalization.

and so, it is difficult to take any such efforts seriously.

whatever happened in the past, we need to move forward looking at other individuals.

not looking at groups to take advantage of.

no one actually wants equality, tho.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I think it's a purposely incorrect use of the term decolonization. The left does that a lot where they take a word that means one thing and then twist the meaning. Decolonization would be when a colony, like Haiti, kicks out the colonial power and becomes independent.

I'm guessing they are going to argue that Indian Nations were colonized by the US and have the right to decolonize.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

ET1 SS said:


> 'Decolonization' what is it? and what does it look like?
> 
> I have been asked to attend a series of courses that teach from within the echo-chamber of Native peoples oppression.
> 
> ...


Here is a link with a decent overview. Essentially it is about deconstructing the dominance of a Eurocentric world view.









A Brief Definition of Decolonization and Indigenization


Looking for a brief description of decolonization and indigenization? Read this short article.




www.ictinc.ca





Participating as a white guy has the potential to be a very challenging but rewarding experience. But you have to go into it with an open mind. If you aren't prepared to question some of the precepts that we've all been brought up, it won't have as much impact.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

And still...it's probably a waste of time.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> And still...it's probably a waste of time.


Trying to remove or displace something or someone deemed sub standard. I gave up on fire ants " dug in too deep" . Pigweed in the garden "I moved the garden" . Futile but I lost!!!


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

ET1 SS said:


> 'Decolonization' what is it? and what does it look like?
> 
> I have been asked to attend a series of courses that teach from within the echo-chamber of Native peoples oppression.
> 
> ...


Decolonization is not about Antifa, toppling whomever is in power or independence or any of the other things suggested. 

Decolonization in the context of your question is about ensuring that all viewpoints are represented and that everything is not taught from the Eurocentric point of view. Take the Westward Expansion of the United States as an example. Most, if not all, of us were taught about that period of history from a definite Eurocentric point of view -- the brave pioneers risking hardship and hostile Native Americans to expand the United States. It was seen and taught as a brave adventure. The viewpoint of the indigenous people was completely ignored and disregarded. Decolonization is not about removing anything. It is about adding the viewpoints of others so that everyone is represented. 

The end result is that everyone has a voice and that all cultures/backgrounds are represented & valued not just white, male, European.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Decolonization is not about Antifa, toppling whomever is in power or independence or any of the other things suggested.
> 
> Decolonization in the context of your question is about ensuring that all viewpoints are represented and that everything is not taught from the Eurocentric point of view. Take the Westward Expansion of the United States as an example. Most, if not all, of us were taught about that period of history from a definite Eurocentric point of view -- the brave pioneers risking hardship and hostile Native Americans to expand the United States. It was seen and taught as a brave adventure. The viewpoint of the indigenous people was completely ignored and disregarded. Decolonization is not about removing anything. It is about adding the viewpoints of others so that everyone is represented.
> 
> The end result is that everyone has a voice and that all cultures/backgrounds are represented & valued not just white, male, European.


 The trail of tears comes to mind? That was decolonization...


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

TripleD said:


> The trail of tears comes to mind? That was decolonization...


Understanding the Trail of Tears and how it impacts Native Americans to this day is an excellent example of decolonization thinking. Understanding what happened at Wounded Knee is another. And making the connection between those events and the past names of the Washington NFL team would be a current example.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> white, male, European


The ones who created the modern world


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

If it have time then by all means go. My philosophy is listen to everything you can and sort out the garbage. The best thing that could happen is to learn something new. The worst thing that could happen is you learn how not to do something.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> If it have time then by all means go. My philosophy is listen to everything you can and sort out the garbage. The best thing that could happen is to learn something new. The worst thing that could happen is you learn how not to do something.


I agree. One of three things are likely to happen. It bores you and you leave. You learn something and grow. Or, you get an opportunity to offer a counter position.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The ones who created the modern world


Right, only Europeans contributed anything. 

The attitude that Europeans were the only ones who "created the modern world" is why the idea of decolonization came about.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> The end result is that everyone has a voice and that all cultures/backgrounds are represented & valued not just white, male, European.


Everyone has a voice. Some voices just don't say anything of any credibility or value, no matter their color, gender or, apparently, continent of origin.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Native Americans lived their way of life here for thousands of years, our takeover is but a speck of dust in the annals of time.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> What is the end goal of Decolonization?


Brain washng.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

gilberte said:


> Native Americans lived their way of life here for thousands of years, our takeover is but a speck of dust in the annals of time.


Not only that, but the Do-Gooders seem to be ignorant of the fact that those Native Americans found & displaced here by the first colonists had themselves displaced the Clovis People who were here even earlier.

That's Life in the Jungle. Get over it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Western civilization was not created by those with no written langue. It was not built by nations with no understanding of advanced math and scientific progress. It was not built by tribal nations.

Mesopotamia 
Egypt
Greece
Rome
England
and America built what today we call "Western Civilization".

I think we are going to find out what comes next.

I don't expect I will like it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> Right, only Europeans contributed anything.
> 
> The attitude that Europeans were the only ones who "created the modern world" is why the idea of decolonization came about.


The Europeans did create most of the modern world. That's where the idea of individualism and individual liberties came from. It's also where the idea of democracy came from.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The University of Leicester has seen academics resign or cut ties after it removed studies in Medieval English in favour of a “decolonised curriculum”.

The university announced in January its intentions to remove Chaucer’s _The Canterbury Tales_ and the Anglo-Saxon epic poem _Beowolf_ — two seminal works of English literature — and replace them with courses focusing on sexuality, diversity, race, and ethnicity.

In response to the leftist assault on yet another aspect of British history, at least two academics have resigned in protest, and a vote of no-confidence has been called.

Professor Isobel Armstrong, a fellow of the British Academy, has also returned her honorary doctorate “in protest at the egregious attack on the integrity of English at Leicester and the attempt to eradicate 1,000+ years of language and literature from the curriculum,” according to _The Times_.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> democracy came from


Actually Athens is considered the cradle of democracy


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Actually Athens is considered the cradle of democracy


My mistake. I thought Greece was in Europe.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

doc- said:


> Brain washng.


No, the end goal of decolonization is the realization that white, male Europeans were not the only ones who had achievements, accomplishments, culture, history, etc. It is the realization that the Eurocentric viewpoint of things is not the only one that has value.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HDRider said:


> The University of Leicester has seen academics resign or cut ties after it removed studies in Medieval English in favour of a “decolonised curriculum”.
> 
> The university announced in January its intentions to remove Chaucer’s _The Canterbury Tales_ and the Anglo-Saxon epic poem _Beowolf_ — two seminal works of English literature — and replace them with courses focusing on sexuality, diversity, race, and ethnicity.
> 
> ...


So, The Libs win another one as they get rid of scientists and will replace them with more Liberals.
Why do you think they want to pay for college now for everybody?--Four years of Liberal Camp.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, the end goal of decolonization is the realization that white, male Europeans were not the only ones who had achievements, accomplishments, culture, history, etc. It is the realization that the Eurocentric viewpoint of things is not the only one that has value.


I don't remember in college or high school, white male Europeans being the only ones taught about as supreme. One thing about this nonsense IMHO is the changing of historical truths. That would be a crime beyond measure, you can't level the playing field on lies and half truths.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> My mistake. I thought Greece was in Europe.


I don't think Athenian considered themselves Europeans.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, the end goal of decolonization is the realization that white, male Europeans were not the only ones who had achievements, accomplishments, culture, history, etc. It is the realization that the Eurocentric viewpoint of things is not the only one that has value.


Then why has western democracy originated in Europe been the world leader for the last several hundred years? There were influences from other cultures, but very few in the manner of individual liberties, politics, self-government, law, etc.


----------



## IlliniosGal (Jun 3, 2019)

HDRider said:


> The ones who created the modern world


Well, there we go, the most ridiculous thing I have read today, and it is only a little after 9am.

I just really can't comprehend making that kind of statement when it is patently false.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

IlliniosGal said:


> Well, there we go, the most ridiculous thing I have read today, and it is only a little after 9am.
> 
> I just really can't comprehend making that kind of statement when it is patently false.


Maybe you when you stop laughing, or crying (I can't tell) you can share your truth with us.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Then why has western democracy originated in Europe been the world leader for the last several hundred years? There were influences from other cultures, but very few in the manner of individual liberties, politics, self-government, law, etc.


So, it is your belief that democracy is solely a European invention?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> So, it is your belief that democracy is solely a European invention?


Enlighten us. Who exerted more influence?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> So, it is your belief that democracy is solely a European invention?


As practiced in the modern world today, yes.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

IlliniosGal said:


> Well, there we go, the most ridiculous thing I have read today, and it is only a little after 9am.
> 
> I just really can't comprehend making that kind of statement when it is patently false.


One could present a very convincing case that The United States (it's Constitution, social institutions, economic system, etc) is essentially just an extension of and direct evolutionary descendent of The Roman Republic & Empire. 

Please name something from Asia or Africa that has been incorporated into modern western civilization (other than the short lived Egyptian Monotheism, although we could easily argue that monotheism in Egypt died out and was re-invented by the Semites much later)...(Oh, and Rap Music)...OTOH- Asia & Africa become more western with each passing day.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> So, it is your belief that democracy is solely a European invention?


Name a democratic Asian or African society from any time prior to colonial days.

Our image of Native American society & "govt" is tainted by Hollywood. They've led us to believe that A Chief was some sort of hereditary ruler in the European image of King.

Not so....Those who were influential in those societies were merely influential leaders who gained support among their fellows because they spoke well &/or were respected as men....Members of the group were not required to follow in any endeavor. If they felt like they wanted to go along, they went along..If not, they stayed behind and were not ostracized for their opinions or actions/inactions...Not exactly what you'd call "democracy."


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Enlighten us. Who exerted more influence?


What European democracies were in operation at the time of the writing of the Constitution? None.


doc- said:


> Name a democratic Asian or African society from any time prior to colonial days.
> 
> Our image of Native American society & "govt" is tainted by Hollywood. They've led us to believe that A Chief was some sort of hereditary ruler in the European image of King.
> 
> Not so....Those who were influential in those societies were merely influential leaders who gained support among their fellows because they spoke well &/or were respected as men....Members of the group were not required to follow in any endeavor. If they felt like they wanted to go along, they went along..If not, they stayed behind and were not ostracized for their opinions or actions/inactions...Not exactly what you'd call "democracy."


Does a system of member "states" grouping together into a larger "whole" sound familiar? Does a system where member "states" have their own leadership but common causes are decided by the consensus of a group made up of representatives from each member "state" sound familiar? Ever hear of the Iroquois Confederacy? John Adams and company sure did. At the time of the Constitutional convention there were no contemporary European democracies. John Adams, when he was looking at systems of government for us to emulate, looked at the Iroquois Confederacy as well as other indigenous systems of government.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The history of the Iroquois Confederacy was taught to us in junior high or high school. 

But IMHO the US was founded as a constitutional republic.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

no really said:


> The history of the Iroquois Confederacy was taught to us in junior high or high school.
> 
> But IMHO the US was founded as a constitutional republic.


With about a paragraph and from the Eurocentric perspective.

All decolonization is seeking is a balance of perspectives.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

An interesting topic that could stay in GC if we can avoid another cleanup.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The definition of Decolonization is the process of deconstructing colonial ideologies of the superiority and privilege of Western thought and approaches. On the one hand, decolonization involves dismantling structures that perpetuate the status quo and addressing unbalanced power dynamics.. 

The education about the colonization of countries around the world is very poor and incomplete and of course has been written and presented by the powerful. The propaganda about indigenous peoples has gone on for centuries. The history of these peoples is very, very different than the way Europeans portrayed them as savages. In the all Americas they have been here for 12,000 years or more and built huge long lasting civilizations with incredible science, medicine, political, farming, social and trade structures while still managing to preserve the environment . A lot could have been learned from them. Of course they were not Christians so had to be destroyed not to mention robbed of everything they possessed. 

Indigenous peoples are now concentrating on education and economy and working in the current world (and particularly in law) so they are able to fight back against all the injustices that have been done and are still on the books. It will take a long time of course as we - the colonizers - cannot admit we did anything wrong. So much to lose financially. This is not just an American situation but all around the world. Most indigenous populations were wiped out or taken to the edge of extinction by imported diseases. war and religious fervour (up to 90% in some cases) but there is strength and knowledge in numbers and they are one of the fastest growing populations all over the world. 

The start would be for people who know nothing about colonization to really educate themselves on the cultures of indigenous peoples and what was done to them. Sounds like a start for you.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Two excellent series to watch to learn about the reality of indigenous civilization are
AFRICA'S GREAT CIVILIZATIONS
1491 THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> Two excellent series to watch to learn about the reality of indigenous civilization are
> AFRICA'S GREAT CIVILIZATIONS
> 1491 THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS


Thanks. I will check those out.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> What European democracies were in operation at the time of the writing of the Constitution? None.


That seems somewhat incongruent considering your earlier comments. You seem to imply that America fathered western civilization.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> That seems somewhat incongruent considering your earlier comments. You seem to imply that America fathered western civilization.


Not sure where you're getting that. Nowhere did I imply that "America fathered western civilization".


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> With about a paragraph and from the Eurocentric perspective.
> 
> All decolonization is seeking is a balance of perspectives.


Are you requesting I write a paragraph through the Eurocentric perspective? Why? 

How does your view of decolonization happen and what are the goals?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> Two excellent series to watch to learn about the reality of indigenous civilization are
> AFRICA'S GREAT CIVILIZATIONS
> 1491 THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS


Yes, those are very interesting, I thoroughly enjoyed them and the history presented.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

no really said:


> Are you requesting I write a paragraph through the Eurocentric perspective? Why?
> 
> How does your view of decolonization happen and what are the goals?


No, I am saying that the Iroquois Confederacy typically rates about a paragraph in the history books that we used in middle and high school and that those minimal references were written from the Eurocentric perspective. And the indigenous people were not the only ones who were effectively erased in the history we were taught in school. 

The goal of decolonization is one of balance and you do that by bringing in more than one viewpoint. You do that by recognizing that non-European people are not ignorant savages just waiting for the Europeans to come and save them. You do that by recognizing and celebrating non-European culture, history and achievements just as much as you do the European culture, history and achievements. It is about giving a complete picture by including multiple perspectives and not erasing anyone.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, I am saying that the Iroquois Confederacy typically rates about a paragraph in the history books that we used in middle and high school and that those minimal references were written from the Eurocentric perspective. And the indigenous people were not the only ones who were effectively erased in the history we were taught in school.
> 
> The goal of decolonization is one of balance and you do that by bringing in more than one viewpoint. You do that by recognizing that non-European people are not ignorant savages just waiting for the Europeans to come and save them. You do that by recognizing and celebrating non-European culture, history and achievements just as much as you do the European culture, history and achievements. It is about giving a complete picture by including multiple perspectives and not erasing anyone.


My education did include those viewpoints, if they are not taught by educators now, you need to look to those educators. Those points were certainly addressed in college and that is what fueled my interest in world history. It also addressed the fact that people of all ethnicity have been conquered by many different peoples, it is was a the way things were. 


10 Great Conquerors Who Almost Took Over The World

1. 
*Genghis Khan*

2. 
*Tamerlane*

3.
*Hari Singh Nalwa “Lion Killer”*

4.*Mahmud 

5.
Hitler

6.
Cyrus The Great*

7.
*Julius Caesar*

8.
*Alexander the Great*

9.
*Napoleon

10.
Sargon Of Akkad*









10 Great Conquerors Who Almost Took Over The World


Some of the greatest conquerors throughout history have created Empires so large that they almost took over the world. Many conquerors got to the point...




eskify.com


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> What European democracies were in operation at the time of the writing of the Constitution? None.
> 
> 
> Does a system of member "states" grouping together into a larger "whole" sound familiar? Does a system where member "states" have their own leadership but common causes are decided by the consensus of a group made up of representatives from each member "state" sound familiar? Ever hear of the Iroquois Confederacy? John Adams and company sure did. At the time of the Constitutional convention there were no contemporary European democracies. John Adams, when he was looking at systems of government for us to emulate, looked at the Iroquois Confederacy as well as other indigenous systems of government.





HDRider said:


> I don't think Athenian considered themselves Europeans.


Just before Constantinople fell, Christian scholars brought Greek ancient texts to Rome. Those texts influenced the Renaissance.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, I am saying that the Iroquois Confederacy typically rates about a paragraph in the history books that we used in middle and high school and that those minimal references were written from the Eurocentric perspective. And the indigenous people were not the only ones who were effectively erased in the history we were taught in school.
> 
> The goal of decolonization is one of balance and you do that by bringing in more than one viewpoint. You do that by recognizing that non-European people are not ignorant savages just waiting for the Europeans to come and save them. You do that by recognizing and celebrating non-European culture, history and achievements just as much as you do the European culture, history and achievements. It is about giving a complete picture by including multiple perspectives and not erasing anyone.


Why should there be more than 1 viewpoint? Why should we believe 2 people who came up with an unproven theory? Since European people came to and settled America and then these mainly British subjects rebel and write a Constitution, why do we have to note any influence that they may have had, however insignificant it may be? It may be interesting as a discussion in a history class on early American history, but I don't see where the value is beyond that.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Why should there be more than 1 viewpoint? Why should we believe 2 people who came up with an unproven theory? Since European people came to and settled America and then these mainly British subjects rebel and write a Constitution, why do we have to note any influence that they may have had, however insignificant it may be? It may be interesting as a discussion in a history class on early American history, but I don't see where the value is beyond that.


Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture. "Since European people came to and settled America" implies that there were no people here before the Europeans came. It also implies that European arrival was a completely positive thing for all concerned. It basically erases the point of view of the indigenous people. We should be providing a complete picture -- the good, the bad and the ugly.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

SLFarmMI said:


> Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture. "Since European people came to and settled America" implies that there were no people here before the Europeans came. It also implies that European arrival was a completely positive thing for all concerned. It basically erases the point of view of the indigenous people. We should be providing a complete picture -- the good, the bad and the ugly.


There was a time when I was young, had no responsibilities and I had time to waste getting wound up about such things.

Life goes on and I have my own life and responsibilities now. And quite honestly I couldn't care less about some sob story about what happened to people hundreds of years ago, blah blah blah. That stuff doesn't get the corn planted.

My life and my reality is in the here and now. And so is everyone else's.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture. "Since European people came to and settled America" implies that there were no people here before the Europeans came. It also implies that European arrival was a completely positive thing for all concerned. It basically erases the point of view of the indigenous people. We should be providing a complete picture -- the good, the bad and the ugly.


The key word there is "settled."...Indigenous people lived on the edge of survival at the carrying capacity f the environment. They had little control over Nature and were subject to its whims. The were, ecologically speaking, just another species of animal fighting for survival.

I think we also need to differentiate between "civilization" vs "society" or "culture.". Aboriginals have society & culture, but not civilization.

I have no problem with studying non-western contributions to the world, but let's cut the crap about how important those are...If the Bantus or the Iroquois had never existed, how different would the world be today? What about Pericles, Caesar, Charlemagne, Galileo or Newton?

OTOH, we do need to keep things in perspective, too....I remember Tom Landry, coach of the Dallas Cowboys being interviewed after they won their first Super Bowl. The announcer gleefully shouted to him "This has got to be the biggest thing in the world ever!"...Tom gave him a funny look and said "Well, considering there's 600 million Chinese (this was 50 y/a) who never even heard of football, it just isn't that big a deal."


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture. "Since European people came to and settled America" implies that there were no people here before the Europeans came. It also implies that European arrival was a completely positive thing for all concerned. It basically erases the point of view of the indigenous people. We should be providing a complete picture -- the good, the bad and the ugly.


OK, then you be the decider. American History 101 is about 45 hours. It covers the founding of Jamestown up to 1800. Out of those 45 hours, how many hours will you spend on the writing of the Constitution, and out of that how many minutes will you give to the possible influence of the Iroquois?

In my opinion, it makes no sense to include something simply because it supports a minority opinion. Either it is a critical part of history or it isn't. If it is critical it needs to be proven.


----------



## Macrocarpus (Jan 30, 2018)

So far as I can determine, the rhetoric, including the term "decolonization". is bull hockey trying to represent the white man as an oppressor and the "indigenous peoples" (of whatever locale is in question) as victims. Without touching on anything outside these United States, I will maintain that the American Indian was as violent and vicious an oppressor as were the Huns the Visigoths, the Vikings or the Nazis. They were constantly at war, they exterminated each other as peoples if they could and in fact did, they had no concept of individual property and they left their old widows to die in the cold. If you are one of those who hold that such a culture was deserving of protection I think you are a half wit. The westward expansion of the US was no different than anything that took place around the world when a more advanced society moved into new territory. Ask the French about Normandy. Ask the English about William. The Romans were for a time the most advanced culture and they spread their tactics widely---but like another country one can think of they became soft and took in every sloth and ne'er do well that knocked at their door. Now we are hearing from the same kind of vermin.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

In my opinion, back then everybody was a barbarian, and they believed that "might made right"

Native American tribes warred against other Native American tribes in order to gain control of more land. On the continent Bonaparte warred against his neighbors to gain control of more land. And, the European settlers came to AMerica and also warred to gain control of more land

That was the state of civilization at the time. 

And, 300 years from now no doubt our descendants will look at us and call us barbarians as well.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

doc- said:


> The key word there is "settled."...Indigenous people lived on the edge of survival at the carrying capacity f the environment. They had little control over Nature and were subject to its whims. The were, ecologically speaking, just another species of animal fighting for survival.
> 
> I think we also need to differentiate between "civilization" vs "society" or "culture.". Aboriginals have society & culture, but not civilization.
> 
> ...


So, according to you, indigenous people were "just another species of animal" and lacked civilization. Yeah, I can't imagine why folks think we might want to give decolonization a go.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Macrocarpus said:


> So far as I can determine, the rhetoric, including the term "decolonization". is bull hockey trying to represent the white man as an oppressor and the "indigenous peoples" (of whatever locale is in question) as victims.


No, it's about representing more than just the Eurocentric viewpoint. It's not about making anyone the oppressor or anyone the victim. It's about recognizing that, for example, the European view of the indigenous peoples they encountered is going to be different than the view of the people within that group. It's about letting all voices be heard.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> letting all voices be heard.


Those voices are dead now.

Now we can let some whack job make something up.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Those voices are dead now.
> 
> Now we can let some whack job make something up.



Really? Indigenous people are all dead? People of color are all dead? Everyone except white, males of European descent are dead?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Really? Indigenous people are all dead? People of color are all dead? Everyone except white, males of European descent are dead?


They did not even have a written language until a few years ago. Rewriting history is changing history. 

Multiculturalism has killed this country.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> They did not even have a written language until a few years ago. Rewriting history is changing history.
> 
> Multiculturalism has killed this country.


A written language has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also not rewriting history to include more than just the Eurocentric point of view.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> A written language has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also not rewriting history to include more than just the Eurocentric point of view.


You have taught me one lesson Teacher lady. You can chew on a morsel of nonsense for weeks. Take your last word, and I'm done with you.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> You have taught me one lesson Teacher lady. You can chew on a morsel of nonsense for weeks. Take your last word, and I'm done with you.


And you have taught me, yet again, that you want the conservative view and voice to be the only one allowed. No other opinions allowed.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, it's about representing more than just the Eurocentric viewpoint. It's not about making anyone the oppressor or anyone the victim. It's about recognizing that, for example, the European view of the indigenous peoples they encountered is going to be different than the view of the people within that group. It's about letting all voices be heard.


. 

Your correct. Everyone involved in a subject is going to have a different perspective and opinion. It’s human nature. Nothing special about it. With limited time to teach such a wide variety of subjects I would think part of a decent eduction is to learn how to read, communicate, and to learn how to have some form of critical thinking. As people obtain those skills they can easily learn more and gain some exposure to life and history. If this is not possible then the problem would seem to be in the basic education process.

It’s easy for all voices to be heard. What we seem to be dealing with now is a lot of people and groups that seem to think their history and ideology is something special, when in reality they are just one of many. Usually with little relevance in day to day life or in making a living today.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I grew up in adobe country. And, yeah, some of the Native Americans had cities. 

It was a time of war on EVERY continent, and it had been for several centuries


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> I grew up in adobe country. And, yeah, some of the Native Americans had cities.
> 
> It was a time of war on EVERY continent, and it had been for several centuries


Aztecs, Incas and Mayans all had large cites.





__





the-maya.eu







the-maya.eu





Now Mayans ride motorcycles


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

San Francisco bay has had a city on it for longer than the archaeologists can tell. The temperature is mild and the fishing was great, and so the Native Americans settled in permanently

Pueblo Indians also had cities, and I have heard that the Jumano and Apache Indians did as well


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Terri said:


> San Francisco bay has had a city on it for longer than the archaeologists can tell. The temperature is mild and the fishing was great, and so the Native Americans settled in permanently
> 
> Pueblo Indians also had cities, and I have heard that the Jumano and Apache Indians did as well


I cannot remember the tribe, but the natives of the Pacific Northwest enjoyed the most leisure time of any peoples in history because food was so plentiful it freed them up for personal pursuits.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> And you have taught me, yet again, that you want the conservative view and voice to be the only one allowed. No other opinions allowed.


Still waiting.


> SLFarmMI said:
> Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture. "Since European people came to and settled America" implies that there were no people here before the Europeans came. It also implies that European arrival was a completely positive thing for all concerned. It basically erases the point of view of the indigenous people. We should be providing a complete picture -- the good, the bad and the ugly.


OK, then you be the decider. American History 101 is about 45 hours. It covers the founding of Jamestown up to 1800. Out of those 45 hours, how many hours will you spend on the writing of the Constitution, and out of that how many minutes will you give to the possible influence of the Iroquois?

In my opinion, it makes no sense to include something simply because it supports a minority point of view. Either it is a critical part of history or it isn't. If it is critical it needs to be proven.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Still waiting.
> 
> OK, then you be the decider. American History 101 is about 45 hours. It covers the founding of Jamestown up to 1800. Out of those 45 hours, how many hours will you spend on the writing of the Constitution, and out of that how many minutes will you give to the possible influence of the Iroquois?
> 
> In my opinion, it makes no sense to include something simply because it supports a minority point of view. Either it is a critical part of history or it isn't. If it is critical it needs to be proven.


It actually takes pretty much zero additional time to present events in a way that is not focused on only the Eurocentric viewpoint. You just have to do things differently. For example, it would take almost no time in a unit about Thanksgiving to have a discussion about why some Native American people view it as a day of mourning and not one of celebration.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Is that educational unit about history or feelings?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Is that educational unit about history or feelings?


You do realize that the belief that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning is rooted in the history of what happened, right?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> So, according to you, indigenous people were "just another species of animal" and lacked civilization. Yeah, I can't imagine why folks think we might want to give decolonization a go.


You don't read very well...I said "ecologically speaking" and I also pointed out that civilization denotes a certain thing that aboriginals don't have. The word derives from Latin "cives" and implies citizenship and living in cites. To have citizenship, one necessarily must have a govt and a city which NA aboriginals didn't have....They had a society-- from Latin socius (an associate) and culture (Latin colere/coltivatus-- to grow a crop)

You know there are advanced bio courses involving obscure mating rituals among South American bull frogs. It's worthy of study by specialists, but that doesn't mean it should take precedence or incur special privileged status over more general bio courses for the masses. ...These efforts in the field of history are clearly motivated by politics and not science.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> It actually takes pretty much zero additional time to present events in a way that is not focused on only the Eurocentric viewpoint. You just have to do things differently. For example, it would take almost no time in a unit about Thanksgiving to have a discussion about why some Native American people view it as a day of mourning and not one of celebration.


I'm missing the point you are trying to make. If you are teaching about Thanksgiving, what does what some Native Americans think about Thanksgiving have to do with it? Now the fact that some Indians participated is relevant and should be mentioned, but what some Native Americans think today is no more relevant than what Italian-Americans, Quakers, or Eskimos think about it.

If you want to discuss the conflict between the settlers and the Native Americans, discuss it; but why insert it where there is no obvious relationship?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that the belief that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning is rooted in the history of what happened, right?


I realize EXACTLY what many are trying to do in education today and the past 20 years. And it has little to do with teaching history, it is about framing history to an agenda.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that the belief that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning is rooted in the history of what happened, right?


It depe


SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that the belief that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning is rooted in the history of what happened, right?


Define history? Who wrote it? I don't know either. If you're teaching it how does one know?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Terri said:


> I grew up in adobe country. And, yeah, some of the Native Americans had cities.
> 
> It was a time of war on EVERY continent, and it had been for several centuries


A couple hundred people living in mud huts in one spot doesn't really qualify as a "city."..The Mound Builders of the MidWest may have come closer, but they left so little behind other than those large mounds, we can only guess how organized they were.

Again, don't confuse culture with civilization....and call it what you will, the real question is how much influence did any of these groups leave on the rest of the world.? (Basically none.)


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

doc- said:


> You don't read very well...I said "ecologically speaking" and I also pointed out that civilization denotes a certain thing that aboriginals don't have. The word derives from Latin "cives" and implies citizenship and living in cites. To have citizenship, one necessarily must have a govt and a city which NA aboriginals didn't have....They had a society-- from Latin socius (an associate) and culture (Latin colere/coltivatus-- to grow a crop)
> 
> You know there are advanced bio courses involving obscure mating rituals among South American bull frogs. It's worthy of study by specialists, but that doesn't mean it should take precedence or incur special privileged status over more general bio courses for the masses. ...These efforts in the field of history are clearly motivated by politics and not science.


Where are you getting that North American indigenous people had no government or cities?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> Where are you getting that North American indigenous people had no government or cities?


Where are you getting that they did?....Tecumseh tried to start in that direction in the early 19th century, having seen how well the concept was working for the Whites, but it didn't end well.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

doc- said:


> Where are you getting that they did?....Tecumseh tried to start in that direction in the early 19th century, having seen how well the concept was working for the Whites, but it didn't end well.


His support/ backups didn't hold up.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

doc- said:


> Where are you getting that they did?....Tecumseh tried to start in that direction in the early 19th century, having seen how well the concept was working for the Whites, but it didn't end well.


How about from the historical record? How about from archaeology? How about from the written accounts of people who dealt with them at the time? Ever heard of the pueblos of the Southwest? Hardly "mud huts". Ever hear of Cahokia? At its peak, it had a larger population that many cities in Europe. I'd call that more than "a couple hundred people living in mud huts".


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> How about from the historical record? How about from archaeology? How about from the written accounts of people who dealt with them at the time? Ever heard of the pueblos of the Southwest? Hardly "mud huts". Ever hear of Cahokia? At its peak, it had a larger population that many cities in Europe. I'd call that more than "a couple hundred people living in mud huts".


The Aztecs had quite the civilization, too. Full of all kinds of fun culture around human sacrifice and exploitation of other indigenous civilizations until....the education of history should be just that, not a judgement of how you should feel about it.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> The Aztecs had quite the civilization, too. Full of all kinds of fun culture around human sacrifice and exploitation of other indigenous civilizations until....the education of history should be just that, not a judgement of how you should feel about it.


And it should include all points of view and not just one. Which is the point of decolonization.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> And it should include all points of view and not just one. Which is the point of decolonization.


No, it isn't.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> And it should include all points of view and not just one. Which is the point of decolonization.


You keep making the argument all points of view should be included. Points of view are not the same as facts. Points of views are not even theories, they are opinions.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm missing the point you are trying to make. If you are teaching about Thanksgiving, what does what some Native Americans think about Thanksgiving have to do with it? Now the fact that some Indians participated is relevant and should be mentioned, but what some Native Americans think today is no more relevant than what Italian-Americans, Quakers, or Eskimos think about it.
> 
> If you want to discuss the conflict between the settlers and the Native Americans, discuss it; but why insert it where there is no obvious relationship?


Let me try it this way. Think about what we were taught about the Pilgrims for example. I'll bet you remember it being taught this way. The brave and intrepid Pilgrims survived a hazardous ocean journey to land on Plymouth Rock. They survived a hard winter, helped by some friendly Indians (the tribe is never named) and celebrate by having a feast in celebration. This is the story as told by the Pilgrims' point of view.

Now let's look at the same series of events from the point of view of the Wampanoag tribe (those are the generic Indians of the version above). These invaders come by boat and park themselves on Wampanoag land. They rob a grave, steal corn that the tribe had stored and loot the nearby houses. The Wampanoag help them survive the winter and, rather than being seen as allies, are viewed as savages.

Same event, different perspectives. Decolonization seeks to include both points of view.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> Let me try it this way. Think about what we were taught about the Pilgrims for example. I'll bet you remember it being taught this way. The brave and intrepid Pilgrims survived a hazardous ocean journey to land on Plymouth Rock. They survived a hard winter, helped by some friendly Indians (the tribe is never named) and celebrate by having a feast in celebration. This is the story as told by the Pilgrims' point of view.
> 
> Now let's look at the same series of events from the point of view of the Wampanoag tribe (those are the generic Indians of the version above). These invaders come by boat and park themselves on Wampanoag land. They rob a grave, steal corn that the tribe had stored and loot the nearby houses. The Wampanoag help them survive the winter and, rather than being seen as allies, are viewed as savages.
> 
> Same event, different perspectives. Decolonization seeks to include both points of view.


So you are saying that decolonization has nothing to do with truth and facts?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> So you are saying that decolonization has nothing to do with truth and facts?


No, not sure where you're getting that. Both of the versions I posted are truthful and factual.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> Let me try it this way. Think about what we were taught about the Pilgrims for example. I'll bet you remember it being taught this way. The brave and intrepid Pilgrims survived a hazardous ocean journey to land on Plymouth Rock. They survived a hard winter, helped by some friendly Indians (the tribe is never named) and celebrate by having a feast in celebration. This is the story as told by the Pilgrims' point of view.
> 
> Now let's look at the same series of events from the point of view of the Wampanoag tribe (those are the generic Indians of the version above). These invaders come by boat and park themselves on Wampanoag land. They rob a grave, steal corn that the tribe had stored and loot the nearby houses. The Wampanoag help them survive the winter and, rather than being seen as allies, are viewed as savages.
> 
> Same event, different perspectives. Decolonization seeks to include both points of view.


You omitted a few other tribes from your "both" points of view. Your advocacy of "decolonization" would be amusing if you were employed elsewhere.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> You omitted a few other tribes from your "both" points of view. Your advocacy of "decolonization" would be amusing if you were employed elsewhere.


The tribe that helped the Pilgrims survive was the Wampanoag. 

Why should only the Pilgrim side of the events be presented?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> The tribe that helped the Pilgrims survive was the Wampanoag.
> 
> Why should only the Pilgrim side of the events be presented?


Perhaps you should educate yourself on the events, the individuals involved and then present the facts of what happened rather than a side before you presume to teach history?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Perhaps you should educate yourself on the events, the individuals involved and then present the facts of what happened rather than a side before you presume to teach history?



Version 1
The Pilgrims survived a hazardous ocean journey to land at Plymouth. Fact.
The Pilgrims survived a hard winter. Fact.
They are helped to survive by the Indians. Fact.
They celebrate with a feast. Fact.

Version 2
The Pilgrims come by boat and settle on Wampanoag land. Fact.
They rob a grave. Fact.
They steal corn the tribe had stored. Fact.
They steal items from the nearby Wampanoag houses. Fact.
The Wampanoag help them survive. Fact.
The Pilgrims view the Wampanoag as savages. Fact.

Which version should we teach? Or should we teach both?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

The more you post, the more obvious you are......


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> The more you post, the more obvious you are......


OMG, how horrible to suggest that we teach a balanced and factual view of events instead of a skewed one-sided approach! 

Why are you afraid of a balanced and factual approach?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> OMG, how horrible to suggest that we teach a balanced and factual view of events instead of a skewed one-sided approach!
> 
> Why are you afraid of a balanced and factual approach?


You just advocated a version 1 and version 2 history. As if those were the only choices. That isn't history. Do you have no shame?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> You just advocated a version 1 and version 2 history. That isn't history. Do you have no shame?


I advocated presenting both perspectives. That is absolutely history. Different groups involved in the same event will have different perspectives. Both of those perspectives are factual. It would be shameful to present only one perspective and erase the other. Why do you want to present only the Eurocentric perspective and erase the other? Do you have no shame?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> OMG, how horrible to suggest that we teach a balanced and factual view of events instead of a skewed one-sided approach!
> 
> Why are you afraid of a balanced and factual approach?


Who defines your balanced format? I know to the victors go the spoils... Somebody teaches the teachers.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

SLFarmMI said:


> I advocated presenting both perspectives. That is absolutely history. Different groups involved in the same event will have different perspectives. Both of those perspectives are factual. It would be shameful to present only one perspective and erase the other. Why do you want to present only the Eurocentric perspective and erase the other? Do you have no shame?


Teaching history isn't about "presenting both perspectives". I don't recall advocating only Eurocentric perspectives, nor has any other individual in this conversation. History is what happened, not about their perspective which I believe I alluded to in my original post in this thread and other, more polite people, did as well.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Teaching history isn't about "presenting both perspectives". I don't recall advocating only Eurocentric perspectives, nor has anyone other individuals in this conversation. History is what happened, not about their perspective which I believe I alluded to in my original post in this thread and other, more polite people, did as well.


Yes, history is about presenting both perspectives of what happened. What, in my above example, did not include what happened?

Did the Pilgrims survive a hazardous ocean journey to land at Plymouth? Yes, that happened.
Did they settle on Wampanoag land? Yes, that happened.
Did they rob a grave, steal corn the Wampanoag had stored and steal items from Wampanoag houses? Yes, that happened.
Did the Wampanoag help the Pilgrims survive? Yes, that happened.
Did the Pilgrims survive a hard winter? Yes, that happened.
Did they celebrate with a feast? Yes, that happened.


So which of these things that happened would you like omitted and why?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

We would not know about the interaction of the Wampanoag people and pilgrims unless the information was available. Seems both sides of that subject has been presented and is available if desired. If people are not able to understand that there is more than one side to any story, then it seems they have been neglected in their education when young. From what I see most people care very little about history, and the ability for basic critical thinking is seriously lacking. 

A lot of what we see on the news now seems to be people that want to blame others for their mostly self created problems. What happened to their or my great great grandparents is done with. We have all had decades of legally mandated chances to move on. Some have, seems some lack the will to do so.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> How about from the historical record? How about from archaeology? How about from the written accounts of people who dealt with them at the time? Ever heard of the pueblos of the Southwest? Hardly "mud huts". Ever hear of Cahokia? At its peak, it had a larger population that many cities in Europe. I'd call that more than "a couple hundred people living in mud huts".


As I pointed out earlier-- Adobe buildings that housed no more than a couple hundred inhabitants at a time does not qualify as a city..Even Prophetstown never had more than 1000 inhabitants....I also mentioned Cahokia indirectly-- The Mound Builders-- no real evidence, just guesses as to what they might have been up to. Cahokia - Wikipedia This article erroneously states that Cahokia at its height had more people than London A History of the Population of England (localhistories.org) It could be that the building of the mounds was analogous to the building of The Pyramids--a village housing workers temporarily surrounded the build site, not a permanent society/city. 

BTW- one of the leading theories about Cahokia is that it was built by Meso-American Indians who were colonizing N.Am. ...How does that fit into the narrative here?


----------



## Rodeo's Bud (Apr 10, 2020)

SLFarmMI said:


> So, it is your belief that democracy is solely a European invention?


Actually as a completed objective it could be argued that it is an American invention. Our Founding Fathers (and Mothers), paid for it with thier lives and treasure.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> The tribe that helped the Pilgrims survive was the Wampanoag.
> 
> Why should only the Pilgrim side of the events be presented?


Because you said it was about learning about Thanksgiving. How the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, was about how the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, not Thanksgiving. These are 2 separate events. 

Now if the section included the Pilgrims leaving England, arriving at Plymouth, building a community, day to day life, their relationship with the Indians, and then finally Thanksgiving; there is certainly an appropriate time to discuss the relationship between the Indians and the Pilgrims. And it would certainly be appropriate to provide as realistic a discussion of the relationship as possible. But that does not mean all points of view must be heard. It means that the facts must be as accurate as possible.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> The more you post, the more obvious you are......


She will never stop either. Incredible stamina in a most incredulous way


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Because you said it was about learning about Thanksgiving. How the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, was about how the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, not Thanksgiving. These are 2 separate events.
> 
> Now if the section included the Pilgrims leaving England, arriving at Plymouth, building a community, day to day life, their relationship with the Indians, and then finally Thanksgiving; there is certainly an appropriate time to discuss the relationship between the Indians and the Pilgrims. And it would certainly be appropriate to provide as realistic a discussion of the relationship as possible. But that does not mean all points of view must be heard. It means that the facts must be as accurate as possible.


Thanksgiving is not a stand alone event. Nor should it be taught as one or taught only from the Pilgrim point of view.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> She will never stop either. Incredible stamina in a most incredulous way


So sorry that this DISCUSSION forum isn't the conservative echo chamber that you want it to be.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> So sorry that this DISCUSSION forum isn't the conservative echo chamber that you want it to be.


If teachers were doing the jobs properly, students would be stimulated to think critically and to independently seek alternative view points-- Courses of revisionist history, book burning & indoctrination would not be necessary.

It's all readily available now. Fer instance-- Autobiography of Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, Or Black Hawk,, by Black Hawk (gutenberg.org) or 1.pdf (sygdoms.com)_ Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

T_here was also Alex Haley's excellent piece_ Roots Haley, Alex (crasseux.com)_ If you recall, the hero was named Kunte Kute--That's Swahili for LeRoy


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> Thanksgiving is not a stand alone event. Nor should it be taught as one or taught only from the Pilgrim point of view.


I'm just using the example you gave. If you are going to keep changing the topic every time I respond, I don't see any reason to continue the discussion.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm just using the example you gave. If you are going to keep changing the topic every time I respond, I don't see any reason to continue the discussion.


I'm not changing the topic. Thanksgiving is not a stand alone event. It never has been.

I'm curious why there is so much resistance to allowing other voices to be heard on a variety of subjects. Do you people really think that white Europeans were the only ones who contributed to building this country? Do you think their stories are the only ones that should be heard? Do you really think the European perspective is the only one that has value? Telling things from one side only gives a partial picture of events.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Because you said it was about learning about Thanksgiving. How the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, was about how the Indians were treated by the Pilgrims, not Thanksgiving. These are 2 separate events.
> 
> Now if the section included the Pilgrims leaving England, arriving at Plymouth, building a community, day to day life, their relationship with the Indians, and then finally Thanksgiving; there is certainly an appropriate time to discuss the relationship between the Indians and the Pilgrims. And it would certainly be appropriate to provide as realistic a discussion of the relationship as possible. But that does not mean all points of view must be heard. It means that the facts must be as accurate as possible.


That’s the thing; it is/was taught, and has been for a long time. I went to public school in the 80/90s, in a red state, and I was taught this “both perspectives” take on history. 

I was taught about the hardships the Pilgrims endured, and the injustices they imposed on the natives. Hell, I was even taught that the Pilgrims left home in the first place to escape religious persecution at the hands of their fellow Europeans.

I was taught about the Triangular Trade in slaves and the produce of their labor, including how the slaves themselves were harvested by their fellow Africans. I was taught about a lot of slave-owning cultures throughout history.

I was taught about western expansion and “manifest destiny”, AND the Trail of Tears. There was even mention of the wars between the native tribes, and the militant savagery (oops. Was that a micro-aggression?) some tribes employed in their conquests.

I was taught about the United States’ incursions on the Korean and Vietnamese peninsulas, and the hardships their war brought to the local populations. I was also taught about the influences from China and Russia that initiated a communist takeover that brought death to hundreds of thousands, and started those wars in the first place.


The notion that we are (were) taught a singular pro-European viewpoint to our history is false. Worse, it’s intentionally disingenuous. The sentiment driving this has nothing to do with wishing for more inclusion in the lens of history. Those perspectives are already taught.

This is entirely being driven by the fact that history, as it is recorded today, does not result in the Caucasian being hated as badly as some would like, so their perspective is that the unfavorable western/American/Caucasian details are not being stressed strongly enough.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Good post.

This stands out.


GunMonkeyIntl said:


> does not result in the Caucasian being hated as badly as some would like


Every agenda item of a certain some seems to divide, divide and divide, until you are one, standing alone, against the overwhelming power of the fake woke state.

The power of association is either used as a bludgeon on others, or as a danger to be purged.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Thanksgiving is not a stand alone event. Nor should it be taught as one or taught only from the Pilgrim point of view.


IIRC, you’re a grade school teacher. If you’re currently a teacher, I can’t imagine you started teaching much before I was in grade school. Most likely, the first lesson you delivered on the European colonization of the Americas was at least a few years after I received my first one.

If your experience of our educational system on the matter has been that only the euro-centric version is taught, then I share your concern and genuinely support your view that other perspectives need to be included. I would be appalled to find out the the school system in Michigan had you only teaching that the pilgrims were brave and benevolent, without a single dark deed on their hands.

For perspective, I went to grade school in northern Ohio (which could be a sister to your state in terms of politics and demographics). My hometown was a near-Cleveland suburb, not too different from the close suburbs of Detroit. My elementary school grade-year sizes were roughly 75-80, and my junior high (1992-ish) grade-years were about 120-150. It was a blue-collar, socially conservative but democrat-voting (union-heavy work force in the 80s-90s) area, so not exactly SoCal-woke.

Admittedly, my exposure to the pilgrims in about K-3 or 4 was limited to the fact that they wore buckled shoes, shot blunderbusses with exaggerated trumpet-muzzles, liked to eat turkey, and knew a bunch of Indians. Most lesson plans for 5 and 6 year-olds did not include much in the way of violence or sex.

By late-elementary, I was taught a definite sense that Europeans in the Americas had meant some rough times for the native population.

By junior high, I was fully aware that the natives got a raw deal, and were the victims of some dastardly underhandedness, including some of the gory details.

I was never, of course, taught to hate the white European throughout this evolution of instruction. My schooling was mostly tailored to suit the sensitivities of my age group, while generally holding to truthfulness.

If, some 20+ years later, your school system is teaching only a euro-centric viewpoint, then I am sincerely sorry for your students, and wish you the best in getting that changed.

If what you’re really after is to see your textbooks evolved to ensure an instilled hatred of the European descendent, then I hope you fail miserably, and that the parents of your students have the determination to ensure that happens.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I was never, of course, taught to hate the white European throughout this evolution of instruction. My schooling was mostly tailored to suit the sensitivities of my age group, while generally holding to truthfulness.





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If what you’re really after is to see your textbooks evolved to ensure an instilled hatred of the European descendent, then I hope you fail miserably, and that the parents of your students have the determination to ensure that happens.


Where are you getting the idea that decolonization is about instilling hatred of white Europeans or hatred of the European descendant? It isn't. It's about ensuring that perspectives that are other than white European are shown *in addition* *to* the white European perspective. It's not about instilling hatred of anyone or any culture.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> A couple hundred people living in mud huts in one spot doesn't really qualify as a "city."..The Mound Builders of the MidWest may have come closer, but they left so little behind other than those large mounds, we can only guess how organized they were


Those "mud huts" were better than the soddie that my Grandfather grew up in. Those "mud huts" were laid out in streets and often a couple of stories high. And I suspect that you do not know what the Pueblo Indians laws and customs were. Though I bet that their descendants know all about it



doc- said:


> Again, don't confuse culture with civilization....and call it what you will, the real question is how much influence did any of these groups leave on the rest of the world.? (Basically none.)


 The American constitution was one. Ben Franklin got much of that from the Iroquois, if my memory serves me


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

doc- said:


> As I pointed out earlier-- Adobe buildings that housed no more than a couple hundred inhabitants at a time does not qualify as a city..Even Prophetstown never had more than 1000 inhabitants....I also mentioned Cahokia indirectly-- The Mound Builders-- no real evidence, just guesses as to what they might have been up to. Cahokia - Wikipedia This article erroneously states that Cahokia at its height had more people than London A History of the Population of England (localhistories.org) It could be that the building of the mounds was analogous to the building of The Pyramids--a village housing workers temporarily surrounded the build site, not a permanent society/city.
> 
> BTW- one of the leading theories about Cahokia is that it was built by Meso-American Indians who were colonizing N.Am. ...How does that fit into the narrative here?


Some historians believed the Caddo and other groups with involved in that group. It was also believed they were a Republic type government. Each nation had an equal say in the whole good of the super nation. It is even mapped out in your wiki link. What is unsolved is the hwy El Camino Real. It is named after the Spanish and they get credit for building it. Truth is, it was here long before the Spanish ever got here. It is older than any hwy Rome built. (some believe) It is the largest early hwy going from San Augustine Florida to Mexico City. It travelled right into Mayan and Incan territory. This shows that there was early trade possibly. 

Anyway y'all carry on


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I havent waded through all the post but I guess the gist is hearing the minority viewpoint is important. If this is to be believed so adamantly, then why are we not hearing all viewpoints in the cancel culture civilization now? They are often dismissed off hand if you are not agreed with. This is for both sides too. We say white privilege but tell the whites to shut up. We say black lives matter and we dont want to listen to them. We say women's rights and then start calling them Karen's. 

If you really believe it then act like it. 

If there is speech you hate it doesn't mean it is hate speech. Even if it is you should still listen and try and help them understand. How does a bigot become an non bigot? Not by slamming them and dismissing them. Teaching them is the only way.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> speech you hate it doesn't mean it is hate speech


'at was a good song


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Where are you getting the idea that decolonization is about instilling hatred of white Europeans or hatred of the European descendant? It isn't. It's about ensuring that perspectives that are other than white European are shown *in addition* *to* the white European perspective. It's not about instilling hatred of anyone or any culture.


I addressed that in a previous post:



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...The notion that we are (were) taught a singular pro-European viewpoint to our history is false. Worse, it’s intentionally disingenuous. The sentiment driving this has nothing to do with wishing for more inclusion in the lens of history. Those perspectives are already taught.
> 
> This is entirely being driven by the fact that history, as it is recorded today, does not result in the Caucasian being hated as badly as some would like, so their perspective is that the unfavorable western/American/Caucasian details are not being stressed strongly enough.


All of the examples you’ve given of the need for “decolonization” are things that are already taught, and have been taught for decades. The use of the word in this context is another example of progressivism co-opting words for their new agenda. Decolonization was a societal shift which took place largely in the 18th through 20th centuries.

As I pointed out, with several specific examples, my public school education did not teach an exclusively western/euro-centric viewpoint. We were taught about the bad deeds of the western colonizers in the Americas, and every discussion of the US’ global dealings in its super-power era included mention of the negative impacts and dirty deeds- and that was 30 years ago.

Judging by the textbooks of the younger members of my family, there is even more emphasis on the non-Euro “viewpoint”. I recall reading the Atlantic slave trade section of a niece’s history text book a few years back, and the fact that the vast majority of slaves in the distribution channel were sold there by Africans didn’t seem to make the final cut. The implication was simply left hanging at “Europeans went to Africa and _took_ slaves”.

Some 30 years earlier, I had been taught about the injustices of the European on the black man in a very clear and even-handed manner. Just a few years ago, it seems that the African’s participation in the injustice was downplayed all the way to the editing room trash can.

Why?

Because the current narrative is that the crime of slavery is a uniquely white European one, and the earlier, factual version of the history left the door open to share the blame among people of multiple colors.


So, now that I’ve directly answered your question, please answer mine:

Is the issue that your school system actively chooses not to cover the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, American Slavery, and My Lai?

Or is it that, in 2021, your school system is still using the textbooks from a more euro-supremacist time before I was in grade school?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Terri said:


> Those "mud huts" were better than the soddie that my Grandfather grew up in. Those "mud huts" were laid out in streets and often a couple of stories high. And I suspect that you do not know what the Pueblo Indians laws and customs were. Though I bet that their descendants know all about it
> 
> The American constitution was one. Ben Franklin got much of that from the Iroquois, if my memory serves me


The US Constitution is almost a plagiarism of the ancient Roman Republic constitution-- Executive branch, Senate/H of R (the popular Comitia in Rome), and the judiciary branches. with checks and balances between the branches. Even the Electoral College is a direct translation of Roman elections by the Tribunals.

Franklin merely held up the Iroquois federation as an example of strength thru confederacy in order to influence the separate colonies to adopt the Constitution.

Had the Iroquois never existed, we'd still have our Constitution...Had Rome never existed, things would be different.

BTW- the Iroquois federation was used originally to beat up other Indian Nations and take their hunting grounds, pushing them ever westward. It didn't deter the white colonists too much.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I addressed that in a previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neither. Decolonization is more than admitting that the US and European countries engaged in "dirty deeds" that had "negative impacts". 

Let's take Wounded Knee for example. A Eurocentric approach is to view, discuss, debate, etc. that event through the lens of the European point of view. Even when "dirty deeds" are discussed, they are done so from that point of view. A decolonized approach (although, yes, it isn't the greatest term to use) would be to ALSO view, discuss, debate, etc. that event through the lens of the Lakota people. Both viewpoints are equally valid and neither should be elevated over the other.

BTW, Eurocentric, not Euro-supremacist. No one is saying one is better than the other, just different.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Neither. Decolonization is more than admitting that the US and European countries engaged in "dirty deeds" that had "negative impacts".
> 
> Let's take Wounded Knee for example. A Eurocentric approach is to view, discuss, debate, etc. that event through the lens of the European point of view. Even when "dirty deeds" are discussed, they are done so from that point of view. A decolonized approach (although, yes, it isn't the greatest term to use) would be to ALSO view, discuss, debate, etc. that event through the lens of the Lakota people. Both viewpoints are equally valid and neither should be elevated over the other.
> 
> BTW, Eurocentric, not Euro-supremacist. No one is saying one is better than the other, just different.


Wounded Knee is a perfect example of my point. IIRC, I was first taught about Wounded Knee in 1993 (if I’m doing my grade-year math correctly). I distinctly recall the chapter section being, in bold print, *The Massacre at Wounded Knee*, accompanied by a contemporary painting of US Army soldiers with machine cannons pointed at a pile of dead and dyingNative Americans.

Mind you, this was about 30 years ago, but the lesson, as I recall it, was something like this:

_American western-expansion was encroaching further and further on Sioux home territories. There were lots of clashes between white settlers and Sioux, with the settlers being wasteful and downright malicious with their taking of resources that the Sioux considered vital to survival, and the Sioux brutalizing many settlers. Eventually, both sides were killing each other, and the Army was called in to subdue the Sioux. In the process, they killed Sitting Bull, a revered chief. 

The Lakota were particularly enraged by the incursion and the murder of Sitting Bull, and fought back against the US Army’s attempts to disarm them. The US Army maneuvered to surround a Lakota village at Wounded Knee creek _ (an English translation of a Sioux name, for those keeping score). _When a few Lakota resisted the attempt at disarmament, the Army fired on the village and killed everyone, women and children included. _

Now, in fairness, the teacher who taught the lesson was a white male (I’m pretty sure he was gay, though, if that nets him any diversity points), so it could be argued, through the mechanisms of identity-politics, that the lesson was exclusively from the euro-centric point of view (although a uniquely homosexual one?), but I’m pretty sure it was a factual one. It certainly didn’t reflect well on the euro-descendants involved.


It would be disgusting if Wounded Knee were taught as a righteous suppression of blood-thirsty savages, but it hasn’t been taught that way in decades, if ever.

That brings me back around to my original point. The “euro-centric” viewpoint does not ignore the evils of euro-descendant history, so what is the point if not to paint the euro-descendant even more as the bad guy?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

A variety of sides of most events of our history are available. I am not aware of any books burned to cover up parts of history. It’s all there. Seems that some want to have their viewpoint given special attention. They want their dead relatives to be given special attention. For some reason those currently active think their special as a result of some historical occurrence of long dead people. As long as the system makes reference to the overall history, then broad strokes to paint the picture are good enough. Those that want to gain more insight can do so. Those that want to show appreciation for some aspect can do so. Gees, people can go and join a club or reenactment group if they wish. The rest can move on with life. 

Hmm, I wonder what the politicaly correct term is to cover all the genders for “what a bunch of prima dona’s.”


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

SLFarmMI said:


> is the realization that white, male Europeans were not the only ones who had achievements, accomplishments, culture, history, etc. It is the realization that the Eurocentric viewpoint of things is not the only one that has value.


I don't know anyone who thinks that white men are the only ones who had achievements, etc. From gunpowder to radiation, every literate person knows the Chinese invented gunpowder, and Marie Curie discovered radium. 


doc- said:


> Those who were influential in those societies were merely influential leaders who gained support among their fellows because they spoke well &/or were respected as men....Members of the group were not required to follow in any endeavor. If they felt like they wanted to go along, they went along..If not, they stayed behind and were not ostracized for their opinions or actions/inactions...Not exactly what you'd call "democracy."


Unlike our "democracy" of today where half of us risk being "doxed" and outed for supporting Republican/right wing ideology/candidates.



SLFarmMI said:


> What European democracies were in operation at the time of the writing of the Constitution? None.


None. Just as there were no American democracies operating after the time of the Constitution

While there is a reasonable inference that Adams (et al) considered the Iriquois confederacy as a basis for republicanism, they certainly wanted to (and did for the first 130 years) avoid a democracy.



SLFarmMI said:


> All decolonization is seeking is a balance of perspectives.


A shifting of power, not a "balance" of power. 



emdeengee said:


> Of course they were not Christians so had to be destroyed not to mention robbed of everything they possessed.


Yeah, no bias there. When Onata left New Mexico into Kansas he didn't want to destroy the great settlement. He actually had his spanish soldiers prevent the excanjaques (spelling & pronounciation is lost) from raiding the Etzanoans. 

It was a brutal time, and inferring our current well-fed and safety-conscious values on those of 300-600 years ago is just as wrong as inferring our western values on non-western cultures.



emdeengee said:


> It will take a long time of course as we - the colonizers - cannot admit we did anything wrong.


I am not a colonizer, and I have done nothing historically wrong. 

I have ancestors who were colonizers, who did nothing wrong when viewed through the values of their age.

I also have ancestors who were colonizees (is that a word), who also did nothing wrong when viewed through the values of their age as they fought against the colonizers.

Who was wrong.....Ahens or sparta? Russia or Japan? The 



emdeengee said:


> Most indigenous populations were wiped out or taken to the edge of extinction by imported diseases. war and religious fervour


As is what has happened by conquered tribes of people for millions of years, and what will eventually happen to us.



emdeengee said:


> The start would be for people who know nothing about colonization to really educate themselves on the cultures of indigenous peoples and what was done to them.


Which indigenous peoples should we start with? Should we all educate ourselves on the Oscans? Their culture was taken over by the Samnites. Or should we educate ourselves on the Samnites? Their culture was taken over by the Greeks. Or should we educate ourselves on the Greeks? After all, their culture was taken over by the Romans? All this happened on one little spot on the globe around a volcanoe we all know as Vesuvius.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

SLFarmMI said:


> No, I am saying that the Iroquois Confederacy typically rates about a paragraph in the history books that we used in middle and high school and that those minimal references were written from the Eurocentric perspective. And the indigenous people were not the only ones who were effectively erased in the history we were taught in school.


How many cultues/ideologies/histories should be included in middle/high school textbooks? Should we include the culture/history/multiple invasions/occupations of Wallachia in all of our high school textbooks? Do we need to include the unification of the Sechuan province of China in our high school textbooks? How about the Heavens Gate ideology?

My point here is that there have been tens, if not hundreds of thousands, or millions of cultures/ideologies/histories who have been ignored (or deleted) from human history. (Was Mycenea an outgrowth of Minos? Or were they contemporaneous traders with its own culture as newly found evidence from Pylos suggests?) We cannot include all of them in the culture we intend to grow as we teach a (minorlly) involved majority of us. If one wants to delve deep into the history of which vikings invaded England versus the Baltics, that is fine, but it is sufficient for an average educated citizen to know that the Vikings built length settlements in North America long before Columbus.



SLFarmMI said:


> The goal of decolonization is one of balance and you do that by bringing in more than one viewpoint. You do that by recognizing that non-European people are not ignorant savages just waiting for the Europeans to come and save them.


I think we have all "evolved" from the 1960s Lone Ranger movies depicting indigenous American Indians as ignorant savages. The other side of this argument is the avoidance of holding American Indians as a peace/nature loving group of organizations free of strife and disharmony. Stone age people fought, a LOT, over resources (land, food, slaves, and women.) No ,slavery didn't come to North America in 1692.



SLFarmMI said:


> You do that by recognizing and celebrating non-European culture, history and achievements just as much as you do the European culture, history and achievements. It is about giving a complete picture by including multiple perspectives and not erasing anyone.


Should we celebrate non-European culture of child-sacrifice performed by Central Americans less than a thousand years ago? How about the non-European culture of communism (some animals are, of course, more equal than others) that resulted in 110 million people (by communist governments) killed from 1900-1997? (Mass killings under communist regimes - Wikipedia)

I don't celebrate that. Sorry,call me unevolved, but I won't celebrate the killing of 110 million people as simply being "non-European culture, history and achievement".


SLFarmMI said:


> Because including only 1 viewpoint gives an incomplete picture.


Of course it does.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

boatswain2PA said:


> think we have all "evolved" from the 1960s Lone Ranger movies depicting indigenous American Indians as ignorant savages.


 Hold on a second!..The Lone Ranger was on in the 40s (radio) & 50s (TV) and Tonto was depicted as an intelligent, faithful friend and equal.
Because you go that wrong, can we believe anything else you said?

(Excellent coupla posts. I hope you haven't confused anybody by bringing up facts.)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Didn't everyone spend time in school studying this book?

I can't recall how much time we spent, but it left an indelible impression on me.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Didn't everyone spend time in school studying this book?
> 
> I can't recall how much time we spent, but it left an indelible impression on me.
> 
> View attachment 93708


Doesn’t count.

Here’s a picture of Dee Brown.










A picture of the person now tells you everything you need to know about them.

....well, except their pronouns.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I knew my primary education was lacking. I just did not know why.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Doesn’t count.
> 
> 
> A picture of the person now tells you everything you need to know about them.
> ...


These probably don't count either. I made the mistake of continuing my reading.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

The Native Americans will never vote for Decolonization, because they know the welfare checks would stop.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

muleskinner2 said:


> The Native Americans will never vote for Decolonization, because they know the welfare checks would stop.


If doesn't matter what they want. Is what we already know if what's best for them. 

Get with the program now.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> If doesn't matter what they want. Is what we already know if what's best for them


Sorry I don't speak gibberish.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sorry I don't speak gibberish.


Me either but it appears my phone likes to print it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

muleskinner2 said:


> The Native Americans will never vote for Decolonization, because they know the welfare checks would stop.


I hate to hurt your feelings but I hold full treaty status and have never collected a welfare cheque in my life and neither have my parents, grandparents or my children.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

wr said:


> I hate to hurt your feelings but I hold full treaty status and have never collected a welfare cheque in my life and neither have my parents, grandparents or my children.


Not hurting my feelings, I don't collect welfare either. But I live next to the largest Indian Reservation in the United States, and if the checks stopped coming they would starve to death.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

or die of thirst......


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> The US Constitution is almost a plagiarism of the ancient Roman Republic constitution-- Executive branch, Senate/H of R (the popular Comitia in Rome), and the judiciary branches. with checks and balances between the branches. Even the Electoral College is a direct translation of Roman elections by the Tribunals.
> 
> Franklin merely held up the Iroquois federation as an example of strength thru confederacy in order to influence the separate colonies to adopt the Constitution.
> 
> ...


Guess again.





__





Internet History Sourcebooks






sourcebooks.fordham.edu





A quote:
"Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany. While there were many desirable, as well as undesirable, models from ancient and modern histories in Europe and what we know now as the Middle East, only the Iroquois had a system that seemed to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates. The Genius of the People alleged that the Iroquois had a Constitution which began" : "WE THE PEOPLE, TO FORM A UNION...

I do not know much about the book "The Genius of the People", and it is surprisingly hard to find a translation of more than pieces of the Iroquois articles of confederation, but the Fordham University seemed to think it was worth quoting


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

The American Indian reservations-- The Nanny State at its finest.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Terri said:


> Guess again.


Your "education" on this subject is a good example of what we're talking about-- Liberal Revisionist History.

In fact, the Iroquois were merciless expansionists every bit as nasty as the Europeans whom we are now trying to vilify.

All the tribes in WI, for instance, when the French & later English trappers, traders, clergy and eventually colonists arrived here, themselves had been displaced from traditional hunting grounds farther east by Iroquois expansionism .Ancient Land, First Peoples | Short History of Wisconsin | Wisconsin Historical Society (wisconsinhistory.org) (corroborated in admittedly fictional accounts by Cooper in the Leatherstocking Tales-- The Delawares & Mohicans hated the Iroquois in those novels.)

In regards The Constitution, give us a break-- as I said it's almost a verbatim plagiarism of the Roman Republic constitution. Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 1, chapter pr, section 1 (tufts.edu) Any similarities to "democracy" (did they have elections? ) among the Iroquois is purely coincidental...While The Founding Fathers were certainly aware of that organization, its existence was immaterial. The Constitution would have been written as it was even without that knowledge.

While the Iroquois had two discussion groups consisting of "older" and "younger" tribes, that's not really the same as the Roman, American & British institutions of Senatus/Senate/House of Lords and the Comitia plebis tributus/House of Reps/House of Commons...In fact, the only similarity to the western system is that they all number "2."

Next you'll be inventing artificial heroes like William Tell, & Bud Billiken or holidays like Kwanza just to give these groups without real relevance something to brag about.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Terri said:


> "Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years


I believe the political power of the Iriquois Nations was inherited rather than voted in (Chieftan to son). However the powers of the Nations had over each other through their confederacy was more democratic.


We know some of the founding fathers knew about the confederacy including their political processes, and it's not unreasonable to assume that that knowledge, like all knowledge, had some measure of influence over their decisions. But likewise our founding fathers certainly had a traditional liberal (western) education that was based on western civilization (Greeks/Romans/European).

However we want to disagree on the percentage of influence the Iriquois, the Greeks, or any other governance system had over what our founding fathers built, they were brilliant in creating a Republic and not a Demcoracy.

Sadly, we have destroyed much of the Republic and rammed through Democracy, and we are poorer for it.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> Your "education" on this subject is a good example of what we're talking about-- Liberal Revisionist History.
> 
> In fact, the Iroquois were merciless expansionists every bit as nasty as the Europeans whom we are now trying to vilify.


I told that to you several pages ago. That is what humanity was doing at the time. I believe that I used Napoleon's war of conquest as one example. Expansion by conquest was what people everywhere were doing


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

Opinions. Hmph.


----------



## Strega (Feb 12, 2021)

The end goal is to erase white ppl. Period.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Welcome to the forum, Strega...I like your name. What kind if gas mileage do you get on your broom?


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> 'Decolonization' what is it? and what does it look like?
> 
> I have been asked to attend a series of courses that teach from within the echo-chamber of Native peoples oppression.
> 
> ...


It would be difficult to find any "oppressed" group that has not been bettered by our culture. RE: Blacks, even descendants of former slaves have a much higher lifestyle than their counterparts who remain in Africa. Hispanics endure a dangerous and difficult journey for the promise of life in America. Even the Native Americans who have not fallen prey to welfare dependency enjoy prosperous and fruitful lives when they adopt our culture. Teaching such a class will be almost impossible because its premise is totally false and prejudiced. America does not colonize, it frees.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> The Europeans did create most of the modern world. That's where the idea of individualism and individual liberties came from. It's also where the idea of democracy came from.


Yes and no. While Rome did originally come up with democracy, the Iroquois nations brought the full idea and the difference is the Native Americans allowed women to participate while Rome didn't. A lot of tribal nations were maternalistic societies run primarily by women while the men were busy out doing their thing. The men's perspective were represented in a few tribal nations. Benjamin Franklin actually visited the Iroquois nations and even attended their tribal meetings to learn how to administrate meetings and he deliberately omitted women from participating. He was a product of his era.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Homogenization of races is proceeding apace, there will be no need of such divisiveness based on the color of ones skin.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

TedH71 said:


> Yes and no. While Rome did originally come up with democracy, the Iroquois nations brought the full idea and the difference is the Native Americans allowed women to participate while Rome didn't. A lot of tribal nations were maternalistic societies run primarily by women while the men were busy out doing their thing. The men's perspective were represented in a few tribal nations. Benjamin Franklin actually visited the Iroquois nations and even attended their tribal meetings to learn how to administrate meetings and he deliberately omitted women from participating. He was a product of his era.


If you hide your candle under a bushel, it's the same as if you don't have a candle.

Columbus wasn't the first European to make it to this side-- but he was the first one to publish and make the info available to all.

It took Newton decades to publish his calculus. In the meantime, Leibnitz independently came up withit too, so now, they are given co-credit for it.

The Iroquois may have had a system vaguely reminiscent of our western style democracy and bicameral legislature, but other than giving The Founding Fathers some additional encouragement, it made little difference in forming the final product....Chimps may share 99% of the genome with us, but that doesn't make them human. Our representative democracy is substantially different than the Iroquois oligarchy.

The recent attention given to the Iroquois in this matter is merely another attempt at historical revisionism for political purposes.

BTW-- I thought "decolonization" was the surgery they do when you have bowel cancer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This thread drew in some new folks.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

SLFarmMI said:


> Decolonization is not about Antifa, toppling whomever is in power or independence or any of the other things suggested.
> 
> Decolonization in the context of your question is about ensuring that all viewpoints are represented and that everything is not taught from the Eurocentric point of view. Take the Westward Expansion of the United States as an example. Most, if not all, of us were taught about that period of history from a definite Eurocentric point of view -- the brave pioneers risking hardship and hostile Native Americans to expand the United States. It was seen and taught as a brave adventure. The viewpoint of the indigenous people was completely ignored and disregarded. Decolonization is not about removing anything. It is about adding the viewpoints of others so that everyone is represented.
> 
> The end result is that everyone has a voice and that all cultures/backgrounds are represented & valued not just white, male, European.



We don't all have voices now? America is more racist now than ever before? Bull hockey!


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

SLFarmMI said:


> With about a paragraph and from the Eurocentric perspective.
> 
> All decolonization is seeking is a balance of perspectives.



Nope, it is another power grab. Don't drink the koolaid.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

SLFarmMI said:


> Thanks. I will check those out.


1491 and it's companion 1493, are great books. 

I highly recomennd them. No there is much about history that we do not know.

And this stuff going on now, POWER GRAB


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

SLFarmMI said:


> You do realize that the belief that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning is rooted in the history of what happened, right?


There are many other countries in the world. Maybe one of those is better...


----------

