NationStates Jolt Archive

...I've started a website. It's just a small one, but gives brief info on White History Month, plus a possible outline of events. Any comments? The address is http://www.whitehistorymonth.moonfruit.com

just another pointless website...

I like it! :rolleyes:

Many White People (a new study suggests as much as a million or more) were slaves to Black People before Black People were slaves to White Eople (though the latter was not because of the former).

Is that true?

Many White People (a new study suggests as much as a million or more) were slaves to Black People before Black People were slaves to White Eople (though the latter was not because of the former). Most struggled and became "free", but some countries still treat White People with disrespect today (an example being South Africa, where farms and houses owned by White People have been destroyed)

So, can I ask a link to the study in question or more information about the historic moment? It's, or was, South Africa one of those cases (and if not, are you aware that your phrasing make it seem so)?

Why is free in quotation marks and why are the first letter to white, black and people capitalized?

So, lots of questions, I'm afraid.

hele.

LMAO!!! :p

Look at the Google ads on his welcome page; oh, the irony.

And Morris dancing? You can't be serious...

Hehe...go Google...
Sexy Black Skin Care
Made by an African American Doctor Get rid of acne & blemishes now!
www.dr-earles.com/AfricanAmerican
Black History
Rosa Parks, Slavery, Civil Rights, Thurgood Marshall, Voting Rights
www.daziproductions.com
African American Grants
Free Money for African Americans Get Your Free Kit - Limited Time!
African.FreeGrantsKit.com
Black Ascended Master
From Ancient Golden Age Violet and Blue races. Afra. Find out more.
www.tsl.org/masters/Afra.asp
Black History Month
Discover your African American ancestors in historical records.
Ancestry.com
Advertise on this site

Hehe...go Google...

I love google too:

Black History Month
Free reference info on important people and events in Black History
www.Starware.com/Reference


Black History KS3 KS4
Lesson plans and worksheets Free samples to download
www.chalkface.com


Black Military World.com
African American military resource Includes news, information, history
blackmilitaryworld.com


Black Singles Photos
Free membership, photo gallery, and more. Meet Black singles now.
www.BlackSinglesConnection.com

Black History Month UK

He Is Black History

Black History for You

Black Theater

I did say it was a template, I'll add links when I can be arsed, but search google if you're desperate :)

LMAO!!! :p

Look at the Google ads on his welcome page; oh, the irony.

And Morris dancing? You can't be serious...

I know... stupid free websites... but anyway, Morris Dancing may be daft, but it's still a White invention :)

So, can I ask a link to the study in question or more information about the historic moment? It's, or was, South Africa one of those cases (and if not, are you aware that your phrasing make it seem so)?

Why is free in quotation marks and why are the first letter to white, black and people capitalized?

So, lots of questions, I'm afraid.

hele.

Black and White - caps cus Black is usually with a cap when talking about Black People, People cus of it being part of a White/Black thing, in the same way there's school, and High School (which I just realised is probably gramatically wrong, but fuck it)

I know... stupid free websites... but anyway, Morris Dancing may be daft, but it's still a White invention :)

It may well be a white invention but do we really want to advertise the fact? ;)

Damn white people.

Takin my jeeebs and opressing me and such...

Black and White - caps cus Black is usually with a cap when talking about Black People, People cus of it being part of a White/Black thing, in the same way there's school, and High School (which I just realised is probably gramatically wrong, but fuck it)

Ok, thanks anyway (I'm right to assume that the apparently random capitalization is at least partly correct in English?).

This (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm) is the study you were talking about? Very interesting. Though I still fail to see what has to do with South Africa in the slightest if that's the case.

Ok, thanks anyway (I'm right to assume that the apparently random capitalization is at least partly correct in English?).

fuck knows

This (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm) is the study you were talking about? Very interesting. Though I still fail to see what has to do with South Africa in the slightest if that's the case.

Yeh. But I never said it did. South Africa was seperate.

What do people reckon to the proposed Events Diary anyway?

fuck knows



Yeh. But I never said it did. South Africa was seperate.

Your phrasing implys it.

Many White People (a new study suggests as much as a million or more) were slaves to Black People before Black People were slaves to White Eople (though the latter was not because of the former). Most struggled and became "free", but some countries still treat White People with disrespect today (an example being South Africa, where farms and houses owned by White People have been destroyed)

In the last phrase, the second part ('but some countries...') is related to the first ('they struggled to became ''free'' '), so its example (South Africa) is implied to be related as well.

I'm sorry about the language issue, I had assumed you were from an English speaker country.

Henry Ford created a conveyor-belt based assembly line that drastically sped up the manufacturing of cars

So, "white history" is much as I thought, what is traditionally taught as "history"....maybe even extended to economics in that example. ;)

Many White People (a new study suggests as much as a million or more) were slaves to Black People before Black People were slaves to White Eople (though the latter was not because of the former). Most struggled and became "free",

If you're going to cite figures, you need a source for that statement. What example(s) are you referring to? How far are we going back? Are Jews considered "white people"? :p

but some countries still treat White People with disrespect today (an example being South Africa, where farms and houses owned by White People have been destroyed)

Of course, this has nothing to do with the impact of colonialism and a white elite under an oppressive apartheid system. "disrespect", indeed. We can paint a lovely never-ending circle of blame in that example. Pointing the finger squarely at them black folk is an extreme oversimplification. Do you want to teach history, or opinion?

C'mon, you know we've already got March-January, why do we need February too?

C'mon, you know we've already got March-January, why do we need February too?

Pretty much what I was thinking. With the occasional mention of George Washington Carver, or maybe Crispus Attucks, most of what has been taught has always been White history.

Three things:

1) There is no need for a (any race) history month. why don't you just protest against black history month.
2) I do not think I can give your website a passing grade.
3) Could you have posted that in your last thread, instead of starting a new one?

Utter crap.

oops posted too soon

arent you british, multiland?

IS there a black history month in the UK? is black history month NOT in february in the UK?

why would you want to put YOUR month over the top of the US black history month? no one else did.

White

IS there a black history month in the UK? is black history month NOT in february in the UK?

Yes, it's in October.

Yes, it's in October.

ahhh ok

what do you COVER in black history month?

in the US "black" is understood to be african american. im assuming that it doesnt mean african american in the UK. is there a considerable amount of UK history that involves citizens of african descent? i guess its a gap in my knowlege of the UK that i dont know that there is enough afro-british history to fill a month.

How petty can you get not to be satisfied with the other 11 months? Does that one month you can't have really present such a thorn in your side? Really?

Grow up.

:rolleyes:

Black History Month UK

People in Black History

Stamp on Black History

Famous African American

lmfao!

...
Famous African American... only Bill Cosby comes to mind ... :rolleyes:
all others are rather infamous
.

It's too white. White people are usually pinkish, although they come in shades. Unless they're albinos.

... only Bill Cosby comes to mind ... :rolleyes:
all others are rather infamous
.

if your going to use :rolleyes: after bill cosby you really should use :p at the end to show you are just joking about the infamous thing.

snip
As always you've made further discussion unneccessary.

As always you've made further discussion unneccessary.
explain?
i'm serious.

explain?
i'm serious.

I just liked your response.

if your going to use :rolleyes: after bill cosby you really should use :p at the end to show you are just joking about the infamous thing.

the :rolleyes: wasn't aimed at Bill Cosby but rather at the fact that here in Europe the only famous black people are those in tv series. And do not forget that there are no famous black people in Europe.
But besides that I do not care what smileys you think I should use.
.

the :rolleyes: wasn't aimed at Bill Cosby but rather at the fact that here in Europe the only famous black people are those in tv series. And do not forget that there are no famous black people in Europe.
But besides that I do not care what smileys you think I should use.
.

i was really only checking to see if you were being racist. i didnt want to blast you on your assertion that all famous black people are infamous except bill cosby if you were just joking.

i see from your claim that there are no famous black people in europe that you ARE joking so ill leave you to it.

i was really only checking to see if you were being racist. i didnt want to blast you on your assertion that all famous black people are infamous except bill cosby if you were just joking.

i see from your claim that there are no famous black people in europe that you ARE joking so ill leave you to it.So what famous black people in Europe do you know? Some football players and some braindead talkshow hosts, who else? Any politician? Any non-superficial public figure?
.

So what famous black people in Europe do you know? Some football players and some braindead talkshow hosts, who else? Any politician?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There's one. Nyamko Sabuni. There's two. MC Solaar. There's three.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There's one. Nyamko Sabuni. There's two. MC Solaar. There's three.
so?

so?

So what? He asked for them. Can't you read?

So what? He asked for them. Can't you read?
for wat.?
who are them?
no i can't
.

So what famous black people in Europe do you know? Some football players and some braindead talkshow hosts, who else? Any politician? Any non-superficial public figure?
.

toussaint l'overture
i know that the rebellion was in haiti but it was against europe

Nyamko Sabuni
liberal muslim swedish politician

Ayaan Hirsi Ali. There's one. Nyamko Sabuni. There's two. MC Solaar. There's three.

I have only heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali when her Dutch citizenship was in question, but that was no fame for her work nor any fame that lasted. It was just media attention.
I never heard of Nyamko Sabuni. What's she famous for? Outside of Sweden?
MC Solaar had some kind of fame in the early nineties. But it doesn't seem that too many people remember him today (I surely wouldn't if I hadn't worked in discoteques back then).
It seems we have a different understanding of fame.
.

Sieg Heil!

I have only heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali when her Dutch citizenship was in question, but that was no fame for her work nor any fame that lasted. It was just media attention.

You do understand that fame = media attention, no? Or how would you get famous without attention from the media?

I never heard of Nyamko Sabuni. What's she famous for?

She is the Swedish minister for integration. Quite famous, actually.

MC Solaar had some kind of fame in the early nineties. But it doesn't seem that too many people remember him today (I surely wouldn't if I hadn't worked in discoteques back then).

Now, that's nonsensical, as MC Solaar continues to be successful and famous still.

It seems we have a different understanding of fame.

Yeah, I suppose we do, because you seem to think fame has something to do with people you are familiar with, and that your ignorance of them makes them non-famous. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but you are not the arbiter of fame. Shocking, no?

In any case, how about Alexandre Dumas? Or Alexander Pushkin? John Archer? All black Europeans, all extremely famous. Your claim that there are no famous black Europeans is just laughable.

So what famous black people in Europe do you know? Some football players and some braindead talkshow hosts, who else? Any politician? Any non-superficial public figure?
.

oh youre funny

so realizing immediately that you were wrong in your assertion that there are no famous black people in europe, you change the topic to serious leaders. now that fassigen has mentioned a few, are you going to change it to "non superficial public figures who are over 2m tall and are left handed"?

Fame is not equal to media attention. And for me someone is famous when the knowledge about his/her person and work have become universal, not just nation-wide or in a certain time-frame. Everyone has heard of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, but do you know any black European who is known thus everywhere?
Alexandre Dumas was only half black and from his books you couldn't tell his skin color, my mistake I did not pay attention to that.
Pushkin was black?
Nobody kows about John Richard Archer today and outside the UK.
.

Your phrasing implys it.



In the last phrase, the second part ('but some countries...') is related to the first ('they struggled to became ''free'' '), so its example (South Africa) is implied to be related as well.

I'm sorry about the language issue, I had assumed you were from an English speaker country.

I'll change it when I can be arsed. And I'm from England.

This calls for a "Months Nobody Gives A Fuck About Month".

oh youre funny

so realizing immediately that you were wrong in your assertion that there are no famous black people in europe, you change the topic to serious leaders. now that fassigen has mentioned a few, are you going to change it to "non superficial public figures who are over 2m tall and are left handed"?

Those he named are only famous in their countries or for their respective fans.

oops posted too soon

arent you british, multiland?

IS there a black history month in the UK? is black history month NOT in february in the UK?

why would you want to put YOUR month over the top of the US black history month? no one else did.


It's in October aint it? There were some events recently that I'm sure were part of Black History Month

This calls for a "Months Nobody Gives A Fuck About Month".


Good idea

She is the Swedish minister for integration. Quite famous, actually.
Hah, famous for her work in Swedish integration? :D ....Perhaps infamous given how terrible "integration" is in Sweden. Or dont you people recognize racial/ethnic/cultural problems up there in your "utopia"?

Fame is not equal to media attention. And for me someone is famous when the knowledge about his/her person and work have become universal, not just nation-wide or in a certain time-frame. Everyone has heard of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, but do you know any black European who is known thus everywhere?
Alexandre Dumas was only half black and from his books you couldn't tell his skin color, my mistake I did not pay attention to that.
Pushkin was black?
Nobody kows about John Richard Archer today and outside the UK.
.

So basically, when you are proved wrong you go "waah, I'll redefine fame over and over and over again, so no matter if you present a hundred famous black Europeans, I'll constantly keep changing the definition of fame in a vain attempt to make it look like I haven't been ridiculously wrong, fooling only myself?"

Give it up.

Fame is not equal to media attention. And for me someone is famous when the knowledge about his/her person and work have become universal, not just nation-wide or in a certain time-frame. Everyone has heard of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, but do you know any black European who is known thus everywhere?
Alexandre Dumas was only half black and from his books you couldn't tell his skin color, my mistake I did not pay attention to that.
Pushkin was black?
Nobody kows about John Richard Archer today and outside the UK.
.

I've heard of Malcom X, but have no idea what he's done.

Hah, famous for her work in Swedish integration? :D ....Perhaps infamous given how terrible "integration" is in Sweden.

We were never an apartheid state like the US, so I'll take your attempts to speak of things you know nothing about (I do still remember that thread about Sweden becoming a haven for terrorists by you - dang, I laughed my ass off) cum grano salis.

Or dont you people recognize racial/ethnic/cultural problems up there in your "utopia"?

A rock thrown by someone from the US South, who calls black people "niggers." Mind the shards of glass, lest you cut yourself.

Those he named are only famous in their countries or for their respective fans.

geez if you keep restricting the definition soon we will find that there are no famous SWEDES.

im pretty sure that alexander dumas is famous all over the world. but i dont know if he was left handed....

It's in October aint it? There were some events recently that I'm sure were part of Black History Month

so ive been told. i clicked on the google link for black history month UK on your new site but it just took me to more ads so i gave up.

now im wondering what is covered in black history month in the UK. is there a whole undercurrent of british black history that i am clueless about?

and who comes under the definition of "black" for the purposes of black history month.

So basically, when you are proved wrong you go "waah, I'll redefine fame over and over and over again, so no matter if you present a hundred famous black Europeans, I'll constantly keep changing the definition of fame in a vain attempt to make it look like I haven't been ridiculously wrong, fooling only myself?"

Give it up.

I am not redefining anything. To be famous means to be part of common knowledge. And those who Fassigen mentioned are not in people's minds, so they are not famous. To be in the news once or twice or to hold an office that is not even noticed outside your own country does not mean to be famous.
The only famous black folks I know are African or US-American.
.

im pretty sure that alexander dumas is famous all over the world. but i dont know if he was left handed....

I am also pretty sure that Alexandre Dumas is famous all over the world (or at least his works), but who knows he was black?
.

I am not redefining anything. To be famous means to be part of common knowledge. And those who Fassigen mentioned are not in people's minds, so they are not famous. To be in the news once or twice or to hold an office that is not even noticed outside your own country does not mean to be famous.
The only famous black folks I know are African or US-American.

"Waah! They're not famous because I refuse to admit they are famous!"

Whatever, sweetie. You're not fooling anyone - you were just plain old wrong. No shame in admitting it. All the more shame in denying it through such a pathetic display.

geez if you keep restricting the definition soon we will find that there are no famous SWEDES.

Yeah, Alfred Nobel - what has he ever done? He's only famous for dynamite and the prizes. So that's not real fame.

And Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) - he's just famous for inventing taxonomy. Who knows about that?

Gustavus Adolphus - he's just a dead king! Big whoop. Same with Queen Kristina. She's just a dead king.

And ABBA, well, they split up, so you know, they can't still be famous. Plus only fags like them, and who likes fags? Yucky!

Ingmar Bergman. Only people who like quality films know of him, so, no fame there, either.

Hans Blix. Bitch please, he couldn't even find non-existent WMD.

Ingvar Kamprad. I just simply hate IKEA, so he doesn't get to be famous because I say so.

Astrid Lindgren. Pippi Longstalking, more like Pippi the paedophile bait...

Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman. Black and white films. Who watches those?

Raoul Wallenberg. Well, he just saved Jews, and who cares about Jews?

Björn Borg. Tennis is booooring....

And so forth...

So they are all black and are commonly known to Europeans?
.

Yeah, Alfred Nobel - what has he ever done? He's only famous for dynamite and the prizes. So that's not real fame.

And Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) - he's just famous for inventing taxonomy. Who knows about that?

Gustavus Adolphus - he's just a dead king! Big whoop. Same with Queen Kristina. She's just a dead king.

And ABBA, well, they split up, so you know, they can't still be famous. Plus only fags like them, and who likes fags? Yucky!

Ingmar Bergman. Only people who like quality films know of him, so, no fame there, either.

Hans Blix. Bitch please, he couldn't even find non-existent WMD.

Ingvar Kamprad. I just simply hate IKEA, so he doesn't get to be famous because I say so.

Astrid Lindgren. Pippi Longstalking, more like Pippi the paedophile bait...

Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman. Black and white films. Who watches those?

Raoul Wallenberg. Well, he just saved Jews, and who cares about Jews?

Björn Borg. Tennis is booooring....

And so forth...

...and the Swedish Chef. Bork bork bork!

:p

So they are all black and are commonly known to Europeans?

Honey, I'm not playing this game any more. You were wrong. It's really that simple. Deal with it.

...and the Swedish Chef. Bork bork bork!

:p

Who?

Who?

One of the muppets, if I'm thinking of the right Swedish chef.

Honey, I'm not playing this game any more. You were wrong. It's really that simple. Deal with it.
I was not wrong. Deal with it.
.

I was not wrong. Deal with it.
.

Sure, honey. Sure. All those black people mentioned were all just in everybody else's imagination. You can deny, deny, deny! Seems to be working wonders for you.

One of the muppets, if I'm thinking of the right Swedish chef.

The Muppets? See, they're not famous because I say they're not. So there.

Finally! WHITE HISTORY MONTH IS HERE!

This is really good. I mean I'm never taught anything about white history, so I really need to learn more about my people's past.

Also I really needs to identify more with my race. As we whites are part of an oppressed group its important we don't let our culture slip away and die.

I mean before I just felt so racially oppressed due to the lack of white history month. I was like "wtf! wher r my ancesters!??!?".

'Hey we're not racists, we're just proud of our background and our history of exploitation of other people based on race.'

The Muppets? See, they're not famous because I say they're not. So there.

You make Kermit sad.

Who?

The Swedish Chef is, in America, the only famous Swede there is.

The rest ... may as well be Greek to us!


I am not redefining anything. To be famous means to be part of common knowledge. And those who Fassigen mentioned are not in people's minds, so they are not famous. To be in the news once or twice or to hold an office that is not even noticed outside your own country does not mean to be famous.

Har. You're drawing the line arbitrarily. What is "common knowledge?" What is "in people's minds?" How many people, how common? Just because you define "famous" specifically in order so who you know is famous, and who you don't is not, does not change the fact that fame is relative.

1 a : widely known b : honored for achievement
2 : EXCELLENT, FIRST-RATE <famous weather for a walk>


To be famous only means to be "widely known." It doesn't specify how "widely" it is. You can be famous in your home town. You could be famous world-wide. Both are validly described as "famous." End of story.

Sure, honey. Sure. All those black people mentioned were all just in everybody else's imagination. You can deny, deny, deny! Seems to be working wonders for you.

So why don't you set up a poll and ask the Europeans here if they knew these folks and what they are famous for?

The Swedish Chef is, in America, the only famous Swede there is.

The rest ... may as well be Greek to us!

What? Even Henrik Larsson?

http://www.drillo.se/bilder/larsson.jpg

Sven Sven Sven Goran Eriksson...

This concept is flawed.

Every month is 'White History Month'. We are all taught 'white-centric' history all the time, (i.e. I'm sure everyone here could name more European Empires than they could African Empires, and more European Kings and Queens than they could African Kings and Queens).

This isn't anything at all to do with racism, its to do with the fact that the history that is taught is (more or less) the history that is relevent. The simple fact is that events in 18th Century France influenced the world a lot more than events in 18th Century Zululand.

History isn't really about people, whatever their race they are still irrelevent in the historical scale. Concentrating for a month on the exploits of Black people throughout history is ultimately quite gimmicky and against the grain of actual history teaching.

So why don't you set up a poll and ask the Europeans here if they knew these folks and what they are famous for?

Try asking UK residents if they've heard of Trevor MacDonald if you like.

Those he named are only famous in their countries or for their respective fans.

So...if I can find a sizeable group of people that hasn't heard of a particular person, that person is not famous?

So...if I can find a sizeable group of people that hasn't heard of a particular person, that person is not famous?The question is rather why some folks are universally known while others are only known within any group or nation. Why do people here know more about Malcolm X and Martin Luther King than that black Swedish minister? Maybe the difference is that although some may be famous for just existing and being who they are (a peculiarity rather) there are folks who are famous because they do or represent something significant. Martin Luther King was heard by almost the entire world while Nyamko Sabuni goes unheard-of.
.

Yeah, Alfred Nobel - what has he ever done? He's only famous for dynamite and the prizes. So that's not real fame.

And Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) - he's just famous for inventing taxonomy. Who knows about that?

Gustavus Adolphus - he's just a dead king! Big whoop. Same with Queen Kristina. She's just a dead king.

And ABBA, well, they split up, so you know, they can't still be famous. Plus only fags like them, and who likes fags? Yucky!

Ingmar Bergman. Only people who like quality films know of him, so, no fame there, either.

Hans Blix. Bitch please, he couldn't even find non-existent WMD.

Ingvar Kamprad. I just simply hate IKEA, so he doesn't get to be famous because I say so.

Astrid Lindgren. Pippi Longstalking, more like Pippi the paedophile bait...

Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman. Black and white films. Who watches those?

Raoul Wallenberg. Well, he just saved Jews, and who cares about Jews?

Björn Borg. Tennis is booooring....

And so forth...

EXACTLY. they are only known to their FANS. they arent famous if i say they arent!

or, as in dumas not counting as black because nod didnt know he was black, if i didnt know that garbo was swedish, she is NOT a famous swede.

EXACTLY. they are only known to their FANS. they arent famous if i say they arent!

or, as in dumas not counting as black because nod didnt know he was black, if i didnt know that garbo was swedish, she is NOT a famous swede.

You personally are the yardstick by which fame is measured?

Finally! WHITE HISTORY MONTH IS HERE!

This is really good. I mean I'm never taught anything about white history, so I really need to learn more about my people's past.

Also I really needs to identify more with my race. As we whites are part of an oppressed group its important we don't let our culture slip away and die.

I mean before I just felt so racially oppressed due to the lack of white history month. I was like "wtf! wher r my ancesters!??!?".

'Hey we're not racists, we're just proud of our background and our history of exploitation of other people based on race.'

That is really, really, sad. I actually feel sorry for you. I'm actually totally against racism of any form, but just because I want to celebrate the good points of White History (something you evidently need to learn about based on your last sentence), you automatically assume it's racist "ooh it's a white thing, it must be racist if it shows white people in any kind of positive light". Childish. Really, really childish. Racist in fact: "all white people are bad!!"

That is really, really, sad. I actually feel sorry for you. I'm actually totally against racism of any form, but just because I want to celebrate the good points of White History, you automatically assume it's racist "ooh it's a white thing, it must be racist if it shows white people in any kind of positive light". Childish. Really, really childish.But what are the good points of "White History"? And what is white in this regard anyways?
.

I'll change it when I can be arsed. And I'm from England.

Hey, I didn't say you had to change it, I said that I didn't get the relationship between South Africa and those countries where whites aren't 'respected' today because they were slaves in the past. You said you didn't say anything like that, I showed you were you imply it. There is no need to be rude, I haven't attacked you, nor you website... yet :rolleyes:.

But what are the good points of "White History"? And what is white in this regard anyways?
.

The fact you had to ask the first question demonstrates such a month is needed, along with the fact you decided to put White History in speech marks as though there is no such thing.

In this regard, the same criteria for defining white people would be used as that for defining black people in Black History Month

Hey, I didn't say you had to change it, I said that I didn't get the relationship between South Africa and those countries where whites aren't 'respected' today because they were slaves in the past. You said you didn't say anything like that, I showed you were you imply it. There is no need to be rude, I haven't attacked you, nor you website... yet :rolleyes:.

I wasn't being rude, sorry if it sounded like that. I was just acknowledging your point and answering your question

Isn't it kind of insulting to try and reduce the history of hundreds of ethnicities and cultures down to a single monotlithic "racial" history month?

I mean, the cultural history of African slaves and the civilizations of Africa is as equally varied and rich as the history of Europe or Asia, and in many ways is more interesting because far less is known about it.

Maybe we need racial history years instead of months...

Isn't it kind of insulting to try and reduce the history of hundreds of ethnicities and cultures down to a single monotlithic "racial" history month?

I mean, the cultural history of African slaves and the civilizations of Africa is as equally varied and rich as the history of Europe or Asia, and in many ways is more interesting because far less is known about it.

The point is not so much regarding African cultures; it is the African experience in the US that is the concern.

True, there is a lot to it, perhaps more than can be fitted into a month, but it is a start.

the same criteria for defining white people would be used as that for defining black people in Black History Month

I'd be grateful if that criteria could be so defined as to preclude my ancestors from inclusion. Because I don't want anything to do with you, whitey.

WTF, since when is Alexandre Dumas black? The only black person in his family is his grandmother (slave, and his grandfather was a Marquis (noble)), that makes only one of his 4 grandparents non-white. And one of his parents white and the other half white half black, which would make him forgive me if I am wrong 1/4 African heritage and 3/4 French heritage.

Since when does that make someone black? Is one grandparent enough that a person loses his ethnicity to another one? I would say he is white, with African ancestry in his lineage. But to call him black is denying 3/4 of what he is.

I'd be grateful if that criteria could be so defined as to preclude my ancestors from inclusion. Because I don't want anything to do with you, whitey.Who are your ancestors? In the end all members of homo sapiens descend from folks in the East African rift valley region.
.

Who are your ancestors? In the end all members of homo sapiens descend from folks in the East African rift valley region.
.

I still want nothing to do with this nonsense. This makes those of us with less melanin in their skin look uniformly like willfully lazy jackaninnies who can't be bothered knowing the truth behind their unique ethnic origins. I might be white, but that doesn't mean I have much or anything in common with other white people.

My ancestors were Hebridean. So how does lumping myself in with a Macedonian, or a Slovak, an Albanian or a Dane help to define my own people's history? Lemme tell you: not one bit.

This has nothing to do with celebrating "white" history. This has everything to do with having an all-consuming sense of entitlement. Well, fuck that noise. Fuck it right where it lives.

I still want nothing to do with this nonsense. This makes those of us with less melanin in their skin look uniformly like willfully lazy jackaninnies who can't be bothered knowing the truth behind their unique ethnic origins. I might be white, but that doesn't mean I have much or anything in common with other white people.

My ancestors were Hebridean. So how does lumping myself in with a Macedonian, or a Slovak, an Albanian or a Dane help to define my own people's history? Lemme tell you: not one bit.

This has nothing to do with celebrating "white" history. This has everything to do with having an all-consuming sense of entitlement. Well, fuck that noise. Fuck it right where it lives.

And what's your people's history? Enlighten me on Hebridean history.
.

And what's your people's history? Enlighten me on Hebridean history.
.

I'm not an extension of the Dewey decimal system. You have hands, yes? And eyes? And the means to control both? Go forth and seek enlightenment. You might even try seeking it through the auspices of this very telecommunications medium.

Or you try the other route - like the OP - forego research altogether, and try making spurious allusions to a non-existent "white" culture.

But I'll relent, and satisfy you to this extent:

My family's name is so old it predates the Scots clans. My forebears were known bards, famed for composing and reciting epic poems recounting the deeds of the clan chieftains prior to mutual engagement on fields of battle. They were also called in to adjudicate or negotiate settlements between rival clans once their bloodlusts had been assuaged. As a descendant, I am entitled to wear the tartans of two distinct Scots clans.

The author Farley Mowat contended that the Hebrideans were a remnant people, more closely related to the Basques in Portugal - they were not Celts, but came to be known (in what is now the UK) as the Picts. Mowat felt that the group responsible for initially populating the Hebrides (and the Orkneys, where the other branch of my ancestors hail from) were in fact Armoricans - a pre-Celtic people who were indigineous to France, seafarers with extensive trading routes throughout the North Atlantic.

I wasn't being rude, sorry if it sounded like that. I was just acknowledging your point and answering your question

Ah, ok, sorry that I misinterpreted you.

The point is not so much regarding African cultures; it is the African experience in the US that is the concern.

True, there is a lot to it, perhaps more than can be fitted into a month, but it is a start.

See, this I can understand. The beautiful thing is that shows clearly and concisely why a White History Month does not follow the same reasoning behind the Black History Month (indeed, why there isn't a double standard in thinking so) and is unnecessary. (Rereading this last paragraph I can tell I sound sarcastic, however, that was not my intention; please ignore it and take it literally)

But I still think that making a point about remembering history of oppressed groups in a region (that should be in normal history class anyway) and don't even try to awaken conscience about those groups' cultural background is rather lazy. Meh, in my -I admit rather uninformed- opinion racism is just a face for ethnocentrism, and not linking the two is obscuring the real issue.

Thank you for the lol. :D

Why not have White History month. If we can have a black history month and a hispanic history month lets have a white one to.

Why are you so worried about white history? Do you actually feel that it is not being taught or respected? The reasoning behind this idea - you may feel it is nothing to with the BNP - is so skewed. The reason we need black history month is that we don't know/respect a part of the cultural history of people within our society because it is not taught well enough in school. All we get is the scramble for Africa and slavery: we avoid all the pre-slavery African history in favour of European history. Stop getting so het up about it man. It's not an insult to whites that there is no history month. If anything it's an insult to blacks that there is a designated month for black history which, lets face it, is pretty much ignored anyway....mind you people do talk about Dr King a little bit more....

I'm not an extension of the Dewey decimal system. You have hands, yes? And eyes? And the means to control both? Go forth and seek enlightenment. You might even try seeking it through the auspices of this very telecommunications medium.

Or you try the other route - like the OP - forego research altogether, and try making spurious allusions to a non-existent "white" culture.

But I'll relent, and satisfy you to this extent:

My family's name is so old it predates the Scots clans. My forebears were known bards, famed for composing and reciting epic poems recounting the deeds of the clan chieftains prior to mutual engagement on fields of battle. They were also called in to adjudicate or negotiate settlements between rival clans once their bloodlusts had been assuaged. As a descendant, I am entitled to wear the tartans of two distinct Scots clans.

The author Farley Mowat contended that the Hebrideans were a remnant people, more closely related to the Basques in Portugal - they were not Celts, but came to be known (in what is now the UK) as the Picts. Mowat felt that the group responsible for initially populating the Hebrides (and the Orkneys, where the other branch of my ancestors hail from) were in fact Armoricans - a pre-Celtic people who were indigineous to France, seafarers with extensive trading routes throughout the North Atlantic.Armoricans and bards? So you descend from Cacofonix? :D
I knew some of what you relented to explain, about Picts, Basques in Spain, pre-Celtic people in western and northern British Isles etc. and maybe Phoenicians sailing there for tin. A long time ago I made a map series about the history of the Bristish Isles.
But honestly, I find pride in ancestry ridiculous and despicable. Your family's name or the tartans you are entitled to wear do not make you a better or a more worthy human. This is just as stupid as Jews or Rastafarians claiming descend from any biblical characters.
.

Why not have White History month. If we can have a black history month and a hispanic history month lets have a white one to.

Every month is White history month ... it's pretty much all we ever learn about.

Armoricans and bards? So you descend from Cacofonix? :D
I knew some of what you relented to explain, about Picts, Basques in Spain, pre-Celtic people in western and northern British Isles etc. and maybe Phoenicians sailing there for tin. A long time ago I made a map series about the history of the Bristish Isles.
But honestly, I find pride in ancestry ridiculous and despicable. Your family's name or the tartans you are entitled to wear do not make you a better or a more worthy human. This is just as stupid as Jews or Rastafarians claiming descend from any biblical characters.
.

Stupid, ridiculous and despicable you may consider it to be, most certainly - that is your right. You had asked me to describe some history, and I did so - with some reluctance, I'll add - as I'm not half the historian any number of my relatives are. The particular entitlements to which I referred are, in my own opinion, far less onerous a thing to ask of the rest of society-at-large than say... the pervasive sense of entitlement that continually emanates from those who choose to spurn their true ancestry, in favour of adopting spurious - and lazily convenient - stances with scant else but a vague sense of complexion to guide them.

Feel free to hold me in as low regard as you may wish, I'd sooner prefer to quietly venerate my ancestry in the privacy of my own thoughts than to throw my lot in with a pack of loud braying jackasses who know nothing of their own unique ethnic ancestry, let alone mine - and yet seek to publicly celebrate "our" history.

If being "white" means foregoing my own actual line of descent, colour me disinterested.

I am offended.

*calls ACLU*

Who are your ancestors? In the end all members of homo sapiens descend from folks in the East African rift valley region.
.

You can go more backwards and find our ancestors as single cell organisims at oceans. It's really moronic to go "too" backwards in time to try to disprove a point of view.

I am offended.

*calls ACLU*

Me too! :eek:

The point is not so much regarding African cultures; it is the African experience in the US that is the concern.

I think we'd still need to focus on their roots as well in order to appreciate how that cultural experience adapted and evolved during slavery, the segregation era, and the civil rights era and beyond.

True, there is a lot to it, perhaps more than can be fitted into a month, but it is a start.

I'd have to agree, but I think a month is too short. It might make more sense to designate a year according to a certain region and explore the cultures within, although that would be difficult in the US because of our varied cultural backgrounds.

I think we'd still need to focus on their roots as well in order to appreciate how that cultural experience adapted and evolved during slavery, the segregation era, and the civil rights era and beyond.
Aren't many so-called Afro-Americans of mixed descent (ie European/African)? Therefore, I think focusing on their history in the US is all the more pertinent?

I think we'd still need to focus on their roots as well in order to appreciate how that cultural experience adapted and evolved during slavery, the segregation era, and the civil rights era and beyond.

Perhaps, but at least we can greatly reduce the number of cultures that would need to be examined.

I'd have to agree, but I think a month is too short. It might make more sense to designate a year according to a certain region and explore the cultures within, although that would be difficult in the US because of our varied cultural backgrounds.

It might work better to just bring a more multiethnic approach into existing History and English courses in high school and college. Some steps towards this are already occurring.

Is that true?

erm, I wouldn't say "many" unless by that he means "thousands" - when compared to the millions of africans enslaved by europeans, it's not equal - if this is somehow about justice or something.

lets have gay history month! and religious minority history month! vegetarian history month! nearsighted-individuals history month! left-handed juggling slovak history month!

Aren't many so-called Afro-Americans of mixed descent (ie European/African)? Therefore, I think focusing on their history in the US is all the more pertinent?

Yes. That is true.

(And there are also a surprising number of "whites" with African genes.)

Aren't many so-called Afro-Americans of mixed descent (ie European/African)? Therefore, I think focusing on their history in the US is all the more pertinent?

Nearly everyone in the US is of mixed descent. Almost every 'white' person I know around here (including me) has some sort of mixed ancestry in them too. So I guess I don't see your point...

Perhaps, but at least we can greatly reduce the number of cultures that would need to be examined.

I imagine some compromise between the two is necessary for it to be practical, so I'd have to agree.

It might work better to just bring a more multiethnic approach into existing History and English courses in high school and college. Some steps towards this are already occurring.

Actually, I can corroborate this. My English class in 12th grade actually covered almost no literature from Europe but tried to cover as broad a spectrum of literature as possible. It makes sense given that the prior three years were almost entirely US-Europe focused.

My university also requires a certain number of credit hours of non-US/Europe literature and history classes.

Nearly everyone in the US is of mixed descent. Almost every 'white' person I know around here (including me) has some sort of mixed ancestry in them too. So I guess I don't see your point...
You focus on learning "American history", don't you? Not European, or whatever describes most Americans' descent best. The point is that most Afro-Americans also have an "American" history -- their ethnic origins with exclusive relation to Africa are tenuous at best. Therefore, when one refers to "black history" they refer to that of the group so defined with regard to its specific experience in the US.

Stupid, ridiculous and despicable you may consider it to be, most certainly - that is your right. You had asked me to describe some history, and I did so - with some reluctance, I'll add - as I'm not half the historian any number of my relatives are. The particular entitlements to which I referred are, in my own opinion, far less onerous a thing to ask of the rest of society-at-large than say... the pervasive sense of entitlement that continually emanates from those who choose to spurn their true ancestry, in favour of adopting spurious - and lazily convenient - stances with scant else but a vague sense of complexion to guide them.

Feel free to hold me in as low regard as you may wish, I'd sooner prefer to quietly venerate my ancestry in the privacy of my own thoughts than to throw my lot in with a pack of loud braying jackasses who know nothing of their own unique ethnic ancestry, let alone mine - and yet seek to publicly celebrate "our" history.

If being "white" means foregoing my own actual line of descent, colour me disinterested.Why do you at all take interest in any unique ethnic ancestry you might have? What significance does it bear? Does it change the supposition of who or what you are?
I do not fully understand your reference to people who seek to publicly celebrate "our" history. As for me my history begins with myself and I do not depend on any descend I might have and I do not celebrate the history of any of my coevals. The only history I take delight in is that of the Sumerians, their antecessors, and their cultural progeny. When Sumerian culture flourished Europe was for the best part still covered with primeval forest and its inhabitants lived in dull tedium.
Being "white" means nothing more than featuring a low amount of melanin in the skin. Thus there is no way of actively being white or foregoing this condition. Therefore also no reason exists to take pride in complexion and any wrongly assumed qualities it might infer to a person's character.
.

(And there are also a surprising number of "whites" with African genes.)Almost the entire genome of homo sapiens is African. The few genes responsible for the phenotypical variations in humans are rather negligible.
.

Actually, I can corroborate this. My English class in 12th grade actually covered almost no literature from Europe but tried to cover as broad a spectrum of literature as possible. It makes sense given that the prior three years were almost entirely US-Europe focused.

The greater problem really lies in history; the broad outlines are given, but to understand the experience a good deal more is required. Particularly insufficient attention is given to the movements of the late '60s and early '70s, despite their cultural influence (much of which has been transformed into false impressions.)

This carries over to contemporary debates about race; in asserting that equality was somehow "guaranteed" by the Civil Rights Movement, people forget that there were movements whose demands were never met, who were ignored, marginalized, and ultimately suppressed without much actually changing.

Actually, high school US history courses are pretty bad in their treatment of all kinds of oppressed groups, though the AP courses do a much better job.

Almost the entire genome of homo sapiens is African. The few genes responsible for the phenotypical variations in humans are rather negligible.
.

True. Let me adjust my statement - genes from Africans who were Africans within the past several hundred years.

True. Let me adjust my statement - genes from Africans who were Africans within the past several hundred years.I beg your pardon?
.

Why do you at all take interest in any unique ethnic ancestry you might have?

It's within my pervue to be so interested, but really - I don't have to explain those interests, or my reasons, to you or to anybody. You'll simply have to derive whatever satisfaction you can from the knowing that my interest does bear personal significance for me.

What significance does it bear?

That would be telling. And this is also where I draw a line of personal privacy.

Does it change the supposition of who or what you are?

No, it tends to confirm certain suppositions, not change them - at least, more often than not.

Almost the entire genome of homo sapiens is African. The few genes responsible for the phenotypical variations in humans are rather negligible.
.
So over 300 000 years, humans have had no evolutionary adaptations to their environments that may be more than "negligible"?

Why are you so worried about white history? Do you actually feel that it is not being taught or respected? The reasoning behind this idea - you may feel it is nothing to with the BNP - is so skewed. The reason we need black history month is that we don't know/respect a part of the cultural history of people within our society because it is not taught well enough in school. All we get is the scramble for Africa and slavery: we avoid all the pre-slavery African history in favour of European history. Stop getting so het up about it man. It's not an insult to whites that there is no history month. If anything it's an insult to blacks that there is a designated month for black history which, lets face it, is pretty much ignored anyway....mind you people do talk about Dr King a little bit more....

Hey hey hey hey, now...with out setting aside the shortest month of the year to pay lip service to acknowledging the black experience in American history, how would I know who invented peanut butter?

Which is a smart ass way of saying, yeah-I agree. This whole thing is so stupid minded it really boggles. It's ridiculous, "I want a lollipop, too" reasoning that doesn't take anything into any real consideration.

when u saw white... i mean who falls under 'white'? Teutons? Slavs? Franks? Anglo-Saxons? Celts?

when u saw white... i mean who falls under 'white'? Teutons? Slavs? Franks? Anglo-Saxons? Celts?

All of those.

when u saw white... i mean who falls under 'white'? Teutons? Slavs? Franks? Anglo-Saxons? Celts?
Anthropologically speaking it is a huge division -- anything from Europeans to many Indians falls under the term "white" (or better yet, Caucasian, or Indoeuropean). What we commonly refer to as "whites" though would be the European branch of the so-called Caucasian grouping.

Anthropologically speaking it is a huge division -- anything from Europeans to many Indians falls under the term "white" (or better yet, Caucasian, or Indoeuropean). What we commonly refer to as "whites" though would be the European branch of the so-called Caucasian grouping.

ooooooo does that mean that we would study the development of hinduism in white history month?

ooooooo does that mean that we would study the development of hinduism in white history month?
'Caucasian' history month. ;) "White" specifically refers to the European branch. It's a stupid term -- all the colours are really.

'Caucasian' history month. ;) "White" specifically refers to the European branch. It's a stupid term -- all the colours are really.

rats

i dont know anything about the rise of hinduism, it might have made whitey month worth something.

rats

i dont know anything about the rise of hinduism, it might have made whitey month worth something.
Meh, to be honest India (outside of the anthropological stuff) is about as familiar to me as the surface of Mars... I need to read up on it. <.<

"Race" is so silly... :rolleyes:

So over 300 000 years, humans have had no evolutionary adaptations to their environments that may be more than "negligible"?Homo sapiens sapiens has left Africa only as late as 60 000 years ago, well within the ice age. Other human species had made this voyage into Asia and Europe before (including homo sapiens neanderthalensis), but as you might know they did not persist. Within this time the genome that rules the body's set-up and its metabolism has changed but slightly. The genome that rules the superficial features has changed more but that part of the genome constitutes only a small fraction of the genome.
.

'Caucasian' history month. ;) "White" specifically refers to the European branch. It's a stupid term -- all the colours are really.
Caucasian? That word is only used in English, is it not?
.

Homo sapiens sapiens has left Africa only as late as 60 000 years ago, well within the ice age. Other human species had made this voyage into Asia and Europe before (including homo sapiens neanderthalensis), but as you might know they did not persist. Within this time the genome that rules the body's set-up and its metabolism has changed but slightly. The genome that rules the superficial features has changed more but that part of the genome constitutes only a small fraction of the genome.
.


Chimps are human, gene study implies

* 22:00 19 May 2003
* NewScientist.com news service
* Jeff Hecht

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.
.......

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744

Apperantly, "small" differences matter A LOT in genetics.

Depends were the differences are. BTW the article does not contradict anything I have said.
.

Homo sapiens sapiens has left Africa only as late as 60 000 years ago, well within the ice age. Other human species had made this voyage into Asia and Europe before (including homo sapiens neanderthalensis), but as you might know they did not persist. Within this time the genome that rules the body's set-up and its metabolism has changed but slightly. The genome that rules the superficial features has changed more but that part of the genome constitutes only a small fraction of the genome.
.
60 000 years is a large period itself. I will do more reading into the matter myself. What is "small" or not is an entirely subjective judgement. For instance, the minute differences between a Russian Blue and a Siamese cat do not preclude the use of "races" or "pedigrees" or whatever to describe them.

Caucasian? That word is only used in English, is it not?
.
I would not know -- its origins pertain to a geographical area. However, since we're communicating in English I suppose it's most appropriate.