Every advance in the history of the world is a result of black people

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You have to have womens history, black history etc.. otherwise American history = WASP history.

No.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. Once again, kiddy is correct. Google on "one drop of blood"

Of course once someone was light enough to "pass" that was a different situation.

w00t!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No.

You're still a very silly and very strange boy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think arguing over it is silly because the answer is neither white nor black. Egypt was a bit of a melting pot.

-Arrian

Im thinking that I certain accomplishments were made by group A, and group A was a mix of X and Y, and for a couple of hundred years people had told members of group Y that they were inferior, and had accomplished nothing, and some still did to this day, and had also spent alot of time claiming that group A was only or mainly X, then the Y aspects of A might be worth mentioning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nope. Once again, kiddy is correct. Google on "one drop of blood"

My son is a negro.

Of course once someone was light enough to "pass" that was a different situation.

Oh, no he isn't.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. Once again, kiddy is correct. Google on "one drop of blood"

Of course once someone was light enough to "pass" that was a different situation.

Are we talking about the present day?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im thinking that I certain accomplishments were made by group A, and group A was a mix of X and Y, and for a couple of hundred years people had told members of group Y that they were inferior, and had accomplished nothing, and some still did to this day, and had also spent alot of time claiming that group A was only or mainly X, then the Y aspects of A might be worth mentioning.

I've never argued otherwise.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im thinking that I certain accomplishments were made by group A, and group A was a mix of X and Y, and for a couple of hundred years people had told members of group Y that they were inferior, and had accomplished nothing, and some still did to this day, and had also spent alot of time claiming that group A was only or mainly X, then the Y aspects of A might be worth mentioning.

Not really. It remains fairly meaningless.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In the US it would be properly called American history.

Im very interested in the history of the New York school of abstract expressionist painters. Thats part of American history. Its ALSO part of the history of Modern Art, which is NOT American history.

A discussion of the history of slavery in the US, focused on say, its role as the priniciple cause of the Civil War, would be American history. A history of slavery in the US that focused on its impact on african american culture, would be part of African American history, which in turn would be a subset of American history. A history of slavery in the US, contrasting its impact on American blacks with the impact of Brazilian slavery on Brazilian blacks would properly be part of black history. though also part of the general history of the Americas.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. Once again, kiddy is correct. Google on "one drop of blood"

Of course once someone was light enough to "pass" that was a different situation.

Well, but then you cant generalize, because it is no like that in all the world.

At most what you can say is egyptians were black according to the definition of black in the USA.

Maybe there is that one drop of blood on the USA because the different races have lived more separated than in latin america, in peru there is a saying, el que no tiene de inca tiene de mandinga, he who does not have indian blood, has black blood, meaning, everybody is mixed.
Race just means how you look, not ancestry, 2 brothers could be of a different race.

The current and former presidents of Brazil, Lula and Cardoso, both have recent black ancestors, they know and acknowledge that, but dont consider themselves or are considered to be black by the people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Are we talking about the present day?

-Arrian

No, we're talking about from 1620 to about 1970 or so. People who are descended from mixed relationships that took place earlier are still black, whatever their complexion, unless theyve "passed" but the children of contemporary mixed relationships often (but not always) call themselves interracial. Not without controversy, btw.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Is Kidicious in favour of eypt being taight as black history or against that, I am confused.

I don't see any problem with it so I guess yes, in favour. I really don't care if some people teach it otherwise though. I do see the problem with the way history is taught sometimes, eurocentric.

And isnt black history like saying caucasian history?

Caucasian history used to be the only history. It still exists but is just called history.

I could understand african-american history being a term used in the usa, but black history does not make sense.
But african-american history has nothing to do with egypt, slaves were taken from west africa, angola, congo, not from egypt, which has been an arab country for a long long time.

African-american history doesn't really fit into a world history curriculum except in a black history unit I think. In a US History course you would teach African-american history but it's just called black history.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Barnabas


Well, but then you cant generalize, because it is no like that in all the world.

I though Kiddy and arrian were discussing the US. Im quite aware Lat Am was different. Indeed New Orleans pre-US was different, resulting in a somewhat different set of racial terms in NO than in the rest of the US.

[Arrian]

LotM,

Since you decided to pounce on my post and declare that Kid is right, let me give you the context:

Originally posted by Arrian

I would think it depends on how dark their skin is. Further, I don't think being considered black in 2007 is the same as being considered black in "1940s Montgomery Alabama."

Now it may be that this guy is still fighting an old battle he thinks needs to be fought.

-Arrian

He asserted that having one drop of blood made you black in the past in the USA - true. He went on to assert that it's still true. My response was specific to that second assertion, which in my experience is not the case. YMMV.

edit: hoping to avoid any further confusion - the 1940s alabama thing comes from Kid's link - the prof talks about how any Egyptian pharaoh would've had to sit at the back of the bus in 1940s Montgomery, AL (true, no doubt).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No.

do you think theres a place for Southern history? Economic history? History of technology? Why does all history have to be defined relative to nation states?