This may piss some of you off but i don't really give a shit cause it makes my blood boil. I believe that the achievements of non-european societies in world history or other things has been purposely minimalised, perverted, omitted, and or blatantly lied about by the white power structure in america. In school and society it is taught as if the peoples of north and south america, africa, india, and parts of asia as well as other parts of the world outside of europe have contributed very little if at all to the world and whether consciously or subconsciously it is believed by the majority of americans. This has been devastating to the pysche of many minorities and has created a feeling of superiority (again consciously or subconsciously) in numerous european americans. This makes me so angry and i swear to god its enough to put hate in my heart.

I disagree. Feudal japan for example is admired by a very large amount of westerners, Ancient Egypt is one of the great ancient civilizations. There are allot of non European's tat have achieved great things, and most people know about it, and even learn about it in school.

we are taught about the achievements of ancient egypt (it is not adressed nearly as much as europe) but egyptians are potrayed as white people, which they most definitely were not. You are wrong japan is not given any special attention in american society and even if that were true that still leaves out the two largest minorities in the united states of america as well as the native peoples.

Please refer me to any credible evidence that the Egyptians was not white.

And i mean credible, not some propaganda crap.

well i could do the very same thing and ask you to provide evidence that they weren't black or at least dark skinned people. Oh and try not to get it from a white supremacy website.

To fufill your request i would ask you to look at ancient egyptian's depictions of themselves they are black or brown.

http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

"That the Egyptians by and large were dark is certain, and many must have been what we today call "black."

I have no need to do so, i never claimed there where white, i simply asked you to provide evidence that they where black, since you claimed they where.

As for the credibility of Larry Orcutt:
"I am, in short, an autodidact with no formal training in Egyptology"

And i would hardly call a Syrian or Libyan "black" or "brown"



This coming from you mean very little, as you have been posting from "black supremacy" sites before, just as i have posted from a "white supremacy" site.
And tell me one thing, who here is constantly posting about how white man is treating black man badly, many of your posts are what would be called pure racist if it had been against blacks and not whites.

I can't edit for some reason. But to avoid any quarrel on this matter ill just say what my opinion on this matter is. The Ancient Egyptians where in the sense of the word "bastards".



You really should do some more research before blurting out stuff like that.

The Egyptians never called them self "black" They simply called them self Egyptians, because that is what they where.

"The Egyptians saw themselves as darker than the Asiatics and Libyans but lighter than the Nubians, and with different facial features and body types from the other groups"

egyptians were of brown skin tone what we would now consider black or at least thats how it is in america. Just like african-americans are considered black even though many of us are brown.



the egyptians are the ones on the far right.

oh btw you said show me some evidence that say egytpians were non-white. I interpret that as you saying they were white and i believe thats what you intended.

Its obvious there is a Eurocentric focus to US schools. I remember reading US history textbooks that started every chapter with a map showing the US getting bigger and bigger as it moved west. Almost nothing was said of HOW and at what cost to WHOM it was getting bigger. Of course, it was at my famiy's cost from 1845 onwards, in the Southwest anyway.

In world history classes it depended..but to a large degree "world history" is still treated as "European" history with non-European countries appearing to the degree that they interact with Europeans.

I suppose the question though is to what degree is it apporpriate? Do you teach history based on where everyones grandparents came from or do you teach it based on the values espoused by the society? Clearly the US today is a European style society, with participants from all over the world.

Do we need to pander to every ethnicities ancestors to help their self esteem, or do we teach the history that led to the creation of the nation itself?

I would argue that somewhere in between is necessary. US citizens need to know the cultural and social history that led to the ideals of the nation and its formation. But they also need to know that outside of their borders entirely different, longer, important histories have gone on independently.

I do not believe that it is the schools responsibility to bend over backwards to teach every minority their own history. Its not feasable.

But certainly awareness needs to be raised.

Its a difficult issue.

Forgot to comment on the Egypt thing. Ancient Egyptians were not white. Clearly. They didnt portray themselves that way at all. They were semitic. They wouldnt be considered "black" today..but would be described as "brown" or "Arab looking"..though the term "Arab" wouldnt be appropriate for the time.

Black activists have tried to portray the Egyptians as "black" at times..but this is also demonstratably false and the pic Mandela shows is exactly why we know they werent. Egyptians clearly did distinguish between themselves and sub-Saharan "black" Africans (whom they also kept as slaves).

yes vetamur they were brown but here in America brown people are considered black or African American.
In case you didn't know there is many different shades of brown and black in Africa. To me it doesn't matter if they were black skinned just that they were african and non-white.

i comment on your other post in a little bit.

i say that schools should segregate students for their history classes. Whites in one class, blacks in another, latin kids in another, asians in another, and were there is enough native american kids in another. In this class they will first learn their history from their peoples point of view and learn to proud of who they were and who they have become. After they have learned their own history they can then learn this history of the others. It would be essential that they are taught the negative things about their people too.

all other classes should be multiracial.

Mande posts: yes vetamur they were brown but here in America brown people are considered black or African American.
===============================

Having been born and raised in Los Angeles, I can assure you Mande, the Mexicans would not agree with you…
Nor would the indigenous natives of the area… ~rore

In case you didnt know Mandela I have spent far more time in Africa in the past 3 years then I bet you ever will in your life. Im very familiar with regional differences and looks.
Not all brown people are considered "black" in the US.. I grew up on a reservation and Im damn sure no one ever considered me nor my full blooded cousins "black", nor did anyone in New Mexico ever consider Mexicans "black". The only thing I can think you are refering to is the fact that in many states if someone is mixed at then they are considered non-white (a very strange situaiton.. if one is a bit black, then one is considered black.. but the opposite is not true. bizarre.)

Ancient Egyptians were semitic people and if you want to go beyond depictions of themselves then look at their genetic markers. Obviously they are "African", but Africa is a big place, they arent all the same and the geography of the continent basically divides it into "zones". The "black" Africans are basically subSaharan.

Mandela..do you want history classes or self esteem classes taught? And your idea doesnt help anything at all. If anything, it makes the problems worse.

Then youve got another huge problem.. you put all Asians in one class to teach them "their" history. Which history? Nepal and Indonesia and Japan do not have overlapping histories.

The purpose of a history class, a world history class anyway, is not a self esteem lesson but rather a lesson on how the world came to be as it is. It should be balanced and take into consideration all regions, but it should not be a cheerleading class.

A world history class should teach all relevant factors that make the world what it is. If that means that certain dynasties in Korea get glossed over, Koreans should not take offense nor lose self esteem. Historically Korea has had a rich, deep and fascinating culture. But it has not been a country that has been a big player on the world stage. I DO however, strongly believe that world history classes need to incorporate more "WHY" explanations. Because as taught now it does lead to some racism. People come away thinking "Wow.. Aboriginals in Australia sucked! They were taken over so easy!". But there are reasons this was true, basically geographical and based on the natural distribution of flora and fauna. Same with North and South American, southern Africa, etc.

A US history class should focus on the process that makes the US what it is today.

Seperating children by imagined race sends the absolute wrong message, and is in itself more racist than the problems it is addressing. And what of people like you or me Mandela? Where would you go? What of mixed black-Japanese background? Or Korean-Mexicans? And are we going to treat all "blacks" the same and pretend its one cultural unit with one cultural background? Because the Pygmies and the Khosians have little if anything in common. The Nuer from Sudan have some things in common with the Zande but looking at Sudan today they seem to be emphasizing their differences.

They key to decreasing racism is not further segregation based on more racist ideas. It is in intergation and proper education. yes, Europeans have been stronger the past 300 years than any other area. Its useless to deny it. It doesnt, however, mean, they are "better". A proper history class will explain the facts of our history, but also explain it to everyone. To a large degree history is a function of naturally occurring things. Nothing to beat ones chest over.

Mandela, as a long-time student of history, I have to agree with you. The achievements of many cultures are often minimized ... in school history books. Many legitimate historians honestly recognize the achievements of a great diversity of cultures and lament the fact that most students hardly study these achievements before university unless they study them on their own.

Today, we recognize the achievements of the Egyptian dynasties, the Mayan, Incan, Aztecs, and the great cultures of India. Now, we're beginning to develop an appreciation of early cultures in South Asia, including Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and so on. That said, I think that the achievements of many other cultures remain underrepresented by the standard American school history books.

In addition, the fantastic pre-Egyptian empires of Africa are almost completely unknown by most people. It's a real shame.

However, it's not entirely racial. A large part of this goes back to cultures that contributed most greatly to what we think of as 'Western Civilization'. Hence, we have a lot of history about Greece and Rome, but hardly anything about Thera or Etruria. Likewise, the Roman Conquerors of Europe get big chapters in the textbooks, while the Celts and Gaels get practically nothing despite being the dominant cultures in England.

vet i will admit that the idea is unmanageable (but i was not going to implement it in the way you described) What i meant is african americans who are light skinned are considered black.

I am angry. I see miseducation and lies. Slavery in america did not really end till 1968 and even then it was only overt opression that was eliminated. Slavery still exists just more covertly. People look down on blacks for what they become (on the whole) but people do not have a real understanding of how they were made this way.
I see genocide in what the history books call western expansion. I see that american capitalism has throughly exploited south and central america but instead its called colonialism.
Christopher columbus did not discover america but thats what we are taught. The greeks did not invent and pioneer philosphy, science, etc. but that is what we are taught.
Africa had many great and advanced ancient civilizations (ones not called egypt) but thats not wer are taught.
We are not taught about the tulsa riots. We are not taught about the united fruit company.
I could go one all day but then it dawned on me that i was expecting the truth out of the white power structure (im not talking about all white people or even most white people) in america. Maybe it is our own responsibility to learn but i know that pursuing the truth is the ultimate virtue. I wish the black panthers were still around.

With all due respect, Mandela, your post is verging on racism and you're closing in on becoming offensive.

[QUOTE]vet i will admit that the idea is unmanageable (but i was not going to implement it in the way you described) What i meant is african americans who are light skinned are considered black.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily true. I know many people who CHOOSE to be called African American or Caucasian. I personally know of a case of two brothers, one who identified himself as Caucasian, and the other who identified himself as African American.

[QUOTE]I am angry.[/QUOTE]
That much is obvious, but I encourage you to take care with your emotions. Negative emotions like anger can cloud our judgment and perceptions.

[QUOTE]I see miseducation and lies.[/QUOTE]
I see omissions. Poor education, incorrect information and incomplete information are common in ALL areas of education, from literature, to math, to science, to history. It is not solely based on race, nor is it solely based in history. I think your application is too limited.

[QUOTE]Slavery in america did not really end till 1968 and even then it was only overt opression that was eliminated.[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing slavery with institutionalized apartheid. Slavery DID end after the civil war. After the civil war, African Americans could no longer be bought, sold or traded. They could no longer be 'bred' like animals. They could no longer be legally denied wages. That said: there were laws that limited where they could live, eat, go to school, and so on. African Americans were cruelly oppressed, not only in The South, but in the The North as well. However, it was not slavery.

The Civil Rights Movement brought an end to this apartheid system and created legal equality: now the attempt to successfully apply equality continued long after the Civil Rights laws were passed, but the legal and institutionalized segregation and inequality ended with those laws.

[QUOTE]Slavery still exists just more covertly.[/QUOTE]
This is true, but I see no evidence of the slavery of African Americans in the United States today. African Americans are guaranteed equal access to health care, education, and employment. However: there IS slavery. Slavery of illegal immigrants is quite common.

If, as I imagine, you imply that African Americans are slaves today: then I have to say that you vastly underestimate the word 'slavery'.

[QUOTE]People look down on blacks for what they become (on the whole) but people do not have a real understanding of how they were made this way.
[/QUOTE]
Racism is still quite common, but I think we have to be careful of overly broad, sweeping statements like this. To me, this statement borders on and perhaps even crosses the border of racism because it sounds like you are saying: "Everyone who is not black thinks this way ..."

Many people, including leaders of the African American community are discussing the welfare and rights of African Americans. To me, the problems that are being discussed are less about race than they are about economics and environment. To say that people do not have a real understanding of problems in underprivileged communities (and I refuse to look at only the problems of African Americans because these problems are NOT limited to African Americans NOR are they limited to U.S. minorities) ... again, to say that people do not have a real understanding of social and economic problems and their causes is a grave disservice to the people who study these problems. To say that they DON'T understand implies that you DO. Do you honestly think that you have the only correct understanding or assessment of the social problems in the United States? If you believe these problems are problems of race, then I don't believe you do wholly understand.

When we look at poverty, or as is popular today, the criminal justice and corrections system, we MAY look at racial distribution of problems within the system, but it DOES NOT mean that the problems are racial.

People, each individual, is ultimately and solely responsible for what they become. We cannot blame our parents, our school, our society, or our ancestors, nor the ancestors of others: We alone are responsible for what we do and what we become.

[QUOTE]I see genocide in what the history books call western expansion.[/QUOTE]

No one I know denies this. Hernan Cortez is credited with the first use of biological warfare: giving blankets from the bodies of those who had died of smallpox ... as gifts to his new Native American friends. This was duplicated by English settlers in the north.

No one I know denies that genocide is a part of expansion: but this is true not ONLY of expansion by Europeans. We can easily see that tribal conflicts in Rwanda and Sierra Leon caused genocide on a catastrophic scale for those countries. The problem is not one of "Western Expansion": the problem is xenophobia and war.

[QUOTE]I see that american capitalism has throughly exploited south and central america but instead its called colonialism.
[/QUOTE]
And I have not met a single historian who viewed colonialism as anything but destructive. No one disagrees with you on this: but it is NOT merely "American", nor is it merely "capitalism". Roman colonialism in England was no better (though most Roman colonies outside the British Isles DID see strong benefits from the Roman Conquest).

What about Japanese colonialism in WWII? What about the criminal exploitation of African resources today by European nations? What about the colonialism of the Aztecs? The Inca? Every case of colonialism brings exploitation.

[QUOTE]Christopher columbus did not discover america but thats what we are taught.
[/QUOTE]
I was not aware that the discovery of America by Native Americans and later by the Vikings was in dispute. I'll even go one further on you and state that many historians now believe that Christopher Columbus not only knew America was there, but had maps from other mariners who had secretly gone before.

[QUOTE]The greeks did not invent and pioneer philosphy, science, etc. but that is what we are taught.[/QUOTE]
I know of no one who says they did ... no one educated in philosophy, science or history anyway. Furthermore, Greeks were not historically known for their sciences: more for philosophy, art, literature and to a small degree math.

Again, what we're looking for is not the origin of the knowledge, but the origin of factors that contributed to what we think of as "Western Civilization". "Western Civilization" is largely based on the philosophies that came from Greece. This in no way disparages the philosophies of India and China and other cultures: we're only saying that we believe the philosophies of Greece had a greater impact on "Western Society" than did the philosophies of other cultures, and even this is open to debate since many philosophies that lie at the very foundation of our culture are openly recognized as originating in India and the Middle East. As a student of philosophy and history, I have to say I disagree with your statement.

[QUOTE]Africa had many great and advanced ancient civilizations (ones not called egypt) but thats not wer are taught.[/QUOTE]
No indeed, and it's a shame. Not many archaeologists and historians specialize in African history and antiquities. I know a bit of Ethiopian history (from after the Egyptian empires went bankrupt) ... and I know that the ancient cultures of Africa had many amazing and unique qualities. It is indeed a shame.

[QUOTE]We are not taught about the tulsa riots.[/QUOTE]
The Tulsa riots are ONE event in history. There are many events in history that barely get a mention in most history books. I had never read in school textbooks of the New York City riots of the late 18th and early 19th century, even though some of the riots involved hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds of deaths and lasted many days.

[QUOTE]We are not taught about the united fruit company.
[/QUOTE]
How often do we hear of the Great Molasses Flood of 1919? The history book is only so big, MD.

[QUOTE]I could go one all day but then it dawned on me that i was expecting the truth out of the white power structure (im not talking about all white people or even most white people) in america.[/QUOTE]
Again, you're coming dangerously close to an offensively racist statement: "White power structure"? Okay, now I know lots of people, myself included, who like to refer to contemporary school history textbooks as the "History of Dead White Men", and the literature books to be the "Literature of Dead White Men". I would agree that the achievements of minorities are vastly underrepresented: but I'll go further. I find the underrepresentation of women's achievements far surpasses the underrepresentation of the achievements of minorities. You say: "I was expecting the truth out of the White Power Structure": okay, so we've got 'white power' in the same sentence as the implication of being liars. That, MD, is racist and offensive. Sorry, but it is.

[QUOTE]Maybe it is our own responsibility to learn but i know that pursuing the truth is the ultimate virtue.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.

[QUOTE]I wish the black panthers were still around.[/QUOTE]
Then you vastly underestimate the negative effect the Black Panthers had on Civil Rights. Do I take it then that you believe that armed insurrection by blacks is the right thing to do? Do I take it then that you believe violence against whites is the path to take? That's what the Black Panther Party believed. They were the cultural inheritors of the legacy of John Brown, whose body lies a'mouldering in the grave.

There are many other Civil Rights groups and many other community groups who have done FAR more for the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed than the Black Panthers, and have done so without guns.

___________________________________

I'll share with you a bit of wisdom. A Filipino man I used to know once told me that a revolution or a coup d'etat, is like holding a tiger by the tail. Everybody who starts a revolution or coup thinks "I can do it. I'm strong! I can control the tiger. I keep hold of the tail" ... but the tiger always gets away, always, and it always first bites the guy who was holding onto his tail. That's why most revolutions and coups ultimately fail.

Kirin.. most of your post I .. understand. I mean really understand.. where its coming from. But I will also say, and I am quite likely opening up myself to being called racist here, that it is exactly the kind of reply that Mandela has gone through his life hearing and when you come from a certain background it sounds like excuses.

Youre right, the history book it only so thick and a history course is only so long.. and yet every time it is certain parts of history that are omitted: the massacre commited by the US army in the Phillipines upon the people of that country after it being taken by the US in the Spanish-American war, the more than 15 instances of US military intervention in Central and South America, the deliberate culture-cide (if not genocide) of American Indians, etc. That on the "negative" side. On the positive side, the treaties signed with Indians of the East that allowed the US to stay alive in its first 2 years of Independence (followed by the outright betrayal of those Indian Nations), the borrowing of the US constitution from Natives, the percentage of labor done in the South by slaves.

Slavery is talked about, but it is never emphasized to what degree the South was built upon the profits made possible only by the use of slavery. The degree to which slaves had an independent hybrid culture, and the degree to which this still effects African Americans today is ignored.

And these are not trivial. Proper history and and anthropology are absolutely needed in the world today to avoid racism. People need to be taught the historical factors that lay behind the world situation today to avoid drawing the easy and wrong conclusions. An example: the white majority generally speaks in condescending and scoffing terms about "ebonics"..the urban, generally black dialect spoken by some African Americans. They basically wont admit it is a dialect, and basically believe its just "street slang". In fact it has all the hallmarks of a real dialect and (though many refuse to believe it) it even shows signs of carry overs from African languages (such as using tone to change tense.. "She been married"= She is married vs. "She BEEN married"= She has been married before but is now single"). Another example, being the high percentage of broken families in African American society. Given that their families were purposely broken up for 200 years, is it any wonder that family ties as a cultural value are sometimes lacking?

Personally, I think it would do African American society well to re-emphasize family (as is being done now finally it seems) and to push Standard American English (as a tool for improving ones economic situation..not because Ebonics isnt a legitimate dialect). But a history class which properly addressed slavery and what it meant in the US would go a long way in addressing racism.

-------

A couple of comments on other parts of the post. Kirin.. legally, Mandela is correct. If one is "part black", in many states one is legally defined as black. North Carolina actually has "race" as a category on its drivers license. Quite aside from the fact that "race" is a nonsense term, there is no legitimate need for this category and clearly it can bring to boil anger and resentment.

Do non-blacks, do non-Indians have a real understanding of the problems faced by these communities? Kirin says it borders on racism to say they dont..becaure there are "specialists" in these areas. One can read "Oliver Twist" all one wants and that does not mean you know what it feels like to be an orphan. For 40 years predominately white "experts" have fought "wars" on poverty, etc to help both blacks and Indians. and the result? negligible. To the degree that these communities have had their fortunes raised it has been largely in spite of the "help" the experts have given them, not because of it. What the communities need are resources of their own to deal with things on their own.. not to be dictated to from "experts" who think they understand the situation.

And lets not mince words when we talk of genocide. Yes, there are instances in Africa and Asia. Rwanda, the Congo. Cambodia come to mind. But in the past 500 years genocide has overwhelming been commited by people of one continent against those of the other continents.

In 1492 there were 10 million Native Americans in North America. And there were no Europeans. Today there are 350 million people of European descent and (depending on how you count) 1 million Native Americans. In South American the story is much the same. In Australia the same. In New Zealand, the same. And the culture-cide in many cases continue. Even in this "enlightened" age, which many people say is already too "PC", Aboriginals in Australia are not given land rights, Indian religion is under renewed legal attack, and Canadian Indian lands face being taken over to made into golf courses. Treaties that the Supreme Court of the US has upheld as legal still get ignored. No doubt that it is often a rich vs. poor thing.. but to pretend that it is not racist as well is wishful thinking by well meaning but misinformed non-minorities. I have yet to see a rich Indian say that Navajo or Apache shouldnt be allowed in Navajo or Apache schools. I havent seen a rich Indian say that the taking of peyote in Church of the Americas ceremonies should be illegal. I havent seen a rich African American stand up and say that drug use by poor people should be punished more than drug use by rich