Castro: "We are only one island."

[genius]

Fidel decries the U.S. for its unrelenting hostility against his revolution and his people.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/agosto/vi...3iglesia-i.html (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/agosto/vier5/33iglesia-i.html)

[Correa]

The government keeps that history out of the American text books in schools. You only hear of the Cuban "threat" during the missle crisis that the US started with the placement of Nuclear missles in Turkey pointed at Keiv, Lenningrad, and Moscow.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, they probably dont tell you that ths sanction against iraq also conatined vital medicines that were completley usless milatarally.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The same with the blockade against Cuba. It's utter bullshit.

[Correa]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 1 2005, 08:32 AM
Yeh, they probably dont tell you that this sanction against iraq also conatined vital medicines that were completley usless militarally.
Nope......but Chomsky does! :) Chomsky should be included in the American HS curiculum.

[dave spart]

Every single shred of history cannot be covered in any course or any school. Just because certain facts are not covered does not mean they are intentionally omitted due to some agenda.

Why isn't slavery in Islam covered in high school history? Why are they intentionally leaving that out?

high school history gives you the basic facts. When you get to college, that's when you have more autonomy over what part of history you want to focus on. You still have some requirements but usually only western civ 1 & 2 and American History 1 & 2 you'll have a non western requirement along with another american requirement plus senior seminar.

after that you pretty much get to pick your classes.

history is the best undergrad degree if you want to go to law school, in my opinion.

[Correa]

I agree every single shred of history cannot possibly be examined especially in High School alone. However the history that is thought should not be sanatized from its grim reality as it is nowadays. For example it is important for kids to know that Columbos DID NOT discover america. The Arowaks and Iroquios were here upon Columbus arrival. It must also be clear that "Amerikkka" meaning the United States was a country established illegaly by the Anglo conquistadores. Upon their arrival their policy was one of violence, trickery, and genocide against the natives in order to expand their empire. It must also be clear that present day Anglos in Amerikkka have NO FAULT of this occuring. All I ask is for real history to be teached not the history we wished we had.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:29 PM
I agree every single shred of history cannot possibly be examined especially in High School alone. However the history that is thought should not be sanatized from its grim reality as it is nowadays. For example it is important for kids to know that Columbos DID NOT discover america. The Arowaks and Iroquios were here upon Columbus arrival. It must also be clear that "Amerikkka" meaning the United States was a country established illegaly by the Anglo conquistadores. Upon their arrival their policy was one of violence, trickery, and genocide against the natives in order to expand their empire. It must also be clear that present day Anglos in Amerikkka have NO FAULT of this occuring. All I ask is for real history to be teached not the history we wished we had.
Totally agreed.

My history teacher tells about that, but he is also extremely Pro-American and Anti-French :angry:

[Decolonize The Left]

For example it is important for kids to know that Columbos DID NOT discover america. The Arowaks and Iroquios were here upon Columbus arrival.

Ok, so here you are saying that there were indians in what is now known as the United States when Columbus arrived?

If this is the case, you are absolutely correct. But your problem is not that Columbus didn't discover America, it's that he found a land populated by indiginous peoples and claimed it as a newfound territory, through a policy of violence and trickery.

And fair enough, this is a valid point. But get your argument correct. You are arguing against the term "discovered" for it was already populated and therefore known to someone. But the fact is, is that through Columbus' eyes, he had just discovered a new land. No one knew it existed, or little did. So in effect, from his point of view, he did "discover" what is now called America. To his knowledge, no one in Europe knew this land existed, and therefore he had "discovered" it.

This imperialist policy was common in those days. Europe sailed the seas and any land they discovered, which didn't have a European flag already planted in it, was free game. Spain, Portugal, France, England, Denmark, they all were doing the same thing.

I'm not justifying any of this, but you must understand that from one point of view, a new land was discovered. I mean you can go to an island and "discover the beauty" of the island, although many others have already done the same.

In other words, "discover" is subjective, and the term lies in who is "discovering" whatever it is for the first time.


All I ask is for real history to be teached not the history we wished we had.

I think we all would ask for this same thing. Unfortunately, history is written by the winners, and those with the ability to write. So you will be hard pressed to find a detailed account from the Indian's perspective as to the arrival of Columbus.

Now I want to end by saying I agree fully with what you said. We have modified and distorted history to our capitalist, imperialist, advantage. And this is wrong.

But what did you expect?

-- August

[Correa]

That would be the correct point of view for a European or decendent of. Therefore a truly honest way of portraying it. Perhaps because I'm Latin American I feel that nothing was "discovered." They just simply landed on our shores. They were greated with benevolent hospitality only to reward us with genocide and oppression. With that said I agree with you fully so I assume it is just a cultural difference. Unless your Hispanic too? :D

[Decolonize The Left]

That would be the correct point of view for a European or decendent of. Therefore a truly honest way of portraying it. Perhaps because I'm Latin American I feel that nothing was "discovered." They just simply landed on our shores. They were greated with benevolent hospitality only to reward us with genocide and oppression. With that said I agree with you fully so I assume it is just a cultural difference. Unless your Hispanic too? biggrin.gif

No, I'm "American" (whatever that means), with Italian decent.

I understand, and agree, that from your point of view, Columbus didn't discover anything. And I think you are correct in your view.

But this was exactly what I was talking about. To you, Columbus didn't discover America. But to him, and his party, and ironically the people who wrote history, he did discover America.

Now whether we choose to believe this or not is personal business, but one must always remember that words like "discover" are subjective, and are only coming from one point-of-view. And sadly, that tends to be the case for US history classes...

-- August

[Correa]

Indeed comrade.