ForumGarden

I remember learning bout Cortez and other Spanish explorers coming to America first. In fact were taught it was Christopher Columbus who arrived here first. So I don't understand what the fuss is bout?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_ ... en_history

I'm all for correcting history if something new and correct comes to light but in all honesty, to me this just sounds like more ethnic whining. That said, I do think there's a lot of history that is probably inaccurate and unknown/untaught that needs to be uncovered.

And when all the Europeans came they were welcomed by the "Indian's" that were already here! The Asians came by the icy land bridge that connected *Russia* to north America Many moon ago. If TPTB want to start somewhere, they should start there.

That bumbling, murdering, idiot Columbus thought he'd hit India, hence the name "indians".

America is a country of immigrants. Why not tell all the stories? History is history, and dealing with a nation of different people's, why not?

I'm waiting for Chronsi's post. She teaches history, and I'm wondering what her opinion is.

Rain wrote: And when all the Europeans came they were welcomed by the "Indian's" that were already here! The Asians came by the icy land bridge that connected *Russia* to north America Many moon ago. If TPTB want to start somewhere, they should start there.



That bumbling, murdering, idiot Columbus thought he'd hit India, hence the name "indians".



America is a country of immigrants. Why not tell all the stories? History is history, and dealing with a nation of different people's, why not?


In the history classes that I have taken, we talked about all that stuff, that Columbus discovered America, that Spanish explorers were the first to settle down in Florida. We also talked about the Asian refugees that fled into the bayous of Louisana.

We also learned about Fredrick Douglass and Rosa parks.

I don't see what the big deal is either?

This puzzles ME, as well! I learned all this in public school. The Spanish came into what is now California and oppressed the HELL out of the natives! (Oh, wait...I thought oppression of native peoples was only done by the English colonists. :rolleyes: )

Frankly, schools have enough trouble teaching history now. How on earth could the curriculum be expanded to include all this, valid as it might be?

Sheryl wrote: I remember learning bout Cortez and other Spanish explorers coming to America first. In fact were taught it was Christopher Columbus who arrived here first. So I don't understand what the fuss is bout?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_ ... en_history


Apart from the Amerindians arriving 20,000 years ago and the Clovis people about 17,000 years ago the Vikings certainly beat Columbus by 500 year and the Chinese by at least 50.

Theres even talk of a Welsh colony on the Eastern seaboard.

Yes, they teach that in schools here, too.

Just another sign of white oppression. :rolleyes:

NONONONO! That's why I put the sarcastic symbol after my sarcastic remark! I was only being BITCHY! There are undoubtedly many people who would SEE it that way.

The fact is, since history of many aboriginal peoples was oral, it's taken generations/decades to collect it.

It's not necessarily the fault of historians.

And I agree with you about the natives of Australia....those "dream times" are really fascinating.

Hey! My mother's grandfather was irish! I don't think there is enough irish history in there either. Hey, and that article didn't say anything about the Irish either! i have to write a letter to somebody! :rolleyes:

Revising history to include new facts and perceptions about it is a good thing. Should history be totally revised to exclude everything we learned in school?

Of course not.

It should be done appropriately, when a specific event is being studied, include all parties concerned. The example of the 400th anniversary of the European colonization of Virginia was given. Include all the voices: whites, Native American, blacks. That is the concept Virginia itself is taking with their official look at their history as they come upon the anniversary date. Numerous conferences, events, celebrations are being held, and they include all the ethnic groups and different aspects. If anyone is interested in what some of the topics at these conferences are, PM me in the middle of September when the list comes out. (I know the list is not out, I am speaking at one conference in November)

Should history only include one aspect of the event or personages? No, it should include as much as is feasible, or as time permits in classroom situations. And it should be made appropriate for the grade level.

Will history keep revising itself? Yes, viewpoints always change over time. That is why history is always being rewritten, to bring it up to date on the latest concepts, to speak about a specific topic related to it.

Thanks Chronsi, I knew you'd have an excellant viewpoint over this article.

I meant condensed forms. Sorry I wasn't clear.