It sounds like all you want to do is dismiss with insults. Not really a good tactic.
The funny thing is that you typed out your first paragraph about you assumption about the length of my posts being having something to do with validity, yet after reading your response, it seems you have no ability to reflect on your own actions at all. But whatever.
1. World history curriculums definitely change depending on the country. The World is very large, and what one country wants to prioritize for the teaching of their students is going to doffer from a country on the other sode of the world. They typically single out what is inportant for where they live.
2. “We are talking about world history. Stay on topic.”
It is on topic. Actually read the responses please. I have loved in the US for most of my life and Japan for 4 years now. I introduced another perspective from an entirely dofferent country. A different country with a different racial majority. In a different continent. It is worth you actually listening and paying attention to the fact that the focuses of World History for Japan is going to differ from another country like the US. As a college graduate myself, I actually have friends who ask me to assist them in their college studies, so I can see a different perspective and pass it on.
Instead of passing over it as a way to “win” part of the argument and prove how much smarter and more progressive you think you are, why not actually consider that i may have a perpsective to back up my claim.
3. “And yet none of the World history classes in the US went over the great wall or the pyramids”
First off, who are you to say that “none” of the literal thousands of history classes taught in the US didnt go over these things? It sounds to me like you are assuming your personal education, or more likely what you remember of it, is reflective of the entire country.
Second, they very much did cover them. The Seven Wonders of the World. If anything is to be covered in World Hostory and Social Studies, it’s those. It didnt have to be in depth, but if you werent even informed of how they were built (or that they were built at all), you either had a bad teacher or you werent oaying attention.
“But i do remember half of my class going over European history”
And yet you clearly couldnt answer the questions about the history of various European countries. You likely didnt even really go over *most* of Europe. Which explains your ignorance (neutral version of the word) of European history. You know what is taught about European history? Nazism. Their part in World Wars. A brief history of what lead to Hitler’s rise to power. But dont mistake talking about a few major events to you actually covering the history of most European countries.
4. The point of bringing up European countries is the fact that you and OP seem to think that all we are taught about is Europe. But that clearly isnt true, since the average non-European person, American or not, doesnt know much about the history of any European country. And- i’m going to use that point of view from Living in Japan again- Japanese people arent regularly taught about Europe either. Not in high school or college. Besides the major stuff like world wars and their share of landmarks, the Japanese, like Americans, do not go so in depth into European history to truly call themselves knowledgable without additional classes.
5. See point 4. If we really focus so much on white people on World History, then why cant the average person (who again, you claim mostly only learns about white people) cant tell me even basic botes on the history of various European countries (without simply using the jnternet to check). That’s the point. If you didnt take a European history class, you probably arent knowledgable about European history. An elective class. Which you and OP insist is something only…well every other race has to do.
But that is how it works. Want to really learn about European history? Take a special class for it. African history? Special class. Asian history? Special class.
6. We skim over things because there is so much to cover. As with anything of the sort, we focus on the major things. World Wars, major landmarks, the seven wonders of the world, and the like. And that os perfectly fine. Many of the things that have been properly recorded happen to be in certain countries. Greece, China, Egypt. Places with lots of artifacts, major events and contributions, and enough evidence to back up claims that they did it.
7. You already disproved your own point here. It isnt just Non European countries that have option as electove classes. European hostory os a class too. And clearly people like you could learn plenty from them sonce you clearly werent taught *that* much about European history. Not all European ls are the same. Not all white people are the same. Learning about Greece doesnt mean you are an expert on Europe now.
We teach major events. Not just from Europe. If you actually dont know about at least some major events, civilizations, etc from every continent, then i dont know what to tell you. Pay attention better.
8. You sort of are demanding that. As nice as Indonesia is as a country, I can see why it would be skimmed over in World history. As interesting as Madagascar is, it doesnt necessarily need to be focused on. And that’s okay. And as stated before, of course we look at some events more than others. If we judge by importance and impact, why wouldnt we? We shouldnt cover things based on showing an equal number of things from each country or continent, but by the importance of the individual topic.
People have their own biases. You may think your country’s history is more notable than most purely because you were born there.
9. I brought up other people because the topic is focused on the opinions of others. People in countries where white people arent the majority tend to focus on Asian history. Their priorities on what is important to their specific country may be different.
10. We are no where near every single school in every songle country teaching the exact same curicculum. We arent. Some prioiritize dofferent things. Some prioritize civilizations. Some prioritize the arts. Some prioritize the changing of borders. All important. But by focusing on these things, you are likely to pinpoint on one or two specific areas. Which is fine.
11. The concept of “privilege” is inherently biased. See, everyone has advantages and disadvantages for how they were born. Every single group. This can shift more to one side or the other depending on the time leriod or location, but it is true.
The concept of “privilege” however, made popular by feminist Peggy McIntosh, only cares about certain groups. In McIntosh’s own paper on the subject, she called it “white privilege” that African Americans were more likely to be targetted by police. However, men experience the same issue in higher amoonts. Is it “female privilege” that this happens to men in such high numbers? Not according to Mcintosh, nor to so many self proclaimed “activists”. See, the concept of “privilege” only cares about what one side goes through. As shown with the example above, the issue or inequality itself doesnt matter. The rate at which it happens doesnt matter. According to the concept of “privilege”, female privilege doesnt exist. Black privilege doesnt exist. Despite women having numerous advantages over men (lower sentencing, fewer gendered crime definitions, conscription, government support, public support, etc) “female privilege” isnt an acceptable term. It is not recognized. We have numerous examples of black people attacking, torturing, and even killing white peopel for being white and not being charged with racial hate crimes (despite committing the very definition of the term). That is the literally being goven a lighter sentence for the color of their skin. An inequality. Less justice for white victims. Less punishment for black perpetrators. How about the fact that it is entirely acceptable to generalize men as dangerous for no other reason than that they are men, especially from activists? But not to generalize black people as dangerous for being black? As a black man, people wouldnt dare be verbal about their suspicion of me based on race, but i have had people proudly express that they think i am bad for being male. Which has real world consequences. People humoring this prejudice when deciding to hire a male teacher for teaching or child care, when deciding if a man on trial is guilty, when deciding if someone is committing a criminal act. (Both men and black people lead in volent crimes in their respective groups, so even bringing up crime statistics doesnt disprove the argument). I could argue that it is black privilege to have people openly and eagerly fight to defend you from harmful generalizations while these are encouraged among men. But men arent allowed to be victims according to the concept of privilege. No one can have advantages over them.
The concept of “privilege” is garbage because it is at its core filled with double standards and prejudice. It is unfair at its core. And something that claims to point out unfairness cannot ethically be so openly unfair itself. It essentially encourages discrimination by singling out groups and justifying mistreatment.
As before, i sincerely doubt you will really read and consider my response before responding yourself. But i have hope that you will get over your sense of self satisfaction and superiority to think about dofferent points of view when it comes to these topics. Again, doubting but hoping, despite the biases you have shown even in the notes between your response and this response.
jbbartram-illu
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
turnnoffyourmind
blakekathryn
