Re: Obama: “Mexicans” Were Here “Long Before America Was Even An Idea.”
posted at 9/24/2010 8:53 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Obama: “Mexicans” Were Here “Long Before America Was Even An Idea.”
In Response to Re: Obama: “Mexicans” Were Here “Long Before America Was Even An Idea.” : FIDO! Nice try! Tell us who the Mexicans stole their land from? You know, the occupiers that the Spaniards took care of (Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas). Think that maybe, JUST maybe, that THEY stole it from someone else by way of war and genocide, the simplest way to eliminate to enemy?
Yes, I said so in my post. Never said it was simple, or that the natives were all good and the euros were all bad. But that still doesn't justify what we did to the native americans later on. And Mexicans are the descendants of both spaniards and the natives. The spaniards mixed with the local population.
Naw! That stuf is only reserved for us nasty Anglo Eurpoeans. All that stuff that happened before the Pilgrims got here or before our expansion westward never happened. All those tribes sat around, pssing the peace pipe around, group hugging, refelcting how the Braves would beat the Indians, and chanting Kumbaya (they never could sing). Even the Mexicans were interlopers, as they stole the land from the Spanish. So, who gets this world then /> Who is the true owner? (Caution, be careful....) Funny how Big Ears' revisionist history reflection didn't consider that as having to take place. He was better off trying to come up with the names of his 51st-57th states (AND capitals; gotta have the capitals ya know, to get full credit). A good spin would be him having a cocaine moment relapse. Well, at least that would explain a lot.
Posted by AZPAT
No one is saying we don't own the land, or that we need to give the land back to any group because of something that happened two hundred years ago. All people are calling for is a realistic understanding of our own history, one that includes the warts as well.
AZPAT, as usual you sound like a moron, because you aren't even bother to read the content of our posts. You see a few key words and react to that, rather than our specific points. I guess we shouldn't talk about slavery as a bad thing either, because back in Africa the would be slaves engaged in war and occassionally in slavery, right? I guess talking about the holocaust, we shouldn't sympathize with the Jews too much, because Jews in palestine at the time were fighting with the arabs. No one is denying that European civilization produced some very good things (things that the right in this country often wants nothing to do with by the way). But no civilization is perfect. And our forebears engaged in exploitative practices, as well as imperialistic ones. Heck this country was founded on an anti-imperialist notion. Part of our hertitage is to reject some of the things European civilization engaged in.
Here is the key AZPAT, understanding history isn't like masterbation. It's not about making yourself feel good. It is about understanding the past as clearly as possible. As objectively as possible. It is not about constructing a narrative that aids patriotism, or assists the self esteem of our nation. Nor is it, by the way, about how bad the Europeans were and how good the natives were. These are all morally simplistic and historically simplicistic understands of history. If you want to learn from history, you need to understand it with an open mind.
By the way, I will agree with you that guys like Howard Zinn go way too far. He looked at history through a specific lens, that ended up distorting his interpretation of events. His justification was, that the history of the powerful had already been written and was the standard narrative, so a history of the powerless was a needed balance. Personally I think it just shifted the pendulum the other way. But that style of history isn't really being taught in higher education any more. That really was more of a baby boomer thing. Hegel's thesis, antithesi, synthesis is at work here. We went from one extreme to another and are moving into much more balanced terrain. Today's serious historians, are far less political than the historians who were active 30 years ago.
So you can rail against appologists, revisionists, activist historians all you want. The fact is you are ralling against a fad that expired long ago. Now you'll still find that mentality in lots of critical studies departments. In lots of English departments, etc. But you won't find it in abundance in History departments.Just like no one takes marxist historians seriously any more. They don't take leftist or rightist historians seriously anymore. Grand theory, activism and the linguistic turn, have all left the building.