Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

white rice · Dec 12, 2003, 08:48 pm

Lawrence of Arabia= Peter O' Toole?

RebelWithanAK · Dec 12, 2003, 10:34 pm

Yes. Now run along and play.

G. Adams · Dec 12, 2003, 11:43 pm

1909 really wasn't the hight of its power, the golden age before its downfall maybe. Its real power came between the war against Napoleon and the Crimean War.

And Lawrence of Arabia is waayy more famous than Philip of Macedon (alex's dad right before I stick my foot in my mouth?). He is famous for also being the one of the first people in modernity to use guerilla warfare and build new rules around it. He worked alongside Faisel in his campaigns, who would become King Faisel of Iraq after WWI. He was screwed by the British, after all his work freeing the middle east of ottaman rule Britain and France divided it between themselves.

white rice · Dec 12, 2003, 11:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Yes. Now run along and play.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah, he was definitely Oscar material.

I'd pick Simon Bolivar over Lawrence. The concept of a pan-Arab nation exists only in principle. So did the pan-Latin American concept the Liberator tried to espouse, but the Brits imposition of the Hashimite kings with arbitrary borders really fucked them twice over.

College prep history is Eurocentric anyways. Who ever hears the likes of Suleiman, Kublei Khan or Tokugawa Iyasu. Besides, American history taught in schools is so revisionist. The whole Alamo and Texas independence issue was over slavery. And the exploitation of blacks and Indians are so underscored that the average American feels like they're lazy or noble respectively. Enough of this rant....

Waychel · Dec 13, 2003, 12:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I find it flattering you feel you must reply to everything I write with a criticizing one-liner that rarely makes any argumentative sense.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 14, 2003, 02:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I find it flattering you feel you must reply to everything I write with a criticizing one-liner that rarely makes any argumentative sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Non sensicality is my third middle name.

white rice · Dec 14, 2003, 07:43 pm

^ I would've imagined Claudius.

castille · Dec 20, 2003, 09:45 am

Most teenagers don't want to learn history. And you can't make them (unless you are a Nazi).

I have a deep interest in European politics during the late 15th century, with the rise of Spain, France, English civil wars, Poland/Lithinua, etc etc.

World War 2 is also a fascinating topic for me.

However, most people simply aren't interested. And thats why schools don't teach it; very few people are interested in history (plus my interest in history lies from learning from mistakes).

Impenitent · Dec 20, 2003, 09:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Most teenagers don't want to learn history. And you can't make them (unless you are a Nazi).

I have a deep interest in European politics during the late 15th century, with the rise of Spain, France, English civil wars, Poland/Lithinua, etc etc.

World War 2 is also a fascinating topic for me.

However, most people simply aren't interested. And thats why schools don't teach it; very few people are interested in history (plus my interest in history lies from learning from mistakes).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

how ironic... very FEW people are interested in learning about previous mistakes yet we expect them to have the wisdom to cast an informed ballot...
why do you think the tax and spend democRATS keep getting elected? their dream of governmental control over life as in the soviet union would never get a vote if the sheeple only knew history...

Section 8 · Dec 20, 2003, 11:30 am

The goal of textbooks are to sell more, and so they edit parts of the textbook in order to sell more. Who cares if kids believe in a lie, we're filthy fucking rich! Ah, the joys of capitalism.

We need textbooks to teach everything. Like how there has never been a communist state, and about ALL political idealogies. They should learn about the U.S.'s day trips into S. America, and the US's support of fascist regimes. The kids should also learn about the Haymarket Massacre.

nature of reality · Dec 20, 2003, 04:26 pm

"The goal of textbooks are to sell more, and so they edit parts of the textbook in order to sell more. Who cares if kids believe in a lie, we're filthy fucking rich! Ah, the joys of capitalism.

We need textbooks to teach everything. Like how there has never been a communist state, and about ALL political idealogies. They should learn about the U.S.'s day trips into S. America, and the US's support of fascist regimes. The kids should also learn about the Haymarket Massacre. "

So, textbooks, which are botten by your precious state for your precious state funded public (re) education are screwy because of capitlism?

And exactly how would they edit them to "sell more?"

And since their sole custemer is the state, why would they edit their text books so that capitalism looks better, when ALL their funds comes from the state?

They never told us about what became of teddy rooselevelt's "trustbusting" either, or what became of the Aluminum Company of America in a world where success is criminalized.

Sodfather · Dec 20, 2003, 11:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
And exactly how would they edit them to "sell more?"

And since their sole custemer is the state, why would they edit their text books so that capitalism looks better, when ALL their funds comes from the state?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You've missed the point, I believe. :( The editing is not about a positive representation of capitalism as much as the fact that capitalism drives the companies to edit bits of history out.

Say you are the CEO of a history textbook production company in the States. Now, you want to sell these books to as many schools as possible, do you not? Yes, you do. So you're writing your little textbook up, and you come to the annexation of Texas as a state. A fairly accurate depiction of the annexation would be that Texas wanted to be on its own, a separate entity from the Union; they were allowed to leave, and then, when trouble arose which required a powerful aid such as the Union to be resolved, they came crawling back to the Union to be annexed. Now, what do you think this will do to your sales? Surely not one school in Texas will want this textbook in their schools--it shames the state of Texas and its history. So you just let it slide and leave it out of your textbook to stay on Texas' good side.

Undastand, pa'tna?

Impenitent · Dec 21, 2003, 02:06 am

S

the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state...

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html

Sodfather · Dec 21, 2003, 07:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state...

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Hmm, guess my memory was super fogged on that one. The North did oppose the annexation of Texas on account of their antislavery beliefs, though; I guess that was the story. SOrry for any confusion.

Anyway, you get my point...If you're trying to sell textbooks in Iraq under Saddam's rule, are you going to mention his acts of torture and murder? Course not.

Dec 23, 2003, 01:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
S

the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state...

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What's your point? This entire continent was free from the US at one point.

white rice · Dec 24, 2003, 12:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
S

the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state...

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That link never provided the reasons for independence but shoehorned them into romanticized generalizations. Among the chief cause was Mexico's abolition of slavery. Taxation, citizenship and imigration laws were others, but slavery is generally omitted.

Who wants to read that their Founding Fathers were slaveowners and possibly rapists? Not the parents, teachers, or legislators that's for sure. Historians know this and have bowed to pressure to some extent. The book publishers, an easy target, are only out to sell the most books.

Dec 24, 2003, 12:12 pm

i havent read the past few pages, so i may be a but behind...

in grade 8 we learn history up to the reconstruction.

in grade 10 we learn history up to 2001.

i dont know why we need the last 10 years, i can remember them just fine

Dec 12, 2003, 08:48 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	Lawrence of Arabia= Peter O' Toole? Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 12, 2003, 10:34 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Yes. Now run along and play. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Dec 12, 2003, 11:43 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	1909 really wasn't the hight of its power, the golden age before its downfall maybe. Its real power came between the war against Napoleon and the Crimean War. And Lawrence of Arabia is waayy more famous than Philip of Macedon (alex's dad right before I stick my foot in my mouth?). He is famous for also being the one of the first people in modernity to use guerilla warfare and build new rules around it. He worked alongside Faisel in his campaigns, who would become King Faisel of Iraq after WWI. He was screwed by the British, after all his work freeing the middle east of ottaman rule Britain and France divided it between themselves. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Dec 12, 2003, 11:55 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Yes. Now run along and play.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah, he was definitely Oscar material. I'd pick Simon Bolivar over Lawrence. The concept of a pan-Arab nation exists only in principle. So did the pan-Latin American concept the Liberator tried to espouse, but the Brits imposition of the Hashimite kings with arbitrary borders really fucked them twice over. College prep history is Eurocentric anyways. Who ever hears the likes of Suleiman, Kublei Khan or Tokugawa Iyasu. Besides, American history taught in schools is so revisionist. The whole Alamo and Texas independence issue was over slavery. And the exploitation of blacks and Indians are so underscored that the average American feels like they're lazy or noble respectively. Enough of this rant.... Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 13, 2003, 12:17 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I find it flattering you feel you must reply to everything I write with a criticizing one-liner that rarely makes any argumentative sense. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 14, 2003, 02:28 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I find it flattering you feel you must reply to everything I write with a criticizing one-liner that rarely makes any argumentative sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Non sensicality is my third middle name. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 14, 2003, 07:43 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	^ I would've imagined Claudius. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 20, 2003, 09:45 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Most teenagers don't want to learn history. And you can't make them (unless you are a Nazi). I have a deep interest in European politics during the late 15th century, with the rise of Spain, France, English civil wars, Poland/Lithinua, etc etc. World War 2 is also a fascinating topic for me. However, most people simply aren't interested. And thats why schools don't teach it; very few people are interested in history (plus my interest in history lies from learning from mistakes). Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Dec 20, 2003, 09:55 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Most teenagers don't want to learn history. And you can't make them (unless you are a Nazi). I have a deep interest in European politics during the late 15th century, with the rise of Spain, France, English civil wars, Poland/Lithinua, etc etc. World War 2 is also a fascinating topic for me. However, most people simply aren't interested. And thats why schools don't teach it; very few people are interested in history (plus my interest in history lies from learning from mistakes).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> how ironic... very FEW people are interested in learning about previous mistakes yet we expect them to have the wisdom to cast an informed ballot... why do you think the tax and spend democRATS keep getting elected? their dream of governmental control over life as in the soviet union would never get a vote if the sheeple only knew history... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 20, 2003, 11:30 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	The goal of textbooks are to sell more, and so they edit parts of the textbook in order to sell more. Who cares if kids believe in a lie, we're filthy fucking rich! Ah, the joys of capitalism. We need textbooks to teach everything. Like how there has never been a communist state, and about ALL political idealogies. They should learn about the U.S.'s day trips into S. America, and the US's support of fascist regimes. The kids should also learn about the Haymarket Massacre.

Dec 20, 2003, 04:26 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"The goal of textbooks are to sell more, and so they edit parts of the textbook in order to sell more. Who cares if kids believe in a lie, we're filthy fucking rich! Ah, the joys of capitalism. We need textbooks to teach everything. Like how there has never been a communist state, and about ALL political idealogies. They should learn about the U.S.'s day trips into S. America, and the US's support of fascist regimes. The kids should also learn about the Haymarket Massacre. " So, textbooks, which are botten by your precious state for your precious state funded public (re) education are screwy because of capitlism? And exactly how would they edit them to "sell more?" And since their sole custemer is the state, why would they edit their text books so that capitalism looks better, when ALL their funds comes from the state? They never told us about what became of teddy rooselevelt's "trustbusting" either, or what became of the Aluminum Company of America in a world where success is criminalized. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Dec 20, 2003, 11:54 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) And exactly how would they edit them to "sell more?" And since their sole custemer is the state, why would they edit their text books so that capitalism looks better, when ALL their funds comes from the state?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You've missed the point, I believe. :( The editing is not about a positive representation of capitalism as much as the fact that capitalism drives the companies to edit bits of history out. Say you are the CEO of a history textbook production company in the States. Now, you want to sell these books to as many schools as possible, do you not? Yes, you do. So you're writing your little textbook up, and you come to the annexation of Texas as a state. A fairly accurate depiction of the annexation would be that Texas wanted to be on its own, a separate entity from the Union; they were allowed to leave, and then, when trouble arose which required a powerful aid such as the Union to be resolved, they came crawling back to the Union to be annexed. Now, what do you think this will do to your sales? Surely not one school in Texas will want this textbook in their schools--it shames the state of Texas and its history. So you just let it slide and leave it out of your textbook to stay on Texas' good side. Undastand, pa'tna?

Dec 21, 2003, 02:06 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	S the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state... http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 21, 2003, 07:33 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state... http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hmm, guess my memory was super fogged on that one. The North did oppose the annexation of Texas on account of their antislavery beliefs, though; I guess that was the story. SOrry for any confusion. Anyway, you get my point...If you're trying to sell textbooks in Iraq under Saddam's rule, are you going to mention his acts of torture and murder? Course not.

Dec 23, 2003, 01:12 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) S the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state... http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What's your point? This entire continent was free from the US at one point.

Dec 24, 2003, 12:00 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) S the Republic of Texas was an independent nation before she was cut up and annexed by the united states... not the other way around as you suggest... the Texans won their independance from Mexico and was a seperate nation for almost 10 years before becoming a state... http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/RR/mzr2.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That link never provided the reasons for independence but shoehorned them into romanticized generalizations. Among the chief cause was Mexico's abolition of slavery. Taxation, citizenship and imigration laws were others, but slavery is generally omitted. Who wants to read that their Founding Fathers were slaveowners and possibly rapists? Not the parents, teachers, or legislators that's for sure. Historians know this and have bowed to pressure to some extent. The book publishers, an easy target, are only out to sell the most books. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 24, 2003, 12:12 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Gregory Guest Posts: n/a	i havent read the past few pages, so i may be a but behind... in grade 8 we learn history up to the reconstruction. in grade 10 we learn history up to 2001. i dont know why we need the last 10 years, i can remember them just fine