16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 113:
Line 113: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History (view source)
Revision as of 04:41, February 24, 2009
, 04:41, February 24, 2009no edit summary
The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)