Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crucialwood (Talk | contribs) at 22:28, 12 August 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old.

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. AliceBG 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--Aschlafly 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --AndrasK 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --J00ni 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? FredFerguson 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

This essay sparks interest, but...

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which is a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not completely mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it really needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --DirkB 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though liberals will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.
Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.
Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.
American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--Aschlafly 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.

  1. Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
  2. Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their Slavery in America article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
  3. Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
  4. As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.

Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. Sanders 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
Andy, I believe you missed all of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
  1. "There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
  2. I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
  3. Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
  4. A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --DirkB 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--Aschlafly 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? KimEide 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --KotomiTHajimemashite! 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves. http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm AlanE 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

A bulleted list...

A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other "essays" similarly are nothing more than baldfaced assertions with little or no actual substance or well thought-out arguments. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays").
Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts". Marge 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

NOTE

The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit.
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT) (EDT)

Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --Toffeeman 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Dark Ages

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. WaZi 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across Christendom. The emphasis in modern historical studies on Islamic scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit Christianity with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. Bugler 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? WaZi 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. FredFerguson 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Conservative denials about history

If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. NewCrusader 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Misnamed

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. HelpJazz 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Status

That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship. I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --Hsmom 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

"Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--Aschlafly 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? Corry 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--Aschlafly 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Amerindians & Asians

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. 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." --CWaddell 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Virginia

In what way does the naming of Virginia come under "The following truths about history are typically denied by liberal history textbooks:"? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it typical of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? AlanE 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Triangular Trade

Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular Essay:Greatest Myths of World History instead. JacobB 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.
Some people like deceit for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--Andy Schlafly 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it liberal deceit.
It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! JacobB 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. Crucialwood 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--Andy Schlafly 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.
Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? Crucialwood 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The point that's being missed here is that triangular trade implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is not what trade is all about. --Ed Poor Talk 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does triangular trade imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? Crucialwood 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)