Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[Ripoll]

We also worked with many Indian tribes who aided the US in waging war against other tribes, and many Indians willingly integrated themselves for the better. I wont deny we did wrong, but to say we only did wrong is a bit harsh and frankly untrue.

Mostly is a better term. Briefly working with a few native tribes and having some willingly integrate does not make up for genocide and mass murder.

Historians disagree with calling all of this genocide.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

[Ripoll]

Killing thousands of people deemed "inferior" to take their land and possessions is obviously not genocide.

Don't even bother. Arguing with a Native Genocide denier is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. There's no point.

It isn't an objective fact based event like the holocaust is, there is a lot of debate and contention left on the topic.

[Ripoll]

Regardless we're going off topic, my claim about genocide not being the case against the indians holds true move on and TG me if you want to debate.

[Alcase]

What lmfao they can DO that?

I'm taking AP US History which, if I remember hearing correctly, is pretty much the same nationwide. It's literally cut-and-dry history with a bit of play-around with words and rhetoric. It's actually kind of interesting at some points and uses peculiar diction according to the time period that the chapter is set in.

Why would you ban such an interesting course and its impressively-made textbooks?

[The Black Forrest]

Don't even bother. Arguing with a Native Genocide denier is like arguing with a Holocaust denier. There's no point.

Genocide didn't happen, displacement and unjustified killings did sure but it didn't equate to genocide. *snip*

ok?

So the Germans really didn't kill all the Jews so the holocaust really didn't happen eh?

We did try to make them irrelevant population wise and if a disease wiped them out where we tossed them; the guys in charge wouldn't have shed a tear......

[Flammenwerfer (Ancient)]

They shouldn't be able to do that.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Mostly is a better term. Briefly working with a few native tribes and having some willingly integrate does not make up for genocide and mass murder.

Historians disagree with calling all of this genocide.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

And the very basic definition disagrees with them.

[Ripoll]

Genocide didn't happen, displacement and unjustified killings did sure but it didn't equate to genocide. *snip*

ok?

So the Germans really didn't kill all the Jews so the holocaust really didn't happen eh?

We did try to make them irrelevant population wise and if a disease wiped them out where we tossed them; the guys in charge wouldn't have shed a tear......

I'm not a holocaust denier, historians agree with the fact that labeling the native American relationship with the US genocide is very misleading please move on.

[-The West Coast-]

Indian Country never ceases to amaze me!

[Ripoll]

Historians disagree with calling all of this genocide.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302

And the very basic definition disagrees with them.

About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases"were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs." As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as"furnaces of death."

But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s"furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur.

The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of"genocidal war." True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. True, too, some colonists later welcomed the high mortality among Indians, seeing it as a sign of divine providence; that, however, does not alter the basic fact that Europeans did not come to the New World in order to infect the natives with deadly diseases.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7 ... cJYjh.dpuf

[The New Sea Territory]

What lmfao they can DO that?

Yes, sadly, assholes can use political systems to spread their assholeness across an entire state.

[Lucernae]

What the actual fuck? Not patriotic? It's history not a fucking propognlanda class. This is completely outrageous, and is reminiscent of something a totalitarian government would pull: banning something that doesn't glorify the state.

I sincerely hope this is not going to last , as I'm not even sure it's constitutional.

Agreed. I took APUSH last year, and it doesn't have any bias, liberal or otherwise. What do those Oklahoma Republicans want? Should the textbook cover be a bald eagle holding a gun and swaddled in the American flag?

[Alcase]

The Indian Removal Act and its subsequent enforcement is not officially a genocide.

The U.S. had the intent to forcibly move millions of Native americans from their homes into an Indian Country somewhere in the West, out of the way of the White settlements. Nonetheless, the resulting treatment of Native Americans is equivalent to genocidal action because of the heavy loss of lives and general negligence the U.S. soldiers showed the Natives they were forcing to move.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

ok?

So the Germans really didn't kill all the Jews so the holocaust really didn't happen eh?

We did try to make them irrelevant population wise and if a disease wiped them out where we tossed them; the guys in charge wouldn't have shed a tear......

I'm not a holocaust denier, historians agree with the fact that labeling the native American relationship with the US genocide is very misleading please move on.

Some historians say so. It's a term in dispute. Please don't phrase it as if there's a consensus on the matter.

[Atlanticatia]

It's interesting, also, how the Republican Party is sooo pro-privatisation of public education until a private organisation does something they dislike.

What's next- they change their school voucher policy to "only usable at schools that are patriotically teaching history"?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And the very basic definition disagrees with them.

About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

To some,
however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases"were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs." As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as"furnaces of death."

But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s"furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur.

The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of"genocidal war." True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. True, too, some colonists later welcomed the high mortality among Indians, seeing it as a sign of divine providence; that, however, does not alter the basic fact that Europeans did not come to the New World in order to infect the natives with deadly diseases.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7 ... cJYjh.dpuf

Your own sources disprove your claim that historians in general have reached a consesnsus that it is not genocide. So, stop acting like they have reached such.

[The Predator Federation]

Petition

[Ripoll]

I'm not a holocaust denier, historians agree with the fact that labeling the native American relationship with the US genocide is very misleading please move on.

Some historians say so. It's a term in dispute. Please don't phrase it as if there's a consensus on the matter.

I didn't, that's actually what the people labeling the indian-american relationship here are doing. I'm simply saying that those beliefs are in no way shape or form universally accepted like the holocaust, so using that as an example and labeling my opinion idiotic and ignorant doesn't work either.

[Ripoll]

Your own sources disprove your claim that historians in general have reached a consesnsus that it is not genocide. So, stop acting like they have reached such.

Read my last post

[American California]

My APUSH class was very patriotic though. My teacher had us read a book about James Warren, a Patriot hero who died at the Battle of Bunker Hill, and it was very moving and inspiring.

[Nuevo Sandia]

People need to learn that people suck, and horrible people are everywhere. Now, everywhere denotes that no matter what continent you live on, no matter what country you say is the best, that country is going to be at least partly populated by horrible jerks. Everywhere is all-inclusive, and all-inclusive just so happens to include America. Just because America got lucky enough to win its independence from Britain and has an above-average economy doesn't mean everybody in it is perfect and always has been. The very idea of "American exceptionalism" is an incredibly stupid lie, because America is by no means exceptional. America has a dirty history, just like every nation. America won its independence by fighting dirty, America is plagued with obesity, American politicians take centuries to make any progress, America is [Insert negative statement here], America is [Insert negative statement here], America is [Insert negative statement here]. Just like with every other country, the list of problems with America is endless, and this handful of numbskulls in Oklahoma had better get used to it quick.

[Ripoll]

People need to learn that people suck, and horrible people are everywhere. Now, everywhere denotes that no matter what continent you live on, no matter what country you say is the best, that country is going to be at least partly populated by horrible jerks. Everywhere is all-inclusive, and all-inclusive just so happens to include America. Just because America got lucky enough to win its independence from Britain and has an above-average economy doesn't mean everybody in it is perfect and always has been. The very idea of "American exceptionalism" is an incredibly stupid lie, because America is by no means exceptional. America has a dirty history, just like every nation. America won its independence by fighting dirty, America is plagued with obesity, American politicians take centuries to make any progress, America is [Insert negative statement here], America is [Insert negative statement here], America is [Insert negative statement here]. Just like with every other country, the list of problems with America is endless, and this handful of numbskulls in Oklahoma had better get used to it quick.

History is not about teaching all the shitty aspects of society, history is about teaching what happened, and why it happened. Then we can apply our historical evidence to what we think should happen, and make strides to make it happen. Every nation should have some sort of nationalistic pride so we can work even harder to make our countries better and right the wrong.

[Gauthier]

Next, Oklahoma reclassifies Team America: World Police as a documentary.

[United Marxist Nations]

As someone currently in AP US history, it does talk about the bad, but not excessively; if anything, the course has made me more appreciate American efforts to eliminate bad things in its society.

[Estva]

And the very basic definition disagrees with them.

About all this there is no essential disagreement. The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby,"but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases"were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs." As an example of actual genocidal conditions, Stannard points to Franciscan missions in California as"furnaces of death."

But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s"furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur.

The larger picture also does not conform to Stannard’s idea of disease as an expression of"genocidal war." True, the forced relocations of Indian tribes were often accompanied by great hardship and harsh treatment; the removal of the Cherokee from their homelands to territories west of the Mississippi in 1838 took the lives of thousands and has entered history as the Trail of Tears. But the largest loss of life occurred well before this time, and sometimes after only minimal contact with European traders. True, too, some colonists later welcomed the high mortality among Indians, seeing it as a sign of divine providence; that, however, does not alter the basic fact that Europeans did not come to the New World in order to infect the natives with deadly diseases.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7 ... cJYjh.dpuf

Forced movement on ethnic lines is alone considered genocide, by the UN definition, which describes forced relocation as genocide. Right there, the Trail of Tears is proven genocide.

I mean the Armenian genocide was not an officially sanctioned, industrial extermination of Armenians like the Holocaust. It was forced deportation that killed a lot through hardship and cruel soldiers, much like what happened to the Native Americans.

Just because most died from disease does not in any way means the murders and institutional discrimination of Native Americans was not genocide.