Conservapedia talk:World History Lecture Eight
The U.S. is not a Christian Nation?[edit]
The section about Blackstone (and further research on CP) had me quite surprised that Andy and CP are not peddling the christian nation myth that the most of the rest of his ilk is promoting. They even bolded the section in the cp:Treaty_of_Tripoli article for this. Chaosof99 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is strange. Conservapedia sometimes surprises me - their articles on Kent Hovind and Chick Tracts are remarkably scathing, for a right-wing Funda-fascist site. But then, Andy is a bit unhinged. Maybe he's overlooked it, or maybe it's in his American History "Lectures"... Ironclad (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fuck You Cortez[edit]
It really disgusts me how Andy portrayed these conquistador bastards. He is so out of touch. Cortez was an asshole and the effects of the Spanish is still in effect to this day. -Supyloco 5:09 PM Pacific 4-3/2012 — Unsigned, by: Supyloco / talk / contribs
- Of course the effect of the Spanish is in effect to this day, fortunately. As a Mexican, I am glad that I don't live in Precolumbian Mesoamerica. Yes, Cortez was an asshole, but honestly, that was kind of a requisite for being a conquistator. I don't think a nice guy would have gotten very far--Tlaloc (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Colonial domination and the living conditions from pre-Columbian times are the only options? As someone descended from European heritage, I'm glad I don't live in Renaissance Europe. But so what? Assuming that you're leaving time-travel out of the discussion, why are you assuming that Mesoamericans would not have had a half-millennium of development since 1492 without European contact? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's only one possibility. Why couldn't spain have shared and traded culture, rather than just killing everything and taking over? --Godot What do cats dream about? 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Spanish committed many atrocities in the Americas, but I do think that in the long term European influence had a positive effect. Its not like the Precolumbian cultures were peaceful: If Cortez conquered the Aztec Empire it was because he allied with other Mesoamerican cultures who the Aztecs had conquered and were usually used as supplies for their ritual sacrifices. Furthermore, Spanish did not completely take over the native culture, there was actually a trade and share, Spanish and natives married and had children, and most modern Mexicans have both European and Native American heritage. Spanish traditions were not carried verbatim to America, they mixed with native traditions to craft what is now Mexican culture, which is distinctively different to the Spanish. I hate that most elementary school history textbooks in Mexico draw the Natives as the good guys and the Spanish as the bad guys, when we actually ought our identity to both cultures.--Tlaloc (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's only one possibility. Why couldn't spain have shared and traded culture, rather than just killing everything and taking over? --Godot What do cats dream about? 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Colonial domination and the living conditions from pre-Columbian times are the only options? As someone descended from European heritage, I'm glad I don't live in Renaissance Europe. But so what? Assuming that you're leaving time-travel out of the discussion, why are you assuming that Mesoamericans would not have had a half-millennium of development since 1492 without European contact? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you are absolutely right; Native Americans had some historical agency that is often overlooked in the textbook, and the experience of empire shaped realities in the metropole as much as it did in the colonies, and created something new that was neither Native American nor European. Empire needs to be understood as an exchange, not a s simple domination. But don't kid yourself into thinking that it was an equal exchange conducted among groups with equal power. The world that slavery and colonialism created--reggae, jazz, cajun food, new languages, new versions of old languages, the political thought of CLR James, the ideas of Stuart Hall, capoeira, Santeria, Cuban son, the writing of V.S. Naipul, not to mention profound changes in European culture: anyone for tea? A nice cafe au lait? etc. etc. etc.--is all stuff that has done so much to enrich the human experience, and should remind us that oppressed peoples create amazing things out of oppression and that empire ran both ways. But you can't flip off the oppression and violence that drove the whole system. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)