Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I use "reverse multiculturalism" as a term in place of something better. What I mean by this is the examination of major-culture groups within areas of studies in which minority culture is traditionally the focus. For example:
- what was the plight of white people living in Harlem in the 1920s? Was it in any way remarkably different than those living in other areas of New York?
- What were the attitudes of men working in areas traditionally assigned to women in the Middle Ages? Was this a widespread practice?
- Did new forms of racism emerge against white groups in corporate, government, and social environments post-1960 America? What is the scope of these forms?
These are just some of the "reverse multiculturalism" questions that one could ask, but there could potentially be many more. Tell me - would these kinds of issues be viable for historical studies? If your answer is "no", I ask "why not?" There are any number of schools with cultural minority group studies today, but none to my knowledge of studies dedicated explicitly to majority cultural studies (well, at least along certain classifications). Does this in itself prove the point that an under-studied area of history should be better studied?
You would never get a job at any major university with that academic viewpoint. The view that old white men have dominated history still is way too pervasive right now. It just wouldn't fly IMHO.
I am curious - is this something you have also posted over at Tribulation Project? I am pretty sure I know why you are saying this.
No I haven't posted anything on this anywhere else. He is the front runner though so it's not like it's that big of a stretch. It would be wild if he is indeed chosen as the next Pope and word is he is one of Benedict's favorite Cardinals.
God must hate the Northeast here lately. He's been pounding the crap out of yuze guys with a vengeance.
We don't want or need a constitutional convention. The only thing that can happen is the Constitution will get irrevocably damaged. The likely outcome is that the Constitution would be amended to water down its authority and give more power to the federal government than take anything away.
Lee allowed Pickett's charge because he was battle fatigued. His judgment was clouded because he hadn't had any rest and he was grief stricken over how many men had died under his command. He thought he had nearly broken the Union lines on the second day and that they would not have expected an assault up the middle. Longstreet begged him not to do it, but Lee was too tired to debate it. Had Lee been better rested, he probably would have tried another assault on the flanks, and if it failed again, he would have retreated like he normally would. He was smitten with the idea of taking the war to the North to expedite a peace by hopefully causing Lincoln to lose the election. In a nutshell it was a high risk/reward gambit. Lee was getting desperate by then too.
What was it that Napoleon said? I'd rather face an army of lions led by a rabbit than an army of rabbits led by a lion…or something to that effect. Alexander was a lion of lions and his army would have followed him to hell if necessary just like the Army of Northern Virginia did Lee and the Carthaginians did Hannibal. Rome might have had the better “system” but if their generals could not command the undying loyalty and faith that the Greeks did with Alexander, they might not have fared too well. Alexander would have adapted and overcome his enemy with his tactical genius just like Hannibal did.
