now, which one is bad again? (history)

["J. Marie Hall" <fionaeval at yahoo_com>]

good morning,


> BUT, I do think we should teach as NON revisionist
> "a history as possible."  
> If there were religious reasons for a historical
> event the reasons should be 
> taught and in order to give a basic understanding of
> why it would be also 
> necessary to give a basic understanding of the
> beliefs of the people involved 
> in said historical event.

but see, selecting and omitting is the key.  it's part
of the agendas of _every_ history, canonical or
revisionist (this dichotomy for the sake of
simplicity).  the revisionists are no more underhanded
with bias than are the great white fathers of our
esteemed canonical history.

canonical history leaves out so many parties and their
belief/motivations for their actions.  we know all
about the the plight of evangelizing the indigenous
people in the americas (which is fine)...but what
about the religious motivations to fight that empire? 
do _you_ know anything about the aztec's desperate
attempt to live before the fifth sun died?  as for the
native americans in north america...i know practically
nothing.  what i know about the other civilizations i
learned in college, in a very specific major known to
be liberal far and wide.

-j. marie


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/

---

References:

• Re: cs lewis
• From: Gilhamilton at aol_com

---

• Prev by Date: Re: cs lewis
• Next by Date: points all her own, way up high
• Prev by thread: Re: cs lewis
• Next by thread: Re: cs lewis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread