The Smallest Minority

How about that 99 percent of what we have been told about Columbus is a "lie my teacher told me?"

Rather than continuing your crusade of being a pioneer in confirmation bias, why don't you do what you say you do and actually take a critical look at the facts?

LOL!!!

Is that 99 percent the same 99 percent as the 99 percent of citations from commenters here that come from WND and Hot Air, Wormtongue?

PS -- Did Kevin hit a nerve? By your own rules of evidence, the answer is yes.

I see words here, but I can't seem to translate them into anything meaningful by using standard word definitions and techniques of hermeneutics. It reads almost as if someone who doesn't actually speak English tried to write something by paging through an English-Foreign Language dictionary.

Marky, what the heck do you mean?

Folks, I propose Markadelphia technique #11: "You're too biased to hold a competent opinion."

Usually shouted in the form of:

Confirmation bias!
Ingroup bias!
Outgroup bias!

Essentially, it's an ad-hominem fallacy of overgeneralizing a phenomena and illegitimately applying it to a group as a whole, with the purpose of invalidating anything ever said by a member of the group so invalidated.

I've also noticed that Markadelphia is a hit & run expert: he appears to want to insinuate (but note that this can be plausibly denied!) that standard children's narratives of Columbus are factually flawed, and therefore the revisionist, politically corrected history is justified, but he isn't assertive enough to clearly state his case, stand his ground, and win through the inevitable beating that will follow.

If he did, he may or may not find he has a leg to stand on, and he might find some basis for us to render some respect, but we'll never know.


Instead, he puts it out in barely decipherable weasel terms that allow him to preserve his air of enlightened superiority...because that's what's important, the preservation of the superiority of his dogma, rather than engaging the nuanced questions of the right way to render historical facts into child appropriate terms.

"I've also noticed that Markadelphia is a hit & run expert: he appears to want to insinuate (but note that this can be plausibly denied!) that standard children's narratives of Columbus are factually flawed, and therefore the revisionist, politically corrected history is justified, but he isn't assertive enough to clearly state his case, stand his ground, and win through the inevitable beating that will follow."

That's #12: Sure you want to go there? Also known as, "I'd tell you what I really think, but then I'd have to answer for it" (followed, as you note, by the inevitable and duly administered curb-stomping).

I dunno, geek. That's pretty close to number 7. That one describes a dismissal of evidence without evaluation and what he's done today is dismissing it due to the Genetic Fallacy, though admittedly applied more broadly than I've ever seen it applied before. ("ANY conservative source is invalid with no exceptions; even if it has never been mentioned or linked to by anyone before now.")

He also tried this tactic on Sarah in the comments for the Walk on Water post because Sarah dared to link to a specific Day By Day strip on a conservative site he hadn't previously declared "off limits". (As if he can legitimately dictate what is and isn't "off limits".)

Get a CLUE Marky. We are all very much aware of the Genetic Fallacy, and continuing to use it even though we've beaten you over the head with it dozens of times does not make any more legitimate than the first time you tried it. If you expect us to collectively fall on our faces and worship at the feet of your "Cr1t1cl Thunkin' Sk1llz", then violating BASIC rules of logic just ain't the way to do it. It's as obviously wrong as claiming that we can identify a witch by comparing her weight to a duck. All it does is cause us to point and laugh.

Mrakafidileo constantly reminds me of the Cornell study folks, but that's a discussion goes way back to 2004 and other places.

Rather than continuing your crusade of being a pioneer in confirmation bias, why don't you do what you say you do and actually take a critical look at the facts?

You see Marky-poo, I have taken a critical look at the facts, from inside the festering shithole known as public education. I'm what you like to call a Primary Source, Mister Teacher. I put up with that hellhole for years, and when I came out with a fancy piece of paper that laughingly states I learned something, I was WORSE off than if I'd been left in a cave and learned how to make fire by rubbing sticks together.

I succeeded DESPITE the publik skool sistim, not because of it. So really, let's talk about the FACTS, which you ignore like your life depends on it. And considering how much your life is tied up with your worldview, your life DOES depend on your ignorance. You can't survive without your ignorance, because if you were ever ONCE in your miserable fucking life forced to confront the monster that you yourself are foisting on kids through an "education" system that does nothing but indoctrinate the poor children you would have to actually DO SOMETHING against it, rather than continue to prop it up with half-baked bullshit.

I'm hoping you wake the fuck up before you cause any more damage, but I don't think you will. You've proven that you won't even listen to people with real world experience. You'll hang on to your pipe-dreams rather than confront reality because confronting reality takes too much work.

How about that 99 percent of what we have been told about Columbus is a "lie my teacher told me?"

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

A great book, mind you. One you quote often - and quite mistakenly. Almost like.. you didn't understand it. Or maybe - didn't read it?

"that standard children's narratives of Columbus are factually flawed, and therefore the revisionist, politically corrected history is justified, but he isn't assertive enough to clearly state his case, stand his ground, and win through the inevitable beating that will follow."

If you recall, geek, we had a discussion a while ago in which we discussed the James Loewen book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" which is the reference contained in my remark. I'm not quite certain where you stand on Christopher Columbus but I think you might enjoy Chapter 2 of the book which is entitled: "1493: The True Importance Of Christopher Columbus. From the real 'discoverer' of the New World to the myths about a flat world to the enslavement and extermination of the Arawaks to Columbus' penniless' death."

Why don't you read it and then we can discuss the finer points?

Markadelphia, I can think of one thing that I've been told about Columbus that was wrong, and one thing that Columbus himself was wrong about.

But neither one is a politically-charged question.

I challenge you, an educated person, to tell me where Columbus was wrong (and what modern myth about what Columbus proved is also wrong).

Mark - just to second what DirtCrashr said, you should really look at that Cornell study he linked. There is a lot of material in there that directly pertains to you. Fyi.

Wormtongue, why would anyone in his right mind want to discuss the finer points of anything with you? You've proven repeatedly that you do not or cannot argue in good faith.

I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't engage you in order to teach you to sing. To paraphrase Kevin, you're just a tackling dummy, and an object lesson so that bystanders don't see you go unanswered.

karrde,

We can begin with the most simplest of myths: Columbus discovered America. Based on an ever growing amount of evidence, there were fishing expeditions off the cost of Newfoundland in the 1480s as well as a plethora of other research that there may have been even earlier visitors.

http://www.neara.org/abcbook.htm

Stephen Jett was a source for Loewen's chapter on Columbus. In Chapter 2 of Loewen's book, pgs 40-41 detail a table of evidence in regards to the evidence of these earlier expeditions.

Another myth (just for fun :) ) is that Columbus proved the flat earthers wrong. He, as many sailors knew, that the Earth was round. This myth is an example of the "heroification" that Loewen talks of in his book that our history texts can't seem to leave by the wayside.

How was Columbus wrong? I'll begin with something simple and see what happens from there. Christopher Columbus kidnapped 10-25 American Indians, on his first voyage, and took them back to Spain. Only a handful arrived alive. This, along with the ill gotten booty they retrieved, was all Ferdinand and Isabella needed to see to "increase the funding" for the next expedition.

Since slavery has been such a hot topic on this blog, I will conclude with a quote from Loewen

"Christoper Columbus introduced two phenomena that revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world: the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere, leading to their near extermination and the transatlantic slave trade, which created a racial underclass."

#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?"

Not a single one of those was a myth, Mark.

Nor were any of them in doubt.

And not a single one dealt with what Dr. Sanity brought up.
You posted a bunch of stuff that totally missed the discussion at hand.

Why would kids in kindergarden need to appreciate that Columbus was "mean" or that he was "bossy".

Well? That's the topic of discussion. No matter how much you write on things that aren't a part of the discussion, it only counts when you stay on topic. By the way, Columbus was in wooden ships. Talking about trees isn't part of the discussion.

Your first "myth" (which isn't, BTW.) is incredibly stupid even on it's face. You actually are conceding the argument you're trying to fight by making it.

One for two, on the things I was thinking of.

The classic misunderstanding about Flat Earth Theory (which was never taken seriously by anyone who was educated after about the time of Aristotle) is one, and I'll give you credit for knowing that.

FWIW, I've had to correct my own parents on that point. My mother blithely said Columbus proved the world was round, and I replied There were Greek-speaking philosphers measuring the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC...they all assumed that the Earth was spherical, based partly on the evidence brought in by sailors.

The thing that Columbus was wrong about was a certain elemental fact about the circumference of the globe. He figured that he would find India/China/Japan where he found the Americas. Because he was wrong about the size of the globe.

Everything else you posted is a matter of opinion. Columbus did not begin those practices in history, nor were the Americas free of evil before he arrived.

As for the rest, I'll agree with Unix-Jedi. It's really a sidelight to the discussion at hand, which is why do we care that he was mean or bossy?

For that matter, find me a captain from the days of sail who couldn't be described as mean or bossy.

Everyone knows the Vikings were here first, sheesh.

You posted a bunch of stuff that totally missed the discussion at hand.

Damn, we don't have standard number for THAT?

juris,

I thought it was number 5, but then I realized that was what he was doing earlier mixed in with the Genetic Fallacy. In this case, I think it might actually be number 6.

We can begin with the most simplest of myths: Columbus discovered America. Based on an ever growing amount of evidence, there were fishing expeditions off the cost of Newfoundland in the 1480s as well as a plethora of other research that there may have been even earlier visitors.

I knew about the Vikings and "Vinland" by the time I was in junior high in the late 60s. I also knew about the legend of Madoc ap Owain Gwynedd landing in Alabama in 1170 and traveling north, which is supposedly why later explorers found Mandan tribesmen with sandy hair and grey eyes.

He, as many sailors knew, that the Earth was round.

Yep. It can be documented back to Aristarchus of Samos (I think), but it's a fair bet that the Phoenicians knew before he did.

This also wasn't news to me, even by junior high. The way I was taught was not that he proved the earth to be round, but was the first to have enough political influence to make European royalty (often the last word in ignorance) concede the point.

Christopher Columbus kidnapped 10-25 American Indians, on his first voyage, and took them back to Spain.

Did he? Is there any actual evidence to say whether or not he asked them if they wished to accompany him?

Please understand, I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying I don't know, and want more than a say so before I claim I do. Regardless, he hardly "introduced the phenomenon". The taking and trading of slaves can be documented all over Europe, Africa and Asia back beyond biblical times, as can be the taking of land and goods. For that matter, to the extent anything can be documented in the pre-Columbian Americas, it can be documented here too.

That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it news either.

But that doesn't stop Loewen from apparently trying to make him look like a deliberate murderer because "only a handful arrived alive" after months cooped up on a small ship with people whose "normal" diseases the natives had no resistances to. The fact that it was over 3 centuries before the discovery of the germ theory of disease couldn't possibly be a factor, huh?

Although I have to admit, most of this stuff I learned in spite of the public education system, rather than because of it.

"Christoper Columbus introduced two phenomena that revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world: the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere, leading to their near extermination and the transatlantic slave trade, which created a racial underclass."

That statement has almost null information value. Neither of the two cited practices were true innovations. The only thing new was that they were practiced in a new place.

It's a little like saying that since Neil Armstrong was the first to walk on the moon, therefore he invented walking.

The "racial underclass" etc. was very well attested to by European practices in Africa itself, as Hannah Arendt discusses in depth in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.

For that matter, one could go back as far as the ancient Egyptians, who were the first to place slavery on an ethnic basis (cf. Samuel Finer, The History of Government).

More to the point, what possible value could there be in teaching schoolchildren that Columbus was "bossy"?

Ye gods, what ship-captain wasn't "bossy"? It's a requirement for the position!

N.B., Mark: the topic at hand is a school system that is deliberately undermining the foundation-myth of this country, and substituting for it another myth of nation-wide Original Sin. Do try to keep up.

I think the problem you have, Kevin, is that you want schools to turn children into your type of drone. Do you know the one I am talking about? The kind that believe that we are in Iraq to protect our nation. The kind that think that the free market is something to be worshiped. The kind that believe that sick people...that poor people are only that way because they are weak and didn't take responsibility for themselves. - Markadelphia

And when faced with the evidence that educators are beginning the job creating their own kind of drones beginning with kindergarteners, he objects to our calling them on it.

"Every culture," Jane Jacobs says, "takes pains to educate its young so that they, in their turn, can practice and transmit it completely." Our civilization, however, is failing to do that. On the contrary, we are systematically training our young not to embrace the culture that brought us greatness.

A civilization is truly dead, she says, when "even the memory of what has been lost is lost." - Orson Scott Card

We're starting that shunning of our national culture in kindergarten.

And Tinkerballs doesn't object, he thinks we're not doing it fast enough.

"Christoper Columbus introduced two phenomena that revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world: the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere, leading to their near extermination and the transatlantic slave trade, which created a racial underclass."

And those peace loving Aztecs DIDN'T conquer their neighbours (took their land), took their wealth for themselves ot take slaves from the surrounding tribes. That evil Christopher Columbus corrupted them.

Ah, well, at least it distracted them from their harmless pastime of the industrial scale slaughter of humans, taken as slaves and prisoners of war from the rest of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere and put a stop to their quaint and charming indigenous way of life ... Cultural genocide should be added to his list of Politically Incorrect crimes, I suppose.

And for what it's worth, the Celts are the most likely first Europeans in America (probably before 900 AD. The Viking Sagas give plenty of evidence of this.

Ah, but Phil, being brown-skinned non-Europeans, the Aztecs were merely practicing "authentic native customs" that should be celebrated for their diversity. You can't apply your Eurocentric value system to cultures that are in harmony with Mother Gaia! Remember the mantra - "The source of all Evil is Xtian white European males!". (Remember, X = "Christ")

Yeah, man! To really understaaaand the injustice, you have to spark up and listen to "Cortez the Killer"* like ten times in a row through the headphones. I like wore out the grooves on my copy of Zuma, man!

(*I'm actually a Neil Young fan, but there's no denying that he occasionally goes about seven bubbles off plumb. And I didn't wear out the grooves, because my copy of Zuma is a CD, and "Barstool Blues" is a lot more to my taste anyhow.)

I'm just going to call M- a subject of Cornell-Captive Syndrome. It's a bit like Stockholm Syndrome, inverted and captive.

Thanks, Kevin.

I had a moment of madness there and forgot I was white... I'll have to look in the mirror a bit more often that once a day when I shave my white, repressive racist face before going off to work to pollute the planet and repress someone or another.

>};o)

Do you think it's possible that they were corrupted by Colombus BEFORE he set sail and set foot in America?

You can't put ANYTHING as being beyond the utter evilness of these white Europeans, Y'know.

Everyone knows the Vikings were here first, sheesh.

But do kindergarteners appreciate how mean and bossy they were?

"We're starting that shunning of our national culture in kindergarten."

Well, this is the crux of the debate, isn't it? What is our national culture? I suspect my perspective of it is quite different from yours and that's where the problems arise. Further complicating this is how much our culture has changed in the last 20 years. You said it yourself..."Don't piss of the white people." Well, they're pissed because our mosaic is evolving which inevitably means alternative views to our history...ones that jibe more with reality as opposed to the fairy tale that is most US History texts.

Based on the above quote, Ms. Jacobs must subscribe to the heroification that Loewen talks about in his book. No doubt our culture is "great" but to overlook the "not so great" parts of our history defines what is wrong with our history textbooks...if something "great" happened than it was a certain person. If something bad happened, then...it was nobody's fault and we were just misunderstood.

The question is, though, do you think that your frustration (and anger?) is born out of fierce sense of nationalism and a fear of "The Other?"

Sarah and Phil, there's no denying that people were cruel to each other before Europeans came here. There were wars, atrocities, and all sorts of human cruelty. Then the Europeans came and did the same thing. Why is that such a tough nut to crack? Manifest destinty?

I don't know what we're so worked up about here. Everyone knows, in a discussion of when and where whom discovered what, the only things we really need to know are: 1) did the people in question anticipate the laws and standards of behavior hundreds of years in the future? and 2) are they the kind of people you'd want to invite to dinner?

No doubt our culture is "great" but to overlook the "not so great" parts of our history defines what is wrong with our history textbooks

Kindergarten, Tinkerballs, Kindergarten. Pay attention.

Based on the above quote, Ms. Jacobs must subscribe to the heroification

Somebody who understands "critical thinking" can explain to you the massive fallacy in that statement, Ralph.

Give it up, Kevin. Kindergarten is a bit more advanced than Marky can handle.


Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

ones that jibe more with reality as opposed to the fairy tale that is most US History texts.

You mean like the one that white dude Zinn wrote? Or perhaps the faux-Indian Ward Churchill?

And as to the matter of Christianity being at least partly at fault, far be it from me to stand up excusing ANY branch of the religion that you profess to be a believer in.

Kevin, this statement...

"This is their first taste of political correctness, and it won't be the last."

...means that there is more to it (and the point of your post, I suspect) then kindegarten. The notion that godless commie liberals are out to git our chillens and turn them into America haters is complete fucking bullshit. And a fine example of the hyper parnoia of the right.

What most educators want is an honest look at history which, perhaps, does not fit into your apparent fierce desire for increased nationalstic pride.

Compare Marky's first statement: "Christoper Columbus introduced two phenomena that revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world: the taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere, leading to their near extermination and the transatlantic slave trade, which created a racial underclass."

With Marky's second statement: Sarah and Phil, there's no denying that people were cruel to each other before Europeans came here. There were wars, atrocities, and all sorts of human cruelty. Then the Europeans came and did the same thing. Why is that such a tough nut to crack? Manifest destinty?

Good. God. Help. Me. The sheer intellectual dishonesty on display is staggering, and that he flips it off with such nonchalance makes me weep for the poor children who are being "taught" in his classroom. How the fuck do you communicate with someone who suffers from such a case of cognitive dissonance? How do you debate someone who can't even honestly maintain a single position?

Dave, maybe he'll understand it if you simplify it enough:

Mark, what part of the meaning of the word "introduced" escapes you?

What most educators want is an honest look at history

Such as Columbus was "bossy"? Or that Columbus was an evil enslaver of those free, happy natives?

You wouldn't know honest if it rammed a railroad tie up your backsides.

How do you debate someone who can't even honestly maintain a single position?

Arguing with Markadopia is like trying to grasp warm jello. I've given up trying.

I will, however, address the statement that nobody is trying to influence children through education. Two words: John Dewey.

C.S. Lewis observed that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Likewise, the biggest trick the left ever pulled was convincing the world they have no agenda. The truth is, there are people exactly like Rand's Ellsworth Toohey in the world. Little nihilistic, collectivist devils who infest politics, big business, culture, and education. The problem is, as Bill Whittle explains in his excellent video piece, The Great Liberal Narrative, that political correctness is now so deeply embedded in the culture that it is simply what people believe. Marky may be correct that, for many educators, it is not a conscious concerted effort to indoctrinate children in an alternative history; they actually believe this junk and believe they are doing children a service by teaching it. What they don't realize is that they are what Lenin termed "useful idiots." They are fish who, unaware of the water in which they are immersed, deny it exists. Mark, here, is a prime example. The trick is to make them aware of the water, and as we have seen with Mark over the years (!), this is no small feat.

Ragin' Dave,

One of my friends taught me a simple, basic fact which has been proven true every time I get into discussions with Left wing zealots. That is :

YOU CAN'T EDUCATE PORK

No point trying, it's a lost cause.

Methinks the prescription for Markie-poos is a course in Boolean Algebra and the advice that he only engages in verbal discussions.

After he has had some practice, then perhaps he can take part in reasoned discussion and debate instead of trotting out his emotional and selective nonsense.

It is trivially easy to show that his shuttlecock argument (changes direction depending on what side of the fence he perceives himself to be) to be contradictory and irrational when he commits it to writing.

It's not trivially easy to show it to HIM. He ignores everything of that type like a vampire avoids a crucifix.

Kevin,

True - but that remark was addressed to people who actually understand concepts and ideas more advanced than the Teletubbies (Google it and be amazed at the drivel that is dished up to kids in the UK).

I stand by my contention that you can't educate pork (or Markie-poos) >};o)

Good catch Ragin Dave. Introduction indeed.

Non Sequitur of 10/14/09: "Stupid is a condition. Ignorance is a choice."

He is driven by both, and he is incurable.

Really please, "fierce desire for increased nationalstic pride." - that's the ad-hoc culmination of a word-bot. It's a bit-bucket program of Mad-Libs. There is no Mark, he's a synthetic that rambles just enough to appear "human".

DirtCrashr,

Hmmm ... never thought of that. Do you think he's a computer programmed to randomly assemble sentences from various sources and post them here?

If so, he/it hasn't passed the Turing test (IMHO)

Hmmm ...

Begin with a principle: Never Admit Error. Define standard responses to stimuli. Code. Run.

Could be ...

+++Eternal Denial Error+++Out Of Excuses Error+++CALL Conservatives=Terrorists.BAT+++RUN RND Enemy Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly+++Reboot Enemy Y/n?+++

It's what I've been thinking for a while. It selectively responds only to certain phrase elements, then lays on a generic response straight out of the Standard Catalog of Liberal Phraseology.

That's been my theory, Marky's a script!

Methinks these arguments are amazingly far afield from subject. Markadelphia has managed to debate the accomplishments of Cristobal Columbo without ever actually arguing the point, which is that the public school system seems to be indoctrinating youth into being gerbils. It is all well and good to say that Christopher Columbus was an asshole. He very well could have been, but I don't care. What should be taught is that he DID something. Show children that he physically did a deed, and teach them to interpret it. The Nords, the Celts, the Welsh, etc etc ad nausium. It is immaterial what manner of people they are. What I want taught in schools is the process of HOW to think about them, not WHAT to think about them.