- 18 May 2017 02:24
#14805893
This topic is split from another thread: Link
I'm very concerned about what I'll call historical affirmative action: the belief that there are implicit biases in historical writing that must be challenged through rewriting history (mainly, textbooks) to accentuate those, supposedly, marginalized elements (Haitian revolution is a classic example- also possibly Ethiopia). I can personally attest that this is happening amongst high-school text-books as they are being rewritten in several Canadian provinces, where the explicit agenda is to emphasize "stories" that are alleged to be marginalized by "traditional" political-economic history. Naturally I spent a lot of time in ethnographic and sexual history classes wanting to commit suicide from boredom so that plays into my position.
You [Paradigm] are absolutely right though: this topic may be best explored in a separate thread. It was the way you alleged that Ethiopia is ignored that "triggered" me, if you will, in this case, and that very well may have nothing to do with the objective of your topic. I'll move this stuff around to a new thread, I would like to continue discussing the idea further.
Original thread stuff that may now be out of context:
Which text books are you thinking of? I am displeased when people write knee-jerk things like that. No doubt if you were taking a class on, say, the history of religion or history of Africa there would be mention of Ethiopia. Would you expect to find the Ethiopian church extensively discussed in a book about the history of the American revolution, for example?
In The History of Africa, The Quest for Eternal Harmony, by Molefi Kete Asante (2007), a general history of Africa written by a professor at the University of Philadelphia and published by Routledge which I happen to have on my shelf, a quick glance at the index reveals that Ethiopia is mentioned on nearly 30 pages, roughly the same number of pages dedicated to Egypt.
Is this a clear demonstration of the supposed bias you're critiquing?
I'm very concerned about what I'll call historical affirmative action: the belief that there are implicit biases in historical writing that must be challenged through rewriting history (mainly, textbooks) to accentuate those, supposedly, marginalized elements (Haitian revolution is a classic example- also possibly Ethiopia). I can personally attest that this is happening amongst high-school text-books as they are being rewritten in several Canadian provinces, where the explicit agenda is to emphasize "stories" that are alleged to be marginalized by "traditional" political-economic history. Naturally I spent a lot of time in ethnographic and sexual history classes wanting to commit suicide from boredom so that plays into my position.
You [Paradigm] are absolutely right though: this topic may be best explored in a separate thread. It was the way you alleged that Ethiopia is ignored that "triggered" me, if you will, in this case, and that very well may have nothing to do with the objective of your topic. I'll move this stuff around to a new thread, I would like to continue discussing the idea further.
Original thread stuff that may now be out of context:
Which text books are you thinking of? I am displeased when people write knee-jerk things like that. No doubt if you were taking a class on, say, the history of religion or history of Africa there would be mention of Ethiopia. Would you expect to find the Ethiopian church extensively discussed in a book about the history of the American revolution, for example?
In The History of Africa, The Quest for Eternal Harmony, by Molefi Kete Asante (2007), a general history of Africa written by a professor at the University of Philadelphia and published by Routledge which I happen to have on my shelf, a quick glance at the index reveals that Ethiopia is mentioned on nearly 30 pages, roughly the same number of pages dedicated to Egypt.
Is this a clear demonstration of the supposed bias you're critiquing?
The concepts "WAR" and "PROGRESS" are now obsolete.