Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: History Classes and White Nationalist Policy

  1. #1
    waterdrinker
    Guest

    History Classes and White Nationalist Policy

    Originally posted by 88and308
    How did I arrive at this conclusion? "History classes" is an important part of all societies, not just WN. Thus it is not specific to WN. We could just as well talk about what to eat, and claim *that* is a WN issue.
    Perhaps you could provide a source to back up your claim regarding "all societies." That is a pretty big claim.

    Is mass-entertainment produced by Jews a trivial, insignificant matter or is it an important issue? If you believe that it is an important issue, then what prevents you from concluding that, because it is part of many societies, it is not a WN issue any more than eating is a WN issue?

    Originally posted by 88and308
    "Government policy" is a very broad term, covering many things...and until we achieve some form of political power (which will only happen after the masses are able to think in terms of race) all such debates are pointless. They devolve into "Oh yeah? Well I say..." "Well, that may be, but the other side is..."
    Are you saying this? "Government policy is a very broad term and until we achieve some form of political power all such debates are pointless." If immigration policy is included under the broad term "government policy", then does that mean that debates about immigration policy are pointless until after WNs achieve some form of political power? If WNs are to achieve political power by means of elections, then what would their political platform consist of?

    *****

    Originally posted by 88and308
    1. Learning history is much more than just being able to take a test and pass. Memorization of names and dates are worthless in terms of constructive use. For example, who really cares that Napolean died in 1834? Oh wait, he died in 1821...so what? Does it matter?
    I proposed that everyone should have to pass a history test as a precondition to getting one's driver's license renewed. I didn’t say anything about the nature of the tests. Why do you assume that history tests would test to see whether or not people memorized names and dates?

    Also, if all societies force young people to take history tests that do test to see whether or not they have memorized names and dates, then -- by your own principle -- doesn't that mean that you should not be questioning this practice? Why aren't you comparing the nature of history tests in societies around the world to the kinds of food that people eat?

    Originally posted by 88and308
    2. I understand the concept of requiring history tests when applying for/renewing a driver's license (it's in order to make sure people haven't forgotten ) but it isn't necessary.

    ["Social orientation" history would instill in the young student attitudes] which would be kept, without conscious realization, for the rest of his life.
    [...] adults were unable to vocalize why they didn't want to associate with blacks, and thus lost their younger generation to the race-mixers.
    If I accept what you say, then I conclude that a student who has accepted an attitude on a subconscious level may be unable to vocalize why racial separation is a good idea and that this inability to vocalize reasons can cause a generation to be lost to race-mixers. Are you arguing for or against "social orientation" history?

    Originally posted by 88and308
    [...]I suggest you take up your differences with those who you disagree with, and not bringing your issues to a different WN board just to scrounge up dirt.

    If you're banned, sign up under a different name.
    I'm not going to sign up under a different name. The Stormfront message board is private property and I am going to respect their rules. If they decided that they don't want any future posts from me, then I am not going to try to use underhanded methods to circumvent their decision.

    I don't know why you suggest that I am merely "scrounging up dirt." I was trying to raise legitimate questions. I think that I could have raised my questions without mentioning Stormfront, but I decided to take the most straightforward approach.

    Originally posted by 88and308
    I would like to ask a question though--what is your purpose for asking questions? You're not a WN, NS, or even inclined towards "racist" thinking....so what is your intent?
    People all over the world don't just eat. They also talk.

  2. #2
    88and308
    Guest

    Post

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    How did I arrive at this conclusion? "History classes" is an important part of all societies, not just WN. Thus it is not specific to WN. We could just as well talk about what to eat, and claim *that* is a WN issue.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Perhaps you could provide a source to back up your claim regarding "all societies." That is a pretty big claim.

    Is mass-entertainment produced by Jews a trivial, insignificant matter or is it an important issue? If you believe that it is an important issue, then what prevents you from concluding that, because it is part of many societies, it is not a WN issue any more than eating is a WN issue?
    No, I won't "provide a source to back up my claim." If a society values education, one of the subjects of that education will be history. Your response is utter bullshit, and you should be ashamed for trying to haggle over the concept of the value of history.

    "Mass-entertainment" produced by jews is not history. Funny how you segue from history classes right into jewish media. The original question was "should history be taught at all, and what should be taught?" The fact is that history *itself* is important, and should therefore be taught. It is not a WN issue anymore than eating is.

    Either you're an imbecile, or a jew who is trying to twist words to confuse the issue. Either way, you're rapidly wearing out whatever patience I had for you.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    "Government policy" is a very broad term, covering many things...and until we achieve some form of political power (which will only happen after the masses are able to think in terms of race) all such debates are pointless. They devolve into "Oh yeah? Well I say..." "Well, that may be, but the other side is..."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Are you saying this? "Government policy is a very broad term and until we achieve some form of political power all such debates are pointless." If immigration policy is included under the broad term "government policy", then does that mean that debates about immigration policy are pointless until after WNs achieve some form of political power? If WNs are to achieve political power by means of elections, then what would their political platform consist of?
    There are many different kinds of WN...some offer a "platform", full of promises that may or may not be kept. NS only offers a secure country where our race will be safe from miscygenation and jewish influences...no other details need be given. Whatever is bad for the race, is gone. Whatever is good, stays.

    The first thing that goes--above all else--is the jew.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    1. Learning history is much more than just being able to take a test and pass. Memorization of names and dates are worthless in terms of constructive use. For example, who really cares that Napolean died in 1834? Oh wait, he died in 1821...so what? Does it matter?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I proposed that everyone should have to pass a history test as a precondition to getting one's driver's license renewed. I didn’t say anything about the nature of the tests. Why do you assume that history tests would test to see whether or not people memorized names and dates?

    Also, if all societies force young people to take history tests that do test to see whether or not they have memorized names and dates, then -- by your own principle -- doesn't that mean that you should not be questioning this practice? Why aren't you comparing the nature of history tests in societies around the world to the kinds of food that people eat?
    Now you're trying to worm your way out of a basic premise: Tests given to determine "knowledge of history" are almost always tests which ask names, dates, places and events.

    The only priniciple I gave was the one about "history is about how peoples interacted." Names and dates are secondary to that.

    We don't compare what other history tests people take, because we're not those people. Their history, seen through their eyes, is not relevant to us. Tell me why we should compare the nature of different history tests? On second thought, don't bother. I've had quite enough of your haggling.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    2. I understand the concept of requiring history tests when applying for/renewing a driver's license (it's in order to make sure people haven't forgotten ) but it isn't necessary.

    ["Social orientation" history would instill in the young student attitudes] which would be kept, without conscious realization, for the rest of his life.
    [...] adults were unable to vocalize why they didn't want to associate with blacks, and thus lost their younger generation to the race-mixers.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    If I accept what you say, then I conclude that a student who has accepted an attitude on a subconscious level may be unable to vocalize why racial separation is a good idea and that this inability to vocalize reasons can cause a generation to be lost to race-mixers. Are you arguing for or against "social orientation" history?
    Most of the people who take classes (in this case, history and/or social studies) would NOT be able to vocalize their values gained from the classes. Vocalization implies a thorough understanding of a concept, and most people haven't the time or the patience to learn it...but they can learn the basic values inherit in the presentation.

    However, those who continued their education and became leaders of the society WOULD be able to. They would also be helped by the legal requirement that jews not be allowed to print, speak, or live within the borders of the country.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    [...]I suggest you take up your differences with those who you disagree with, and not bringing your issues to a different WN board just to scrounge up dirt.

    If you're banned, sign up under a different name.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I'm not going to sign up under a different name. The Stormfront message board is private property and I am going to respect their rules. If they decided that they don't want any future posts from me, then I am not going to try to use underhanded methods to circumvent their decision.

    I don't know why you suggest that I am merely "scrounging up dirt." I was trying to raise legitimate questions. I think that I could have raised my questions without mentioning Stormfront, but I decided to take the most straightforward approach.
    Bullshit. You asked me specifically why someone (SDY, Muaddib, etc) told you certain things about certain topics. You were trying to get me to say something bad, so you could then sneak your sorry ass back to SF and say, "But 88 said..." and thus "stir the pot."

    Bullshit, waterdrinker! I've seen that kind of backstabbing before...and the cowardice in the denial.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    I would like to ask a question though--what is your purpose for asking questions? You're not a WN, NS, or even inclined towards "racist" thinking....so what is your intent?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    People all over the world don't just eat. They also talk.
    Talk talk talk. No action. What do the "people of the world" intend to do with this infomation?

  3. #3
    waterdrinker
    Guest

    Post

    Perhaps I have been too hasty, so I am re-reading an earlier statement that you made:

    --------------------------------------
    Originally posted by 88and308
    How did I arrive at this conclusion? "History classes" is an important part of all societies, not just WN. Thus it is not specific to WN. We could just as well talk about what to eat, and claim *that* is a WN issue.
    ---------------------------------------

    I conclude two things:
    (1) You are explaining not just what your conclusion is, but how you arrived at it.
    (2) You used the word "thus", which indicates that you are applying a general principle to a specific case.

    The question arises: what general principle are you applying?
    If I were to guess what general principle you are applying, then I would risk misrepresenting your views. So I will not guess. I will wait for your answer.

    Your most recent reply included the following:
    Originally posted by 88and308
    "Mass-entertainment" produced by jews is not history.
    I honestly cannot see the relevance of this statement. Does your general principle apply to nothing but history? If so, then I will obviously want to know how you arrived at that principle.

    Originally posted by 88and308
    Now you're trying to worm your way out of a basic premise: Tests given to determine "knowledge of history" are almost always tests which ask names, dates, places and events.
    If you will kindly rephrase this so that it is a question, then I will attempt to answer it for you.

    Your position is not clear to me. When I propose that the practice of forcing all young people to study history be abolished, you seem to be outraged, but you also deny that the practice of forcing young people to study history has anything to do with your own political ideology.

    When I propose that, alternatively, all people be required to pass tests of history, you focus on the nature of existing tests and you seem to be concerned that it would be unfair (and unhelpful) to force people to know names and dates in order to renew their driver's licenses.

    Perhaps you can understand what motivates me to ask the following questions.

    QUESTION 1: Do you advocate that schools should change their approach to teaching history to young people?

    QUESTION 2: Do you advocate that schools should change their approach to testing young people on history?

    QUESTION 3: Do you believe that young people should be treated as second-class citizens by being forced to display knowledge that
    (a) is known to be unhelpful; and
    (b) older people are not required to have?

    Originally posted by 88and308
    You were trying to get me to say something bad, so you could then sneak your sorry ass back to SF and say, "But 88 said..." and thus "stir the pot."
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that I was trying to sneak back to SF? I had the impression that, when you wrote, "If you're banned, sign up under a different name," you were advising me to sneak back to SF. As I already said, I am not going to try to use underhanded methods to circumvent their decision.

    Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you suggested that I sign up under a "different" name, did you mean a name completely different from my original name or did you merely mean that I should use a straightforward name like "waterdrinker2"?

    Originally posted by 88and308
    Talk talk talk. No action.
    This is a discussion forum.

    Last edited by waterdrinker; Saturday, August 24th, 2002 at 03:08 PM.

  4. #4
    waterdrinker
    Guest

    Exclamation Misquoted

    Originally posted by 88and308
    The original question was "should history be taught at all, and what should be taught?"
    Actually, that's not true. There is a difference between asking:
    (a) "Should basic military skills be taught in this country?"
    and asking:
    (b) "Should every young man be required to take basic military training?"

    Although 88and308 insists that there is no difference and that any attempt to point out a difference is "nit picking", I recall that 88and308 also insisted something about a need to teach beefed-up physics to "Joe Mechanic" and that it would not have been good enough to teach physics just to the 20,000 most promising students. How can anyone simultaneously insist that there is no difference between two choices and also insist that:
    (a) one of the two choices would be unacceptable ; and
    (b) the other choice would be good?

    My original question was: "Should young people be required to study history in public schools?"

    The following shows what was actually said before the thread disappeared:

    "A short time after that, I asked whether young people should be required to study history in public schools. I raised two issues: (1) Is the history that is taught true? (2) Are the working poor being squeezed to pay for government budgets that include spending for history classes? "

    Originally posted by 88and308
    This is not a WN issue...It is important to teach history, at least a basic outline of it. The cost (and where the money comes from) is not relevant. It must be done.
    I didn't ask whether or not history should be taught. I asked whether young people should be required to study it. There is a difference.

    For example, when the US government decided that it needed ten thousand scientists and engineers for the space program, the authorities could have offered incentives to twenty-thousand young people who have scientific talent. Then, even if the incentives failed to motivate half of them to succeed in the study of science or engineering, the other half would be trained.

    Instead, the US government decided that millions of young people must study a beefed-up science program.

    Perhaps you could show me a test of the broad outline of history that you think EVERYBODY should be able to pass. Any young person who wants to take the test would be allowed to take it. If a young person passes the test, then that young person will no longer be required to attend any more history classes. Furthermore, since EVERYBODY should be able to pass the test, when people go to renew their driver's licenses, they will be required to take the history test. People aren't permitted to renew their driver's licenses until they pass the history test.

    The above is a specific proposal. Do you have any objections to it? Do you have any better ideas?

Similar Threads

  1. From the White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy
    By Willow in forum Australia & New Zealand
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 09:17 AM
  2. Australia's White Policy! OR IS THERE ANY?
    By hyidi in forum Australia & New Zealand
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Thursday, June 23rd, 2011, 11:43 PM
  3. Global White Population to Plummet: Time for a White Policy
    By Windsor in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 10:20 PM
  4. Rethinking the White Australia Policy
    By Nachtengel in forum Australia & New Zealand
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 01:24 PM
  5. Rationalisation: Third Reich's Social History and Economic Policy?
    By Ederico in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 9th, 2003, 12:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •