155
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
155 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15880 readers
434 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Erm, yikes! I'm pretty sure that's not true. This is what we learned in history class:
That's fake right? This isn't really a children's schoolbook, right?
Though as an Australian, we're taught that our country was "uninhabited" and the Aboriginals "didn't use most of the land and left it for the settlers." So...yeah, we've probably got a couple of these books floating around here too.
"First Nations" suggests this is a Canadian text book of some kind, and given that they're currently engaged in at least one "land dispute" that would be a war of aggression if international law was good for anything other than toilet paper, and a number of other disputes with First Nations people, I'd say this might be real.
Ah yes, That country. The other one that usually gets forgotten when it comes to discussions of brutal slaughter of natives because they were quieter about it.
They're the polite North Americans so of course they did their genociding in a polite way.
Oh indeed. A fun one to read up on is the expulsion of the Acadians. The proto-Canadian Brits decided to literally ship off francophone inhabitants of what are now the Maritime Provinces, so that British settlers could move in and have ready-to-use houses, farms, businesses, etc. It was small in terms of total number of people affected, but ranks damn high on percentage of those affected. Living conditions on the ships used were appalling even by the standards of the day. It was a coin toss if someone who went aboard would arrive at their destination alive.
A lot of survivors made their way to New Orleans and the surrounding area in the US, because it had a large francophone population already. The word "Cajun" is an evolution of "Acadien".
Y'know it's funny.
I'm not from North America and I came across some discussion about Cajun cuisine just the other day and I was like "Hm... I wonder where all the Cajuns came from exactly" and I leaned about the ethnic cleansing of francophone Acadians.
I never knew that the death rate of the people being forcibly removed though, that's pretty horrific (and I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise.)
Oh yeah, and don't forget that Aboriginal people never had permanent settlements either!
Believe it.
Yeah, we weren't taught about any of the varied social structures and ways of life of the Aboriginal people, just vague "they were hunter gatherers" oversimplification. At "best" it would've been some dances with wolves "They were one with nature." Bullshit.
Nothing about settled farmers, nothing about semi-nomadic agriculturalists, nothing about the eel farmers that had been building and maintaining the same fish traps and dams for tens of thousands of years (the same dams and fish traps the white settlers destroyed to build their houses with the stones). Nothing about Silvaculture, or inter tribal relations and communications, or how the tribes in the north traded with Indonesia for millennia.
It was all "They were peaceful hunter-gatherers who lived off the land but didn't cultivate it." I have heard that things have been changing since I was in school, but I have my doubts, especially since so many teachers can treat Aboriginal history as "woke bullshit" and not teach their class properly.
Yeah, I don't remember Terra Nullis being a part of the curriculum when I was in school, but I do remember a lot of people my age and older stating it as a "matter of fact."
It does seem to have shifted to the standard "They didn't use the land effectively" which was taught when I was in school.
no that's pretty much how I learned this in school at this age
Protection from what? WHAT DID THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM?
The puritans but they're also
mobsters: "real nice Plymouth Rock you've got here. Sure would be a shame if someone were to settle it"
Uhh pretty sure the answer to 4 is wrong, that's supposed to be, "disease, betrayal, mass slaughter, the opposite of the rest of this sentence," [and protection]
Um, excuse me but we brought them soap doncha know?
/s (btw how hideous is the message of that advertisement??)