this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
156 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15909 readers
17 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"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.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They're the polite North Americans so of course they did their genociding in a polite way.

[–] daisy@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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".

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

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.)

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, and don't forget that Aboriginal people never had permanent settlements either!

That's fake right? This isn't really a children's schoolbook, right?

Believe it.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 year ago

no that's pretty much how I learned this in school at this age