All right, so I read the some of the articles on the site Paul linked to and I'm certainly not opposed to the viewpoints of this man or woman. One small quibble: In the male-female relationship analysis, he (i'm going to say he because i'd guess this is written by a man, but am willing to admit i could be wrong) makes some comment about how there's a movement to "rewrite history" and somehow downplay the role men have played in the course. I think this is a bit of simplistic argument. While I know that there are women who are offended by the patriarchal prominence in history books worldwide, I don't see anything wrong with looking at revisionist history as something that has validity. This is not to say that men's achievements should be excluded. I just think there needs to be a more holistic approach to history. Maybe women and minorities didn't fight on the front lines, but they did contribute, and understanding this gives one an overall better knowledge of what happened before us.
This whole argument kind of reminds me of the Christopher Columbus thing. Columbus did not "discover" America according to the technical definition of the word. And it's true that his actions arguably led to colonization and the absolute desecration of this country's indigenous people. But to say that Columbus should be denied a place in the historical canon on this basis is absolutely absurd. It's just important to know the whole story.
posted by Kate at 12:19 PM link/comments
