Elementary School History is Bullshit

Hey Everyone,

I think we can all agree that and history taught in elementary school is bullshit. There is no excuse for the nonsense that goes on in our education system (and I'm only talking about the history portion of elementary school, I have a special angry place for the administration in charge of my school district AND I'm from California)

Ok, let's start with Native Americans. I think every history lesson involving Native Americans should begin with, "We pretty much fucked Native Americans over. We slaughtered millions of them and herded them onto tiny reservations where we proceeded to make sure that they had no money except casino income, which is pretty unrealistic when your reservation is in the middle of goddamn nowhere anyone wants to live" (I have a special angry place for all the shitty things done by our government too, fuck nationalism, I know that my country was built on all kinds of lies and slaughter, and good things too, but the lies and slaughter stand forefront in my mind)

Sorry, tangent. So our best example of an elementary school historical gloss-over is Christopher Columbus. The man was (insert every curse word you can imagine here). He is responsible of the extinction of an ENTIRE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (about five million people). He didn't even discover North America, and here we have goddamn Columbus Day. Why yes, let's celebrate the jerk, he's done so much for culture and society. He was only a gold-digger anyways.

Of course, back then (almost) everyone was allowed to be a stupid uninformed racist because it was culturally acceptable to screw the weaker ethnicity (thankfully there were the muckrakers!)

I could go on to mention the railroads, the Gilded Age (yay social darwinism!), and a plethora of other historical examples, but since we all have google at our fingertips, you're welcome to explore other atrocities in American history.

My point is this, why are we telling little kids that the way we treated Native Americans was all hunky dory? The most we ever talked about in relation to the Trail of Tears was that it was "bad". There was no mention of the fact that it was ordered by Andrew Jackson (another asshole in history who almost caused the financial collapse of the US, maybe I should start a web series...) and some idiot in my elementary school decided it would be educational to have a bunch of little white kids sing about it for their parents. I mean SERIOUSLY? Who the hell decides this stuff?

Who decides that we tell children a glossed over version of the truth?

To preserve their innocence? (Because they'll be just as thrilled as I was to get to AP US History and realize their entire understanding of history is a fucking lie)

Real history is too complicated? (NO FUCKING WAY! How about we just wait until they're older and then tell them about it? Or trust that kids are smart enough to handle it? In my opinion there could be a better solution that showing them cartoon pictures of happy pilgrims and Indians)

To make all little kids think that United States is a wonderful happy place where nothing bad ever happens and our government does everything right? (Ugh, conspiracy theories make me crazy, don't go there. Although it seems to be the only legitimate reason I've come up with so far... At least remotely legitimate).

I know that kids are not emotionally prepared for "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" I cried in class when we watched it (my senior year in high school). I'm just saying we shouldn't lie to them about our county's historical background . The banality of happy pilgrims and Indians has to stop. The Christopher Columbus was a good friend to the United States has to stop. The glossing over of the civil rights movement has to stop. And for the love of tomatoes, where is the women's rights movement?!?! (Sorry, my feminist side wanted a say)

We cannot lie to our children about what happened in the US unless we want to encourage a repeat of the same uninformed behavior that led to some of these mistakes. The happy pilgrims and Indians lie led me to believe that Indians and Americans loved each other.

Ok, that pretty much covers it.

Oh and one more thing, fucking American Girl dolls. Don't even go there...

See you all later.

PS The word of the day is banality, which means lack of originality. You may notice I slipped it into my post :P

Where are the Female Critics?

Hey Everyone,

So I have a question. Why is it that every top critic is male?

When Brave first came out, I went and saw it with my mom and came back telling her she had to see it. We looked up showtimes and reviews, and every critic gave it a so so review. Of course, almost every critic who reviewed the movie also happened to be male.

I found this irritating because Brave was a movie that centered around a mother-daughter relationship. Call me crazy, but most male reviewers probably don't understand that. After that I looked up specifically female reviews of Brave almost every female critic gave it a better review than their male counterparts.

Here's some quotes, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes

"The story, with its patchwork of plots (involving feuding clans and disastrous spells), holds together enough to thrill intermittently." - Bruce Diones (New Yorker)

"The Pixar name used to mean something. And it never quite meant pleasantly safe, safely forgettable movies like this." - Stephen Whitty (Newark Star-Ledger)

"Saying that Brave is entertaining but not astonishing is pretty much admitting your straight-A student got a B" - Lisa Kennedy (Denver Post)

I know this is all correlational, but it still got my hackles up a little bit.

See y'all later.

Emma

PS "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" - Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

Crack!?!

Hey Everyone,

Not the real crack, like ghetto, shoot-em-up, and brew-it-in-the-basement crack (I don't know anything about crack except that it seems to often relate it to black people... which is racist).

I'm talking about my personal crack:

StumbleUpon

Which is basically the best way to discover new things that you're interested in. They also recently redesigned your website to show you what topics you most often like. My major topic is Arts & History, which accounts for 25% of my stumbles.

I'm really classy.

Emma

PS The word of the day is affable, which means showing warmth and friendliness. As in waitresses must always be affable, even when the people they're serving are total douchecanoes.

Menu Anxiety?

Hey Everyone,

So I have a self-diagnosed psychosis. It's called (in my mind, although there may be an actual disorder name for this) Menu Anxiety.

The symptoms of menu anxiety (played out between Freud and I):

Me: This new restaurant seems really good!
Freud: Why, yes. It does.
Me: I wonder what I should get?
Freud: The Caesar Salad looks quite nice.
Me: Yeah, but you can get Caesar Salad anywhere.
Freud: What about this fancy sandwich?
Me: Oooh, fancy sandwich... But then again I do like caesar salad...
Freud: Or this fabulous soup?
Me: Hmmm? Soup, sandwich, or salad? Those are all boring options! I want to try the exciting things on the menu!
Freud: What about this exciting menu thing?
Me: Ew, that looks weird.
Freud: Or this one?
Me: Ooh, looks good. But maybe I will just stick with a sandwich.
Waitress: Would you like anything to drink?
Me (In my head): I forgot to look at drinks!
Me (Out loud): I'd like Sprite please.
Freud: Just water for me, thank you.
Me: Ok, so I can get soup, salad, sandwiches, or some variety of fancy menu thing...
Freud: Are you going to want dessert too?
Me: Probably, so I shouldn't get something too big. Or if I do I could take it back to my dorm and eat it for lunch tomorrow.
Freud: Well the waitress is returning.

This is the point where the anxiety sets in:

Me: But I don't know what I want yet! What if I order something and regret it? Or what if I never come to this restaurant again? I don't want to order something boring! And you're paying, so I can't order anything really expensive!
Freud: I'm dead. Price isn't really an object in your imaginary conversation with me. Just pick something.
Me: Shut up Sigmund.
Freud: I'm sure whatever you choose will be great.
Me: BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT! THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT LIFE CHANGING DECISION!
Freud: You're mother didn't brush your hair enough when you young.
Me: Whatever.
Waitress: What can I get you this evening?
Me: I'll just have generic sandwich #2
Freud: I'll have some caviar, foie gras, and oysters.
Me: Ew


This dialogue (excluding the last part where I freak out) has occurred with my family members and my boyfriend. Is Menu Anxiety really a problem? Nope. Is it a little bit like over thinking everything? Yes. Yes it is.

Emma

PS The word of the day is circumlocutory, which means using more words when fewer would do. As in, politicians can be obnoxiously circumlocutory. Also, my explanation of Menu Anxiety was rather circumlocutory.

Sea Creatures?

Hey Everyone,

Last night I had a rather disturbing dream in which a very large (as in the size of a schoolbus) eel (of a species I am googling right now to see if it resembles anything living... it looked something like this) fell in love with me due to the exotic scent of my perfume. It also could speak and was wearing an electrician's outfit...

It was weird.

Then, to increase the weirdness, today we talked about dreams in philosophy. We were discussing Descartes' First Meditation in philosophy.

To summarize Descartes' First Meditation (in a conversation between me and an imaginary Descartes):

Descartes: Knowledge = Absolute Certainty
Me: Can we know anything with absolute certainty?
Descartes: Nope
Me: Why not?
Descartes: We dream and dreams are sometimes indistinguishable from reality, therefore nothing we perceive can be known in absolute certainty.
Me: Ok, what about math?
Descartes: It's based on the perceptions of others and what we've been told.
Me: So math doesn't count either?
Descartes: Nope
Me: Well what about the idea of God (the nice Judeo-Christian one)?
Descartes: God wouldn't make us live this way, therefore I propose the idea of a malicious demon that leads our perceptions astray.
Me: WTF?
Descartes: Basically I'm saying beliefs based on reason and senses are dubious, therefore we can have no absolute certainty of anything. Therefore, we have no knowledge.
Me: So we know nothing?
Descarte: Yep
Me: So we're all fucked?
Descartes: Yep
Me: I hate this class.

Ok, now this does lead back to my dream about the Emma-crazed eel. Descartes states that dreams are indistinguishable from reality. As in dreams could also be reality. To which I say:

REALLY!? BECAUSE I JUST HAD A DREAM THAT A FUCKING HUGE EEL WANTED TO MARRY ME!!!

You may understand my qualms.

Fortunately, I don't have to agree with Descartes' belief and he goes on to say that no one can live with this frame of mind (without becoming a depressed substance abuser) so we may need to lower the standard of knowledge.

I can live with that.

Emma

PS I just found this really cool website called Word Dynamo that's really fun (if you're a word freak like myself) and I am learning ALL the cool words! Like last night I learned altiloquent which means high flown or pretentious. Next time you feel like insulting someone you can call them an altiloquent bitch and feel classy.

Has the Ratio of Loving Relationships to Unsuccessful Ones Changed?

Hey Everyone,

So as I was making tea (Apple Cinammon Something or Other from Tazo) I was thinking about how relationships in the 1800s (or earlier) when class differences were more pronounced and lines were distinct were very different from our relationships today.

But also, I was thinking about how they are the same.

The general consensus of our society is that the quality of relationships has increased significantly since the breakdown in racial, sexual, and societal barriers over the past hundred years or so. However, has the quality of our relationships really changed?

Historically, marriages were formed in order to form political alliances, combine fortunes, and for many other reasons. Practicality was key. If you were a poor man with many mouths to feed, you attempted to marry your daughter to the butcher. Free meat! (If anyone got the Fiddler on the Roof reference, go you!). If someone had recently let Netherfield Park and they were a wealthy bachelor, you threw your eldest daughter at them with enthusiasm (although anyone can agree that Mrs. Bennet was over the top). In Pride and Prejudice, Lizzie Bennet was a woman out of her time. Her level of literacy and her interest in long walks outdoors pushed the societal norm, which is what both repelled and attracted her eventual husband Mr. Darcy.

But would their marriage really have worked out? How can we possibly know?

Will we ever know if the number of happy marriages has increased? The option of divorce only recently became available (especially to women) and historical record has little to show for what marital happiness was like before the 60s (ish).

So, what do we take away from this? True love is really fucking rare. If you have it (and you realize it) hats off to you.

Emma

PS I may do some more research on this and write an actual cited post that explores the idea of positive healthy relationships (and whether or not more than 2% of the population has them) more deeply. Not that my page has gotten any hits so far :P