The History Thread - Page 4

YAYareaRB · 01-07-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Ok Jimmy the Greek.

I remember that **** hhahahhahaha

The Unseen · 01-07-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Hamilton did more for the country than Jefferson. Don't get me wrong I admire what Jefferson did but he was somewhat of a hypocrite and I'm not even talking about the slavery issue. He was 100% against big government but then he used all the governments money for the Louisiana Purchase. I'm glad he did but for someone who preached what he did it didn't make much sense. I also didn't like the smear campaign he used against Washington after he left his cabinet.

My dislike for Hamilton would turn this political, but needless to say just because you do more for the country doesn't make you better. Also I'm not saying TJ was perfect. All these guys had massive flaws, slavery included.

Giantsfan1080 · 01-07-2010, 12:24 PM

Well yeah just because you do more doesn't make it better but what he actually accomplished was better. We're not the country we are today without Hamilton's systems. I understand how people think that's a bad thing though.

CashmoneyDrew · 01-07-2010, 12:34 PM

Ben Franklin was a Syphilis *****. Did I learn this from a history class? No.
I learned it from the Office.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender · 01-07-2010, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsorace

Is it true the reason black people dominate most professional sports is because slave owners selectively bred the biggest and strongest slaves?

Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.

The word "breeding" can also be incredibly offensive and rightfully so. Unfortunatly that's because of the level of truth in it.

I've always found this interesting and thought I'd try my best to express my views on it. Hope that's alright but I absolutely understand if it's not.

Brent · 01-07-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokey Joe

If I recall correctly, Jefferson and Hamilton were great friends, but politics ruined their friendship. I think Jefferson was pissed because Hamilton was Washingtons right hand man and he wasn't.

it was Adams and Jefferson who were friends but hated one another because of politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokey Joe

I don't care what anyone says, there has never been a greater group of politicians in this country like the revolutionists.

I dont think any of them have ever been great, but a look at our track record doesnt exactly inspire greatness.

TitleTown088 · 01-07-2010, 04:42 PM

Meh, American history is boring. Give me Eurotrash history all day.

I want that imposter BF51 to come in here. I'll pwn him. :)

Twiddler · 01-07-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavyLeggedWaistBender

Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.

I agree with this for the most part. The part that I'd add in is that I've always kind of thought that the different average economic situations for blacks in comparisons to whites might be a good foundation for their athletic success. Meaning that, the ability to make it to the pros and having a lifestyle that is supported by athletic success is much more important to a black child when the opportunities for the average white kid in the suburbs are compared. That and it just seems that kids that are well off spend most of their time playing video games instead of actually playing and being physically fit. Keep in mind that my entire perspective on black life in comparison to white life is based not on actual experience, since I'm a white kid from a small town in Wisconsin. Needless to say, I've been lacking in diversity, ha.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 01-07-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavyLeggedWaistBender

Yes. But where the argument gets lost is when it comes off as taking away from what the individual athlete has done. The determination, work ethic, desire, focus, etc., the intangables a person needs to succeed at such a high level at any given sport was not "bred." That can't be handed down from genetics alone. It implies that white people have some sort of entitlement to the great things any or all black athletes have achieved. That their success is somehow our accomplishment.

The word "breeding" can also be incredibly offensive and rightfully so. Unfortunatly that's because of the level of truth in it.

I've always found this interesting and thought I'd try my best to express my views on it. Hope that's alright but I absolutely understand if it's not.

I actually believe the reason for it dates back much further than slavery. It's just an idea I've had, so if anyone can disprove me, be my guest. I think it goes back to human evolution. The reason people from different parts of the globe look so different is because their bodies adapted to do different things.

In Europe, weather was much colder, and so white people usually have straighter hair that can blanket better than a black person's hair, and more body hair overall, it seems. Plus, the prey that white people hunted down in Europe were often very large mammals. Being so large, they were slow moving and didn't require speed to take down, just your usual cunning and strength to haul it back. You'll notice most "World's strongest man" competitors are white.

In Africa, the reason their skin was dark was because they got so much sun, basically. And the prey they hunted was generally smaller, because of the open plains. Gazelles and antelopes and ****. Anyway, because their prey was fast, I think that led to the development of their fast twitch muscles. Not because they physically chased down and killed their prey, but speed would undoubtedly help in co-ordinating a group trap on an animal.

The difference in athleticism isn't just circumstancial, it's an actual physical difference between blacks and whites in their muscles. Black people usually have more fast twitch muscles, and whites have more slow twitch muscles.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender · 01-07-2010, 05:30 PM

It's certainly possible, I guess. I'd like to hear if any of it's incorrect, as well.

TitleTown088 · 01-07-2010, 06:23 PM

You'll are a bunch of determinists.

Brodeur · 01-07-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

You'll are a bunch of determinists.

It is because somewhere at some time someone began a sentence with "you'll are."

Primetime21 · 01-07-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diabsoule

I'm a big fan of TJ (Thomas Jefferson). My favorite president during the 1800s, however, was James K. Polk. He actually is my second favorite of all time.

Polk? As in the weasel who schemed the Mexican-American War? Big ole schemer. And manifest destiny doesnt even make sense. I do like the idea that America always needs a frontier to conquer but not when it involves brutal tactics and straight scheming.

Giantsfan1080 · 01-07-2010, 09:47 PM

We can talk European history as well. Anything goes.

fischbowl · 01-08-2010, 01:26 AM

Grover Cleveland: great or greatest president?

The guy so nice, he came in twice

TitleTown088 · 01-08-2010, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur

It is because somewhere at some time someone began a sentence with "you'll are."

:( I meant to go with y'all.

TitleTown088 · 01-08-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

We can talk European history as well. Anything goes.

Ok, we can go off the continent...How about how we talk about how the Royal Society ( or establishment of science) essentially was founded by a bunch of Christians. 'Science' founded by 'religion'? That would make for an interesting discussion I would say. haha.

diabsoule · 01-08-2010, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primetime21

Polk? As in the weasel who schemed the Mexican-American War? Big ole schemer. And manifest destiny doesnt even make sense. I do like the idea that America always needs a frontier to conquer but not when it involves brutal tactics and straight scheming.

He set an agenda and achieved it. There aren't many that can say they successfully achieved most, if not all, of what they set out to accomplish.

Brothgar · 01-08-2010, 07:32 AM

some say that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo due to hemeroids. No lie. Aparently, every battle that Napoleon himself was present he would personally go on horesback to view the battle grounds. Also, he had never lost a battle that he was present at prior to Waterloo. As the story goes, Napoleon had a bad inflamation of hemeroids prior to the battle and could not stand to ride horseback and thus was unable to survey the battle ground before the battle. Funny to think that the French empire died due to the lack of a hemeroid doughnut.