SpocksBrain

Ships Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    184

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SpocksBrain

  2. Posted

    Click for Spoiler:

    5{blem I see with having a "special month" for individual groups is this. If we are supposed to be one people, equal then doesn't pointing out one group go against that? Does it mean that February is the only month that Black history is to be studied and March is the only month women's history is to be studied?

     

    I find it divisive to segregate individual groups. If you are going to have a special month for different groups then what happens when someone wants a "White Supremacist History Month"?

     

    Warning: LOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGG. I got carried away. Read the last paragraph if you just can't see your way to read all of this...

     

    VBG and others, there is a historical reason why there is a Black history month. It started out as Black History Week, I believe founded in the 1950's by black historian Carter G. Woodson, in part because there was virtually no knowledge in the general society of contributions of African-Americans to the development of our American society, beyond slavery, the Emancipation proclamation, and George Washington Carver and the peanut, and a scant few others. Woodson and others wanted to make sure a more thorough knowledge of the continuum of African-American contributions was part of the entire society's knowledge base, contributions made even while in slavery, and even while in Jim crow segregation, which included educators, inventors, soldiers, others. This continuum of contributions was in sharp contrast to the brief blurbs that appeared in American history textbooks, probably up through the sixties, beginning to change in the seventies, that acted as if blacks did nothing significant to participate in the development of American life.

     

    These days historical contributions of African-American are more widely known. I have even see white people on Jeopardy whip out answers to the once obscure black history questions which most likely were not taught to their parent's (or grandparent's if a youth tournament) generation.

     

    My 73-year-old mother was taught black history in the segregated public schools she grew up in, but even then that material was not in a textbook. I just went in and asked her about what black history she had been taught. She whipped out fact after fact, listing poets and educators, whose names are now more likely to be included in American history books, and would not have been, had not agitation, in the form of Black History Week, motivated textbook writers to be more inclusive. The things my mother was taught in the late 1930's and 1940's were not taught in the white schools, but they were part of American life and American history.

     

    The problem with the average American not being aware of the contributions of African Americans is that then when hate mongers and their ilk say things about blacks having been nothing but a problem to this country, you might be able to conjure up an exception or two, but you do not have a sense of a continuing evolution of service and contribution. You might start to wonder...what HAVE they done?

     

    I can think of an example. A racist can conjure up an image with a statistic. Illegitimacy rate in the African American community is over 50%, so blacks are immoral. But I know that when I was a girl, it was 20%, and sociologists were concerned then. I remember the first time I read a report that the illegitimacy rate was over 50% in Washington DC. I was a college student. But someone just citing a statistic for the purpose of demonstrating the immorality of the black race would just cite today's statistics. Going back even further, black families were routinely split up during slavery, with children being sold away from parents, husbands from wives. Black family life then would not look good then statistically. But also during this period, extended families of "aunts and uncles" also developed, giving family support to broken families. Shortly after slavery, and up through the 1950's statistics regarding black family stability were excellent. So something happened to cause the rapid decline of the seventies.

     

    There is a reason to care about knowing African American history. Because this issue has been raised, someone is going to look into questions like this and get real understandings of the problem, and not use statistics shallowly to inflame prejudices.

     

    Most of the black history I know I have learned outside of school, on my own, because there was virtually no black history taught in my predominantly white school system in the 1960's and early 70's.

     

    Now however if black history is being included as part of the fabric of American history, there may indeed be less of a need for a special week, month whatever.

     

    I am not talking about Women's history month, because I do not know the issues. And once again I have gone on too long.

     

    Still, I make one more comment about my FORMER favorite World War II movie, The Battle of the Bulge. I remember Telly Savalas as that tough tank commander. He should have been played by a Black actor, because one of the main tank units on that road in the Battle of the Bulge was a segregated Black unit. And one of the main engineering units rebuilding those bridges in that vast series of battles was a segregated black unit. I did not know about this until I saw a PBS special highlighting the accomplishments of these units, probably as a part of Black History month years ago. I taped it, and I watch that over and over again, rather than the Battle of the Bulge, which had it told the truth by including a few black faces, instead of only brave white soldiers, would eliminate the need for the story of the black soldiers of that battle later at a special time.

    dont you just adore the cut and paste function?? :laugh:

     

    RC - yeah and every day is childrens day and every month is white history month and so on and so on. If so-called minority groups feel like they aren't recognised in general history, then wouldn't devoting only one month to it make it seem less important all the other times of the year?

  4. Posted

    I think it merely brings awareness to what women and black people have been through. Both groups have suffered oppression. Yes we should think of it year round but most people are too caught up in their everyday lives to do that. I don't see it as being divisive.

    The Irish have faced oppression, as did the french (in Canada) and so many differant cultures. What about them?

    As far as I know this is an American thing ( I may be wrong). Women and blacks have been the most oppressed in this country. I really can't see why anyone is upset by this topic. However I've said my thoughts and I'm not going to debate it. I'd rather not see this moved to kronos (forgot how it's really spelled). I will continue to observe women's history month in my own ways.

    You think this is bad? Go check out some of those middle eastern women...

  7. Posted · Edited by Spock'sBrain

    I also thought that 'The Inner Light' was a great Picard episode. However I voted for 'Best of Both Worlds'..Such a fantastic episode..I didn't see how they were going to get Picard back..He certainly was scary as Locutus of Borg !

    Another great episode! He is definitly the best captain (actor) in the series, although he doesn't have that charm that Kirk has... :laugh:

  13. Posted

    Everyone has a right to an opionion, hey, it's better than blindly liking something for the mere fact that it carries a "Star Trek" label. I like Enterprise and I think that it is not going anywhere anytime soon, but that doesn't mean I don't have some issues with it. I voted for "Don't mind, Not annoyed".

  16. Posted

    I doubt it, the sphere builders are trans-dementional beings who need special "space" to live in. The borg are a bunch of nanites that inhabit humanoids and link them togather as a collective.

     

    The borg are first found by Picard on TNG when Q takes them bunches of light years from where the Federation has explored when they find the borg.

  19. Posted

    I think we have seen some signs of it here and there throughout this season. And it is logical that it would take a really dramatic experience for the bubble to really burst and her emotions to surface.

    I find your reasoning logical :wow:

  20. Posted

    I think the development of T'Pol is interesting. Some of the Bashers say it's straying from what we know Vulcans to be... Emotionless but the reality is that Vulcans aren't emotionless they are just well disciplined in controlling them. Many times in the past we have seen Vulcans show glimmers of emotion. Spock's excuse was that he is half human but what about Sarek? He showed emotion in ST III when it came time to find Spock's body and bring him back to life. In TNG's "Sarek" we saw his emotions come out both in the form of Sarek and in the form of Picard after they had melded.

     

    So this development seems logical to me, though I don't think they should make a weekly habit out of having her seduce someone or break down crying.

    I agree, it seems rather forced when ever T'pol shows emotion. She also didn't ease into it, it was like one episode she all of a sudden was emotional, and no one on enterprise seems to notice it, oh well.

  23. Posted · Edited by Spock'sBrain

    Why would daniels interfere if the future was set and the federation is going to win that battle against the sphere builders? It seems like there was no purpose for him to show Archer the future if things were already going to work out. All he could possibly do is ruin everything.

     

    About Archer, I think he is my least favorite of all starship captains, maybe it's because Scott Backula is a lousey actor, but it seems like he is all ways making bad decisions.

  25. Posted

    I'd like to know what's up with T'pol? Is she going to toss aside her Vulcan beliefs and become fully emotional? In the latest episode she was more emotional and irrational than the rest of the crew... Spock was never that willy-vanilly... :wow: