Whether or not I am a slut or a slag has no relevance to an argument for higher wages.

You being a pretentious, over-privileged, smug misogynist has every relevance to almost every piece of bigoted crap you write here.

McGrath addresses the impact colonisation had on Indigenous Australians. It's pertinent to a discussion on Australian history, yes?

Curthoys isn't attempting to put a guilt trip on white Australians. She's drawing attention to the valuable contributions early Chinese Australians made to the building of this country and the attitudes that keep that knowledge from the mainstream.

I am not familiar with Grimshaw.

Innocent families were placed in internment camps during WW2. Their appalling treatment is probably what Saunders is talking about. That's a relevant part of Australia's history.

Would you rather Australian history students be exclusively force fed Ward or Blainey? Of course you would.

Is that what I said, Miss Blyton? I said exclusively.

Do you agree with Bolshie that Saunders et al are worthless due to a "systematic anti-male, anti-white, anti-Western bias?"

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:


Firstly, none of these texts are balanced. They're purely one-sided. That's not what's required of an academic; they're meant to aim for objectivity and impartiality.

Secondly, none of these texts deal with the morals of the time. None of them analyse how and why the morals and behaviours of the time were considered good or bad. A proper understanding of history requires you to be able to understand the Zeitgeist you are examining; you must be able to transport yourself back to that time and understand what made it tick. None of those authors do that. They approach each issue from a postmodern deconstructionist angle (which didn't even become fashionable until the 1960s), by examining all the past through the issue of race and gender only. They then add a moral dimension to their arguments! That of being male = bad, white = bad. Aboriginals = innocent, good. Women = innocent, good.
This isn't scholarly, it's propaganda.


Quote:


I see, so when I use ad hominem they're irrelevant, but when you use them they're relevant.
Can't your peanut brain grasp the f*cked up logic here?

lol, soren has discovered those videos. you can make your own too if you want.

barnaby joe wrote on Mar 17^th, 2012 at 10:51pm:

I liked Soren better when he was Kierkegaard.

As soon as he became not a pipe, he turned into a bit of a pr.ck.

No, you just play one for Karnal.

Don't be vulgar, darling. It doesn't become you.