Just remember that you told rockbox that he needed to "pick up a history book". Maybe you should take a hint from DaDa and try not to be so condescending in your posts.
Can you offer a weaker retort in this thread? Jesus, Fatty. You're arguments are looking like the Titanic about now. You see the question of bias as some sort of simplistic political agenda. Bias in history is more than that. Many biases are in emphasis and what is *not* examined, or taken into account. Bias is when people operate under the assumption that revisionism, itself, is more "biased" than traditional accounts. Let's just call "bias" as framework, or an agenda. Every historian has an agenda. I know this might disillusion you,, but that's what a thesis is, afterall. A point of view. Reporting the "facts" of what the orchestra played on the Titanic rather than attempting to look at the underlying causes of the sinking is an agenda, is it not? Is that not an artificial framework that is imposed on reporting the past? If it so tires you to consider new evidence, or new perspectives about the past, why study any of in the first place? We can just encode you with a DNA chip at birth with all "facts" and "opinions" ready for you to plug into BBS discussions. Who needs all of this thinking stuff anyway?
Fatty, I like your posts, and I'm right with you on the smoking debate. But you're clearly no Civil War scholar. I'm not either, but dude, you thought LINCOLN OWNED SLAVES. Come on, now, man. You've already lost this one. Still, we should start a club for posters with self-depricating handles one of these days.
Here's some questions that might lay down a factual basis of this discussion. Is it a fact that the anglo settlers of Tejas were slave owners? Is it a fact that the Mexican government had abolished slavery prior to Texas independence? Is it a fact that anglo settlers of Tejas wished to keep slaves? Is there factual evidence, statements of Texas fighter or leaders, that show that maintaining slavery was important?
FFB? I wasn't calling Fatty out this time, I just wanted to straighten out the historical timeline for all those youngsters out there reading this thread instead of their 8th grade Texas History lesson. (are we the only state with a required year of state history in the cirriculum?)
I don't think so. I took Alaska history instead of Texas history in grade school. Both were required in both states in seventh grade. That's a large reason why I took a couple of Texas history classes in college.
When I visited relatives in Vancouver, I was asked "Do you ride on horses to school?" and "Do you live on a barn?"
