‘American Political Thought’ course at CU Denver removes all white men from curriculum

Meh. At the end of the day that just means quibbling over the title of a class. So the sky is not falling.

 

Did anyone actually tell you that, or are you just pretending that's what left wing people say. Because I went through 6 years of college history, some with super left wing professors and nobody ever said that to me.

 

If people only read the title and not the description (like people do with clickbait all the time) thats on them. You can normally change courses in the first three days at a college. So this all seems like a non problem.

 

I question the professor's motives as well. Surely you're aware of the progressive bent of U.S. campus culture.

 

I'm being slightly satirical, obviously. But it's certainly implied that a great sin has been committed by Westerners regarding the history of this continent. At the very least, you can ensure that every Thanksgiving someone will be along shortly to remind you.

 

if true, sounds racist and sexist to me, just teach history, don't try to re-write it the way you want it to be, we are not a white nation, a black nation, a male nation, a female nation, a Christian nation... ect.... at least not just.... we are a diverse nation

 

It's only a non-problem if suspicious illogic doesn't catch your intention.

 

Yeah. I went to college. For sure it is very biased and sometimes extremely annoying.

But thats not an arguement agaonst this class. Teaching the history of non-white groups in America is totally legit and necessary to getting a complete view of the world.

Teaching a single class that doesn't talk about white men is NOT the same as purging white men from American history. If that actually was happening, it would be a problem.

I don't see anything like that here. Don't worry, the sky isn't falling.

 

Is it a course, or is it a class? And again, why not simply give it an appropriate title, or perhaps move it to a different department?

 

Won’t someone please think of the white man?

 

Libs knee jerks a lot

And they lack imagination so even their insults are retreads

 

In college I had a professor from Kenya, I went to a very liberal college in a very conservative community. The local newspaper ran a sort of hit-piece on him saying similar stuff that you saying. Left wing, controversial, blah blah blah. This was before I actually took one of his classes.

Eventually I did and the ironic thing is that he wasn't any of that. Actually one of the least biased history professors there. You can't just automatically judge because a class is going to be about non-whites that it's going to be left wing. Blacks in America, for example, have their own conservative tradition going back to Fredrick Douglas. You really can't judge this class just because it's about non-white perspectives. White men have always only been 30% of the country. It seems illogical to me that they need to be at thw forefront of every history discussion.

 

Is that all you have to contribute?

 

My point is that the underlying premise of this thread is dumb. Other than that, yes. That's all that needs to be said.

 

People should be reminded what a wretched people we've been. It's how we move forward morally as a people.

What those people say is true, there is just something they leave out that I always bring up, which is that it was the same EVERYWHERE in the past. It's not like slavery was just in America.

So I don't get mad when people point out that America had bad morality in the past. That is 100% true. I just use it as an opportunity to point out it's a human failing, not just an American one. That we can do better as a species.

This is a point that becomes hard to refute.

 

Again, quibbling about a title is a small problem. If the sum of the problem is that the title isn't specific enough, I don't see the issue.

 

I'll say again, probably for the 5th or 6th time so far; there's absolutely nothing wrong with examaning the non-white male perspective regarding political thought since the inception of this nation. However, give the course it's proper title, especially if you're going to intentionally remove the foundational philosophies of whites and focus solely on things which appear to have been ticked off a SJW compliant checklist of some sort.

That's all fine. But, you must also question why one would feel compelled to do so in the first place. You must be critical of white men to do so. It's reasonable for me to question and criticize such a thing.

 

Ok, thanks for your contribution.

 

@Capn Awesome, I see you're new. Could you try placing multi replies in one reply? It's much more efficient that way.

 

Unlike the "I deserve free ****" politics taught in this course

 

So at the end of the day all I really see from you is complaining about the title. So okay. But thats not a sign of anything.

If they had gone with a different title it would of been okay with you?

 

Perhaps read the quoted reply again?

 

Why?

 

Yeah, but your other points are asked and answered already. So lets just address the title issue so we can move on past it and stay focused.

How big a deal is it really since you keep bringing it up. It seems a total non issue to me.

 

Which other point has been adressed, and how so?

Well first, I'm legitimately OCD, illogical things bother me. If I were to stumble upon a course entitled 'Christian Theology', and all the course actually taught was 'Song of Songs', and 'Amos', I'd wonder why it was labled as 'Christian Theology'.

Then further, I'd wonder why there were apologists who could easily overlook it.

Does not compute my friend, the question is why.