I know what you are saying, KindleWindle, and if someone is stupid enough not to look into something before they accept it as fact, then yeah, it's their fault, but it still doesn't sit right with me to have fake versions of history out there.
Not a fan of saggy pants, but seriously, illegalizing them is a bit much. This guy is obsessed and on a power trip. What next? Make up? Anything green?
I usually criticize people that come onto comment sections when they read something silly and say, "Don't police have better things to do?" or "Don't you know there are kids *fill in a hardship* in *fill in a country*?" but this is one case where it would apply.
KindleWindle... I'm going to echo ted's question here, but also add this:
In the context that your teacher used the site, it's not all that bad, but putting stuff like that on the internet, where people have the attention span of fruit flies, don't read everything in an effort to get to the good stuff, then it's a bit dodgy and will mislead a lot of people. That's the problem I have with it, aside from the reasons I mentioned in my first comment.
And The History Channel is not the end all. Most real history is more fascinating than the majority of the fiction you get out there if you take the time to read up on it.
Actually, I would like to point something out as a person who is not a fan of disco and is sitting here in an AC/DC tee shirt and pajama pants:
Rock and roll did come from black music/blues. However, it was stolen from a lot of black artists that never saw a penny of royalties for various reasons, not all of them entirely legit.
I was young during the disco era, but recall those stereotypical white boy rockers calling it "gay" or "jungle music", which is kind of nasty.
Again, that stereotype is in no way all encompassing, but it's not a stereotype for no reason at all either. I think that's the point that the post was trying to get across here. The whole "disco sucks" thing was not always about the music, but about the people associated with it.
Exactly. Something more is going on because the state would not want to embarrass itself by taking someone's kids off them just because of their names. Eventually, that would get out and the uproar would be pretty huge, even from people who think that the parents are idiots already. The names might have drawn attention to something else.
I kind of agree with Justin. Not only is history badly ignored in both US and UK schools, but it gets revised by PC idiots constantly. While it's all very amusing, it sort of isn't.
Oh no, gtron! How dare anyone use their hard earned money to buy what they want and use it however they see fit? What an insult to poor people! That's it! Let's all wear hair shirts and embark on a penance of self loathing right now.
Any genre of music has its fair share of dark sides. I am a rock and roll gal myself, cube, though I can admit to liking some disco tunes. I don't think that this article was necessarily unfair to the rocker stereotype, especially if you remember the 70's and the backlash against disco by that stereotype. I was too young to truly appreciate it then, but even at that age, I saw how it played out and coming from a family that appreciated both types of music, thought it was all a bit silly.
Keep in mind that a stereotype doesn't necessarily include every single person. It's all highly generalized.
I'm sure that those kids were not taken away due to their unfortunate names. That wouldn't have been legal anyway. I agree, too, that as terrible as those kids' names are, that it would be frightening if it were the sole reason the kids were removed from the home, because it's not illegal to name your kid Adolf Hitler or Aryan Nation. It's stupid, it says a lot about the type of idiot you are, but it's not illegal.
Something else is going on in that home that is really not any of our business because it involves minors. We may never know, and quite frankly, we shouldn't. Those kids have enough to deal with.
I usually criticize people that come onto comment sections when they read something silly and say, "Don't police have better things to do?" or "Don't you know there are kids *fill in a hardship* in *fill in a country*?" but this is one case where it would apply.
In the context that your teacher used the site, it's not all that bad, but putting stuff like that on the internet, where people have the attention span of fruit flies, don't read everything in an effort to get to the good stuff, then it's a bit dodgy and will mislead a lot of people. That's the problem I have with it, aside from the reasons I mentioned in my first comment.
And The History Channel is not the end all. Most real history is more fascinating than the majority of the fiction you get out there if you take the time to read up on it.
Rock and roll did come from black music/blues. However, it was stolen from a lot of black artists that never saw a penny of royalties for various reasons, not all of them entirely legit.
I was young during the disco era, but recall those stereotypical white boy rockers calling it "gay" or "jungle music", which is kind of nasty.
Again, that stereotype is in no way all encompassing, but it's not a stereotype for no reason at all either. I think that's the point that the post was trying to get across here. The whole "disco sucks" thing was not always about the music, but about the people associated with it.
Exactly. Something more is going on because the state would not want to embarrass itself by taking someone's kids off them just because of their names. Eventually, that would get out and the uproar would be pretty huge, even from people who think that the parents are idiots already. The names might have drawn attention to something else.
:)
It's a blog post comment, not a thesis. Sheesh.
Keep in mind that a stereotype doesn't necessarily include every single person. It's all highly generalized.
Something else is going on in that home that is really not any of our business because it involves minors. We may never know, and quite frankly, we shouldn't. Those kids have enough to deal with.