written out of history

[BillyTheMountain]

I'm sure people from many nations have examples of incidents which were written out of history. That is, events which may have been relevant to a fuller understanding events which followed, but which are no longer mentioned in reference to the BIG EVENTS these hidden events contributed to. One example, when Kuwait was taking oil which disputedly belonged to Iraq, and the US ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein about it. She can be seen as giving him the green light to invade Kuwait, which the USA later bombed Baghdad over.

I pulled this off the internet. www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.


Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)

_____

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. Information last updated on: 02/09/96

[cathwood]

Women are frequently written out of history (his story).

Cathy

[habbywall]

the phillipine-american war was written out of history

[BillyTheMountain]

the phillipine-american war was written out of history

I'll have to google that one, habbywall. Why do you suppose it was written out?

Women are frequently written out of history (his story).

Cathy

Yes, Cathy. I know that and YOU know that (and everyone who has taken a womens studies class knows that). But the point of this thread is to back it up, and share a SPECIFIC something interesting from history that few people are likely to know, because it's been written out of history.

Like, though everyone knows the USA had slavery, few know this: In the South, a few (ie., mostly the plantation owners) had many slaves. In the North, many had a slave or two. [New book entitled Complicity].

Billy

[Mikefule]

Women are frequently written out of history (his story).


Hmmm. Easy to say.

How many examples can we list of famous women in history? How many of women who should be taught about but aren't? (Of course, unless we've made a study of them, we wouldn't know!) Artists, sportswomen and writers included? Probably not, except Jane Austen.

Famous women in history:

Nefertiti - I could tell you nothing except her mildly amusing name and that she was Egyptian.

Helen of Troy.

Calpurnia (Caesar's wife. Does she count?)

Phillipina (Seneca's wife. Does she count?)

Boudica/Bodicea - one woman, at least two spellings. A bona fide war leader, and therefore proper manly history. (Irony warning.)

Joan of Arc - French but none the worse for that. A bona fide war leader and therefore proper manly history. (Irony warning.)

Elizabeth I - A major world figure of her time.

Mary Queen of Scots. A bit part actress in history.

Bloody Mary. Brutal queen; fine cocktail waitress.

Jane Seymour. Queen for only 9 days, but still gets a mention.
Lady Jane Grey. Or was it her?

Marie Antoinette - Known primarily for her recommendation of a high cake diet for paupers.

Catharine the Great. Er... just a name to me.

Marie Curie - a real scientist and a martyr to her science.

Jane Austen - inventor of the novel of manners. One of Englands' top 5 writers ever.

Queen Victoria - Emperess of half the world, whose name is used to define the Victorian age in countries where she never reigned.

Mother Theresa - not nearly so saintly as she was presented. Did good work and bad.

Diana Princess of Wales. Give me a break!

I can think of loads more famous men than that. Of course, for much of history, women have been deprived of the opportunity to be historically important. You could be right, Cathwood.

[habbywall]

I'll have to google that one, habbywall. Why do you suppose it was written out?

Billy

i think that one of the sides had a ton of people killed

[harper]

Catharine the Great. Er... just a name to me.



And a horse of a different disposition.

[harper]

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed. Information last updated on: 02/09/96

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely and selectively reproduced, altered, embellished, dramatised, and randomly distributed.

[nick]

And a horse of a different disposition.

That is a myth, as in not true. Still funny though.

[GILD]

Yes, remember April Glaspie and her amazing stint at Middle East diplomacy?
An alumni of the Madeleine Albright Scool of Acceptable Collateral Damage (http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/111601edherman.html) Foreign Policy?

[Borges]

Women are frequently written out of history (his story).

Cathy

Are you saying Glaspie was omitted because she's a woman or did it remind you of a more general problem?

[cathwood]

I'll have to google that one, habbywall. Why do you suppose it was written out?



Yes, Cathy. I know that and YOU know that (and everyone who has taken a womens studies class knows that). But the point of this thread is to back it up, and share a SPECIFIC something interesting from history that few people are likely to know, because it's been written out of history.

Like, though everyone knows the USA had slavery, few know this: In the South, a few (ie., mostly the plantation owners) had many slaves. In the North, many had a slave or two. [New book entitled Complicity].

Billy

What, are you some time of teacher or something?
And anyway, I don't know do I, they have been written out.

All right, all right.
I wasn't particularly thinking about anybody heroic. Maybe it's true to say that the ordinary man has been written out of history too.

What I was thinking about particularly are the histories of the UK in the two World Wars. Those that fought in the wars are particularly remembered but while they were away women mostly ran the country. They took over all the jobs that the men had previously done and kept the country going. They were 'forced' into doing this in the same way that men were forced to fight, it was in the country's interest for them to do this. When the men came back from war they wanted thier jobs back and all of a sudden it was bad for the children for the mother to be going out to work. Women were forced back out of the workplace.

Sorry, not very dramatic, just the story of thousands of women.

Cathy

[Mikefule]

When the men came back from war they wanted their jobs back and all of a sudden it was bad for the children for the mother to be going out to work. Women were forced back out of the workplace.

Sorry, not very dramatic, just the story of thousands of women.


Don't apologise - unless you want to, of course. It's a fair point you're making.

In Morris dancing, the traditional village teams were kept alive throughout the war with the aid of women dancers. After the war, many of the men remained insistent that it was an all male tradition.

I think it boils down to most men being frightened of most women.

[Mikefule]

Hmmm. Easy to say.

How many examples can we list of famous women in history? How many of women who should be taught about but aren't? (Of course, unless we've made a study of them, we wouldn't know!) Artists, sportswomen and writers included? Probably not, except Jane Austen.

Famous women in history:

Nefertiti - I could tell you nothing except her mildly amusing name and that she was Egyptian.

Helen of Troy.

Calpurnia (Caesar's wife. Does she count?)

Phillipina (Seneca's wife. Does she count?)

Boudica/Bodicea - one woman, at least two spellings. A bona fide war leader, and therefore proper manly history. (Irony warning.)

Joan of Arc - French but none the worse for that. A bona fide war leader and therefore proper manly history. (Irony warning.)

Elizabeth I - A major world figure of her time.

Mary Queen of Scots. A bit part actress in history.

Bloody Mary. Brutal queen; fine cocktail waitress.

Jane Seymour. Queen for only 9 days, but still gets a mention.
Lady Jane Grey. Or was it her?

Marie Antoinette - Known primarily for her recommendation of a high cake diet for paupers.

Catharine the Great. Er... just a name to me.

Marie Curie - a real scientist and a martyr to her science.

Jane Austen - inventor of the novel of manners. One of Englands' top 5 writers ever.

Queen Victoria - Emperess of half the world, whose name is used to define the Victorian age in countries where she never reigned.

Mother Theresa - not nearly so saintly as she was presented. Did good work and bad.

Diana Princess of Wales. Give me a break!



Lucretia Borgia.

Grace Darling.

Come on, help me out with this list.

[steveyo]

Lucretia Borgia.

Grace Darling.

Come on, help me out with this list.Sacagawea.

[JJuggle]

Jeanette Rankin
Rosalyn Franklin

[Borges]

I think it boils down to most men being frightened of most women.

Fear sounds like a strong word. If you've spent your entire youth constructing your myths about yourself and your gender, you don't like it when someone starts to change the rules. I'd expect changing gender roles to cause some discomfort in both men and women, but women get new possibilities in exchange. It doesn't seem like things are changing so fast that we should be entirely unable to cope with it.

[GILD]

Come on, help me out with this list.
Marge Simpson.

[cathwood]

Okay Mikefule,
Now do the male list.
Cathy

[Naomi]

Lucretia Borgia.

Grace Darling.

Come on, help me out with this list.


Enola Gay.....er maybe not

Cleopatra

Evita

Golda Meir

Thatcher

[JJuggle]

Enola Gay.....er maybe not

Cleopatra

Evita

Golda Meir

Thatcher
Khaleda Zia

Benazir Bhutto

Indira Gandhi

Violeta Barrios de Chamorro

Corazon Aquino

[Naomi]

Corazon Aquino


Ah Cory, but she will never achieve the same household name status as Imelda and Lea have.

[Mikefule]

Okay Mikefule,
Now do the male list.
Cathy

I acknowledged way back in the thread that you point was a valid one. The fact that I can think of a dozen or so famous women after racking my brains proves it - for two reasons:

1) I wouldn't have to rack my brains to think of men from history. For a start, in England there are so many we have to number them: Henry I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VII, Henry VIII; Edwards I - VIII inclusive; or categorise them: Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger; the Young Pretender, the Old Pretender... and slightly more recently, the Yes I'm the Great Pretender. (Younger readers move on.:cool: )

2) If women were equally regarded in history, then their gender would not be their distinguishing feature. I would have to think of a list of famous people, then divide them into males and females.

The list of famous women is in one sense to tease you, but in another sense, to make a serious point: there aren't very many famous women in history (as it is taught) but there might be more than you'd think at first.

[BillyTheMountain]

Very cool discussion of women written out of history. Add to the list: Artemisia Gentileschi, Renaissance Baroque Painter.

Black inventors, etc are also written out of history (inventor of traffic light, first heart transplant, etc.). Keep it up!

What about: How many democratically-elected governments overthrown by the USA can you name? Can you understand why that would be written out of history?

Billy

[JJuggle]

What about: How many democratically-elected governments overthrown by the USA can you name? Can you understand why that would be written out of history?
What a great Jeopardy category that would be.

Who is Allende, Alex?
Who is Lamumba, Alex?
What is Guatemala, Alex?
What is Grenada, Alex?
What is the United States Supreme Court in 2000, Alex?

[GILD]

first heart transplant
???
On December 3, 1967, South African surgeon Christiaan Barnard conducted the first
heart transplant on 53-year-old Lewis Washkansky (http://history1900s.about.com/b/a/047759.htm)

And a picture or two. (http://images.google.co.za/images?hl=en&q=christiaan%20barnard&sa=N&tab=wi)

[BillyTheMountain]

I guess I meant African, not Black.:confused: :eek:

???


And a picture or two. (http://images.google.co.za/images?hl=en&q=christiaan%20barnard&sa=N&tab=wi)

[Mikefule]

Read today that Martin Luther King's widow has just died. After losing her husband, she continued to campaign for civil rights for many decades. And after reading it at lunch time, I couldn't even tell you her first name now.:o

A point proven?

[monkeyman]

If women were equally regarded in history, then their gender would not be their distinguishing feature. I would have to think of a list of famous people, then divide them into males and females.

I agree with him and Cathy, in World history last year, I can recall many more men than women....I can instantly list off about 5 men, right after another, but only about 1 or 2 women

[JJuggle]

Read today that Martin Luther King's widow has just died. After losing her husband, she continued to campaign for civil rights for many decades. And after reading it at lunch time, I couldn't even tell you her first name now.:o

A point proven?
Yes and no. Is it fair to expect an Englishman, even an educated one, to know the name of every American civil rights leader? How many other major male American civil rights leaders can you name?

Can anyone name Gandhi's wife (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/Kasturba.html) who apparently worked with him and even spent 3 months in prison at hard labor on one occasion for her efforts to secure rights for Indians in British controlled South Africa? (I had to look it up).

[cathwood]

Read today that Martin Luther King's widow has just died. After losing her husband, she continued to campaign for civil rights for many decades. And after reading it at lunch time, I couldn't even tell you her first name now.:o

A point proven?

Hell no, just proves you're getting old, er Mikesomething.:)

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

What a great Jeopardy category that would be.

Who is Allende, Alex?
Who is Lamumba, Alex?
What is Guatemala, Alex?
What is Grenada, Alex?
What is the United States Supreme Court in 2000, Alex?

WOW! What words did you put in your seach engine to find all that? Is that all there are?

Billy

[Mikefule]

Hell no, just proves you're getting old, er Mikesomething.:)


Touché:)

[JJuggle]

WOW! What words did you put in your seach engine to find all that? Is that all there are?
Bah, you're just pissed I didn't acknowlege your PM. Those are the easy ones that don't require turning to a search engine. ;)

I'd even be willing to bet that you could come up with more than me off the top of your head. (Although I still think you used Google for your Old and In the Way comment.)

[Tim Morin]

I'm sure that much of what is written in history books are embelishments, lies, half-truths.... and truths written from one sense of reality.

We are taught to read history books as fact.. but I'd say that like most things written, they have be read with some scrutiny.

It's funny, because in my life, the more I read, research, and learn, the less I trust what I have read, researched, and learned. Maybe I am unlearning what I have learned.

[BillyTheMountain]

Bah, you're just pissed I didn't acknowlege your PM. Those are the easy ones that don't require turning to a search engine. ;)

I'd even be willing to bet that you could come up with more than me off the top of your head. (Although I still think you used Google for your Old and In the Way comment.)


Old and In the Way ????? Are you talking to the right person??

Billy

[cathwood]

I'm sure that much of what is written in history books are embelishments, lies, half-truths.... and truths written from one sense of reality.

We are taught to read history books as fact.. but I'd say that like most things written, they have be read with some scrutiny.

It's funny, because in my life, the more I read, research, and learn, the less I trust what I have read, researched, and learned. Maybe I am unlearning what I have learned.

I find that too. I find I like the feeling. The more I learn the less I 'know'.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

What about: How many democratically-elected governments overthrown by the USA can you name? Can you understand why that would be written out of history?

Billy

What a great Jeopardy category that would be.

Who is Allende, Alex?
Who is Lamumba, Alex?
What is Guatemala, Alex?
What is Grenada, Alex?
What is the United States Supreme Court in 2000, Alex?

Would you add Haiti, 2005, to your list?

[Mikefule]

We are taught to read history books as fact.. but I'd say that like most things written, they have be read with some scrutiny.


You only need to read one newspaper report of an event at which you were present to be aware of this fact at a very deep and intuitive level! Either that or read any magazine article about a subject in which you have greater than average interest.

But history is something else, and we have to ask what we mean by history.

In English History, the classic example is Richard III. As every skoolboy kno, Dick 3 was an evil hunchback who killed the princes in the tower.

However, academic historians interested in verifiable historical facts tend to believe that (a) Richard III wasn't evil, (b) nor was he a hunchback, (c) nor did he kill the princes in the tower, and (d) in fact the princes in the tower lived to a ripe old age!

Another example, before I get to my point: Richard I, Lionheart - a Good Man but a Bad King. He spent only a few days in England during his whole reign.

However, what we are not told at school in England is that long before he became king of England, he was Duke of Aquitaine which gave him dominion over lands far larger than England, and people far more numerous than the English!

Criticising him for not spending much time here is like criticising Queen Elizabeth II for not spending more time on the Isle of Man, or George W Bush for hardly ever visiting Lower Hicksville in Arkansas.

(There's an open goal here for budding political satirists...)

So, why are we taught something different from the verifiable truth, and does it matter?

My answer is that people like narrative and drama. We interpret our own lives as narratives, with good guys, bad guys, and plots, and we do exactly the same with history.

Most people's lives are fairly boring and predictable, and are lived with only a small level of purposefulness (including mine). However, we like to think in terms of things happening for reasons, and tending towards a goal. Maybe this is one reason why psychobabble (armchair psychology) is such a popular pastime: because we look for reasons for people's successes or failures even though those reasons aren't really there. (compare to the Hitler failed art school, became a ;) tyrant thread elsewhere...)

So perhaps at school we don't need to learn historical facts, we need to learn historical narratives. Richard I: noble lion hearted warrior, fighting the foreign foe, whilst his sneaky embittered brother Bad King John caused trouble at home. Then Richard comes back, clears up the mess, and saves the day. The narrative needs a Good King, a Bad Brother, and redress, otherwise it doesn't work.

Many cultures have a mythology that is the source of their morality and wisdom. Even now, 2 500 years on, we still use images from ancient Greek mythology to illustrate points and as cautionary tales or metaphors. Examples you may know:

The sword of Damocles - something that hangs over you threateningly, as if by a thin thread.
Flying too close to the sun (Icarus and Daedalus)
Pandora's box.
The Trojan horse. (A misnomer: it wasn't the Trojans who made it. It was their enemies.) We even have Trojan computer viruses.
Narcissus - the perils of vanity.

There is an argument that knowing history in a narrative form can be a source of wisdom and understanding, but knowing it as a set of verifiable facts is purely an academic exercise.

Does it matter whether we can prove that the Trojan war occurred? Does it matter that we can prove that Richard III was handsome and healthy? Even - for religious people - does it matter whether we can prove that Jesus, or Peter, or Moses, Buddha or Mohammed were real historical figures? The legends are useful as a common fund of cultural references and wisdom.

[cathwood]

I'm trying to evaluate the omissions from history in the light of Mikefule's post and I think that the idea of history being a common fund for culture and wisdom rather than acurately reflecting what has happened. I think this makes the omissions from history even more relevant/alarming or whatever.

Cathy

[JJuggle]

Would you add Haiti, 2005, to your list?I would add Haiti 1805 - 2005 to my list. When Haiti kicked out the French and gained its independence the Jefferson administration refused to recognize it out of fear that that act would encourage the rise of other independent black nations in the hemisphere.

[johnfoss]

It's funny, because in my life, the more I read, research, and learn, the less I trust what I have read, researched, and learned. Maybe I am unlearning what I have learned.
There is a lot of truth to that. Nearly anything that is written, is written by a person. And often that person is trying to tell a larger story, or back a larger opinion or political agenda, or just go with a theme of something that may be outside the story of the moment. In other words, anyone who writes something is in danger of being biased, even if they aren't aware of it.

So the first thing necessary when reading "factual information" is to consider the source. For example, it would be fun to compare American and British history books on the subject of the American revolutionary war/war of independence. For starters, the British may have a different name for this event, which we Americans generally call the Revolutionary War.

[johnfoss]

You only need to read one newspaper report of an event at which you were present to be aware of this fact at a very deep and intuitive level! Either that or read any magazine article about a subject in which you have greater than average interest.
In the world of unicycling, many of us get to see macrocosmic examples of this. With longer experience with the sport, and the press' coverage of it, I learned to take a longer view. First one must understand that any journalist can only know what they see, hear and are told. They can't possibly develop a deep understanding of our sport unless they devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to what is usually just a "variety" piece. And it seems all to easy for errors to creep in, because they often collect lots of data.

Fortunately for us, most press coverage of unicycling is overwhelmingly positive. They generally agree with our views of the sport, and our desire to share them with the larger population.

But this is not always the case, and occasionally you will run into a journalist who has a story idea before they meet you, and works to make your words and deeds fit their story idea whether it does or not. I can think of two examples from my unicycling experience:

1. In 1986, a girl from Japan rode a 24" unicycle the length of Long Island as a way to see that part of the country. Her story was covered on page 2 of Newsday (the largest Long Island newspaper). A reporter and photographer met up with her for lunch around the middle of her week-long ride. She was joined by me and a couple of other guys from the National Circus Project, who were working at a school in the area.

The reporter collected lots of information for her story, and they took some really nice pictures. But somehow she assumed that anyone who would ride a unicycle alone through rural Long Island, and hang out with "circus performers" musts also be into drugs and/or other counterculture activities. So she kept hitting on the drug thing from different angles, trying to get us to "crack." She seemed unhappy with our unwillingness to open up about such things. She did not seem willing to accept the idea that what she was looking for just wasn't there. This brought the girl to tears during the interview because she was made to feel she was doing something wrong, or being dishonest with the reporter, which is a major blow to someone Japanese.

In the end, this story was very well written and presented, and was great press for unicycling. She believed us, and didn't imply that we were anything we were not. But during the interview, the probing was definitely more than one would expect from someone who just wanted the facts.

2. At the 1992 USA Nationals in St. Anthony, Minnesota, a press photographer came out during a day of racing and took lots of pictures. Not sure if there was an accompanying reporter as well. What I remember was what came out in the paper the next day; half a page of "action shots" of kids crashing on their unicycles. I don't think there was a story, beyond the basic facts of this was the event, time, date, location.

Sure, those kids crashed. But was that in any way an accurate portrayal of what goes on at the National Unicycle Meet? No, it's what makes for interesting reading. Okay, not reading, but the graphical equivalent. Do people really go to car races just to see crashes?

Criticising him for not spending much time here is like criticising Queen Elizabeth II for not spending more time on the Isle of Man, or George W Bush for hardly ever visiting Lower Hicksville in Arkansas.

(There's an open goal here for budding political satirists...)

Okay....

Hey! I usesd to live just outside of Hicksville, Long Island (Billy Joel grew up there). I'm sure at least a significant percentage of the people there would be fine with no visit ever by George W. Bush. :)

I know, not exactly what you were looking for. But yes, in many history texts, the emphasis seems to often be more on the story and perhaps its learning value, than on the dry, hard facts. Facts are boring.

The Trojan horse. (A misnomer: it wasn't the Trojans who made it. It was their enemies.) We even have Trojan computer viruses.
I guess it can be said that the Trojans were the recipients, and the ones who were later "duped" by it. The horse was their downfall. You might say it was their "Achilles heel." :)

[Mikefule]

I'm trying to evaluate the omissions from history in the light of Mikefule's post and I think that the idea of history being a common fund for culture and wisdom rather than acurately reflecting what has happened. I think this makes the omissions from history even more relevant/alarming or whatever.

Cathy

Part of the same thing. For most of "history", most of "culture" has been male. I am not saying that is a good thing. Indeed, it's a very bad thing.

For most of history, in most societies, women have been forced into subservient roles. Men have gone out and made history, whilst women have stayed at home having babies. It follows from this that women will not feature much in "popular" history, and that when they do, it is often from a very male stand point. Elizabeth I, "the virgin queen". How male a viewpoint is that, defined by her sexual unavailablity?

Helen of Troy: the face that launched a thousand ships, defined by her physical beauty. Grace Darling: "Plucky heroine" - thousands of men have done similar things, but she was "only" a girl, and hence men made her a heroine.

In today's western world, women are at least nominally regarded as "equals", but it is still rather grudging and there are plenty of men who regard this as "mere political correctness". The result is that most women have to work twice as hard to be half as good as most men. (Fortunately, that isn't difficult.)

Every time a woman rises to prominence and it goes terribly wrong, all the old-skool males say, "I told you so." After the Thather incident, it will be years before a mainstream UK political party dares to have a woman as a leader again. Totally unfair, but that's how it is. (In Ireland and Germany, women seem to be doing the job reasonably well, but the Brits will ignore this.)

Spot question: how many female presidents of the United States have there been in the 230 odd years since independence?

Maybe the next one. Will Americans be brave enough to vote for a black woman (Condoleeza) or will they think that one change at a time will be bold enough and go for Hilary? I suspect even some women voters would be cautious about having a female president.

The effect is that there will be a transitional period before women feature prominently in history taught in schools. First, they have to feature prominently in the present, and then die to become historical figures. It is very similar with black people in predominantly white countries. The people from the disadvantaged group are forced to work extra hard to climb up into niches already occupied by the generally more privileged middle class white males.

I am describing a phenomenon, not condoning the attitudes that create it.:)

[JJuggle]

Maybe the next one. Will Americans be brave enough to vote for a black woman (Condoleeza) or will they think that one change at a time will be bold enough and go for Hilary?
Ignoring the topic at hand for the moment, as a lefty/progressive American all I can say to those two choices is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!.

We might as well vote for Joe Lieberman so we can at least make fun of his manner of speaking. (Oh, and we'd get a Jew into the presidential office as a bonus.)

[johnfoss]

Though I agree with Jjuggle's NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!, if I had the choice I'd definitely rather have either of them in place of the current guy.

As to whether I'd vote for them otherwise, the choice would be all about what do they stand for and what have they done, not about their sex.

If Geena Davis (star of a current TV show where she plays America's first female president, and shows great values) were to run for President, I'd vote for her even though she's not necessarily the character she plays.

[JJuggle]

If Geena Davis (star of a current TV show where she plays America's first female president, and shows great values) were to run for President, I'd vote for her even though she's not necessarily the character she plays.
That show is called Commander-in-Chief. It has much to recommend it, and yes, as president Mac (Geena Davis) demonstrates some wonderful values.

I just wonder why our so called liberal hollywood media elite chose to highlight the military aspect of the president's role in producing a show about the first woman president. In my opinion, liberals are once again reduced, not to breaking new ground, but in showing that a woman wouldn't necessarily be afraid to use military force. An idea that is perhaps comforting to Americans, but not necessarily in the best interest of future generations.

[johnfoss]

In my opinion, liberals are once again reduced, not to breaking new ground, but in showing that a woman wouldn't necessarily be afraid to use military force.
Sorry about continuing this sidetrack but...

It does show that, but this is also a way of suggesting that a "liberal" president is not necessarily afraid of using military force. This translates well into "what would a woman do with the Iraq situation" or "what would a democratic president do with the Iraq situation," both of which are questions that will be on peoples' minds when we finally get to elect Bush's replacement.

Those to me are laudable side-objectives for such a show (which I've only watched twice but liked). Also the even more laudable idea of showing how a president with good moral fiber can deal with very difficult and conflicting situations.

[JJuggle]

Sorry about continuing this sidetrack but...

It does show that, but this is also a way of suggesting that a "liberal" president is not necessarily afraid of using military force. This translates well into "what would a woman do with the Iraq situation" or "what would a democratic president do with the Iraq situation," both of which are questions that will be on peoples' minds when we finally get to elect Bush's replacement.

Those to me are laudable side-objectives for such a show (which I've only watched twice but liked). Also the even more laudable idea of showing how a president with good moral fiber can deal with very difficult and conflicting situations.
Although I don't disagree with you John, and although the point I'm making has to do with what could be considered a subtext of the show, yet by the fact of the very name of the show this subtext is hiding right out in plain view.

[GILD]

If Geena Davis were to run for President, I'd vote for her even though she's not necessarily the character she plays.
I would vote for Geena Davis and hope she'd take Juliet Lewis as a running partner.

[BillyTheMountain]

I would vote for Geena Davis and hope she'd take Juliet Lewis as a running partner.

A lot of peopel voted for Martin Sheen in the last election, from West Wing. It was a great show (get it on DVD), but it's ending soon forever.....

[GILD]

It's been running on SATV for a couple of seasons now, I think the 5th one is about to start. I haven't watched a single episode as it always managed to clash with The Practise, 6 Feet Under or Footballer's Wives.