In particular because the point they are making is about the notariety and popularity of central park having such a dark past.
“such a dark past” is a pretty wild exaggeration of a total of about 1600 evictions for its construction. Central Park’s early history is shocking to nobody who has, as in the post, a high school or undergraduate-level understanding of US history. It’s dark-ish, but dark enough to stand out from the US’ past otherwise? Not even close. Central Park isn’t such a huge topic that you’d expect, in a high school or undergraduate-level gen-ed course, to learn what constitutes a paragraph in its fairly extensive Wikipedia article.
TL:DR: The point is that history can remain buried no matter how popular what buried it becomes. You would think more people would notice what’s underneath.
Anyone can. It’s right there. It’s mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead of the Wikipedia article. Anyone even slightly interested in Central Park’s history will find this. Not teaching this in an undergruate-level gen-ed isn’t buried history; it just means it’s not significant enough for the general public to care.
Insulting their knowledge doesn’t do much to make them want to know more.
Anyone who would expect this to be part of the curriculum of the courses the OP is describing is completely delusional. I don’t really care what pointing that out makes them want to do or not.
Central Park’s early history is shocking to nobody who has, as in the post, a high school or undergraduate-level understanding of US history.
According to your first response, you think you’re an idiot for believing that:
"Local person discovers undergraduate gen-ed courses not designed to teach you literally everything about a subject.
You also now say there were 1600 evictions in central park, implying I’m downplaying that number by simplifying it as “dark,” when you yourself already downplayed that number far far more than I did as:
a village of 225 people… its existence had minimal impact on history going forward. 225 lived there.
So should I not care that only 225 people lived there, or be offended that I described that as “dark?”
You want to explain the math of how 1600 evictions can come from those 225 people?
You’ve literally done nothing but disagree with everyone who talks to you, including yourself. You’re not making a point, you’re punching down to seem better than others.
By ALL means, respond with more insults to prove me right.
You want to explain the math of how 1600 evictions can come from those 225 people?
Hahahaha. I knew you were going to ask this after I wrote it, and now I’m so glad I didn’t clarify*, because it demonstrates you don’t actually give enough of a shit to learn about this subject that you’re vapidly pretending to champion.
225 people lived in Seneca Village. Seneca Village, obviously, was not the only site seized for the park. The other evictions came from the places you didn’t bother to read about, you smarmy fucking oaf.
* This wasn’t baiting a trap. I just didn’t think until after writing it that anyone would be this profoundly stupid. Whoops.
So you’re glad you didn’t clarify your opinion because it let you insult others that asked?
In general people understand opinions better when they’re clearly stated. Deprioritizing that in favor of an opportunity to insult others makes you a bully.
Something I pegged you as immediately. Followed by you using every paragraph of your last response to prove me right. Hilarioulsy you did that, btw, starting with:
didn’t think until after writing it that anyone would be this profoundly stupid. Whoops.
Speaking of stupid, I laid a trap saying you would act this way. I even labeled it as a trap. And you still fell into it:
My last sentence:
By ALL means, respond with more insults to prove me right.
You, a hypocritical clown that can’t read:
you didn’t bother to read… you smarmy fucking oaf.
No. I just can’t read what your opinion is. And neither can anyone else. Probably because you admittedly left it unclear to create an opportunity to honk your clown nose.
you’re vapidly pretending to champion.
That’s you, the opposite of a champion, a bully.
I’ve never had a pathetically insecure clown bite so hard on such obvious bait. As intelligent as you think you are, no one will ever give a shit as long as you are a far bigger bully. Behaviour you’ve spent this entire conversation prioritizing over anything intelligent. I can easily learn what you’ve failed to tell me. I doubt you can act civil even after weeks of practice.
I’m sorry, did you have any more empty, performative platitudes you wanted to make yourself feel better by pretending you believed in, or are we still stuck in denial over the first one – the one where your deep care for remembering history ends somewhere before reading a couple paragraphs on Wikipedia?
Like I said: it’s relative. It’s clearly awful and racially motivated. But to treat it as such a notably dark past that it’s elevated to something worth studying in high school or even an undergrad gen-ed course alongside the rest of US history is absurd. You would have to know astonishingly little about US history (and/or learning) to think this somehow slots into a general curriculum about it.
I feel vindicated by the fact that places like Lemmy and Reddit are bubbles of people who I often agree with broadly on social and economic issues but who are often majorly disconnected from obvious reality when it comes to smaller pet issues.
I’m sorry that Seneca Village and the other eminent domain seizures for Central Park being bad but a footnote within a footnote in the course of US history is racist to you.
“such a dark past” is a pretty wild exaggeration of a total of about 1600 evictions for its construction. Central Park’s early history is shocking to nobody who has, as in the post, a high school or undergraduate-level understanding of US history. It’s dark-ish, but dark enough to stand out from the US’ past otherwise? Not even close. Central Park isn’t such a huge topic that you’d expect, in a high school or undergraduate-level gen-ed course, to learn what constitutes a paragraph in its fairly extensive Wikipedia article.
Anyone can. It’s right there. It’s mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead of the Wikipedia article. Anyone even slightly interested in Central Park’s history will find this. Not teaching this in an undergruate-level gen-ed isn’t buried history; it just means it’s not significant enough for the general public to care.
Anyone who would expect this to be part of the curriculum of the courses the OP is describing is completely delusional. I don’t really care what pointing that out makes them want to do or not.
According to your first response, you think you’re an idiot for believing that:
You also now say there were 1600 evictions in central park, implying I’m downplaying that number by simplifying it as “dark,” when you yourself already downplayed that number far far more than I did as:
So should I not care that only 225 people lived there, or be offended that I described that as “dark?”
You want to explain the math of how 1600 evictions can come from those 225 people?
You’ve literally done nothing but disagree with everyone who talks to you, including yourself. You’re not making a point, you’re punching down to seem better than others.
By ALL means, respond with more insults to prove me right.
Hahahaha. I knew you were going to ask this after I wrote it, and now I’m so glad I didn’t clarify*, because it demonstrates you don’t actually give enough of a shit to learn about this subject that you’re vapidly pretending to champion.
225 people lived in Seneca Village. Seneca Village, obviously, was not the only site seized for the park. The other evictions came from the places you didn’t bother to read about, you smarmy fucking oaf.
* This wasn’t baiting a trap. I just didn’t think until after writing it that anyone would be this profoundly stupid. Whoops.
So you’re glad you didn’t clarify your opinion because it let you insult others that asked?
In general people understand opinions better when they’re clearly stated. Deprioritizing that in favor of an opportunity to insult others makes you a bully.
Something I pegged you as immediately. Followed by you using every paragraph of your last response to prove me right. Hilarioulsy you did that, btw, starting with:
Speaking of stupid, I laid a trap saying you would act this way. I even labeled it as a trap. And you still fell into it:
My last sentence:
You, a hypocritical clown that can’t read:
No. I just can’t read what your opinion is. And neither can anyone else. Probably because you admittedly left it unclear to create an opportunity to honk your clown nose.
That’s you, the opposite of a champion, a bully.
I’ve never had a pathetically insecure clown bite so hard on such obvious bait. As intelligent as you think you are, no one will ever give a shit as long as you are a far bigger bully. Behaviour you’ve spent this entire conversation prioritizing over anything intelligent. I can easily learn what you’ve failed to tell me. I doubt you can act civil even after weeks of practice.
Go on and prove me right even more, clown.
I’m sorry, did you have any more empty, performative platitudes you wanted to make yourself feel better by pretending you believed in, or are we still stuck in denial over the first one – the one where your deep care for remembering history ends somewhere before reading a couple paragraphs on Wikipedia?
Just that you willingly bought another ticket I sold to the clown show you’re now performing an encore for.
You’re 0/3 in speaking clearly over acting like an insecure clown. Go ahead and make it 0/4 to prove you lack the skills to speak like an adult.
Like I said: it’s relative. It’s clearly awful and racially motivated. But to treat it as such a notably dark past that it’s elevated to something worth studying in high school or even an undergrad gen-ed course alongside the rest of US history is absurd. You would have to know astonishingly little about US history (and/or learning) to think this somehow slots into a general curriculum about it.
I feel vindicated by the fact that places like Lemmy and Reddit are bubbles of people who I often agree with broadly on social and economic issues but who are often majorly disconnected from obvious reality when it comes to smaller pet issues.
I’m sorry that Seneca Village and the other eminent domain seizures for Central Park being bad but a footnote within a footnote in the course of US history is racist to you.