Which is more obnoxious?

[CatoMinor]

People who view and discuss all history though the lens of modern identity politics and the very worst aspects of America.

VS.

People who seem think world history started in 1776, don't grasp the role slavery played in starting the civil war, and remain willfully ignorant of the worst of American history.

 

[Del Tachi]

The former

[RINO Tom]

The former

EASILY the former.

[courts]

latter

[Karpatsky]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

[MarkD]

The latter. I'm especially annoyed at those who don't grasp the role slavery had in starting the Civil War.

[Continential]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

[Sestak]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

[Del Tachi]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

Trying to put historical events or personalities into contemporary contexts is perhaps the most unaware way to talk about history.  That's the kind of thinking that results in people bringing up Japanese Internment or the Trail of Tears anytime the Holocaust is mentioned as a way to try to establish equivalency.  When *everything is the worst thing to have ever happened, nothing is.   

[Karpatsky]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

Trying to put historical events or personalities into contemporary contexts is perhaps the most unaware way to talk about history.  That's the kind of thinking that results in people bringing up Japanese Internment or the Trail of Tears anytime the Holocaust is mentioned as a way to try to establish equivalency.  When *everything is the worst thing to have ever happened, nothing is.   

Agreed, but unaware>ignorant. Blowing those things out of proportion is certainly better than minimizing or denying them.

[Mr. Smith]

latter

[Sirius_]

I'd say the latter, as those people are more likely to be dangerously over-nationalistic and maybe racist too.

[dw93]

Both equally annoy me.

[Theodore]

Both equally annoy me.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

This, although the former are also quite annoying.

[ksd2000]

Clearly the latter, as the former tend to be significantly more historically aware but view history through a particular lens, while the latter have no knowledge of history beyond a middle school level and are uninterested in learning more.

[HisGrace]

The former.

IDK why we're acting like the second group is somehow more ignorant. Some of the people in the first group seem to have no idea that anything happened in the 18th/19th century besides slavery and killing Native Americans.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The former, mostly because the latter has very little influence on how history is taught now.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

The former, but it's the greater of two evils.

[TPIG]

The former.

IDK why we're acting like the second group is somehow more ignorant. Some of the people in the first group seem to have no idea that anything happened in the 18th/19th century besides slavery and killing Native Americans.

Agreed! Because the founders had major flaws by today's standards, we must ignore every contribution they made to advancing human liberty, spreading enlightenment ideals, and establishing a nation that aspires to reach equality. It's truly a nonsensical idea.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

The former is WAAAAAAAAAY more obnoxious.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The former, but that doesn’t absolve the latter and their “MLK wuz a Republican” bs.

[Karpatsky]

The former.

IDK why we're acting like the second group is somehow more ignorant. Some of the people in the first group seem to have no idea that anything happened in the 18th/19th century besides slavery and killing Native Americans.

Agreed! Because the founders had major flaws by today's standards, we must ignore every contribution they made to advancing human liberty, spreading enlightenment ideals, and establishing a nation that aspires to reach equality. It's truly a nonsensical idea.

It's less wrong to say George Washington was evil than it is to say George Washington did nothing wrong.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The latter. I'm especially annoyed at those who don't grasp the role slavery had in starting the Civil War.

[Tartarus Sauce]

The former, mostly because the latter has very little influence on how history is taught now.

I wish, the latter are extremely powerful in how US history gets taught in American schools.