tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3143724362136202099.post8971016016314490392..comments2024-02-13T14:25:06.949-05:00Comments on the bottlenecked blog: The G-20 and WomenHarrison Brookiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372315442336546216noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3143724362136202099.post-87497959700703851672009-10-25T00:21:34.540-04:002009-10-25T00:21:34.540-04:00It's similar to how teaching "Women's...It's similar to how teaching "Women's History" or "African American History" or what have you ends up marginalizing the aforesaid group(s) instead of emphasizing its importance -- if it were significant enough in and of itself to be important, it would be studied in "regular" history. That's why someone like Elizabeth I is in all European history classes but someone like Rebecca Latimer Felton ("Who?" you say) will be relegated to Women's History because the fact that she was a woman is the only thing people remember about her. Waaaaaaaay ahead of you Penelope, but good point.<br /><br />There's a famous historical theorist who wrote a paper about this, but my notes are at home and Madeline might have tossed them out anyway.Paulhttp://paulmcclain.weebly.com/noreply@blogger.com