The failure of American public schools to teach children the truth regarding our history

[Bomb#20]

And Massachusetts banned in the 1780s. ... Even when slavery was legal in the Colonies there were thoughts that maybe it shouldn't be.

So this whole, well things were different then argument is just bull....

Bingo. The theory that people back then just didn't know any better fails on the simple observation that the easier slaves were to replace, the worse they were treated. If the putative justifications that were offered at the time, from bringing them Christianity to racial inferiority, were the real reasons, then slaves wouldn't have been worked to death and replaced by new kidnap victims in the economies where that was cheaper than caring for slaves' children until they were old enough to work.

 

[Politesse]

Two minutes worth listening to:

"Slavery Has ALWAYS Been a Thing!": A Response.

"Slavery has always been a thing!", my standard reply:The 'slavery has always been a thing' argument is incredibly dull and not nearly as pithy as folks seem...

www.youtube.com

 

[Bomb#20]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

No but plenty African slaves were captured and sold by their fellow Africans to European slave traders. Don’t forget to include that.

I will never understand why conservatives are so convinced that tu quoque accusations are some sort of slam dunk finisher of an argument. Is there some sort of rule that says, if you voted for Bush, your mental development needs to stop at seventh grade?

Not seeing where TSwizzle is supposed to have claimed Cheerful Charlie was a slave trader. TS didn't make a tu quoque accusation; he just Captain-Obvioused the special-pleading argument CC used to try to defend his earlier unhistorical claim.

The point of this thread is to condemn the suppression of historical facts on the altar of some politically preferred narrative. It makes little difference whether the perpetrators are conservative politicians enacting gag rules, or progressive academics choosing curricula, or random internet commenters propagating widespread noble-savage memes, or other random internet commenters writing trumped-up ad hominems about the motives of whichever guy presumes to correct one of the historical misrepresentations their ideology likes.

 

[Politesse]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

No but plenty African slaves were captured and sold by their fellow Africans to European slave traders. Don’t forget to include that.

I will never understand why conservatives are so convinced that tu quoque accusations are some sort of slam dunk finisher of an argument. Is there some sort of rule that says, if you voted for Bush, your mental development needs to stop at seventh grade?

Not seeing where TSwizzle is supposed to have claimed Cheerful Charlie was a slave trader. TS didn't make a tu quoque accusation; he just Captain-Obvioused the special-pleading argument CC used to try to defend his earlier unhistorical claim.

The point of this thread is to condemn the suppression of historical facts on the altar of some politically preferred narrative. It makes little difference whether the perpetrators are conservative politicians enacting gag rules, or progressive academics choosing curricula, or random internet commenters propagating widespread noble-savage memes, or other random internet commenters writing trumped-up ad hominems about the motives of whichever guy presumes to correct one of the historical misrepresentations their ideology likes.

Spouting a bunch of nonsense spoonfed by the right wing media machine is not "correcting historical misrepresentations". No one has represented Africa or Africans as not having been involved in the African slave trade. We just lack the knee-jerk reaction of trying to defend European slave trading with a dumbass "but they did it too" argument, that doesn't actually mean anything.

 

[Gun Nut]

If there was no ready market for African slaves, the greedy and evil African kings would not have made a racket out of slave trading.

Same is true for manufacturers of cigarettes and guns? The onus is on the population to control demand?

In England, once the Quakers were granted freedom to exist without penalty, the Quaker church circulated a petition demand slavery be made illegal in England. They managed to get 1 million signatures. Ans so banning slavery in England gained many supporters for this project and slavery was indeed banned. One can control demand. If one is civilized and intellgent.

Your, "Civilized and intelligent" qualification excludes the United States, by definition.

 

[Gun Nut]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

No but plenty African slaves were captured and sold by their fellow Africans to European slave traders. Don’t forget to include that.

I will never understand why conservatives are so convinced that tu quoque accusations are some sort of slam dunk finisher of an argument. Is there some sort of rule that says, if you voted for Bush, your mental development needs to stop at seventh grade?

Not seeing where TSwizzle is supposed to have claimed Cheerful Charlie was a slave trader. TS didn't make a tu quoque accusation; he just Captain-Obvioused the special-pleading argument CC used to try to defend his earlier unhistorical claim.

The point of this thread is to condemn the suppression of historical facts on the altar of some politically preferred narrative. It makes little difference whether the perpetrators are conservative politicians enacting gag rules, or progressive academics choosing curricula, or random internet commenters propagating widespread noble-savage memes, or other random internet commenters writing trumped-up ad hominems about the motives of whichever guy presumes to correct one of the historical misrepresentations their ideology likes.

Spouting a bunch of nonsense spoonfed by the right wing media machine is not "correcting historical misrepresentations". No one has represented Africa or Africans as not having been involved in the African slave trade. We just lack the knee-jerk reaction of trying to defend European slave trading with a dumbass "but they did it too" argument, that doesn't actually mean anything.

It seems to me that "Black people ran the slave trade" is not so much (should not be) "tu quoque", but rather a reminder that "Whites didn't enslave blacks"..... more accurately, "Whites didn't do anything to stop blacks from enslaving other blacks.. and more so contributed to the slave trade industry by increasing demand dramatically".
The difference is slight, but important to many... it's one thing to sit idly by, another to participate, and completely another to be the actual impetus / aggressor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And Massachusetts banned in the 1780s. ... Even when slavery was legal in the Colonies there were thoughts that maybe it shouldn't be.

So this whole, well things were different then argument is just bull....

Bingo. The theory that people back then just didn't know any better fails on the simple observation that the easier slaves were to replace, the worse they were treated. If the putative justifications that were offered at the time, from bringing them Christianity to racial inferiority, were the real reasons, then slaves wouldn't have been worked to death and replaced by new kidnap victims in the economies where that was cheaper than caring for slaves' children until they were old enough to work.

Oh fuck, not that shit again. And not remotely what I was talking about. So why did you quote me?

Why is it necessary for people to obfuscate on slavery? It was wrong, they knew it was wrong. Some justified it through economics and/or religion. Some decided to wage a rebellion to ensure its existence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

No but plenty African slaves were captured and sold by their fellow Africans to European slave traders. Don’t forget to include that.

I will never understand why conservatives are so convinced that tu quoque accusations are some sort of slam dunk finisher of an argument. Is there some sort of rule that says, if you voted for Bush, your mental development needs to stop at seventh grade?

Not seeing where TSwizzle is supposed to have claimed Cheerful Charlie was a slave trader. TS didn't make a tu quoque accusation; he just Captain-Obvioused the special-pleading argument CC used to try to defend his earlier unhistorical claim.

The point of this thread is to condemn the suppression of historical facts on the altar of some politically preferred narrative. It makes little difference whether the perpetrators are conservative politicians enacting gag rules, or progressive academics choosing curricula, or random internet commenters propagating widespread noble-savage memes, or other random internet commenters writing trumped-up ad hominems about the motives of whichever guy presumes to correct one of the historical misrepresentations their ideology likes.

Spouting a bunch of nonsense spoonfed by the right wing media machine is not "correcting historical misrepresentations". No one has represented Africa or Africans as not having been involved in the African slave trade. We just lack the knee-jerk reaction of trying to defend European slave trading with a dumbass "but they did it too" argument, that doesn't actually mean anything.

It seems to me that "Black people ran the slave trade" is not so much (should not be) "tu quoque", but rather a reminder that "Whites didn't enslave blacks"..... more accurately, "Whites didn't do anything to stop blacks from enslaving other blacks.. and more so contributed to the slave trade industry by increasing demand dramatically".
The difference is slight, but important to many... it's one thing to sit idly by, another to participate, and completely another to be the actual impetus / aggressor.

And it's another thing still to manipulate the undeveloped ethics of a hyperconservative tribal system unaware of the abject horrors they are imparting on the people they are selling into slavery. Of course they didn't know and didn't ask whether most or all of the slaves would survive, and certainly they weren't told that the slaves would never be given a chance of freedom, education, or equality, treated as livestock.

The fact that there were black people selling tribes they didn't like, and conquered, to white people only shows that white people had help, by trickery or through honest evil, or more likely both.

Pointing out that some of the rogues were black does not create any forgiveness for those rogues, it just says there is a lot of self-interested anti-social behavior out there going on and anyone is capable of it.

It is explicitly the cultural apology and interest in this behavior that needs to be disposed of.

It's not OK just because people from different tribes who looked kind of like the slaves helped out. That makes it even worse, that the white folks dealt with folks who would sell their own siblings to slavery. It's even worse if they were tricked into it believing that slavery wasn't going to be all bad.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

No but plenty African slaves were captured and sold by their fellow Africans to European slave traders. Don’t forget to include that.

I will never understand why conservatives are so convinced that tu quoque accusations are some sort of slam dunk finisher of an argument. Is there some sort of rule that says, if you voted for Bush, your mental development needs to stop at seventh grade?

Not seeing where TSwizzle is supposed to have claimed Cheerful Charlie was a slave trader. TS didn't make a tu quoque accusation; he just Captain-Obvioused the special-pleading argument CC used to try to defend his earlier unhistorical claim.

The point of this thread is to condemn the suppression of historical facts on the altar of some politically preferred narrative. It makes little difference whether the perpetrators are conservative politicians enacting gag rules, or progressive academics choosing curricula, or random internet commenters propagating widespread noble-savage memes, or other random internet commenters writing trumped-up ad hominems about the motives of whichever guy presumes to correct one of the historical misrepresentations their ideology likes.

No special pleading here. We had greedy African kings seizing people to be sold as slaves. We had greedy slave traders eager to load humans on ships in horrific conditions with high death rates to send them to the Americas to be sold. We had greedy plantation owner eager to buy slaves. If was an evil system. All involved were evil. Slavery was an evil system that relied on a web of evil men to exist. Today's evil is the far right's insistence on making history in public schools illegal so as to not have to confront an evil history in America we are still struggling with the after effects of these long standing evils.

Slavery, civil war, the horrors of reconstruction, the rise of Jim Crow, segregation, systemic racism. Lynchings, the white race riots of the 1919 "Red Summer". The marches for civil rights, fire hoses, police dogs and beatings and murders of civil rights protesters. Dirty tricks to disenfranchise Afrin American voters.

George Wallace, "Segergation yesterday, segregation today, segregation forever!". The racist Southern strategy. Lee Atwater's racist politics mainlined into the GOP. We are still fighting the aftermath of slavery. Evil is still on the march in Trumpian America.

 

[Politesse]

It seems to me that "Black people ran the slave trade" is not so much (should not be) "tu quoque", but rather a reminder that "Whites didn't enslave blacks"..... more accurately, "Whites didn't do anything to stop blacks from enslaving other blacks.. and more so contributed to the slave trade industry by increasing demand dramatically".
The difference is slight, but important to many... it's one thing to sit idly by, another to participate, and completely another to be the actual impetus / aggressor

Almost every part of this is either a distortion or a lie outright. Your casual use of "Black" and "White" as primary signifiers is anachronistic and obsfuscating. You claim that "Whites did not enslave blacks", which is demonstrably untrue. You claim that the only "White" involvement was by "increasing demand dramatically", which - considering that the entire Transatlantic trade was dependent on European and Middle Eastern markets (both ends), prisons, police, warehouses, ships, currency, firearms, purchasers, and labor - is a bit like claiming claiming that Amazon is only a catalogue publisher. You seem to claim that "Whites" were not aggressors in all of this, which is wrong to the point of bizarre. There was no such thing as a "White", not even in the popular imagination, until active participation in and endorsement of slavery on an institutional level obliged European and American legal entities to find an excuse to justify why some subjects of the Crown had basic human rights and others didn't, specifically because they had built a planned economy based on the premise of a constantly expanding slave population.

Slavery did not passively happen to the various Christian and Muslim powers of this time period. Rather, they actively and violently pursued this practice, built almost all its infrastructure, and pocketed most of its bounty. By the time the system started to collapse, the Portuguese had formed entire colonial states on the African coast just so they could cut Dahomean middlemen out of that market, capturing and selling slaves directly to maximize profit in a business that was starting to become less lucrative. That's to say nothing of those enslaved or re-enslaved in Europe and the Americas, often mere months after their birth. None of this excuses the actions of the kings of the Dahomean, Aro, and Songhay, and other West African empires. They too did terrible, terrible things, and their regimes were no less dependent on the maintenance of a permanent slave caste. But observing that does not or should not lessen the responsibility European and American powers have for their own freely taken and violently defended actions.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r."
By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires.
So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and
all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re
talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re
talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct
of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want
to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing
thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r,
n****r.”
- Lee Atwater

And today, we are still fighting the Atwaterization of conservative politics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, the alt-right, including the "liberal" members of it, have transitioned from the Civil War wasn't solely about slavery to "Well, Africans sold Africans into slavery" and "*economics on the cost of replacing slaves verses how they were mistreated*" in a seriously messed up "What does this have to do with the price of a can of beans" sort of way.

 

[Elixir]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

Early American colonists who bought slaves from the American Indians bought American Indian slaves. Slavers prey on the ethnic groups they have access to, and American Indians did not have ocean-going vessels. In 1835 several hundred Maori stole a British ship, sailed it to another Polynesian island, murdered 20% of the local population, and enslaved the other 80%. But if slavers who were American Indians had had ocean-going vessels, they'd probably still have just gone on enslaving only other tribes of American Indians -- presumably American Indians were too moral to go kidnap Africans.

If Africans had had ocean going ships, would they have enslaved American Indians? No, not unless they also had 8” guns to fend off Europeans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians.

Early American colonists who bought slaves from the American Indians bought American Indian slaves. Slavers prey on the ethnic groups they have access to, and American Indians did not have ocean-going vessels. In 1835 several hundred Maori stole a British ship, sailed it to another Polynesian island, murdered 20% of the local population, and enslaved the other 80%. But if slavers who were American Indians had had ocean-going vessels, they'd probably still have just gone on enslaving only other tribes of American Indians -- presumably American Indians were too moral to go kidnap Africans.

If Africans had had ocean going ships, would they have enslaved American Indians? No, not unless they also had 8” guns to fend off Europeans.

It is a mindless derail and has nothing to do with American slavery. It is obfuscation with questionable motives.

 

[Elixir]

It is a mindless derail and has nothing to do with American slavery. It is obfuscation with questionable motives.

Zackly, IMO.
This is not about what would have happened IF (x,y,z), it's about the fact that America has never taught the known truth about slavery to its youth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a mindless derail and has nothing to do with American slavery. It is obfuscation with questionable motives.

Zackly, IMO.
This is not about what would have happened IF (x,y,z), it's about the fact that America has never taught the known truth about slavery to its youth.

Disagree. It is teaching it. What we are seeing the alt-right, including the "liberals" among them, is an attempt to obfuscate that history. It was bad enough that they wanted to teach the Civil War wasn't only about slavery. Once that shit was finally abandoned by them, they have moved on to obfuscation about economics and Africa's role in slavery.

It is so grossly disingenuous, this desire the cloak the shame in obfuscation. Like a bank robber saying, "Like Goldman Sachs didn't do anything wrong."

 

[bilby]

A major reason why the English slave traders paid Africans to enslave other Africans and bring them to the coastal ports for shipment to the Americas, rather than going ashore and enslaving people themselves, was simply that to European people, just being on or near the slave coast was frequently deadly, so getting English people to do that work was basically impossible.

"Beware and take care of the Bight of Benin, there’s one comes out for forty goes in" - Traditional shanty

 

[Elixir]

It [America] is teaching it [the truth about slavery]. What we are seeing the alt-right, including the "liberals" among them, is an attempt to obfuscate that history.

I went to a Connecticut public school in grades K-5, and a Pennsylvania public school in the 6th grade. I was never taught anything about slavery that wasn't basically whitewashed. On that basis, I still assert that we are not teaching kids the truth about slavery. Maybe things changed since I was a kid (I mean, things have definitely changed - I just don't know if that is one of them.)

 

[Bomb#20]

And Massachusetts banned in the 1780s. ... Even when slavery was legal in the Colonies there were thoughts that maybe it shouldn't be.

So this whole, well things were different then argument is just bull....

Bingo. The theory that people back then just didn't know any better fails on the simple observation that the easier slaves were to replace, the worse they were treated. If the putative justifications that were offered at the time, from bringing them Christianity to racial inferiority, were the real reasons, then slaves wouldn't have been worked to death and replaced by new kidnap victims in the economies where that was cheaper than caring for slaves' children until they were old enough to work.

Oh <expletive deleted>, not that <expletive deleted> again. And not remotely what I was talking about. So why did you quote me?

Why do you think? I quoted your post because your post quoted my post and reinforced my point, and because I was agreeing with you and reinforcing your point. Exactly which part of "Bingo." don't you understand? Why are you attacking me? What in that post do you disagree with?!?

Why is it necessary for people to obfuscate on slavery?

How the heck do you figure what I wrote was obfuscating on slavery? I'm pointing out more facts that prove you're right.

It was wrong, they knew it was wrong.

Yes, exactly. I'm showing they were lying about their reasons for enslaving people. That is evidence that you are correct that they knew it was wrong.

Some justified it through economics and/or religion. Some decided to wage a rebellion to ensure its existence.

Yes, exactly. Slavers were scumbags with the morals of the Mafia.

 

[crazyfingers]

I really don't remember what I was thought in HS vs what I picked up along the way.

While this tread has focused on slavery, the title of the OP is broader and I wish that schools spent some time on basic civics especially on the US what the Constitution actually is. It's not long and can be read in one evening. So many Americans can't name the three branches of the federal government. Even some (republican) representatives don't know the answer.

Things like:

What was the 2/3 and 3/5 compromise
Balance of powers and why?
The meaning of the various amendments using supreme court decision to show how interpretations have changed
Find the word Jesus or God in the Constitution - I dare you.

The ignorance out there is astounding. People spewing the claim that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation is so pathetic and dangerous.