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

[Bomb#20]

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.

In which parallel universe's parallel universe would Africans have had ocean going ships but no cannons to fend off Europeans? Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I suspect one reason the right wingers object to teaching true American history about slavery is religion. The use of the Bible by Southern slave owners to justify slavery is a big embaressment for Christian nationalist ranting that we must teach basics of Christianity in schools. Because without religion and prayer in schools children cannot have good morals. As if segregation and Jim Crow were good morals for good Christians.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

In which parallel universe's parallel universe would Africans have had ocean going ships but no cannons to fend off Europeans? Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

Not really. Cannons are tricky, especially large cannons. Large iron cannons even more so. England only managed to make large iron cannons that were reliable in the late Elizabethan age. As late as the American civil war, new techniques for accurate and reliable cast iron cannons were being developed. Iron cast cannons still had a tendency to explode. During Spain's armada attack on England, English ships with their long cannons sank very few Spanish ships.

 

[TomC]

. During Spain's armada attack on England, English ships with their long cannons sank very few Spanish ships.

According to the history I was taught the English didn't have to sink many ships. God did it for them.

God favored England over Spain, so He blew up a big storm that trashed the Spanish Armada.

A glorious victory for the God of England.
I know I read that in a history textbook.
Tom

 

[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.

No special pleading here.

Portugul exported 11 million slaves to Brazil. Here is the start of the institution of slavery in the New World.

That was a misrepresentation of history. It's an element of the whole noble-savage myth that westermers have indulged themselves in for centuries, and you were helping propagate it. The institution of slavery had been widespread in the New World for millennia.

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

And that was special pleading. You specified "African", as though it makes a particle of difference whether the enslaved people whom early American colonists bought from the American Indians were African. Of course when the European colonists bought slaves from American Indians -- and they did quite a lot of that -- the slaves were other American Indians -- but so what? Is the slaves' non-African-ness supposed to somehow mitigate American Indian slaver culpability and/or back up your claim that slavery in the New World started with the Portuguese?

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. ...

All true; but not a good reason to spread historical disinformation.

 

[Bomb#20]

Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

Not really. Cannons are tricky, especially large cannons. Large iron cannons even more so. England only managed to make large iron cannons that were reliable in the late Elizabethan age. As late as the American civil war, new techniques for accurate and reliable cast iron cannons were being developed. Iron cast cannons still had a tendency to explode. During Spain's armada attack on England, English ships with their long cannons sank very few Spanish ships.

And sailing ships of that era were reliable?

Vasa (ship) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.)

Dude... they invented the light bulb since you went to school.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Slavery was moribund until invention of the cotton gin made slavery important again. The African slave trade became a large enterprise. By this time 5 Northern states had essentially out lawed slavery. If there ever were Amerindian slaves, they were few in number, neglegible. King Cotton revived Souther chattel slavery on a large scale.

Your What-aboutism is falling flat. By this time, Amerindians were not enslaved, but rather exiled to territories outside of the states. Trail of tears. Mass deaths resulting. Very Christian.

 

[Politesse]

Slavery was moribund until invention of the cotton gin made slavery important again. The African slave trade became a large enterprise. By this time 5 Northern states had essentially out lawed slavery. If there ever were Amerindian slaves, they were few in number, neglegible. King Cotton revived Souther chattel slavery on a large scale.

Your What-aboutism is falling flat. By this time, Amerindians were not enslaved, but rather exiled to territories outside of the states. Trail of tears. Mass deaths resulting. Very Christian.

Charlie, you have got some weird takes on US history. The practice of enslaving Indian children was alive and well, on into the 20th century. It didn't stop with the Southeastern removals.

 

[bilby]

Slavery was moribund until invention of the cotton gin made slavery important again.

Maybe in the US; But a big driver of slavery in the Caribbean and South America was sugar cane (which was also a big driver of Aboriginal slavery in Australia, though the authorities and slavers cane farmers were always careful not to call it slavery here).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Slavery was moribund until invention of the cotton gin made slavery important again. The African slave trade became a large enterprise. By this time 5 Northern states had essentially out lawed slavery. If there ever were Amerindian slaves, they were few in number, neglegible. King Cotton revived Souther chattel slavery on a large scale.

Your What-aboutism is falling flat. By this time, Amerindians were not enslaved, but rather exiled to territories outside of the states. Trail of tears. Mass deaths resulting. Very Christian.

Charlie, you have got some weird takes on US history. The practice of enslaving Indian children was alive and well, on into the 20th century. It didn't stop with the Southeastern removals.

The slavery in the American South was largely, overwhelmingly of African Americans. Not Amerindians. In Mexico, the Mexican government fought the North Mexican break away regions of the Yaqui nations. Many were enslaved, shipped to Souther Mexico and often worked to deat. This in the early 1900's. Amerindian slavery, but not in the U.S. I grew up in Tulsa Oklahoma. The entire Trail Of Tears evil was taught in detail in the public schools I attended.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

In which parallel universe's parallel universe would Africans have had ocean going ships but no cannons to fend off Europeans? Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

Ocean going ships predate the discovery of cannons.

 

[bilby]

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.

In which parallel universe's parallel universe would Africans have had ocean going ships but no cannons to fend off Europeans? Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

Ocean going ships predate the discovery of cannons.

I'm pretty sure that cannons were invented, rather than being discovered.

Although it would make sense that ocean-going ships would have to pre-date cannons, if cannons were first discovered in the rich, natural veins of artillery that are unique to the Projectile Islands of the Central Pacific.

 

[Oleg]

The institution of slavery had been widespread in the New World for millennia.

Malintzin had been enslaved by the Mayans before they gave her, and other slaves, to Hernán Cortés. Do American public schools teach that?

 

[Oleg]

Although it would make sense that ocean-going ships would have to pre-date cannons

Not really. The abilty to design, build, and provision an ocean-going ship suggest a politically, economiclaly, and technologically advanced society. The first ocean-going ships were probably the Chinese Treasure Fleet; and it had cannons.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Slavery was moribund until invention of the cotton gin made slavery important again. The African slave trade became a large enterprise. By this time 5 Northern states had essentially out lawed slavery. If there ever were Amerindian slaves, they were few in number, neglegible. King Cotton revived Souther chattel slavery on a large scale.

Your What-aboutism is falling flat. By this time, Amerindians were not enslaved, but rather exiled to territories outside of the states. Trail of tears. Mass deaths resulting. Very Christian.

Charlie, you have got some weird takes on US history. The practice of enslaving Indian children was alive and well, on into the 20th century. It didn't stop with the Southeastern removals.

This discussion was about chattel slavery in the Southern states that lead to the civil war. That involved black African slaves. The rise of cotton as a major trade item made that slavery profitable. American Indian children did not make up the vast majority of Southern plantation slaves.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

In which parallel universe's parallel universe would Africans have had ocean going ships but no cannons to fend off Europeans? Everybody who had ships that could cross an ocean had cannons. Cannons are easier technology to master than ships.

Ocean going ships predate the discovery of cannons.

You're right of course: Viking longships. Not sure they'd be capable of the direct route from Africa to the Americas though. Could Leif Ericsson have made it to Newfoundland if Iceland and Greenland and Labrador hadn't been there along the way?

 

[Elixir]

We had greedy African kings seizing people to be sold as slaves. Wens 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. ...

All true; but not a good reason to spread historical disinformation.

If it’s true it’s not disinformation. If we were teaching that we had greedy African kings seizing people to be sold as slaves, stuck them on ships in horrific conditions with high death rates to send them to the Americas to be sold, and greedy plantation owner eager to buy slaves, that wouldn't be disinformation.

 

[Politesse]

This discussion was about chattel slavery in the Southern states that lead to the civil war. That involved black African slaves. The rise of cotton as a major trade item made that slavery profitable. American Indian children did not make up the vast majority of Southern plantation slaves.

That is true, but not a good reason to spread other kinds of historical disinformation. Slavery was no less vile an institution when it was levied against indigenous peoples.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

. During Spain's armada attack on England, English ships with their long cannons sank very few Spanish ships.

According to the history I was taught the English didn't have to sink many ships. God did it for them.

God favored England over Spain, so He blew up a big storm that trashed the Spanish Armada.

A glorious victory for the God of England.
I know I read that in a history textbook.
Tom

A big problem with the Spanish armada was that most of theirvships were galleys. They did not do well in bad weather. Their cannons were small and did very little damage to the English.