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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Polynesia. Cross-ocean colonization long before the era of cannon.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

If it’s true it’s not disinformation.

That's not what I called disinformation. The previous poster had incorrectly claimed Europeans started slavery in the Americas. It was already here.

 

[Elixir]

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

If it’s true it’s not disinformation.

That's not what I called disinformation. The previous poster had incorrectly claimed Europeans started slavery in the Americas. It was already here.

Totally agree. The historical ubiquity of slavery as a practice and an institution is what is being whitewashed by the right and ignored by the left. “Indigenous” (earliest known successful invader) populations have always been into it, and if we knew the full story going back 50k years I doubt it would ever have been any different. If there was ever any doubt about it in the minds of white republicans, they should try reading their Bible. We should teach it, confront it, and structure our society to survive without it.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's no accident that it was Chiristan Europe, and no where else, that pursued the abolition of slavery.

It kind of was an accident, though. It largely happened because the Catholic Church became so obviously corrupt -- selling indulgences for gods' sake! -- that it provoked the Protestant Reformation. That provoked the Counter-Reformation, which led to Europe having religious wars for a couple hundred years, and the horror of those provoked the Enlightenment, which spread the idea that a person's religious opinions were a private matter between him and his God rather than a proper matter to be policed by his rulers, and that instigated the more general idea of limited government and a whole realm of personal liberty, and that discredited authoritarianism in general, and that led to the rise of democracy, first in Britain and America, and later most of the West, and that created a jarring contrast between the liberty of citizens and the imprisonment of slaves. It was that contrast that gave abolitionism a toehold -- in the authoritarian age, slaves being subject to owners didn't look conceptually all that different from commoners being subject to aristocrats and aristocrats being subject to kings.

The same evolution couldn't have gotten started in Islam because Islam had no Pope. It was functionally Protestant from the get-go. So the idea of each individual Muslim having the right to disagree with his Imam and with his blasphemy-persecuting neighbors never got any leverage.

That Christianity had a Pope and Islam didn't sure likes like an accident to me.

Even in the US, those most vocally anti-slavery were deeply Christian. Hello, John Brown.

Well, there was Robert Ingersoll, the famous abolitionist and lecturer on agnosticism. Outnumbered by Christian abolitionists, sure; but then agnostics were outnumbered by Christians.

Moreover, "It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Sure; but remember, that's the kingdom of God, not kingdoms here on earth. The Christian message was always focused on salvation in the next world, not on fixing the problems of this world.

"Slaves, obey your masters in all things. Do not obey just when they are watching you, to gain their favor, but serve them honestly, because you respect the Lord. In all the work you are doing, work the best you can. Work as if you were doing it for the Lord, not for people. Remember that you will receive your reward from the Lord, which he promised to his people. You are serving the Lord Christ." - St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, 3:22-24

The whole selling point of Christianity, that Paul espoused, was that everyone could get to heaven through Christ. God loved everyone. Everyone has value.

Exactly. To Heaven. Not to freedom on Earth.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

In American history? Last time I checked, the US had a small footprint in Africa called Liberia... and that is about it.

It seems ... odd to add a "but" to slavery. Slavery was wrong, we've learned, we supposedly moved on. But people like you won't drop the buts.

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'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.

Nobody here is denying that slavery was wrong; nobody is trying to defend it; nobody is claiming anything about it is OK. You guys are libeling your political opponents in pursuit of political advantage.

This constant effort to paint as a villain whoever points out historical facts that don't help spread the left's preferred selective picture of the past is the mirror image of red states' rules against their employees pointing out historical facts that don't help spread the right's preferred selective picture of the past. The common goal is to get people not to talk about the parts of the past that might make the public less susceptible to the ideology. The left portrays Christendom as uniquely most guilty of slavery so people will think it's evil at the core and buy into whatever the left wants to replace it with; the right portrays Christendom as uniquely most deserving of credit for ending slavery so people will think it's good at the core and work to preserve it. Neither ideology has anything to gain from the public knowing the complicated reality.

If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach.

 

[laughing dog]

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

In American history? Last time I checked, the US had a small footprint in Africa called Liberia... and that is about it.

It seems ... odd to add a "but" to slavery. Slavery was wrong, we've learned, we supposedly moved on. But people like you won't drop the buts.

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'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.

Nobody here is denying that slavery was wrong; nobody is trying to defend it; nobody is claiming anything about it is OK. You guys are libeling your political opponents in pursuit of political advantage.

This constant effort to paint as a villain whoever points out historical facts that don't help spread the left's preferred selective picture of the past is the mirror image of red states' rules against their employees pointing out historical facts that don't help spread the right's preferred selective picture of the past. The common goal is to get people not to talk about the parts of the past that might make the public less susceptible to the ideology. The left portrays Christendom as uniquely most guilty of slavery so people will think it's evil at the core and buy into whatever the left wants to replace it with; the right portrays Christendom as uniquely most deserving of credit for ending slavery so people will think it's good at the core and work to preserve it. Neither ideology has anything to gain from the public knowing the complicated reality.

If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach.

Apparently libeling your political opponents in pursuit of advantage spans the ideological spectrum.

 

[Politesse]

The left portrays Christendom as uniquely most guilty of slavery so people will think it's evil at the core and buy into whatever the left wants to replace it with;

Who said that it was? I do think industrial chattel slavery in the Caribbean, and by extension the American South, was a unique and horrific phenomenon, hideously notable in its scale if for no other reason. But that doesn't mean that either it was the only evil ever committed through justifications of enslavement in other times and places, nor do I believe in religious essentialism as your statement would seem to imply. Nor would anyone with any serious education on these matters, which is why we need more education on the social sciences, not less. If you're not sure how to navigate between the obvious biases that color differing political factions' portrayals of history, the best solution to that quandary is not to give up and just believe some partisan organization's dogmas, but rather to apply the principles of rational inquiry and careful study of the evidence at hand to the problem.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

If it’s true it’s not disinformation.

That's not what I called disinformation. The previous poster had incorrectly claimed Europeans started slavery in the Americas. It was already here.

The AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE! AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, We were discussing the African slave trade. And the far right's attempt to shove that down the Orwellian memory hole.

 

[Oleg]

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

If it’s true it’s not disinformation.

That's not what I called disinformation. The previous poster had incorrectly claimed Europeans started slavery in the Americas. It was already here.

The AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE! AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, We were discussing the African slave trade. And the far right's attempt to shove that down the Orwellian memory hole.

Yeah. We really should be teaching this.

Britain’s remarkable fight to end the slave trade

On 20 June 1897 around 2,000 people paraded outside the colonial Government house in the Seychelles. Like many throughout the British Empire, they were celebrating Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. The crowd held large Union Jacks printed with the words, ‘The Flag that sets us free.’ All had...

www.spectator.co.uk

‘We members of the different tribes of Africans living in the Seychelles, take the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria to express to you – Her Representative in these Islands our thanks for all that She and England have done for us… Kindly, Sir, express to the Queen our thanks for our freedom and to England our gratitude to those English Sailors who were killed and wounded, fighting that we might be free.’

In 1808, the Royal Navy formed the West Africa Squadron. Its primary aim was to police the 2,000 mile African coast between Cape Verde and Luanda. Suspected slave ships were to be captured, slaves freed and the slavers tried in courts in British territory or in countries which Britain signed treaties with. By 1860, this squadron had captured about 1,600 slave ships, freed 150,000 slaves and lost about 2,000 Royal Navy sailors in this effort – who died from disease or in battle with slave ships.

 

[Oleg]

More African slave history. It's high status in Africa to be the descendant of a slaver.

Adéwálé Májà-Pearce | Whose Turn?

Most of the results from Saturday’s presidential and national assembly elections in Nigeria are in and it seems that B...

www.lrb.co.uk

Most of the results from Saturday’s presidential and national assembly elections in Nigeria are in and it seems that Bọ́lá Ahmed Tinúbú, of the ruling All Progressives Congress (if only!), has secured the necessary majority in 24 of the 36 states plus the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, to become our next head of state.

Tinúbú claims to be a descendant of the most successful indigenous slave trader in 19th-century Lagos, after whom a prominent downtown square is named

 

[Bomb#20]

Apparently libeling your political opponents in pursuit of advantage spans the ideological spectrum.

It certainly does; but I take it you're insinuating I was doing it. If you think what I wrote is false, what's your theory for why the people I quoted misrepresented their political opponents?

 

[southernhybrid]

Damn, some of you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. And, it's not just slavery that needs to be taught in more detail, There are many things that aren't taught accurately in history or social studies class in public schools. Am I the only one who was taught that Columbus was a hero? What about the rights that were denied to women? There are so many things that need to be taught to children about our history that are now being objected to by some on the far right. That's the problem.

Sure, slavery has been around throughout early civilizations, but most school children don't take courses in World History, unless it's an elective or an AP class. Why can't we simply teach children the basic truths of the history of the country and the way that women and minorities were and are still treated to this day? Why can't we teach children about how members of the LBGTQ community were deep in the closet until the late 20th Century? Florida's gov doesn't even allow teachers to use the word "gay". WTF! Y'all don't see this as a huge problem?

Yes. We've made progress. We shouldn't deny that, but we still have a long way to go if we ever want to give equal rights to all. Teach how the words of the constitution were never put into place. All men were created equal is pure bullshit when it comes to how minorities were treated, and the word women isn't even mentioned. Women have been mistreated in so many ways since the origins of the country. Don't we want our children to know the truth? Yet, most of you seem obsessed on discussing slavery in general, instead of what a farce our constitution is, especially when it comes to giving basic civil rights to all.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently libeling your political opponents in pursuit of advantage spans the ideological spectrum.

It certainly does; but I take it you're insinuating I was doing it. If you think what I wrote is false, what's your theory for why the people I quoted misrepresented their political opponents?

I think the following s an examples of libeling your political opponents.

"If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach. "

As a general rule, misrepresentations arise out from purpose or mistake.

 

[TomC]

I think the following s an examples of libeling your political opponents.

"If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach. "

In what way is that libeling anyone?
I don't see it at all.

I'm confident it's true.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

A libelous statement is false regardless whether or not the utterer thinks of its validity.

 

[TomC]

A libelous statement is false regardless whether or not the utterer thinks of its validity.

Do you think what Bomb said is false? I definitely don't think so.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

At least in my neck of the woods, there are as many conservative teachers are liberals in the public schools. Yet, my blue state is not passing laws to telling people what parts of history not to teach. There is an ongoing debate about what should be the curriculum at the state level. But to my knowledge (and I sort of pay attention), there is no ban on specific topics in US history.

At a minimum, the conjecture " If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach' is an opinion-driven forecast. Perhaps it is projection or value-signalling as well.

 

[lostone]

At least in my neck of the woods, there are as many conservative teachers are liberals in the public schools. Yet, my blue state is not passing laws to telling people what parts of history not to teach. There is an ongoing debate about what should be the curriculum at the state level. But to my knowledge (and I sort of pay attention), there is no ban on specific topics in US history.

At a minimum, the conjecture " If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach' is an opinion-driven forecast. Perhaps it is projection or value-signalling as well.

In your state sums it up. In other states, that is not the case.

 

[Arctish]

At least in my neck of the woods, there are as many conservative teachers are liberals in the public schools. Yet, my blue state is not passing laws to telling people what parts of history not to teach. There is an ongoing debate about what should be the curriculum at the state level. But to my knowledge (and I sort of pay attention), there is no ban on specific topics in US history.

At a minimum, the conjecture " If public schools were mainly staffed by conservatives then it would be blue states passing laws telling them which parts of history not to teach' is an opinion-driven forecast. Perhaps it is projection or value-signalling as well.

In your state sums it up. In other states, that is not the case.

Can anyone give us a run down on what their State Governors or Legislature is telling teachers about the parts of history they may or may not teach students?

Alaska's Gov. Mike Dunleavy jumped on the anti-CRT bandwagon. Two big problems there:

1. CRT isn't taught in the schools.

2. Not teaching students about the history of institutional racism, which is what I think Duleavy' is aiming for, means not teaching students about Elizabeth Peratrovich, an Alaskan whose anti-discrimination achievements were so notable she was honored by Gov. Cowper and the legislature with the creation of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day in the 1980s and depicted on U.S. currency in 2020.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Polynesia. Cross-ocean colonization long before the era of cannon.

Actually the first Polynesian ships had cannons, they just all sunk the bottom of the ocean immediately.