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

[Bomb#20]

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.

Of course it was an opinion-driven forecast; we are talking about a hypothetical situation after all -- "as many conservative teachers as liberals" does not qualify as "mainly staffed by conservatives". In the second place, as Politesse pointed out, grade-school teachers generally don't just wing it -- they mainly teach to assigned curricula. Those curricula are heavily influenced by college-level academia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 8-to-1 in education departments and 17-to-1 in history departments. So an actual reversal of the present teaching situation would require conservative dominance in colleges as well as public schools. So you have no empirical evidence that my opinion-driven forecast is wrong.

As for positive evidence I'm right, progressives' commitment to free speech has turned out to be about a millimeter deep in thread after thread here. We get told free speech is an alt-right dog whistle. People are prepared to throw the New York Times' First Amendment protection under the bus in exchange for getting to censor Citizens United. Where progressives' only club to silence critics is bullying and vilification, critics are bullied and vilified. Where they can get a professor fired for saying everyone's life matters, she's fired. In countries without a First Amendment, they have people fined for speaking verboten ideas. But we're supposed to believe if progressive legislators' own public employees were undermining those legislators' preferred narrative of history with contrary facts, the legislators wouldn't order them to cut it out and stick to the approved curriculum? Yeah, right.

 

[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.

Of course it was an opinion-driven forecast; we are talking about a hypothetical situation after all -- "as many conservative teachers as liberals" does not qualify as "mainly staffed by conservatives". In the second place, as Politesse pointed out, grade-school teachers generally don't just wing it -- they mainly teach to assigned curricula. Those curricula are heavily influenced by college-level academia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 8-to-1 in education departments and 17-to-1 in history departments. So an actual reversal of the present teaching situation would require conservative dominance in colleges as well as public schools. So you have no empirical evidence that my opinion-driven forecast is wrong.

Using conjectures to support conjectures is an interesting but unconvincing approach. You have no empirical evidence to support your conjectures.

As for positive evidence I'm right, progressives' commitment to free speech has turned out to be about a millimeter deep in thread after thread here. We get told free speech is an alt-right dog whistle. People are prepared to throw the New York Times' First Amendment protection under the bus in exchange for getting to censor Citizens United. Where progressives' only club to silence critics is bullying and vilification, critics are bullied and vilified. Where they can get a professor fired for saying everyone's life matters, she's fired. In countries without a First Amendment, they have people fined for speaking verboten ideas. But we're supposed to believe if progressive legislators' own public employees were undermining those legislators' preferred narrative of history with contrary facts, the legislators wouldn't order them to cut it out and stick to the approved curriculum? Yeah, right.

Cool story bro. Once you realize that “ blue state” does necessarily mean a progressive state (unless you mean progressive in the sense as not conservative), you see your analysis is just another example of ideological story telling.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

You don't need to say it explicitly when it's the unifying theme of the whole approved description, and when you accuse anybody who explicitly contradicts it of "trying to defend European slave trading".

I do think industrial chattel slavery in the Caribbean, and by extension the American South, was a unique and horrific phenomenon,

Of course you do. Why wouldn't you?

hideously notable in its scale if for no other reason.

Where "scale" is measured in absolute rather than per capita terms, thereby taking all the horrors of the ancient and medieval worlds' slavery out of the running.

But even in terms of absolute scale, why do you think it was uniquely horrific/notable? The trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trade, into the Muslim world, started earlier, continued ,ore recently, and kidnapped and murdered more Africans than the Atlantic slave trade.

... nor do I believe in religious essentialism as your statement would seem to imply.

That's immaterial. Whether progressives define the entity uniquely most guilty of the unique and horrific hideously notable phenomenon as Christendom, or Western Civilization, or white people, or however you guys conceptualize it, the ideological goal underlying the attempt to shut down talk of other enslavements appears to be memetic competition with the narrative of the opposition: with Oleg's narrative where every major society practiced slavery but it was only the West that was first to figure out it was wrong and take serious steps to end it. And most conservatives are very much religious essentialists, whether you believe in it or not. They're conservatives, and Christendom is what they're trying to conserve by showing it's worth conserving. So whatever it is you guys think you're fighting against by painting industrial chattel slavery as worse than everybody else's versions, operationally it's Christendom.

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.

Well said.

 

[Politesse]

Where "scale" is measured in absolute rather than per capita terms, thereby taking all the horrors of the ancient and medieval worlds' slavery out of the running

Well... yes. Which is not a defense of ancient slavery at all. But they never built anything like the Transatlantic trade in size, reach, or general cruelty.

 

[Gospel]

I also notice the repeated failure of folks that like to bring up Africans selling their own people to mention that not all African Countries were on board. In fact there were some that fought back

The Kingdom of Dahomey (present-day Benin): The Dahomey kingdom resisted the slave trade and even took part in capturing and enslaving other African groups to prevent them from being sold to Europeans.

The Ashanti Empire (present-day Ghana): The Ashanti Empire resisted the slave trade and even fought a series of wars against the British to prevent them from expanding their control over the region.

The Igbo people (present-day Nigeria): The Igbo people resisted slavery and often engaged in armed resistance against slave traders and European colonial powers.

The Somali people (present-day Somalia): The Somali people resisted the slave trade and often raided European ships to free enslaved Africans who were being transported across the Indian Ocean.

We're you being sarcastic?

Dahomey was very active in the slave trade.

Robert Norris, d. 1791. Memoirs of the Reign of Bossa Ahadee, King of Dahomy, an Inland Country of Guiney. To Which Are Added, the Author's Journey to Abomey, the Capital; and a Short Account of the African Slave Trade.

Their form of government is not very different from that of Dahomy, from which their despot, until very lately, exacted a yearly tribute for many years, as the price of peace. They cultivate cotton, and a species of grass, and manufacture both into clothing, for the use of the natives. Their traders likewise deal largely in slaves, which are disposed of to the factors of Dahomy. The Mahees, as I have before hinted, are a powerful confederacy of many united and independent states; whose form of government seems to be of the feudal kind. Their leading men possess vassals or slaves, but do not treat them with the Dahoman asperity. Nevertheless, they sell slaves in considerable numbers to the Dahoman factors.

Antera Duke was probably an Igbo, or at least akin.

Antera Duke: The Nigerian Slave Trader Whose Diary Helped Exposed the Relationships Between African Elites and Slave Merchants - TalkAfricana

Antera Duke was an 18th century slave dealer and Efik chief from Calabar whose diary helped unveil the relationships between African Elites amd English slave traders.

talkafricana.com

And it was the colonial Italians who ended slavey in Somolia. Or at least tried to. (Later, Mussolini's fascists ended slavery in Ethopia - somehow that's not taught in school.)

Were you trying to deny the fact that African nations faught back? Are you denying that many of the slaves captured rather have jumped off the ship, died of starvation rather than be taken to the fake new world? There was a reason the Euro bros you're trying to defend avoided certain African regions.


But you go ahead and nitpick details in hopes to fool people into believing an alternative history.

 

[Politesse]

the narrative of the opposition: with Oleg's narrative where every major society practiced slavery but it was only the West that was first to figure out it was wrong and take serious steps to end it.

That's not a "narrative of the opposition", that's just a bullshit narrative. I have no compulsion to take illogical nonsense seriously just because it comes out of the mouth of someone I disagree with politically. It's obviously a tortured rendition of the facts, with a transparent political agenda. And it's also internally inconsistent to cynically celebrate past progressive victories as an excuse to attack current progressive prerogatives.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I also notice the repeated failure of folks that like to bring up Africans selling their own people to mention that not all African Countries were on board. In fact there were some that fought back The Kingdom of Dahomey (present-day Benin): The Dahomey kingdom resisted the slave trade and even took part in capturing and enslaving other African groups to prevent them from being sold to Europeans. The Ashanti Empire (present-day Ghana): The Ashanti Empire resisted the slave trade and even fought a series of wars against the British to prevent them from expanding their control over the region. The Igbo people (present-day Nigeria): The Igbo people resisted slavery and often engaged in armed resistance against slave traders and European colonial powers. The Somali people (present-day Somalia): The Somali people resisted the slave trade and often raided European ships to free enslaved Africans who were being transported across the Indian Ocean.​

We're you being sarcastic? Dahomey was very active in the slave trade.​

Their form of government is not very different from that of Dahomy, from which their despot, until very lately, exacted a yearly tribute for many years, as the price of peace. They cultivate cotton, and a species of grass, and manufacture both into clothing, for the use of the natives. Their traders likewise deal largely in slaves, which are disposed of to the factors of Dahomy. The Mahees, as I have before hinted, are a powerful confederacy of many united and independent states; whose form of government seems to be of the feudal kind. Their leading men possess vassals or slaves, but do not treat them with the Dahoman asperity. Nevertheless, they sell slaves in considerable numbers to the Dahoman factors.​

Antera Duke was probably an Igbo, or at least akin. And it was the colonial Italians who ended slavey in Somolia. Or at least tried to. (Later, Mussolini's fascists ended slavery in Ethopia - somehow that's not taught in school.)​

Were you trying to deny the fact that African nations faught back? Are you denying that many of the slaves captured rather have jumped off the ship, died of starvation rather than be taken to the fake new world? There was a reason the Euro bros you're trying to defend avoided certain African regions. But you go ahead and nitpick details in hopes to fool people into believing an alternative history.​

What ethnicity do you hold responsible for the African slave trade?​

 

[Arctish]

Ethnicity?

Like, let's all blame the Irish?

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Jarhyn wrote:​

[what makes it unethical] Principally, it has a lot to do with the quality of the symmetry of information between parties.

What you are advocating is a kind of horizontal symmetry in human relationships. Symmetry, however, far from being contrary to the principles of hierarchy, is, in fact, a natural & necessary component thereof; but hierarchical relationships entail a vertical, not a horizontal, i.e. egalitarian, mode of symmetry. What you espouse is a rather fanciful notion of horizontal symmetry, universalised as an ethical principle, & predicated upon counterfactual egalitarian assumptions that have little grounding in reality. No, the truth of the matter is that reality does not conform to such grandiose & fanciful notions, but rather operates according to its own laws, laws that are frequenty at odds with our own preconceived notions of symmetry & balance. In the real world the equilibrium which you regard as a moral code is frequently established by means of vertical rather than horizontal symmetries. The relationship between parent & child is one example of this; that between husband & wife is another. Other examples: older brother vs. younger brother; alpha male vs. veta/delta male; leader vs. followers; man vs. beasts; & so on. This is the natural order.

Jarhyn wrote:​

The biggest joke is that this very fine person doesn't realize that they keep educating us in the apparent reality of folks who have a boner for 13 year olds.

I am asexual. I have no interest in human sexuality.​

 

[Oleg]

Were you trying to deny the fact that African nations faught back?

I don’t doubt that people defended their own tribe. But there was no solidarity with any out group. And why should that be a surprise? Assyrians had no distress enslaving other near-east peoples; Romans enslaved over a million Gauls. It was the way of the world.

There was a reason the Euro bros you're trying to defend avoided certain African regions.

Absolutely. It’s why the Americas were colonized from sea to sea by the 18th Century but Africa was mostly impenetrable until the late 19th Century. Europeans could not easily tolerate the oppressive heat and disease; at least, not until they found the cure for malaria. Indeed, if Africans hadn’t been such enthusiastic participants in the Atlantic slave trade, it couldn’t have happened at all.

 

[Oleg]

That's not a "narrative of the opposition", that's just a bullshit narrative.

Wut? Then explain Charles Gordon and his quixotic mission to save the Sudanese from enslavement by the Mahdi. I can think of no analog in history where an empire used its blood and treasure to free an enslaved out group. (He and the enslaved Sudanese are, no doubt, not taught in school. Why not?)

 

[Politesse]

That's not a "narrative of the opposition", that's just a bullshit narrative.

Wut? Then explain Charles Gordon and his quixotic mission to save the Sudanese from enslavement by the Mahdi. I can think of no analog in history where an empire used its blood and treasure to free an enslaved out group.

And I can only think of one word to describe someone who is only capable of comparing the best of "their race" to the worst members of every "foreign race", admitting no fault of those they consider their people and honors no virtue of those they would exclude.

But I'm guessing you would object to my using it.

 

[Oleg]

That's not a "narrative of the opposition", that's just a bullshit narrative.

Wut? Then explain Charles Gordon and his quixotic mission to save the Sudanese from enslavement by the Mahdi. I can think of no analog in history where an empire used its blood and treasure to free an enslaved out group.

And I can only think of one word to describe someone who is only capable of comparing the best of "their race" to the worst members of every "foreign race", admitting no fault of those they consider their people and honors no virtue of those they would exclude.

But I'm guessing you would object to my using it.

Wut? Who is excluding bad things done by Westerners? The point is that nearly everyone in the past behaved in ways we’d find objectionable today. Slavery was common everywhere. But it is true that the West is unique in not only ending its own practice of slavery, it also imposed that value on the rest of the world.

 

[Bomb#20]

... African's wanted weapons and other recourses to defeat their rivals while Europeans didn't see African's as people. As long as your skin was dark enough they couldn't care less what part of the continent you were from. ...

I think you're overestimating how much the Europeans gave a rat's ass whether those they were kidnapping were people. When they ratcheted up doing it to dark-skinned people they'd already been doing it to other light-skinned people for thousands of years. The coastlines around the Mediterranean were depopulated in the 1500s because of European and Arab corsairs descending on each other's coastal villages and dragging everyone off to their respective slave markets or to row their galleys. In the Middle Ages, Slavs got enslaved by other Europeans so often our languages named "slavery" after them. It wasn't about whether the victims were people; it was about whether they were "they".

 

[Gospel]

Ah yes,.it's the ole everybody was doing it and the ole they did it to everybody love letter. As if that is a counter argument to the fact African nations faught back and most people who want to talk about black people selling their own never seem to mention that at all. It's as if folks are trying to make Africa one large country where everyone was in agreement during the transatlantic Holocaust.

Another thing that's odd to me is how some folks shrug off MAJOR crimes committed by America to steal land but want to clutch guns at their property lines to protect it from home invasion.

They just don't see the irony.

 

[Bomb#20]

Wut? Then explain Charles Gordon and his quixotic mission to save the Sudanese from enslavement by the Mahdi. I can think of no analog in history where an empire used its blood and treasure to free an enslaved out group. ...

I can. In the 4th century BC the Thebans invaded southern Greece and freed the Helots from enslavement to the Spartans. They didn't do it for principle or pity; it was pure realpolitik -- without their slaves Spartan power was undercut and their domination of Greece ended. If you dig into Britain's motives for sending Gordon to the Sudan, don't be surprised to find them similarly self-interested. When you believe in politicians they usually let you down.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah yes,.it's the ole everybody was doing it and the ole they did it to everybody love letter. As if that is a counter argument to the fact African nations faught back and most people who want to talk about black people selling their own never seem to mention that at all.

That's not what it was offered as a counterargument to. It's admirable that some African nations fought back, and of course we should teach that along with the shameful parts of history.

Another thing that's odd to me is how some folks shrug off MAJOR crimes committed by America to steal land but want to clutch guns at their property lines to protect it from home invasion.

They just don't see the irony.

All property rights in land are squatters' rights. Except maybe a little bit of the Netherlands...

 

[Gospel]

I also notice the repeated failure of folks that like to bring up Africans selling their own people to mention that not all African Countries were on board. In fact there were some that fought back The Kingdom of Dahomey (present-day Benin): The Dahomey kingdom resisted the slave trade and even took part in capturing and enslaving other African groups to prevent them from being sold to Europeans. The Ashanti Empire (present-day Ghana): The Ashanti Empire resisted the slave trade and even fought a series of wars against the British to prevent them from expanding their control over the region. The Igbo people (present-day Nigeria): The Igbo people resisted slavery and often engaged in armed resistance against slave traders and European colonial powers. The Somali people (present-day Somalia): The Somali people resisted the slave trade and often raided European ships to free enslaved Africans who were being transported across the Indian Ocean.​

We're you being sarcastic? Dahomey was very active in the slave trade.​

Their form of government is not very different from that of Dahomy, from which their despot, until very lately, exacted a yearly tribute for many years, as the price of peace. They cultivate cotton, and a species of grass, and manufacture both into clothing, for the use of the natives. Their traders likewise deal largely in slaves, which are disposed of to the factors of Dahomy. The Mahees, as I have before hinted, are a powerful confederacy of many united and independent states; whose form of government seems to be of the feudal kind. Their leading men possess vassals or slaves, but do not treat them with the Dahoman asperity. Nevertheless, they sell slaves in considerable numbers to the Dahoman factors.​

Antera Duke was probably an Igbo, or at least akin. And it was the colonial Italians who ended slavey in Somolia. Or at least tried to. (Later, Mussolini's fascists ended slavery in Ethopia - somehow that's not taught in school.)​

Were you trying to deny the fact that African nations faught back? Are you denying that many of the slaves captured rather have jumped off the ship, died of starvation rather than be taken to the fake new world? There was a reason the Euro bros you're trying to defend avoided certain African regions. But you go ahead and nitpick details in hopes to fool people into believing an alternative history.​

What ethnicity do you hold responsible for the African slave trade?​

All ethnicities involved. What in the world does the answer to that question have to do with the topic of America's failure to teach real history? I'm offering historic facts that aren't taught in American schools. Colleges yeah, highly likely but in Highschool? Nope. Not everyone heads off to college and many Americans are ignorant of real history. I know grown ass men and women who still think Columbus discovered America even though his dumbass never set foot over here (in what we call the United States today).

 

[Gospel]

All property rights in land are squatters' rights. Except maybe a little bit of the Netherlands...

My point is that folks who recognize property rights (as I do) ought to also acknowledge said property was stolen when speaking of history rather than hand wave and make excuses.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

What ethnicity do you hold responsible for the African slave trade?​

All ethnicities involved. What in the world does the answer to that question have to do with the topic of America's failure to teach real history? I'm offering historic facts that aren't taught in American schools. Colleges yeah, highly likely but in Highschool? Nope. Not everyone heads off to college and many Americans are ignorant of real history. I know grown ass men and women who still think Columbus discovered America even though his dumbass never set foot over here (in what we call the United States today).

Columbus probably never existed.