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

[Jarhyn]

I shan’t bend to your will. I stand resolutely against all that you espouse

All that I espouse? I made a statement of fact, and you quoted that statement of fact. So you stand against What, reality?

Tens of millions of eunuchs have grown up into perfectly functional adults, members of India's Hijra community. They exist, you can Google them, maybe even get a chat handle or phone number and have a conversation with one.

The plain fact is that people grow up regardless of whether they experience puberty.

Further there's no will for you there to bend to. Either you want to have your nuts off or you don't and most don't. If it's something you feel requires active resistance by you specifically, that actually means you DO want your nuts off, at least a little bit, even if there's internal confliction over it.

Vociferous rejection of "other people" removing their nuts is almost certainly really an internal resistance to admitting something that some part of YOU wants.

I presented a fact, one of history and one of modern reality. and you stand "resolutely" against it.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Observing, I take cognizance that not a single argument I have put forth in this discourse has been acknowledged by you.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Indeed. The efforts to stop slavery around the world is worthy of respect & recognition. HOWEVER, the reasons for that was not born out of a collective of evil Europeans turning over a new leaf. In fact it was for numerus reasons like economic changes (mainly industrial models that did not require slavery), moral and religious arguments & slave revolts. In fact the evil Europeans kept on kicking thus the reason many died at the hands of their own trying to end it. Many of those people are still alive and well today. You can find them pushing legislation in Florida to keep history white washed under the disguise of protecting America from hate.

 

[Gospel]

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.

That's just a small piece of the entire story. Which is the usual approach to history American schools take. Thanks for participating.

If there was no demand for one there would have been no Transatlantic Holocaust. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Except as you have acknowledged earlier, it did not impose that value on the rest of the world. Some of the world did it by themselves, while the West continued to engage in slave labor during and after WWII.

 

[laughing dog]

If there was no demand for one there would have been no Transatlantic Holocaust. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why that needs to be pointed out is a real mystery.

 

[TomC]

That's just a small piece of the entire story. Which is the usual approach to history American schools take. Thanks for participating.

This goes back to a point I made way upthread.

Just "History of slavery in the U.S." is far too big to fit, comprehensively, into a K-12 curriculum. Including all the ways ethnic groups have been horribly mistreated is a magnitude larger. The history of slavery in The Americas is also larger by an order of magnitude. The global history of slavery is yet another order of magnitude.

Somebody has to decide what is sufficiently important to wind up in a 9th grade history textbook. They will have subjective and probably agenda driven opinions. They won't make everyone happy. There's no way around that.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

My children had history from 5th grade through 12th grade. If that is similar the norm, there is sufficient space in K12 curriculum fir an adequate treatment of the history of slavery.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Having been born in little Rock, Arkansas and having graduated from Little Rock Central High School in 1957 many of the events that I have personally witnessed could not be taught as a part of a history course under the cited rules.

 

[TomC]

My children had history from 5th grade through 12th grade. If that is similar the norm, there is sufficient space in K12 curriculum fir an adequate treatment of the history of slavery.

I went to pretty good schools. I didn't take 7 years of history. Most of it was grade school. My vague recollection is only one required class in high school.

That's me. History wasn't my favorite subject. Better than STEM, but when I could choose I went straight for the art and literature.

Much to the annoyance of my Dad with a business and engineering degree.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's just a small piece of the entire story. Which is the usual approach to history American schools take. Thanks for participating.

This goes back to a point I made way upthread.

Just "History of slavery in the U.S." is far too big to fit, comprehensively, into a K-12 curriculum. Including all the ways ethnic groups have been horribly mistreated is a magnitude larger. The history of slavery in The Americas is also larger by an order of magnitude. The global history of slavery is yet another order of magnitude.

Somebody has to decide what is sufficiently important to wind up in a 9th grade history textbook. They will have subjective and probably agenda driven opinions. They won't make everyone happy. There's no way around that.
Tom

But it isn't hard. We learned it in the 80s/90s. Slavery is the easy thing to teach. 3/5's compromise, slavery why it existed, the trade from Africa, the Civil War, that while slavery was abolished in the north the attitude towards blacks was hardly enlightened. That is simple shit. We don't need to go into details about African leaders, that'd be African history. What is more difficult to teach, though perhaps not too hard are the WHITE race riots, red lining, housing covenants, why private clubs exist (that were actually public originally), how we knew this was an issue in the 50s and didn't care, and the self-perpetuating issue of bank deinvestment from black population centers.

Slavery was wrong, they felt that way back in the 18th century. All this other crap is obfuscating things to derail the conversation and the ultimate truth that the south wage a rebellion to save the institution of slavery... and lost... and haven't been able to get over losing for over 150 years!

 

[TomC]

But it isn't hard. We learned it in the 80s/90s. Slavery is the easy thing to teach. 3/5's compromise, slavery why it existed, the trade from Africa, the Civil War, that while slavery was abolished in the north the attitude towards blacks was hardly enlightened. That is simple shit. We don't need to go into details about African leaders, that'd be African history. What is more difficult to teach, though perhaps not too hard are the WHITE race riots, red lining, housing covenants, how we knew this was an issue in the 50s and didn't care, and the self-perpetuating issue of bank deinvestment from black population centers.

I mostly agree with you.

Full Disclosure:
I graduated high school in 76. All my U.S. history was grade school, roughly 69-72. I was a good student and tested out of U.S. history in high school, giving me the option of taking World History. All of this was around a half century ago.

My U.S. history knowledge was painfully simplistic and white washed, as I came to learn over my adult life. More coverage of the Oklahoma land rush than Trail of Tears, believe me. My first history class was "Indiana History" in 5th grade. The first chapter took a couple of days to cover. Included everything from the shallow sea that laid down the limestone bedrock to the glaciers that shaped the topography to the indigenous people that lived here for centuries. Chapter two started with the first white Christian people showing up, and that's what the rest of the year covered.

History can definitely be done better than it was back in my day. Absolutely! But you aren't going to satisfy everyone with an agenda, which is most of the people who care at all.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

Or maybe we should stop shitting on people for being poor after having their shit stolen from them for generations.

 

[Oleg]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

Or maybe we should stop shitting on people for being poor after having their shit stolen from them for generations.

Most of human society was poor and improvised up to maybe 150 years ago. And most don’t inherit anything of value.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

Or maybe we should stop shitting on people for being poor after having their shit stolen from them for generations.

Most of human society was poor and improvised up to maybe 150 years ago. And most don’t inherit anything of value.

Is there even a remotely relevant point here?

 

[TomC]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

Or maybe we should stop shitting on people for being poor after having their shit stolen from them for generations.

Most of human society was poor and improvised up to maybe 150 years ago. And most don’t inherit anything of value.

Is there even a remotely relevant point here?

If you read Jimmy and Gospel's responses it's obvious how the point is relevant.
If not, oh well.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Are we allowed to also acknowledge that the people said property was stolen from had inherited it from some earlier passel of thieves?

Or maybe we should stop shitting on people for being poor after having their shit stolen from them for generations.

Most of human society was poor and improvised up to maybe 150 years ago. And most don’t inherit anything of value.

Is there even a remotely relevant point here?

If you read Jimmy and Gospel's responses it's obvious how the point is relevant.
If not, oh well.
Tom

It is obvious that happened up to 150 years ago doesn’t matter to what Jimmy or Gospel wrote.

Have a nice day

 

[Gospel]

Ok maybe I need to clarify. People who RIGHTFULLY poke their chest out about property rights ought to not hand waive the atrocities that involved the stealing of land in the distant past. I'm not saying OMG GIVE THE LAND BACK im saying to have some fucking decency discussing history by attributing/understanding/sympathizing with REAL FUCKING PEOPLE THAT GOT THEIR SHIT TAKEN. The ole attitude that "everyone was doing it" should then be applied to folks doing it today. Sure, I'm not saying to let people take your property today, just have the same attitude towards them, such as "it is normal for people to try to take your property" as you do with discussions of historic events of that kind (if that's you).. Gosh.

Edit: For example Ukraine and Palestinian territory. What Russia and Israel is doing is normal. Right? Any country that attempts to invade America is just doing what's normal right?

That is all.

 

[Politesse]

"People were fine with it at the time" is not a sensible description of any war. And it isn't really meant to be.