DeSantis signs bill requiring FL students, professors to register political views with state

[southernhybrid]

Sadly, our governor also signed a similar bill regarding what teachers can teach, about 4 months ago. It's similar to the Florida law.

I suggest y'all read the book: "Let me Retort: A Black Guy;s Guide to the Constitution" by Elie Mystal. Our constitution was written by a bunch of racist, sexist white men and it's been frequently used to perpetuate racism or sexism. His writing style is both serious as well as humorous. Not that I ever was a big fan of our outdated, constitution, which should never have been held sacred in the first place, but the book really gave me some new perspectives on the damn thing.

I'm sure that states like Florida, Georgia and Texas would put Mystal's book on the banned book list. It's that good.

 

[Bomb#20]

Between 1492 and 1820, about 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas. At the same time, at least 8.8 million enslaved Africans were brought here.
So no, we weren’t THAT bad, we only owned about three darkies per person.

Yes, we were that bad. But the wee-uns must never know.

Which three did you own?

Oh come on, B20 - you know perfectly well that you lib’ruls took ‘em away before I got mine!

Indeed we did.

So why then did you write "we only owned about three darkies per person"? "We" is English's word for "A group of people that includes me". English has a perfectly good word for "A group of people that doesn't include me": it's the word "they". So since you personally never got any enslaved Africans for yourself, why didn't you write "they only owned about three darkies per person"? Was it because when you choose a group to identify with, you identify with the group of thugs who bought kidnapped Africans, rather than with the group of us lib'ruls who took them away from the thugs and set them free?

 

[ZiprHead]

Somebody is sounding like Metaphor.

 

[TomC]

Somebody is sounding like Metaphor.

You mean saying things that upset the Wokesters?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Somebody is sounding like Metaphor.

You mean saying things that upset the Wokesters?
Tom

No.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some people are so literal that they choose out-of-context interpretations, example: ignoring the royal we. B20 seemed to be making a joke about it, but the more he sticks to the unfunny shtick, the more bizarre it gets.

 

[Elixir]

Between 1492 and 1820, about 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas. At the same time, at least 8.8 million enslaved Africans were brought here.
So no, we weren’t THAT bad, we only owned about three darkies per person.

Yes, we were that bad. But the wee-uns must never know.

Which three did you own?

Oh come on, B20 - you know perfectly well that you lib’ruls took ‘em away before I got mine!

Indeed we did.

So why then did you write "we only owned about three darkies per person"? "We" is English's word for "A group of people that includes me". English has a perfectly good word for "A group of people that doesn't include me": it's the word "they". So since you personally never got any enslaved Africans for yourself, why didn't you write "they only owned about three darkies per person"? Was it because when you choose a group to identify with, you identify with the group of thugs who bought kidnapped Africans, rather than with the group of us lib'ruls who took them away from the thugs and set them free?

No, B’, it was for continuity. We was the term used in “we’re not that bad”, not “they’re not that bad”.
But yeah, now that you mention it - as a being of European heritage, a collective “we” including my ancestors would very likely include some people who were in one way or another involved in slavery or slave trade. I don’t know about all my ancestors though, so I am not particularly plagued by guilt knowing or learning what “we” (euros past snd present) have done. More so I suspect and would be saddened to learn of ancestral complicity in the fate of native Americans. I don’t think of myself as having thuggish tendencies or proclivities, but probably neither did “they”.

How about you?

 

[Bomb#20]

Some people are so literal that they choose out-of-context interpretations, example: ignoring the royal we. B20 seemed to be making a joke about it, but the more he sticks to the unfunny shtick, the more bizarre it gets.

The reasons you thought it was a joke in the first place appear to be (a) you are abysmal at reading comprehension, and (b) you have so completely internalized your ideological assumptions that you are unaware of them, so unaware that when you see them being challenged you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that that's what's happening because you don't grok that there's anything there to be challenged.

See Socratic method.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Children need to be shown maps like this and see for themselves the salient fact all the rhetoric about 40%, 4%, or 0.4% neglects: how much closer West Africa is to Brazil than to the U.S.

Brazilian slavers didn't treat Africans worse than American slavers because Brazilian slavers were worse human beings than American slavers. Brazilian slavers treated Africans worse than American slavers because kidnapping an African and bringing him to Brazil was a whole lot cheaper than kidnapping an African and bringing him to the U.S. American slavers valued slaves more than Brazilian slavers because a slave cost more in America than in Brazil. In America it was cheaper to keep slaves alive and breed new ones; in Brazil it was cheaper to work slaves to death and kidnap new ones. So if America had been as close to Africa as Brazil is, American slavers would probably have been just as cruel as Brazilian slavers.

If Ms. Segal is worried that her charges will take away the message "we're not that bad", then she should embrace the instruction to tell them only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies, and also make sure to tell them why it was only 4%.

Dear Teacher Bomb#20,

Congratulations, you just got fired. You are not allowed to discuss forced breeding programs. That is anti-American and age inappropriate.

Have a nice day.

Why would I get fired? By all means, quote the provision of the Stop WOKE Act that I'd have violated.

 

[Bomb#20]

Somebody is sounding like Metaphor.

In what way? You mean because I'm getting to the root of what's wrong with the way leftists think, or just because I'm critiquing leftist pronoun proclivities?

Whatever. "Sounding like Metaphor" is a badge of honor.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some people are so literal that they choose out-of-context interpretations, example: ignoring the royal we. B20 seemed to be making a joke about it, but the more he sticks to the unfunny shtick, the more bizarre it gets.

The reasons you thought it was a joke in the first place appear to be (a) you are abysmal at reading comprehension, and (b) you have so completely internalized your ideological assumptions that you are unaware of them, so unaware that when you see them being challenged you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that that's what's happening because you don't grok that there's anything there to be challenged.

See Socratic method.

Your power of expression is terrible. If you want to use the Socratic method, it doesn't help to make invalid points that are irrelevant to the learning process. Bad points could work if they are analogous to other bad points, but you are just off-base.

 

[laughing dog]

Somebody is sounding like Metaphor.

In what way? You mean because I'm getting to the root of what's wrong with the way leftists think, or just because I'm critiquing leftist pronoun proclivities?

Whatever. "Sounding like Metaphor" is a badge of honor.

Congrats on your most hilarious post. Keep up the good work.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh come on, B20 - you know perfectly well that you lib’ruls took ‘em away before I got mine!

Indeed we did.

So why then did you write "we only owned about three darkies per person"? "We" is English's word for "A group of people that includes me". English has a perfectly good word for "A group of people that doesn't include me": it's the word "they". So since you personally never got any enslaved Africans for yourself, why didn't you write "they only owned about three darkies per person"? Was it because when you choose a group to identify with, you identify with the group of thugs who bought kidnapped Africans, rather than with the group of us lib'ruls who took them away from the thugs and set them free?

No, B’, it was for continuity. We was the term used in “we’re not that bad”, not “they’re not that bad”.

What kind of an explanation is that? If Ms. Segal complained the Koch curriculum implied the moon is made of green cheese, would you try to back her up by saying "No, it's made of black cheese.", for the sake of continuity?

If in fact the Koch curriculum is drawing the conclusion "We're not that bad" from "They only brought 4% here", the reason that's wrong is because it invalidly draws a conclusion about our morals from what they did. Contrariwise, if that was Ms. Segal's gloss and the Koch curriculum doesn't draw that conclusion, then nothing wrong with the Koch curriculum has been exhibited. In neither case is "we’re not that bad" actually false. We really are not that bad. We didn't enslave anyone. A bunch of other people did that, not us. So in neither case is "Yes, we were that bad." a legitimate counterargument. Continuity or no.

But yeah, now that you mention it - as a being of European heritage, a collective “we” including my ancestors would very likely include some people who were in one way or another involved in slavery or slave trade. I don’t know about all my ancestors though, so I am not particularly plagued by guilt knowing or learning what “we” (euros past snd present) have done.

And finally the truth is laid bare. "We" referred to "beings of European heritage". If you and Ms. Segal want kids to be taught "We are that bad.", and what you and she mean is that beings of European heritage are that bad, well, in the first place, that's racist. If a teacher taught about the people Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe murdered and tried to get her black students to take away the message "We are that bad.", you would have no trouble recognizing it as a racist lesson.

And in the second place, the whole discourse, of how many people were enslaved having implications for whether we are that bad, presupposes that who "we" means -- who people identify with -- is appropriately based on ethnicity. But who we should identify with is not the sort of thing history can tell us. If Ms. Segal is teaching her white pupils to identify with antebellum white folks and teaching her black pupils to identify with antebellum black folks, then she's teaching ideology, not history. Since most likely none of her pupils approve of slavery, she could perfectly well teach all her pupils regardless of race to identify with antebellum abolitionists, who came in all races. That who we look like rather than who we think like is the correct way to decide who we are is an assumption; it's not a fact. Public schools have no legitimate case for treating it as a fact.

 

[Gospel]

Public schools have no legitimate case for treating it as a fact.

It's a fact that public schools aren't teaching the "white people are bad" doctrine (I call it that because CRT doesn't do that). CRT if at all being taught is done so in private "higher education" facilities. Also, I disagree with your "we" vs "they" argument. There is no blanket we or they. What I mean by this is, there were plenty of white people against slavery who helped throughout the civil rights movement. White people today have a right to say "we" if they identify with those brave white people in the past that were against slavery. White people who are ok with slavery today (or discrimination in general) can also rightfully say "we" if they identify with (for example) the Confederate States of America. When talking history "they" (which is how public schools teach it) is obviously denoting people in the past. What I see some white people doing is taking that "they" and then screaming "we aren't they!" out of nowhere as if responding to some sort of institutionalized proclamation to the contrary.

 

[Jarhyn]

screaming "we aren't they!" out of nowhere

Methinks some (not you, or at least not here) doth protest too much

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And finally the truth is laid bare. "We" referred to "beings of European heritage". If you and Ms. Segal want kids to be taught "We are that bad.", and what you and she mean is that beings of European heritage are that bad, well, in the first place, that's racist. If a teacher taught about the people Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe murdered and tried to get her black students to take away the message "We are that bad.", you would have no trouble recognizing it as a racist lesson.

Or maybe it is simple, our Founding Fathers made some big mistakes. They also invented a workable system of democracy (on the second try). Some bad, some really bad, some remarkably good. This isn't scandalous, this is simply truth... and history.

Or that the South started a rebellion in order to become their own nation in order to protect their institution of slavery... the South lost, and they haven't managed to accept that in over 150 years. Sidenote, Brazil isn't a part of the South (or the North).

Monroe Doctrine is US History, shit happening in Brazil is World History. I remember remarking to an Engineer who migrated from Colombia that in our school, we learned almost nothing about Central and South America. And the one thing Bomb#20 wants to teach kids from South/Central America isn't our seriously fucked up alliances with murderers, backing the Pinochet coup, or our rather poor relations with Colombia.... it is that Brazil had more slaves and they treated them more poorly than in America.

 

[bilby]

Sidenote, Brazil isn't a part of the South (or the North).

Brazil is the only country in the world that is crossed by both tropics, so it's very much a part of both the South and the North.

As Eccleston's Doctor put it, when asked "If you're not from Earth, why do you have a Northern accent?", lots of planets have a North.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sidenote, Brazil isn't a part of the South (or the North).

Brazil is the only country in the world that is crossed by both tropics, so it's very much a part of both the South and the North.

As Eccleston's Doctor put it, when asked "If you're not from Earth, why do you have a Northern accent?", lots of planets have a North.

*drops anvil on bilby*

 

[Politesse]

And finally the truth is laid bare. "We" referred to "beings of European heritage". If you and Ms. Segal want kids to be taught "We are that bad.", and what you and she mean is that beings of European heritage are that bad, well, in the first place, that's racist. If a teacher taught about the people Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe murdered and tried to get her black students to take away the message "We are that bad.", you would have no trouble recognizing it as a racist lesson.

Or maybe it is simple, our Founding Fathers made some big mistakes. They also invented a workable system of democracy (on the second try). Some bad, some really bad, some remarkably good. This isn't scandalous, this is simply truth... and history.

Or that the South started a rebellion in order to become their own nation in order to protect their institution of slavery... the South lost, and they haven't managed to accept that in over 150 years. Sidenote, Brazil isn't a part of the South (or the North).

Monroe Doctrine is US History, shit happening in Brazil is World History. I remember remarking to an Engineer who migrated from Colombia that in our school, we learned almost nothing about Central and South America. And the one thing Bomb#20 wants to teach kids from South/Central America isn't our seriously fucked up alliances with murderers, backing the Pinochet coup, or our rather poor relations with Colombia.... it is that Brazil had more slaves and they treated them more poorly than in America.

You don't understand either, if you think you can teach US History and World History as wholly separate subjects. We were a piss-ant current or former colony until we weren't; until then, everything that happened here was a reaction to something happening elsewhere. After, it became impossible to understand world affairs without getting something about the mercurial interests of the Americans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don't understand either, if you think you can teach US History and World History as wholly separate subjects. We were a piss-ant current or former colony until we weren't; until then, everything that happened here was a reaction to something happening elsewhere. After, it became impossible to understand world affairs without getting something about the mercurial interests of the Americans.

But we don't need to go into the finer details of the reasons for the Crimean War to explain why Russia sold Alaska to the US... or deep into Napoleon conquests of Europe to explain the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, when doing history, contexts go back and back and back, but we are talking about US History here. Stepping back in to the nuance gets tricky because one needs to stop at some point. As classes get more advanced, the material can go deeper into the nuance.