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

[Politesse]

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.

If you're allergic to nuance, you teach history very differently than I do, and I prefer my way.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If you're allergic to nuance, you teach history very differently than I do, and I prefer my way.

Do you teach history to elementary school students or middle school students or to students in high school or in higher education? Nuance ought to change with the level of the students.

 

[Politesse]

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.

If you're allergic to nuance, you teach history very differently than I do, and I prefer my way.

Do you teach history to elementary school students or middle school students or to students in high school or in higher education? Nuance ought to change with the level of the students.

Last I checked, we were discussing a set of laws aimed at censoring all levels of education, not just elementary school. But I don't agree that children are incapable of understanding nuance, anyway. History education does and should become more complex and detailed as one goes along, but if your strategy for doing that involves telling children untruths or trying to conceal facts from them, your approach is deeply flawed, and their history education is on its way to being handled by the internet rather than by you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the late 1700's, the cotton gin was created. Actually an old technology known from India but improved and soon improved beyond Eli Whitney's design. A slave cleaning cotton by hand might at most clean 2 pounds a day. Soon, by the early 1800's with a gin, hundreds of pounds could be cleaned in a day. Cotton became cheap and in Europe, in demand for making cloth. Production of cotton rose by several orders of magnitude. But to do that needed slaves to plant cotton, pick cotton, man the gins and do farming to feed slaves. Slavery became big business. Not so important in Northern states that were not cotton growing states. American slavery was cruel chattel slavery. Pre cotton gin, slavery was moribund in America. Political crisis came about as slave owning states tried to expand slavery to territories, and Northern states tried to ban slavery.

Context, context, context!. History, history, history! Banned on order of GOP politicians in schools, because "CRT! CRT! Cultural Marxism! Oh Noes!".

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If you're allergic to nuance, you teach history very differently than I do, and I prefer my way.

Do you teach history to elementary school students or middle school students or to students in high school or in higher education? Nuance ought to change with the level of the students.

Last I checked, we were discussing a set of laws aimed at censoring all levels of education, not just elementary school. But I don't agree that children are incapable of understanding nuance, anyway. History education does and should become more complex and detailed as one goes along, but if your strategy for doing that involves telling children untruths or trying to conceal facts from them, your approach is deeply flawed, and their history education is on its way to being handled by the internet rather than by you.

I didn't say children were incapable of understanding nuance. I clearly stated that nuance ought to change with the level of the students. 3rd graders are usually not capable of grasping as clearly the nuances of the effects of mercantilism on US or British trade and foreign policy during the 18th century as seniors in high school.

There is no history class that covers all the facts. Teaching history requires the instructor to base their curriculum on the goal(s) of the course and the capabilities of their audience. Which means that no matter what is taught, some material will be overlooked in the curriculum. While I think you do not mean to suggest that any history education will be deeply flawed, it is unavoidable that any course in history will not cover all the facts and issues of the subject.

 

[Politesse]

There is no history class that covers all the facts. Teaching history requires the instructor to base their curriculum on the goal(s) of the course and the capabilities of their audience. Which means that no matter what is taught, some material will be overlooked in the curriculum. While I think you do not mean to suggest that any history education will be deeply flawed, it is unavoidable that any course in history will not cover all the facts and issues of the subject.

What I object to is the notion of consicously censoring or even misrepresenting information to foment particular views. If you're teaching slavery as a primarily American phenomenon, you're teaching things that aren't true, not just failing to teach everything that is true. I'm pretty fucking liberal by most measures of political orientation, but that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a conversation about how the Transatlantic slave trade affected American history, even if doing that accurately necessitates mentioning some other countries.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no history class that covers all the facts. Teaching history requires the instructor to base their curriculum on the goal(s) of the course and the capabilities of their audience. Which means that no matter what is taught, some material will be overlooked in the curriculum. While I think you do not mean to suggest that any history education will be deeply flawed, it is unavoidable that any course in history will not cover all the facts and issues of the subject.

What I object to is the notion of consicously censoring or even misrepresenting information to foment particular views. If you're teaching slavery as a primarily American phenomenon, you're teaching things that aren't true, not just failing to teach everything that is true. I'm pretty fucking liberal by most measures of political orientation, but that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a conversation about how the Transatlantic slave trade affected American history, even if doing that accurately necessitates mentioning some other countries.

... such as that there was a competition for economic supremacy among the New World, and while the region that became Brazil boosted their slave based economy by more slave purchases, the US didn't have as much leverage so they turned towards domestic breeding programs.

So while overall Brazil had more slave purchases, the US way outstripped Brazil in terms of slave total, and that ends in the much uglier correlary: The US is #1 in historical slave rape.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Out of allusions to Tom Cruise movies, it could have been worse. He could've done the Risky Business scene.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did YOU READ MY POST? Yes, I object to indoctrination. We here in Texas fight right wing efforts <rest snipped>

Of course I read your post. Did you read mine? You have given ample evidence that you object to right-wing indoctrination. But that is not what's in question. You appear to be a case-study in whataboutism. So if there exists any evidence that you object to indoctrination that isn't from the right wing, feel free to exhibit it. Or, you know, just dump another screed of complaint about right-wing indoctrination on us. Your option.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...

Meanwhile, in Maryland, the right winged Lt. Governor is running for election. He wants to ban all science and history teaching for 1st to 5th graders in Maryland. You want to talk about indoctrination?

What?!?

Pardon me. Not Maryland. North Carolina.

He's a rising GOP star — and reportedly wants to ban science in elementary schools

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson reportedly wrote in a forthcoming memoir that such subjects shouldn't be taught to students below sixth grade.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Jarhyn]

if there exists any evidence that you object to indoctrination that isn't from the right wing, feel free to exhibit it

In many cases I don't object to indoctrination when it doesn't come from a position of driving an agenda against rights and access on prejudicial grounds.

Language is, indeed, the grossest (most engrossing) form of indoctrination. It indoctrinates someone to a format and system of thought. Without this indoctrination, nobody would be able to communicate.

I don't fundamentally object to indoctrination with language.

Sexual and Human Development education is indoctrinating. It indoctrinates others upon the idea, when done properly, of consent. Without this indoctrination, people rape one another, occasionally even on accident.

I don't fundamentally object to consent based sex-ed.

Teaching our true history as a species is indoctrinating. It indoctrinates others with mechanisms that identify historic mistakes, and the logical or personal errors that brought us to those mistakes. Occasionally it indicates activities that while brief and underappreciated, allowed knowledge and access to the economy to flourish for a time.

I don't fundamentally object to indoctrination on our history as a species.

I object to indoctrination that plants biased and inaccurate views into the mind of the indoctrinated: I object to indoctrination with lies in bad faith.

Usually, this comes of the form 'the past was great, let's not change anything', especially seeing as how for a lot of us, even the present is pretty shit.

 

[Gospel]

I know he's serious but it's hard not to laugh.

 

[Swammerdami]

Can't blame Jefferson, he was raised that way. His writings amount to a battle between his faith and reason.

I agree. To err is human; and it is wrong to condemn people based on the standards of another era. There are people today who think eating beef is immoral but eat it anyway. Will they be judged as evil hypocrites in a future era?

Note that in some cases, manumission of slaves would have been illegal, e.g. if the plantation owner was in debt to a bank, with land and chattel pledged as collateral. (I think this may have applied to Jefferson, though it doesn't excuse ALL of his mistreatments of slaves.)

 

[lostone]

I think eating beef is not good for the environment but eat it anyway. IMO, we all can have our little character flaws, and do not have to try to be saints. Trying to be saints has turned many places into hells of a sort. OTOH, there are minor character flaws and major ones. Treating people like property was a major flaw. Also, one can be progressive for one's time, and later have the same POVs viewed as regressive. Maybe we should judge people based on their times and the social standards that prevailed during their times.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the one thing Bomb#20 wants to teach kids from South/Central America ... it is that Brazil had more slaves and they treated them more poorly than in America.

That is the diametrical opposite of what I wrote. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so buried in your religious zealotry that your brain not takes input not from your eyes but only from what it expects to see?

 

[Politesse]

To err is human; and it is wrong to condemn people based on the standards of another era.

Why would it be inappropriate in any era to criticize hypocrisy? If Jefferson's claimed principles did not match up with his observed actions, that's hypocrisy whether it happened in 1785 or 1985, especially when it concerns a crime as serious as chattel slavery or rape. And you know what? Those things were no less controversial in 1785, anyway. We know that "people" knew that these things were wrong, because they wrote about them. Voluminously. Entire nations had revolutions over the concept of universal human liberty, including his own. Jefferson himself both admitted fault later in life, and was openly critized by family and colleagues throughout his entire life.

To your other point, Jefferson could indeed have released his slaves, and indeed for a short period of time they were free and initially declared their intent to stay that way, during a trip to Paris (where slavery was already illegal, more evidence btw that your claims of his naive innocence are nonsense). But their situation was not such that they could agree to manumission without severe risk to themselves, at that point in time, and Jefferson was able to persuade them with promises of "extraordinary privilege" and the manumission of his children when they came of age to "voluntarily" return to the US and back into his service, including his sixteen year old sex slave and the first two children he'd had with her.

Things were a lot more messy than a simple black-and-white morality will help you resolve. But stamping your foot and refusing to condemn or even critique the behavior of anyone in antiquity is not pushing the conversation forward any more than unreasoned critique would.

I would also observe that the only living parties who could be affected by this conversation in any way are the Jefferson/Hemings descendants, and in a more abstract way all citizens whose rights are considered contingent on status in the present. Jefferson himself is dead. Long ago, and his feelings cannot now be hurt by an analysis of his decisions in life. Discussing morality in the past is discussing morality in the present. It is asking: what happened, and what can we learn from it? Ideally, it is asking: How can we do better? There is no cost to "attacking" the reputation of a person long dead. But refusing to do so is hagiography, not history, and that can be quite dangerous, because it prevents serious conversations about the past and future of the nation. If the teaching of history is to be of any value for the young, then we need to populate our history books with humans, not saints or demons.

 

[Politesse]

IMO, we all can have our little character flaws, and do not have to try to be saints.

You know, I've managed to make it through 36 years of my life without ever succumbing to a "little character flaw" on the level of raping a young girl as Jefferson did, and if I should ever err in such a fashion, I fully expect others to condemn me for it. That isn't Puritanism, that's agreement to the minimal standard of behavior necessary for civil society to endure for any length of time. Not every crime can be tolerated just because you don't want to come down too hard on rapists and murderers for "not being perfect".

 

[lostone]

Then you should see no wrong in anti-abortion excesses? Does that excuse January 6? Would you deny that those people are following what they believe to be their own moral compass?

 

[Gospel]

IMO, we all can have our little character flaws, and do not have to try to be saints.

You know, I've managed to make it through 36 years of my life without ever succumbing to a "little character flaw" on the level of raping a young girl as Jefferson did, and if I should ever err in such a fashion, I fully expect others to condemn me for it. That isn't Puritanism, that's agreement to the minimal standard of behavior necessary for civil society to endure for any length of time. Not every crime can be tolerated just because you don't want to come down too hard on rapists and murderers for "not being perfect".

And this folks, is how History should be taught (when age appropriate of course). Not in a way that woke white America wants to hear it. such as "Jefferson was a founding father that drafted the Declaration of Independence, .. The end" But the full story, Jefferson was a founding father who not only drafted the Declaration of Independence, but also owned slaves and raped a young girl. It is this reason why I believe this "stop woke" law (granted its a law written by the inept) if applied blindly as the law should be, has the potential to bring balance to our education system. Is it not woke to only refer to the founding fathers in the best light as if they were alert to injustice in society and did everything they could at all times? We all know that's bullshit woke propaganda.