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

[Jimmy Higgins]

have a large collection of evidence at your disposal

Yes.

]attempting to defend a baseless assertion.

Incorrect. Allow me to quote, so as to clarify my position:

"Right-wingers like to get off on beating up children, left-wingers prefer molesting them, [based on] my observation."​

I hope that this will put any misunderstandings to rest.

Appreciate the evasiveness. Very helpful.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Mr. Higgins,

Our exchange begin with nothing more than a simple observation on my part. Yet it appears that you were not particularly intrigued by it, for you initiated your ‘inquiry’ by declaring my observation to be baseless. How curious.

I am not one to act with undue haste or engage in unfounded assertions, even when faced with claims that are actually without basis; never mind ones that do have some basis in reality, or ones for which I am not in a position to know either way. Rather, if my curiosity is piqued, I adopt a more inquisitive spirit, ever eager to delve into the unknown and unearth new and enlightening truths.

Now, I do not presume to suggest that my method of inquiry is inherently superior, but I must confess that I find your alternative approach quite beyond my powers of comprehension. I should be most grateful if you could shed some light upon it.

And that concludes my thoughts on the matter for the present time. I eagerly anticipate your response.

Regards,
Lord Osmund​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I recall a furor that a poster in my son’s HS caused among the “Christians”. The poster asked students to not assault classmates they thought was gay. Those bigoted morons thought it was promoting the gay lifestyle and rejected the idea that those children deserved protection from physical harm because they were sinning against Gawd.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the all-too-common belief that the message is the reality--you cure gayness by making people behave straight. The right is far more guilty of this than the left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don’t object to this because it pushes a ideology/religion you support - on other peoples’ children. There’s no reason for this to be in the classroom. A teacher should not express interest in a child’s sexually or indoctrinate children on sexual or political agendas. The groomer label fits.

Groomer?

That teacher isn't expressing an interest in anyone's sexuality. The shirt says to protect trans kids, it doesn't attempt to identify anyone who is trans nor does it encourage anyone to be trans. (It does, however, discourage the message of hate your side is preaching--being opposed to hate doesn't make one for whatever is being hated.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the left it is sexual abuse, for the right it is physical and verbal abuse.

Right-wingers like to get off on beating up children, left-wingers prefer molesting them, in my observation.

Look at the news--what politicians get arrested on sexual offenses? Almost all are Republican. And when a Democrat gets caught he's quickly ostracized, a Republican faces no censure from their party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the left it is sexual abuse, for the right it is physical and verbal abuse.

Right-wingers like to get off on beating up children, left-wingers prefer molesting them, in my observation.

That is an incredibly baseless observation. I can't imagine abuse has any particular partisan spin.

Disagree--but it's like ice cream and rape--both stem from the same underlying attitudes.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I recall a furor that a poster in my son’s HS caused among the “Christians”. The poster asked students to not assault classmates they thought was gay. Those bigoted morons thought it was promoting the gay lifestyle and rejected the idea that those children deserved protection from physical harm because they were sinning against Gawd.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the all-too-common belief that the message is the reality--you cure gayness by making people behave straight. The right is far more guilty of this than the left.

Both factions, be they of the left or the right, are guilty of making the same baseless assumption, namely, that such a condition as “homosexuality” exists.

It matters not whether they are speaking “for” it or “against” the gays; both factions act in collusion to legitimise & reinforce the validity of this socially constructed fictitious identity, an identity that did not exist till it was conjured into being by the Victorians as a psycho-sexual perversion.

A total fabrication, given life through the machinations of those who seek to control & manipulate the masses.

The ancient Greeks, the Japanese, and countless other civilisations throughout history, never entertained such a fanciful notion. They had no need of it. It was a concept that had never crossed the minds of our ancestors till the 19th century.

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!

Thus, in this realm as in others, the “left” and “right” covertly collaborate to advance a shared agenda. An unholy alliance, wherein the façade of opposition is but a ruse to deceive the masses & maintain the status quo.

Lord Osmund de Ixabert​

 

[Elixir]

Meh. The right manufactures villains, it’s what they do. Then they personify their creations and the left has to leap to the defense of the people being villainized, validating the existence of the manufactured villain.
You can blame the left for their complicity, but it’s the right’s creation. IMHO that has to change; the left needs to get into the business of scaring the living shit out of people, which some figures on the right give them ample excuse to do.

 

[TomC]

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!

You may not understand this. But believe me when I say, I have damn good reason to believe that the condition exists.

Whoever this "we" you belong to might be, I am not part of it. Your ostentatious pretensions and self indulgent personality had already made me dislike you. This assertion that my "condition" hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction makes me quite angry.

I'll stop there as I'm considering posting something that will very much upset the staff.

Tom

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Meanwhile, we have never been given a single reason to suppose that such a condition even exists in the first place!

You may not understand this. But believe me when I say, I have damn good reason to believe that the condition exists.

Whoever this "we" you belong to might be, I am not part of it. Your ostentatious pretensions and self indulgent personality had already made me dislike you. This assertion that my "condition" hasn't been demonstrated to your satisfaction makes me quite angry.

I'll stop there as I'm considering posting something that will very much upset the staff.

Tom

And I have a better reason to believe that it does not exist, since I know exactly what it is you are referring to, both in its subjective and in its objective aspects.
 Nonetheless I don’t believe that the condition exists. For I don’t regard love between two men as a sexuality. They can love each other as intimately as they wish, and I still wouldn’t regard it as anything other than a form of friendship.
 Their behaviour I would consider a form of mutual masturbation, for that’s what it is. It is not a sex act, nor is their attraction to the same sex a ’sexuality’; it is just the ordinary human perception of æsthetic beauty in the human form, and perhaps they are more perspicacious than the average man or woman. As an artist I can relate to that.
 I think everyone has just been hypersexualised. They think things are sexual that I would call merely erotic, æsthetic, or fraternal in nature.
 As regards your last remark: you can say whatever you want to me. I am unoffendable. I am missing that part of the brain that is capable of feeling the supposed “offence,” I suppose. Go ahead; say what you wish, and I shall not complain, nor shall I respond with personal invective.
 Regards,
 Lord Osmond de Ixabert​

 

[TomC]

I have a better reason to believe that it does not exist, since I know exactly what you are referring to,

Really?

I have good reason to believe that you don't, m'lord.
Tom

 

[Toni]

For the left it is sexual abuse, for the right it is physical and verbal abuse.

Right-wingers like to get off on beating up children, left-wingers prefer molesting them, in my observation.

That is an incredibly baseless observation. I can't imagine abuse has any particular partisan spin.

I have definitely known victims of abuse wherever I have gone in this world, regardless of ruling party.

Abuse happens everywhere, at all socioeconomic strata, in every country and every culture. Sometimes it’s hidden by religious structures, sometimes it’s hidden by social or cultural structures. Substance abuse makes it worse but that’s not the only cause.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

I have a better reason to believe that it does not exist, since I know exactly what you are referring to,

I have good reason to believe that you don't, m'lord.

What do you even disagree with, and why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

 

[ZiprHead]

Admin hat on:

Several derails have come about in this thread. They need to stop now. If you wish to continue, start new threads.

Admin hat off.

 

[TomC]

Admin hat on:

Several derails have come about in this thread. They need to stop now. If you wish to continue, start new threads.

Admin hat off.

There is one important takeaway from the slavery derail. It's the impossibility of reducing history in a way that will satisfy everyone.

Even reducing the comparatively short and well documented history of the U.S. is rife with subjective opinions about what is really true, much less what is important, and worst of all why it's important.

The resulting "Story about how we got to where we are today" will necessarily be shaped hugely by the agendas of the folks who choose what to leave in and what to leave out.

Then this is further complicated by the fact that it's got to be designed for K-12 students. Higher education students can focus on history if they want, but younger students also have to learn math and language and literature and a whole raft of other stuff at the same time. The amount of time devoted to history is very limited.

I'm really glad I'm not tasked with developing a K-12 history curriculum in the modern world.
Tom

 

[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.

...
Nobody here is denying that slavery was wrong; ...

I completely agree, but...

When TSwizzle said "but" he was not taking exception to the contention that slavery was wrong. He was pointing out the painfully obvious inadequacy of "Early American colonists did not buy African slaves from the American Indians." for its apparent purpose of putting the blame wholly on Europeans. You don't get to just casually shift his "but" from its intended target to something different that would have been better for your rhetoric.

 

[Gospel]

African's to my knowledge mostly (not solely) sold captured enemy combatants and Africans that either owed a finacial debt or were criminals. I disagree with slavery in it's entirety but Europeans weren't buying African's for the same reason the majority of African's were selling them. 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. The high demand for slaves even lead to African's going as far as kidnapping their own people in exchange for wealth. Both were for incredibly stupid reasons but they are not the same.

Edit: If I were a high school history teacher DeSantis would have me lose my job for saying this in a Florida Classroom. The truth is banned.

 

[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.

 

[Oleg]

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.)