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

[Gospel]

Everything you've listed was met with fierce resistance from folks who didn't (and never do) want to help niggers because it "happened long ago" while at the same time have no issue with tossing billions to Israel when America had nothing to do with the holocaust. My point was about the hypocrisy of those people. Not sure how what you posted counters that point. Care to elaborate?

1) We did have something to do with the holocaust--deliberately keeping Jewish refugees out.

2) Helping Israel is of benefit to the US--it provides a lightning rod for Islamist terrorists. It also lets us evaluate how well various strategies for dealing with Islamists actually work.

I'm fully aware that America only aids those who have value in her eyes.
The Jews were being rejected not because they were Jews but because America wasn't feeling so well around that time. She was depressed.

 

[Toni]

That's how I learned to do math and physics, including when I took courses late in life: partial credit if you showed your work. I grew up under the ethos that if you got the answer right but did not show your work, the answer was wrong.

My husband teaches at a university and gives partial credit for answers, including mathematical ones, provided work is shown.

The problem comes from teachers with unreasonable standards for showing your work. Every teacher I had that required showing work expected too much--I ended up dropping one class because I expected to flunk out because of this. By far the hardest part of the class was figuring out how to show enough "work" to make his TAs happy--there's no "work" left when I look at what's left and simply know the answer.

It was ingrained in me in…8th grade.

It was a good habit to get into. At a certain point in time, I didn’t always know the answer by looking at the problem.

 

[Toni]

Everything you've listed was met with fierce resistance from folks who didn't (and never do) want to help niggers because it "happened long ago" while at the same time have no issue with tossing billions to Israel when America had nothing to do with the holocaust. My point was about the hypocrisy of those people. Not sure how what you posted counters that point. Care to elaborate?

1) We did have something to do with the holocaust--deliberately keeping Jewish refugees out.

2) Helping Israel is of benefit to the US--it provides a lightning rod for Islamist terrorists. It also lets us evaluate how well various strategies for dealing with Islamists actually work.

I think what you are missing is that the US (eventually) cared about the European Holocaust that killed millions of Jews. It was easier because we didn’t actually round up Jews and send them to work camps or death camps.

Very few Americans are willing or able to draw comparisons between the Holocaust and what we did to say: Natuve Americans or enslaved Africans.

I won’t engage in any discussion about which was worse: There simply are some things that are so evil that it is impossible to attach any kind of ranking. They are ALL horrifying beyond our ability to adequately describe. But it is easier for most Americans to see and to recognize the horrific evil of the Holocaust because we had some distance and less blame. I think it’s much harder to look at what we did here, straight on. In fact, I think that is the root cause of the lingering discrimination and systemic racism: it was easier to do what we did to certain groups because we dehumanized them. And if they weren’t human on par with white people, then maybe it was less bad. People tell themselves all sorts of lies so they can sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror the next morning.

 

[Bomb#20]

Where do you get this stuff? Of course some of the ancient world's slavery practices matched or exceeded the modern world's in general cruelty. Good lord, Sparta required every male citizen to murder a slave as part of his rite of becoming a man! And the size/reach argument is blatant special pleading -- it's just giving societies a pass for virtuously having low population and primitive technology. That's just the same old double-standard we always see from progressives when it comes to Western Civilization, with a political motive just as transparent as the conservatives' ...

So there are two takes here.
1) If you are saying this stuff happened too long ago... why are you even bringing up slave treatment in different regions? It seems odd you complaining 'well if you back far enough'... and then do it yourself. Did you know slaves were treated worse in Brazil?

That's the exact same garbage you spewed at me in the Mississippi thread. One of your political allies makes a completely lame claim about some matter of fact, but since he was attempting to support a cause you agree with, when I point out his error you strawman the bejesus out of me, making up some misrepresentation of my argument, my position, my motives, my character, and probably my body odor. You're using an ad hominem, and it's operationally equivalent to "My cause's supporters are entitled to just make up whatever facts we please and not have them be challenged."

Where the devil do you see me saying this stuff happened too long ago? Where the devil do you see me complaining about Politesse doing anything I did myself? And why the devil do you keep insinuating over and over again that I was defending slavery when I talked about Brazil? How many time have we been through this now? The reason I talk about Brazil is that the overall pattern of relative treatment of slaves in different countries proves slavers were lying about their own motives. It is a condemnation of American slavers -- I am drawing attention to the near certainly that they would have murdered just as many slaves as the Brazilians did if the U.S. had been as close to Africa as Brazil is.

When one of your political allies makes false factual claims, why the hell shouldn't he be called out on it? Are you in favor of pious fraud?

2) The minor difference is that in the US, we are dealing with the impact of the racist past in our nation, which doesn't date as far back as some people want to admit. Jim Crow <yada yada>

Is Jim Crow a reason we should all just uncritically embrace false narratives of the history of slavery, provided they're progressive narratives?

 

[Bomb#20]

Which is to say, no, the abolitionists' victory was not a progressive victory. Progressives had nothing to do with it. The progressive movement was created by abolition -- all those freed slaves getting jobs in northern factories resulted in downward pressure on wages, and in reaction, progressivism formed as a movement to protect the interests of the white working class. No one should be surprised the Progressive Era was the heyday of whites-only labor unions. But hey, if the Mormons get to baptize somebody's long dead ancestor as a Mormon, why shouldn't modern progressives anachronistically baptize William Wilberforce as a progressive?

Not exactly that simple, as the progressive movement was in large part a general reaction to the industrialization of the United States and the relationship between labor and massive corporations, something we saw in Europe too. Laws were indeed passed to keep blacks from being used as cheap imported labor. And the north was hardly enlightened with their attitudes on African Americans. BUT... to say abolition was the main leader in the progressive movement is just wrong. The likes of Eugene Debs and William Jennings Bryan weren't enlightened about blacks, but their lances were primarily pointed at the coal mines, railroads, and steel mills.

I have no idea what you mean by "to say abolition was the main leader", but it does not sound like anything I wrote. Of course those guys' lances were pointed at the companies; but a political movement to prioritize workers' interests over employers' interests will be seen as unnecessary and have trouble gaining influence when wages are generally rising, and will become popular when wages are falling. Wages were rising throughout most of the period of industrialization, so labor and massive corporations could easily be seen as symbiotic; but that rosy view became hard to sustain when wages were generally falling in the 1870s. And competition from freed slaves due to abolition was a major contributing cause of the wage decline. So nobody needed to be pointing lances at black people, or even know black people had anything to do with it, for abolition to be what started the ball rolling toward the Progressive Era.

My point was that causes precede effects. Abolition became a popular cause before Progressivism had become a thing, so crediting progressives for abolition is unhistorical.

 

[Bomb#20]

Absolutely. It is worth noting that while previous groups of thieves have come and gone, America remains and has the power to make positive changes. America has been a incredible ally to the people of Israel (which I support) and American's weren't responsible for the atrocities that befell them at the hand of Nazis. America did however play a role in the Transatlantic holocaust but god forbid anyone talk about helping a n...

It's almost as though countries don't decide whom to help based on feelings of inherited collective guilt. But rejecting the theory of obligation through inherited collective guilt has never meant no help for Black people -- the government does all sorts of things to help Black people. It just means if you want the level of help increased you need some other argument for it. Giving help where it's needed, inclusion and diversity, maximizing total human happiness, and so forth, have often been winning arguments. Making positive changes is worthwhile regardless of whose fault the need for the change is.

 

[Gospel]

Which is to say, no, the abolitionists' victory was not a progressive victory. Progressives had nothing to do with it. The progressive movement was created by abolition -- all those freed slaves getting jobs in northern factories resulted in downward pressure on wages, and in reaction, progressivism formed as a movement to protect the interests of the white working class. No one should be surprised the Progressive Era was the heyday of whites-only labor unions. But hey, if the Mormons get to baptize somebody's long dead ancestor as a Mormon, why shouldn't modern progressives anachronistically baptize William Wilberforce as a progressive?

Not exactly that simple, as the progressive movement was in large part a general reaction to the industrialization of the United States and the relationship between labor and massive corporations, something we saw in Europe too. Laws were indeed passed to keep blacks from being used as cheap imported labor. And the north was hardly enlightened with their attitudes on African Americans. BUT... to say abolition was the main leader in the progressive movement is just wrong. The likes of Eugene Debs and William Jennings Bryan weren't enlightened about blacks, but their lances were primarily pointed at the coal mines, railroads, and steel mills.

I have no idea what you mean by "to say abolition was the main leader", but it does not sound like anything I wrote. Of course those guys' lances were pointed at the companies; but a political movement to prioritize workers' interests over employers' interests will be seen as unnecessary and have trouble gaining influence when wages are generally rising, and will become popular when wages are falling. Wages were rising throughout most of the period of industrialization, so labor and massive corporations could easily be seen as symbiotic; but that rosy view became hard to sustain when wages were generally falling in the 1870s. And competition from freed slaves due to abolition was a major contributing cause of the wage decline. So nobody needed to be pointing lances at black people, or even know black people had anything to do with it, for abolition to be what started the ball rolling toward the Progressive Era.

My point was that causes precede effects. Abolition became a popular cause before Progressivism had become a thing, so crediting progressives for abolition is unhistorical.

Racists white people back then are similar to the same ones who blame Mexicans (aka immigrants) for taking their jobs. Overall what I believe happened was like what's happening today, American's (aka white people since they were/are the majority) asking price was/is too high and the downtrodden will always accept less. Labor itself is a supply and demand thing after all. The progressive era was a side effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's how I learned to do math and physics, including when I took courses late in life: partial credit if you showed your work. I grew up under the ethos that if you got the answer right but did not show your work, the answer was wrong.

My husband teaches at a university and gives partial credit for answers, including mathematical ones, provided work is shown.

The problem comes from teachers with unreasonable standards for showing your work. Every teacher I had that required showing work expected too much--I ended up dropping one class because I expected to flunk out because of this. By far the hardest part of the class was figuring out how to show enough "work" to make his TAs happy--there's no "work" left when I look at what's left and simply know the answer.

It was ingrained in me in…8th grade.

It was a good habit to get into. At a certain point in time, I didn’t always know the answer by looking at the problem.

I'm not talking about knowing the answer to the problem by looking. The sorts of things where show-work became relevant were way beyond that--too complex for working memory, working it out on paper was essential. What I'm talking about is that working it out on paper--you break it down into simpler things and at some point you have it broken down enough that in many cases you simply see the answer. I would repeatedly get dinged for not enough work because I didn't figure out how to break it down enough because I didn't see any more breaking down to do. (And I rather suspect they were more looking at volume anyway. The class that I had to drop had three TAs. One good, one marginal and one completely useless. I had the useless one.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Everything you've listed was met with fierce resistance from folks who didn't (and never do) want to help niggers because it "happened long ago" while at the same time have no issue with tossing billions to Israel when America had nothing to do with the holocaust. My point was about the hypocrisy of those people. Not sure how what you posted counters that point. Care to elaborate?

1) We did have something to do with the holocaust--deliberately keeping Jewish refugees out.

2) Helping Israel is of benefit to the US--it provides a lightning rod for Islamist terrorists. It also lets us evaluate how well various strategies for dealing with Islamists actually work.

Did you just say the benefit of Israel is that they are bait?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everything you've listed was met with fierce resistance from folks who didn't (and never do) want to help niggers because it "happened long ago" while at the same time have no issue with tossing billions to Israel when America had nothing to do with the holocaust. My point was about the hypocrisy of those people. Not sure how what you posted counters that point. Care to elaborate?

1) We did have something to do with the holocaust--deliberately keeping Jewish refugees out.

2) Helping Israel is of benefit to the US--it provides a lightning rod for Islamist terrorists. It also lets us evaluate how well various strategies for dealing with Islamists actually work.

Did you just say the benefit of Israel is that they are bait?

I said one of the benefits. Islamists are more interested in attacking them than us--they serve as a lightning rod. Better to fight them in Israel than here, same as it's better to fight Russia in Ukraine than here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Everything you've listed was met with fierce resistance from folks who didn't (and never do) want to help niggers because it "happened long ago" while at the same time have no issue with tossing billions to Israel when America had nothing to do with the holocaust. My point was about the hypocrisy of those people. Not sure how what you posted counters that point. Care to elaborate?

1) We did have something to do with the holocaust--deliberately keeping Jewish refugees out.

2) Helping Israel is of benefit to the US--it provides a lightning rod for Islamist terrorists. It also lets us evaluate how well various strategies for dealing with Islamists actually work.

Did you just say the benefit of Israel is that they are bait?

I said one of the benefits.

Uh....

Islamists are more interested in attacking them than us--they serve as a lightning rod. Better to fight them in Israel than here, same as it's better to fight Russia in Ukraine than here.

Well that's just an awful thing to say and think.

 

[Oleg]

I said one of the benefits. Islamists are more interested in attacking them than us--they serve as a lightning rod. Better to fight them in Israel than here, same as it's better to fight Russia in Ukraine than here.

That is kinda of a terrible take. While I support Israel, it certainly can be argued that its existence is what sparked the Islamism of the past half century. The failure of Pan-Arabism (which was secular) not to dislodge Israel left the political terrain open for religious fundamentalists. Thankfully, it seems, Islamism is on the wane. But I think the honest answer on why the West supports Israel is because it is the West. It shares our values - it even participates in Eurovision. It's only natural we would support people who look/act/behave like us.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I said one of the benefits. Islamists are more interested in attacking them than us--they serve as a lightning rod. Better to fight them in Israel than here, same as it's better to fight Russia in Ukraine than here.

That is kinda of a terrible take. While I support Israel, it certainly can be argued that its existence is what sparked the Islamism of the past half century. The failure of Pan-Arabism (which was secular) not to dislodge Israel left the political terrain open for religious fundamentalists. Thankfully, it seems, Islamism is on the wane. But I think the honest answer on why the West supports Israel is because it is the West. It shares our values - it even participates in Eurovision. It's only natural we would support people who look/act/behave like us.

What sparked radical Islam is oil. Specifically, the flood of oil money that enabled them to go back on the warpath.

And reality is often quite ugly. Ignoring the ugliness might make people feel better but it doesn't make it go away.

 

[Oleg]

What sparked radical Islam is oil. Specifically, the flood of oil money that enabled them to go back on the warpath.

I guess I respectfully disagree. If this guy had won the 1967 battle against Israel, doubtful that Islamic fundamentialism would have risen like it had.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What sparked radical Islam is oil. Specifically, the flood of oil money that enabled them to go back on the warpath.

I guess I respectfully disagree. If this guy had won the 1967 battle against Israel, doubtful that Islamic fundamentialism would have risen like it had.

They would have done the same thing, just after different targets. Islam wants to reclaim any land that they ever conquered. Israel is the first target of many.

 

[bilby]

Islam wants to reclaim any land that they ever conquered.

"Islam" is about two billion people with about two billion opinions on the question of whether Muslims should claim any particular region as part of an Islamic caliphate, or indeed about whether Muslims should impose on non-muslims at all.

Your sweeping generalisation here is batshit crazy. The Iranian leadership, the house of Saud, the leaders of ISIS, each have some ambitions that are perhaps vaguely similar to what you suggest (though these groups are in literally violent disagreement over the details); But none of these entities is "Islam". And none represents as much as ten percent of all Muslims.

You might as well say "Christianity wants to outlaw homosexuality". Most Christians don't; And you shouldn't be assisting the small but vocal group of extremists within Christianity, by ascribing their absurd goals to the entire community.

Unless, of course, you are some kind of radical islamist?

 

[Toni]

I said one of the benefits. Islamists are more interested in attacking them than us--they serve as a lightning rod. Better to fight them in Israel than here, same as it's better to fight Russia in Ukraine than here.

That is kinda of a terrible take. While I support Israel, it certainly can be argued that its existence is what sparked the Islamism of the past half century. The failure of Pan-Arabism (which was secular) not to dislodge Israel left the political terrain open for religious fundamentalists. Thankfully, it seems, Islamism is on the wane. But I think the honest answer on why the West supports Israel is because it is the West. It shares our values - it even participates in Eurovision. It's only natural we would support people who look/act/behave like us.

What sparked radical Islam is oil. Specifically, the flood of oil money that enabled them to go back on the warpath.

And reality is often quite ugly. Ignoring the ugliness might make people feel better but it doesn't make it go away.

You are wrong here. Yes, the influx of oil money DID have a role to play in radical Islam but it was the rapid change that oil money brought, along with the West's desire and yes, arrogance, that they would be able to control the MidEast, and Islamic people and thus the oil and the political advantage, but mostly the oil, and of course the resulting wealth from both.

Oil rich Islamic nations were faced with rapid change of their culture and their people as more non-Muslims were exerting influence over their people, and as culture and nations changed very, very rapidly over a very short period of time.

Look at the US and much of the rest of European based nations: Over the last 50 years, there has been an enormous change in the prominence of Christianity, of the cis white male Christo-hetero normative for power, influence and control as women have gained more and more access to education and to jobs--careers, even! and occasionally, political office. At the same time, it became more acceptable to be gay, bi, even trans (something most Americans had never heard of except, perhaps as transvestites)) or for women to express that they are not all asexual, interested in giving birth, allowing others to dictate what they did with their bodies or with whom and to actually express personal ambitions and to--get this--prioritize them. Black and brown people are no longer willing to accept being back of the bus, literally or figuratively and expect to have decent housing, decent education, access to health care, and jobs and to determine their own futures. In other words, the vast changes in the American and European landscape took place mostly since WWII. And have given us Donald Trump and the decline of the GOP into the QOP.

Now try the Muslim world, which was largely but obviously not completely stuck somewhere in the middle of the 14th century and then skipped ahead to the 20th century. America has done lost its mind over the changes of the last 50-75 years. Is it any wonder that several centuries of what we consider progress compressed into maybe 30 years has caused a lot of blow back from the Islamic world??

 

[Gospel]

Translation in American Terms: White people experienced centuries' worth of change in just a few decades because of slavery. When slaves were freed some people became angry and afraid. They reacted by turning to radical ideas in an attempt to hold on to their traditional way of life. For example voting a big fat orange democrat from New York City into the oval office.

Was that accurate?

Edit: I meant to translate the Arab worlds experience with and reaction to change into Modern American politics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Translation in American Terms: White people experienced centuries' worth of change in just a few decades because of slavery. When slaves were freed some people became angry and afraid. They reacted by turning to radical ideas in an attempt to hold on to their traditional way of life. For example voting a big fat orange democrat from New York City into the oval office.

Was that accurate?

Edit: I meant to translate the Arab worlds experience with and reaction to change into Modern American politics.

Yup. Radical Islam is behaving much like the Christian White Nationalists here, except the Christians don't really have lost lands to try to reclaim.

 

[Jarhyn]

Translation in American Terms: White people experienced centuries' worth of change in just a few decades because of slavery. When slaves were freed some people became angry and afraid. They reacted by turning to radical ideas in an attempt to hold on to their traditional way of life. For example voting a big fat orange democrat from New York City into the oval office.

Was that accurate?

Edit: I meant to translate the Arab worlds experience with and reaction to change into Modern American politics.

Yup. Radical Islam is behaving much like the Christian White Nationalists here, except the Christians don't really have lost lands to try to reclaim.

I dunno about that. Technically plenty of Christians were forced to flee Europe over the years for various reasons. They could reclaim those lands as "lost".

They should not, though I suspect that eventually they're going to try it.