One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
A Question (or two) for you Conservatives Out there ...
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Nov 22, 2022 11:15:28   #
whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon
 
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:19:07   #
Bevvy
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


To call a country racist after electing a black man to the presidency and a black woman to v.p. is NOT being honest

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:22:12   #
Kevyn
 
Bevvy wrote:
To call a country racist after electing a black man to the presidency and a black woman to v.p. is NOT being honest


The nation is not necessarily racist but it has a rich racist history that many racists desperately want to ignore and not account for its lasting legacy.

Reply
 
 
Nov 22, 2022 11:25:37   #
nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert
 
Kevyn wrote:
The nation is not necessarily racist but it has a rich racist history that many racists desperately want to ignore and not account for its lasting legacy.



It isn't the republicans erasing our past .

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:25:49   #
WEBCO
 
I fully agree with your first paragraph. You did leave out the part that the civil rights act was passed because of republicans, against the wishes of most elected democrats

The rest of the piece is just the opinion, of racists. I will yell from the rooftops that the US is NOT systemically racist. Facts prove me right

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:31:00   #
WEBCO
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


The 2020 election was NOT fair...anybody saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Your opinion that republicans want voter suppression is also wrong. They want votes to be secure, plain and simple.

If Harvard becomes 100% Asian American then so be it. I'm for meritocracy and against any kind of quotas.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:32:27   #
Bevvy
 
Kevyn wrote:
The nation is not necessarily racist but it has a rich racist history that many racists desperately want to ignore and not account for its lasting legacy.


OK , tell that to your dixiecrats . That is where the blame belongs.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (whose members are often called the Dixiecrats) is a segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats wished to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.[6]

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

Reply
 
 
Nov 22, 2022 11:44:52   #
American Vet
 
Kevyn wrote:
The nation is not necessarily racist but it has a rich racist history that many racists desperately want to ignore and not account for its lasting legacy.


And many - if not most - racists are leftists.

Normal people, such as Conservatives, want history taught in a fair and unbiased manner.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:45:51   #
American Vet
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


And many - if not most - racists are leftists.

Normal people, such as Conservatives, want history taught in a fair and unbiased manner.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:46:13   #
steve66613
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


Your post implies that history must be taught in a way which imposes penalties on modern society. Furthermore, history must be viewed in the context of today’s social standards.

The history of mankind has more often been brutal, than filled with jubilation. But, no amount of self-flagellation, today, will change one second of history. No application of modern terms or phrases will change anything.

Study history? Absolutely! Weaponize history……no thanks.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 11:57:09   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


You are neglecting numerous historical facts in your pursuit of "historical fact." The first is that of about 11 million slaves transported from Africa to the Americas, only some 600,000 ended up in what became the United States. Gee, I wonder what happened to the other 10.94 million? Does South America and the Caribbean ring a bell?
Secondly slavery was a fact of life in those days, all over the world. The United States accounted for a very small portion of the slaves in the world. Somewhere around 1%. Almost every slave transported to what became the US was already a slave, enslaved by other BLACK AFRICANS. Somehow your precious CRT forgets all about that part. Almost every slave transported to what became the US arrived on a BRITISH slave ship before we were even a country. The few American slave ships were, with one exception, owned by Northeastern Industrialists who gave lip service to abolition even as they financed slave gathering operations. The one exception was a Southern owned ship called the Clotilda, which made ONE run, transporting about 200 slaves. This was in 1860, in violation of US law.
The "Emancipation Proclamation" ignored the half million slaves who had the misfortune to live in one of the four slave states who did not secede. These remained slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment more than two years later.
CRT also ignores the fact that Muslim slavers, many of whom were black, conducted slave raids on white settlements all over the Mediterranean and Western European coasts. At the time of the Civil War there were an estimated one and a half million whites in slavery in Africa and the Middle East.
Slavery has existed since the dawn of recorded history and probably before that. Blacks enslaved each other for a couple of thousand years before the first white man ever set foot in sub-Saharan Africa.
According to MSNBC, in the 1830 census there were 1,276 black slave owners in the US. About half of them "owned" a couple of family members to protect them. The other half bought and sold other blacks just like their counterparts in Africa.
CRT tries to place the blame for everything on whites. Black students get preferential treatment and still cannot compete with Asian or White students in many cases. Much of what is wrong with blacks today lies in the fact that some 75% of them are born to single mothers. It is a proven fact that children of any race who live in a single parent home do worse in school and are more prone to delinquency.
Black males age 15-30 are some 4% of the US population and commit more than half the murders and more than 70% of the violent crime. Morever, this percentage is even smaller when you consider that black males of this age group who live in small towns or rural areas are no more likely than anyone else to commit a crime. It is driven almost completely by urban black males between the ages of 15 and 30. Period. I have, at one time or another documented every statement I just made, with official US government statistics and publications. I am tired of doing so when leg humping liberals don't bother to read them.
Much of what is wrong with Black America today is self-inflicted. It will not change until there is an emphasis on discipline and education among younger blacks; until a two parent family replaces a street gang as a family. Much of what you Liberals term "white supremacy" or the ever popular raaaaaaciiiiiiiism is engendered by black behavior, and is a perfectly understandable reaction to such.

Reply
 
 
Nov 22, 2022 12:09:17   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Excellent analysis, Steve.

Thanks for posting it.

steve66613 wrote:
Your post implies that history must be taught in a way which imposes penalties on modern society. Furthermore, history must be viewed in the context of today’s social standards.

The history of mankind has more often been brutal, than filled with jubilation. But, no amount of self-flagellation, today, will change one second of history. No application of modern terms or phrases will change anything.

Study history? Absolutely! Weaponize history……no thanks.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 12:56:52   #
vernon
 
Bevvy wrote:
OK , tell that to your dixiecrats . That is where the blame belongs.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (whose members are often called the Dixiecrats) is a segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats wished to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.[6]

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".
OK , tell that to your dixiecrats . That is where ... (show quote)



You are wrong! The dixiecrats broke from the demorat party because they had become the communist party of America ,and they are that now.

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 12:58:19   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
The following news story is from 1985, and is retrieved from the New York Times Archive:

"The factual history of the United States was routinely taught in the US for most of its existence. FUTURISTIC NOVELS WITH A BLEAK vision of the prospects for the free individual characteristically portray a society in which history - knowledge of the past - has been systematically eliminated. In Aldous Huxley's ''Brave New World,'' the regime successfully waged a ''campaign against the Past'' by banning the teaching of history, closing museums and destroying historical monuments.

If knowledge of the past is in fact relevant to our ability to understand the present and to exercise freedom of mind - as totalitarian societies, both real and fictional, acknowledge by stringently controlling what may be studied or published -then there is cause for concern about many Americans' sense of history. The threat to our knowledge of the past comes, more than from government censorship, from indifference and ignorance. The erosion of historical understanding seems especially pronounced among the generation under 35, those schooled during the period of sharp declines in basic skills. While achievement in reading and mathematics is regularly tested by national and state educational agencies, the condition of historical knowledge is far more difficult to measure and the attempt is seldom made.

During the past generation (before 1985), the amount of time devoted to historical studies in American public schools has steadily decreased. About 25 years ago, most public high-school youths studied one year of world history and one of American history, but today, most study only one year of ours. In contrast, the state schools of many other Western nations require the subject to be studied almost every year. In France, for example, all students, not just the college-bound, follow a carefully sequenced program of history, civics and geography every year from the seventh grade through the 12th grade.

Does it matter if Americans are ignorant of their past? Does it matter if the general public knows little of the individuals, the events and the movements that shaped our nation? The fundamental premise of our democratic form of government is that political power derives from the informed consent of the people. Informed consent requires a citizenry that is rational and knowledgeable. If our system is to remain free and democratic, citizens should know not only how to judge candidates and their competing claims but how our institutions evolved. An understanding of history does not lead everyone to the same conclusions, but it does equip people with the knowledge to reach independent judgments on current issues. Without historical perspective, voters are more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals, by stirring commercials, or by little more than a candidate's good looks or charisma.

BECAUSE OF MY interest as a historian of education in the condition of the study of history, I have been involved during the last year, in collaboration with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, in planning a countrywide study of what 17-year-olds know about American history. In addition, my contacts with college students during the last year and discussions with other historians have led me to believe that there is cause for concern.

On the college lecture circuit this past year, I visited some 30 campuses, ranging from large public universities to small private liberal-arts colleges. Repeatedly, I was astonished by questions from able students about the most elementary facts of American history. At one urban Minnesota university, none of the 30 students in a course on ethnic relations had ever heard of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954, which held racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. At a university in the Pacific Northwest, a professor of education publicly insisted that high-school students should concentrate on vocational preparation and athletics, since they had the rest of their lives to learn subjects like history ''on their own time.''

The shock of encountering college students who did not recognize the names of eminent figures like Jane Addams or W.E.B. Du Bois led me to conduct an informal, unscientific survey of professors who teach history to undergraduates. ''My students are not stupid, but they have an abysmal background in American, or any other kind of, history,'' said Thomas Kessner, who teaches American history at Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn. ''They never heard of Daniel Webster; don't understand the Constitution; don't know the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.''

This gloomy assessment was echoed by Naomi Miller, chairman of the history department at Hunter College in New York. ''My students have no historical knowledge on which to draw when they enter college,'' she said. ''They have no point of reference for understanding World War I, the Treaty of Versailles or the Holocaust.'' More than ignorance of the past, however, she finds an indifference to dates and chronology or causation. ''They think that everything is subjective. They have plenty of attitudes and opinions, but they lack the knowledge to analyze a problem.'' Professor Miller believes that ''we are in danger of bringing up a generation without historical memory. This is a dangerous situation.''

IN SEARCH OF SOME explanation for why so many high-school graduates do not know much history, I visited several social-studies classes last spring. In one New York City high school, where most of the 3,000 students are black, Hispanic and/or recent immigrants, a teacher said, ''Our students don't see the relevance to their own lives of what dead people did. American studies means more to them than American history.''

I observed a class in American studies, where the lesson for the day was state government, its leaders and their functions. When the teacher asked, ''Does anyone know what the Attorney General of New York State does?'' a girl answered tentatively, ''Isn't he the one that says on the cigarette box that you shouldn't smoke because it gives you cancer?'' The teacher responded, incorrectly, ''Yes, but what else does he do?''

The teacher went on, earnestly trying to connect the duties of New York's state officials with the students' daily lives. Watching their impassive faces, I thought that a discussion of the Crusades or the Salem witchcraft trials or slavery would be infinitely more interesting, and relevant, to their adolescent minds.

When I expressed surprise about the complete absence of traditional, chronological history, the department chairman said: ''What we teach is determined by guidelines from the State Education Department. In the late 1960's, the state decided to de-emphasize chronological history and to focus instead on topical issues and social-sci-ence concepts. We followed suit.'' A teacher chimed in to explain, ''We don't teach history, because it doesn't help our students pass the New York State Regents' examinations in social studies.''

The absorption of history into the field of social studies is itself a problem. As the number of social-studies courses expands, the time available for history contracts. One study concluded that social-studies teachers ''have given up on any attempt to agree on what their students should learn.''

To some teachers, social studies means the study of the social sciences, and many schools now offer courses in sociology, economics, psychology and anthropology; to others, it consists of studies that promote understanding of current social problems. Still others see it as a field whose purpose is to teach good behavior and good citizenship. A currently popular definition holds that its purpose is to teach values, critical thinking and respect for cultural diversity.

Because of the ill-defined nature of the field, it is easily invaded by curricular fads. Whenever state legislatures or interest groups discover an unmet need, a new program is pushed into the social-studies curriculum. Social studies now embrace aspects of such diverse concerns as energy education, environmental education, gun-control education, future studies, consumer education, free-enterprise education and a host of other courses prompted by contemporary issues. Yet despite the persistent emphasis on social relevance and student interest, surveys regularly show that students find social studies to be less interesting and less important than their other school subjects.

According to Lloyd Bromberg, assistant director for social studies of the New York City Board of Education, about 25 to 30 percent of the city's high schools choose to follow the state curriculum of American studies instead of the city's American history. Beginning in 1987, the state curriculum will become more chronological than at any time since the late 1960's.

Mr. Bromberg has expressed concern about the number of social-studies teachers who have no background in history. New York, he points out, is one of several states that offer a ''generic'' social-studies certificate, which means that a person can be certified to teach social studies without ever studying history in college. All that is required is that an applicant must have taken 36 hours (12 courses) in the social sciences in colleges.

PROFESSORS DIFFER ABOUT whether their students know more or less history today than pupils knew 20 years ago. John A. Garraty of Columbia University believes that while his students are as good as those in the past, their study in high school of unrelated ''topics'' or ''themes'' has left them without historical context. Stephan Thernstrom, a historian at Harvard University, tells of a colleague who was once thanked by a senior for explaining World War I. ''I've always wondered,'' the student said, ''why people kept talking about a Second World War.''
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Indentured servitude was a form of labor in which an individual contracted to work without a salary to repay an indenture or loan within a certain time frame.

Indentured servitude was popular in the United States in the 1600s as many European immigrants were enabled to work a set time period in exchange for the price of their passage to America.

FYI, there were no Mastercards or Visas during that time period. It was pay as you go.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed in 1865 at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states were restored to the Union. The Senate passed it in April 1864, the House initially did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure its passage through Congress. It made indentured servitude illegal in the U.S.

Today, it is banned in nearly all countries.

whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 22, 2022 13:03:27   #
keepuphope Loc: Idaho
 
whitnebrat wrote:
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, slavery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", slavery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic slavery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

Systemic Racism (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness voting suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority voting in national elections. This is a classic case of systemic racism, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the vote and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The election of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate elections in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to vote, and voter suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.
Why is it wrong to teach about slavery in our scho... (show quote)


All we have to do is look at your location and it explains your bloviating We really need to wall off you and California with your own safe space.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.