Is America a racist nation?

[youthathletics]

More on CRT from an Asian.......

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna443526

https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data ... 600808.php

Ain’t nothing like fair competition.

This stood out in the article you cited...
“ As Jennifer Lee points out, more than 50% of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. have a bachelor’s degree. In China, the rate is about 5%.”

Does that not mean that they take advantage or the opportunities provided in America and in China those opportunities are then limited? I don’t know. The children of those intellectual Chinese in America are also succeeding, according to the author from the video link.

I suppose it’s complicated.

It’s called skimming off the top of society…..haven’t you heard “why do West Indians do better than black Americans?” Carry your ass down to Trinidad and ask….

I work with a few guys from Trinidad, good guys.

[Typical Lax Dad]

More on CRT from an Asian.......

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna443526

https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data ... 600808.php

Ain’t nothing like fair competition.

This stood out in the article you cited...
“ As Jennifer Lee points out, more than 50% of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. have a bachelor’s degree. In China, the rate is about 5%.”

Does that not mean that they take advantage or the opportunities provided in America and in China those opportunities are then limited? I don’t know. The children of those intellectual Chinese in America are also succeeding, according to the author from the video link.

I suppose it’s complicated.

It’s called skimming off the top of society…..haven’t you heard “why do West Indians do better than black Americans?” Carry your ass down to Trinidad and ask….

I work with a few guys from Trinidad, good guys.

I wonder if Kenny had any grandparents in Japan that did as well there as he is doing here? Probably……

[cradleandshoot]

The first one is straight trolling.
But "admin" only cares when Pete's doing it.

hmmm, I don't really agree that it's "trolling" to post a cartoon making the point it does...in this thread topic. Indeed, it's right on topic.

I take issue, fairly often, with Brooklyn's lumping of all Republicans together as if a monolith, but the fundamental point here is that there are really no GOP elected officials of note pushing back against the nonsense being spewed at the local school board level and on right wing media about "CRT". And this effort to 'whitewash' history has been a longstanding effort, "CRT" outrage simply being a current version.

Fair topic, not trolling.
I just didn't find it 'clever'.

Plop the same cartoon into a thread on COVID, that'd be another matter.

IMO

You can't possibly be this naive about this CRT discussion MD. It is no longer about the theory, it is about CRT becoming a poison pill in the political sense. YOUR republicans sense that the subject is very unpopular with all those white suburban moms. The democrats have no choice but to disassociate themselves from any hint of supporting CRT in any contested political district. I give YOUR republicans credit for doing so. When you are given an opportunity from the other side you take advantage of it. The democrats are disavowing any knowledge of CRT in schools. They are pretending like it never even existed. Your shaming YOUR party for taking advantage of the gift that fell into their lap? That is what the game of politics is all about, taking advantage of mistakes the other side makes.

And yet, it is oh so dumb and so revealing of what these racist a-holes think of 'white suburban moms'.

And no, CRT has never been part of elementary, middle and high school curriculums. Never.

What HAS been getting pushed is an honest recounting of history, inclusive of the perspective of that history from the point of view of those who were once considered less than a full person.

Do liberals sometimes over swing? You betcha.
Do they sometimes flub their 'branding'? You betcha.

But this all about wanting to keep white washing history...bunch of snowflakes.

Who exactly is in charge of the honest recounting of history? What your telling me is everything students have been taught in history for generations is fiddle faddle. Your telling me CRT is not being taught at any level in any school and then proclaim CRT is just an "honest" recounting of history. Too bad no students will ever learn it if as you say it is not being taught.
It may be oh so dumb of those white a holes but their goal is to win elections. When the other side hands you the club you beat them over the head with it. Al Davis said it the best.."just win baby"

ahhh, cradle, I suppose you're hopeless...do you not read (or remember) what others write on here?

No, CRT isn't a recounting of history...it's a legal analysis framework applied to how government laws and policies are impacted by race, yes historically but most importantly currently. And this sort of thing is college or law school level, not below.

Quite distinct from CRT, is honest and fulsome history...ala US History classes which are indeed middle and high school and to a far lesser extent touched on in elementary school.

and who the heck do you think should be determine what to teach and not to teach? You comfortable with some cracker head in Oklahoma deciding that the Tulsa Massacre shouldn't be included in the history book or mentioned in class? Because, why, some snowflake might be confused and think it means all white folks are evil doers? Yikes...

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery, and all other rhetoric was no more than whitewash, then, during Jim Crow, and now? You cool with American history students not knowing that?

But sure, we're indeed getting a very interesting view into what the GOP has largely become.

That is an impressive rant MD. I'm proud of you. Yes i know the origins of CRT. I also know the topic has stirred up a hornets nest of both sides. My opinion here is irrelevant. The actual point is YOUR republican party is using it to put the Democrats on the defensive. The response from democrats has been alot of rumbling, bumbling and stumbling. It has become clear to me the democrats don't know what to say except to get very angry and defensive. As a strategy, it is working like a charm for YOUR party. When you can force the democrats into a full fledged retreat that is what you want to do in a strategic sense. I believe the students in our schools should become much better versed in the history of this nation. When way too many of them are struggling with courses like English, math and science it is only logical history takes a back seat. I'm interested to know if your comment the other day about students not being taught about the humiliation of slaves in the era of the revolution was alluding to the 3/5 compromise. I know we learned about it when i was in HS. I don't know if kids are learning it today in any context. While refreshing my memory about this I came across some fascinating information about Thomas Jefferson and something he wrote that was deleted from the final draft of the declaration of independence.

https://www.blackpast.org/african-ameri ... r-slavery/

These were some very bold and harsh comments that Jefferson made. Even more bizarre given the fact that Jefferson was a slave owner himself. It does seem his comment was directed more at the British than anything else. I was a bit taken aback that i had never read this deleted passage until yesterday. There is the history we are taught and the history we may never know.

[cradleandshoot]

The first one is straight trolling.
But "admin" only cares when Pete's doing it.

hmmm, I don't really agree that it's "trolling" to post a cartoon making the point it does...in this thread topic. Indeed, it's right on topic.

I take issue, fairly often, with Brooklyn's lumping of all Republicans together as if a monolith, but the fundamental point here is that there are really no GOP elected officials of note pushing back against the nonsense being spewed at the local school board level and on right wing media about "CRT". And this effort to 'whitewash' history has been a longstanding effort, "CRT" outrage simply being a current version.

Fair topic, not trolling.
I just didn't find it 'clever'.

Plop the same cartoon into a thread on COVID, that'd be another matter.

IMO

You can't possibly be this naive about this CRT discussion MD. It is no longer about the theory, it is about CRT becoming a poison pill in the political sense. YOUR republicans sense that the subject is very unpopular with all those white suburban moms. The democrats have no choice but to disassociate themselves from any hint of supporting CRT in any contested political district. I give YOUR republicans credit for doing so. When you are given an opportunity from the other side you take advantage of it. The democrats are disavowing any knowledge of CRT in schools. They are pretending like it never even existed. Your shaming YOUR party for taking advantage of the gift that fell into their lap? That is what the game of politics is all about, taking advantage of mistakes the other side makes.

And yet, it is oh so dumb and so revealing of what these racist a-holes think of 'white suburban moms'.

And no, CRT has never been part of elementary, middle and high school curriculums. Never.

What HAS been getting pushed is an honest recounting of history, inclusive of the perspective of that history from the point of view of those who were once considered less than a full person.

Do liberals sometimes over swing? You betcha.
Do they sometimes flub their 'branding'? You betcha.

But this all about wanting to keep white washing history...bunch of snowflakes.

Who exactly is in charge of the honest recounting of history? What your telling me is everything students have been taught in history for generations is fiddle faddle. Your telling me CRT is not being taught at any level in any school and then proclaim CRT is just an "honest" recounting of history. Too bad no students will ever learn it if as you say it is not being taught.
It may be oh so dumb of those white a holes but their goal is to win elections. When the other side hands you the club you beat them over the head with it. Al Davis said it the best.."just win baby"

ahhh, cradle, I suppose you're hopeless...do you not read (or remember) what others write on here?

No, CRT isn't a recounting of history...it's a legal analysis framework applied to how government laws and policies are impacted by race, yes historically but most importantly currently. And this sort of thing is college or law school level, not below.

Quite distinct from CRT, is honest and fulsome history...ala US History classes which are indeed middle and high school and to a far lesser extent touched on in elementary school.

and who the heck do you think should be determine what to teach and not to teach? You comfortable with some cracker head in Oklahoma deciding that the Tulsa Massacre shouldn't be included in the history book or mentioned in class? Because, why, some snowflake might be confused and think it means all white folks are evil doers? Yikes...

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery, and all other rhetoric was no more than whitewash, then, during Jim Crow, and now? You cool with American history students not knowing that?

But sure, we're indeed getting a very interesting view into what the GOP has largely become.

"You comfortable with some cracker head in Oklahoma deciding that the Tulsa Massacre shouldn't be included in the history book or mentioned in class?"

You comfortable with a FLP American history teacher here in NYS trying to teach his/her students the 3/5 compromise and not framing in the proper context of how and why the compromise came about? When it is taught as those founding fathers only thought of slaves as 3/5 of a human being that is an opinion not based on facts that were much more complicated than at first glance. Most students learn about D-Day as a magnificent well planned and executed military assault. D-Day was in most every respect an unmitigated disaster where almost nothing in the original planning worked as it was drawn up. Dumb luck and true brave heroes saved Overlord from being a failure. I guess it is fair to say that history is often times 50% fact made up of 50% spin.

[Kismet]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

[cradleandshoot]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

[youthathletics]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

Teach to the test is what matters, and they come from the state standards. And who is responsible for the curriculum .

[cradleandshoot]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

[cradleandshoot]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

Teach to the test is what matters, and they come from the state standards. And who is responsible for the curriculum .

Great question. Nobody out there in FLP land seems to want to take a stab at that. What is the curriculum? Maybe when they are done whining and b****ing about it they will put FLP ideology aside and enlighten all of us stupid people. I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Kismet]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

[Peter Brown]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

+1

This reply from Cradle is really good, and his point is sure to be missed by the people who most need to learn from it.

I’d add one other observation: the left is a fundamentally unhappy group, as evidenced by their bizarre demand to describe America simply and only by its worst profiles. It is a strange philosophy.

[cradleandshoot]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

France abolished slavery in 1794, but Napolean rose to power and reversed the decree...they re-aboloshed in 1848.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

You beat me to it….

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ho ... nd-britain

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

[MDlaxfan76]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

You beat me to it….

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ho ... nd-britain

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

France abolished slavery in 1794, but Napolean rose to power and reversed the decree...they re-aboloshed in 1848.

But we really shouldn't teach history...send it to the 'back burner'...

[cradleandshoot]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

[cradleandshoot]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

You beat me to it….

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ho ... nd-britain

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

France abolished slavery in 1794, but Napolean rose to power and reversed the decree...they re-aboloshed in 1848.

But we really shouldn't teach history...send it to the 'back burner'...

So explain to me when France or England actually fought a war to end slavery? I'm waiting....

[MDlaxfan76]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

You beat me to it….

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/ho ... nd-britain

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

France abolished slavery in 1794, but Napolean rose to power and reversed the decree...they re-aboloshed in 1848.

But we really shouldn't teach history...send it to the 'back burner'...

So explain to me when France or England actually fought a war to end slavery? I'm waiting....

This is probably the dumbest argument you've made. Half of our country, indeed the one you seem aligned with protecting their 'honor' fought to keep a war to keep slavery...these other countries ended their slavery systems peacefully. It wasn't as if there weren't powerful economic forces that wanted to continue slavery, it was that the population came to their moral senses and took the step.

[seacoaster]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

The South constituted a government from the secessionist states because of the Union's hesitancy and unwillingness to permit additional slave states. The issue was then wrapped inside a long history of state's sovereignty and rights, and was packaged into a "fight to save our way of life." The way of life included as a central component slave labor to produce food and export goods. There is no credible way around slavery being the driving force and reason for the Civil War.

This paradigmatic "Johnny Reb" was brought to the front lines by the call to preserve a way of life -- again, which centrally included an economy driven by slave labor. In many cases, it is true: he was poor, un- or undereducated. But to say he "had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did" is -- forgive me -- completely ludicrous and actually demonstrates the very misunderstanding that a history of slavery in the American South that should be countered with learning.

How many Confederate soldiers had parents who arrived in this hemisphere on a ship with several hundred other people taken in the African slave ports? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents were sold at auction? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents had their brothers and sisters and children sold into slavery? How many Confederate soldiers lived under a constant threat of sale -- sale of themselves and the people they knew? How many Confederate soldiers had an overseer who could decide immediately the right punishment for a lack of productivity? How many Confederate soldiers were prohibited by law from owning property? From marrying? From voting? From walking into a tavern with a friend?

For Johnny Reb, there was no fixed code that made them property, that precluded them from testifying in court, from making contracts, from leaving their "plantation" without permission and supervision, from buying and selling goods, from owning firearms, to gather in numbers without a white man present, possess certain types of literature, or visit the homes of so-called "free blacks."

So I agree with you: the study of the Civil War and its antecedents and consequences should be a year long course for Americans, at an age when the learner can understand that even the poorest, most ill-nourished and undereducated white man had it much much better than a slave. And to repeat, for what seems like the 20,000th time: this is history, not CRT.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

+1

This reply from Cradle is really good, and his point is sure to be missed by the people who most need to learn from it.

I’d add one other observation: the left is a fundamentally unhappy group, as evidenced by their bizarre demand to describe America simply and only by its worst profiles. It is a strange philosophy.

What the war was based on vs. what cradle claims the people in charge sold it as are very different things (if that even happened)

Apparently telling the truth (good and bad) is now describing America only by its worst profiles.

You seem very angry, upset and unhappy at a majority of Americans and the truth. Might be a good time take a deep breath, go outside, reflect and learn from the truth.