ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 38,199
- 18,669
- 146
No Oops. Va can run their state as they see fit.
Um yea, you said that already. Facts not required, and it's cool with you. I expect nothing more from a Trump voter tribalist. Good show
No Oops. Va can run their state as they see fit.
Quick question - if a class taught that the south enslaved black people for the pursuit of personal enrichment based on the idea that blacks are naturally inferior and deserved enslavement and then violently rebelled against people who tried to stop them would you consider that ‘factual history’ or ‘whitey evil’?
Feel free to post which district teaches that. Therein lies the goal. Republicans want to change history, wiping out this country's past along with the denial of the present all based on another big lie.
Republicans live off big lies such as
Sharia Law
CRT
Obama born in Kenya
2020 election was stolen from Trump
Do you have any issues with what DeSantis is attempting?
Huh? I'm seriously confused. Do you actually think at that at any level where actual CRT is being taught (be it college, high school, whatever) they are teaching that white people are intrinsically evil?
Um yea, you said that already. Facts not required, and it's cool with you. I expect nothing more from a Trump voter tribalist. Good show
I do believe that agenda is being pushed in some places.
believe. not know. there's a difference. one has evidence. the other does not (or has very circumstantial evidence at best and not direct proof).
So Va can't run their state as they see fit? Is that what you're saying?
As long as they don't break any laws they certainly can and are, no matter how much you don't like it or deny it.
I never claimed I had proof.
so your belief is based on nothing, which means your claim is bullshit.I never claimed I had proof.
But the evidence is right in front of you.
White guilt push - Google Suche
www.google.com
so your belief is based on nothing, which means your claim is bullshit.
Very interesting, so what you’re saying is that what I said was totally factual but you think it requires additional context in order to give an accurate representation. The additional facts you thought were relevant are of course your opinion, and by making that editorial choice you’ve just injected your own bias into the teaching of history. For example you left out that urban blacks in New Orleans were often wealthier than average, making them more able to afford slaves! So really, you just disproved your previous post where you claimed an unbiased teaching of history was possible, lol.That sounds pretty factual, but there are lots more details other than this generalization of the facts. There were whites in the south that opposed slavery same as there were whites in the north that didn't oppose slavery. There were also blacks that owned slaves.....
Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms
Large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large.americancivilwar.com
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
Why did you think I would disagree with you. It is a complicated issue and needs to be taught including all of the facts.
You can believe what you want. You're wrong. No one is out there teaching that white people are intrinsically evil. That's race war level conspiracy honestly.I do believe that agenda is being pushed in some places.
lol wut?
Cameras in Classrooms Bill Moving Through State House
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/cameras-in-classrooms-bill-moving-through-state-house/2665500/
I'm sure this won't go awry at all.
If a factual representation of what happened makes you feel guilty the problem isn't with the material. But since you don't give a fuck about anything ever why would it even begin to bother you?I never claimed I had proof.
But the evidence is right in front of you.
White guilt push - Google Suche
www.google.com
"Oh my God! A bunch of people, unrelated to me, who lived 200 years ago carried out the despicable act of owning other people as slaves. And because of that, the descendants of those slaves now might be at a disadvantage compared to the descendants of people who weren't owned as slaves. But hearing about that makes me feel sad. Not because the thought of owning another human as a slave is so horrible that I feel sad for the people who were subjugated. No, I feel sad for myself because learning about this history means that maybe I'm not inherently superior to someone else. The only solution is to stop taking about it so I don't get sad!"
What a bunch of pansy ass fucking snowflakes.
Do you have any issues with what DeSantis is attempting?
Same with election law changes, Republicans charge that they are simply countering moves made by Democrats. A rather useful guise, you must admit. To draw people into action. To garner unwavering support for... for? Well just about anything.
But what is it they ARE trying to do?
By your description it does sound a tad... evil. Fascist Republican takeover of things is it?
Let's see their take...
“You think about what MLK stood for, he said he didn’t want people judged on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. You listen to some of these people nowadays, they don’t talk about that.”
Okay... and a snippet of actual text?
The “Individual Freedom” bill states that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,” and “an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”
In theory it could be fine.... but it IS a reaction and reactionaries often miss the mark and go too far. Abuse the letter of the law to do something untoward. The intent may be good but I do believe it goes a little bit too far. Allows for too much interjection.
But then, how much do YOU disagree with the letter of the law?
“an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”
Is there a time when a child, for example, should be admonished, berated, or embarrassed for the color of their skin?
I would say not. And the law does claim to protect them. Do you disagree?
Where am I denying? Go ahead and link that. I'm saying you're a dumbass who doesn't see where that logically will end up, or you're a dumbass whose denying it. A guy just got elected on a bullshit platform. Something conservatives are said to care about. But hey, don't let facts get in your way.
And btw the DoE definitely has a hand in what states do at their schools. You remember "no child left behind", right?
Man, you are one of the dumbest people on this forum, telling others "keep up" while you can't even get it together enough to follow your own posts.
so your belief is based on nothing, which means your claim is bullshit.
Same with election law changes, Republicans charge that they are simply countering moves made by Democrats. A rather useful guise, you must admit. To draw people into action. To garner unwavering support for... for? Well just about anything.
But what is it they ARE trying to do?
By your description it does sound a tad... evil. Fascist Republican takeover of things is it?
Let's see their take...
“You think about what MLK stood for, he said he didn’t want people judged on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. You listen to some of these people nowadays, they don’t talk about that.”
Okay... and a snippet of actual text?
The “Individual Freedom” bill states that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,” and “an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”
In theory it could be fine.... but it IS a reaction and reactionaries often miss the mark and go too far. Abuse the letter of the law to do something untoward. The intent may be good but I do believe it goes a little bit too far. Allows for too much interjection.
But then, how much do YOU disagree with the letter of the law?
“an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”
Is there a time when a child, for example, should be admonished, berated, or embarrassed for the color of their skin?
I would say not. And the law does claim to protect them. Do you disagree?
Well the DOE needs to do something about it if it is illegal.
Very interesting, so what you’re saying is that what I said was totally factual but you think it requires additional context in order to give an accurate representation. The additional facts you thought were relevant are of course your opinion, and by making that editorial choice you’ve just injected your own bias into the teaching of history. For example you left out that urban blacks in New Orleans were often wealthier than average, making them more able to afford slaves! So really, you just disproved your previous post where you claimed an unbiased teaching of history was possible, lol.
It is kind of funny how confidently you walked into that rake, haha. I really thought you would have been smart enough not to answer because it was a pretty obvious trap.
