Ron DeSantis continues the Republican whitewash of issues like discrimination, race and this country's history.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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’?


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.....


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.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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?


I didn't say any were teaching it. Keep up.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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?

I do believe that agenda is being pushed in some places.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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


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.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,199
18,669
146
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.

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.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
I never claimed I had proof.

Proof not needed. I think dems should run on an anti wife-beating agenda and ban wife beating literature and wife beating teachers in select educational institutions.

The trumpian conservative wife beating is out of control AND IT HAS TO STOP.
Just look how conservatives are beating up women in Texas.

IT HAS TO STOP
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
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.....


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.
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.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
"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.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
"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.

But it's important to believe that you are better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

gothuevos

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2010
2,301
1,840
136
So can students of middle eastern descent sue when learning about 9/11
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?

How do you even enforce this? How do you "quantify" discomfort?

So can a student from a Cuban family sue if they feel uncomfortable/guilt/anguish when the class discusses communism?

Or can a student from a Middle Eastern sue if they feel uncomfortable/guilt/anguish when learning about 9/11?
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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.


Well the DOE needs to do something about it if it is illegal.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
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?

So now you are a big government kind of guy now? Or do you think teachers are actually teaching whites kids to feel guilty about Americas past?

What you and others are doing is taking issues and individual instances of policies and giving them a pass while completely ignoring the big picture and the point of their intentions. Just like how you were duped by years of Republican economic policies, you are also being duped by Republican social policies. You will, once again, ignore their agenda at your own peril.

I suggest you take the same steps you took to get out of the spell of Republican economic policies and do the same for all their policies. I’ll give you a hint, just like their economic policies aren’t really about helping your average American, their social policies aren’t about helping regular Americans or children. See if you can figure out what their plan is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,632
4,685
136
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.


That is silly I gave a small representation of some details as an example of what your simplistic description left out.

I wasn't discussing the wealth of urban blacks in New Orleans and what they could or could not afford. Hell most whites couldn't afford slaves either. So what?

Rake indeed. You got nothing.

Obviously you don't care to be honest about it.