Texas is whitewashing its racist history

[esquared]

You all really need to put tajbot on ignore. He is just here to troll.

This x1000.
In the top three of worst p&n posters.

 

[maluckey1]

I had written out a post explaining why you're effectively tacitly enabling white supremacy by your glib and indolent and insipid "well don'tcha know history is slavery and genocide all the way down, so the particulars of the state of Texas being founded on it aren't really important, so anyone taking issue with explicit attempt to whitewash it is just being sensitive and ignorant, the Aztecs..........", but frankly I expect you'll just be quibbling until we delve into Glorgnak the Amoeba raping the bacteria that possibly ejaculated onto a comet that eventually plowed into the debris that formed earth to create life here, and I don't have time for that shit.

There comes a point where a person should learn that arguing for the sake of arguing isn't just counterproductive to themselves but can enable atrocities by downplaying their significance. Which might explain why you're so adamant on making sure you try and tout your historical perspective, because you know, its just not possible that we might already know that and yet are not even discussing that because not only is it not the actual topic of the thread, it completely misses the discussion entirely, but perhaps that is the point of your endeavor? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you want to discuss the history of Mexico then I suggest perhaps you make your own thread for that as it doesn't really pertain to modern Texas government attempting to teach how the slavery the state was built on is an economic machine to be celebrated, one that made Texas great still to this day, while they try and claim that their slavery wasn't racist and perpetrated an anti-black mentality that continues to this day.

A lot of words to call me a "racist". Real popular nowadays, like cancel culture. Funny thing is that at the time of the declaration of Texas, slavery was legal, and while abhorrent to many (myself included), at that time and place, there was no law against it. The Mexican authorities explicitly wrote permission for slavery into the covenants of homesteading...until they revoked it. It had little to do with being benevolent, and a lot to do with power and control. And FWIW "racism" as we know it today was really a product of chattel slavery, and not the other way around, so the whole labeling argument may help you sleep better, but it doesn't change the facts.

There were many factors causing unrest with the Texans but it's truly astonishing mental gymnastics to say that slavery was the reason for independence from Mexico. It's similar to the United States Declaration of Independence in that slavery was certainly threatened, but so was religious freedom, money, trade, safety, taxation and political clout. Some of the founding American founding fathers were slave holders themselves, but they didn't leave English rule because of slavery. Saying otherwise is just living in a fantasy land where Abe Lincoln cared about race equality (he didn't BTW), and if you say "slavery created Texas" the boogeyman will go away. Sleep tight my princess, and don't let the racists bite

 

[IronWing]

You keep trying to conflate the theft of Texas from Mexico with the American Revolution. They were very different events. The British colonists who broke from England lived in the colonies for two and a half centuries. The Anglos in Texas weren't even there for a generation when they decided to grab the land. They moved to Texas to expand their slave-driven cotton economy and when they didn't get everything they wanted legally, they simply stole it.

 

[kage69]

Pretty much.

 

[MrSquished]

Pretty much.

Fucking great cartoon, except they should replace that bust with that MAGAT hugging the racist confederate flag

 

[compcons]

A lot of words to call me a "racist". Real popular nowadays, like cancel culture. Funny thing is that at the time of the declaration of Texas, slavery was legal, and while abhorrent to many (myself included), at that time and place, there was no law against it. The Mexican authorities explicitly wrote permission for slavery into the covenants of homesteading...until they revoked it. It had little to do with being benevolent, and a lot to do with power and control. And FWIW "racism" as we know it today was really a product of chattel slavery, and not the other way around, so the whole labeling argument may help you sleep better, but it doesn't change the facts.

There were many factors causing unrest with the Texans but it's truly astonishing mental gymnastics to say that slavery was the reason for independence from Mexico. It's similar to the United States Declaration of Independence in that slavery was certainly threatened, but so was religious freedom, money, trade, safety, taxation and political clout. Some of the founding American founding fathers were slave holders themselves, but they didn't leave English rule because of slavery. Saying otherwise is just living in a fantasy land where Abe Lincoln cared about race equality (he didn't BTW), and if you say "slavery created Texas" the boogeyman will go away. Sleep tight my princess, and don't let the racists bite

Hey Dr. Quibbles, the point is that the piece of shit GOP in Texas wants to preclude teaching about the atrocities of slavery to protect the feelings of the shit head conservatives that populate Texas. They aren't debating causality, but they would prefer we entirely avoid educating children on the roots of slavery and how it affects a massive swath of the US population even today.

I am sure the fucktard Nazis would prefer not to teach about Hitler in Germany too. Peas in a fucking pod.

 

[zinfamous]

I wonder if they'll actually teach the true history of the Alamo and their bullshit state.

lol, yeah, right.

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry it just cracks me up that whiny bitch lefties get their panties in a bunch about something that happened almost 200 years ago, but are perfectly fine with the mass trafficking in people that's occurring right now across the border with the aid of the Democratic Party.

And you pridefully stated that you want to grenade those babies as they cross the border.

fuck off, you racist twat bitch.

 

[maluckey1]

Hey Dr. Quibbles, the point is that the piece of shit GOP in Texas wants to preclude teaching about the atrocities of slavery to protect the feelings of the shit head conservatives that populate Texas. They aren't debating causality, but they would prefer we entirely avoid educating children on the roots of slavery and how it affects a massive swath of the US population even today.

I am sure the fucktard Nazis would prefer not to teach about Hitler in Germany too. Peas in a fucking pod.

Fewer words to call me a name. I like it. Better than some, and actually made a valid point.

One issue is that not one part of the 1836 project is actually in use, so we cannot say anything (unlike the assumption the article writer makes) about what it actually teaches. As for the atrocities of slavery? Nobody denies it's atrocious (slavery is still around, just called many other things). It's what follows AFTER slavery that's a lingering issue (on this we may agree?). What must be addressed is that while people rely on "protection" and "support" by the very people who formerly subjected them, they will never be considered "equal" or "free". Much like an abused spouse, until one realizes one's own worth, the cycle will continue. No amount of me (or anyone else) apologizing will change that.

We feel, we bleed and we all die eventually. Just one nugget from combat, is that in the end it's not what you did, or wanted to do that matters, it's what you do right now, and what you do going forward. You survived...great...now do it again! Each opportunity is a chance to do it right. It's good that Texas has so many people watching them. Maybe they'll get it right?

 

[mect]

Fewer words to call me a name. I like it. Better than some, and actually made a valid point.

One issue is that not one part of the 1836 project is actually in use, so we cannot say anything (unlike the assumption the article writer makes) about what it actually teaches. As for the atrocities of slavery? Nobody denies it's atrocious (slavery is still around, just called many other things). It's what follows AFTER slavery that's a lingering issue (on this we may agree?). What must be addressed is that while people rely on "protection" and "support" by the very people who formerly subjected them, they will never be considered "equal" or "free". Much like an abused spouse, until one realizes one's own worth, the cycle will continue. No amount of me (or anyone else) apologizing will change that.

We feel, we bleed and we all die eventually. Just one nugget from combat, is that in the end it's not what you did, or wanted to do that matters, it's what you do right now, and what you do going forward. You survived...great...now do it again! Each opportunity is a chance to do it right. It's good that Texas has so many people watching them. Maybe they'll get it right?

The problem with this framing is it is victim blaming. Its the abused spouse's fault she can't put herself back together, rather than placing the blame where it rightly belongs on the abuser. And any time the abused spouse tries to stand up for herself, she is told to be quiet, that this isn't the right way to bring up the issue, that this isn't the right time, there is always an excuse.

Apologizing and acknowledging the wrongs that have been done are critical steps in ending the cycle of abuse, along with efforts to make amends for the damages done, whether it is against an individual, or against a population.

No one tries to argue that slavery was not atrocious, but many on the right try to normalize it, rationalize it, justify it, and minimize it. That is not the path to breaking the cycle.

 

[Pohemi]

Fewer words to call me a name. I like it. Better than some, and actually made a valid point.

Still waiting to see one come from you.

 

[maluckey1]

Still waiting to see one come from you.

You should post your thoughts. That way we can see what your thought process is on this. Your comment wasn't helpful, though apparently satisfactory enough to earn you praise from like-minded people. I hope you feel better for it.

The problem with this framing is it is victim blaming. Its the abused spouse's fault she can't put herself back together, rather than placing the blame where it rightly belongs on the abuser. And any time the abused spouse tries to stand up for herself, she is told to be quiet, that this isn't the right way to bring up the issue, that this isn't the right time, there is always an excuse.

Apologizing and acknowledging the wrongs that have been done are critical steps in ending the cycle of abuse, along with efforts to make amends for the damages done, whether it is against an individual, or against a population.

No one tries to argue that slavery was not atrocious, but many on the right try to normalize it, rationalize it, justify it, and minimize it. That is not the path to breaking the cycle.

Good point, and thanks for the thoughtful reply (rare in these forums). Unfortunately, you can't have an oppressor without an oppressee. That's called self-abuse. I'm not blaming a victim, just calling out that there ARE victims, which is so hard for many to admit. Unfortunately, I also know that I cannot fix what is in someone's heart. It's up to them to see through the veil. Anyone that claims otherwise is in for a sad life, and should seek professional help. We all have free choice in this country. There are enough stories (good and bad) to validate that.

I'm old enough to know that labeling ANYONE is harmful to dialog (racist, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican etc). You want to shut down learning? That's the way to do it. Labeling a victim doesn't help; labeling the abuser doesn't help. The only thing that helps is showing them both the way out, and hoping that they want to go that way.

 

[Muse]

Telling that it was IIRC Galveston, Texas to be the last place where slaves were informed of their lawfully mandated freedom, hence Juneteenth, some 2 years after the legislation was enacted federally.

I don't see how I could stand to live in Texas. The governor, the senators, the lt. governor are all douches. The assholes in my state have a hard time getting elected to anything but regional offices in fucked up areas (CA), or representing such, e.g. Kevin McCarthy.

 

[Pohemi]

You should post your thoughts. That way we can see what your thought process is on this. Your comment wasn't helpful, though apparently satisfactory enough to earn you praise from like-minded people. I hope you feel better for it.

Keep feigning the high road all you want, you still haven't contributed anything of value to the discussion here, clownshoes.

Unfortunately, you can't have an oppressor without an oppressee. That's called self-abuse. I'm not blaming a victim, just calling out that there ARE victims, which is so hard for many to admit.

Labeling a victim doesn't help; labeling the abuser doesn't help.

And this is the proof that you're not only a fucking moron, but a mealy-mouth bitch as well.
And yes, that IS victim-blaming, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[mikeymikec]

Unfortunately, you can't have an oppressor without an oppressee. That's called self-abuse.

jfc. I think this is the first time I've heard someone actually seriously argue along the lines of "there wouldn't be anything wrong with the world provided we didn't have any words to describe it".

"They could have just gone back home except that they were making too much money. Texas wasn't their country."

This is a truly disgusting statement, and you in turn for agreeing with it. I'm going to describe two scenarios to you:

1 - An African is abducted and transported several thousand miles and forced to work because their life literally depended on it. They likely have no idea where in the world their home was, let alone if they even have a home to go back to. They're freed from slavery many years after their abduction. You're suggesting that they "go home".

2 - A person of African descent is born into slavery in America and is eventually freed. You're suggesting that they "go home".

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I wonder if they'll actually teach the true history of the Alamo and their bullshit state.

lol, yeah, right.

Ozzy had it right when he pissed on the Alamo

 

[maluckey1]

Pohemi420

I see I misjudged you. You seem to want to suppress any dialog that you disagree with or don't understand. Instead of talking about it, you mentally shut down, as evidenced by name-calling, which is the hallmark of this.

Toxic Communication Patterns: Put-downs and Shut-downs (innerself.com)

mikeymikec,

If you quote someone....get it right. I never said ""They could have just gone back home except that they were making too much money. Texas wasn't their country."

Abuse is real. Until we admit that it takes two, and racism is not a victimless crime, nothing will change. Methinks either I'm not clear enough, or you didn't get what I was saying. The in-group is the abuser, and the out-group are the victims. The victim must take active steps to end the abuse, because it's well known that the abuser won't typically start the process of reconciliation.

MLK got it right, and was speaking about how lives can be better. He said, in response to Rosa Parks refusal to support the abuser.

"Now let us go out to stick together and stay with this thing until the end," King said in the speech. "Now it means sacrificing, yes, it means sacrificing at points. But there are some things that we've got to learn to sacrifice for. And we've got to come to the point that we are determined not to accept a lot of things that we have been accepting in the past."

You see, the VICTIM was Rosa Parks, and she started a movement by her simple act of refusal. The in-group reaps the rewards of subjugation, so aren't really incentivized to change...are they? That's why I don't focus as much on them other than to let them know that they are complicit. I also talk to the ones that are trying to help by enabling victims. They are only making themselves the enabler, which is a form of victimization in itself, since the victim then relies on the enabler for affirmation, instead of themselves.

Insead Faculty & Research Working Paper

You see, victims are sometimes unaware that they are victims, and enablers often feel that they are helping the situation. It's not always true.

 

[mikeymikec]

mikeymikec,

If you quote someone....get it right. I never said ""They could have just gone back home except that they were making too much money. Texas wasn't their country."

I didn't accuse you of saying it. I accused you of agreeing with it, which you did:

"They could have just gone back home except that they were making too much money. Texas wasn't their country."

Rather glib, and overly simplistic, but true enough.

Maybe try responding with a relevant counterpoint this time?

 

[Pohemi]

I didn't accuse you of saying it. I accused you of agreeing with it, which you did:

Maybe try responding with a relevant counterpoint this time?

He wants to dance around in the tulips and "debate" disingenuously (in actuality, he's endlessly pontificating in a sad attempt to cast doubt on the topic, and not making any solid points). Seem familiar?

Like I said, a mealy-mouthed bitch.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Unfortunately, you can't have an oppressor without an oppressee.

And that is called a tautology. What I wonder is based on what was said you think someone thinks there is not an oppressor? It is unclear what your point is.

I'm not blaming a victim, just calling out that there ARE victims, which is so hard for many to admit.

The person you are quoting is literally saying they are victims. You were literally saying that it is the victims fault that the cycle continues. It is literally blaming the victim.

Much like an abused spouse, until one realizes one's own worth, the cycle will continue.

Unfortunately, I also know that I cannot fix what is in someone's heart.

You might not be able to 'fix' what is in their heart (this sounds a whole lot like more victim blaming BTW) but you can make it so they have a better chance at doing so. You can teach them tools to use, and give them time and space to do so.

and should seek professional help.

You seem to know that. So, what are you arguing against again?

We all have free choice in this country. There are enough stories (good and bad) to validate that.

The people that this happened to did not have free choice. That is the whole point.

I'm old enough to know that labeling ANYONE is harmful to dialog (racist, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican etc).

All language is labels. Labels are tools. They can be used to help or harm.

Labeling a victim doesn't help; labeling the abuser doesn't help.

Yes it does. You even said so in this same post. Remember the sentence "They ARE victims"? You were using a label, because it was helpful.

The only thing that helps is showing them both the way out, and hoping that they want to go that way.

No, there are other ways to stop abuse. You can intervene. You can teach. But it is impossible to do so if you are not willing to label abuse and call it out as wrong.

 

[maluckey1]

I didn't accuse you of saying it. I accused you of agreeing with it, which you did:



Maybe try responding with a relevant counterpoint this time?

True, and a valid point that I'm guilty of what I derided in others. To expand and explain my rather curt response:

The settlers could go home, it's true, but they were making good money. They also weren't doing anything illegal at the time. I suppose they could have left their land, income and way of life because the Mexican authorities were mistreating them (their opinion, not mine). Instead they chose to create their own territory. It isn't good or bad (from their point of view), because past knowledge and experiences have justified the action by the end results (American revolution, Aztec overthrow and virtual extermination of the First Tribes etc.).

My personal view (Monday morning quarterbacking) is that the Mexicans should have been more involved with who they let into their territory. They also should have never allowed slavery in the territory. They made good money from the arrangement, so were willing to look the other way it seems, and we see that given an inch, the Texans took it a mile.

The people that this happened to did not have free choice. That is the whole point.

The people that this is currently happening to, DO have a choice. We can't change the past in any way. Teaching people that bad things happened is good. Teaching individuals that they matter is BETTER, and showing them what they can accomplish through actions is BEST.

No, there are other ways to stop abuse. You can intervene. You can teach. But it is impossible to do so if you are not willing to label abuse and call it out as wrong.

Who was arguing that abuse was wrong? No me, and I specifically call it out as such. I also want to add that you cannot teach until someone WANTS to learn. You can talk all you want, and you can give someone money to do something. They won't do it unless it suits them. The world poured trillions of dollars into Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to westernize them. It failed, and was doomed to fail from day one. It was almost breathtaking arrogance to assume that the western world would save them from themselves. A self-congratulatory circle-jerk. The countries took the money, suffered the foreign domination, and in the end, the status-quo returned. It returned because throwing money at a social issues, supporting certain ethnic groups over others, and banning Baathists from holding public sector jobs cannot "fix" their thinking. Shooting people also didn't help much, though it did make for great headlines and a sound bite in the evening news.

Yes it does. You even said so in this same post. Remember the sentence "They ARE victims"? You were using a label, because it was helpful.

To be clearer, by labeling.....I mean calling someone a racist, classist, Karen etc, and labeling the victim as any other derogative or expletive doesn't help. It shuts down a person's response, and further dehumanizes the other person to them. It's the psychological reason we use the victims name(s) during hostage negotiations. We want to humanize them. We also refer to the hostage taker by their name when we can.

And that is called a tautology. What I wonder is based on what was said you think someone thinks there is not an oppressor? It is unclear what your point is.

My point, which wasn't very clear, is that this is a circular cycle. It's a Codependent relationship, and it's sometimes difficult to tell who supports who. A person who relies upon a codependent to fill their needs will in-effect support the continued mis-treatment.

Are You an Enabler? Understanding Codependency vs. Helping - Sharon Martin, LCSW Counseling San Jose and Campbell, CA (sharonmartincounseling.com)

 

[mect]

I'm old enough to know that labeling ANYONE is harmful to dialog (racist, Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican etc). You want to shut down learning? That's the way to do it. Labeling a victim doesn't help; labeling the abuser doesn't help. The only thing that helps is showing them both the way out, and hoping that they want to go that way.

I'm unsure of this. While labelling may shut down learning at the individual level, on the other hand it can also shut down the behavior. People like Rosa Parks are few and far between, the reason why millions of people know her name. On the other hand, there are many people that have benefited from the actions of Rosa Parks due to society shifting towards no longer tolerating segregation of minorities.

I agree, in a one on one conversation, if the goal is to promote learning, labeling is counter productive. On the other hand, in order to move society, labeling can be highly effective. I think one of the primary reasons for the increased acceptance of LGBTQ individuals for example is not due to education from one on one conversations. Rather, I think it is primarily due to social pressure exerted on people that discriminate against these people. Most people don't want to be labelled a bigot by society, and that pressure at a societal level leads to people reevaluating their opinions. The change doesn't happen overnight, but instead as a slow, gradual shift due to the constant exertion of pressure.

This is the same reason why the alt-right is pushing to mainstream bigotry. The more accepting society becomes of racisms, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, the more open these people can be expressing their views in society without receiving backlash.

 

[mikeymikec]

True, and a valid point that I'm guilty of what I derided in others. To expand and explain my rather curt response:

The settlers could go home, it's true, but they were making good money.

Ok, so you're doubling down and not responding to the counterpoint I made.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This x1000.
In the top three of worst p&n posters.

Coming from you it's high praise to me.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm unsure of this. While labelling may shut down learning at the individual level, on the other hand it can also shut down the behavior. People like Rosa Parks are few and far between, the reason why millions of people know her name. On the other hand, there are many people that have benefited from the actions of Rosa Parks due to society shifting towards no longer tolerating segregation of minorities.

I agree, in a one on one conversation, if the goal is to promote learning, labeling is counter productive. On the other hand, in order to move society, labeling can be highly effective. I think one of the primary reasons for the increased acceptance of LGBTQ individuals for example is not due to education from one on one conversations. Rather, I think it is primarily due to social pressure exerted on people that discriminate against these people. Most people don't want to be labelled a bigot by society, and that pressure at a societal level leads to people reevaluating their opinions. The change doesn't happen overnight, but instead as a slow, gradual shift due to the constant exertion of pressure.

This is the same reason why the alt-right is pushing to mainstream bigotry. The more accepting society becomes of racisms, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, the more open these people can be expressing their views in society without receiving backlash.

Disagree about the reason for improved tolerance of LGBT. I don't think it came mainly from shaming people for being homophobes but rather from popular culture's normalization of LGBT starting with Ellen DeGeneres in the 90's. The timing of it is pretty clear. Starting from the late 90's when popular culture first began presenting positive images of gays, tolerance moved upward.

I think often when people are shamed they learn to conceal their bigotry rather than becoming more tolerant. Shaming may work for some individuals but overall I'm not sure it is always the best strategy.