White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[realibrad]

Right, he doesn't want any history other than American History taught in America. I'm pretty sure that fits the definition of bigotry in a very different way than choosing a sports team, political party, etc.

Perhaps he feels that middle schools should teach American History, and that other nations history can be taught at a later date? Nothing of what I see precludes this.

Still not racist. At worst misguided because of nationalism.

 

[realibrad]

...or choosing a favorite food, or having a favortie TV program, or....

You know Rob, I'm getting pretty tired of your crap. How can I disagree with you when you are being agreeable!

Ha, I found it, you misspelled favorite before TV. And, no I did not catch it because I'm using Chrome and it had a squiggly red line under the word in your quote.

 

[dank69]

Perhaps he feels that middle schools should teach American History, and that other nations history can be taught at a later date? Nothing of what I see precludes this.

...

Nothing you see precludes that he thinks Creationism should be taught in all history classes either, but his post certainly doesn't suggest it.

 

[realibrad]

Nothing you see precludes that he thinks Creationism should be taught in all history classes either, but his post certainly doesn't suggest it.

Which is why I dont try to infer any religions meaning. I can speculate that creationism was not brought up, because the OP does not think made up religious beliefs are history, but I cant know for sure.

 

[Retro Rob]

You know Rob, I'm getting pretty tired of your crap. How can I disagree with you when you are being agreeable!

Ha, I found it, you misspelled favorite before TV. And, no I did not catch it because I'm using Chrome and it had a squiggly red line under the word in your quote.

When you're right, you're right.

 

[werepossum]

The bolded isn't part of the OP I don't think.

Are you saying we shouldn't teach anything other than American History in America? That seems to be what the OP is saying and you seem to be defending him.

Clearly we shouldn't teach anything other than American History in American History. What happened to specific races in other places may (or may not) be appropriate in World History. I see no reason why such things shouldn't be included in black and/or minority studies IF germane (or Tito, LaToya, etc.), but then generally I don't see much value in black and/or minority studies before college level anyway. If you want black and/or other minority students to have good self esteem, teach them valuable skills just like everyone else. (This is largely because I think our kids generally have too much self esteem and too few valuable skills anyway, which leads to American students being at the top in estimating their STEM knowledge whilst being at the bottom in actually having STEM knowledge.)

The one exception would be ghetto schools where kids have become convinced (via observation) that school and learning are not for "people like them" and need to be shown that this is not correct. Unfortunately, kids in such schools tend to be already poorly served in being taught valuable skills and have little extra time. In any case, I would prefer teaching them about people like Meridith Gourdine and Neil deGrasse Tyson to teaching them an excuse to not perform.

 

[dphantom]

The one exception would be ghetto schools where kids have become convinced (via observation) that school and learning are not for "people like them" and need to be shown that this is not correct. Unfortunately, kids in such schools tend to be already poorly served in being taught valuable skills and have little extra time. In any case, I would prefer teaching them about people like Meridith Gourdine and Neil deGrasse Tyson to teaching them an excuse to not perform.

This is to me a very good idea. Wouldn't it be great that in say predominantly "black" elementary schools (for example) that some part of a history course includes achievements by notable black men and women such as maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, or Charles Henry Turner as just a few examples.

 

[RandomWords]

This is to me a very good idea. Wouldn't it be great that in say predominantly "black" elementary schools (for example) that some part of a history course includes achievements by notable black men and women such as maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, or Charles Henry Turner as just a few examples.

Maybe you went to a different school system than I did - but my History courses did include this - I do not know why a predominantly black school would not teach the same... I wouldn't mind it including that more than blacks were just slaves during this time period though... which wasn't included.

 

[realibrad]

This is to me a very good idea. Wouldn't it be great that in say predominantly "black" elementary schools (for example) that some part of a history course includes achievements by notable black men and women such as maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, or Charles Henry Turner as just a few examples.

Aint none of "Those" people Mericans. We is gonna only teachs Merican Blacks.

I aint racist, cause like the honey bee, I cant see color.


........Whats that now?.....Who did research on honey bees seeing color......

 

[dphantom]

Maybe you went to a different school system than I did - but my History courses did include this - I do not know why a predominantly black school would not teach the same... I wouldn't mind it including that more than blacks were just slaves during this time period though... which wasn't included.

my elementary was 50+ years ago. I vaguely remember Booker T. could not speak to others.

 

[Retro Rob]

I wouldn't mind it including that more than blacks were just slaves during this time period though... which wasn't included.

I don't recall seeing that in Black History books at all, really. I also think that it's somewhat dishonest to try and suggest (not you, though) other races where treated as bad as blacks were in the 18th and 19th centuries -- I understand that blacks weren't the only slaves.

Some, because of white guilt, would try and use that to whitewash it.

 

[werepossum]

This is to me a very good idea. Wouldn't it be great that in say predominantly "black" elementary schools (for example) that some part of a history course includes achievements by notable black men and women such as maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, or Charles Henry Turner as just a few examples.

Except for Maya Angelou, they should already be part of American history curricula. (Please, no more bad poetry in school under any context!) Well, maybe not Turner, although he could be used to juxtapose opportunities between South and North.

A 97% black school I worked on had tons of posters that attempted to address this, but were nutter-based, with blacks inventing the helicopter and the boot. (While a black person might well have invented the boot, if the kids are at all well served by their school they will know that the friggin' boot was not invented in the mid nineteenth century.) Basically they took any patent as proof of invention, even when the item in question had been in operation for months or even centuries.

 

[realibrad]

I don't recall seeing that in Black History books at all, really. I also think that it's somewhat dishonest to try and suggest (not you, though) other races where treated as bad as blacks were in the 18th and 19th centuries -- I understand that blacks weren't the only slaves.

Some, because of white guilt, would try and use that to whitewash it.

Thats because you learned American history. If you learned about the slaves in central and south America, you would have seen the native slaves that worked in mines. You would have then learned that those slaves had even shorter and more brutal working conditions. Now, those natives would be replaced by African slaves, but it was there.

"Africans were rewarded by their hard work and received special privileges the Indians did not get, such as the right to carry weapons and wear European clothing."

 

[RandomWords]

I don't recall seeing that in Black History books at all, really. I also think that it's somewhat dishonest to try and suggest (not you, though) other races where treated as bad as blacks were in the 18th and 19th centuries -- I understand that blacks weren't the only slaves.

That's not true at all - in a lot of cases whites (and others) were treated just as bad if not worse (in America) because they cost a whole lot less - so to work them until death was common - though for blacks in Brazil it was similar. There were even some Black people who owned white and Indian slaves during this time period. There are many accounts detailing their trials and if anything is being whitewashed it is the slavery they went through... not only whitewashed - totally overlooked.

EDIT: Not to take away from the African slaves and their trials - but to give notice to the trials of ALL the slaves during that time period and not claim that African slaves had it worse than white, Indian, or Chinese slaves during the same time period in the same country when the conditions were the same.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thats because you learned American history. If you learned about the slaves in central and south America, you would have seen the native slaves that worked in mines. You would have then learned that those slaves had even shorter and more brutal working conditions. Now, those natives would be replaced by African slaves, but it was there.

"Africans were rewarded by their hard work and received special privileges the Indians did not get, such as the right to carry weapons and wear European clothing."

Yeah, I was speaking about American histroy.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not true at all - in a lot of cases whites (and others) were treated just as bad if not worse (in America) because they cost a whole lot less - so to work them until death was common - though for blacks in Brazil it was similar. There were even some Black people who owned white and Indian slaves during this time period. There are many accounts detailing their trials and if anything is being whitewashed it is the slavery they went through... not only whitewashed - totally overlooked.

EDIT: Not to take away from the African slaves and their trials - but to give notice to the trials of ALL the slaves during that time period and not claim that African slaves had it worse than white, Indian, or Chinese slaves during the same time period in the same country when the conditions were the same.

Seriously, thanks for the education. I don't want this to turn into a debate about who wins the race to the bottom of enslavement and subhumanism.

 

[RandomWords]

Yeah, I was speaking about American histroy.

Even though I just went over how they should be included in American History - it is also worth noting that these groups of slaves are lost in World History too... where do they get their recognition? Should they be forgotten about? Are their trials less horrific although the same as many African Americans because they were white or Indian or Chinese? Is it because the guilt should only be put on whites even though Jews and Hispanics were the primary slave holders during the time and some African Americans could probably trace their lineage back to the Africans that sold their brothers into slavery and raided the European coast capturing "white" slaves?

Or should ALL races of Americans feel guilty for participating in slavery and ALL races of Americans feel proud for being one of the first nations to outlaw it and basically make it nonexistent in our country (though still exists)?

 

[Retro Rob]

Even though I just went over how they should be included in American History - it is also worth noting that these groups of slaves are lost in World History too... where do they get their recognition? Should they be forgotten about? Are their trials less horrific although the same as many African Americans because they were white or Indian or Chinese? Is it because the guilt should only be put on whites even though Jews and Hispanics were the primary slave holders during the time and some African Americans could probably trace their lineage back to the Africans that sold their brothers into slavery and raided the European coast capturing "white" slaves?

Or should ALL races of Americans feel guilty for participating in slavery and ALL races of Americans feel proud for being one of the first nations to outlaw it and basically make it nonexistent in our country (though still exists)?

Personlly, I don't think any races should feel guilty about it because the slaveholders are all dead and gone...I shouldn't be forced to apologize for something some idiot did 200 years ago just because we happen to share the same lineage. I didn't do it, nor did I support it.

If anything, we should just work on being fair and just from that point onward. Whites don't own me anything...I don't want their guilt, or that of Jews, Blacks, etc.

 

[dank69]

Even though I just went over how they should be included in American History - it is also worth noting that these groups of slaves are lost in World History too... where do they get their recognition? Should they be forgotten about? Are their trials less horrific although the same as many African Americans because they were white or Indian or Chinese? Is it because the guilt should only be put on whites even though Jews and Hispanics were the primary slave holders during the time and some African Americans could probably trace their lineage back to the Africans that sold their brothers into slavery and raided the European coast capturing "white" slaves?

Or should ALL races of Americans feel guilty for participating in slavery and ALL races of Americans feel proud for being one of the first nations to outlaw it and basically make it nonexistent in our country (though still exists)?

None of this changes the fact that minorities and especially black people were considered sub-human for most of American History while whites were not, and the fact remains that many people still to this day consider black people to be inferior based on nothing but their skin color. White people have never had to deal with this in America no matter how much you posture and try to spin history.

 

[Retro Rob]

None of this changes the fact that minorities and especially black people were considered sub-human for most of American History while whites were not, and the fact remains that many people still to this day consider black people to be inferior based on nothing but their skin color. White people have never had to deal with this in America no matter how much you posture and try to spin history.

I'm pretty much inclined to believe this, and most of Obama's opposition in Washington is primarly because of his race, IMO.

 

[werepossum]

Seriously, thanks for the education. I don't want this to turn into a debate about who wins the race to the bottom of enslavement and subhumanism.

+1

None of this changes the fact that minorities and especially black people were considered sub-human for most of American History while whites were not, and the fact remains that many people still to this day consider black people to be inferior based on nothing but their skin color. White people have never had to deal with this in America no matter how much you posture and try to spin history.

I'm not sure that the Irish (and that is half my ancestry) could properly be called slaves in America circa 1776 and later, although possibly earlier that might well be true. As presumed white Christians, the Irish had rights not afforded to Africans or even the Chinese. Indentured servitude comes with minimal rights; slavery inherently has no rights. It's also worth pointing out that slavery for Africans (and the necessary subhuman classification to justify it in the mid nineteenth century) lasted far longer in America than did widespread practice even of the much milder (insert award for understatement here) indentured servitude. Yes, every race has been (and owned) slaves. That does not make all slavery equal on balance in principle within America or even across all of the New World, even though certain specific cases might have been equal.

In any case I don't believe slavery should provide any justification or excuse for anyone today. Jim Crow segregation, however, ended officially within my lifetime, and unofficially vestiges still exist in the private sector. There are black kids in the South whose grandparents were severely restricted BY LAW in access to education and good jobs, meaning their parents started life disadvantaged. Hard to argue that two generations is sufficient to catch up economically from official government discrimination.

 

[RandomWords]

I'm not sure that the Irish (and that is half my ancestry) could properly be called slaves in America circa 1776 and later, although possibly earlier that might well be true. As presumed white Christians, the Irish had rights not afforded to Africans or even the Chinese. Indentured servitude comes with minimal rights; slavery inherently has no rights. It's also worth pointing out that slavery for Africans (and the necessary subhuman classification to justify it in the mid nineteenth century) lasted far longer in America than did widespread practice even of the much milder (insert award for understatement here) indentured servitude. Yes, every race has been (and owned) slaves. That does not make all slavery equal on balance in principle within America or even across all of the New World, even though certain specific cases might have been equal.

I highly recommend you read this book:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
Here’s another link describing the life of the “indentured servants” – they were slaves.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/02/24/american-capitalism-embraced-white-slave-black.html
From the article above:
“Ironically,” says Phillips, “black slaves, selling for roughly three times as much, often got better treatment because they were a lifetime investment.”[19]
(a lot of the time they died, their sentence added on to and continued to work until they died, the women sexually bred with the Africans for more pleasing colored mulato's in which this white indentured servant no longer has the right to her own child... call it by whatever term you like to make yourself feel better - but indentured servants were slaves)
And another link:
http://www.answers.com/topic/indentured-white-slaves-in-the-colonies-1770-by-william-eddis
From the article above:
[FONT=&quot]Negroes being a property for life, the death of slaves, in the prime of youth or strength, is a material loss to the proprietor; they are, therefore, almost in every instance, under more comfortable circumstances than the miserable European

Either way - there is no convincing people who are taught at an early age that in America - their slavery was unique and their experience unique and the worst treatment there ever was - that in fact - it wasn't.
[/FONT]

 

[MongGrel]

This is to me a very good idea. Wouldn't it be great that in say predominantly "black" elementary schools (for example) that some part of a history course includes achievements by notable black men and women such as maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, or Charles Henry Turner as just a few examples.

+1

 

[MongGrel]

None of this changes the fact that minorities and especially black people were considered sub-human for most of American History while whites were not, and the fact remains that many people still to this day consider black people to be inferior based on nothing but their skin color. White people have never had to deal with this in America no matter how much you posture and try to spin history.

Little joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw

 

[IronWing]

The OP is a bit of a muddle right now. It is hard to tell who wrote what in that post.