Republican Drafts Bill To Revise How SLAVERY Is Taught In Schools
- Thread starter squeezer
- Start date
Looks like it was just Olsen who didn't get it in school. Most of us learned that slavery has been around throughout human history. Abraham the Prophet owned slaves and I don't hear anybody trying to cancel Judaic, Christian and Muslim teaching because of it. The holding of black slaves when it no longer applied to whites is most certainly racist, however. Olsen may believe that black people deserve servitude because of the mark of Ham or something (Is this why Jews won't eat ham? Probably not
), but maybe he believes in space lasers or Trump won as well...
My guess is that it ties in with US fundamentalist Christian dogma that Jesus guided America and made it the perfect country and signed the Declaration of Independence using the fingers of the actual signers and stuff like that. If Jesus made America perfect, then it cannot be sullied by racism because Jesus. So any allegations of racism have to be denied and stamped out or else America isn't a Christian country and we all know it is because Jesus.
And modern America and the Dems are leading America away from Jesus because abortion and gay marriage and teaching that America is / was racist in school and that shows America wasn't perfect and that's wrong because Jesus made America and so it was perfect because Jesus.
So all teaching that America is racist is a lie and must be stomped on because Jesus. Oklahoma is 70%+ GOP and fundamentalist Christian.
And modern America and the Dems are leading America away from Jesus because abortion and gay marriage and teaching that America is / was racist in school and that shows America wasn't perfect and that's wrong because Jesus made America and so it was perfect because Jesus.
So all teaching that America is racist is a lie and must be stomped on because Jesus. Oklahoma is 70%+ GOP and fundamentalist Christian.
What used to be the GOP now lives in a fictional world. Wasn't slavery like summer camp?
I wonder if the Democrats would be willing to teach who actually enslaved and initially sold those Africans to the Europeans.
Or that there was black slave owners and white abolistionists, considering how they tend to go full potato over repartations I'd hope they just don't know the history.
Or that there was black slave owners and white abolistionists, considering how they tend to go full potato over repartations I'd hope they just don't know the history.
It was exactly like this. I found this on the internet so it must be absolutely true.
To teach them about Jesus. If they stayed in Africa, they would have gone straight to hell.
Video would not open so I have no idea what it is about,
Do you think there were a lot of black plantation owners. I personally have never heard anyone deny that the slavers in Africa were very often black and that there have been black slave owners all over the world.. What does that have to do with the history slavery in the US and the residual racism that remains.
Well, since CRT appears to not actually be taught anywhere and it's now banned in case it ever would be taught, we're all left guessing about that.
And while you and I are chatting, tell me if there were any states in the Confederacy where Blacks were allowed to own White men as slaves? Cos' that pretty much cuts to the core of things.
There were Blacks who owned slaves - often their wives because they were legally forbidden to free them. (It was feared that such women would then potentially become a charge on the parish charity rolls). And there were of course White abolitionists. But none of the latter lived in the South or actually owned slaves themselves. There are limits to altruism, I guess.
And yup, Blacks slave-raided other tribes and sold the miserable people they captured to whites. How does that reduce the responsibility of whites? If a sex trafficker sells me a 10 year old girl to rape and keep as a sex slave, does that mean I am not responsible morally for buying her?
It was from the cartoon Boondocks. Uncle Rukus's take on slavery and well if you know the toon at all...
I never said there were a lot of black plantation owners, they did exist though.
I would say people deny it, but I don't think they would be keen on teaching it. However among the non historian set I am sure there is this idea that in effect slavery started when they people showed up on the boats. To be fair among the non historian set many seem to think the US fought the French during the revolution and the Civil War, have no idea how many stars are on the flag or why there are 13 stripes etc.
How the US slaves actually became slaves is relevant to the history of slavery, just as relevant as the horrors of the crossing and just as relevant as the uprising on the Amistad even though the actual uprising took place on international waters. or is the measure of relevance strictly based on making white people and only white people look bad.
Residual is not what they teach about racism. You know that.
Never said anything about CRT so, there is that.
Your second point, so it's OK because their slaves were black. Dude. Yeah yeah that isn't what you meant, the core of things is that black people were not completely innocent and when they had the chance there were quite willing to take part in moral depravity. You think this should be glossed over? Before you go there, I did not say all, but it wasn't just Bob and George either.
In some cases they owned their wives but there were plenty of examples that went beyond that. Often... but not far from all. There are limits to Alturism, risking social ostracism and going against your financial interests is too much to ask of almost anyone, if people were that awesome we wouldn't have NIMBYs let alone asking people to give up their wealth.
Or you are also wrong. https://networks.h-net.org/node/4113/reviews/4414/towers-harrold-abolitionists-and-south-1831-1861
Southern White Abolitionists did exist. That you just assumed there were none, perhaps it doesn't need to be addressed?
I never said anything about reducing the responsibility. However to use your example, it would be like the police going after the buyer and completely ignoring the seller and his role in kidnapping and selling the girl. [and to keep the example the same as in slavery, also doing the rape and the sex slaves because slaves were slaves before they were sold.
Why do the enslavers and sellers of Africans seem to get a free pass. People who bought them moved them to the New World and sold them are the massive scum of the earth but the people who took those people, made them slaves, and sold them either to other Black slavers or directly to whties, finest salt of the earth, beyond reproach. Also vexing that the Arab slave trade into Africa also gets almost no attention. I guess it's only bad when westerners do it.
They do not get a free pass. It just has nothing to do with slavery in America, and the continued suppression of black people there.
To be specific, it is impossible to hold the arab slave traders in Africa in the 18th century responsible for the voter suppression by the Republicans in 2022.
Well, if you're not talking about CRT, give me some concrete examples of who / what you are talking about?
I have a half-assed idea of 19th century history, but I'm not aware that anyone was teaching a version that removed the Black African original sellers. It's pretty basic. And yes, there were - it would appear - at least a few abolitionists in Ky and other border states. And I should probably have googled that before making a sweeping statement. But that - and Blacks who owned slaves - are pretty much the exception that proves the rule.
If your argument is that there was no racial component to slavery, you're dead in the water. The entire institution was racial and the theoretical justifications also racial. And yes, it existed because it made the owners and their society a shitload of money and that's worth making up a whole lot of racial theory to justify. Because making money is nice, whether you have to argue 'trickle-down" economics or "racial tutelage" to keep that money flowing.
In any version of history that I've read the slave-traders and slave-captains are villainized as well. And any version of history I've read goes on about General Gordon fighting Arab slavery in Sudan and other stuff like that. But that's not part of US history, unless the Arabs also colonized Texas at some point and I'm unaware of that.
So I'm not sure where you're going with your argument.
Black slave owners
Slave owners included a comparatively small number of people of at least partial African ancestry, in each of the original thirteen colonies and later states and territories that allowed slavery;[349][350] in some early cases black Americans also had white indentured servants. An African former indentured servant who settled in Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, became one of the earliest documented slave owners in the mainland American colonies when he won a civil suit for ownership of John Casor.[351] In 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves, which was a small percentage of a total of over two million slaves then held in the South.[352] 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.
There were economic and ethnic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and the Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most living in New Orleans and Charleston. In particular, New Orleans had a large, relatively wealthy free black population (gens de couleur) composed of people of mixed race, who had become a third social class between whites and enslaved blacks, under French and Spanish colonial rule. Relatively few non-white slaveholders were substantial planters; of those who were, most were of mixed race, often endowed by white fathers with some property and social capital.[353] For example, Andrew Durnford of New Orleans was listed as owning 77 slaves.[352] According to Rachel Kranz: "Durnford was known as a stern master who worked his slaves hard and punished them often in his efforts to make his Louisiana sugar plantation a success."[354] In the years leading up to the Civil War, Antoine Dubuclet, who owned over a hundred slaves, was considered the wealthiest black slaveholder in Louisiana.
The historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote:
The historian James Oakes, in 1982, stated that:
Some free black slaveholders in New Orleans offered to fight for Louisiana in the Civil War.[349] Over 1,000 free black people volunteered and formed the 1st Louisiana Native Guard (CSA), which was disbanded without even seeing combat.
en.wikipedia.org
Pretty much defines the idea of "exceptions that prove the rule".
There are some weird and kinda neat wiki articles on Black slave trader women in West Africa, which read like something out of a twisted adventure novel.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Slave owners included a comparatively small number of people of at least partial African ancestry, in each of the original thirteen colonies and later states and territories that allowed slavery;[349][350] in some early cases black Americans also had white indentured servants. An African former indentured servant who settled in Virginia in 1621, Anthony Johnson, became one of the earliest documented slave owners in the mainland American colonies when he won a civil suit for ownership of John Casor.[351] In 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves, which was a small percentage of a total of over two million slaves then held in the South.[352] 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.
There were economic and ethnic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and the Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most living in New Orleans and Charleston. In particular, New Orleans had a large, relatively wealthy free black population (gens de couleur) composed of people of mixed race, who had become a third social class between whites and enslaved blacks, under French and Spanish colonial rule. Relatively few non-white slaveholders were substantial planters; of those who were, most were of mixed race, often endowed by white fathers with some property and social capital.[353] For example, Andrew Durnford of New Orleans was listed as owning 77 slaves.[352] According to Rachel Kranz: "Durnford was known as a stern master who worked his slaves hard and punished them often in his efforts to make his Louisiana sugar plantation a success."[354] In the years leading up to the Civil War, Antoine Dubuclet, who owned over a hundred slaves, was considered the wealthiest black slaveholder in Louisiana.
The historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote:
The historian Ira Berlin wrote:
African-American history and culture scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote:
Free blacks were perceived "as a continual symbolic threat to slaveholders, challenging the idea that 'black' and 'slave' were synonymous".[358] Free blacks were sometimes seen as potential allies of fugitive slaves and "slaveholders bore witness to their fear and loathing of free blacks in no uncertain terms."[359] For free blacks, who had only a precarious hold on freedom, "slave ownership was not simply an economic convenience but indispensable evidence of the free blacks' determination to break with their slave past and their silent acceptance – if not approval – of slavery."[360]
The historian James Oakes, in 1982, stated that:
In his 1985 statewide study of black slaveholders in South Carolina, Larry Koger challenged this benevolent view. He found that the majority of mixed-race or black slaveholders appeared to hold at least some of their slaves for commercial reasons. For instance, he noted that in 1850 more than 80% of black slaveholders were of mixed race, but nearly 90% of their slaves were classified as black.[363] Koger also noted that many South Carolina free blacks operated small businesses as skilled artisans, and many owned slaves working in those businesses. "Koger emphasizes that it was all too common for freed slaves to become slaveholders themselves."[364]
Some free black slaveholders in New Orleans offered to fight for Louisiana in the Civil War.[349] Over 1,000 free black people volunteered and formed the 1st Louisiana Native Guard (CSA), which was disbanded without even seeing combat.
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pretty much defines the idea of "exceptions that prove the rule".
There are some weird and kinda neat wiki articles on Black slave trader women in West Africa, which read like something out of a twisted adventure novel.
Mary Faber de Sanger - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Niara Bely - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I have no idea where you are getting this. First CRT is not, as far as i am aware taught anywhere. Be that as it may where have you seen any historian or educator suggest that slavery begun when the slave arrived on these shores. You are missing the point. the undeniable fact is that slavery shaped the US as it exists today and the collateral effects of it can be seen in most government decisions that were made for many years. that is not to suggest that it is not better today than it was 100 or 50 or 25 years ago. But portending that is was like summer camp or not an atrocity or has not affected American society to this day is simply to deny history and fact.
Justifications in the South
See also: Proslavery and Fire-Eaters
"A necessary evil"
In the 19th century, proponents of slavery often defended the institution as a "necessary evil". At that time, it was feared that emancipation of black slaves would have more harmful social and economic consequences than the continuation of slavery. On April 22, 1820, Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, wrote in a letter to John Holmes, that with slavery,
In a letter to his wife dated December 27, 1856, in reaction to a message from President Franklin Pierce, Robert E. Lee wrote,
Main article: Slavery as a positive good in the United States
See also: Mudsill theory
However, as the abolitionist movement's agitation increased and the area developed for plantations expanded, apologies for slavery became more faint in the South. Leaders then described slavery as a beneficial scheme of labor management. John C. Calhoun, in a famous speech in the Senate in 1837, declared that slavery was "instead of an evil, a good – a positive good". Calhoun supported his view with the following reasoning: in every civilized society one portion of the community must live on the labor of another; learning, science, and the arts are built upon leisure; the African slave, kindly treated by his master and mistress and looked after in his old age, is better off than the free laborers of Europe; and under the slave system conflicts between capital and labor are avoided. The advantages of slavery in this respect, he concluded, "will become more and more manifest, if left undisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers".[129]
South Carolina Army officer, planter, and railroad executive James Gadsden called slavery "a social blessing" and abolitionists "the greatest curse of the nation".[130] Gadsden was in favor of South Carolina's secession in 1850, and was a leader in efforts to split California into two states, one slave and one free.
Other Southern writers who also began to portray slavery as a positive good were James Henry Hammond and George Fitzhugh. They presented several arguments to defend the practice of slavery in the South.[131] Hammond, like Calhoun, believed that slavery was needed to build the rest of society. In a speech to the Senate on March 4, 1858, Hammond developed his "Mudsill Theory," defending his view on slavery by stating: "Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill." Hammond believed that in every class one group must accomplish all the menial duties, because without them the leaders in society could not progress.[131] He argued that the hired laborers of the North were slaves too: "The difference ... is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment," while those in the North had to search for employment.[131]
George Fitzhugh used assumptions about white superiority to justify slavery, writing that, "the Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child." In The Universal Law of Slavery, Fitzhugh argues that slavery provides everything necessary for life and that the slave is unable to survive in a free world because he is lazy, and cannot compete with the intelligent European white race. He states that "The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world."[132] Without the South, "He (slave) would become an insufferable burden to society" and "Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery."[132]
On March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, delivered his Cornerstone Speech. He explained the differences between the Constitution of the Confederate States and the United States Constitution, laid out the cause for the American Civil War, as he saw it, and defended slavery:[133]
More from the wiki article about white southern attitudes to slavery.
See also: Proslavery and Fire-Eaters
"A necessary evil"
In the 19th century, proponents of slavery often defended the institution as a "necessary evil". At that time, it was feared that emancipation of black slaves would have more harmful social and economic consequences than the continuation of slavery. On April 22, 1820, Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, wrote in a letter to John Holmes, that with slavery,
The French writer and traveler Alexis de Tocqueville, in his influential Democracy in America (1835), expressed opposition to slavery while observing its effects on American society. He felt that a multiracial society without slavery was untenable, as he believed that prejudice against blacks increased as they were granted more rights (for example, in northern states). He believed that the attitudes of white Southerners, and the concentration of the black population in the South, were bringing the white and black populations to a state of equilibrium, and were a danger to both races. Because of the racial differences between master and slave, he believed that the latter could not be emancipated.[126]
In a letter to his wife dated December 27, 1856, in reaction to a message from President Franklin Pierce, Robert E. Lee wrote,
"A positive good"
Main article: Slavery as a positive good in the United States
See also: Mudsill theory
However, as the abolitionist movement's agitation increased and the area developed for plantations expanded, apologies for slavery became more faint in the South. Leaders then described slavery as a beneficial scheme of labor management. John C. Calhoun, in a famous speech in the Senate in 1837, declared that slavery was "instead of an evil, a good – a positive good". Calhoun supported his view with the following reasoning: in every civilized society one portion of the community must live on the labor of another; learning, science, and the arts are built upon leisure; the African slave, kindly treated by his master and mistress and looked after in his old age, is better off than the free laborers of Europe; and under the slave system conflicts between capital and labor are avoided. The advantages of slavery in this respect, he concluded, "will become more and more manifest, if left undisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers".[129]
South Carolina Army officer, planter, and railroad executive James Gadsden called slavery "a social blessing" and abolitionists "the greatest curse of the nation".[130] Gadsden was in favor of South Carolina's secession in 1850, and was a leader in efforts to split California into two states, one slave and one free.
Other Southern writers who also began to portray slavery as a positive good were James Henry Hammond and George Fitzhugh. They presented several arguments to defend the practice of slavery in the South.[131] Hammond, like Calhoun, believed that slavery was needed to build the rest of society. In a speech to the Senate on March 4, 1858, Hammond developed his "Mudsill Theory," defending his view on slavery by stating: "Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill." Hammond believed that in every class one group must accomplish all the menial duties, because without them the leaders in society could not progress.[131] He argued that the hired laborers of the North were slaves too: "The difference ... is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment," while those in the North had to search for employment.[131]
George Fitzhugh used assumptions about white superiority to justify slavery, writing that, "the Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child." In The Universal Law of Slavery, Fitzhugh argues that slavery provides everything necessary for life and that the slave is unable to survive in a free world because he is lazy, and cannot compete with the intelligent European white race. He states that "The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world."[132] Without the South, "He (slave) would become an insufferable burden to society" and "Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery."[132]
On March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, delivered his Cornerstone Speech. He explained the differences between the Constitution of the Confederate States and the United States Constitution, laid out the cause for the American Civil War, as he saw it, and defended slavery:[133]
This view of the Negro "race" was backed by pseudoscience.[134] The leading researcher was Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright, inventor of the mental illnesses of drapetomania (the desire of a slave to run away) and dysaesthesia aethiopica ("rascality"), both cured by whipping. The Medical Association of Louisiana set up a committee, of which he was chair, to investigate "the Diseases and Physical Peculiarities of the Negro Race". Their report, first delivered to the Medical Association in an address, was published in their journal,[135] and then reprinted in part in the widely circulated DeBow's Review.[136]
More from the wiki article about white southern attitudes to slavery.
