Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[tsubaki]

yup, it's depressing. After all these years we seem to be no closer to finding a way to counter this populist nonsense.
Seems the more you point out how nonsensical it is, the more intrenched they get.
If you work with them, find a compromise and figure out a solution that suits everyone, they move on to the next ridiculous hot take.
It's never ending stupidity. Quite tiring really.

hopefully when Murdoch dies things might change

Ahh it's the forgetting reality of the story of the slave trade. For the record the vast majority of the story is of the west treating those people as property, not people. That message should never be forgotten and absolutely taught in schools.

The bunk you are talking about is the part everyone leaves out.

How do you think they slave trade came to be? Westerners didn't go into Africa and kidnap thousands of people now did they? They bought those people, from the Africans themselves. There would not have been a slave trade to begin with if their own people didn't sell them to the evil whites.

Hence my inpartial teaching viewpoint. The vast majority of the lesson is very much a evil whites story, but it shouldn't be left out that Africans were compliant , even if it was those simply in charge.

So that example is relevant because the critical side of it would weigh in both sides. If that does take place then it's fine, it's an important lesson to be told as part of our history , our meaning the world. If however that is taught in a way now that would only focus on the side you have in light of pressure from a very popular political group in America, then it has no value.

Remember it's critical, it's not lying the blame but teaching the whole story, from both sides. You can't teach one side of it and expect racism to just go away, although I would assume that before last year that may have been the case I hope.

Are we doing both-sides with the slave trade now?

 

[Ghost Rider]

hopefully when Murdoch dies things might change



Are we doing both-sides with the slave trade now?

If you want to be critical and fair then why not?

Otherwise it's what is called bias.

 

[TN Toffee]

If you want to be critical and fair then why not?

Otherwise it's what is called bias.

The Nazis were a group of murderous monsters and the Holocaust is one of the darkest moments in human history. Now you can lay out the other side in the interest of "critical and fair".

 

[sd_1992]

At some point Dems might stop committing electoral suicide every time they have power.
But probably not.

 

[tsubaki]

If you want to be critical and fair then why not?

Otherwise it's what is called bias.

No, it’s called historical revisionism.

The slave trade on one side involved finance, shipping, extensive planning, plantations, cash crops, markets, infrastructure development and political and legal support (and in several cases military support). It also required justification to be developed as to why people were doing what they were to other people, and we are still living with that today.

On the other side it involved a few elites who were paid in trade goods and/or cash for people, and in many cases they weren’t involved anyway.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Nazis were a group of murderous monsters and the Holocaust is one of the darkest moments in human history. Now you can lay out the other side in the interest of "critical and fair".

Why is it taboo to mention this then?

In all fairness your response is shutting down any concept of the truth of how the west got the slaves.

The Nazis have no connection in any way to the slave trade so I don't appreciate or want to discuss random elements off a subject, otherwise the discussion could be about anything and everything off topic.

No, it’s called historical revisionism.

The slave trade on one side involved finance, shipping, extensive planning, plantations, cash crops, markets, infrastructure development and political and legal support (and in several cases military support). It also required justification to be developed as to why people were doing what they were to other people, and we are still living with that today.

On the other side it involved a few elites who were paid in trade goods and/or cash for people, and in many cases they weren’t involved anyway.

Yet last year , someone who 'werent involved anyway' was talked about like they were the mastermind behind it all, including tearing their statue down. You can't really swing that comment both ways either they were or weren't.

The thing is you can teach the entire slave trade and 99% of the history behind it is the horrible I humane things the west did. None of that changes. I just don't understand how also knowing it was their own people who sold them into slavery. Or why the mention of it is dismissed so much, it's the truth. Even if it's only 1% of the history it's still a part of it.

So to be critical about the matter, that little part is just as valid as the rest, given the vast majority of the lesson is about the wests humanity crimes.

 

[Sassy Colombian]

I guess. It just feels beyond disheartening to think that the we have to abandon any hope of truly meaningful progress in order to simply maintain the awful status-quo because Republicans are still able to trot out an pathetic candidate and win purely on white grievance.

It does indeed feels beyond disheartening. It is discouraging that as always people on the right are more eager about turning out to vote than complacent Democrats. And the results of last night elections need to serve as a warning to the party of of how vulnerable we can be next November. Republicans are excellent about playing on white grievances and they know subjects such as teaching “critical race theory,”which was not even thought in Virginia, are the sort of subjects that whites are passionate about and will bring them out to vote. It baffles me that after years of seeing Republicans play the same strategy that Democrats can’t come up with some tactics to fight this nonsense. If Murphy loses the governorship in heavily democratic New Jersey then this should be a rude awakening for Democrats and us, the voters, that like Trump came out and claimed “The MAGA movement is bigger and stronger than ever before.” ?

 

[TN Toffee]

Why is it taboo to mention this then?

In all fairness your response is shutting down any concept of the truth of how the west got the slaves.

The Nazis have no connection in any way to the slave trade so I don't appreciate or want to discuss random elements off a subject, otherwise the discussion could be about anything and everything off topic.


Yet last year , someone who 'werent involved anyway' was talked about like they were the mastermind behind it all, including tearing their statue down. You can't really swing that comment both ways either they were or weren't.

The thing is you can teach the entire slave trade and 99% of the history behind it is the horrible I humane things the west did. None of that changes. I just don't understand how also knowing it was their own people who sold them into slavery. Or why the mention of it is dismissed so much, it's the truth. Even if it's only 1% of the history it's still a part of it.

So to be critical about the matter, that little part is just as valid as the rest, given the vast majority of the lesson is about the wests humanity crimes.

I'm not sure if your American, but very little of the conversation and outrage around CRT here has anything to do with the actual slave trade and how it is taught. CRT arguments manifest themselves here around things like Southern whites thinking they should be allowed to continue rubbing minorities faces in **** by prominently displaying statues to Confederate generals and flying the Rebel flag, or burying their head in the sand about obvious bias from law enforcement. Obviously slavery is a part of the conversation, but from my experience in school (admittedly 20+ years ago) very little background is taught with regards to people of any race prior to their landing on these shores and how or why they came here.

 

[tsubaki]

Yet last year , someone who 'werent involved anyway' was talked about like they were the mastermind behind it all, including tearing their statue down. You can't really swing that comment both ways either they were or weren't.

The thing is you can teach the entire slave trade and 99% of the history behind it is the horrible I humane things the west did. None of that changes. I just don't understand how also knowing it was their own people who sold them into slavery. Or why the mention of it is dismissed so much, it's the truth. Even if it's only 1% of the history it's still a part of it.

So to be critical about the matter, that little part is just as valid as the rest, given the vast majority of the lesson is about the wests humanity crimes.

Well no, because you aren’t treating it as “1% of the history” (you are equivalencing it) and you are approaching it from the viewpoint of “the West did it”.

The slave trade was organised, owned and run by elites in some Western states who profited massively from it over hundreds of years despite the destruction it wrought. They were doing similar things to the poor in their own states, too.

At the level of a school, teaching has to focus on those facts, because if you present things out of context it can only confuse students (like the fact that some local elites were selling people - this isn’t that relevant as they didn’t organise the trade, or originate it, nor did there that much evidence to suggest many of them knew what they were selling people into either).

You can’t pretend that is equivalent to what the slave traders themselves were doing, though of course historically racists have tried to do exactly that.

 

[Tin-Tin]

This isnt good at all

 

[wm02]

This isnt good at all

Fairly standard for the opposition party to gain seats in the first midterms

 

[tsubaki]

This isnt good at all

Why would people expect McAuliffe and his ilk to do anything different? The top of the party is full of serial failures.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm not sure if your American, but very little of the conversation and outrage around CRT here has anything to do with the actual slave trade and how it is taught. CRT arguments manifest themselves here around things like Southern whites thinking they should be allowed to continue rubbing minorities faces in **** by prominently displaying statues to Confederate generals and flying the Rebel flag, or burying their head in the sand about obvious bias from law enforcement. Obviously slavery is a part of the conversation, but from my experience in school (admittedly 20+ years ago) very little background is taught with regards to people of any race prior to their landing on these shores and how or why they came here.

My original post was In relation to teaching the subject now compared to as you say 20 years ago. Pressure from left standing political ideology in the west is forcing influence by noise rather than discission. So if it influences a subject such as crt , then it loses focus. It stops being critical and starts being influenced.

I used the slave trade as a simple example of this.i can appreciate it's a much broader subject, just the best example I could give of how it perspective could he altered simply by omitting such a small part of the history.

Well no, because you aren’t treating it as “1% of the history” (you are equivalencing it) and you are approaching it from the viewpoint of “the West did it”.

The slave trade was organised, owned and run by elites in some Western states who profited massively from it over hundreds of years despite the destruction it wrought. They were doing similar things to the poor in their own states, too.

At the level of a school, teaching has to focus on those facts, because if you present things out of context it can only confuse students (like the fact that some local elites were selling people - this isn’t that relevant as they didn’t organise the trade, or originate it, nor did there that much evidence to suggest many of them knew what they were selling people into either).

You can’t pretend that is equivalent to what the slave traders themselves were doing, though of course historically racists have tried to do exactly that.

The west weren't kidnapping Africans, they were buying them. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not , it happened.

I do love how any discussion about race always ends up with an accusation of being racist , even when none has been said. I lose interest in holding a discussion if that is the go to line.

 

[Prevenger17]

I do love how any discussion about race always ends up with an accusation of being racist , even when none has been said. I lose interest in holding a discussion if that is the go to line.

Who has accused you of being racist here?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who has accused you of being racist here?

Nobody. It's in relation to this line

You can’t pretend that is equivalent to what the slave traders themselves were doing, though of course historically racists have tried to do exactly that.

Not everything is confrontational, nor should anything be defensive. A simple response to that line , I've done enough 'internet' to notice that going to racism in a discussion is usually a cop out and never needs to be mentioned unless directly relevant