Current Events > GOP pushing for a bill to ban teaching of slavery

(+) Yeah! (+)

Right. EVERY aspect.

Like they literally made the claim that the revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery lmao.

They're not examining racism, they're critiquing liberal democracy which they believe is inherently racist. That's what CRT is.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Right. EVERY aspect.

Yes. What kind of simple world does your mind occupy where setting up the fucking government under the assumption of black ownership doesn't produce pervasive effects across all aspects of society?

---

ah, following in chinas footsteps i see.

Hey Broseph, do you think any of these legislative acts were necessary?

COVxy posted...

Yes. What kind of simple world does your mind occupy where setting up the fucking government under the assumption of black ownership doesn't produce pervasive effects across all aspects of society?

Yeah, this country was pretty much founded on racism. They were perfectly fine letting black bodies fight and die for the Revolution but didn't see them as actual people to be included in their laws equally.

COVxy posted...

Yes. What kind of simple world does your mind occupy where the effects of setting up the fucking government under the assumption of black ownership doesn't produce pervasive effects across all aspects of society?

This stuff is going way over your head and I'm not sure why.

If they were making the claim that slavery was a major part of US history that continues to influence society there would have been no criticism from historians. It's not a controversial claim. Everyone agrees with that.

But that's not what they are claiming. This is not a critique of slavery it's a critique of liberal democracy, remember that. They don't view slavery as something that existed in the US, they view it as something inherent and protected by liberalism. They view it as the defining moment of our history and every part of it thereafter.

This is why the project was filled with historical negationism, some things went against their narrative so they simply lied. They claimed the revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery, they misattributed racist quotes to Lincoln because they couldn't handle the fact that he ended slavery. Nothing could be seen as not involving slavery or worse, opposing it.

pistachio12 posted...

Hey Broseph, do you think any of these legislative acts were necessary?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I don't even think a partisan state legislature should be in charge of developing a curriculum so it's laughable to say I'm defending them.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

it's a critique of liberal democracy, remember that.

I feel like you read this on wikipedia, but spent no time trying to understand what is actually meant.

---

lol america

---

Why do you think they lied about what they lied about? Just curious since it wasn't random at all and all the historical negationism was aimed at pushing the same narrative.

COVxy posted...

Yes. What kind of simple world does your mind occupy where setting up the fucking government under the assumption of black ownership doesn't produce pervasive effects across all aspects of society?

This is one of those weird things neolibs don't seem to get. A lot of our best historical figures only pragmatically gave slight edges towards black rights, the Southern Bloc held enormous power over United States politics and prevented tons of progress and still does essentially, and often times social progress was met with backlash.

Reconstruction not going far enough is because Andrew Johnson was a racist Southern Sympathizer, for example, and it's impossible to detach that from the U.S's history of slavery and it's impossible to detach that from the 100 years of constant civil rights abuses that followed. There were multiple covered up massacres of black citizens & towns within the South as a direct consequence of Reconstruction ending early.

So, yeah, you know, maybe we should teach that and how it still affects people today. The 1619 project, even as a flawed work, is much closer to reality than the utterly deranged "patriotic education" that seeks to utterly whitewash any history of how black people suffered in the United States. Calling it "framed by politics" and acting as if that makes it equally invalid is totally absurd since the people in TX congress pushing against the 1619 project are people who, and I must emphasize this, trying to make black people second class citizens by re-instituting Jim Crow era laws under the guise of "Voter security".

Carrying water for them by whinging about CRT and the 1619 Project is deranged. Your priorities are to attack people who are trying to help the current situation in the states as if Republicans wouldn't roundly scream "MARXISM" if the work was wholly accurate, because they'd still say framing U.S. history any way other than "muh flag, muh freedom" is just far left extremism.

Broseph is probably the one person on earth who sees Susan Collins saying she's "concerned" and thinks it's a meaningful statement, lmfao.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I don't even think a partisan state legislature should be in charge of developing a curriculum so it's laughable to say I'm defending them.

Are they developing the curriculum or merely dictating the scope of said curriculum?

Edit: actually let me change this. Was there anyone in Texas legislation dictating that the curriculum in the state should include the 1619 project to thus require the legislation from the GOP?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

So, yeah, you know, maybe we should teach that and how it still affects people today. The 1619 project, even as a flawed work, is much closer to reality than the utterly deranged "patriotic education" that seeks to utterly whitewash any history of how black people suffered in the United States.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should teach actual history in school instead of choosing which direction we want to lie in

Joohny posted...

Or maybe, just maybe, we should teach actual history in school instead of choosing which direction we want to lie in

I literally address this in the post. You can do this. That's preferable, that's good. The same people who'd ban the 1619 Project will also ban what you're suggesting. Because they hate black people.

---

"they hate black people" is also the core of what I'm saying here. The point is that the TX legislature will do this to anything because they are a former Confederate state operated by anti-democracy far-righters with a lengthy history of gross civil rights abuses tied to the literal founding of the state.

---

@Broseph_Stalin It's possible to be critical of the 1619 Project while still recognizing that it has legitimate value and asserting that a refined version of it should be included in Public Education.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prz4jfSX_Qg
---

wiiking96 posted...

@Broseph_Stalin It's possible to be critical of the 1619 Project while still recognizing that it has legitimate value and asserting that a refined version of it should be included in Public Education.

If by refined you mean dropping their entire premise, sure.

Again you guys ever wonder why they didn't get historians to do this stuff? Slavery was never the point.

I'm going to let @Zero_Destroyer handle this one. They're obviously more well-informed on this subject that anyone else in this topic.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

This is one of those weird things neolibs don't seem to get. A lot of our best historical figures only pragmatically gave slight edges towards black rights, the Southern Bloc held enormous power over United States politics and prevented tons of progress and still does essentially, and often times social progress was met with backlash.

Reconstruction not going far enough is because Andrew Johnson was a racist Southern Sympathizer, for example, and it's impossible to detach that from the U.S's history of slavery and it's impossible to detach that from the 100 years of constant civil rights abuses that followed. There were multiple covered up massacres of black citizens & towns within the South as a direct consequence of Reconstruction ending early.

So, yeah, you know, maybe we should teach that and how it still affects people today. The 1619 project, even as a flawed work, is much closer to reality than the utterly deranged "patriotic education" that seeks to utterly whitewash any history of how black people suffered in the United States. Calling it "framed by politics" and acting as if that makes it equally invalid is totally absurd since the people in TX congress pushing against the 1619 project are people who, and I must emphasize this, trying to make black people second class citizens by re-instituting Jim Crow era laws under the guise of "Voter security".

Carrying water for them by whinging about CRT and the 1619 Project is deranged. Your priorities are to attack people who are trying to help the current situation in the states as if Republicans wouldn't roundly scream "MARXISM" if the work was wholly accurate, because they'd still say framing U.S. history any way other than "muh flag, muh freedom" is just far left extremism.

Broseph is probably the one person on earth who sees Susan Collins saying she's "concerned" and thinks it's a meaningful statement, lmfao.

Would you agree that history teaching reform should always be done with the goal of improving true historical accuracy? Also would you agree characterizing the US as a fundamentally racist and white supremacist institution throughout its history is at the very least reductive if not grossly inaccurate?

I am not claiming those two things are necessarily in any way involved here. I am just curious about you answer to those questions?

---

Makeveli_lives posted...

Thoughts? Fake news? You tell me.

Makeveli_lives posted...

https://www.msnbc.com/

---

Reminder that Broseph tolerates the Israeli government's behavior and was implying that the Associated Press was in cahoots with Hamas days before conservative media and Tom Cotton jumped on that narrative.

---

The "how dare they erase history!" conservatives are strangely silent.

---

dolomedes posted...

europeans came to the 'new world,' killed off as many of its inhabitants as they could, then imported african people to work the stolen land.

I'm pretty sure in the following several hundred years some other stuff happened too.

But anyway I was asking Zero_Destroyer for their opinion. I am genuinely curious about it.

---

jumi posted...

The "how dare they erase history!" conservatives are strangely silent.

I agree that erasing history is dumb.

---

joe40001 posted...

I agree that erasing history is dumb.

Well, sure, but tearing down statues of traitors and shitty people is not erasing history.

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm pretty sure in the following several hundred years some other stuff happened too.

But anyway I was asking Zero_Destroyer for their opinion. I am genuinely curious about it.

I'll post more tomorrow, I'm going to bed atm

---

jumi posted...

Well, sure, but tearing down statues of traitors and shitty people is not erasing history.

Would tearing down the statue of somebody great be erasing history or just a bad idea?

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I'll post more tomorrow, I'm going to bed atm

Cool, no worries, have a good night.

---

joe40001 posted...

Would tearing down the statue of somebody great be erasing history or just a bad idea?

Bad idea.

Statues are not typically the primary way of learning history.

---

jumi posted...

Bad idea.

Statues are not typically the primary way of learning history.

ha, I agree as an education tool they are quite shit. I was more saying is their emblematic existence is some way what we are referring to when we refer to "history".

Like is "don't erase history" short for "don't erase emblemic reminders of history" and if so is that a valid stance?

---

So we can't get rid of statues glorifying traitors because history, but we can stop teaching history because it makes you look bad?

Everyone needs to be aware of the atrocities of the past.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

No one is arguing otherwise. Reread the post.

Plenty of people argue otherwise

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

they misattributed racist quotes to Lincoln because they couldn't handle the fact that he ended slavery. Nothing could be seen as not involving slavery or worse, opposing it.

The posts attribute the following quote to Lincoln: There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together... while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any man am in favor having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Lincoln made these remarks during one of a series of debates in 1858 with Stephen Douglas, when the men were vying for control in the Illinois General Assembly ( bit.ly/2Z4WkCV ).
In the same speech Lincoln said: I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

---

IMNOTRAGED posted...

How is it that this dude, who is supposedly a liberal or whatever, manages to side with fascists in every single topic like this

Scratch a liberal...

---

Lol this topic turned out well.
---

god, broseph stalin is the worst.

with a name like that you'd think he'd be less of a enlightened centrist

joe40001 posted...

Would you agree that history teaching reform should always be done with the goal of improving true historical accuracy? Also would you agree characterizing the US as a fundamentally racist and white supremacist institution throughout its history is at the very least reductive if not grossly inaccurate?

I am not claiming those two things are necessarily in any way involved here. I am just curious about you answer to those questions?

Ideally, yes, history teaching reforms should be done in mind with the idea of full accuracy. However, "full accuracy" is eventually going to be subjective, because even good faith actors will ask if certain things are necessary. Some of the Lincoln quotes are good examples. Is it necessary to teach those to reveal leaders will act more pragmatically and that they shouldn't be deified because they held bigoted beliefs? Probably, but I can see how an opposing viewpoint would say it's too reductionist and takes too much away from what was materially accomplished by Lincoln.

For the US being fundamentally racist, I think it's a core component, but not the only one. A history framed solely through slavery and its effects is, well, a framing device used to emphasize how slavery affected things in the states.

The Texas GOP doesn't want this taught, but it isn't because they feel it's reductionist, it's because they want a very glossy version of history where the struggle for Civil Rights ends in the 1960s with a clean victory. I think that aiming towards the framing of the US as fundamentally racist in an environment that is very much like the 1970s and 1980s in terms of massive conservative pushback is a positive thing even if it isn't the whole story.

So I'd agree if we only framed the US as fundamentally racist it could become reductionist or even potentially false in portions, but I don't think classrooms had the sole intent of just teaching the 1619 Project and no other framing of U.S. history. Ideally, you'd take elements from it that focus on events often not taught in classrooms that are entirely accurate and use those, but the Texas GOP has effectively banned this.


---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

The Texas GOP doesn't want this taught, but it isn't because they feel it's reductionist, it's because they want a very glossy version of history where the struggle for Civil Rights ends in the 1960s with a clean victory.

100% this

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Some of the Lincoln quotes are good examples. Is it necessary to teach those to reveal leaders will act more pragmatically and that they shouldn't be deified because they held bigoted beliefs? Probably, but I can see how an opposing viewpoint would say it's too reductionist and takes too much away from what was materially accomplished by Lincoln.

Him being less racist and more accepting of the idea of black people being people more then most does nothing to diminish the fact that he was racist. That's like saying thinking less of women or LGBT is perfectly fine because at least they aren't beating them.

---

jumi posted...

Well, sure, but tearing down statues of traitors and shitty people is not erasing history.

Most of those were erected well after the civil war. Like decades after or even this century.

---

Makeveli_lives posted...

Him being less racist and more accepting of the idea of black people being people more then most does nothing to diminish the fact that he was racist. That's like saying thinking less of women or LGBT is perfectly fine because at least they aren't beating them.

In a society where it was the social convention to beat every woman it would be important progress.

If you are pushing society hard in the right direction I think that is very relevant.

I doubt anybody that long ago lived up to modern standards, so we should value those who came closest because they were fighting a lot of people for the anti-racism progress they were making.

I see a lot of people criticize people in the far past for not living up to modern standards, but often these same people would never say something that modern society considered super taboo, do you know how taboo the anti-racism ideas of lincoln was at the time? Very.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Ideally, yes, history teaching reforms should be done in mind with the idea of full accuracy. However, "full accuracy" is eventually going to be subjective, because even good faith actors will ask if certain things are necessary. Some of the Lincoln quotes are good examples. Is it necessary to teach those to reveal leaders will act more pragmatically and that they shouldn't be deified because they held bigoted beliefs? Probably, but I can see how an opposing viewpoint would say it's too reductionist and takes too much away from what was materially accomplished by Lincoln.

For the US being fundamentally racist, I think it's a core component, but not the only one. A history framed solely through slavery and its effects is, well, a framing device used to emphasize how slavery affected things in the states.

The Texas GOP doesn't want this taught, but it isn't because they feel it's reductionist, it's because they want a very glossy version of history where the struggle for Civil Rights ends in the 1960s with a clean victory. I think that aiming towards the framing of the US as fundamentally racist in an environment that is very much like the 1970s and 1980s in terms of massive conservative pushback is a positive thing even if it isn't the whole story.

So I'd agree if we only framed the US as fundamentally racist it could become reductionist or even potentially false in portions, but I don't think classrooms had the sole intent of just teaching the 1619 Project and no other framing of U.S. history. Ideally, you'd take elements from it that focus on events often not taught in classrooms that are entirely accurate and use those, but the Texas GOP has effectively banned this.

If somebody argues for a good goal for bad reasons, that doesn't change it being a good goal.

US history is largely a story of progress away from racism. That doesn't mean the racism didn't happen but I think a lot of people expect some of these "teachings with a focus on racism" to be a series of sentences like "Columbus discovered america, but he was a monster to the native americans, and that's why he was a racist shit bag, and that's why america sucks... The founding fathers enshrined in their document that all men were created equal which was a bold idea at the time, but many of them own slaves, so that's why their racist shitbags, and that's why america sucks... Lincoln fought for an end of slavery, but he had many racist quotes, and so he's a racist shit bag, and that's why america sucks... "

And honestly I understand people afraid that is what is going to be taught, many of people pushing this "america is fundamentally racist, we are defined by racism" seem very invested in dunking on america and not particularly invested in historical truth.

Would you agree that there are elements of the 1619 project that aren't concerned primarily with historical accuracy but with contextualizing American history as meaning a certain thing? Like elements of the movement that would rather a person think of America as largely racist and thus largely bad than necessarily get historical details right?

I think republicans jump to wrong conclusions and get defensive about history, but the underlying sentiment of "we should teach history, we shouldn't teach people to hate america" is one I agree with. A history class is about talking about the details of what really happened, not telling people specifically how to judge those things.

---

joe40001 posted...

I think republicans jump to wrong conclusions and get defensive about history, but the underlying sentiment of "we should teach history, we shouldn't teach people to hate america" is one I agree with. A history class is about talking about the details of what really happened, not telling people specifically how to judge those things.

They don't want people to learn the details of what really happened because they are afraid of people coming to that conclusion. They don't get credit for their fake sentiment being sort of agreeable. That's what they want you to think. That's how they win and suppress history.

---

If somebody argues for a good goal for bad reasons, that doesn't change it being a good goal.

I don't disagree with this, I just think that of the two possibilities based on the TX legislature, one that aims for a bit more nuance that exposes flaws is probably the superior material.

US history is largely a story of progress away from racism.

Well, this is true, to an extent, but conservatives get extremely defensive in the modern day on the exact details of how. If we're talking about somebody like Columbus, we probably shouldn't venerate him, because he only "discovered America" through the lens of a particular part of Europe. That was important and critical, but it was accidental, and there's pretty lengthy debate over Columbus and his ethics & actions that go far beyond "he was racist" and more into "He might have committed horrendous, awful actions, even for his time."

I don't really doubt that the same legislature determined to erase history that portrays America in an unappealing light would enshrine Columbus and say that native american history is, at best, a side story in America's history even though it's very important.

I bring stuff like that up because it is not uncommon for elements of the far-right, some of them having had communication with congress, to use people's ignorance of both Native & African history to argue that those groups are innately inferior. One advantage to a slavery-focused framing is that it can be a way of expanding people's knowledge of those groups so they can understand world history not from a solely European-driven standpoint.

And honestly I understand people afraid that is what is going to be taught, many of people pushing this "america is fundamentally racist, we are defined by racism" seem very invested in dunking on america and not particularly invested in historical truth.

I think the intent is to understand many of the issues that continue to grip America today, to find out where they originated, and most importantly utilize that as a method of repair. This is the thing that frustrates me about the "You hate America" narrative conservative have weaponized. If I hated it, I wouldn't live here. I care about it, so why can't we address the problems?

Well, the TX legislature is causing a lot of those problems, and want to put a veil around everybody's face, and say "The problems don't exist, racism was solved in the 60s" while they minimize education on that topic and literally gut legislation from the 60s that made society more equitable. They certainly don't want people to understand what the Southern Bloc was, they certainly want to reframe the Confederacy to not sound as bad as it was, they really don't want people to know about Texas history that includes the chemical washing of immigrants in El Paso "because they are unclean" during the early 20th century (a thing the Nazis cited as an inspiration for how they would conduct the Holocaust), etc. etc.

Like, would any Republican legislator ever want that detail taught? It's such an awful thing. Nobody living today is guilty for it, but it's an important thing for people to know, so they empathize and remember immigrants are people and not worthy of such malevolent scorn. If a legislator supported teaching that, people like Trump wouldn't stand a chance to get elected, because people would've been educated against fear, and what horrible places it can lead people.

A history class is about talking about the details of what really happened, not telling people specifically how to judge those things.

I don't really believe the point is to judge America as unsalvageable or evil. By explaining the issue and how it still affects people to day, we can fix problems. But a lot of legislatures don't want to fix those problems because, at its core, they are a party of big business and a lot of big businesses rely heavily on exploitation.

Would you agree that there are elements of the 1619 project that aren't concerned primarily with historical accuracy but with contextualizing American history as meaning a certain thing? Like elements of the movement that would rather a person think of America as largely racist and thus largely bad than necessarily get historical details right?

To an extent, yes, though the relevance of this can be very situational. My thoughts on framing Lincoln as a racist, for example, were kind of explained in a post above - we shouldn't deify leaders - but I do think that is an aside to the times, and less important than his accomplishments. Conversely. he made the mistake of choosing Johnson as his vice president, a mistake that would gravely damage black americans for a century afterwards, making further progress real, but far slower than it should've been.

This is immensely complicated, a lot of subjects get bounced around here and I'm referencing a lot, so I do think that a version of history solely defined by its negativity is not a wholly positive force for America.

But I can't detach it from the true motivation the state legislature has for locking it away, and I think looking at the consequences of bad things is a great way to improve & stop from falling into another cycle of a slow, protracted civil rights fight against a force that has to be clawed into a modern era because they won't take criticism of America and refuse to acknowledge its problems or benefit from those problems or simply feel a misplaced guilt and don't want to think about those problems.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

They don't want people to learn the details of what really happened because they are afraid of people coming to that conclusion. They don't get credit for their fake sentiment being sort of agreeable. That's what they want you to think. That's how they win and suppress history.

I don't care much who "wins" in the points game so long as we do prudent things. So if republicans are pushing for something that is 1/10th prudent we should accept that 10th and reject the rest.

---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

...

(I read the whole post, there just wasn't much I disagreed with)

I agree that there is reason to be concerned by the motivations of the republicans. Overall though I think you and I would agree that the best teaching of history is one where we teach the true events of history as accurately as we can but to do so without agenda.

---

joe40001 posted...

(I read the whole post, there just wasn't much I disagreed with)

I agree that there is reason to be concerned by the motivations of the republicans. Overall though I think you and I would agree that the best teaching of history is one where we teach the true events of history as accurately as we can but to do so without agenda.

What is precisely the agenda though? There's definitely an agenda in teaching it but what do you think it is? Conversely there's an agenda in trying to ban it as well. What do you think the proponents and opponents are trying to accomplish here?

Like one side is trying to _____ and the other side is trying to _____

---

Well, let's look at the text of the bill, no?