Current Events > Liberals furious due to 4th Graders assignment to list good reasons for slavery.

(+) Yeah! (+)

LMAO at everyone itt who thinks good and bad aren't subjective
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

So some of y'all would be ok with a teacher asking students to list the positives of 9/11?

Hey look, it's that racist guy who can't figure out the difference between "what positives came from X" and "Why was X a totally awesome thing that happened"! What a shock to absolutely nobody!
---

look at all the racists in here

pathetic
---

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

LMAO at everyone itt who thinks good and bad aren't subjective

So you support the assignment?
---

Surprised this was not from a southern state
---

iPhone_7 posted...

Surprised this was not from a southern state

Maybe that's a sign that you should be less judgemental
---

omega cookie posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

So some of y'all would be ok with a teacher asking students to list the positives of 9/11?

Hey look, it's that racist guy who can't figure out the difference between "what positives came from X" and "Why was X a totally awesome thing that happened"! What a shock to absolutely nobody!

That's a lot of words to use to not answer the question
---

The bigger issue is how this kid is in the fourth grade and fails to spell simple words like "splitting", "members", "chores", and "punishing". Also, who was biting their slaves? Did a plantation owner stroll around his field looking a slave not meeting his cotton quota so he could bite him? "Watch out for the master, he'll literally bite your head off if he catches you not working."

... and now I realize he meant "beating" them, kid needs to spend more time in English class and not history.

So Admiral is in the defending racism stage now eh?

Yet call someone a poopiehead and get warned
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

LMAO at everyone itt who thinks good and bad aren't subjective

So you support the assignment?

dont you think the answer this kid from the article gave was what the teacher was expecting ?

there are a lot of teachers now trying to get their students to think instead of putting the ideas in their heards they want to teach the kids to think and to speak up

going by the article
the teacher never told the kid this was the wrong answer
---

omega cookie posted...

It's a perfectly acceptable assignment, just not at that age. I had to write a ten page paper detailing all the beneficial things to come from slavery, as well as the negative things(basically five pages on each), but that was in... 11th grade I believe? But to ask that of eight or nine year olds, and expect them to understand the difference between "beneficial at the time" and "good" is just a wasted exercise and asking for trouble.

This. Fourth graders can't understand the macro and microeconomic implications of slavery.

Perfectly acceptable assignment for older students.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

So Admiral is in the defending racism stage now eh?

Yet call someone a poopiehead and get warned

Maybe the reason you're so angry all the time is because you don't properly read people's posts. Case in point.

Must be torture for you to have to control your emotions now and not immediately insult people.
---

marc55 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...
Trigg3rH4ppy posted...
LMAO at everyone itt who thinks good and bad aren't subjective

So you support the assignment?

It is subjective, obviously. There is no good and evil in nature, thus it's just a construct of the human mind. However, in order to present some semblance of order, I feel that it is ideal to teach a general understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

For instance, murder isn't good or evil. However, it is an act that will have a consequence, and the consequence is generally undesirable for all those involved. We should teach that it is unacceptable to blatantly kill someone.

Most of the actions that are considered good and evil are just common sense issues, and requires one to be considerate of others.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

For instance, murder isn't good or evil.

.....
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

For instance, murder isn't good or evil.

.....

You can kill someone without it being evil, but that doesn't make them good. There are very few instances in which killing someone can be considered good, and in all the ones I can think of it would be killing someone to prevent them from killing another, or to end what would be prolonged suffering.

I recommend reading Of Mice and Men.

TrojanPony posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

For instance, murder isn't good or evil.

.....

You can kill someone without it being evil, but that doesn't make them good. There are very few instances in which killing someone can be considered good, and in all the ones I can think of it would be killing someone to prevent them from killing another, or to end what would be prolonged suffering.

I recommend reading Of Mice and Men.

He said murder not killing.
---

Good and evil are subjective terms. What's good to someone, may be evil to another. You can't measure good and evil. It's just a concept formed in the human mind, and it doesn't truly exist. They are just words that we use to describe actions.

I use these terms myself, but I also acknowledge that they are just terms formulated to describe actions that are seen as unacceptable by the general public. For instance, I would call human sacrifice "evil", however, ancient humans practiced it, and they did not see it as evil. To them, it was acceptable.

I also use the words dark and cold, and neither of these actually exist. Darkness is just absents of light. You can't have more darkness, it's just less light. Cold is actually the absents of heat. However, when I go outside on a dead of winter day I don't typically say "Man, heat sure is absent out here.", I say "It's cold out here.".
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

Good and evil are subjective terms. What's good to someone, may be evil to another. You can't measure good and evil. It's just a concept formed in the human mind, and it doesn't truly exist. They are just words that we use to describe actions.

I use these terms myself, but I also acknowledge that they are just terms formulated to describe actions that are seen as unacceptable by the general public. For instance, I would call human sacrifice "evil", however, ancient humans practiced it, and they did not see it as evil. To them, it was acceptable.

I also use the words dark and cold, and neither of these actually exist. Darkness is just absents of light. You can't have more darkness, it's just less light. Cold is actually the absents of heat. However, when I go outside on a dead of winter day I don't typically say "Man, heat sure is absent out here.", I say "It's cold out here.".

This is semantic dribble.

There are things so pure to the human condition that they can be accepted as standard even if they are "human made"

It's true that morality only exists because we made it up but it still exists.

If you brutally torture someone, rape them in front of their kids, then kill their kids, then bury them alive that's an evil action.

Going "Well as far as Pluto is concerned that's not evil since Pluto is a planet. Not a human being" is just stupidity masquerading as some deep point that doesn't exist.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you brutally torture someone, rape them in front of their kids, then kill their kids, then bury them alive that's an evil action.

I agree with you. I would say that is evil. But, while I would still use these terms, I also take note that good and evil does not exist in nature.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you brutally torture someone, rape them in front of their kids, then kill their kids, then bury them alive that's an evil action.

I agree with you. I would say that is evil. But, while I would still use these terms, I also take note that good and evil does not exist in nature.

Rape and torture doesn't exist in nature either.

'Nature' doesn't exist in nature.

Our entire society and method of communication is man made. It's a meaningless point.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you brutally torture someone, rape them in front of their kids, then kill their kids, then bury them alive that's an evil action.

I agree with you. I would say that is evil. But, while I would still use these terms, I also take note that good and evil does not exist in nature.

Rape and torture doesn't exist in nature either.

'Nature' doesn't exist in nature.

Our entire society and method of communication is man made. It's a meaningless point.

lol, I already said that I agree with you.

It's possible for me to use these words, while still also acknowledging they are human concepts.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

lol, I already said that I agree with you.

Then why are you arguing?
---

Is it really a liberal thing to be mad about this though. I have taken plenty of conservative takes on this board recently. But honestly, slavery is absolutely terrible no matter how you look at it. They should've asked reasons why slavery exists. It was a necessary evil, but not a good thing.
---

SavenForever posted...

It was a necessary evil

lmao???
---

It sounds like it was more of an attempt to explain that there were two sides to the argument and not just that all slave owners were demonic monsters. It was poorly worded though.
---

Good assignment, but not for 4th graders. More like high school age. At an age where they can actually understand the point of the assignment. At 4th grade you aren't really capable of thinking like this. Abstract thought is pretty limited
---

mattnd2007 posted...

Good assignment,

---

Sounds more like poor wording to me.

I feel like the question was meant to be something more along the lines of why slaveowners would have found it advantageous, instead of why owning slaves is morally acceptable.
---

mattnd2007 posted...

Good assignment, but not for 4th graders. More like high school age. At an age where they can actually understand the point of the assignment. At 4th grade you aren't really capable of thinking like this. Abstract thought is pretty limited

I too could not think critically until I was 15
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

mattnd2007 posted...

Good assignment,

Oh get over yourself.
---

Imagine the us today if it had no slaves ever
---

RebelElite791 posted...

SavenForever posted...

It was a necessary evil

lmao???

For farms, it was a cheaper way for labor. Overtime, it was not needed anymore.
---

RE_expert44 posted...

Imagine the us today if it had no slaves ever

That's kinda like saying imagine the US today if it had no wars ever.

It's kinda impossible to imagine.
---

SavenForever posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

SavenForever posted...

It was a necessary evil

lmao???

For farms, it was a cheaper way for labor. Overtime, it was not needed anymore.

Cheaper =/= necessary

Shut the actual fuck up
---

Multiple of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.
Without the money and free time they got by owning slaves, would they have been able to fight the Crown and win?
And cheap labor means a stronger economy, had they been able to fight the Crowns military and convinced France to help them if they had had a weak economy?
Would they have been able to buy Alaska from Russia? Alaska gave a huge economical boost later with its rich natural resources.
And think how much different the Cold War would have been if Soviet had had those resources and being that much closer to USA.
The world is not black and white.
---

Foppe posted...

Multiple of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.
Without the money and free time they got by owning slaves, would they have been able to fight the Crown and win?
And cheap labor means a stronger economy, had they been able to fight the Crowns military and convinced France to help them if they had had a weak economy?
Would they have been able to buy Alaska from Russia? Alaska gave a huge economical boost later with its rich natural resources.
And think how much different the Cold War would have been if Soviet had had those resources and being that much closer to USA.
The world is not black and white.

America existing is not worth slavery. These arguments always seem to lack the understanding of what necessity is
---

ThyCorndog posted...

America existing is not worth slavery.

His argument isn't about "worth" it's about existence.
---

And he was never seen again
---

Are people really too dense to see that there is a huge gap between "teaching the rationale for why slavery existed" and this assignment? They don't see why this assignment is a problem, and why it's NOT an effective tool to"teaching the rationale behind slavery."
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

And he was never seen again

who posted
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Are people really too dense to see that there is a huge gap between "teaching the rationale for why slavery existed" and this assignment? They don't see why this assignment is a problem, and why it's NOT an effective tool to"teaching the rationale behind slavery."

The only problem here is the use of the words "Good" and "Bad" in the statement, which can be conflated as either a practical value or a moralistic one. Otherwise, making a 4th grade student consider the benefits to slaveholders and the problems in general to Slavery is perfectly fine. 4th Graders have a sense of empathy and can understand the harm slavery causes, but also have enough critical thinking to understand there was a financial and quality of life benefit to owning slaves. The assignment makes the student put the two side by side in order to develop an understanding that even though there were reasons for owning slaves, the harm outweighed the benefits because the harm was tremendous.

As well, the discussion in class and assigned text probably spent a lot of time hammering that home.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The only problem here is the use of the words "Good" and "Bad" in the statement, which can be conflated as either a practical value or a moralistic one.

The framing of the question is the biggest problem, honestly. It's presenting it as a debate. When discussing the rationale behind owning slaves, it's important to bring up the "positives" as a justification for a horrible action, not as one side of an ambiguous argument.
---

redhats preaching in favor of slavery itt

so is it safe to say they have finally dropped all pretenses
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Pogo_Marimo posted...

The only problem here is the use of the words "Good" and "Bad" in the statement, which can be conflated as either a practical value or a moralistic one.

The framing of the question is the biggest problem, honestly. It's presenting it as a debate. When discussing the rationale behind owning slaves, it's important to bring up the "positives" as a justification for a horrible action, not as one side of an ambiguous argument.

Any consideration of knowledge should be framed as a debate. If you don't frame moral questions as a debate, you are not teaching critical thinking and ethics, you are teaching dogma. A teacher's job is not to tell children what to believe, it's to give them the tools to come to the conclusion themself.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Any consideration of knowledge should be framed as a debate. If you don't frame moral questions as a debate, you are not teaching critical thinking and ethics, you are teaching dogma.

I'm just gonna have to fundamentally disagree with you here.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Rape and torture doesn't exist in nature either.

Ducks.

RebelElite791 posted...

SavenForever posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

SavenForever posted...

It was a necessary evil

lmao???

For farms, it was a cheaper way for labor. Overtime, it was not needed anymore.

Cheaper =/= necessary

Shut the actual fuck up

Foppe posted...

Multiple of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.
Without the money and free time they got by owning slaves, would they have been able to fight the Crown and win?
And cheap labor means a stronger economy, had they been able to fight the Crowns military and convinced France to help them if they had had a weak economy?
Would they have been able to buy Alaska from Russia? Alaska gave a huge economical boost later with its rich natural resources.
And think how much different the Cold War would have been if Soviet had had those resources and being that much closer to USA.
The world is not black and white.

This. Sorry it's hard for you to believe Rebel, but it's the truth. Want a recent example of where this is being implemented after the economy collapsed? Libya.
---

^ To be fair a lot of that is bullshit.

The slave trade actively held back mechanization. The people who profited from slavery went out of there way to stop the development, advancement and spreading of machines that made agriculture cheaper, easier and more effective. Because it would cost them personally.

In fact in some cases governments conscripted the general population to be slave hunters to track down and bring back escaped slaves, with fines or prison sentences for those who refused. This is why "My ancestor caught a slave and then let him go!" stories are so common, so many of the guys hunting escaped slaves were just random Joes from the bar who only doing it because they were told too.

At its absolute height in the US, the amount of the population that owned slaves was 5%. It was pretty much what we today would consider the 1%. The incredibly wealthy and those wealthy who owned/ran businsesses that profited from slavery.

Meanwhile France's assistance in America was self-motivated. It benefited France to weaken and piss off the UK, so much so that it gave the US 1.3 billion livres and pretty much is the sole reason America became independant. The idea that France only did this because the US had "A stronger economy due to slavery" is absolute nonsense.

It was never for the good of the nation or for the only way to farm or spread technology. Close to the opposite.

You can make that argument for the Roman Empire, sure. But in the case of the US the argument of "It simply had to have slavery or else it couldn't have existed!" rings hollow.

Rich Americans had and maintained slaves because doing so got them more money and power. It was really that simple. Your example of Washington even flat out admitted this before he died.
---

And he was never seen again.
---

I get the intent of the question, but that was one of the worst ways for it to be worded, and what's more, that is certainly not a subject that I would think is appropriate for 4th graders.
---