Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTLA Los Angeles)   American History Trump 101: Christopher Columbus discovers the Constitution which is then used by the Pilgrims to legally confiscate unused land from the "Indians". Then they had a Tea Party and overthrew England, Africans were invited to work. Trump   (ktla.com) divider line
    More: Fake, United States, Education, President of the United States, President Donald Trump, Racism, American history, exclusive interview, Asian American  
•       •       •

4191 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2020 at 8:53 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



144 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-07 10:51:19 PM  

rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originally replied to.

No, he ...


This is hilarious.  Anything to avoid talking about your pathetic "look at British case law" statement, eh?  You know everyone reading this thread can see you desperately trying to avoid talking about that, right?
 
2020-09-07 10:52:34 PM  

rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originally replied to.

No, he didn't.  You made that assumption.


"As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America..."

What was that about assumption?
 
2020-09-07 10:54:31 PM  

g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originally replied to.
...


If that read "was only fought" or "primarily fought", you might have a point.

It doesn't.

There were a number of reasons the war was fought.  Some are stating slavery was one of those reasons.

That's the difference between "slavery was the reason" and "slavery was a reason".
 
2020-09-07 10:56:26 PM  

Armored Vomit Doll: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originally replied to.
...


Or, you're just attention starved.

A statement was made "no one".

Well, someone was, or that decision wouldn't have been made, the slave trade act wouldn't have been passed shortly later.  A number of people were thinking about it.

That's all.
 
2020-09-07 10:57:58 PM  
"It does us no good to deny that. Let's just deal with it. Let's be honest. These might be difficult conversations for some, but they're not difficult conversations for leaders, not for real leaders."

I think this sums it up quite nicely.
 
2020-09-07 10:59:07 PM  

rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originally replied to.
...

If that read "was only fought" or "primarily fought", you might have a point.

It doesn't.

There were a number of reasons the war was fought.  Some are stating slavery was one of those reasons.

That's the difference between "slavery was the reason" and "slavery was a reason".


I didn't say "only fought", I said "primary cause" just like he did.

Try reading the actual words.
 
2020-09-07 11:04:17 PM  

g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originall ...


You didn't say anything, unless you have to talk while you type, this is a written medium.

And you wrote "the primary cause".
 
2020-09-07 11:09:32 PM  

rohar: Or, you're just attention starved.

A statement was made "no one".

Well, someone was, or that decision wouldn't have been made, the slave trade act wouldn't have been passed shortly later. A number of people were thinking about it.

That's all.


Lol.  But there were abolitionist movements in the colonies themselves.  And in Britain, and all around the world.  You could have cited any of those.  But instead you chose to cite a decision which, by its very nature (and as seen by the fact that chattel slavery continued for decades after across the Empire) would have had no effect on the 13 colonies.

I mean, if that's what you were truly intending, fine.  But citing a legal decision that would have no effect in the colonies to prove the point that the colonies should be worried about talk about ending slavery.is pretty nonsensical when there are hundreds of examples you could have cited that were actually relevant to the colonies.

But, I'll take you at your word, and simply suggest that, in the future, you use an example of something that could actually have affected the colonies, rather than a legal decision that the colonies had every right to ignore - just like all of Britain's other colonies did.
 
2020-09-07 11:11:00 PM  

rohar: ...

You didn't say anything, unless you have to talk while you type, this is a written medium.

And you wrote "the primary cause".


Ok, I can see you are not interested in an actual conversation.
 
2020-09-07 11:15:42 PM  

g.fro: rohar: ...

You didn't say anything, unless you have to talk while you type, this is a written medium.

And you wrote "the primary cause".

Ok, I can see you are not interested in an actual conversation.


At this point, it's obvious a rational conversation is impossible.  If you write one thing and mean something else, this is where we end up.
 
2020-09-07 11:18:17 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-07 11:19:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

I'm not going to argue with anyone's take on history, nor have I read all of it.

But I am currently reading a history of the British take on the American demands during the lead up to the Revolution, and slavery was not even a tertiary issue. The Crown and Parliament were solely interested in the colonies as a source of raw materials, not how they obtained those materials.


While it was a piece of propaganda, Jefferson heaped slavery on the many issues that they simply said "it's King George III's fault!".

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.

exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

The other southerners didn't go along with it and had it struct from the "release edition" of the Declaration of Independence".

[note that this appears to be incomplete, but google typically returns worse.  It should also include Jefferson waxing lyrical hatred over this "Trade in Men" (Tom's capitalization)].

g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and
The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean


Wait, what?  There was definitely slavery in Alfred's (and well before, and through till Harold's) time.  Then along came William the Bastard and the no-fun Normans insisted on doing away with slavery (yes, England was happy with slavery, but Frenchmen made them stop.  Then they started up again once they had colonies and Frenchmen were no longer in control).  Does "Britain" exclusively mean "England and Scotland (presumably Wales, but that's typically ignored) legally bound together"?  I'm guessing that type of thing gets ignored whenever convenient to England.  For example: Her Royal Majesty is Queen Elizabeth (no number) by grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, and remaining empire.  She is only QEII of England.  She exclusively uses QEII.

Another thing that drove the prohibitionist argument home in England was that there were African (typically Moorish) pirates raiding the southern English coasts for slaves during the 18th century (presumably late 18th, possibly early 19th).  As it became more and more clear that slavery wasn't just a danger to black Africans but to lily white Englishmen as well, it was not as popular as it was.
 
2020-09-07 11:22:13 PM  

rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the post I originall ...

You didn't say anything, unless you have to talk while you type, this is a written medium.

And you wrote "the primary cause".


You cited a court case, made four years before the onset of hostilities, that had no effect on slavery in America (it involved a Jamaican slave, and Jamaica was not one of the colonies in revolt), and did not affect the British slave trade, much less the American one, and had no impact on really anything until Britain abolished slavery in 1807...put the "writing on the wall" in a conflict PRIMARILY about taxation and representation?

All Knowles decided was that slaves who sued for freedom in Britain had redress in court.
 
2020-09-07 11:35:11 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: ...


Wait, what?  There was definitely slavery in Alfred's (and well before, and through till Harold's) time.  Then along came William the Bastard and the no-fun Normans insisted on doing away with slavery (yes, England was happy with slavery, but Frenchmen made them stop.  Then they started up again once they had colonies and Frenchmen were no longer in control).  Does "Britain" exclusively mean "England and Scotland (presumably Wales, but that's typically ignored) legally bound together"?  I'm guessing that type of thing gets ignored whenever convenient to England.  For example: Her Royal Majesty is Queen Elizabeth (no number) by grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, and remaining empire.  She is only QEII of England.  She exclusively uses QEII.

Another thing that drove the prohibitionist argument home in England was that there were African (typically Moorish) pirates raiding the southern English coasts for slaves during the 18th century (presumably late 18th, possibly early 19th).  As it became more and more clear that slavery wasn't just a danger to black Africans but to lily white Englishmen as well, it was not as popular as it was.


When an 18th Century British judge says there has "never" been slavery in England, I think it's safe to assume he's being at least a little poetic. Certainly he wasn't going back to the days before the Conquest, and also, incidentally, before the common law. He was saying there was nothing in English law which supported slavery on their blessed isle.
 
2020-09-07 11:35:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: g.fro: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

At best, that decision ruled that there was no slavery in Britain because there had never been slavery in Britain. It had no effect on the colonies, and given that at the time the most profitable part of the Empire was the Caribbean and the sugar plantations there, which were of course worked by slaves, Parliament wasn't likely to change the laws regarding slavery overseas anytime soon.

I can understand it causing some concern among American slave owners, but enough to start a war? And if slavery was the primary cause, wouldn't the war have been more likely to begin in a colony dependent on slavery, rather than Massachusetts?

Nobody said slavery was the primary cause.

You're arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Senseless_drivel did.

That was the po ...


And since colonial law was subordinate to British law, the freedom suits started in the colonies the very next year.

To suggest it wasn't a colonial issue seems quite silly.
 
2020-09-07 11:39:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: rohar: Gyrfalcon: rohar: g.fro: Senseless_drivel: austerity101: A friend posted about this on FB earlier, and a friend of theirs said that a number of historians also took issue with the project and wrote criticisms of it.  So I asked her for some links, assuming she meant that some Black historians found some details or some framing to object to (potentially valid).  I got a random list of names I assume to be historians and no links, and then she followed it up with, "Keep in mind a lot of things are being pushed as a Marxist agenda and that is where a lot of this comes from."  Then I blocked her because I don't have time for crazy.

As I recall, the primary point of contention was that the American revolution was fought to preserve slavery in America and there was follow-up clarification that not all colonists supported slavery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/mag​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml

Why would the colonists have to fight a war to preserve slavery when no one was thinking of getting rid of it?

Yeah, you might want to look at British case law just before then.

Specifically what?

The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

Not the way you think. From your same link:

While Somerset's case provided a boon to the abolitionist movement, it did not end the holding of slaves within England. It also did not end British participation in the slave trade or slavery in other parts of the British Empire, where colonies had established slave laws. Despite the ruling, escaped slaves continued to be recaptured in England. Just a year after the Somerset ruling, there was a newspaper report of a runaway being recaptured and committing suicide in England.[19] In addition, contemporary newspaper advertisements show that slaves continued to be bought and sold in the British Isles.[20]

All that I know of the debates in Parliament and in the Continental Congresses in the years before the Revolution involved taxation and the right to self-governance or e ...


The Somerset case was reported in detail by the American colonial press. In Massachusetts, several slaves filed freedom suits in 1773-1774 based on Mansfield's ruling; these were supported by the colony's General Court (for freedom of the slaves) but vetoed by successive Royal governors. As a result, some individuals in pro-slavery and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, desired a distinct break from English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery.[2] Historians Alfred W. and Ruth G. Blumrosen suggest that this case increased support of the Southern colonies for independence, as they particularly wanted to protect slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerse​t​_v_Stewart#Thirteen_Colonies_and_Unite​d_States
 
2020-09-07 11:39:31 PM  

Animatronik: jso2897: If you can't stand naked in front of a mirror in a well lit room and look at yourself, you aren't a man - and a nation that can't do that is not a brave or manly nation.

The "1619 Project" is not 'standing naked in front of a mirror.'

It's standing in the middle of a pentagram while a throng of satanists pours blood over your head and lectures you on how you were a satanist who wanted to sacrifice babies your entire life and didn't realize it.

The people behind this are not professional historians; many of them don't even qualify as journalists, whatever THAT means in 2020.
Any parent who doesn't loudly object to bullshiat being taught in schools isn't doing their job.


Well I'm convinced...
 
2020-09-07 11:41:27 PM  

Animatronik: Any parent who doesn't loudly object to bullshiat being taught in schools isn't doing their job.


It's going to take some effort to get off Texas textbooks and Betsy DeVos.
 
2020-09-07 11:44:09 PM  

rohar: If that read "was only fought" or "primarily fought", you might have a point.

It doesn't.

There were a number of reasons the war was fought. Some are stating slavery was one of those reasons.

That's the difference between "slavery was the reason" and "slavery was a reason".


Other reasons included 'England wanted rich people to pay more in taxes to pay for the war England fought on their behalf' and 'England had made treaties with Native Americans that would have made it more difficult for Americans to murder them and steal their land'.
 
2020-09-07 11:44:46 PM  

KodosZardoz: "...Our country wasn't built by cancel culture, speech codes, and crushing conformity..."

Um, actually it was. They may have used different terminology over the centuries, but it's all pretty much the same thing.


Yeah, a bunch of the religious nutters who came over here early on did so specifically because they wanted to control people's lives, especially what they were allowed to think and say, more than they were allowed to in jolly old England. The "freedom" they were after was the freedom to run wacky insular cults backed by the force of law.

Of course that didn't work so hot when people could just fark off to join the natives and live freer than anyone in Europe. Fortunately.
 
2020-09-07 11:48:26 PM  
If you ignore someone, can they still see your posts?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-07 11:56:00 PM  

rohar: And since colonial law was subordinate to British law


False.  Britain granted all her colonies the right to ignore British law (both statute and case law) when following it would be "inconvenient" for them.  In the case of almost (but not quite) every British colony, this right was written down explicitly in the colony's charter.

Again, no other British colony stopped practicing chattel slavery until more than two decades after the decision in question.  The idea of suggesting that British colonies would have to abide by this decision, when we have clear evidence that not a single one of them did, and Britain didn't do anything about it, is completely disingenuous.

Unless you'd care to explain how, if colonial law was subservient to British law, chattel slavery continued until 1833 in most of Britain's colonies - more than 60 years after the decision in question.
 
2020-09-07 11:59:16 PM  

HighOnCraic: In Massachusetts, several slaves filed freedom suits in 1773-1774 based on Mansfield's ruling; these were supported by the colony's General Court (for freedom of the slaves) but vetoed by successive Royal governors


Huh.  Strange, and yet rohar is telling us that colonial law was subservient to British law.  I wonder who we should believe.  rohar, or reality?
 
2020-09-08 12:07:47 AM  
This is what a reactionary program looks like.
 
2020-09-08 12:11:36 AM  

2wolves: [Fark user image 667x500]
What we may need to stop #45*'s constant chaos.


Men dressed in ridiculous plastic comic book armour with freakish hands thrice the size of their own heads; I don't see how this helps.
 
2020-09-08 12:25:43 AM  

Armored Vomit Doll: HighOnCraic: In Massachusetts, several slaves filed freedom suits in 1773-1774 based on Mansfield's ruling; these were supported by the colony's General Court (for freedom of the slaves) but vetoed by successive Royal governors

Huh.  Strange, and yet rohar is telling us that colonial law was subservient to British law.  I wonder who we should believe.  rohar, or reality?


Reality.

Slavery just wasn't an issue in the Revolution, at least not insofar as conflict between Britain and the Colonies.

If anything, it would have been the other way around, because the Colonies were openly discussing abolishing slavery, and Britain was not, as yet.

The freedom suits initiated by the Somerfield decision only applied to individual slaves; it did not as yet address state-sanctioned slavery.
 
2020-09-08 12:30:05 AM  

stoli n coke: Wookie Milson: And then there was Paul Revere, riding his horse, ringing those bells, warning the townsfolk that the Germans were on their way.

It got George Washington's attention, who immediately shut down the airports.


Was that before or after the Bowling Green Massacre?
 
2020-09-08 12:36:47 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: He's going to win, because your arguments suck. Try harder.


You were an unironic Palin supporter. Your opinion doesn't matter.
 
2020-09-08 12:41:26 AM  

brantgoose: stoli n coke: brantgoose: stoli n coke: brantgoose: Maybe Trump is from a different Earth. Or maybe everything he says is true in Hell or Bizarro Trump World.

Or his parents just lied to him and told him the "special" class was for geniuses.

That's one thing that bugs me about American usage. The word "special" and the word "gifted" are used for the top 2% and the bottom 2% of the intelligence scale simultaneously. But you can easily guess which you are because no fecking taxpayer will pay for classes for smart kids. They can fend for their farking selfs.

If they can't, are they really gifted?

The French have a word for those of us who are smart in blook smarts and in school smarts but can't boil water without burning the hydrogen and causing a fusion reaction.

Forts en thème.

Sometimes I wonder, but my sister proposes high-functioning Assperger's syndrom as an alternative diagnosis, and she has an MA in nursing, so she propably knows a lot more practical psychology and so forth than your most brilliant physicians, some of whom think the Pyramids were build with mud bricks by the Children of Israel to serve as granaries durin the seven fat years and the seven thin years.


We had a term for people who said they weren't book smart, but rather were street smart. Morons.
 
2020-09-08 12:42:08 AM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-08 12:46:44 AM  

Animatronik: jso2897: If you can't stand naked in front of a mirror in a well lit room and look at yourself, you aren't a man - and a nation that can't do that is not a brave or manly nation.

The "1619 Project" is not 'standing naked in front of a mirror.'

It's standing in the middle of a pentagram while a throng of satanists pours blood over your head and lectures you on how you were a satanist who wanted to sacrifice babies your entire life and didn't realize it.

The people behind this are not professional historians; many of them don't even qualify as journalists, whatever THAT means in 2020.
Any parent who doesn't loudly object to bullshiat being taught in schools isn't doing their job.


As is my duty, you are literally not smart enough to understand simple jokes from the WHCD. That should always be pointed out.
 
2020-09-08 12:54:28 AM  
I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.
 
2020-09-08 12:56:46 AM  
In fairness, the 1619 project isn't really appropriate to use as history education in a vacuum.

It's what's called an analytical "lens", where you intentionally try to view everything as a product of a single key issue, a contributor to a single key issue, or both.  This is a useful technique to use and a valid way to try to develop deeper understanding of things that you're already aware of, but a general history class is more about building up that initial awareness of things that happened.

Like... the 1619 project is an example of a thing that students of history need to learn to do as a practical technique in their own studies, while understanding its limits.  It's not a technique whose output should be taught in itself as "the truth", which in all honestly likely is what California is trying to do, knowing the history of CA education standards.

Don't get me wrong, compared to the conservative version of historical revisionism, which involves intentionally teaching incorrect facts which are objectively untrue and never actually happened, this is kinda the foothill at the base of the mountain.  I'd kinda like educational standards to make more of a whole-hearted attempt to actually farking do it right instead of using the excuse that their wrong is less wrong than the people literally working for Russia to intentionally destroy America to try to pass off the fact that they're also doing it wrong as acceptable.

Just, like... hire someone who knows what they're doing to teach kids things in the order they need to learn them, remembering that learning events and objective facts needs to be the horse pulling the farking cart of analysis, political lenses, and interpretation.  Horse, then cart.

// That said, the idea of a federal investigation is absurd.  This is a "letters to the editor" level problem, not a "call in the feds" problem... especially since the feds have no authority on this and if they try to push it they'll get a nice even mix of being laughed out of court and being told to fark off by courts pissed enough about this administration's bullshiat to intentionally bind them with actual precedential stuff.
 
2020-09-08 12:57:24 AM  

Be polite walk on the right: UNC_Samurai: In before not-even-armchair historians regurgitate loaded criticisms about the 1619 project.

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 375x500]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-08 12:58:27 AM  

varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.


Dear Stormfront forum...
 
2020-09-08 2:28:38 AM  
The first reason the Department of Education would resist the use of free teaching materials is because they are free. The race relations is just added spice, the fact it's not profitable to a publisher full of former DoE people is a threat to their second careers. Like things involving other aspects of regulation, they all want to be overpaid consultants once their first pension is vested.
 
2020-09-08 3:20:26 AM  

Moopy Mac: Zeb Hesselgresser: He's going to win, because your arguments suck. Try harder.

You were an unironic Palin supporter. Your opinion doesn't matter.


He actually supported Palin?

Oh come on, that's a myth...isn't it? There's no actual Palin supporters.

/It is a myth...isn't it?
//Please tell me it is
 
2020-09-08 3:38:27 AM  

Fart_Machine: varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.

Dear Stormfront forum...


...I never thought it would happen to me, but listen to this story I made up out of whole cloth...
 
2020-09-08 3:41:16 AM  

varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.


Is this a work of satire, or did you just come here to be an object of ridicule?
 
2020-09-08 6:58:01 AM  

khatores: varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.

Is this a work of satire, or did you just come here to be an object of ridicule?


Aye, I'm surprised the moderators allowed it, seeing how all y'all special snowflakes need protection from cynical folks who think differently than themselves. Cancel culture has dumbed down this blog enormously.

There is more to the story.  This 1619 project course work was shared with the cousin in his grade, then we made them read Adam Wasserman's  "A people's history of Florida" which focused on blacks and native Americans from the time they arrived until 1880.  Then the boy wrote his essay, which was somewhat critical of the 1619 project.

We have the rule that if you get anything less than a "b" in school, no sports.  He is obsessed with archery because of some TV show he favors, and spends all his spare time at it.

So we asked him what kind of grade his essay was going to get from his black teacher who chose this over normal history texts, and reminded him of the consequences of getting less than a "b".  Then we made him re-write the essay with that in mind.  He regurgitated the text admirably, and made an  "a"  And kept on shooting his arrows.

Lots of lessons learned, the most important one being give them what they want, even if you think differently, for the grade.

/Sure am glad he and his sister are now shed of that mess.
 
2020-09-08 10:34:50 AM  

khatores: varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.

Is this a work of satire, or did you just come here to be an object of ridicule?


I didn't know there were still people who say "the blacks".
 
2020-09-08 10:36:57 AM  

varmitydog: khatores: varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.

Is this a work of satire, or did you just come here to be an object of ridicule?

Aye, I'm surprised the moderators allowed it, seeing how all y'all special snowflakes need protection from cynical folks who think differently than themselves. Cancel culture has dumbed down this blog enormously.

There is more to the story.  This 1619 project course work was shared with the cousin in his grade, then we made them read Adam Wasserman's  "A people's history of Florida" which focused on blacks and native Americans from the time they arrived until 1880.  Then the boy wrote his essay, which was somewhat critical of the 1619 project.

We have the rule that if you get anything less than a "b" in school, no sports.  He is obsessed with archery because of some TV show he favors, and spends all his spare time at it.

So we asked him what kind of grade his essay was going to get from his black teacher who chose this over normal history texts, and reminded him of the consequences of getting less than a "b".  Then we made him re-write the essay with that in mind.  He regurgitated the text admirably, and made an  "a"  And kept on shooting his arrows.

Lots of lessons learned, the most important one being give them what they want, even if you think differently, for the grade.

/Sure am glad he and his sister are now shed of that mess.


If someone actually confronts you as being a racist, do you acknowledge it and also reveal your membership in some sort of silly group of likeminded people, or do you just claim that they've taken your ideas "out of context" and angrily accuse them of putting words in your mouth?
 
2020-09-08 10:53:01 AM  

Mrtraveler01: khatores: varmitydog: I had all three families of grandchildren down this year, because of covid-19.  They are all between 7 to 12, except for the four year old.  The one bunch goes to Catholic school outside Memphis, another goes to a public school in Atlanta, the last goes to a public school outside Albany, New York.

Since they are competitive we noticed quickly that the ones from the inner city minority school were markably behind the others in basic reading and math skills.  Naturally this was where this 1619 history was being taught.  It's history from a black perspective, and not really true, since there were slaves in Florida under the Spanish peon system 100 years earlier.

But what concerns us more than this black history was that they were not getting a quality education at this school.  I mean goodness gracious, the first thing we had to do was teach the 4th grader her times tables, which is 2nd grade stuff.  Very embarrassing for her, to have to play catch-up in front of her cousins.  No wonder why the blacks can't hang with the whites and Asians on the SAT's and want to abolish them, their schools are horrible.

We finally convinced my woke idiot son and DIL that they were harming their kids by schooling them in a minority school, they now have started at a private school.  Seems to me that the blacks should be more concerned with their inferior schools than teaching history from their own skewed veiwpoint, but I am not black, that is their problem.  Thank the good Lord for getting all the younguns together which brought this problem to our attention.

Is this a work of satire, or did you just come here to be an object of ridicule?

I didn't know there were still people who say "the blacks".


He can't use his preferred word of choice because of the Fark filter.
 
2020-09-08 11:23:03 AM  

minnkat: "Americans are exhausted"  Yes, exhausted from having an incompetent orange anus as "president."
"We want our sons and daughters to know the truth."  Exactly. All of us do. Let's start with your tax returns.


Orange anus!?
The correct term is "orange rectus".
 
Displayed 44 of 144 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.