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
94
    More: Fake, United States, Education, President of the United States, President Donald Trump, Racism, American history, exclusive interview, Asian American  
•       •       •

4241 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2020 at 8:53 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results for Smartest or Funniest or Return to comments
 
Be polite walk on the right [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 8:58:30 PM  
35 votes:

UNC_Samurai: In before not-even-armchair historians regurgitate loaded criticisms about the 1619 project.


farm4.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
FeFiFoFark
2020-09-07 9:51:56 PM  
29 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Fart_Machine
2020-09-07 8:58:50 PM  
26 votes:
Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?
 
SpocksEars [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:06:29 PM  
25 votes:

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.


Fark is not your personal erotica site.
 
Wookie Milson
2020-09-07 9:04:51 PM  
24 votes:
And then there was Paul Revere, riding his horse, ringing those bells, warning the townsfolk that the Germans were on their way.
 
stoli n coke
2020-09-07 9:07:04 PM  
16 votes:

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.
 
Notabunny [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:09:03 PM  
15 votes:
I don't pay taxes just to have truth and evidence-based reality crammed down my throat
 
Im_Gumby [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 6:50:06 PM  
15 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
The Irresponsible Captain [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:40:34 PM  
13 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
GlenninSac
2020-09-07 9:43:29 PM  
10 votes:

SpocksEars: 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.

Fark is not your personal erotica site.


Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Doctor Funkenstein
2020-09-07 9:36:40 PM  
8 votes:

brantgoose: Saiga410: Trump isnt the NYT

No, he's way too cheap and nasty for news print or even onion skin paper. He's one ply toilet paper so thin you can read a book through it from the bath tub. And yet he manages to be as abrassive as a really rough sand paper. It's really quite miraculous as far as TP goes.


Onion skin paper!  Why, that reminds me of a belt I had during the war.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Zeb Hesselgresser
2020-09-07 9:14:54 PM  
8 votes:
He's going to win, because your arguments suck. Try harder.
 
Fart_Machine
2020-09-07 8:57:04 PM  
8 votes:
arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size
 
cretinbob [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 6:25:26 PM  
8 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
jso2897
2020-09-07 9:09:09 PM  
7 votes:

SpocksEars: 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.

Fark is not your personal erotica site.


Oh, come on. You know better than that.
 
g.fro [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 8:59:55 PM  
7 votes:

Fart_Machine: Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?


And rammed the ramparts?
 
The.anti-Larry [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 7:29:58 PM  
7 votes:
I'm currently reading Ron Chernow's "Grant".  Trump should go after that hard-left radical Lincoln and his attack dog, Grant, who killed hundreds of thousands of patriotic Southerners who were just trying to protect their heritage.   Good thing Lincoln's political party doesn't exist anymore.
 
Fart_Machine
2020-09-08 12:58:27 AM  
6 votes:

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...
 
Excelsior [TotalFark]
2020-09-08 12:57:24 AM  
6 votes:

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
 
varmitydog
2020-09-08 12:54:28 AM  
6 votes:
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.
 
PainSorrowLoss
2020-09-07 9:34:17 PM  
6 votes:

MikeyFuccon: Fart_Machine: Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?

Don't miss the paragraph on the Irish War of Independence, where Eamon de Valera kicks the Queen in the arse.


Was that before or after Churchill froze Bobby Sands in carbonite to send on to Jabba the Hutt?
 
Erebus1954
2020-09-07 9:05:23 PM  
6 votes:
But the natives ended up with great diversity in their country and the economy boomed.
 
HighOnCraic [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 10:14:43 PM  
5 votes:

JustSayYo: What do the feds have to do with this?

If they are that concerned about crap lies being taught in school, maybe they would start with Texas textbook that have been taught all over the country (pick one, any one, seriously)


Old and busted:  "It's three agencies of the government that when I get there that are gone," Perry said. "Commerce, Education, and the uh, um, what's the third one there, let's see."
"Is EPA the one you were talking about?" he asked.
"No sir," Perry responded, to which Harwood asked, "But you can't name the third one?"
"The third agency of government I would do away with, Education, the uh, Commerce, and let's see," Perry said. "I can't, the third one, sorry. Oops."

/I'll come in again.
 
mofa [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 7:24:04 PM  
5 votes:

dennysgod: Just like facts have a liberal bias, history is often "un-American"


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
aaronx [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 6:53:53 PM  
5 votes:
... and when the facts are against you, pound the table.
 
Fista-Phobia
2020-09-07 11:48:26 PM  
4 votes:
If you ignore someone, can they still see your posts?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Animatronik
2020-09-07 10:46:20 PM  
4 votes:

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.
 
iron de havilland [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 9:46:44 PM  
4 votes:

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.


In fairness, the logistics of getting every American nekked at the same time are rather involved.

/And that's before we start discussing the dimensions of the mirror.
 
austerity101 [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:09:12 PM  
4 votes:
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.
 
MikeyFuccon
2020-09-07 9:08:38 PM  
4 votes:

Fart_Machine: Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?


Don't miss the paragraph on the Irish War of Independence, where Eamon de Valera kicks the Queen in the arse.
 
varmitydog
2020-09-08 6:58:01 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
Saiga410
2020-09-07 9:59:17 PM  
3 votes:

groppet: How about all those south American kids Trump has sent to summer camp? Lame stream media won't cover that.


You mean the kids who became wards of the state when their parents were arrested and held for trial?
 
fusillade762
2020-09-07 9:49:36 PM  
3 votes:
Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, instructed heads of federal agencies to dramatically alter racial sensitivity training programs for employees, deeming them "un-American propaganda" in a two-page memo.

bridgetlamonicadotcom.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


I'm more concerned about all those unaccountable superheroes he's created.
 
Kalyco Jack
2020-09-07 9:47:51 PM  
3 votes:

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.


And then those damned Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

/and then it was over
//wait no it wasn't!
///no it wasn't!!!!
 
brantgoose [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 9:33:51 PM  
3 votes:

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.
 
The Department of Inadvisably Applied Magic
2020-09-07 9:27:57 PM  
3 votes:

scanman61: Today's "press conference":

TRUMP: No, I want people to know everything they can about our history. I am not a believer in cancel culture. If you don't study the bad, it could happen again. I want it studied very, very carefully and studied accurately.  But we grew up with a certain history and now they are trying to change our history. Revisionist history.

He knows what he was taught about this stuff, 60 years ago in an all white military school, and ain't nobody changing his mind.


I also have to wonder how many times the concept of "revisionist history" had to be explained to him before he understood what it was. And how many times he had to hear revisionist pronounced before he could say it right.
 
stoli n coke
2020-09-07 9:26:16 PM  
3 votes:

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.
 
Artist
2020-09-07 9:17:17 PM  
3 votes:

cretinbob: [Fark user image 425x283]


Bowling Green Pizza Sexy Time Massacre?

Fart_Machine: Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?


Except La Guardia, traffic was a biatch!

Erebus1954: But the natives ended up with great diversity in their country and the economy boomed.


Without any reservation, they helped the country and got their revenge, cigarettes were only $1.00 a pack!
 
New Farkin User Name
2020-09-07 9:15:49 PM  
3 votes:

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


ecks dee
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:09:18 PM  
3 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size

What we may need to stop #45*'s constant chaos.
 
Bith Set Me Up
2020-09-07 9:07:19 PM  
3 votes:
U.S. History: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Youtube hsxukOPEdgg
 
UNC_Samurai [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 8:55:18 PM  
3 votes:
In before not-even-armchair historians regurgitate loaded criticisms about the 1619 project.
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2020-09-08 12:25:43 AM  
2 votes:

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.
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 11:59:16 PM  
2 votes:

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?
 
Senseless_drivel
2020-09-07 11:18:17 PM  
2 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Animatronik
2020-09-07 10:39:26 PM  
2 votes:

UNC_Samurai: In before not-even-armchair historians regurgitate loaded criticisms about the 1619 project.


There's nothing to critique in that pile of shiat, so no need to even get started?
 
philodough [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:47:46 PM  
2 votes:
And then Ivanka organized a giant feast where roast turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, and corn overflowed from cornucopias, and she pronounced the day as Thanksgiving to the one and only God, who had generously given them vast free lands to pillage and f*ck over Indians, Mexicans, and all those black work-for-free créatures.
 
Fart_Machine
2020-09-07 9:21:25 PM  
2 votes:

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


media.tenor.comView Full Size
 
Doctor Funkenstein
2020-09-07 9:17:34 PM  
2 votes:

g.fro: Fart_Machine: Will they also mention how George Washington captured the British airports?

And rammed the ramparts?


He only did that so America could have more parts.
 
stoli n coke
2020-09-07 9:15:56 PM  
2 votes:

Mad_Radhu: Add "History" to the list of things that hurt the feelings of the snowflakes in the Trump Party.

What a bunch of whiny little biatches.


Pretty much.

FFS, the Rolling Stones have existed longer than voting rights for Black Americans.
Systemic racism is a big part of the fabric of American History.

Look, MAGAts, if everything was perfect from the start, the Bill Of Rights wouldn't have needed to have been amended 16 times.

I don't count the 18th Amendment, because that was just farking stupid.
 
MikeyFuccon
2020-09-07 9:07:26 PM  
2 votes:

UNC_Samurai: In before not-even-armchair historians regurgitate loaded criticisms about the 1619 project.


I hadn't even heard of the 1619 Project until the Redcaps got up in arms about it in early 2020.

I doubt many more of them had actually read any of it than could coherently define socialism---never mind critical race theory.

Pity, really. Anybody with any interest in American affairs at all will find it a useful refresher on slavery's legacy, and high school history teachers were bound to find it a good introduction to the subject at a level suitable for their better students (of all races).
 
dennysgod
2020-09-07 6:45:21 PM  
2 votes:
Just like facts have a liberal bias, history is often "un-American"
 
Pr1nc3ss
2020-09-08 12:30:05 AM  
1 vote:

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?
 
Advernaut
2020-09-08 12:11:36 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 11:56:00 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
fallingcow
2020-09-07 11:44:46 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 11:35:30 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 11:22:13 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
g.fro [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 11:11:00 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
g.fro [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 10:59:07 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:56:26 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:54:31 PM  
1 vote:

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".
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 10:51:19 PM  
1 vote:

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?
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:48:54 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:39:35 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 10:28:28 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: Armored Vomit Doll: rohar: The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

No one can tell you what you think, because you won't say what you think.

Then maybe people shouldn't base their arguments off what they believe I think.


I agree.  And I never did.  So, why don't you answer my question?  Why do you think a decision like R v Knowles mattered at all?  You brought the decision up, after all, so why don't you tell us how it was just so, so important - you know, with it being a decision that changed absolutely nothing about the practice of  chattel slavery across the Empire?
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:24:03 PM  
1 vote:

Armored Vomit Doll: rohar: The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles

No one can tell you what you think, because you won't say what you think.


Then maybe people shouldn't base their arguments off what they believe I think.
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 10:15:33 PM  
1 vote:

rohar: The writing was on the wall with R v. Knowles


No one can tell you what you think, because you won't say what you think.  This is all you've given us.

Why don't you tell us why this decision was so important?  It certainly had absolutely no effect on the practice of chattel slavery across the Empire.  At best, it gave a bit of a boost to the abolitionist movements forming in certain colonies and in Britain herself.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 10:11:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 ...


Please, proceed.  Tell me what I think.  I'll wait.

And what link?
 
NathanAllen
2020-09-07 10:09:37 PM  
1 vote:
The entire history of the Americas has been about taking land from people because they weren't white then enslaving people of color to make wealth for a handful of white people.

Slavery and Jim Crow are some of the worst of it, but the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Internment, removal of Hispanic Americans, and perpetual aggression to Natives are also shiatty things we've done.

We have been the bad guys a lot, but we can also be good people.
 
Armored Vomit Doll
2020-09-07 10:04:54 PM  
1 vote:

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


Yeah, that decision was so meaningful that British colonies continued to practice chattel slavery for decades after.  The first to ban it was Upper Canada, in 1793 - of its own accord without any pressure from Britain herself.  Most British colonies allowed chattel slavery until 1833, when it was banned across most of the Empire.
 
mcnguyen
2020-09-07 10:04:53 PM  
1 vote:

FeFiFoFark: [Fark user image 425x288]


Do they even acknowledge St. Reagan anymore?
 
iron de havilland [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 10:02:16 PM  
1 vote:

Saiga410: groppet: How about all those south American kids Trump has sent to summer camp? Lame stream media won't cover that.

You mean the kids who became wards of the state when their parents were arrested and held for trial?


Indeed, even though they'd committed no crime.
 
jayphat
2020-09-07 9:55:59 PM  
1 vote:

The.anti-Larry: I'm currently reading Ron Chernow's "Grant".  Trump should go after that hard-left radical Lincoln and his attack dog, Grant, who killed hundreds of thousands of patriotic Southerners who were just trying to protect their heritage.   Good thing Lincoln's political party doesn't exist anymore.


I read something the other day that really stood out to me.
Imagine you're jewish and walking through Germany and stumble across a monument to a Nazi. You are obviously offended and feel this shouldn't be there. Now imagine a German comes out and says "you can't take that down. It's part of my HERITAGE!" Sounds crazy right? This is what it's like to be Black in America, and it happens everyday.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 9:55:21 PM  
1 vote:

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
 
groppet [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:52:57 PM  
1 vote:
How about all those south American kids Trump has sent to summer camp? Lame stream media won't cover that.
 
rohar
2020-09-07 9:49:57 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
g.fro [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:43:42 PM  
1 vote:

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?
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:41:00 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
AliceBToklasLives [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:37:25 PM  
1 vote:
"...Our country wasn't built by cancel culture, speech codes, and crushing conformity..."

True. It was built by slaves and poorly compensated wage-laborers.
 
nakmuay
2020-09-07 9:37:07 PM  
1 vote:

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


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
brantgoose [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 9:31:02 PM  
1 vote:

Sexy Jesus: [Fark user image 425x239]


And this is the right frontal lobe, where the higher functions and the moral faculties that Trump lacks are found. Explore Trump's brain and you may find he is one of the dumber hydrocephalitic babies, some of whom manage to cobble together normal or even better than normal intelligence with only a brain stem and a few strands of grey matter in liquid.
 
KodosZardoz
2020-09-07 9:30:50 PM  
1 vote:
"...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.
 
stoli n coke
2020-09-07 9:30:16 PM  
1 vote:

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?
 
Senseless_drivel
2020-09-07 9:29:32 PM  
1 vote:

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/ma​g​azine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.ht​ml
 
brantgoose [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 9:26:46 PM  
1 vote:

Saiga410: Trump isnt the NYT


No, he's way too cheap and nasty for news print or even onion skin paper. He's one ply toilet paper so thin you can read a book through it from the bath tub. And yet he manages to be as abrassive as a really rough sand paper. It's really quite miraculous as far as TP goes.
 
scanman61 [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 9:23:05 PM  
1 vote:
Today's "press conference":

TRUMP: No, I want people to know everything they can about our history. I am not a believer in cancel culture. If you don't study the bad, it could happen again. I want it studied very, very carefully and studied accurately.  But we grew up with a certain history and now they are trying to change our history. Revisionist history.

He knows what he was taught about this stuff, 60 years ago in an all white military school, and ain't nobody changing his mind.
 
Hey Nurse! [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2020-09-07 9:19:34 PM  
1 vote:
Here he goes again with he's going to pull the funding from X if he doesn't get his way.  On average, schools get about 8% of their funding from the federal government. The federal government does not give the money directly to the schools. Rather, they give it to individual states and stars disburse it. This is yet another of his empty stupid idiotic moronic dumbass declarations that means absolutely nothing. They've already got their piggy banks filled for this year, and God willing we won't have to deal with his stupid ass for the next school year.
 
ImpendingCynic
2020-09-07 9:14:33 PM  
1 vote:
One of the worst qualities of the sort of person who supports Donnie is the notion that America has never done anything wrong and definitely has nothing to apologize for.
 
JustSayYo
2020-09-07 9:14:08 PM  
1 vote:
What do the feds have to do with this?

If they are that concerned about crap lies being taught in school, maybe they would start with Texas textbook that have been taught all over the country (pick one, any one, seriously)
 
stoli n coke
2020-09-07 9:08:23 PM  
1 vote:
Sorry, Donald, but I'd rather the national educational curriculum be dictated by someone whose passing grades weren't contingent on the school getting new lab equipment and the teacher getting a new car.
 
minnkat
2020-09-07 9:04:48 PM  
1 vote:
"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.
 
jso2897
2020-09-07 9:03:37 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
mofa [TotalFark]
2020-09-07 6:40:50 PM  
1 vote:
You can't prevent the truth from coming out, Shroomwang. Just ask the women you raped, and the SDNY investigators.
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results for Smartest or Funniest or Return to comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want the rest of the Farking story? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up

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.