[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Read what was created in defense and perpetuation of the institution of slavery. Or don’t – but, if you don’t, it will always be easy for the rest of us to tell.[/quote]
Of course there were appeals to the majority. That’s the way the world works. [/quote]
What?[/quote]
Slavery has to be presented as a racial issue in America-America’s mostly white. I’m sure that in other places it’s presented as a different issue.
Does the government own you, does the government steal from you, or are you in 100% agreement with every cent of tax you pay? One of the three has to be true.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Read what was created in defense and perpetuation of the institution of slavery. Or don’t – but, if you don’t, it will always be easy for the rest of us to tell.[/quote]
Of course there were appeals to the majority. That’s the way the world works. [/quote]
What?[/quote]
Slavery has to be presented as a racial issue in America-America’s mostly white. I’m sure that in other places it’s presented as a different issue.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Slavery was “presented” as a racial issue in America because it quickly and thoroughly became a racial issue in America. Are you really in over your head enough that you deny this?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not my intention to answer for Nick but the cold hard fact that people of every stripe, every color and virtually every ethnicity have been enslaved off and on now for thousands of years now would suggest that slavery is a human race issue and not a “racial issue.” Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]
I suggest you reread what NickViar wrote.
Specifically-
“It shows that slavery in America…”
We’re talking about slavery in America here, and if you wanted to be even more specific slavery in the U.S. starting from its colonial period.[/quote]
-And it does show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT. Personally, I can’t remember learning a thing about white slaves and black slave owners in school. I don’t recall ever hearing that the first slave owner in America was a black man.
[/quote]
Because its relevance ia microscopic in learning about the broader impact of American slavery.
We keep coming back to the same place - the first landowner was black
…so what?
If you can’t provide a response to “so what?”, there’s no crime in leaving that fact out of the curriculum.[/quote]
“So what?” is an excellent question. Who cares? I have no problem with leaving slavery out of the curriculum.
It’s left out of the curriculum for one reason: to generate racial strife.[/quote]
So slavery generally should be left out of the study of history?
We’ve reached clown show levels here.
Learning about slavery is essential to learning American h istory. Three-fifths compromise? Northwest Ordinance? Bleeding Kansas? The Civil War?
Do libertarians read anything other than LewRockwell.com?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t, because they have rights independent of what their owner grants them.[/quote]
Please provide an example. I am having a hard time thinking of a right that a prisoner has that’s independent of what the state grants him.
[/quote]
He has a right to sue the state for civil rights violations.[/quote]
In whose court?[/quote]
Federal court. This has gotten preposterous.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Does the government own you, does the government steal from you, or are you in 100% agreement with every cent of tax you pay? One of the three has to be true. [/quote]
How about option 4: I live in a relatively free nation that affords me the protection of my rights, one of whom is the consent to be governed. Therefore if I don’t like the way I’m governed at this moment I have ways to change that. If I don’t want to run for office myself, there are a couple boxes I can use to effect the changes I want to see.
Soap box
Ballot Box
and that third box, that really isn’t were anyone wants to go.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Does the government own you, does the government steal from you, or are you in 100% agreement with every cent of tax you pay? One of the three has to be true. [/quote]
The government steals from me. A lot of the problems I have with our current government, at both the federal and state level, is income tax. Income tax is unconstitutional, hence the 16th amendment. The governed can boycott a sales tax, for the most part, which would make taxation more “voluntary.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Congratulations on not having idiots for teachers, then. Because the fact is that you won’t recall learning the vast majority of historical trivia – because you weren’t taught the vast majority of historical trivia. Because both the school day and your neurons were (and very much remain) finite in length and number, and it was decided a long time ago that you should be taught the important things. In case you’re wondering, the factoid to which you’re trying to ascribe meaning is not important – at all. It doesn’t “show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT,” and if you believe it does, then – again – you don’t know enough about your country’s history to offer opinions on it…
[/quote]
Nope, I strongly disagree with this. To dismiss the fact that Yankees, Indians and blacks were slaveowners as “historical trivia” and unworthy of being taught in American schools is ridiculous. It’s also downright disingenuous. Teach the truth, not some group’s politically correct narrative and let the chips fall where they may.
[/quote]
False. Leaving these aspects out isn’t dismissing them - the history curriculum is presented in broad strokes and these aspects, while interesting, aren’t particularly relevant to understanding the larger American experience with slavery.
You - nor anyone else - has answered the “so what?” question. So? What point does it prove or disprove about race-based chattel slavery in America?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-And it does show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT. Personally, I can’t remember learning a thing about white slaves and black slave owners in school. I don’t recall ever hearing that the first slave owner in America was a black man.
[/quote]
I don’t say this often, but you are just straight-out factually incorrect.
As I mentioned to Pushharder, slavery in the 16-18th century and slavery in the Antebellum period are two VERY different things. When most people in the U.S. today talk about the horrible nature of slavery, they are talking about slavery in the Antebellum period.
And only people who are grossly uneducated on the subject matter will state that slavery in the Antebellum period didn’t have a racial core to it. Many of the people themselves wrote that it was a matter of superiority and relationship between blacks and whites. I regret that I don’t have any of my sources with me and so cannot cite them.
You weren’t taught about white slaves in middle/high school because, as smh_23 mentioned, history is taught in broad strokes in middle/high school. Virtually all historical subjects you’re taught during those years are very broad in scope. Of course a lot of details won’t be included. There’s not a whole lot that can be done about this.
Now could an agenda be included in this? Sure. I don’t know if it’s to generate racial strife as you claim, but given that education is supposed to have a point to it, I’m sure there is an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a point.
But I just do not get how you go from “I never learned about black slave owners/I never learned that the first slave-owner in the English colonies was black” to “slavery in America is not a racial issue”.
Care to explain?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-And it does show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT. Personally, I can’t remember learning a thing about white slaves and black slave owners in school. I don’t recall ever hearing that the first slave owner in America was a black man.
[/quote]
I don’t say this often, but you are just straight-out factually incorrect.
As I mentioned to Pushharder, slavery in the 16-18th century and slavery in the Antebellum period are two VERY different things. When most people in the U.S. today talk about the horrible nature of slavery, they are talking about slavery in the Antebellum period.
And only people who are grossly uneducated on the subject matter will state that slavery in the Antebellum period didn’t have a racial core to it. Many of the people themselves wrote that it was a matter of superiority and relationship between blacks and whites. I regret that I don’t have any of my sources with me and so cannot cite them.
You weren’t taught about white slaves in middle/high school because, as smh_23 mentioned, history is taught in broad strokes in middle/high school. Virtually all historical subjects you’re taught during those years are very broad in scope. Of course a lot of details won’t be included. There’s not a whole lot that can be done about this.
Now could an agenda be included in this? Sure. I don’t know if it’s to generate racial strife as you claim, but given that education is supposed to have a point to it, I’m sure there is an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a point.
But I just do not get how you go from “I never learned about black slave owners/I never learned that the first slave-owner in the English colonies was black” to “slavery in America is not a racial issue”.
Care to explain?[/quote]
Slavery has never been a racial issue, although race may be used to justify(or vilify its existence in other cultures, of course) it at times. It has always been, as pushharder pointed out, a human issue. Human nature is the reason States(a slaveowner is nothing but the State to his slaves) exist, and human nature is the reason that States become tyrannical.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t, because they have rights independent of what their owner grants them.[/quote]
Please provide an example. I am having a hard time thinking of a right that a prisoner has that’s independent of what the state grants him.
[/quote]
He has a right to sue the state for civil rights violations.[/quote]
In whose court?[/quote]
Federal court. This has gotten preposterous.
[/quote]
So they have the rights granted them by their owner, correct?
Mr. White keeps Mr. Black in a building, but if Mr. Black doesn’t like the way he is treated, he can sue Mr. White in Mr. White’s court. It sounds like Mr. Black has the rights(the ability to exercise such rights) granted to him by Mr. White.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Congratulations on not having idiots for teachers, then. Because the fact is that you won’t recall learning the vast majority of historical trivia – because you weren’t taught the vast majority of historical trivia. Because both the school day and your neurons were (and very much remain) finite in length and number, and it was decided a long time ago that you should be taught the important things. In case you’re wondering, the factoid to which you’re trying to ascribe meaning is not important – at all. It doesn’t “show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT,” and if you believe it does, then – again – you don’t know enough about your country’s history to offer opinions on it…
[/quote]
Nope, I strongly disagree with this. To dismiss the fact that Yankees, Indians and blacks were slaveowners as “historical trivia” and unworthy of being taught in American schools is ridiculous. It’s also downright disingenuous. Teach the truth, not some group’s politically correct narrative and let the chips fall where they may.
[/quote]
False. Leaving these aspects out isn’t dismissing them - the history curriculum is presented in broad strokes and these aspects, while interesting, aren’t particularly relevant to understanding the larger American experience with slavery.
[/quote]
No, it’s completely true and you’re a dirty, rotten nincompoop if you disagree. Don’t disagree with me on this one if you have any intention of being right on this subject.
It’s very relevant to educate Americans that Britain introduced the Atlantic slave trade by preying on the Irish. It’s very relevant that Yankee slave traders transported most of the African slaves that were captured and sold by other African blacks. It goes beyond “interesting” to mention that thousands of blacks were slaveowners and that many Cherokees who traveled down the Trail of Tears dragged their black slaves with them.
Don’t bullshit me with “Ignorance is Bliss.” I’ll laugh you right off the thread.
I don’t need to answer it other than to say race-based chattel slavery was not an exclusively white derived and maintained institution in the Americas and America.
[/quote]
Well, yeah, you do need to answer it, because it currently isn’t being taught (taking Nick’s word for it), and you think a curriculum should spend time on it.
It’s fine if they do, but it’s also fine if they don’t. You only have so much time, and skipping these facts doesn’t short change learning about American slavery generally and why it was important (awful, but important). Adding these facts doesn’t add much, other than trivia. It doesn’t prove slavery wasn’t race-based, nor does it tell us anything about how slavery affected the direction of the country or how it caused the Civil War. They just don’t.
If anyone can say why these facts matter so much - actually why, not just a circular “they are important because they are totally important” - that would be a reason to complain about what is being taught. But no one has
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not my intention to answer for Nick but the cold hard fact that people of every stripe, every color and virtually every ethnicity have been enslaved off and on now for thousands of years now would suggest that slavery is a human race issue and not a “racial issue.” Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]
I suggest you reread what NickViar wrote.
Specifically-
“It shows that slavery in America…”
We’re talking about slavery in America here, and if you wanted to be even more specific slavery in the U.S. starting from its colonial period.[/quote]
-And it does show that slavery in America IS NOT THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT. Personally, I can’t remember learning a thing about white slaves and black slave owners in school. I don’t recall ever hearing that the first slave owner in America was a black man.
[/quote]
Because its relevance ia microscopic in learning about the broader impact of American slavery.
We keep coming back to the same place - the first landowner was black
…so what?
If you can’t provide a response to “so what?”, there’s no crime in leaving that fact out of the curriculum.[/quote]
“So what?” is an excellent question. Who cares? I have no problem with leaving slavery out of the curriculum.
It’s left out of the curriculum for one reason: to generate racial strife.[/quote]
So slavery generally should be left out of the study of history?
We’ve reached clown show levels here.
Learning about slavery is essential to learning American h istory. Three-fifths compromise? Northwest Ordinance? Bleeding Kansas? The Civil War?
Do libertarians read anything other than LewRockwell.com?
[/quote]
Teach everything about its existence in America then. Don’t use history class to divide the citizenry or to justify the State’s actions.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t, because they have rights independent of what their owner grants them.[/quote]
Please provide an example. I am having a hard time thinking of a right that a prisoner has that’s independent of what the state grants him.
[/quote]
He has a right to sue the state for civil rights violations.[/quote]
In whose court?[/quote]
Federal court. This has gotten preposterous.
[/quote]
So they have the rights granted them by their owner, correct?
Mr. White keeps Mr. Black in a building, but if Mr. Black doesn’t like the way he is treated, he can sue Mr. White in Mr. White’s court. It sounds like Mr. Black has the rights(the ability to exercise such rights) granted to him by Mr. White.[/quote]
Not really, because Mr. White most often would be a state and the right to sue emanates from federal law, not the state, whom you are suing.
In over your head, aye?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Slavery has never been a racial issue, although race may be used to justify(or vilify its existence in other cultures, of course) it at times. It has always been, as pushharder pointed out, a human issue. Human nature is the reason States(a slaveowner is nothing but the State to his slaves) exist, and human nature is the reason that States become tyrannical.[/quote]
Why are you going from “slavery in America” to slavery in general right now?
Please don’t do that. Stay on topic. We are talking about slavery in America right now. Slavery that can be divided into two distinct time periods- 16-18th century and 19th century.
I fully agree that slavery in the 16-18th century fits more into what you and Pushharder are stating, but it is simply not right to claim slavery in Antebellum era fits those at all.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Does the government own you, does the government steal from you, or are you in 100% agreement with every cent of tax you pay? One of the three has to be true. [/quote]
How about option 4: I live in a relatively free nation that affords me the protection of my rights, one of whom is the consent to be governed. Therefore if I don’t like the way I’m governed at this moment I have ways to change that. If I don’t want to run for office myself, there are a couple boxes I can use to effect the changes I want to see.
Soap box
Ballot Box
and that third box, that really isn’t were anyone wants to go. [/quote]
Okay, Option 4: It could be worse. The government does steal from me, but I will convince myself that it will stop when I check a box in a couple years.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, it’s completely true and you’re a dirty, rotten nincompoop if you disagree. Don’t disagree with me on this one if you have any intention of being right on this subject.
It’s very relevant to educate Americans that Britain introduced the Atlantic slave trade by preying on the Irish. It’s very relevant that Yankee slave traders transported most of the African slaves that were captured and sold by other African blacks. It goes beyond “interesting” to mention that thousands of blacks were slaveowners and that many Cherokees who traveled down the Trail of Tears dragged their black slaves with them.[/quote]
Relevant to what? The topic you’re talking about is relevant in terms of a detailed study of slavery in America, and indeed might be an interesting topic for a college student to do a dissertation on (Though what the exact argument will be I don’t know).
But it’s not relevant in the realm of creating a broad narrative of U.S. history. Black slavery, on the other hand, is very relevant. It’s pretty much the catalyst of every major issue in the early Republic leading up to the Civil War. Black slavery is what drove the massive difference between the Northern and Southern states, from their social attitudes to economies. It’s complicated the westward expansion of the U.S. And so on and so forth.
Afaik, this is why slavery is taught in middle/high school. Because it is important to the drivings of U.S. history. Not because people want to convey an idea that whites are horrible for enslaving black people or some much.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they aren’t, because they have rights independent of what their owner grants them.[/quote]
Please provide an example. I am having a hard time thinking of a right that a prisoner has that’s independent of what the state grants him.
[/quote]
He has a right to sue the state for civil rights violations.[/quote]
In whose court?[/quote]
Federal court. This has gotten preposterous.
[/quote]
So they have the rights granted them by their owner, correct?
Mr. White keeps Mr. Black in a building, but if Mr. Black doesn’t like the way he is treated, he can sue Mr. White in Mr. White’s court. It sounds like Mr. Black has the rights(the ability to exercise such rights) granted to him by Mr. White.[/quote]
Not really, because Mr. White most often would be a state and the right to sue emanates from federal law, not the state, whom you are suing.
In over your head, aye?
[/quote]
What a witty response. Let’s say that Mr. White is the federal government. Mr. Black is in federal prison.