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]
When I said “never,” I was under the impression that would cover Antebellum America.
-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]
If “most people in the U.S.” are talking about slavery in one time period when they talk about slavery, then they should specify that time period-they should not make a statement like “slavery in America…”
When I said “never,” I was under the impression that would cover Antebellum America.[/quote]
Fine.
Are you going to post any evidence for the above?[/quote]
Human nature is human nature. I have no evidence of that other than everything I have ever observed, so you are welcome to argue that human nature is not human nature. Slavery in America did not go from a human nature problem to a racial problem to a solved problem.
[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]
Well, let’s be honest here: NOTHING must be unconstitutional forever. The income tax is totally constitutional now. The U.S. can constitutionally become a dictatorship; the U.S. can constitutionally become genocidal.
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]
I’m not suggesting anything be dismissed. To not teach something to a kid is not to dismiss that thing, and if you think that the skin color of the first slave owner is one of the facts most relevant to an elementary introduction to slavery in America, you’re simply wrong. I agree that people should know what you’re describing – so long as they’re taught, as some in this thread seem not to have been, the rest of the relevant history as well.
I’m suggesting, that is, that what’s more important come before what’s less important. The institution of slavery acquired, in its American iteration, a racial mode, and this mode soon became its essence. Slavery came through our history and made its enormous impact as an instrument of white supremacy, theft, and tyranny – and explicitly so. Anyone who denies this is in over his head and will lose quickly and decisively. From there, you want to go into detail? Fine, good – I applaud that. But anybody whining about how American slavery just “ISN’T THE RACIAL ISSUE WE WERE TAUGHT” has simply not studied American history, or has studied it through some or another revisionist (and, let’s be honest here, almost undoubtedly racist) set of lenses.
In other words, slavery as a common and not remotely white-only historical institution is correct and fine and deserves to be known and taught. But it does not follow, as the nutjob far-Right and libertarian fantasists want it to, that “slavery in the United States was not the racial issue we’ve been taught it was”. It was exactly that, as any casual student of history could convincingly argue without expending any effort at all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, slavery as a common and not remotely white-only historical institution is correct and fine and deserves to be known and taught. But it does not follow, as the nutjob far-Right and libertarian fantasists want it to, that “slavery in the United States was not the racial issue we’ve been taught it was”. It was exactly that, as any casual student of history could convincingly argue without expending any effort at all.[/quote]
How is this somehow associated with libertarian (political) ideology?
The concept that slavery is somehow separated from race, in American history (colonial era to 1865), is an entirely new argument to me, I’m a libertarian and well read historically, and I’ve never heard this promulgated by any major libertarian think-tanks. Perhaps I’m not reading obscure literature or web sites, but I keep seeing this “libertarian fantasists” mentioned here.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, slavery as a common and not remotely white-only historical institution is correct and fine and deserves to be known and taught. But it does not follow, as the nutjob far-Right and libertarian fantasists want it to, that “slavery in the United States was not the racial issue we’ve been taught it was”. It was exactly that, as any casual student of history could convincingly argue without expending any effort at all.[/quote]
How is this somehow associated with libertarian (political) ideology?
The concept that slavery is somehow separated from race, in American history (colonial era to 1865), is an entirely new argument to me, I’m a libertarian and well read historically, and I’ve never heard this promulgated by any major libertarian think-tanks. Perhaps I’m not reading obscure literature or web sites, but I keep seeing this “libertarian fantasists” mentioned here.
[/quote]
And I keep seeing libertarian fantasists push historical revisionism vis-a-vis slavery’s not having been a racial issue. My suspicion is that it comes, as you’ve insinuated, from some obscure literature and/or from the desire to paint slavery as something that never actually ended (and that continues to oppress white guys with bad facial hair). You are also probably aware that there is an explicitly racist subgroup of libertarianism.
But you should note that a “libertarian fantasist” is not simply a “libertarian.” Nothing about your posts suggests that you could be considered to be the former.
[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]
Well, let’s be honest here: NOTHING must be unconstitutional forever. The income tax is totally constitutional now. The U.S. can constitutionally become a dictatorship; the U.S. can constitutionally become genocidal.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s simply ludicrous to suggest that what I wrote about slavery should not be included in American history curricula because “there’s just not enough time to cover it” when I briefly covered it with just a few sentences.
Get outta here. So, so lame.
A comprehensive look at the single most divisive issue in all of American history is to be disregarded? Really? Note I didn’t say “detailed,” I said “comprehensive.” Good grief, people, release your wedgies.[/quote]
I am not against teaching it - the point is, it’s a footnote, and if the course doesn’t spend any time on it, that’s ok, too. I know libertarians loooooove a grand conspiracy, but there isn’t one in play here. Teachers aren’t intentionally omitting these facts to drive home some ideological point.
Which brings me back ro these facts - so what? Why are they important to learn when learning about American slavery?
Let’s have an answer, from anyone. A real answer, one that truly explains it. Set political correctness aside, and say what you think - why are these facts important to understanding American slavery and its impact on American history?
Bullshit of course they do. Progressives have pushed anti-White historical revisionism for decades. In Australia they pretend there were massacres of aboriginals so most the young people here believe it. And Amren has meticulously documented the same such practices in schools and universities across North America today.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In other words, slavery as a common and not remotely white-only historical institution is correct and fine and deserves to be known and taught. But it does not follow, as the nutjob far-Right and libertarian fantasists want it to, that “slavery in the United States was not the racial issue we’ve been taught it was”. It was exactly that, as any casual student of history could convincingly argue without expending any effort at all.[/quote]
How is this somehow associated with libertarian (political) ideology?
The concept that slavery is somehow separated from race, in American history (colonial era to 1865), is an entirely new argument to me, I’m a libertarian and well read historically, and I’ve never heard this promulgated by any major libertarian think-tanks. Perhaps I’m not reading obscure literature or web sites, but I keep seeing this “libertarian fantasists” mentioned here.
[/quote]
Fair point, but candidly, the fact that you are libertarian and well-read historically is an anomaly - at least around these parts. Perhaps it has something to do with our special subset of libertarians here at PWI.
Nearly every thread that touches on something historical requires color-by-numbers explanation to self-described libertarians. But again, fair point - not all libertarians are this bad.
Bullshit of course they do. Progressives have pushed anti-White historical revisionism for decades. In Australia they pretend there were massacres of aboriginals so most the young people here believe it. And Amren has meticulously documented the same such practices in schools and universities across North America today.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Progressives have pushed anti-White historical revisionism for decades. In Australia they pretend there were massacres of aboriginals so most the young people here believe it. And Amren has meticulously documented the same such practices in schools and universities across North America today.[/quote]
Maybe so of Australia and aboriginals, but the simple fact is that, with regard to what we’re talking about here, there is no “revisionism” necessary. Institutional white supremacy – of which chattel slavery was the most obvious instrument – figures very prominently in American (economic, ideological, intellectual, religious) history, with enormous historical consequence. Full stop.
Here is what I think - I think our Special Libertarians want more discussion and exposure of the fact that non-whites held slaves because they are still looking to cleanse the guilt and evil that obvious emanates from a historical era they lionize - pre-Civil War America.
If we can minimize the fact that whites did the enslaving, and disperse responsibility more broadly, then many of their heroes (say, Confederate champions) have some of their luster restored, which is important to the Special Libertarians. That era can’t the libertarian super-haven we should harken back to if it included personal responsibility for race-based slavery.
I arrive at this idea because of the many times the Special Libertarians claimed, in defense of the Confederacy as a liberty-loving state fight against tyranny, that the Civil War was caused by tariff injustice, not preservation of slavery. Obviously they do so to distance the great “states’ rights” fight away from usingbtjose powers to sustain something as awful as human bondage. They desperately try to cleanse who they perceive to be their ideological forebears of the sin of slavery because they think that sin discredits them in other ways.
This attempt to distort history is dumb. Slavery - for all its evil - was complicated, really complicated, and people - even great ones - were a product of their time. We don’t have to damn them when understanding them.
But revising the history isn’t the fix.
I could be dead wrong on this, but the other explanation is, as Smh23 points out, creepily close to recognizing a racist element to the revisionist view, and I am giving the Special Libertarians the benefit of the doubt.
This is an article talking about how certain elite schools are teaching courses thick with the evils of white privilege. This has nothing to do with the teaching of slavery, and the omission of certain facts.
Moreover, American slavery as it developed was predicated on racism. Teaching that fact isn’t dishonest or ideological. It simply is.