Constitutional Convention

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Straight from the guy who claims its irrelevant without giving reasons why but insists on others giving reasons why it is relevant.
[/quote]

I’ll try to answer for him.

It’s irrelevant because it doesn’t add anything to the narrative of U.S. history.

The fact that black slave-owners existed doesn’t make an impact on what happened- the fact that slavery existed to begin with and many people felt that it contradicted the themes of the Declaration of Independence and the ideology of the new born nation does make an impact.

Then, the fact that slavery took on a decidedly racial tone and became more and more about a relationship between blacks and whites is important because it became a core part of what happened AFTER the Civil War. The Jim Crow laws and legal segregation came to being because of the racism inherent in U.S. slavery during the Antebellum period. The civil rights movement is born entirely out of the racism inherent in U.S. slavery during the Antebellum period.

This is why it’s important that black slavery is taught in the school system, and why the fact that it had its foundation in racism is important. Not because racism in of itself is bad, or that white people owning black people is bad.

Only idiots who want to make propaganda (white guilt assholes, in other words) would argue that we need to teach black slavery because it’s wrong. No, we need to teach black slavery because the aftermath of its existence affected a great deal of what happened in the U.S.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Edited to fix quotes

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]

Yes, it’s funny that we(American public school-educated folks) were often taught nothing(or nearly nothing) about white slaves, black slave owners, and black and arabs selling blacks to whites, but we spent plenty of time learning about whitey lynching blacks in the late 19th-mid 20th centuries.[/quote]

That’s because the latter is important, and the former really isn’t…

[/quote]

A very foolish statement. I’m genuinely surprised this five-gallon bucket of crap came out of your computer.[/quote]

The former isn’t that imporant, for the reasons I have been discussing. No one has explained why it is important. You certainly haven’t. You say “it’s important because it’s important.”

The latter is important because it informs why we had a Civil Rights movement and how Jim Crow was addressed. Lynchings weren’t isolated crimes - there were a shadow vigilante system designed to continent subjugate blacks. That’s important because of its impact on why the laws changed as well as the relationship between the federal government and state governments.[/quote]

You’ve only claimed the latter is important which it is. You claimed the former is unimportant because it’s unimportant. Your own words convict you, TB.[/quote]

No, they don’t. I have already said why it’s not relevant, and Magick did again (well).

But, I’ll do it again, and in straight fashion:

In American history, the unconventional slave relationships (non-white owners, Irish slaves) did not drive or otherwise inform seminal events such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, Westward expansion, the annexation of Texas, the 1850s generally and the tensions between slave states and non-slave states, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scot decision, the election of 1860, the Civil War and its causes, secession declarations based on the inferiority of blacks, the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction and the following amendments, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movement.

Your unconventional slave relationships basically had zilch impact on all the big topics you would study in a general history setting. If the impact - these relationships didn’t weigh on the actors at the time, didn’t change the way any of these things played out - was zilch, then there is no reason to include discussion of them. The impact was, in fact, zilch, so - irrelevant.

Interesting? Yes. Impactful? Relevant to the big subjects I noted that every basic course deals with? No.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Disagree for the reasons already given.
[/quote]

Was it this?-

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“The history of race-based slavery” includes the relevant fact that its origins were not necessarily centered on the enslavement of a particular race. [/quote]

As far as I can tell, the rest of your points simply say that this is important but never explains why. The above is the only thing I can find that attempts to answer the question of “why is it important that we include X/Y/Z in middle/high school U.S. history”.

So I’ll respond to your quote above-

I get the feeling that you’re arguing against a ghost here. While I’m sure virtually no secondary school teaches about Irish slaves (probably because they get sorted into “indentured servants”), I do believe they teach about the existence of black slave owners and specifically mention that slavery wasn’t purely white master and black slave, certainly during the 16-18th century. I learned that in high school. I simply have no recollection of ever being taught that slavery itself was racially motivated and such.

But, given the sorry state of secondary education in the U.S. I can’t really claim that my experience mirrors the experience of people in Texas or Arkansas or Alaska, or even Foster City, CA.

Perhaps I need to go through random history textbooks used in secondary schools to get a better perspective on this.

But unless you provide some evidence to back your claim, I can’t help but feel that you’re arguing more against the writings of random white-guilt people and the general sense you get from media than anything taught systemically in secondary schools.

[quote] pushharder wrote:

I’ve already repeatedly agreed with this.

[/quote]

Good, then you agree that since these unconventional slave relationships had zilch impact on these big subjects, then it is perfectly fine to leave discussion of them on the cutting room floor in a general history class that focuses on these big subjects in the interest of time and scope of class. Case closed.

[quote]Nothing unconventional about them. It was good ol’ fashioned slavery: there were markets, auctions, children permanently detached from parents, chains and bonds, punishments, you know…chattel slavery.
[/quote]

But they were not the norm and fell outside the convention of American slavery, which was a race-based chattel slavery that subjugated blacks.

[quote] magick wrote:

As far as I can tell, the rest of your points simply say that this is important but never explains why. The above is the only thing I can find that attempts to answer the question of “why is it important that we include X/Y/Z in middle/high school U.S. history”.[/quote]

Agreed. He has never explained why, despite numerous invitations to do so.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, they don’t. I have already said why it’s not relevant, and Magick did again (well).

But, I’ll do it again, and in straight fashion:

In American history, the unconventional slave relationships (non-white owners, Irish slaves) did not drive or otherwise inform seminal events such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, Westward expansion, the annexation of Texas, the 1850s generally and the tensions between slave states and non-slave states, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scot decision, the election of 1860, the Civil War and its causes, secession declarations based on the inferiority of blacks, the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction and the following amendments, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movement.

Your unconventional slave relationships basically had zilch impact on all the big topics you would study in a general history setting. If the impact - these relationships didn’t weigh on the actors at the time, didn’t change the way any of these things played out - was zilch, then there is no reason to include discussion of them. The impact was, in fact, zilch, so - irrelevant.

Interesting? Yes. Impactful? Relevant to the big subjects I noted that every basic course deals with? No.
[/quote]

Very well said. And this is not to mention the fact that much of black slavery’s overarching relative importance* comes from its

  1. Longevity and persistence. (We’re talking about many generations across multiple centuries.)

and

  1. Ideological infestation of the American worldview. (The gallons of ink, already mentioned, spilled in [successful] service of the marriage of slavery and race – of the construction of an entire pseudo-science and pseudo-morality founded decidedly in notions of black inferiority. To put it simply, racialized slavery became a driving economic and ideological force in our history, rather simply a little part of it.)
  • Edit: …in American history. Yes, slavery existed long before, and in other forms. Just as mass slaughter existed long before the Holocaust. That doesn’t change the particulars of the Holocaust, and it doesn’t mean that we should preface talk of Hitler with a prefatory note about the nuns raped and murdered by Crusaders during the sack of Constantinople.

This whole argument is a lot like the “let’s not forget all the bad things Christians did” conversation that starts up whenever a group of Muslims kills some innocent people.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This whole argument is a lot like the “let’s not forget all the bad things Christians did” conversation that starts up whenever a group of Muslims kills some innocent people.[/quote]

Nope, not analogous.

The slavery I talked about was contemporary, as well as foundational, with the slavery you’re talking about.[/quote]

OK, fair enough.

It’s a whole lot like the Glenn Greenwalds, who just fucking need to talk about civilian casualties of American bombs whenever ISIS cuts somebody’s head off.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Interesting? Yes. Impactful? Relevant to the big subjects I noted that every basic course deals with? No.
[/quote]

The “big subjects,” i.e., slavery has been pandemic across time, races and cultures – intercontinental and transcontinental – are what I’ve been espousing. And examples to support this such as what I’ve been listing.

The subsets are what you’ve mentioned.

Nothing I’ve said should be taken to detract from the importance of what you’ve mentioned.

However, there is a politically correct movement afoot, and you certainly know this, that only wants to focus, and I mean focus exclusively, on the sins of the white man. It seeks to exclude the mention the sins of the red, brown, black and yellow man.

The fact that slavery was so acceptable across so many walks of life in colonial and immediate post Revolution history helped give more impetus to the heinous continuation of black slavery on both sides of the Civil War chronograph. THAT, my friend is why it’s important and not irrelevant to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.[/quote]

  1. By your very own description of unconventional slave relations they don’t need to be brought up in an American history class. Read what you wrote. World history class focusing on slavery? Yes. Cultural anthropology class focusing on slavery? Sure. American history? No. Case closed.

  2. You’ve self-identified as one of those who thinks we should talk about these unconventional slave relationships not because they are especially relevant to American history, but because you think not doing so is offensive to white people. Duly noted. We’ve learned alot about our posters today.

However, talking about race-based slavery as an historical fact and focusing on its being a driver of events in American history (when other slave relationships did no such) is not an example of unfairly “dumping” on white people, whatever that means. It’s the historical record. And teachers don’t need to interject examples of other raves doing it too (when it is otherwise irrelevant) to make white people feel “better” about it, or less guilty, or whatever.

If a teacher teaches “white guilt”, whatever that entails, or insinuates modern white people should pay for the sins of slavery, that is an altogether different issue. That doesn’t change the historical record or the need to focus on what is relevant and important.

Race-based slavery happened and it drove and influenced American history in profound ways. Unconventional slave relationships did not, so they aren’t part of the narrative of a normal history class.

That’s it. Period. The end.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…and this is not to mention the fact that much of black slavery’s overarching relative importance* comes from its

  1. Longevity and persistence. (We’re talking about many generations across multiple centuries.)

and

  1. Ideological infestation of the American worldview. (The gallons of ink, already mentioned, spilled in [successful] service of the marriage of slavery and race – of the construction of an entire pseudo-science and pseudo-morality founded decidedly in notions of black inferiority. To put it simply, racialized slavery became a driving economic and ideological force in our history, rather simply a little part of it.)
    [/quote]

This was the relevant portion of that post, Push. This is simple history. Either you know it or you don’t. (And I am pretty damn certain that you do.) Racialized chattel slavery – white ownership of black people – was so much more important, so much more prevalent, so much more politically and morally and religiously institutionalized, so much ineffably more a driving historical force in our country’s past, that the rest is a footnote and will never amount to more. Nobody gives a damn about anybody’s feelz getting hurt. Our history is just that; we don’t distort it for the sake of people who have a hard time stomaching reality.

I found it. I knew it had to be out there somewhere:

Save Your White Heritage!

This reads like the past few pages - Irish slaves had it as bad or worse than blacks, and damn liberal teachers won’t teach it.

All in the name of reclaiming their “kind” and Saving Their People.

Now we know where this stuff comes from and the point of all of it - it’s not “hey, this is interesting history few people know about” - it’s motivated by something far uglier.

Shameful.