The DeSantis is a Corrupt Bastard Thread

@Jenee 's pet name

I'm not sure what your parents learned about US. history growing up, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably wasn't that the American Revolution was to preserve slavery in the colonies.

tell me you know no more about 1619 than its existence without...
now granted I've only watched maybe the first 15 minutes of the series, and that little bit focused on voter disenfranchisement... holy fuck! it's like Iran or something down there. You know, I've never been more than 500 yards from a polling station and I doubt it's ever taken more than 30 minutes?

Man, if you ever lived outside of the states for a year or so it'd shatter your mind...

An excerpt from a Politico article written by an African-American professor of history. Not the opinion of an old white dude.

Emphasis mine.

The left keeps saying they want "real history" taught in schools, but it's becoming increasingly clear that they don't. They want selective, subjective, ideologically pure history taught in schools. If you're teaching that the American Revolution was waged in order to preserve slavery in the colonies, then you are not teaching accurate "real" history.

I'll leave you with the final thought laid out in the article. You can read the whole article in the link provided bellow.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

still doesn't change the fact that 1619 encompasses far more than that... and I doubt anybody is teaching it as the primary cause so much as a side effect of the rebellion as you've claimed.

also, not sure what's in dispute here?

like, that is where the 3/5 nonsense was sprung from, yes?

and none of it changes the uncomfortable relationship between the disproportionately higher conviction rates for Black americans and the loss of voting rights for ex-cons (which apparently is still a thing in several states).

The 3/5 compromise does not say that black people are 3/5 of a person, it was a compromise because southern states wanted to count the slave population in order to gain more representation in Congress and Northern states didn't think that was fair because slaves at the time were considered property so they decided that they would count 3/5 of all slaves as part of the population. This was being considered when the constitution was being ratified, not when the colonies were deciding to go to war against the king.

It's not. That was in the Constitution, which wasn't written for another 12 years after the beginning of the war, 6 years after the effective end of the war, and 4 years after the official end.

ETA: and yes, the introductory essay that made this assertion is part of the lesson plan for the 1619 Project Curriculum, so it is fair to say that many teachers teaching it are teaching it that way.

Edit 2: the quote is in the full essay, which is a "suggested" part of the curriculum. The excerpt which is "core" does not contain that part.

You think you're coming across as , but what we're hearing is

Interesting you would bring this back to when the colonies decided to go to war against the king.

I consider myself a decently educated person and a lover of history (not so hubristic to call myself a historian but definitely a fan).

I took all AP history classes (and passed with fives) in HS and was 4.0 for every history class in college.

I was in my mid 30s before I learned about the deleted slavery line (when Jefferson was listing off the reasons why the king no longer had moral authority to rule the colonies) from the DoI:

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

Be honest, when did you learn about this deleted clause?

What were you taught about the debate of whether to include it or not in the final draft?

If like me you weren’t taught it, why do you think that is?

I honestly don't remember, but I want to say it was when I went back to college in my thirties. If you're wondering if I think it should be taught in high school, then yes. It's my understanding, through anecdotal evidence I admit, is that students aren't being taught a lot about history, like the events of the cold war for example or what side Germany was on during WW2.

The bitterest irony is that after Jefferson abandoned the clause in the name of a better to chance to pursue "liberty" for the colonies, the UK abolished slavery and the slave trade decades ahead of the US.

Thank you for your honest response.

But you missed the most pertinent question:

If like me you weren’t taught it, why do you think that is?

It might make white kids and the Uncle Albert types uncomfortable.

I'd guess it's because people at the time thought it was a too complex a subject better to be left for college. Also, we have a tendency to have a one size fits all attitude towards damn near everything.

Like for real.

I remember learning about how the fire pokers had to be removed from the room.

Why did I not learn that the argument that caused it was over if we should condemn men owning men?!?!?

THAT SEEMS LIKE AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF CONTEXT!!!

Why would it be too complex?

I feel like ‘owning people bad’ is pretty straight forward.

For me, it was high school in 1986, my government class (required for most seniors), and it’s featured in the musical 1776, which we watched in class.

I don't think it would be too complex, but you can't spend several weeks talking about it when you have to cover all of US history.

why would including an extra sentence necessitate added weeks to the topic?
maybe a an accumulaed classroom hour or two, but... weeks?

I don't know how accurate that sequence is, with Franklin (an early abolitionist) telling the idealistic young (slave owning Jefferson) that the attack on slavery was a luxury they couldn't afford, but I think it shows just how we ended up with a jerry-rigged confederation and then a rather bizarre democratic republic with it's moral and political comprises.

It's not complex at all.

Many people knew slavery was wrong, but since the new leaders included some of the richest people on the continent, largely rich off slavery, they wouldn't buy into getting rid of it.

We've seen how an enbee on Trek wanting to be called "they" for less than ten seconds makes him piss blood.
Learning about slavery as a kid would have killed him.
Normalized homophobia and the Satanic Panic in the 80's didn't knock an eyelash out of place on him, but the slavery, that would have done it.

My objection is very specifically to "sins of the father" and "collective guilt by default" perpetrated by activist teachers, not merely "teaching facts" as the lying bullshitters would have it portrayed.

You're acting as if "one-offs" are the norm. No one denies they exist. it is a bad thing. But, it is not the norm.

If you're in favor of preventing "one-offs" from ... doing what they do. Then why are you against preventing "one-off" gun owners of doing what they do?

Remember when you personally had to pay reparations?
Remember when that happened? Me neither.

Both sides of my family came on boats, or crossed from Canada long after the Civil War.
I ain't gotta be guilty about shit.
And no one tried to make me.

But I'm also not going to pretend racism poofed away with the Emancipation Proclamation, and that those old racists didn't sabotage our institutions.

Because right-wing Youtube (pretending to be "free thinker" Youtube) doesn't lie.
Nope, no grift there.
The contrarian point of view is always the right one.
That's why the Earth is flat, and bleach up the ass cures autism.

We don't do "pre-crime" in the civilized world. People may only be punished AFTER they commit crimes. And yes, deprivation of property IS a punishment.

And you're trying to do the same with teachers. you are "pre-crime-ing" (which isn't a crime to fucking teach history) anyone who says anything other than your prescribed texts exactly.

I've never been subjected to anyone telling me I should feel guilty. I've never seen any activists telling anyone they should feel guilty. Never. If it's happened, it's a one-off or at least very much a minority view. I have seen activists saying there are historical wrongs that happened and should be made right. I don't equate that with telling me to "feel guilty".

It's not "pre" anything when they're actually fucking doing it. And there is not a single piece of FACTUAL historical data I would forbid them to teach.