Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.Those chapters in history are important of course, and should be taught honestly and completely. But they have nothing to do with the motivation of those who first arrived here which was a good deal of the inspiration for the Constitution.
I think they have everything to do with how this country was shaped and formed. When you claim it has nothing to do with the motivation of those that first arrived here you are not telling the entire story. You are only telling a narrow point of view which again indoctrinates people into this false belief that the US is this honorable country when in fact its one of the most morally and ethically bankrupt countrys to ever exist.
DISCLAIMER: I started this thread with three rules and interpreted one of them as to disallow the rhetorical 'you' in an honest effort to prevent the usual personal references that tend to derail a thread. In retrospect I decided that was just too unnatural to most members and will no longer request that as part of the rules. I won't object to the use of you and yours to make an argument unless it is clearly intended to insult the person.
So now, to your argument:
While honest history must teach that slavery is dehumanizing, cruel, inhumane, and unjustifiable, it must also be taught as the universal culture that it was in the remnants of the Roman Empire in which slaves were seen as ordinary and the way things were. It is not an argument to excuse or justify the practice. It is just honest history that it was the way it was at that time. It was a world wide practice including the indigenous peoples of the Americas at the time the first Europeans arrived here. Honest history explains that it was not the Europeans who went into the African bush to capture people and make slaves of them. It was mostly the Africans themselves who did that and then turned them over to the European slave traders. And when you put it all together, America was no more and no less moral or immoral than the vast majority of the peoples who existed at that time.
The Spaniards to arrive in the new world were first in search of riches for Spain and secondly engaged in conquest to subject the indigenous people at that time to the will of Spain and were the first to introduce slavery other than that practiced by the Indian peoples. The African slave trade was a booming business among the Spanish conquered world so the first African slaves were brought here by the Spaniards on a very limited basis.
The Puritans who arrived in Jamestown had no intention or motive to acquire slaves--it was an uncommon practice in England at that time. It was only after the colonies became established and started thriving that the European aristocracy turned to slavery--already existing slavery at first from the Spanish controlled Caribbean, and ultimately from the mostly British slave traders who brought slaves to Africa to solve the growing need for labor in the fields, especially the tobacco crops.
To the credit of the new United States government, most of whose members saw slavery as the terrible thing that it was, stopped any new slaves from being brought to America by 1808 and ordered that slavery would not be legal in any new territories opened up and/or made eligible for statehood. But because the federal government was limited in power by the people, it could not order the remaining slave states to abolish slavery. Most did so voluntarily. Some did not, but at the time the Civil War was fought, the cultural pressures were strong against slavery. Canada and Mexico, both who practiced slavery, had already abolished slavery. Had the remaining slave states been left alone, it is a certainty that they too would have eventually also abolished slavery on their own.
It could be left to speculation whether that would have ultimately been the best course and would have eliminated much of the anger and resentment and allowed black people to be more quickly accepted and assimilated into mainstream society.
This is how history should be taught.
Those who wish to rewrite history on both sides of the argument do a great disservice to education.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.I think they have everything to do with how this country was shaped and formed. When you claim it has nothing to do with the motivation of those that first arrived here you are not telling the entire story. You are only telling a narrow point of view which again indoctrinates people into this false belief that the US is this honorable country when in fact its one of the most morally and ethically bankrupt countrys to ever exist.
DISCLAIMER: I started this thread with three rules and interpreted one of them as to disallow the rhetorical 'you' in an honest effort to prevent the usual personal references that tend to derail a thread. In retrospect I decided that was just too unnatural to most members and will no longer request that as part of the rules. I won't object to the use of you and yours to make an argument unless it is clearly intended to insult the person.
So now, to your argument:
While honest history must teach that slavery is dehumanizing, cruel, inhumane, and unjustifiable, it must also be taught as the universal culture that it was in the remnants of the Roman Empire in which slaves were seen as ordinary and the way things were. It is not an argument to excuse or justify the practice. It is just honest history that it was the way it was at that time. It was a world wide practice including the indigenous peoples of the Americas at the time the first Europeans arrived here. Honest history explains that it was not the Europeans who went into the African bush to capture people and make slaves of them. It was mostly the Africans themselves who did that and then turned them over to the European slave traders. And when you put it all together, America was no more and no less moral or immoral than the vast majority of the peoples who existed at that time.
The Spaniards to arrive in the new world were first in search of riches for Spain and secondly engaged in conquest to subject the indigenous people at that time to the will of Spain and were the first to introduce slavery other than that practiced by the Indian peoples. The African slave trade was a booming business among the Spanish conquered world so the first African slaves were brought here by the Spaniards on a very limited basis.
The Puritans who arrived in Jamestown had no intention or motive to acquire slaves--it was an uncommon practice in England at that time. It was only after the colonies became established and started thriving that the European aristocracy turned to slavery--already existing slavery at first from the Spanish controlled Caribbean, and ultimately from the mostly British slave traders who brought slaves to Africa to solve the growing need for labor in the fields, especially the tobacco crops.
To the credit of the new United States government, most of whose members saw slavery as the terrible thing that it was, stopped any new slaves from being brought to America by 1808 and ordered that slavery would not be legal in any new territories opened up and/or made eligible for statehood. But because the federal government was limited in power by the people, it could not order the remaining slave states to abolish slavery. Most did so voluntarily. Some did not, but at the time the Civil War was fought, the cultural pressures were strong against slavery. Canada and Mexico, both who practiced slavery, had already abolished slavery. Had the remaining slave states been left alone, it is a certainty that they too would have eventually also abolished slavery on their own.
It could be left to speculation whether that would have ultimately been the best course and would have eliminated much of the anger and resentment and allowed black people to be more quickly accepted and assimilated into mainstream society.
This is how history should be taught.
Those who wish to rewrite history on both sides of the argument do a great disservice to education.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
Actually I am grateful it happened that way. It taught me to be untrusting of white teachers especially in the area of history and forced me to do my own research.I think the same thing applies to the NA's. I remember as a kid looking at a history book with a picture of NA's hiding in some bushes while Columbus walked onto the continent. The caption read: Columbus Discovers America. I remember asking the teacher how was it that columbus discovered america when there were Indians already there as the picture clearly showed? I was chastised and sent to the office for that.
IMO, if you asked the question respectfully, you should not have been sent to the office. It was a legitimate and smart question that deserved an answer. If I had been that teacher I would have relished such an opportunity to teach the context of how things are expressed. I would have suggested that it would have been more complete to say that Columbus was thought to be the first known Europeans at that time to visit America and provide the full history. But for convenience sake, we sometimes reduce that to a kind of historical shorthand: "Columbus discovered America." "Lincoln freed the slaves." Etc. The complete story is much more complex and can include volumes if we learn all of it that is known of course, but those who know history save a lot of time by condensing it into that simple shorthand: "When Columbus discovered America, . . . . ."
I am troubled by any top-down, mandated curriculum. Too much opportunity for political manipulation. Even "guidelines" - they are too easily considered mandates by liberals at the community level.
I've always been the type of guy that gives all the information instead of a convenient and slanted version. Using blurbs like "Columbus discovered America" and "Lincoln freed the slaves" are misleading and intentional so in my estimation. Its done to build honor for the white race. If you want to use a blurb you can say "When columbus arrived in the americas" or "Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south".I think the same thing applies to the NA's. I remember as a kid looking at a history book with a picture of NA's hiding in some bushes while Columbus walked onto the continent. The caption read: Columbus Discovers America. I remember asking the teacher how was it that columbus discovered america when there were Indians already there as the picture clearly showed? I was chastised and sent to the office for that.
IMO, if you asked the question respectfully, you should not have been sent to the office. It was a legitimate and smart question that deserved an answer. If I had been that teacher I would have relished such an opportunity to teach the context of how things are expressed. I would have suggested that it would have been more complete to say that Columbus was thought to be the first known Europeans at that time to visit America and provide the full history. But for convenience sake, we sometimes reduce that to a kind of historical shorthand: "Columbus discovered America." "Lincoln freed the slaves." Etc. The complete story is much more complex and can include volumes if we learn all of it that is known of course, but those who know history save a lot of time by condensing it into that simple shorthand: "When Columbus discovered America, . . . . ."
It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.DISCLAIMER: I started this thread with three rules and interpreted one of them as to disallow the rhetorical 'you' in an honest effort to prevent the usual personal references that tend to derail a thread. In retrospect I decided that was just too unnatural to most members and will no longer request that as part of the rules. I won't object to the use of you and yours to make an argument unless it is clearly intended to insult the person.
So now, to your argument:
While honest history must teach that slavery is dehumanizing, cruel, inhumane, and unjustifiable, it must also be taught as the universal culture that it was in the remnants of the Roman Empire in which slaves were seen as ordinary and the way things were. It is not an argument to excuse or justify the practice. It is just honest history that it was the way it was at that time. It was a world wide practice including the indigenous peoples of the Americas at the time the first Europeans arrived here. Honest history explains that it was not the Europeans who went into the African bush to capture people and make slaves of them. It was mostly the Africans themselves who did that and then turned them over to the European slave traders. And when you put it all together, America was no more and no less moral or immoral than the vast majority of the peoples who existed at that time.
The Spaniards to arrive in the new world were first in search of riches for Spain and secondly engaged in conquest to subject the indigenous people at that time to the will of Spain and were the first to introduce slavery other than that practiced by the Indian peoples. The African slave trade was a booming business among the Spanish conquered world so the first African slaves were brought here by the Spaniards on a very limited basis.
The Puritans who arrived in Jamestown had no intention or motive to acquire slaves--it was an uncommon practice in England at that time. It was only after the colonies became established and started thriving that the European aristocracy turned to slavery--already existing slavery at first from the Spanish controlled Caribbean, and ultimately from the mostly British slave traders who brought slaves to Africa to solve the growing need for labor in the fields, especially the tobacco crops.
To the credit of the new United States government, most of whose members saw slavery as the terrible thing that it was, stopped any new slaves from being brought to America by 1808 and ordered that slavery would not be legal in any new territories opened up and/or made eligible for statehood. But because the federal government was limited in power by the people, it could not order the remaining slave states to abolish slavery. Most did so voluntarily. Some did not, but at the time the Civil War was fought, the cultural pressures were strong against slavery. Canada and Mexico, both who practiced slavery, had already abolished slavery. Had the remaining slave states been left alone, it is a certainty that they too would have eventually also abolished slavery on their own.
It could be left to speculation whether that would have ultimately been the best course and would have eliminated much of the anger and resentment and allowed black people to be more quickly accepted and assimilated into mainstream society.
This is how history should be taught.
Those who wish to rewrite history on both sides of the argument do a great disservice to education.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
There is no such country on earth which sounds like indoctrination to me.I've always been the type of guy that gives all the information instead of a convenient and slanted version. Using blurbs like "Columbus discovered America" and "Lincoln freed the slaves" are misleading and intentional so in my estimation. Its done to build honor for the white race. If you want to use a blurb you can say "When columbus arrived in the americas" or "Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south".I think the same thing applies to the NA's. I remember as a kid looking at a history book with a picture of NA's hiding in some bushes while Columbus walked onto the continent. The caption read: Columbus Discovers America. I remember asking the teacher how was it that columbus discovered america when there were Indians already there as the picture clearly showed? I was chastised and sent to the office for that.
IMO, if you asked the question respectfully, you should not have been sent to the office. It was a legitimate and smart question that deserved an answer. If I had been that teacher I would have relished such an opportunity to teach the context of how things are expressed. I would have suggested that it would have been more complete to say that Columbus was thought to be the first known Europeans at that time to visit America and provide the full history. But for convenience sake, we sometimes reduce that to a kind of historical shorthand: "Columbus discovered America." "Lincoln freed the slaves." Etc. The complete story is much more complex and can include volumes if we learn all of it that is known of course, but those who know history save a lot of time by condensing it into that simple shorthand: "When Columbus discovered America, . . . . ."
Well each to their own. Isn't a great country in which we all can do as our heart lead us?
I neer said you made an excuse for somebody....I said it seems you are making excuses for americas history. I know this because you basically changed from US history to world history as outlined in your OP. Your protective feelings were highlighted when you said the US was not the only country to have slavery.It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
I can't do anything about how it seems to you. I am pretty sure I have not made a single excuse for anybody during this discussion, however.
I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.DISCLAIMER: I started this thread with three rules and interpreted one of them as to disallow the rhetorical 'you' in an honest effort to prevent the usual personal references that tend to derail a thread. In retrospect I decided that was just too unnatural to most members and will no longer request that as part of the rules. I won't object to the use of you and yours to make an argument unless it is clearly intended to insult the person.
So now, to your argument:
While honest history must teach that slavery is dehumanizing, cruel, inhumane, and unjustifiable, it must also be taught as the universal culture that it was in the remnants of the Roman Empire in which slaves were seen as ordinary and the way things were. It is not an argument to excuse or justify the practice. It is just honest history that it was the way it was at that time. It was a world wide practice including the indigenous peoples of the Americas at the time the first Europeans arrived here. Honest history explains that it was not the Europeans who went into the African bush to capture people and make slaves of them. It was mostly the Africans themselves who did that and then turned them over to the European slave traders. And when you put it all together, America was no more and no less moral or immoral than the vast majority of the peoples who existed at that time.
The Spaniards to arrive in the new world were first in search of riches for Spain and secondly engaged in conquest to subject the indigenous people at that time to the will of Spain and were the first to introduce slavery other than that practiced by the Indian peoples. The African slave trade was a booming business among the Spanish conquered world so the first African slaves were brought here by the Spaniards on a very limited basis.
The Puritans who arrived in Jamestown had no intention or motive to acquire slaves--it was an uncommon practice in England at that time. It was only after the colonies became established and started thriving that the European aristocracy turned to slavery--already existing slavery at first from the Spanish controlled Caribbean, and ultimately from the mostly British slave traders who brought slaves to Africa to solve the growing need for labor in the fields, especially the tobacco crops.
To the credit of the new United States government, most of whose members saw slavery as the terrible thing that it was, stopped any new slaves from being brought to America by 1808 and ordered that slavery would not be legal in any new territories opened up and/or made eligible for statehood. But because the federal government was limited in power by the people, it could not order the remaining slave states to abolish slavery. Most did so voluntarily. Some did not, but at the time the Civil War was fought, the cultural pressures were strong against slavery. Canada and Mexico, both who practiced slavery, had already abolished slavery. Had the remaining slave states been left alone, it is a certainty that they too would have eventually also abolished slavery on their own.
It could be left to speculation whether that would have ultimately been the best course and would have eliminated much of the anger and resentment and allowed black people to be more quickly accepted and assimilated into mainstream society.
This is how history should be taught.
Those who wish to rewrite history on both sides of the argument do a great disservice to education.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Purple:
I would hope that any and everyone recognizes that the particular form of slavery practiced/institutionalized in the United States and its New World neighbors is differs dramatically from the slavery that existed before the Age of Enlightenment. "Negro slavery [was] the South; the South [was] Negro slavery." That quite simply was not ever so before or since American slavery's abolition.
The full history suggests otherwise. It was not the New World that decided Africans would be profitable as slaves; that was determined in western Europe before the first settlers arrived on the east coast of America and it was those Europeans who introduced black slaves to America. However as I previous posted, the choice to look at skin color as the color of slaves was a fairly new phenomenon in world history, Because I cannot improve on the following I'll just post this:
[. . .The eighteenth century represented the apogee of the system, and before the century had ended, the signs of its demise were clear. About 60 percent of all the Africans who arrived as slaves in the New World came between 1700 and 1810, the time period during which Jamaica, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands peaked as sugar producers. Antislavery societies sprang up in Britain and France, using the secular, rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment--the intellectual movement centered in France in the eighteenth century- -to challenge the moral and legal basis for slavery. A significant moral victory was achieved when the British Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled in 1772 that slavery was illegal in Britain, thereby freeing about 15,000 slaves who had accompanied their masters there--and abruptly terminating the practice of black slaves ostentatiously escorting their masters about the kingdom. In the British Parliament, antislavery voices grew stronger until eventually a bill to abolish the slave trade passed both houses in 1807. The British, being the major carriers of slaves and having abolished the trade themselves, energetically set about discouraging other states from continuing. The abolition of the slave trade was a blow from which the slave system in the Caribbean could not recover. . . . Caribbean Islands - The Sugar Revolutions and Slavery [/indent]
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
I neer said you made an excuse for somebody....I said it seems you are making excuses for americas history. I know this because you basically changed from US history to world history as outlined in your OP. Your protective feelings were highlighted when you said the US was not the only country to have slavery.It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
I can't do anything about how it seems to you. I am pretty sure I have not made a single excuse for anybody during this discussion, however.
I pointed out that the US developed the concept of chattel slavery and used it in defining this country. Your response was basically "they did it too". Which one of us stepped outside of the OP?I neer said you made an excuse for somebody....I said it seems you are making excuses for americas history. I know this because you basically changed from US history to world history as outlined in your OP. Your protective feelings were highlighted when you said the US was not the only country to have slavery.It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.That was interesting but already well known history of slavery. However it skips over the part where only recently humans were considered non humans which defines the slavery that existed here in the US. I have no wish to argue about what country did what since we are speaking specifically about American history. You say you want history to be taught correctly and I insist that since the model for chattel slavery was developed here in the US and practiced extensively in the US then its consequences, effect, and benefits should be taught in these classes. If its left out we are defeating the purpose of studying history since it was such a major factor in US history and continues to make its effects felt to this day.
Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
I can't do anything about how it seems to you. I am pretty sure I have not made a single excuse for anybody during this discussion, however.
You were the one who brought up the accusation that America is the only country to be guilty of what you accuse it of and the most vile immoral nation ever or however that was worded some posts back. I had to bring in some world history to rebut your argument.
I pointed out that the US developed the concept of chattel slavery and used it in defining this country. Your response was basically "they did it too". Which one of us stepped outside of the OP?I neer said you made an excuse for somebody....I said it seems you are making excuses for americas history. I know this because you basically changed from US history to world history as outlined in your OP. Your protective feelings were highlighted when you said the US was not the only country to have slavery.It seems you have morphed to world history instead of american history as stated in your OP. It sounds like you are making excuses for america instead of admitting its position on slavery and the effect it had on the constitution and american history.Well, you will believe what you wish to believe. I will continue to put that period of history into its full context that doesn't include distorting the history to make America the sole villain so that we can better understand how and why it all happened as it did.
I can't do anything about how it seems to you. I am pretty sure I have not made a single excuse for anybody during this discussion, however.
You were the one who brought up the accusation that America is the only country to be guilty of what you accuse it of and the most vile immoral nation ever or however that was worded some posts back. I had to bring in some world history to rebut your argument.
I think what is missing in your narrative is that slavery was not a universal concept, at least not the way it was practiced in the US and the americas. Chattel slavery was a new concept that came about in order to build the economic base of this country. It was a major part of the construction of of the constitution. There is a reason the Corwin Amendment that made slavery a guaranteed right of the states was offered to the confederates as a means of avoiding war. The history of the US in forever intertwined with chattel slavery because without it the US would not have become a world power.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Purple:
I would hope that any and everyone recognizes that the particular form of slavery practiced/institutionalized in the United States and its New World neighbors is differs dramatically from the slavery that existed before the Age of Enlightenment. "Negro slavery [was] the South; the South [was] Negro slavery." That quite simply was not ever so before or since American slavery's abolition.
The full history suggests otherwise. It was not the New World that decided Africans would be profitable as slaves; that was determined in western Europe before the first settlers arrived on the east coast of America and it was those Europeans who introduced black slaves to America. However as I previous posted, the choice to look at skin color as the color of slaves was a fairly new phenomenon in world history, Because I cannot improve on the following I'll just post this:
[. . .The eighteenth century represented the apogee of the system, and before the century had ended, the signs of its demise were clear. About 60 percent of all the Africans who arrived as slaves in the New World came between 1700 and 1810, the time period during which Jamaica, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands peaked as sugar producers. Antislavery societies sprang up in Britain and France, using the secular, rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment--the intellectual movement centered in France in the eighteenth century- -to challenge the moral and legal basis for slavery. A significant moral victory was achieved when the British Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled in 1772 that slavery was illegal in Britain, thereby freeing about 15,000 slaves who had accompanied their masters there--and abruptly terminating the practice of black slaves ostentatiously escorting their masters about the kingdom. In the British Parliament, antislavery voices grew stronger until eventually a bill to abolish the slave trade passed both houses in 1807. The British, being the major carriers of slaves and having abolished the trade themselves, energetically set about discouraging other states from continuing. The abolition of the slave trade was a blow from which the slave system in the Caribbean could not recover. . . . Caribbean Islands - The Sugar Revolutions and Slavery [/indent]
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
If you wish to argue that the United States of America is the only evil entity who condoned or practiced slavery, I am unlikely to dissuade you from that point of view, but for me, it is a compelling argument for why honest history needs to be taught on both sides--the proponents of black history and the standards for history taught to all American citizens. In fact I would argue that black history is counterproductive because it tends to set one group of Americans apart from the others instead of teaching the history of all of us completely and honestly.
But honest history would include:
. . .Slavery had a long history in the ancient world and was practiced in Ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as Rome. Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race.
Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. In hard times, it was not uncommon for desperate Roman citizens to raise money by selling their children into slavery.
Life as a slave
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. . . . The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Social Order. Slaves & Freemen | PBS
Purple:
I would hope that any and everyone recognizes that the particular form of slavery practiced/institutionalized in the United States and its New World neighbors is differs dramatically from the slavery that existed before the Age of Enlightenment. "Negro slavery [was] the South; the South [was] Negro slavery." That quite simply was not ever so before or since American slavery's abolition.
The full history suggests otherwise. It was not the New World that decided Africans would be profitable as slaves; that was determined in western Europe before the first settlers arrived on the east coast of America and it was those Europeans who introduced black slaves to America. However as I previous posted, the choice to look at skin color as the color of slaves was a fairly new phenomenon in world history, Because I cannot improve on the following I'll just post this:
[. . .The eighteenth century represented the apogee of the system, and before the century had ended, the signs of its demise were clear. About 60 percent of all the Africans who arrived as slaves in the New World came between 1700 and 1810, the time period during which Jamaica, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands peaked as sugar producers. Antislavery societies sprang up in Britain and France, using the secular, rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment--the intellectual movement centered in France in the eighteenth century- -to challenge the moral and legal basis for slavery. A significant moral victory was achieved when the British Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled in 1772 that slavery was illegal in Britain, thereby freeing about 15,000 slaves who had accompanied their masters there--and abruptly terminating the practice of black slaves ostentatiously escorting their masters about the kingdom. In the British Parliament, antislavery voices grew stronger until eventually a bill to abolish the slave trade passed both houses in 1807. The British, being the major carriers of slaves and having abolished the trade themselves, energetically set about discouraging other states from continuing. The abolition of the slave trade was a blow from which the slave system in the Caribbean could not recover. . . . Caribbean Islands - The Sugar Revolutions and Slavery [/indent]
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.
For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.
My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens
Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)
Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.
Purple:
I would hope that any and everyone recognizes that the particular form of slavery practiced/institutionalized in the United States and its New World neighbors is differs dramatically from the slavery that existed before the Age of Enlightenment. "Negro slavery [was] the South; the South [was] Negro slavery." That quite simply was not ever so before or since American slavery's abolition.
The full history suggests otherwise. It was not the New World that decided Africans would be profitable as slaves; that was determined in western Europe before the first settlers arrived on the east coast of America and it was those Europeans who introduced black slaves to America. However as I previous posted, the choice to look at skin color as the color of slaves was a fairly new phenomenon in world history, Because I cannot improve on the following I'll just post this:
[. . .The eighteenth century represented the apogee of the system, and before the century had ended, the signs of its demise were clear. About 60 percent of all the Africans who arrived as slaves in the New World came between 1700 and 1810, the time period during which Jamaica, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands peaked as sugar producers. Antislavery societies sprang up in Britain and France, using the secular, rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment--the intellectual movement centered in France in the eighteenth century- -to challenge the moral and legal basis for slavery. A significant moral victory was achieved when the British Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled in 1772 that slavery was illegal in Britain, thereby freeing about 15,000 slaves who had accompanied their masters there--and abruptly terminating the practice of black slaves ostentatiously escorting their masters about the kingdom. In the British Parliament, antislavery voices grew stronger until eventually a bill to abolish the slave trade passed both houses in 1807. The British, being the major carriers of slaves and having abolished the trade themselves, energetically set about discouraging other states from continuing. The abolition of the slave trade was a blow from which the slave system in the Caribbean could not recover. . . . Caribbean Islands - The Sugar Revolutions and Slavery [/indent]
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.
For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.
My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens
Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)
Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.
I posted: Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. You countered that it can be done, and then provided your rationale in a well written post that I'm sorry, I don't think defended your thesis.
For instance, the whole context of the discovery of America and the first non-Indian residents here is far too broad for a single discussion and all the points of view and perspectives about that. If it could be done then the whole thing could be boiled down to a single paragraph that the student could memorize and have ready for the standardized test. That would be like including all points of view and perspectives of the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation into a single paragraph or essay. There are people who have devoted a great deal of their adult lives to researching and finding answers to the intricate relationships and events and responses that occurred.
The best we can do in history class in high school or core college curriculum is to provide the basics that have to be understood in order for the student who is motivated to do so can know what s/he is looking for to get the whole story. And we don't do that when history is presented from a biased or dogmatic point of view: "This is what you must believe. . . . ."
The full history suggests otherwise. It was not the New World that decided Africans would be profitable as slaves; that was determined in western Europe before the first settlers arrived on the east coast of America and it was those Europeans who introduced black slaves to America. However as I previous posted, the choice to look at skin color as the color of slaves was a fairly new phenomenon in world history, Because I cannot improve on the following I'll just post this:
[. . .The eighteenth century represented the apogee of the system, and before the century had ended, the signs of its demise were clear. About 60 percent of all the Africans who arrived as slaves in the New World came between 1700 and 1810, the time period during which Jamaica, Barbados, and the Leeward Islands peaked as sugar producers. Antislavery societies sprang up in Britain and France, using the secular, rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment--the intellectual movement centered in France in the eighteenth century- -to challenge the moral and legal basis for slavery. A significant moral victory was achieved when the British Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled in 1772 that slavery was illegal in Britain, thereby freeing about 15,000 slaves who had accompanied their masters there--and abruptly terminating the practice of black slaves ostentatiously escorting their masters about the kingdom. In the British Parliament, antislavery voices grew stronger until eventually a bill to abolish the slave trade passed both houses in 1807. The British, being the major carriers of slaves and having abolished the trade themselves, energetically set about discouraging other states from continuing. The abolition of the slave trade was a blow from which the slave system in the Caribbean could not recover. . . . Caribbean Islands - The Sugar Revolutions and Slavery [/indent]
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.
For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.
My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens
Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)
Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.
I posted: Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. You countered that it can be done, and then provided your rationale in a well written post that I'm sorry, I don't think defended your thesis.
For instance, the whole context of the discovery of America and the first non-Indian residents here is far too broad for a single discussion and all the points of view and perspectives about that. If it could be done then the whole thing could be boiled down to a single paragraph that the student could memorize and have ready for the standardized test. That would be like including all points of view and perspectives of the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation into a single paragraph or essay. There are people who have devoted a great deal of their adult lives to researching and finding answers to the intricate relationships and events and responses that occurred.
The best we can do in history class in high school or core college curriculum is to provide the basics that have to be understood in order for the student who is motivated to do so can know what s/he is looking for to get the whole story. And we don't do that when history is presented from a biased or dogmatic point of view: "This is what you must believe. . . . ."
Blue:
??? Perhaps I'm confused.
Are we talking about whether it's possible to cover the all the relevant events, players and aspects of a given topic or the ways that individuals may interpret those things? I was thinking the former is what we are truly discussing. Admittedly that's not what you wrote, but I didn't really believe you intended to refer to the myriad ways individuals of potentially vastly varying degrees of awareness on a given matter might interpret it. I fully agree that folks are capable of divining an infinite quantity of interpretations, some of which can be predicted and some that cannot, as well as many of those possible interpretations being invalid and a few of them having some merit.
If indeed you genuinely meant interpretations of history as opposed to learning/teaching the nature and scope of history's events, players, causes and direct effects, I misinterpreted your intent. Sorry.
There again, it's a matter of context and substance that is missed in the retelling you've shared.
- Blackbirding -- Not literally slavery, but little different in substance. It persisted up to the 1970s in the United Kingdom, mainly Australia.
- Slave Trade Act of 1807 outlawed, within the British kingdom, the slave trade, not slavery itself.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.
For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.
My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens
Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)
Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.
I posted: Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. You countered that it can be done, and then provided your rationale in a well written post that I'm sorry, I don't think defended your thesis.
For instance, the whole context of the discovery of America and the first non-Indian residents here is far too broad for a single discussion and all the points of view and perspectives about that. If it could be done then the whole thing could be boiled down to a single paragraph that the student could memorize and have ready for the standardized test. That would be like including all points of view and perspectives of the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation into a single paragraph or essay. There are people who have devoted a great deal of their adult lives to researching and finding answers to the intricate relationships and events and responses that occurred.
The best we can do in history class in high school or core college curriculum is to provide the basics that have to be understood in order for the student who is motivated to do so can know what s/he is looking for to get the whole story. And we don't do that when history is presented from a biased or dogmatic point of view: "This is what you must believe. . . . ."
Blue:
??? Perhaps I'm confused.
Are we talking about whether it's possible to cover the all the relevant events, players and aspects of a given topic or the ways that individuals may interpret those things? I was thinking the former is what we are truly discussing. Admittedly that's not what you wrote, but I didn't really believe you intended to refer to the myriad ways individuals of potentially vastly varying degrees of awareness on a given matter might interpret it. I fully agree that folks are capable of divining an infinite quantity of interpretations, some of which can be predicted and some that cannot, as well as many of those possible interpretations being invalid and a few of them having some merit.
If indeed you genuinely meant interpretations of history as opposed to learning/teaching the nature and scope of history's events, players, causes and direct effects, I misinterpreted your intent. Sorry.
What I was trying to say is that history is not just a simple set of one liner facts that kids can memorize for a standardized test. And I fear that is exactly what is happening.
History has to include the culture it lived in, the circumstances that triggered various events, and ultimately the consequences. Otherwise we have people believing things like Lincoln freed the slaves or Columbus discovered America as if that is all that anybody needs to know about that. But it needs to be taught honestly and without prejudice so that fertile minds are not manipulated into believing whatever the teacher wants them to think and believe. A government empowered to indoctrinate is a very dangerous thing.
Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. Which advantages those who would distort and manipulate history for their own purposes as most people have not been taught comprehensive history. Which of course is the subject of this thread. I have however been careful not to equate stopping the slave trade with the abolishment of slavery.
Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.
For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.
My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens
Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)
Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.
I posted: Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. You countered that it can be done, and then provided your rationale in a well written post that I'm sorry, I don't think defended your thesis.
For instance, the whole context of the discovery of America and the first non-Indian residents here is far too broad for a single discussion and all the points of view and perspectives about that. If it could be done then the whole thing could be boiled down to a single paragraph that the student could memorize and have ready for the standardized test. That would be like including all points of view and perspectives of the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation into a single paragraph or essay. There are people who have devoted a great deal of their adult lives to researching and finding answers to the intricate relationships and events and responses that occurred.
The best we can do in history class in high school or core college curriculum is to provide the basics that have to be understood in order for the student who is motivated to do so can know what s/he is looking for to get the whole story. And we don't do that when history is presented from a biased or dogmatic point of view: "This is what you must believe. . . . ."
Blue:
??? Perhaps I'm confused.
Are we talking about whether it's possible to cover the all the relevant events, players and aspects of a given topic or the ways that individuals may interpret those things? I was thinking the former is what we are truly discussing. Admittedly that's not what you wrote, but I didn't really believe you intended to refer to the myriad ways individuals of potentially vastly varying degrees of awareness on a given matter might interpret it. I fully agree that folks are capable of divining an infinite quantity of interpretations, some of which can be predicted and some that cannot, as well as many of those possible interpretations being invalid and a few of them having some merit.
If indeed you genuinely meant interpretations of history as opposed to learning/teaching the nature and scope of history's events, players, causes and direct effects, I misinterpreted your intent. Sorry.
What I was trying to say is that history is not just a simple set of one liner facts that kids can memorize for a standardized test. And I fear that is exactly what is happening.
History has to include the culture it lived in, the circumstances that triggered various events, and ultimately the consequences. Otherwise we have people believing things like Lincoln freed the slaves or Columbus discovered America as if that is all that anybody needs to know about that. But it needs to be taught honestly and without prejudice so that fertile minds are not manipulated into believing whatever the teacher wants them to think and believe. A government empowered to indoctrinate is a very dangerous thing.
Green:
I agree that many students do exactly that.
