Tennessee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From School Textbooks To Make Founding Fathers Look Good

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Certainly a careful reading of the latest foodstamp thread indicates a very sanitized view of early American life. And some of those holding to that view would apparently love to see those dark days return in the name of 'shrinking government programs.'

[slim 1,530]

Sorry but that's not what they're taught. At least not in school. At home, maybe, but not in the public school system. I know some young black kids that happen to attend public school and they aren't taught what you're claiming they're taught there at all. They're taught that achievement matters. And they're doing quite well. One went off to college on a full scholarship. Not because she's black but because she finished in the top 0.1% of her class. Now how did that happen if all she was taught was excuses for lack of achievement in the public school system?

Good for her. And I'm glad one student's achievements overshadow the sheer number of failures I see on a daily basis.

I don't disagree - the stats are there and they are disturbing. The issue, however, is what these kids learn at home, not what the public education system teaches. Slim believes that the public education system causes this. And that just isn't the case. These kids lack support and direction at home. And they often find themselves in schools that do not have the resources and cannot provide the environment that encourages learning and achievement as kids out of more mainstream families do.

So, if they're not getting the message at home and they're not getting the message at school.... where are they getting the message?

As you've noted, the stats highly support the fact of parents being absent in the education process. If that's the case, where do kids get the education?

My daughter will attend one of the best rated public schools in the county. That is because I can afford to live where I live and because I made the schools she would go to the central point in deciding where to settle down. It's all about priorities and unfortunately, too many kids in this country just don't seem to be a priority for their parents.

I graduated from one of the best public schools in the country and the underlying message in our history classes was things were, and still are, messed up. There was a lot of talk of achievement and personal responsibility and working hard for what you get. But at the end of the day, students were still encouraged to identify themselves as a particular race.

Until we stop making race an issue... it will be an issue. If we were to talk about slavery as an issue that affected all of us because of the history of our country, it would be one thing. But we don't. We address it as an issue that affected blacks and still does to this day.

Simply put, slavery is not approached from a historical context. It's a racial issue.

There is a part of the slavery story that's been very hush hush, and that's about the White slaves.

Racist!

[xebec 195]

Danno, on 26 January 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Where are these wonderful societies which banned Slavery in earlier times?

Western Europe.

I was hoping you would name non-white countries, care to go again?

Why would the appropriate point of comparison be the least developed part of the world rather than a comparably developed part of the world? If you want to claim leadership and exceptional status, you need to compare yourself and demonstrate superiority to advanced nations not to those stuck in centuries past.

In fact, Western European nations were quite hesitant to move toward an outright ban on slavery. A few Scandanavian countries and some central Europeans moved toward this much earlier.

-France outlawed slavery during the revolution, but it was legal again by 1802

-Prussia didn't outlaw "slavery" (serfdom) until 1807

-Spain didn't outlaw slavery until 1811, and even then parts of the empire were exempt from the ban

-Great Britain didn't outlaw slavery until 1834, but still permitted harsh indenture

-Sweden abolished slavery in 1847

-Denmark abolished slavery in 1848

-France finally outlaws slavery in the entire empire.....1848

-The Netherlands outlaws slavery in 1863

-Portugal outlaws slavery in 1869

-Spain finally outlaws slavery for the entire empire... 1886

Drescher, Seymour. Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World (2007)

Edited January 27, 2012 by xebec

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In fact, Western European nations were quite hesitant to move toward an outright ban on slavery. A few Scandanavian countries and some central Europeans moved toward this much earlier.

-France outlawed slavery during the revolution, but it was legal again by 1802

-Prussia didn't outlaw "slavery" (serfdom) until 1807

-Spain didn't outlaw slavery until 1811, and even then parts of the empire were exempt from the ban

-Great Britain didn't outlaw slavery until 1834, but still permitted harsh indenture

-Sweden abolished slavery in 1847

-Denmark abolished slavery in 1848

-France finally outlaws slavery in the entire empire.....1848

-The Netherlands outlaws slavery in 1863

-Portugal outlaws slavery in 1869

-Spain finally outlaws slavery for the entire empire... 1886

Drescher, Seymour. Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World (2007)

So it is true that most of Western Europe led the US in abolishing slavery.

[xebec 195]

So it is true that most of Western Europe led the US in abolishing slavery.

Danno was clearly referencing the generation of the founders. I'm sure this didn't escape you. He was making a perfectly legitimate point that, at the time the founding fathers were debating the merits and evils of slavery, the practice was almost universal. The point stands.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Danno was clearly referencing the generation of the founders. I'm sure this didn't escape you. He was making a perfectly legitimate point that, at the time the founding fathers were debating the merits and evils of slavery, the practice was almost universal. The point stands.

Danno asked what nations banned slavery in earlier times. Clearly, most of Western Europe did ban slavery earlier than the US. That point stands.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno asked what nations banned slavery in earlier times. Clearly, most of Western Europe did ban slavery earlier than the US. That point stands.

-Those countries you mentioned did it decades after the period we are discussing (the nations founding).

-Those countries you mention are but a fraction of the countries in the world at the time, many continued on with slavery for decades ofter we abolished it.

-You have yet pointed out how or by what authority the founders could have ended slavery?

-If the slavery angle should be explored when teaching about the founders contribution, what other areas should also be explored in that lesson? Perhaps womens rights? RIghts of the accused, Indian citizenship?

hostility towards Homosexuals? No provision for basic education? where does it stop?

[Danno 1,228]

Certainly a careful reading of the latest foodstamp thread indicates a very sanitized view of early American life. And some of those holding to that view would apparently love to see those dark days return in the name of 'shrinking government programs.'

Your silly allusions aside,

When you speak of those "dark days" are you referring to those days when we were rapidly becoming the most prosperous country on earth?

Europeans flocked here because they saw "light".. not darkness.

YOu prove again and again what I have always said:

The Right loves this country for what it is..... the Loves it for what it might someday become.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

-Those countries you mentioned did it decades after the period we are discussing (the nations founding).

-Those countries you mention are but a fraction of the countries in the world at the time, many continued on with slavery for decades ofter we abolished it.

-You have yet pointed out how or by what authority the founders could have ended slavery?

-If the slavery angle should be explored when teaching about the founders contribution, what other areas should also be explored in that lesson? Perhaps womens rights? RIghts of the accused, Indian citizenship? hostility towards Homosexuals? No provision for basic education? where does it stop?

Slavery is part of this country's history. Can't go back and change that. Why should history be white-washed? Should German kids be taught about the significant technological advances that occurred during the Third Reich while glossing over the holocaust in order to ensure focus on the positive achievements of the country during that time? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[xebec 195]

Danno asked what nations banned slavery in earlier times. Clearly, most of Western Europe did ban slavery earlier than the US. That point stands.

That point stands only if you are obfuscating. This entire post has been about the founders and their treatment historically- i.e. it is clear that Danno was saying that abolition wasn't generally taking place in "earlier times" relative to the founding of our country. Comparing the date of emancipation in the United States to other nations wasn't the issue at hand. You knew this.

[xebec 195]

As if the Tea Party hasn't butchered American history enough since their creation, the Tea Party in Tennessee is demanding the immediate removal of any mention of slavery as it applies to the Founding Fathers because they want schools clean up their image and teach students "the truth about America." Tennessee now wants to join Texas in changing American history as it is presented in textbooks and how it is taught by teachers in school.

And more to the topic at hand. The higlighted line is all I needed to read in order to completely lose confidence in the article. Texas has expanded its coverage of the historical impact of minorities (a fact which the writer clearly ignores in an obvious attemp to unfairly besmirch the State).

In the revised TEKS (curriculum) the following historical figures were added, and some are now testable on the upcoming STAAR end of course examinations:

James Armistead, Crispus Attucks, Phillip Bazaar, William Carney, Frederick Douglass, Bernardo de Galvez, Hiram Rhoades Revels, Haym Salomon, Mercy Otis Warren, Marcus Garvey, Navajo Code Talkers, Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Hector P. Garcia, and a laundry list of others.

Also added to the TEKS (I pointed to a few, illustrative of recent changes to the curriculum....there are many):

"describe the roles of political organizations that promoted civil rights, including ones from African American, Chicano, American Indian, women’s, and other civil rights movements"

"the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882"

"analyze the effects of the Great Depression on the U.S. economy and society, such as widespread unemployment and deportation and repatriation of people of European and Mexican heritage and others"

"discuss the impact of the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. such as his “I Have a Dream” speech and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” on the civil rights movement"

Just a few examples. The author of the article clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and is writing for rhetorical purposes rather than to inform.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Your silly allusions aside,

When you speak of those "dark days" are you referring to those days when we were rapidly becoming the most prosperous country on earth?

Europeans flocked here because they saw "light".. not darkness.

YOu prove again and again what I have always said:

The Right loves this country for what it is..... the Loves it for what it might someday become.

You have an extremely esoteric point of view regarding US history. Life in the 1700's and 1800's was hardly sweetness and light. The Right loves it's stilted view of history, I love this country despite my much clearer understanding of it's history.

[Danno 1,228]

You have an extremely esoteric point of view regarding US history. Life in the 1700's and 1800's was hardly sweetness and light. The Right loves it's stilted view of history, I love this country despite my much clearer understanding of it's history.

Can you be a little more specific, what was so unusually dark about this country in that time period?

[Pooky 3,830]

We should also stop insisting that 1+1=2. Let the kids be more creative accountants, eh?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Can you be a little more specific, what was so unusually dark about this country in that time period?

Slavery, the subject at hand here. Not just Black slavery.

Working conditions that allowed children as young as six to work 18+ hour days, beaten with iron rods when deemed to be slacking. Children mangled by machinery thrown into the street and left to die of their injuries, without any sort of medical assistance, being replaced by the next child victim.

Irish worked to death under appalling conditions, often treated as even less valuable than their Black counterparts. Ditto Chinese.

Entire Tribes murdered, down to the last man, woman and child. Native womens breasts cut off and tossed around like toy balls just for fun. Smallpox laced blankets, deliberate destruction of vast herds of buffalo, "permanent" treaties which only lasted until the next concessions were demanded, to name just a few Native American tidbits. Nah! One more, google Indian Schools and assimilation.

Much of the worst Danno, was in the name and spirit of Christian thinking in their respective times by the by. Manifest Destiny ring a bell?

So sorry Danno, while there is much to be proud of, the historical record features more than just a few ugly truths. I personally think we are much closer now to the spirit of words in our Founding Fathers documents now than we clearly were when they were written. And while at times and places US history proves dark and harsh, over all we can still be proud of our Nation and those who built it.

One too many 'now' in that last paragraph! Oops!