Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Red State Snowflakes?

 

Red States are afraid of letting their children learn some inconvenient and painful facts about our past because some of it may make their little darlins uncomfortable.

So they've passed laws against teaching American history. 

Get that? Red states have passed laws to make it illegal to teach American history that is unpleasant to read!


Slavery and racism is baked into our American history, and no amount of laws passed by these authoritarian red state governments will ever keep their children or anyone else's children from learning about it. Their anti-American history crusades are nothing more than good old fashioned book-burning, only without the books. They're burning the truth by outlawing the teaching of how our nation was founded and its Original Sin of slavery, followed by years of racism, terrorism, and murder by those who took the law into their own hands in order to deprive our African-American, Native American, and other minorities their natural born civic and human rights.

Those red states can pass their anti-American history laws, but they will not be able to stop their children from learning the truth. 


 "We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty. " -- John F. Kennedy 

 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” ― United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights


**********************************


"In recent weeks, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, Idaho and Texas have passed legislation that places significant restrictions on what can be taught in public school classrooms and, in some cases, public universities, too. Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, for example, bans any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” 


In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.”

Texas House Bill 3979 goes further, forbidding teaching that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States.” It also bars any classroom from requiring “an understanding of the 1619 Project” — The New York Times Magazine’s special issue devoted to a reframing of the nation’s founding — and hence prohibits assigning any part of it as required reading."




A woman who taught social studies for 31 years writes:


"I taught high school social studies for 31 years. While unaware of critical race theory, in my classroom we covered the arrival of the first slaves in 1619, Virginia slave codes of the mid-1600s, the slave trade, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Law (s), the Black Codes, red-lining, the fights during Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement, and more. We also covered the Pequot Massacre, the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and more. 

I tried to emphasize that America is an idea we often fail to live up to but continue to strive for while recognizing past injustices. Sadly, as the years of my career rolled by, I came to question the veracity of the idea that knowing history prevents repetition of similar mistakes. It struck me that most people live in the bubble of the immediate present - not knowing or caring about the stories of the past. 

It seems to me that only strong, enlightened leaders can guide the public to "the better angels of our nature." The tragedy we are now faced with is that many of our leaders capitalize on people not knowing about the past; only caring about fear and ignoring context. What history does show is that we are in serious trouble."

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

The great experiment in democratic rule (self government) is passing into its final stages. As it progressives into more authoritarian mindedness regressive thinking our cherished freedoms and natural rights will begin evaporating at increasing rapidity. Trunpism is merely the populist fascist ideology that one major political party has hitch its hopes and dreams on.

May it perish an ignoble death.

skudrunner said...

And taking down statues of historic figures is fine. Seems to be somewhat confusing or is it if we believe it is OK than it should be taught and if it offends our sensitivities then we need to ban it.

This is the country we are becoming thanks to "progressive" politics. As adolph believed, control the media, control the financial institutions and finally control what is taught or control education. We are almost there and it won't be long before you accomplish all your goals. Do you have to do the goose step.

Jerry said...

It's very sad. Maybe we should go back to teaching no Social Studies. Seems teaching citizenship, voting, the law and Constitution, and protecting the rights of our fellow citizens even if we disagree with them are lost studies. There is a definition of what an American citizen should be, but that is lost to history. An American history good, or bad everyone wants to forget, never learned, wants to change, or certainly just don't want to face. What will people think of the Juneteenth Holiday 50, or 100 years from now? What will it mean?

Dave Miller said...

Skud... a few questions for you.

Should we have and celebrate statues of Admiral Yamamoto? He too was a great military leader who wanted to destroy America as it was known at the time. He too was a great leader who LOST. Hasn't it always been true that the victors write the history?

Do you think Germany should allow statues venerating Hitler, Goering and Himmler? All of those men are very important in the history of Germany. Shouldn't a country have a right to banish images of defeated enemies and relegate those losers to history books, depriving their followers of potential rallying points?

Before you respond, think about this... that pit Jews feel in their stomach at the idea of statues of Hitler and other German leaders who killed their fellow family members and countrymen, is the same feeling many African Americans have at the thought of having to continually look at statues of honor for people like Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Braxton Bragg.

No one is advocating erasing these men or their followers from our history. I dare say in fact that CRT wants their legacy taught. What we are advocating is to move the history of the folks to wanted to destroy our country to museums, libraries, university programs and other such places where their legacy can be presented, and debated in context.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud

General Erwin Rommel was a great military theorist and German hero known as The Desert Fox. There are no statues of him in Germany.

We are the ONLY country that tolerated statues of generals who fought AND LOST against the United States of America.

Dave is correct in pointing out that for African-Americans seeing the Confederate Flag flown is the same as Jewish people seeing the Nazi flag flown. It represents repression and murder.

No one is advocating erasing the Confederate generals and the Confederate flag from history, we're just pointing out that normal people don't honor generals who fought against their own country and lost. That's nuts, but the South has baked that silly idea into its "heritage" for generations, so that most southerners don't see it from that point of view at all.

Let future generations learn about RE Lee and the other generals who fought to break up the United States of America over slavery -- let them learn that in history books and museums.

They don't deserve statues or glory for what they tried to do.

Anonymous said...

They don't deserve statues or glory for what they tried to do.

Correct, they do not. But to the sons and daughters of the old south they do. Because for them the confederate states had the right to succeed from the Union they voluntarily joined. So they continue to believe voluntary seperation should have been within their rights and the north was unethical in fighting to deny them their rights.

Yeah, sounds as strange as it is. But that's the south and it is what it is.

skudrunner said...

Recognizing is different from honoring but haters of the South don't see that. It is OK to take away opportunity from Americans but not to have a historical statue. Lets punish the poor with rising prices on Everything and then preach we are for the poor. Lets excoriate the Jews because they will always vote democrat. Lets insult and demean blacks because, like joey said, they just follow along because they can't think like Latinos. My question is are you goose stepping as you march in line.

To answer your question Rev, Southerners were not mass murders but just had different opinions of civil rights. It was the Northerners who brought slaves over so are they not complicit.

Anonymous said...

Question - "... are you goose stepping as you march in line".

Answer - No. But you might be skidmark.

Bluebullamerica said...


To answer your question Rev, Southerners were not mass murders but just had different opinions of civil rights. It was the Northerners who brought slaves over so are they not complicit.


This has to be one of the dumbest things ever written anywhere on the internet. I can only assume that Skidmark is trying to be outrageous and funny. If he's serious, OMFG.

Dave Miller said...

Yes Skud... "different opinions." Southerners did not believe people of color had rights, were to be treated equally, were fully human, could own property, should be able to read or go to school.

That's quite a different opinion.

And it's not debatable, interpretable or literally even up for discussion among educated people.

The north had their issues too, with New York having the second largest slave market in the nation, behind only the one in Charleston, SC. But many in the north, like the Democrats who once held slaves and denied people their Civil Rights because of color, admitted their mistakes, apologized, repented and have spent years trying to atone for their past sins.

As it stands today, it is not the Dems who are trying to solve non existent voter fraud by limiting the ability of poor folks and minorities to vote across the south. It is not the Dems who have admitted under oath and publicly that there was no fraud in the 2020 elections. And it is not the Dems who have said publicly that if we let all our citizens vote, the GOP will not win another national election.

All of those statements came not from partisans like me, Shaw and others here.

Each and everyone of those statements came from southern GOP political leaders.

Leaders who still seem hellbent on denying the franchise to vote to people of color.

Anonymous said...

Southerners were not mass murders but just had different opinions of civil rights.

So skidmark, what you're really saying with your apologetic words is... Southerns believed that owning other human beings, those considered inferior and of a diferent skin color, was a somekw a civil right of theirs. Right, Got ya skid. Thanks for confirming tge SWouths abject racism.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Recognizing is different from honoring but haters of the South don't see that."

We can "recognize" R.E. Lee and the other Confederate generals in history books and museums. Erecting statues is what people do to give honor to or to memorialize historical events. As far as I know, there are no statues honoring Benedict Arnold, or any other actor who went to war against or betrayed his country.

As an anonymous commenter wrote above, there was no prohibition against seceding from the US in the Constitution, but in doing so the Southern states broke up the country over their insistence that they had the right to own human beings, which right allowed them to separate families, deny them education, beat them, hunt them down, make them work dawn until dusk with little food and clothing, even kill them. And when the lucky ones were able to escape to free states from that horror, the laws of this country allowed the slave owners to hunt them down like animals and return them to their captivity, subjugation, torture, and in some cases death.

When slavery was over the Jim Crowe laws were instituted, which made all African-Americans second class citizens and subjected to torture, hanging, and other forms of murder with impunity.


skud: "To answer your question Rev, Southerners were not mass murders but just had different opinions of civil rights. It was the Northerners who brought slaves over so are they not complicit."

Wrong.

"The first enslaved Africans arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, setting the stage for slavery in North America. On August 20, 1619, “20 and odd” Angolans, kidnapped by the Portuguese, arrive in the British colony of Virginia and were then bought by English colonists."

Shaw Kenawe said...

PS skud.

I've travelled in the South. Best friends lived in Louisville, KY. My brother lives in Tennessee. My step-daughter and her family lived in Texas for 20 years.

My experiences in the South were all positive. Southern people are friendly, courteous, and welcoming. The South has contributed much to our American culture. But all of that doesn't mean Southerners or other Americans should not read the tragic history of slavery and what it cost this country in the past and what it continues to cost this country in the 21st century.

skudrunner said...

And Yale still exists, selective opinions.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "And Yale still exists, selective opinions."

Well I guess you'll never concede the point; you'll always find something to try to justify your view that the South should be able to keep its memorial statues of the generals and others who tried to break up the Union.

Would you then be against the removal of statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

He was, as you know, a Confederate general who was also the founder of the KKK as well as its first Grand Wizard? (And yes, he belonged to the Southern Democratic Party. So you see, Democrats/liberals understand they must no longer honor the men who fought to break up the United States, and who founded the terrorist organization, the KKK.)

Keeping Forrest's statues in place would be the same as the Germans erecting a memorial statue of Herman Goering, a German political and military leader. The Germans know better and are able to face their shameful past -- unlike the Americans who cannot and will not.

As for Elihu Yale: "One of Elihu Yale's responsibilities as president of Fort St. George was overseeing its slave trade, though he himself was never a slave trader, never owned slaves, opposed the slave trade, and imposed several restrictions on it during his tenure.

According to Steven Pincus, a former Yale professor of history and current professor at the University of Chicago, Yale was never a slave trader and never owned slaves — in fact, Yale opposed the slave trade during his time as a prominent member of the East India Company and governor of Madras, Pincus argued."


A better example from you would have been Peter Faneuil:

Peter Faneuil (June 20, 1700 – March 3, 1743) was a wealthy American colonial merchant, slave trader, and philanthropist who donated Faneuil Hall to Boston.

And a number of people in Boston want to change the name of this famous landmark which bears Faneuil's name.



skudrunner said...

Sorry Ms. Shaw but Yale was governor of Madras which condoned slavery. It is beneficial to live the past instead of looking at the future, look at the trump obsession from the left. Lets ignore what is really happening in the country and focus on trump.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud,

One of Elihu Yale's responsibilities as president of Fort St. George was overseeing its slave trade, though he himself was never a slave trader, never owned slaves, opposed the slave trade, and imposed several restrictions on it during his tenure.

America is in a mess because of what happened "in the past" which was only 7 months ago while Donald J. Trump was president! It sounds like you and others want to forget how he incompetently mishandled the COVID-19 tragedy and caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and is still doing so because he refuses to tell his cultists to get vaccinated -- as HE HIMSELF WAS VACCINATED BACK IN THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 2021 before he was kicked out of office.

Trump is a cowardly weasel; he did not tell his cultists that HE GOT VACCINATED to protect himself from getting COVID's Delta variant. He knows how to take care of his own large orange posterior, but by not telling his cultists to get the jab, he's encouraged by default their stupidity of staying unvaccinated, and now they're dropping like flies from the variant, causing hospitals to have to deal with surge.

Selfish, stupid, anti-science meatheads trying to "own the libs" by killing themselves. This is, BTW, typical of cults: They follow their leaders to their own deaths.


We focus on Trump because he the anti-Democracy idiot who's endangered his own cultists and who tried to overthrow his own government and kill his own vice president.

You may believe we should just "move on" from those hellish events, but we won't until justice is done. Preferably part of that justice would be to never have to see Trump's lying, cheating, fraudulent mug or hear his insipid voice ever again!

Anonymous said...

What Dotard donald's posistion is is summed up thusly... I am not my brothers/sisters keeper. It is totally their decision as to whether to get vaccinated or not. They are adults and do not need me leading them around by their noses.

Simply put (as everyone with a functioning mind already knows) djt is NO LEADER. He is however a moron.