This doesn’t have to be controversial, just read the confederate state’s declarations of succession. The cause of the civil war isn’t open for interpretation. The people who succeeded litterally wrote down and formally publicized their reasons.
none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Yeah that’s your first mistake. You assume magas read. They don’t. Then you assume they care about facts. Big mistake, buddy. They don’t!
and a blow at slavery is a blow at civilization
Oh fuck if I had three wishes one of them would be to get a hatchet and get into a ring with whatever fucktard wrote that.
Go read what the other states wrote. There’s more fun in there!
I’m already angry enough at humanity.
I’m genuinely ready to go to the street and burn shit down and I don’t even live in the states. (I’ve got some of my own problems where I live as well.)
Why a hatchet? Why not them just hogtied and you with a loaded 12ga shotgun? Pump-action and with magnum slugs!
I like to get in there.
A firearm is so… impersonal.
edit tldr haptic feedback
Ok so him tied up and you have the hatchet. Why give rhe fuck would you give them a chance? They wouldn’t give you one.
“Tied up”? Where’s the fun in that?
I want to see the look in their face when they realise they’ve given it their all and still have not a chance in hell. I fucking love seeing the desperation in the eyes of racists and fascists everywhere when they realise they don’t have any more fallbacks and have to rely on their own person, which is always inadequate.
This is what it would be to you, but for me it is about tit for tat. They want the whole world hostage to them, and I want them to taste the helplessness of the hell they wrought on so many people. Also I refuse to take any chances. They need to rendered 100% helpless. Even like what Baron Harkonnen did to Duke Leto in the 2021 Dune film when he didn’t just have him drugged and tied up, but completely naked as well… except I will make sure they have no hidden weapons like the poison gas tooth…
I take your point, but I’d just be so annoyed at listening to them go on about how “if I weren’t tied up”.
Like how conservatives are always like “if only we were in power, there’d be perfect government”, but then the only thing they manage is a kakistocracy like Trump.
So I hate to hear the baseless boasting. But I very much take your point.
Basically the answer would be to have them actually have empathy. But how do we… make someone have empathy? If that were possible there wouldn’t really be any issues in the world, right?
Well such things exist and they’re extremely banned wordlwide.
Don’t forget the part where if you joined the Confederacy you signed:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
Yeah, but have you considered that both sides bad?
This is business as usual, I was told, nothing would change, us shitlibs were just scaremongering about Trump.
Sure. But one side is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the other
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
One side is open about their racism and sexism, the other side hides it. Which is worse to you?
Damn, they are so good hiding that they actually enqct policies to counteract their own racism and sexism.
Clearly they must be worse, because they want to take abortion rights away by granting them to women.
Don’t see the left making political ads talking about the blood of the country. We all know who they’re talking about when they mention pure blood.
Exactly, I don’t see those ads either. Did you miss the part where I said they hide their racism?
You BoTh SiDeS cult supporters got a cult leader elected, you can stop now
English is hard. It’s ok my man. Someday you’ll get it, I wish you the best.
This is just the tip Americans, he’s about to give you all 4"
That’s giving him twice the credit Stormy did
They barely teach about it as it is. My daughter’s social studies textbook had page after page about Marbury v. Madison and two paragraphs about Harriet Tumbman.
Harriet Tubman was a great hero, but she did not shape society. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional. That’s massive. Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade rely on that.
Judicial review has been adopted by republics around the world (though not all). Writing as a European, I believe it’s a greatly underappreciated US contribution to global culture and the cause of democracy and human rights.
Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional.
That is literally all a 14-year-old needs to know about it.
What are they actually taught about MvM?
I’m not sure what kids should be taught about Tubman. Generally, I don’t think hero stories have much to say on society or history. Tubman makes for a good exception, as her story teaches the lesson that African-Americans and women were not merely passive objects of history but people who made their own decisions. It also teaches us that there are things that even the supposedly powerless can do. Even so, how much of her actual biography belongs in a social studies text?
At 14 a “normal” kid is in 9th grade, correct? As in they didn’t start early, skip a grade, start behind, or get held back. At 9th grade, we should be preparing our kids for higher education. They need at least a paragraph so that the more curious kids take a further look into things.
I agree that Harriet Tubman and the UR deserve more attention than Indiana history books teach, I went to HS at MCHS in Madison, IN. And, boy howdy did they whitewash history back in the '90s.
At least we have what’s left of the Internet now so that you can supplement poor teaching materials.
As a Music Ed major, which is Education with extra classes tacked on, I would be interested to hear what GB history books are like once you guys get over there.
What more than that do most people need to know about Marbury v. Madison? What is the significance or relevance to day of the debates over it and the events leading up to it? Because I don’t think that is anywhere near as important as the emphasis you place on it.
Knowing that judicial review is a thing and that SCOTUS can do it and why they have that power should be enough for most people.
Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional.
That only gives the what and how of the situation, not the why. Some explanation of why they were given that power is useful for the average citizen
Some explanation is not a dozen long online textbook pages. Especially when women as a whole in the 19th century rated four short pages.
Hang on, this was online? Not a printed book? Ok yeah, a few paragraphs and a hyperlink should cover it.
Recently watched a drunk history episode about spies, one of the segments featured Harriet Tubman. Absolutely worth a watch, you can find it on YouTube free.
Did you know she was Americas first female military leader? I didn’t till I saw that! And I got a half decent education where they didn’t gloss over slavery (helps I grew up in NY).
I would watch a whole movie with Octavia Butler as Drunk History Harriet Tubman. That shit was awesome.
It makes them uncomfortable to talk about it. Or acknowledge it’s lingering effects. It’s much more uncomfortable for the people suffering the lingering effects. But that’s not what’s important./s
It doesn’t make them uncomfortable. They just don’t want people to know that they’re still doing it.
Well that is why it makes them uncomfortable. People knowing what they’re doing:-)
Still doing it / going to significantly ramp it up. Think those immigrants are ever getting out of the camps? Nah, they’ll just be free labor now. As will plenty of Americans.
Didn’t you hear? The past was always better, and Now is always the low ebb in the decline of our civilization until we return to the values that made yesterday great.
If the past is somehow to blame for the problems of today, that might mean there was something wrong with the past. If that’s the case, then maybe other things from the past have problems, including things that I like or benefit me personally, or that changing would imply a lot of big scary changes that I’m not ready for.
That’s why attempts to talk about little mistakes from the past like chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, phillipino genocide or endemic discrimination and institutionalized racism are just attempts by bad people to tear down perfection and keep us from returning to a simpler, better time where those mistakes never happened.
Also this: https://youtu.be/AeN_SVoJet0
Can’t have schools teaching about slavery in the land of the free. It just doesn’t fit with the theme.
In his 6min 1A speech the week after winning he’s going off about censorship and social media moderation. He asked Republican legislators to send retain your records letters to the universities in their states. He then said he was going to pull funding from all universities guilty of censorship/moderation not just going forward, but in the past as well.
He had a bit about never using the “labels” misinformation and disinformation going forward. It’s unclear if that piece is included in that threat to universities.
It was always about bringing slavery back.
Ever since we shed blood to end it, they’ve been trying to bring it back.
Slavery never ended.
Ever see those stupid laws like “don’t ride a horse on a Sunday?” Or look at when “vagrancy” laws were passed, or differences in sentencing between crack and coke.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Look at prison rates and racial backgrounds in the south. Look at how felonies are used to disenfranchise. Look at the war on drugs.
I can’t believe the US is about to let illiberal “Christo” tyrants win without a fight. Should do as Jon Stewart said, play on their level and just don’t confirm the votes.
Trump doesn’t qualify for president, per the 14th amendment. I’m kind of pissed that the fucking constitution is being treated as novel law and not the foundation for our laws.
But that is in an amendment so it only has to be followed 3/5ths of the way.
I’m actually really surprised we didn’t have a new lawsuit about his ability to take the oath of office. Not that it will actually matter but these Trump sycophants should have to state publication they don’t care what the law says.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61084161
None of that has been tried in a court since the supreme Court ruling. And insurrection isn’t even one of the charges in the indictment.
We can’t have a lawsuit about that till a ruling is handed down saying he did any of those things
Which the Republicans knew, so they just had to delay until he won again and can pardon/dismiss/fire Jack smith/etc
Nothing in the 14th section 3 says he must be charged with it even tried for insurrection. The Colorado trial court judge, after hearing all of the J6 evidence against Trump, found that he did engage in insurrection but did not remove him from the ballot. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/appeal-filed-in-colorado-14th-amendment-case/
The Colorado Supreme Court eventually ruled that he should be removed from the primary ballot.
SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection
inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.Edit: a word
SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection
inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.Which is odd, since the constitution CLEARLY and DIRECTLY states that it takes an act of congress to put an insurrectionist onto the ballot. So requiring congress to take them off isn’t just unfounded, it’s in direct contradiction to what’s written.
Which also shows the danger of the already eroding democracy…
This is just a continuation of the current indoctrination system. For example, they don’t teach about the founding slavers either. Everything is a whitewash.
A culture that is founded on racist delusions and fantasies is not capable of teaching accurate history.
It’s what the majority of white voters want
)#LandOfTheFree
you can’t?
Not in the way the repugs want it. Slavery will never be seen as beneficial to anyone despite how hard the repugs push that narrative
What are you talking about? The world sees the USA’s exploitation of slaves as being HUGELY beneficial to their development. That’s not anyone’s problem with it?
deleted by creator
Yeah, we should stop shoving history in kids’ faces at school!
Also, stop shoving the English language, science and math in their faces!
If they aren’t learning how to mine ore, what is even the point of school, am I right?
Not what I said or meant in the least.
Weird how everyone here seemed to think otherwise.
Also weird how you deleted the comment if that’s not what you meant.
It’s called mob mentality, and is well known. And I don’t want to keep pointlessly dealing with judgy people who seek not to understand but only to damn, but sure I deleted it because I was so super racist and against education that I couldn’t help myself but I am also so cowardly that once people push back against my horrible views I cave immediately.
Excellent logic.
Seems like a non sequitur given the context was someone trying to deny that the USA benefited from slavery. If that is not the time, then when the fuck is?? Excuse my snark.
That is absolutely not what that commenter was saying.
That is the commenter.
Lol
How is teaching about it shoving it in people’s faces?
I see nothing teacherly here
We are discussing teaching about US history and slavery in school. No one is trying to teach you anything here.
Shoving it in people’s faces? Just say you are racist, jesus christ dude
What a bizarre accusation to make. Lemmy is absolutely shit if this is what happens here. Next time just say you don’t understand and only want to judge. Jesus Christ, dude.
OK anyone that matters. Want to believe slavery is a good thing at alll? You don’t matter
You’re missing the point. Some modern Americans continue to benefit from historical slavery. Saying, “No one benefits from slavery,” is an attempt to deny that and avoid the moral responsibility that comes with those benefits.
Correction: all modern Americans continue to benefit from historical slavery.
The point is you are justifying slavery. You can scream its “virtues” all you want. Until that mindset disappears, and even if it disappears, I’m not changing my stance on it.
I’m not. I condemn slavery. Like holy shit, can you not assume that much?
The problem with slavery isn’t that slavers don’t benefit! How can you sit there and say that slavers don’t benefit from the transaction? Why, then, would they do it?? Just to be dicks??
You’re taking an ideological stance that you don’t fully understand and not considering what you are actually saying. The fact that people benefit from it doesn’t JUSTIFY it. Nothing can justify treating an intelligent creature as property. But that doesn’t mean someone didn’t make bank from it. That doesn’t mean that people alive today are not still benefiting from the tragedies of the past.
agreed
I could benefit from robbing a bank. That certainly doesn’t justify it.
Well, depends on the bank.
We’ve got a real failure to communicate here though.
Chattel slavery in the US was absolutely enormously beneficial to a tiny sliver of uppercrust slaveholding assholes who got rich on the backs of their exploited human “property”. Fuck yes it was beneficial to these assholes. There’s an argument to be made that this is a big part of the reason why chattel slavery in the US lasted as long as it did – because it made (some people) a lot of money either directly by owning a plantation or indirectly by buying the cheap textiles and other good that came from those plantations
Why the fuck am I even bothering writing this to some rando on the internet
I’ve heard it said that chattel slavery was more expensive than it would’ve been to just pay people poverty wages and let them fend for their own food and shelter. Dunno if it’s true or not. I imagine it also damages the mental health of the slave owners, and society as a whole.
Imagine actually believing that slaveowners don’t benefit from slavery.
Source article?
There’s a lot but here’s a reasonable one:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-defund-schools-teach-155006275.html
“Let’s say… they just decide … ‘Oh, we’re gonna get rid of…history,” Kilmeade posed. “We got new history. This is America built off the backs of slaves on stolen land, and that curriculum comes in.”
“We don’t send them money,” Trump responded. “We would save half of our budget.”
So… Wait. I heard about the controversy with CRT, but what’s this? Are they really saying native Americans were treated fairly and slavery wasn’t a big part of the southern economy??
Are they really saying native Americans were treated fairly and slavery wasn’t a big part of the southern economy??
No. They’re saying that slavery wasn’t the entirety of the American economy.
Gotta love how the faux host, Brian Kilmeade, is already implying that 'murica being built off the backs of slaves and stolen land is “new history” instead of factual history
I find there’s usually an angle, rather than the wholesale reinvention of history. So I wonder what they’re aiming for here? (Or really, is it a literal bare faced rewriting of history because that feels like a sad escalation)
If it were finding an “angle”, I suspect it’s going to be something like “native American tribes partnered with the colonies in their wars with each other, much of the land was bought in a voluntary way, only some of it was stolen etc”. And “it’s unfair to characterise the whole of America being built on slavery, state of Mississippi maybe, state of New York less so”. Or something like that.
I’ve no idea what numbers they’d pull out for either of these, or where the actual objective truth lies.
The “angle” is that slavery is very inconvenient for their world view. If you want to Make America Great Again you have to pick a time in the past when it was great. For most on the Right that means a time before the civil rights movement but for another huge segment on the Right it’s the time when the country was founded… They truly believe the Constitution was perfect after the Bill of Rights (when the 2nd Amendment was added).
It’s also important for the American civil religion. In this religion the founding fathers are sanctified, and that means we can’t acknowledge that not only was Thomas Jefferson a deeply evil man for participating in slave ownership, but he also knew better and had every reason to. It’s hard to see George Washington or a large chunk of the founding fathers as good and heroic when you understand how evil slavery was. And that’s not even touching on the lost causers
Interesting. I think it says something that they’re trying to erase slavery, rather than saying ‘ok it was a major economic factor but that’s ok’. Can’t tell if that significant or not…
There isn’t Just One Source article. It’s been nearly 4 years worth of articles. Across many different publications. Look up anything where conservatives mention woke. They use it as a code word. In context to mean either addressing issues of racial oppression and disparity. Or gender discrimination. Sometimes both in the same usage.
Those of you with some knowledge and basic video capabilities might consider doubling down on youtube, and using your channel to pimp other video platforms like peertube in case of youtube censorship.
in case ofyoutube censorship.Every corp will bend the knee, advertisers flocking back to twitter like some Mafia deal. Google is already facing antitrust laws so I’m sure they’re willing to do what they can to get out of the shitter. Be mirroring your content regardless. And this goes further to services like Google photos, storage is relatively cheap.
