One Dad's Journey To Overthrow American History Curriculum
By Tim Schieferecke Posted in History — Comments (108) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"I don't want to read anymore of this!" My son angrily threw his history book on the ground. When he cooled down a little, I asked him what was wrong, and he told me in tears about The Trail Of Tears. He couldn't take it. He didn't want to face the fact that our blessed Nation could do something so wrong. He couldn't believe that a lot of our Founding Fathers had been slave owners that had written about freedom while benefitting from the fruits of slave ownership. He was shutting down before my very eyes as to the love for America I had always tried to instill in him.
I knew I had my work cut out for me. I knew that unless I was able to get through to him very soon, the road to rebuilding his inner red, white and blue would be a long one. Fortunately for him and me both, I know a great deal about American history. I attacked the task with a relish and devotion a father feels for his son and a patriot feels for his country. I read what he had read, and realized just how one-sided and biased his book really was.
The way the book portrayed slavery was historical malpractrice. It gave cursory notice that there was such a thing as the abolitionist. It gave practically no notice to the fact that many, many, WHITE Americans risked their lives and freedoms to fight against this institutionalized evil. It pointed out with relish how the south had been built upon slavery, but it miserably failed to show how slavery destroyed the south in the end. I pointed out to him that this evil was paid for by the deaths of over 600 thousand men who all bled red regardless of their skin color. He was coming around.
I then did a little role playing with him. I asked "if you lived back in 1830, what would you have done." He said he would have been an abolitionist, and that he would have helped runaway slaves escape. I said, "excellent, now you can see that there were many good people back then, even though slavery was still going strong." Have you ever heard of such role playing being done in school? If you have a school that does such a thing, you're lucky, because American history deserves to be taught with the "fairness" the liberals always trumpet but never practice.
Modern curriculum does an injustice to our kids, and it's no wonder that founding principles are so unknown to the majority of folks younger than 45 or so. Many simply give up paying attention. As to the Trail of Tears, I had to dig in and teach him about a court ruling that showed that DEMOCRAT President Andrew Jackson was acting outside the Constitution when he forcibly moved Native Americans off their land. In Worcester v Georgia, the court ruled that "the Indians have a present right of possession", (Chief Justice John Marshall). To this ruling, DEMOCRAT President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." If you have kiddos, it is very important that they understand that many unfortunate, sometimes evil things like The Trail Of Tears happened because of the unconstitutional actions of INDIVIDUALS, not America guided by the Constitution.
They need to know that at every point of our Nation's past, there were good people trying to do the right thing. Teach them that America is not perfect, but that it has been the strongest force for human freedom that has ever existed in the whole often dark history of the world. Please, whatever you do, take a look at your children's history texts. I found the role playing game of "what would you have done" to be extremely enlightening to my boy. Just as you can't have capitalism without capital, you can't have patriotism without patriots. We need em more today than ever!
At some point, we have to stop being held hostage for the wrongs of the past. My ancestry moved to this country in the late 1870's and 80's from mainly Germany, and never had one thing to do with slavery. None of my ancestors was in the KKK or any other hate group as they were too busy being poor dirt farmers in Western Kansas. Even if I had had ancestors that owned slaves (which I do not), that's not my heart, I don't hate. I'm sick and tired as a "white" American to have this millstone of racist guilt before proven innocence around my neck. I believe that Dr. King was a great man and that his "content of character" is all that matters. Unfortunately for all of us, his life was cut short. This paved the way for the race baiting franchise we have today. He would not approve of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or "Pastor" Wright's actions.
Tim Schieferecke
My family came from Missouri and before that Europe....I am proudly a German Jewish Irish English Scottish Native American Black....I simply laugh at any accusation of racism. My internal conflicts are enough to handle without adding hate to the mix.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Russian, Royal Polish (King John Sobieski-grandpa), Hungarian, Czeck, French, Belgian, and Gypsie. With my wife's genetics, my son is fill in the blank with almost every other Western European country. We're a melting pot, and I would have absolutely NO problem if my son fell in love and married anyone of any race as long as she was a good person and loved him back. Race doesn't matter to me, and I don't think it does to the majority of Americans. I am not against Obama because he is black, I'm against him because he's a socialist nut that goes to a black seperatist church.
Tim Schieferecke
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
When I was in college, I would cooly say "I never benefited from slavery or racism of any type." You could just see the seething. College is where I learned to enjoy tweaking liberals
Anyway, great post. I don't have any kids yet, but the things that scare me the most relate to the school system.
I think some brainy conservative entrepeneur should come out with a game that while being fun crushes the premises that liberalism is based on. Something like the game Life or Monopoly that makes them jump the real life hoops for building that we all encounter. Something like when you buy Boardwalk and Park Place you first have to have an environmental impact study done, then you have to have a historical impact study done, then you have to hire union labor etc. etc. etc.. Then to make the game easier, participants are allowed to vote for the side that will ease restrictions to win or vote for the side with "good intentions" and lose. Ok, that would probably be one exceedingly boring game and not sell well.
Tim Schieferecke
Glad to see that you still have lots of fire in the belly. Nice blog, and I like your idea for a game. Paying progressive income tax would likely strike any young player as being quite unfair (as would raising an allowance, but bumping up the recipient to a higher tax bracket).
There have been some amusing troll wars over the "Pastor" Wright issue, and it gets the grey matter firing on all cylinders.
Tim Schieferecke
but my inclination to chime in goes in waves. With the heat of the Republican primary season dissipated, I am in a much more quiet, thoughtful, mode.
But it's fun to argue with liberals now and then when they come on the site to claim they're independents who happen to be voting for and defending Senator Obama.
Tim Schieferecke
that later generations of immigrants are the ones who benefitted the most from slavery, since, without it, there would not have been much of a country to migrate to. Same as with the Indian wars and resettlements. It took all of that to create a nation that was economically capable of absorbing vast waves of further migration.
What a wonderful time of learning for your son. I'm sure these things will mean a lot more to him, and hopefully he'll go back to class and ask why he isn't being taught the whole story.
attorney someday and apply his passions to defending American traditions and strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution. I know I'd just be living vicariously because that's what I wish I would have done for myself, but whatever he does, I'll be proud of him.
Tim Schieferecke
The world could use a few more conservative-minded attorneys. Actually, quite a few of them.
I'm sure he'll do well with the support you're giving him.
wiped out in Georgia.
but great blog
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
And it is replete with stories of mistreatment of people based on their color, race or religion. Look at what our government did to the Mormons in Pennsylvania, or the Indians in Florida or Georgia, or blacks in the deep south or orientals in WWII.
I applaud your taking the time to explain the Trail of Tears to your son, especially in light of the fact my great-grandmother was one of those who were force-marched from Georgia to Oklahoma back then. Mistakes were made, but to condemn the Democratic party because of the actions of one man might be considered a bit unfair since Republican presidents have also made some.
I wish we could just accept the fact that our history is our history without trying to inject our political biases into it.
job and teach ALL of American history, our country would be a much better run place, and kids wouldn't fall for conspiracies like 9/11 was an inside job. That sort of premise and the fool making it would have been laughed at universally in the past. When you're an impressionable kid just starting out learning about your country, stuff like I mentioned in my article above really sticks, and these "schools" know it. We need patriots in this country, and the best way to have that is to jealously guard against the overwhelmingly liberal bias of our schools! By the way, my wife has Cherokee blood in her too.
Tim Schieferecke
Tim said there's two sides to the story. The school only taught one side. I see nowhere here where he said we should bury anything, nor put a political slant on it.
There is, however, no such thing as absolute objectivity. As it stands now, textbooks are being written by the liberals without any objectivity. They have an agenda, and it's up to us to call it as it is.
you're missing some "greats" there. Since the Trail of Tears was when, the 1820s - 30s, I ain't looking it up, I'm thinking your 3 or 4 g/grandmother maybe. Most adults with a long history in this Country would have 2 or 3g/grandparents at adulthood in the Civil War, so you need at least another great or two, or maybe a new family legend.
In Vino Veritas
But my father was born in 1895 so your mileage may very.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm one generation closer on the maternal side since my g/grandfather's wife died during the WBTS and he married a much younger woman and had a second family, from whence I come, by her. He was born in 1846. He took a .69 ball in his left shoulderblade on the Second Day at Gettysburg and was treated in a field hospital. Since he was "walking wounded" he got to walk back to Virgina, fighting in the Battle of Manassas Gap as a part of the ANV's rear guard along the way. His brother fighting beside him was wounded and captured there and spend the rest of the war as a guest at Pt. Lookout and other scenic places. He was admitted to Chimborazzo Hospital in Richmond on July 18th, sixteen days after the wound, treated and given thirty days leave whereupon he returned to the ranks until sometime after Dec. '64. He, like many Georgia soldiers, whose families had been in Sherman's path went home but since he didn't "go over" and take he oath, he just shows as absent. He re-married, raised another family, and the poor old fellow finally died of his wounds in 1914. Those were some tough guys!
In Vino Veritas
OR my thirte, so forgive me for it not being my forte, either.
All I know is my dad used to call her grandmother, so
I've always called her my "great"-grandmother.
She died about 60 years ago when I was three,
and was somewhere around 90 or so when she died,
so I'd have to check with the tribal office in Oklahoma to find
my exact downline position to her if that would satisfy your concern.
I would also add that the things which happened before the civil war, Slavery, the Mexican war, the forced removal of Indians, etc. Should be treated as symptoms of the times. We do not condone the savagery of ancient warriors, but we understand them as living in a particular time.
Anything which happened more than a hundred years ago is not a product of the modern world. Ideas which pitted Us vrs. Them were stronger, and ideas of universality were in their infancy.
It is important to remember that we judge past peoples through a modern lens, which is at least in part unfair.
Any discussion of America's sins must also be accompanied by a comparison with other nations. Nations are made up of people ans as such are imperfect.
What nation exist which cannot be charged with some sort of atrocity or outrage? That does not make it right, but it puts it into perspective. The totality of the nation is what should be judged.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I think the democrats have a little more in their closet than one man when it comes to racism. And its much more recent. You might want to ask Howard Dean or Bob Byrd about that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm not disagreeing with you, but pointing out that
racism is indeed alive and well today ~ and sometimes
it comes from both sides. That was the point I was making.
KKK Byrd was a race "wizard" if I'm not mistaken. The Dixiecrats were the southern DEMOCRATS that stood in the way of the Civil Rights Act. Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN. Teddie Roosevelt REPUBLICAN, was the first President to have a black man over to the White House for dinner. George W. Bush Republican, has the most diverse cabinet of advisors that there has ever been in American history, etc. etc. etc.. The Democrat party cannot survive without maintaining the victim status of ethnic groups and pandering to them every four years. I think the shields are coming down on the banal true racism of the race shield. The biggest beneficiaries will be the very people who the race shield was meant to "protect". When they see that they are unique individuals with unique God given talents whose only obstacle to success in life is staring back at them in the mirror, then we'll be alright.
Tim Schieferecke
I have a love for American History and know that textbooks will never come close to telling the real stories.
My sons also have had these type of reactions to things learned at school. I've not done 'role playing', but I have encouraged further research into subjects to get the 'real' stories (or at least both sides).
The Trail of Tears really got to them too. Also, studying apartheid in South Africa brought out strong emotions.
By far the hardest subject has been the Holocaust.
What I've tried to instill in these boys of mine is that HISTORY is where you probably will find answers to nearly all PRESENT day issue questions.
I once had a mentor when I was a Gideon who taught history
for a little more than thirty years. He once made a comment
that made me think about what's written in our textbooks:
"Whoever wins, writes history the way they want it."
After that, I never accepted the writings from just one book,
but began delving into several sources on the same subject, and
that made me feel I had a better informed view of the subject then.
The thing I don't fully understand is how liberals have gained such a powerful stranglehold on the teaching of American history. Did we just open the door and let them take over without a fight? I know that a large part of the problem is their decision to teach in our learning institutions instead of working in private America, but how is it that they've built such a durable redoubt we seemingly can't penetrate yet?
Tim Schieferecke
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But I love to be the bee in the bonnet for anything I'm against, and we need to find a way to demand "equal time" for the teaching of ALL American history in our classrooms. I do intend to get my Doctorate in American History someday after I retire. So eventually I do plan on teaching.
Tim Schieferecke
"Those who can, do; Those who can't, teach."
When I used to sit through some of my college classes,
I used to think that I understood where that saying came from.
There seemed then (40 years ago) and I'm confident it's the same now,
that there is a big disconnect between classrom teachings and the real world.
I think that the service that you are providing your son is of unmeasurable value. Schools exist now to shovel whatever load of facts and bias the system wants them to "know" and usher them out the door as fast as possible. Kids need to learn to think critically, ask questions and realize that a mere knowledge of facts is not enough to make it in life. We need more parents like you who care enough about their children to take their education into your own hands and not leave it in the hands of the state. Bravo...
a better grasp of U.S. history, give them a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. Not only does it give a long hard look at the truth of the worst race relations in this country (Woodrow Wilson was NOT a hero) but also a good view of the best (John Adams and JQA, John Brown, and MANY MORE). The history of bigotry needs to be taught, but the fact that Americans have been fighting it just as long as there has been an America needs to be told too.
“The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal -- they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats.” --- Will Rogers
incorrect guide to american history
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I have about seven retired teachers in my circle of friends, including my own brother who is four years younger than me. They all tell me they didn't have much input in choosing what textbooks they could use, what they could teach, or how they could discipline their students, and they are all glad to be out of it now.
If there is one thing we'd probably all agree upon, it would most likely be that there is lots of room for "interpretation" of historical information, depending upon who wrote the textbook.
"He didn't want to face the fact that our blessed Nation could do something so wrong. He couldn't believe that a lot of our Founding Fathers had been slave owners that had written about freedom while benefitting from the fruits of slave ownership."
Here is something that may help you and your son.
Revisionism: How to Identify It In Your Children's Textbooks
The Founding Fathers and Slavery
The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia
Interesting article. Keep up the good work.
Barton has been known to play fast and loose with history himself.
“The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal -- they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats.” --- Will Rogers
If you can provide any recent evidence of that, I'd certainly be interested.
I know of no one who documents and provides sources better than Barton.
I grant you, he is human, but has owned up to any mistakes.
In any case. His history is far more accurate and true than anything you will find in the public school system.
Go to the Southern History dept at the University of Alabama and say you like the man’s work. They will throw so much research at you it will blow your mind.
That being said, don’t ask me to fisk the man, not my job. The only things I can remember offhand are below. It reinforces my sense not to trust a man who does a “false, but mostly true” list of things he was caught on.
Claimed Engel v. Vitale had no citations
Letter to Danbury Baptist
Misunderstands Vidal v. Girard's Executors.
Does not address the Treaty of Tripoli
Claims first Church/State Case was Everson v. Board of Education
"That being said, don’t ask me to fisk the man, not my job."
I'm not asking you to do anything but support your claims.
His site refers to the Danbury letter as well as the Treaty of Tripoli.
"Letter to Danbury Baptist"
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson
"Does not address the Treaty of Tripoli"
««He said schools should do a better job of teaching all students African-American history "because that's part of American history," as well as women's struggle for equality, the history of unions, the role of Hispanics in U.S. and other matters that he suggested aren't given enough attention.
"I want us to have a broad-based history" taught in schools, he said, even including more on "the Holocaust as well as other issues of oppression" around the world.»»
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VE2OQG0&show_article=1
my son gets in school, with my own. And, I plan to get copies of/read his textbooks myself. I plan to ask for them on Parent's Night, if not before, each year.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
with my boy to be extremely effective. They need to learn the whole story of our history, or else they'll fall for the (America is bad) scenario. 1 child taught biased history = 1 child ambiguous or worse towards Americanism (parents being the X factor that can disrupt this cycle). After learning about all the good folks that stood against slavery, the role playing game hammered home the concept of the abolitionist to my boy. It personalized folks from long ago, and he realized that there have always been good people as well as bad. I constantly tell him stories of the great things we have done as a country, and that he has a lot to be proud of.
Tim Schieferecke
Fiske lived in the late 19th century and wrote a number of excellent works on American history (several of which I have read and own and continue to profit from).
One of them was a textbook for young students. It has been reissued: http://www.amazon.com/History-United-States-John-Fiske/dp/1417901179/ref...
And here is the very favorable NY Times review from 1894: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0DE6DD1131E033A2575A...
Fiske's writing and judgment are both very good, and he was not ashamed to call himself a patriot even while aiming at historical truth.
(While you're at it, buy his "Discovery of America," "Founding of New England," and "American Revolution" for your own library.)
I keep trying to find the 5000 Year Leap at bookstores too. I guess I'll have to look online.
Tim Schieferecke
written in the last few generations. I usually end up with works from the beginning of the 20th century or sometime in the 19th.
that the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily have the final word on interpreting the Constitution.
His policy toward the Cherokees was wrong, but his position on the Constitution was right, and we could stand to learn from it today.
Take a look, for instance, at Jackson's explanation of why he vetoed the bill to extend the life of the National Bank:
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."
The whole (rather long) speech is here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/veto/ajveto01.htm
the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else? They lived within the confines, and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States. The Court was right, and the Native Americans had every right to the Court's access as anyone else. It was a historic wrong, but it was not a constitutional wrong, and cannot be blamed on America in my opinion.
Tim Schieferecke
It said that the Cherokees had always been treated as a sovereign foreign nation and therefore must continue to be treated as such and could not be forcibly removed. Marshall did not say that the Cherokees were citizens of America and therefore had rights under the Constitution.
But that wasn't my point. My point was about Pres. Jackson's position on interpreting the Constitution. I am not defending Jackson's removal of the Cherokees. I am pointing out that he was right to say that the executive and legislature must also judge the constitutionality of laws and actions, and not just the Supreme Court.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
more qualified. he was willing to follow the supreme court if a number of conditions had been met (such as if the decision were unanimous and it were reaffirmed a number of times as solid precedent). jackson's position is absolute.
where can i find jefferson's position on this question?
saying judicial review threatened to put us under the "despotism of an oligarchy"
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
nation or save them by removing them. The Court's ruling interefered with Art II powers and would have sentenced the Cherokee to extinction.
Having the "right" to protection is fine. Having the means to protect them "in Georgia" did not exist.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
to jackson if he had provided better for moving the cherokees. didn't quite a large number of them die en route?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Indians not living under the juridiction of the US had no citizenship rights. In other words, an Indian by birth who took up what was referred to in those un-PC days as civilized life could become a citzen of a state. There was no national citizenship until the 14th Am. An Indian living in "Indian Country" or on a reservation was under the jurisdiction of the tribe and only to a very limited extent under the jurisdiction of the US. Rights of citizenship such as voting are creatures of statute and later case law. To this day, reservation Indians' participation in state elections is a matter of state law.
Even today, federally recognized Indian tribes are considered "dependent sovereigns" under federal law and are subject to state laws only in limited areas and circumstances.
In Vino Veritas
My mother's first cousin was one of WWII survivors whose stories were filmed by the Spielberg Project.
This is some of what he recalled:
We were liberated May 1, 1945.
It was the American Seventh Army that liberated us. One of their officers stood up on a table and started talking. There were some Jewish GI's that spoke Jewish, and one of them said we were liberated. I was lying on the floor then. People had to help me up to hear. The Americans gave us food. It was too much for the stomach for some people. Some didn't survive all the grease.
From Dachau we went to Ferenwald. It was a camp with Jews, Lithuanians, Poles and other Gentiles. You were back to being a human being again. My family would have been happy to know I survived to go on with life. Later, they separated us to a totally Jewish camp.
General Eisenhower came to visit us once in the Jewish camp. He said, "Don't go back. You'll be coming to the United States with us." I think he had seen all the skeletons, all the death, and wanted to do something about it.
I knew I had uncles in the United States. My father had five brothers there. One of my uncles, he should rest in peace, he traced me in a magazine. They were listing our names in magazines. He started writing, and found me.
His full story is here http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Kvedarna/kve-young.html.
I have many times thought of Gershon's description of Dwight Eisenhower as the invitation to come here was extended; the transcription of Spielberg's tapes and other interviews were my own.
The mindset which gets to a history book such as the one described here is beyond distasteful to me. It comes of spoiled sort of person, entitled, disdainful, unappreciative.
Elliot Eisenberg
Our history books won't personalize the stories of historical figures that fail to fit the mold. If it doesn't fit their chosen and biased narratives, it just doesn't written.
Tim Schieferecke
No disrepect intended, but if you and your son were to engage in your historical role playing going back to 1830, it is a more historically accurate assumption that you two would view both African Americans and native Americans as sub-humans. This was the view of the vast majority of white people at the time. The abolitionists were a radical sect whose beliefs were far from the common political discourse of the Jacksonian era.
Also, trying to connect the atrocities committed by Andrew Jackson to the current democratic party is rather ridiculous. It shows a supreme ignorance of history and politics by ignoring the evolving nature of American political parties. Let me show you. This party believes in small government, individual freedom, and respect for the entrepreneur. What party do is speak of? the GOP right? Nope, the Democratic party of the Jacksonian era.
It seems to me that the writer wants some kind of nationalist curriculum taught in our schools containing a myriad of civic myths devoid from the realities of American history. Everything needs to be taught, both the good, bad, and ugly.
-With all due respect, You just got Served. Go slugs!!!
and never uses the word "slave" or "slavery" because the framers didn't want to give any legitimacy to that horrible institution.
slaves are never described as anything other than human beings in the debate during the constitutional convention (read madison's notes on that convention and you will look in vain for one instance of a statement denying the humanity of slaves).
moreover, in 1830, the virginia state assembly came within one vote of abolishing slavery.
furthermore, it was a crime punishable by death to kill a slave in the early 1800's (i do not know if this remained the case as the civil war approached).
while pro-slavery attitudes hardened in the 1840's and 50's, partly in reaction to the extremism of certain abolitionists like garrison, leading many to deny the humanity of slaves, that was not the view of the framers, nor was it the view of most americans in the early 1800's.
for more on this, i suggest you read the chapter on slavery by thomas west in "vindicating the founders", http://books.google.com/books?id=DjlpSl-x1gMC&dq=thomas+west+vindicating...
so do nations, therefore the modern USA cannot be held in anyway responsible for its past just as the Democratic party cannot be held responsible right?
AHHHHWW looks like you just got SERVED!!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://books.google.com/books?id=TkyVaSf08s8C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=herb...
(While you're at it, buy the whole book and read parts of it from time to time. Storing was a great scholar.)
There also wasn't a GOP then. I suppose you'll try to claim REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln as the epitomy of a modern day Democrat because of "evolving" parties? Where is the polling record at that shows a majority of "white people" like my son and I would have thought of African-American slaves and Native Americans as subhumans? You are the hater here, I'm the one that's colorblind. I'll pray for you to find peace away from your racial hatred someday. You've got a long road ahead of you.
Tim Schieferecke
Having a lot of people who love America simply for what it's always Constitutionally stood for seems to be as good a strategy as having lots of money invested in tangible assets. Juneteenth made mention to it above as some type of thing to be avoided, and I've heard several liberals over the years speak of nationalism as if it is anathema . Just as you can't have capitalism without capital, you can't have strong patriotism without patriots. We are falling fall short in our schools, and we'll never get past the insanity of liberalism as long as we allow liberals to control the discourse.
Tim Schieferecke
they hate religion, morals, capitalism, self reliance, the middle class, western civilization, and normalcy. Because they are just full of hate, rage, and stupidity.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I just watched the pre-race at the Bristol, TN NASCAR event. Unlike the "major" sports, the invocation and Star-Spangled Banner are not only televised but featured at every race. 160,000 people in the stands, flags everywhere, nobody has to tell them to stand and remove their hats, always a flyby by military aircraft at the end of the Star-Spangled Banner. I've watched it hundreds of times both on TV and in person and I still get a tingle in my spine, a lump in my throat, and sometimes a tear in my eye, something I share with pretty much everybody else watching.
In Vino Veritas
i understand nationalism as "my country right or wrong" or "my country is superior to all others" whereas patriotism is taking pride in one's nation without worshiping it or boosting it above all others.
(as a sidenote: one can still believe that one's country is the greatest, however, and be a patriot, not a nationalist. for instance, one could believe that america is the greatest nation exactly because, unlike other nations, it does NOT require its citizens to believe in it whether right or wrong. one could believe america is the greatest for other reasons as well. this is one example.)
I take offense at the notion that there is anything about that history which I have any reason to feel remorseful over. My ancestors were mean, tough, brutal bastards. Just as mean, tough and brutal, in fact, as the world they confronted. If they had not been, this nation simply would not exist today. It would be some group of canadian like provinces still under the direct control of Europe.
They had a nation to build, and had to build it quickly least it be reconquered by one of any number of forieng powers who were perfectly capable of doing it.
many circumstances, but there is no possible argument that slavery was necessary to the security and building of our nation.
was merely an accepted practice throughout the world, at that time, and throughout world history. It is by no means Eurocentric, nor uniquely American.
slavery is still practices throughout the Muslim world today, and in parts of Africa.
Before modernization and industrialization, it is/was a part of virtually every culture on earth -- including the American Indians.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Preindustrial civilization would have been impossible without slavery of some form. An argument can be made aginst the race based slavery practiced in the US, but slavery itself was unavoidable.
I apologize, I didn't perceive that you had a point.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
It would have taken many more generations to kick start the Industrial revolution in north America. Where do you think the initial raw materials were coming from that factories in the north were turning into finished products? Slavery was absolutely crucial to the early American economy.
you would have to demonstrate that no system of free labor could have brought about the same economic benefits. second, even if that can be demonstrated, you would also have to demonstrate that the allegedly greater economic benefits of slavery were essential to the American economy - i.e., that the American economy could not have developed into the industrial era using the allegedly lesser system of free labor.
there is no way both these propositions can be demonstrated.
The problem for any system of free labor was the existence of the frontier itself. No one in their right mind was going to pick someone else's cotton when they could easily and freely migrate a few hundred miles to the west and start growing their own cotton.
There had to exist some group who were disallowed to migrate and who could be legally disenfranchised from doing so. Otherwise, the south would have had no economy at all, free or otherwise. The only way an agricultural south could hope to compete economically with the growing industrial might of the north was by some kind of system of slavery.
Were by and large agricultural that were exported to europe textile manufacturers. This was one of the great divides between the north and the south. Free trade was favored by the south as it reduced the cost of their manufactured imports and made it easier to export their agricultural products. The North in addition to being abolitionist was for a protective tariff that would create a captive market for their goods in the south.
Raw materials for northern industrialization were not particularly located in slave holding areas.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But the most available and realiable source of cotton was the South itself. The north wanted the cotton for itself which was one of the reasons for the tariffs in the first place. In its very early stages, nothern industry was completely dependent upon southern cotton.
It was paid for by the blood of 600,000 Americans. What did it do for them post Civil War? The south relied on a merchantile-styled economy that held back true growth and capitalism through competition.
Tim Schieferecke
but there was really no competitive alternative. Otherwise, it would have developed of its own accord. There was nothing stopping it from doing so. None of those people were so racist that they would have purposefully put themselves at an economic disadvantage in order to perpetuate slavery when more profitable alternatives were available.
when the "bad actor" is long since dead.
Eastern Europe had this problem with the fall of the Wall. Societies could have become consumed with rectifying the injustices that occurred during the Communist years. In that circumstance, many of the victims are still alive, as are many of the perpatrators. Nonetheless, except for the leaders, it didn't and doesn't make sense to try and undue everything back to where it was in 1939.
Given than truism, trying to go back to 1776 makes even less sense.
is that white americans were not the only ones playing these kinds of inhumane games. The Cherokees themselves were largely not the original natives of Georgia. They have driven out the inhabitants they found there when they had decided to move in. We did not do anything that the various peoples of this planet have not been doing to one another since the beginnning of time. What we did do was to create a civilization that had the potential to finally make all of that unnecessary and create a culture with the luxury of bemoaning all the bad things that were necessary to create it.
On one side of my family my ancestors are Dutch DARs, some of whom who were involved in the Dutch East India Company and you can look up the historical facts involving their trading activities, as well as Netherlands' history of supplying arms during the American Revolutionary War. The British didn't like that, but the Dutch traders smuggled the arms in anyway, and made handsome profits, and in terms of material the Dutch were far from neutral. There is absolutely no doubt that some of those guns were later used to kill Indians. And the history of the Dutch in the slave trade can easily be Googled.
There's a good article about Dutch arms in the American Revolutionary War in last month's issue of the American Rifleman
New Focus as Merchants: By the time of the American War for Independence in the 1770s, however, the tough Dutch traders had prospered and become the comfortable merchants and bankers of continental Europe. Responding to the urgent demands from Washington to equip his army, France supplied large amounts of arms before and after it declared open war itself in 1778. This was followed by Spain’s entry in 1779. The Netherlands, however, struggled to remain neutral in order to generate profits from selling to both sides.
The Dutch were already strongly attached to Great Britain as a long-term ally in war. Moreover, William III of Orange had married Mary, the daughter of England’s James II. They, in turn, became the rulers of Britain as “William & Mary” following the “Glorious Revolution” in 1688. William’s surviving impact on his adopted country was widespread even to the visible Dutch influence in the ultimate design of the Brown Bess muskets. Records indicate that Britain regularly ordered shipments of Dutch arms to supplement her needs during the early 1700s, including the purchase of as many as 18,000 obsolete “Dutch/Liege” muskets in 1741 for distribution to her worldwide colonies. At least 4,500 of these are known to have been supplied to America prior to and during the French & Indian War (1754-1763).
As the Revolutionary War progressed, however, the Netherlands made valuable contributions to the rebel cause. In addition to the sale of their own arms, many shipments from European sources supplying the colonists were routed through the Low Countries for transportation in their “neutral” vessels to evade the British naval blockade of France and Spain. As a result, the Netherlands was torn between the opportunity for wartime profits, which attracted the governing class (Regents) and the working masses whose memories of the sacrifices for their own freedom favored the struggling Americans.
Everyone on the DAR side of the family is a Democrat now, and they all feel very sorry, I suppose, even though they're also wealthy.
I'm not wealthy, and my father's side of the family is all Polacks, who were called untermenschen by the Nazis and Comrades by the Soviets, and it was difficult to tell which one was worse.
Tell your son to read The Gulag Archipelago and stop whining. Human history is one long bloodbath of enslaved people and others fighting against it.
Do I feel retroactively sorry for those things? As a matter of academic curiosity, I suppose, but my main focus has been to prevent things like that from happening ever again.
In this country, Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times has pointed out again and again that we still engage in the soft slavery in the trade of human beings for the purposes of prostitution, and that women from minority races don't make the Amber alerts, which the former Governor of New York State understands very well.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!