Do you have a problem with plain English?And your point would be....
.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you have a problem with plain English?And your point would be....
.
You liberals erase our history by tearing down statues.Yet you celebrate the confederate enemies of those Republicans
Do you have a problem with plain English?
Ah ok. So now you are saying slavery was justified because otherwise they wouldn't have had those skills.Hey dumb ass, they wouldn't have been here, how many of those skills were available in the African bush?
.
A statue is not history. It is a depiction of a person. Those people can have historical significance. In the case of the statues that liberals want to tear down. That historical significance is so negative it is deemed the admiration that those statues signify is undeserved.You liberals erase our history by tearing down statues.
Ah ok. So now you are saying slavery was justified because otherwise they wouldn't have had those skills.
As for being a dumbass. I treat people with respect even when they say stuff I vehemently disagree with. You don't. I find your way a pretty dumb way to talk to people.
The simple fact, if it weren't for slavery, they would have never been brought to this continent. They would have been slaves in Africa or trying to survive in the African bush.That is an argument stating that slavery gave them useful skills. The implication being that those skills wouldn't have been available to them without slavery.
If you have read all my posts in this OP you would have noted that I don't contest the basic premise that some slaves learned marketable skills while being a slave. My objections are other things but it's mainly this.I was simply replying to this:
The simple fact, if it weren't for slavery, they would have never been brought to this continent. They would have been slaves in Africa or trying to survive in the African bush.
With all the atrocities of slavery, it's a simple fact that most slaves had marketable skills when they were freed. Many kept working for the same plantations as hired hands, while others moved and found work on other farms or took their skills to various cities or learned new skills. Also some served in the military.
So these facts leave you in one of two categories, dumb ass or just plain ignorant. Which is it?
.
No, what he said was, the freed slaves persevered despite their situation, using their knowledge to build their own communities. Your obvious race spin is lame.DeSantis says Black people benefited from slavery by learning skills like 'being a blacksmith'
Ron DeSantis defended Florida's new curriculum teaching about the benefits of slavery, saying students will probably learn slaves were blacksmiths.www.businessinsider.com
Of course, he may have lost his children when they were sold to another plantation master? But at least he was taught a trade that kept him happy...when he wasn't thinking about the children he lost. But, he should be happy that he can now shoe a horse and stoke a bellows to keep the fire going.
The vast majority were still "beasts of burden."Still trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit?
Bidenomics
The purpose behind the curriculum change was to begin the process of justiying slavery. Middle Schoolers are going to be taught this? I can hear their conversation with parents now.No, what he said was, the freed slaves persevered despite their situation, using their knowledge to build their own communities. Your obvious race spin is lame.
Go get off on your trumpy bear.
They were all "beast of burden" just what "burden" they were required to carry by their masters changed.
This is the problem with this discussion. Especially when conducting it in middle school like it is intended to. You are now trying to argue that slavery didn't cause everybody to become a beast of burden, something that is a defense of the institution of slavery.
As for it being relevant. That is an argument stating that slavery gave them useful skills. The implication being that those skills wouldn't have been available to them without slavery.
I know that this is probably not what you mean to say but it is what you're saying.
You just love that man, don't you MAGA?^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection and Flaming TDS ^^^
I'm not the one who obsesses about Trump 24/7, swampy.
You just love that man, don't you MAGA?
If you have read all my posts in this OP you would have noted that I don't contest the basic premise that some slaves learned marketable skills while being a slave. My objections are other things but it's mainly this.
The people this curriculum is aimed at are middle schoolers. They are asked to discuss the implication of what gaining those skills meant for the slaves. We are having that discussion now. It took me 2 posts to Boedeca and one reply from you to get to a point that Boedeca offered another common unrelated apology for slavery. Namely that not all slaves were farmhands. And you directly tied the attainment of those skills to slavery.
I'm an adult interested in history and not at all impressionable. None of this is true for the average middle schooler. I have absolutely no problem having the discussion in a college setting. In fact, history requires looking objectively at historical facts. A good historian follows facts even if they lead to uncomfortable conclusions. But having this discussion among 12 year olds. Asking them to think through all the implications of slavery including those implications that can be perceived beneficial is a very bad idea. Because some inevitable will draw the conclusion that slavery itself wasn't all that bad.
I have read it. And I have seen at least one interview. Again READ what I wrote before you shoot your mouth off.Yeah, that's the propaganda line, but it's a very minor point in the curriculum if it's taken as a whole. Get back to me when you've taken the time to read it for yourself and looked up the interviews with the black historians and academics that wrote it. They say the curriculum contains historical FACTS.
.
I have read it. And I have seen at least one interview. Again READ what I wrote before you shoot your mouth off.
And it's most definitely NOT the propaganda line. The propaganda line is that the curriculum is whitewashing slavery. A viewpoint I don't endorse let alone espouse. It's just as dishonest a statement in my view as the statement that I am simply touting a party line.
My argument is purely based on my perception of the average middle schooler. And their inability and uninterest in taking a nuanced view of slavery without some drawing the conclusion that slavery wasn't all that bad. An argument you aren't addressing because your to busy making assumptions about me.
Ah name-calling. The argument of those that have no argument.Your assumptions carry zero weight. If you're not a middle schooler, just STFU, dumb ass.
.
Ah name-calling. The argument of those that have no argument.