Teacher asks 8th-grade students to list positives of slavery...

[irosie91]

Exactly. Them Negros looked they was havin' a blast.

More fun than humans should be allowed to have actually.

you are sick

 

[paperview]

Exactly. Them Negros looked they was havin' a blast.

More fun than humans should be allowed to have actually.

you are sick

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.

 

[USNavyVet]

Teacher asks 8th-grade students to list positives of slavery

Let's see...

1. Free labor.

2. The cotton industry was booming.

3. As the great Cliven Bundy once said, it "gave them something to do".

4. 12 Years A Slave, which was a great movie, never would have been made.

Can you think of any more?

The school is just one more PC Idiocracy. EVERYTHING has a + and a - side to it, even slavery, that is the nature of the universe, otherwise there never would have been slaves! It was a lesson in critical thinking, thinking outside the box, not justification of slavery, but now thanks to fear of PC, these kids will lose a valuable lesson in looking at something very bad and seeing that even such things have their positive aspects. The Chinese call it yin and yang, but in the Dumbed Down States of America, our poor kids are not allowed to think and learn freely, being told by their "school" that you are only allowed to believe that things like slavery, war, old age, illness and even death are all bad with nothing good or positive to ever be gleaned, taken or learned from them.

And asking the question does not mean that the good and negative aspects would balance out, or not be horrifically slanted to the negative.


It sounds like an excellent assignment to really get the kids thinking.

depends on the kids you get into that kind of thing-----not all kids at are 13
are READY

The majority would sit there like lumps, a few would actually do some work and come up with something.

Than you would have a debate, and the lumps would be exposed to some actual thoughts.


Probably a waste, but you never know, and optimism is a form of courage.

all true----but there is a DEFINITE potential for some to come up
with really NASTY out of class response. The teacher has to use
discretion. I was a kid during the civil rights era-----we had very candid
discussions----but (sorry but its true) our classes were DIVIDED-----
LAYERED according to IQ and emotional propensity. (layered like
those "reading groups" in the second grade).

And there is a definite potential for space aliens to land and take a shit in your front lawn.

 

[DrLove]

you are sick

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.

Nutbars are immune to sarcasm, satire, and humor (dark in this case) in general.

 

[Correll]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

People who constantly pound on about how bad and evil white folks in America were for keeping slaves generally ignore the fact that slavery's been around throughout mankind in all parts of the world. That's just the way man rolled for centuries; it was a natural part of life and not looked at as morally wrong or anything. Not saying it was right or endorsing it. That's just the way it was and it was handed down through generations across cultures, continents, etc.

Pretty much every other advanced nation had abolished slavery decades before our Civil War.

And they abolished slavery peacefully.

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage.

Is it one of the few places that would fight, or one of the few places that COULD fight?

 

[Slimdugger99]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

It’s not offensive to you, you should have said. But in your universe, you and your kind are all that matters, and all crimes against those outside your clan merely “uninformed”. By your logic any affront can be rationalized into its good and bad parts and that all offenses have their good points. Furthermore you assert that whites were ignorant of slavery’s evil despite its prohibition in the Bible and credo expressed in the constitution that all men were created equal. To advance such lies under the pretext of some academic rigor is consistent with those racist deniers who are still, to this day, intent on redeeming this sad period in our history by denying its past and present effects. This teachers lesson plan and the public debate that has ensued lays bare the racist infection that has spread into every nook and cranny of all our institutions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slimdugger99]

It is astonishing how arrogant/naïve some people are.

That teacher should have known better than to assign such a controversial topic.

Since that teacher was in a charter school that teacher might have honestly thought that such a topic would help presumably advanced students to think outside the box.

A very bad career move on that teacher's part.

This is 2018.

If you want to keep your job, don't touch any hot potatoes.

The topic isn’t controversial, slavery in the United States was a fact, and racism is. The whole discussion was an indoctrination by the teacher of her students into a convoluted strategy of denial. A strategy of splitting hairs to avoid the responsibilities of racism and genocide. This same strategy of denial and avoidance is afoot here, on this board in this discussion as it was in the aforementioned classroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Political Junky]

Nazis all agree with the teacher.

 

[paperview]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

People who constantly pound on about how bad and evil white folks in America were for keeping slaves generally ignore the fact that slavery's been around throughout mankind in all parts of the world. That's just the way man rolled for centuries; it was a natural part of life and not looked at as morally wrong or anything. Not saying it was right or endorsing it. That's just the way it was and it was handed down through generations across cultures, continents, etc.

Pretty much every other advanced nation had abolished slavery decades before our Civil War.

And they abolished slavery peacefully.

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage.

Is it one of the few places that would fight, or one of the few places that COULD fight?

Are you purposely trying to highlight your stupidity?

 

[there4eyeM]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

It’s not offensive to you, you should have said. But in your universe, you and your kind are all that matters, and all crimes against those outside your clan merely “uninformed”. By your logic any affront can be rationalized into its good and bad parts and that all offenses have their good points. Furthermore you assert that whites were ignorant of slavery’s evil despite its prohibition in the Bible and credo expressed in the constitution that all men were created equal. To advance such lies under the pretext of some academic rigor is consistent with those racist deniers who are still, to this day, intent on redeeming this sad period in our history by denying its past and present effects. This teachers lesson plan and the public debate that has ensued lays bare the racist infection that has spread into every nook and cranny of all our institutions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In fact, no question is offensive; being offended is a choice. Questions are mere words (especially written questions in the context being discussed). The concept of someone 'making' another person react by using words reduces the 'reactor' to an automaton. Would you give me the power to control your emotions and reactions?
As for Biblical prohibition, please cite the passage.
Before calling someone a liar, it would be best to carefully evaluate what he/she truly said and not what was taken as a meaning. There is no basis for saying the quoted post rationalized any and all affronts. What is more, you equate "unenlightened" with "ignorant", then use that to accuse one of lying.
The quoted post absolutely does not defend slavery, but rather attacks it. The manner in which you take it is dominated by an inflexibility of reasoning. That is the unfortunate state of debate here so often.

 

[Correll]

It is astonishing how arrogant/naïve some people are.

That teacher should have known better than to assign such a controversial topic.

Since that teacher was in a charter school that teacher might have honestly thought that such a topic would help presumably advanced students to think outside the box.

A very bad career move on that teacher's part.

This is 2018.

If you want to keep your job, don't touch any hot potatoes.

The topic isn’t controversial, slavery in the United States was a fact, and racism is. The whole discussion was an indoctrination by the teacher of her students into a convoluted strategy of denial. A strategy of splitting hairs to avoid the responsibilities of racism and genocide. This same strategy of denial and avoidance is afoot here, on this board in this discussion as it was in the aforementioned classroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You want to back that up?

 

[Correll]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

People who constantly pound on about how bad and evil white folks in America were for keeping slaves generally ignore the fact that slavery's been around throughout mankind in all parts of the world. That's just the way man rolled for centuries; it was a natural part of life and not looked at as morally wrong or anything. Not saying it was right or endorsing it. That's just the way it was and it was handed down through generations across cultures, continents, etc.

Pretty much every other advanced nation had abolished slavery decades before our Civil War.

And they abolished slavery peacefully.

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage.

Is it one of the few places that would fight, or one of the few places that COULD fight?

Are you purposely trying to highlight your stupidity?

He made a moral judgement, I was asking a question to see if he could back it up.

 

[paperview]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

People who constantly pound on about how bad and evil white folks in America were for keeping slaves generally ignore the fact that slavery's been around throughout mankind in all parts of the world. That's just the way man rolled for centuries; it was a natural part of life and not looked at as morally wrong or anything. Not saying it was right or endorsing it. That's just the way it was and it was handed down through generations across cultures, continents, etc.

Pretty much every other advanced nation had abolished slavery decades before our Civil War.

And they abolished slavery peacefully.

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage.

Is it one of the few places that would fight, or one of the few places thatHe made a moral judgement, I was asking a question to see if he could back it up.

COULD fight?

Are you purposely trying to highlight your stupidity?

You were responding to me --

My comment was:

"Pretty much every other advanced nation had abolished slavery decades before our Civil War.

And they abolished slavery peacefully.

It's a pretty wretched indictment on the South they were one of the few places in the world that would fight to the bloody death one of the worst wars in history to preserve human bondage."

Your reply was: "Is it one of the few places that would fight, or one of the few places that COULD fight?"

Damn right I'm making a moral judgement...but, go head...

Why don't you go on tell us what you mean by this remark?

 

[Toro]

Teacher asks 8th-grade students to list positives of slavery

SAN ANTONIO -- A San Antonio charter school has apologized after a teacher asked students in an eighth grade American history class to list the positive and negative aspects of slavery. The teacher at Great Hearts Monte Vista who distributed a worksheet titled "The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View" has been placed on leave.

Aaron Kindel, the superintendent of Great Hearts Texas, said in a statement the school would audit the textbook associated with the lesson.

"To be clear, there is no debate about slavery. It is immoral and a crime against humanity," Kindel said in a statement posted Thursday on the Great Hearts Facebook page. He said the school's headmaster plans to explain the mistake to the history class.

Scott Overland, a spokesman for Pearson, which published the textbook, said the company didn't create and doesn't endorse the worksheet assigned to the students, CBS affiliate KENS-TV reports.

"We do not support the point of view represented in the worksheet and strongly condemn the implication that there was any positive aspect to slavery," Overland said.

A parent of one of the students in the class posted the worksheet Wednesday on Facebook. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, drew attention to the issue on Thursday when the Democrat tweeted that the worksheet was "absolutely unacceptable."

Let's see...

1. Free labor.

2. The cotton industry was booming.

3. As the great Cliven Bundy once said, it "gave them something to do".

4. 12 Years A Slave, which was a great movie, never would have been made.

Can you think of any more?

The school is just one more PC Idiocracy. EVERYTHING has a + and a - side to it, even slavery, that is the nature of the universe, otherwise there never would have been slaves! It was a lesson in critical thinking, thinking outside the box, not justification of slavery, but now thanks to fear of PC, these kids will lose a valuable lesson in looking at something very bad and seeing that even such things have their positive aspects. The Chinese call it yin and yang, but in the Dumbed Down States of America, our poor kids are not allowed to think and learn freely, being told by their "school" that you are only allowed to believe that things like slavery, war, old age, illness and even death are all bad with nothing good or positive to ever be gleaned, taken or learned from them.

Next topic - The positives of the de-industrialization of the American Heartland and subsequent rise of white opioid addiction.

 

[Toro]

Have you seen life in Africa? Can you spell U-P-G-R-A-D-E?

Why America steals doctors from poorer countries

surveys suggest that around 75% of the world's best universities are in the US

In most countries, especially in the developing world, doctors are trained at public expense. If a doctor from Ghana is recruited to the US, not only does Ghana lose its doctor, it loses the money paid for the training. It may be that the doctor is likely to send a portion of earnings back home (known in the development business as "remittances"). But this is scant compensation. In sum, the US is receiving a massive subsidy from the developing world in training its medical staff.

------------------

People like this don't become doctors. They NEED doctors:

Thank God America exists so that talented people from other countries can come here (like me, for instance).

My wife’s ophthalmologist is from Nigeria, and is fantastic. He’s operated on her eyes and did an excellent job.

 

[Slimdugger99]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

It’s not offensive to you, you should have said. But in your universe, you and your kind are all that matters, and all crimes against those outside your clan merely “uninformed”. By your logic any affront can be rationalized into its good and bad parts and that all offenses have their good points. Furthermore you assert that whites were ignorant of slavery’s evil despite its prohibition in the Bible and credo expressed in the constitution that all men were created equal. To advance such lies under the pretext of some academic rigor is consistent with those racist deniers who are still, to this day, intent on redeeming this sad period in our history by denying its past and present effects. This teachers lesson plan and the public debate that has ensued lays bare the racist infection that has spread into every nook and cranny of all our institutions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In fact, no question is offensive; being offended is a choice. Questions are mere words (especially written questions in the context being discussed). The concept of someone 'making' another person react by using words reduces the 'reactor' to an automaton. Would you give me the power to control your emotions and reactions?
As for Biblical prohibition, please cite the passage.
Before calling someone a liar, it would be best to carefully evaluate what he/she truly said and not what was taken as a meaning. There is no basis for saying the quoted post rationalized any and all affronts. What is more, you equate "unenlightened" with "ignorant", then use that to accuse one of lying.
The quoted post absolutely does not defend slavery, but rather attacks it. The manner in which you take it is dominated by an inflexibility of reasoning. That is the unfortunate state of debate here so often.

What are you talking about? Slavery was attacked in the post you say, no it wasn’t attacked it was justified. There was an equivocation between good slavery and bad slavery. Slaveholders were pardoned as being “merely uninformed”, does that rate as an attack on slavery in your world? Your rebuttal is an affront to any sincere discussion of the problem. “Inflexibility of reasoning”, what facts about the American genocide called slavery are flexible? You act as if some academic discussion of the subject can change its reality. That reality reaches powerfully still into our present and shapes the minds that have to create our common future. Pretending that there was something good in that crime risks our souls as well as our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[there4eyeM]

The question, of itself, is not offensive. On the contrary, education should constructively challenge the developing intellect of students.
The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
They should also have learned about the context, that until relatively soon before the war to preserve the Union, slavery was common in the world and almost all cultures. Whites were not evil for having black slaves, just unenlightened.
Nuance seems less and less present in American social debate. Everything has to be 'good' or 'bad', and all according to the current mode and definition.

It’s not offensive to you, you should have said. But in your universe, you and your kind are all that matters, and all crimes against those outside your clan merely “uninformed”. By your logic any affront can be rationalized into its good and bad parts and that all offenses have their good points. Furthermore you assert that whites were ignorant of slavery’s evil despite its prohibition in the Bible and credo expressed in the constitution that all men were created equal. To advance such lies under the pretext of some academic rigor is consistent with those racist deniers who are still, to this day, intent on redeeming this sad period in our history by denying its past and present effects. This teachers lesson plan and the public debate that has ensued lays bare the racist infection that has spread into every nook and cranny of all our institutions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In fact, no question is offensive; being offended is a choice. Questions are mere words (especially written questions in the context being discussed). The concept of someone 'making' another person react by using words reduces the 'reactor' to an automaton. Would you give me the power to control your emotions and reactions?
As for Biblical prohibition, please cite the passage.
Before calling someone a liar, it would be best to carefully evaluate what he/she truly said and not what was taken as a meaning. There is no basis for saying the quoted post rationalized any and all affronts. What is more, you equate "unenlightened" with "ignorant", then use that to accuse one of lying.
The quoted post absolutely does not defend slavery, but rather attacks it. The manner in which you take it is dominated by an inflexibility of reasoning. That is the unfortunate state of debate here so often.

What are you talking about? Slavery was attacked in the post you say, no it wasn’t attacked it was justified. There was an equivocation between good slavery and bad slavery. Slaveholders were pardoned as being “merely uninformed”, does that rate as an attack on slavery in your world? Your rebuttal is an affront to any sincere discussion of the problem. “Inflexibility of reasoning”, what facts about the American genocide called slavery are flexible? You act as if some academic discussion of the subject can change its reality. That reality reaches powerfully still into our present and shapes the minds that have to create our common future. Pretending that there was something good in that crime risks our souls as well as our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"The positives of slavery did not go to the slaves, for example, but to the owners and their economic system. A student could and should have been able to see that, at least. Ultimately, the question could have led to the answer, "There were no positives for the victims of this practice".
Does calling slaves victims sound like defending slavery? Does stating categorically that there were no positives for the slaves to this practice defend slavery? Perhaps to the reading challenged, but not to clear reading.
We are still waiting for the Biblical quotation. Did you state something that you believed to be true that isn't?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Teacher asks 8th-grade students to list positives of slavery..."

Young conservatives in training.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The slaves were fed, clothed, sheltered. They paid for nothing. The natural state of the liberal is slavery. They only want a kind and generous master.

The slaves were fed, clothed, sheltered. They paid for nothing. The natural state of the liberal is slavery. They only want a kind and generous master.

Yes, conservatives are truly this stupid.

That some on the right might attempt to defend what the teacher did comes as no surprise, of course.

 

[bgrouse]

If that school receives any government funding, it should be pulled immediately, since that school's management is obviously corrupt and biased. There's nothing wrong with that questionnaire.

yes, there is

What?