Their "side"... Texas Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett:

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 13:42:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 12:36:39 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Agree that history rarely fits into neat boxes, but, by necessity, it realistically must be taught in boxes, otherwise, you can spend an entire semester in an American history class fully fleshing out the economics of pre-Revolution America and its use of the slave trade incorporated therein.

You can call it myopic, but you can’t deny that it is reality.

The slave trade didn’t occur in a vacuum, but it isn’t taught as such. The term “triangle trade” certainly involves more than just America. However, suggesting that the numbers in America or Brazil being so different isn’t particularly meaningful. America didn’t import less slaves because there was some moral undercurrent against its use. We just didn’t run the transport business, by and large. Portugal did (about 95% of the trade), so, consequently and logically, more slaves ended up where they had colonies that they controlled….oddly enough, 95%.

As far as the history of slavery goes, the North Atlantic portion is a box. I disagree that the numbers are not meaningful. And I haven’t made any claims that those numbers make the U.S. superior. The numbers are what they are, so teach them. Don’t ignore them. That’s all I’m saying.

But they aren’t ignored. I knew from school that Portugal was the leader of the slave trade and that Brazil was their colony.

Why are the numbers meaningful in context with each other? To what end are you seeking to reach?

[nu5ncbigred]

Nov 22, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 9:18:39 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

One of those inconvenient truths.

WTF is inconvenient about that?

It’s inconvenient to you blame America first people who think it’s our fault slavery exists in the world and was ongoing when we were colonies of another nation. You freaks of nature think we were evil since the days the only colony that existed in what would become the USA was 12 years old and the Mayflower hadn’t arrived here yet.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 13:45:06 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 13:42:14 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

As far as the history of slavery goes, the North Atlantic portion is a box. I disagree that the numbers are not meaningful. And I haven’t made any claims that those numbers make the U.S. superior. The numbers are what they are, so teach them. Don’t ignore them. That’s all I’m saying.

But they aren’t ignored. I knew from school that Portugal was the leader of the slave trade and that Brazil was their colony.

Why are the numbers meaningful in context with each other? To what end are you seeking to reach?

Have already stated it several times….teach history in full, not in part. It’s not complicated.

[Panama pfRedd]

These people are terrified that their race card will lose it's effectiveness. It has worked so well for decades.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 14:10:11 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 13:45:06 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

But they aren’t ignored. I knew from school that Portugal was the leader of the slave trade and that Brazil was their colony.

Why are the numbers meaningful in context with each other? To what end are you seeking to reach?

Have already stated it several times….teach history in full, not in part. It’s not complicated.

“In full” is an empty platitude.

If that’s the case, one could argue that we should also, historically, know from which exact tribe the slaves came from and in what year. And which boats transported them. And the names of the captains of those boats, and the names of the companies that owned those boats. But neither you nor I is suggesting that.

Why? If you want to teach history “in full” why is the number transported to a particular country meaningful enough that you believe it is part of the “in full”, but none of the things I listed above are. Why is your line drawn where it is drawn?

Your line isn’t complicated. But your reason for your line being where it is, isn’t particularly clear. You’re pretty hazy on the motivation, which seems odd, given your adamance to draw it there. Naturally, the follow up question becomes…why?

Walt is suggesting that it is because you want to draw some sort of moral distinction between countries depending on the number of slaves it had to declare that less slaves = more moral. You say it isn’t. Ok.

So why?

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 14:38:16 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 14:10:11 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Have already stated it several times….teach history in full, not in part. It’s not complicated.

“In full” is an empty platitude.

If that’s the case, one could argue that we should also, historically, know from which exact tribe the slaves came from and in what year. And which boats transported them. And the names of the captains of those boats, and the names of the companies that owned those boats. But neither you nor I is suggesting that.

Why? If you want to teach history “in full” why is the number transported to a particular country meaningful enough that you believe it is part of the “in full”, but none of the things I listed above are. Why is your line drawn where it is drawn?

Your line isn’t complicated. But your reason for your line being where it is, isn’t particularly clear. You’re pretty hazy on the motivation, which seems odd, given your adamance to draw it there. Naturally, the follow up question becomes…why?

Walt is suggesting that it is because you want to draw some sort of moral distinction between countries depending on the number of slaves it had to declare that less slaves = more moral. You say it isn’t. Ok.

So why?

I’ve already explained the why. And I fully realize that’s not going to be enough for you. I can live with that. As for Walt, I’ve made zero moral distinctions in anything I’ve said. His assumption is wrong. Simple as that.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 16:01:44 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 14:38:16 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

“In full” is an empty platitude.

If that’s the case, one could argue that we should also, historically, know from which exact tribe the slaves came from and in what year. And which boats transported them. And the names of the captains of those boats, and the names of the companies that owned those boats. But neither you nor I is suggesting that.

Why? If you want to teach history “in full” why is the number transported to a particular country meaningful enough that you believe it is part of the “in full”, but none of the things I listed above are. Why is your line drawn where it is drawn?

Your line isn’t complicated. But your reason for your line being where it is, isn’t particularly clear. You’re pretty hazy on the motivation, which seems odd, given your adamance to draw it there. Naturally, the follow up question becomes…why?

Walt is suggesting that it is because you want to draw some sort of moral distinction between countries depending on the number of slaves it had to declare that less slaves = more moral. You say it isn’t. Ok.

So why?

I’ve already explained the why. And I fully realize that’s not going to be enough for you. I can live with that. As for Walt, I’ve made zero moral distinctions in anything I’ve said. His assumption is wrong. Simple as that.

You actually haven’t explained the why beyond “because I said so”.

Why you suggest that the “full history” terminates at where your line is, is curious. Why is that particular fact (the number of slaves in the U.S. versus the rest of the Americas at the time) somehow meaningful enough to include it within your “full history” but any number of other factors, are not?

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 16:24:13 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 16:01:44 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

I’ve already explained the why. And I fully realize that’s not going to be enough for you. I can live with that. As for Walt, I’ve made zero moral distinctions in anything I’ve said. His assumption is wrong. Simple as that.

You actually haven’t explained the why beyond “because I said so”.

Why you suggest that the “full history” terminates at where your line is, is curious. Why is that particular fact (the number of slaves in the U.S. versus the rest of the Americas at the time) somehow meaningful enough to include it within your “full history” but any number of other factors, are not?

Yes, I have explained it. If you want to include other factors in the history of slavery here or elsewhere, you will have no argument from me. The more information the better imo.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 16:42:19 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 16:24:13 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

You actually haven’t explained the why beyond “because I said so”.

Why you suggest that the “full history” terminates at where your line is, is curious. Why is that particular fact (the number of slaves in the U.S. versus the rest of the Americas at the time) somehow meaningful enough to include it within your “full history” but any number of other factors, are not?

Yes, I have explained it. If you want to include other factors in the history of slavery here or elsewhere, you will have no argument from me. The more information the better imo.

Ok, but again, why push to insist, from your perspective, that that particular fact be included in the discussion, but countless others, you don’t?

Why that particular hill to die on?

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 16:45:05 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 16:42:19 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Yes, I have explained it. If you want to include other factors in the history of slavery here or elsewhere, you will have no argument from me. The more information the better imo.

Ok, but again, why push to insist, from your perspective, that that particular fact be included in the discussion, but countless others, you don’t?

Why that particular hill to die on?

Not dying on any hill and haven’t drawn any lines in the sand. And also not going down rabbit trails.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 17:05:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 16:45:05 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Ok, but again, why push to insist, from your perspective, that that particular fact be included in the discussion, but countless others, you don’t?

Why that particular hill to die on?

Not dying on any hill and haven’t drawn any lines in the sand. And also not going down rabbit trails.

Yes you have drawn them. They’re required to be drawn. As you say, American history doesn’t exist in a vacuum separate from world history, and in order to be able to cover any of it, lines must be drawn so that learning can continue. Of that, there is no doubt.

What also isn’t in doubt is that you’ve been adamant that this particular fact be included. You just don’t explain why, beyond some vague claim that you want it “all taught”. No you don’t. That’s disingenuous, and you know it. In order to teach any of it in a reasonable period of time, you have to choose a certain level of detail, and move from there.

You’ve declared that your detail must include that fact, but don’t explain why. You’ve chosen not to explain why. The rest of us can draw whatever conclusion we wish from that refusal.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 13:55:49 GMT -5 nu5ncbigred said:

Nov 22, 2024 9:55:17 GMT -5 Walter said:

WTF is inconvenient about that?

It’s inconvenient to you blame America first people who think it’s our fault slavery exists in the world and was ongoing when we were colonies of another nation. You freaks of nature think we were evil since the days the only colony that existed in what would become the USA was 12 years old and the Mayflower hadn’t arrived here yet.

When did I or any legitimate historian ever make the claim that America was responsible for the 17th thru 19th century global slave trade?
That's complete nonsense.

Go ahead and post a link to anyone who makes that claim.
I double dog dare you.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 17:05:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 16:45:05 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Ok, but again, why push to insist, from your perspective, that that particular fact be included in the discussion, but countless others, you don’t?

Why that particular hill to die on?

Not dying on any hill and haven’t drawn any lines in the sand. And also not going down rabbit trails.

Do you think that teaching about the global slave trade in total somehow affects how we view the story of American slavery?
If so, explain how it is affected.

[daleko]

Nov 22, 2024 14:38:16 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 14:10:11 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Have already stated it several times….teach history in full, not in part. It’s not complicated.

“In full” is an empty platitude.

If that’s the case, one could argue that we should also, historically, know from which exact tribe the slaves came from and in what year. And which boats transported them. And the names of the captains of those boats, and the names of the companies that owned those boats. But neither you nor I is suggesting that.

Why? If you want to teach history “in full” why is the number transported to a particular country meaningful enough that you believe it is part of the “in full”, but none of the things I listed above are. Why is your line drawn where it is drawn?

Your line isn’t complicated. But your reason for your line being where it is, isn’t particularly clear. You’re pretty hazy on the motivation, which seems odd, given your adamance to draw it there. Naturally, the follow up question becomes…why?

Walt is suggesting that it is because you want to draw some sort of moral distinction between countries depending on the number of slaves it had to declare that less slaves = more moral. You say it isn’t. Ok.

So why?

A lot of that detail would be probably better taught as an elective at the U level or an AP class and perhaps is. Along w many other topics. What is rarely discussed at the HS level are the benefits of slavery to this country (the foundation of remunerations). Not necessarily net. Also part of history.

Is that and/or other topics, some mentioned, appropriate somewhere in K-12? If only in passing? Maybe not. <shrug>

You might ask why but, imo, it is part of understanding the history of this country. That slavery began when agriculture started 11,000 yrs ago, in the Neolithic Revolution, is more appropriate for a U level history of the world/business or an AP class where, as an elective, you'd have an interest in that topic to study.

[daleko]

Nov 22, 2024 17:36:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:05:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Not dying on any hill and haven’t drawn any lines in the sand. And also not going down rabbit trails.

Do you think that teaching about the global slave trade in total somehow affects how we view the story of American slavery?
If so, explain how it is affected.

Do you mean other than we wouldn't have had it?