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

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 17:31:48 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough 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.

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.

Nobody else has commented so I’d say tribe has spoken.

[oujour76]

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.

Might and it might not. I don’t much care one way or another. I’ve made zero moral arguments on this subject. I’m in favor of more information on a subject, not less. More informed opinions are a good thing in my book. Frankly, why that is confusing or objectionable is a mystery to me.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 17:46:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

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

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?

Perhaps.
But that isn't what happened, so again, what insight do we get about what happened in America that an expanded knowledge of the global slave trade would alter?

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 17:59:23 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

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

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.

Might and it might not. I don’t much care one way or another. I’ve made zero moral arguments on this subject. I’m in favor of more information on a subject, not less. More informed opinions are a good thing in my book. Frankly, why that is confusing or objectionable is a mystery to me.

tea
I have zero problem teaching it, which brings me back to my original question: what is 'inconvenient' about teaching it?

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 17:44:47 GMT -5 daleko 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?

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.

I agree. But by your own distinction, we therefore MUST draw lines as to how much of this “all” is taught? Or to what level of detail?

My presumption (perhaps incorrectly) was that the framework of the discussion of America’s percentage of slaves owned out of the whole of the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries is part of the “all” that OU is including is at the high school level. By your own admission, we must differentiate what facts we choose to teach knowing we can’t reach the level of detail that many of these historical events may require.

So, if that’s the reality that we live with, the next decision is choosing what details are to be included. I’d suggest that the most logical course would be to choose those details that best overview a high school level American history course. Each detail should have a particular reason for its inclusion, right?

So…what’s the reason for that one? Why is it important in an American history course to understand and differentiate the number of slaves that were brought to America as opposed to Brazil? What does that say about slavery here? Or our position with regard to it?

I can’t think of much, other than to suggest that America might not be as bad as Portugal.

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

Slave numbers are probably appropriate at anything above 8th grade, but the discussion IMO isn’t whether it is appropriate. It is whether it is necessary within an overall discussion of where lines should be drawn.

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.

Again, I’m not saying it’s not historical. I’m saying that in a universe where for reasons of teaching large amounts of information and by, necessity, choosing only those topics that are most important within it, lest you get bogged down in minutiae, what you teach should have some reasoning as to the why. We know why we include Lincoln’s assassination. Why should we include the number of slaves in relation to Portugal?

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 17:52:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:31:48 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

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.

Nobody else has commented so I’d say tribe has spoken.

Just because they don’t want to hold your feet to the fire doesn’t mean you have answered the question.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 17:59:23 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

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

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.

Might and it might not. I don’t much care one way or another. I’ve made zero moral arguments on this subject. I’m in favor of more information on a subject, not less. More informed opinions are a good thing in my book. Frankly, why that is confusing or objectionable is a mystery to me.

More information isn’t objectionable. Selectively choosing specifically which parts of the more you want to include without explanation as to why those parts as opposed to others is the curiosity you don’t wish to address.

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 18:02:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:59:23 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Might and it might not. I don’t much care one way or another. I’ve made zero moral arguments on this subject. I’m in favor of more information on a subject, not less. More informed opinions are a good thing in my book. Frankly, why that is confusing or objectionable is a mystery to me.

tea
I have zero problem teaching it, which brings me back to my original question: what is 'inconvenient' about teaching it?

That comment was an inconvenient truth and was to Cane after he posted something on the subject from Henry Louis Gates. I
IMO far too many people have no real idea of the extent of the slave trade, and imo they should. Pretty sure Cane knew my meaning.

[daleko]

Nov 22, 2024 17:59:39 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:46:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

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

Perhaps.
But that isn't what happened, so again, what insight do we get about what happened in America that an expanded knowledge of the global slave trade would alter?

Taught in passing, it's part of history. Specifically to today? W/O slavery there is no mass diaspora of Blacks to this country. Today, you might have a country w 2% Blacks, half of the Asian population, who also traveled a long distance. What's to study? Comparing the Black diaspora to the illegal diaspora arriving from our Southern border and its implications plus and minus, over time, might be useful. Or not. But probably not useful even in HS, so never mind.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 18:12:41 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:02:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

tea
I have zero problem teaching it, which brings me back to my original question: what is 'inconvenient' about teaching it?

That comment was an inconvenient truth and was to Cane after he posted something on the subject from Henry Louis Gates. I
IMO far too many people have no real idea of the extent of the slave trade, and imo they should. Pretty sure Cane knew my meaning.

Fair enough, though I see nothing inconvenient about expanding that knowledge for Gates or just about anyone else.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 18:14:24 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:59:39 GMT -5 Walter said:

Perhaps.
But that isn't what happened, so again, what insight do we get about what happened in America that an expanded knowledge of the global slave trade would alter?

Taught in passing, it's part of history. Specifically to today? W/O slavery there is no mass diaspora of Blacks to this country. Today, you might have a country w 2% Blacks, half of the Asian population, who also traveled a long distance. What's to study? Comparing the Black diaspora to the illegal diaspora arriving from our Southern border and its implications plus and minus, over time, might be useful. Or not. But probably not useful even in HS, so never mind.

Again...all possibilities, except that isn't what happened, so other than being an interesting trivia question, meh....

[oujour76]

Nov 22, 2024 18:08:11 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Nov 22, 2024 17:52:26 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nobody else has commented so I’d say tribe has spoken.

Just because they don’t want to hold your feet to the fire doesn’t mean you have answered the question.

Or maybe most of them understood what I was saying to Cane. Or maybe they don’t care about the subject. Or maybe looking for ways to hold others feet to the fire on a daily basis holds no interest for them. Or maybe it’s none of the above. Food for thought.

[trnyerheadncough]

Nov 22, 2024 18:20:25 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:08:11 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Just because they don’t want to hold your feet to the fire doesn’t mean you have answered the question.

Or maybe most of them understood what I was saying to Cane. Or maybe they don’t care about the subject. Or maybe looking for ways to hold others feet to the fire on a daily basis holds no interest for them. Or maybe it’s none of the above. Food for thought.

Lol. You should know by now that I don’t give a toss about how other people post in comparison to how I do.

The attorney in me is going to dig down to get to the bottom of a question. Answer or don’t. Your choice.

[daleko]

Nov 22, 2024 18:18:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:14:24 GMT -5 daleko said:

Taught in passing, it's part of history. Specifically to today? W/O slavery there is no mass diaspora of Blacks to this country. Today, you might have a country w 2% Blacks, half of the Asian population, who also traveled a long distance. What's to study? Comparing the Black diaspora to the illegal diaspora arriving from our Southern border and its implications plus and minus, over time, might be useful. Or not. But probably not useful even in HS, so never mind.

Again...all possibilities, except that isn't what happened, so other than being an interesting trivia question, meh....

<shrug> You asked. I think it goes beyond trivia, using today's issues as examples. Slavery was , imo, a short term business decision that had social implications, long term. Understanding at its core what it was is certainly noteworthy, for me. The never mind I posted might suggest not appropriate for anything less than an HS AP elective. So again, never mind. But the diaspora component is more than trivia.

[Walter]

Nov 22, 2024 18:31:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 22, 2024 18:18:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Again...all possibilities, except that isn't what happened, so other than being an interesting trivia question, meh....

<shrug> You asked. I think it goes beyond trivia, using today's issues as examples. Slavery was , imo, a short term business decision that had social implications, long term. Understanding at its core what it was is certainly noteworthy, for me. The never mind I posted might suggest not appropriate for anything less than an HS AP elective. So again, never mind. But the diaspora component is more than trivia.

If by 'short term' you mean 250 years, and only ended after a war over it, then I agree. Otherwise, NSM.