Please explain/justify this

[T. A. Gardner]

Ahhh, but YOU HAVEN'T PROVED ANY JUSTIFICATION for the actions described in the OP, much less your attempt at equivocation to the grumblings over the 1619 Project.

And your "opinion" is not the equivalent of a fact when you assert that the OP is referring to something of "no merit or value".... nor can you say so regarding the the 1619 Project, as I demonstrate in a link in another post.

Yes, I did. I clearly stated it has no value as a factual work of history being an historical novel. As something read in an English class it could have value. That, of course, depends on how well it is written as a work of fiction and a novel. So, using it in an English class might be appropriate. Using it in a history class would be inappropriate.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post

The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts
A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...roject/604093/

The 1619 Project is often factually wrong. There's no arguing that.

https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/

Even a radical Leftist Socialist site points out the factual errors that are rife within The 1619 Project

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/28/nytr-d28.html

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140


https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/

Let me pull the rug out from under the WSWS when they say, ".... The Times justifies its racial approach by claiming that slavery and the experience of African Americans are subjects long neglected by historians.

Wrong. From my link: Viewed from the perspective of those historically denied the rights enumerated in America’s founding documents, the story of the country’s great men necessarily looks very different. ... Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience. In fact, the harshness of the Wilentz letter may obscure the extent to which its authors and the creators of the 1619 Project share a broad historical vision. Both sides agree, as many of the project’s right-wing critics do not, that slavery’s legacy still shapes American life—an argument that is less radical than it may appear at first glance. If you think anti-black racism still shapes American society, then you are in agreement with the thrust of the 1619 Project, though not necessarily with all of its individual arguments.

As for AIER....I consider libertarians in general as a joke .... a bunch of right wingers who want to smoke dope, get laid and discriminate as they please. Here, we see a more realistic rendering of what happened to black slaves after the Revolutionary War when they were moved to Nova Scotia ... points your source conveniently leaves out https://ageofrevolutions.com/2021/0...alist-refugees-after-the-american-revolution/

And an oft mischaracterization of the point of her work, " ... Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/ar...i-blackness-history-of-slavery-in-watson-talk

So once again, you seem intent on the right wing bullhorn that ignores anything that factually disproves your mantras, let alone put the conclusion into serious contention. You believe what you want....I'll stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Ahhh, but YOU HAVEN'T PROVED ANY JUSTIFICATION for the actions described in the OP, much less your attempt at equivocation to the grumblings over the 1619 Project.

And your "opinion" is not the equivalent of a fact when you assert that the OP is referring to something of "no merit or value".... nor can you say so regarding the the 1619 Project, as I demonstrate in a link in another post.

Yes, I did. I clearly stated it has no value as a factual work of history being an historical novel. As something read in an English class it could have value. That, of course, depends on how well it is written as a work of fiction and a novel. So, using it in an English class might be appropriate. Using it in a history class would be inappropriate.

Once again, you seem to think that your opinion, supposition and conjecture as equivalent to facts and the logic derived from said facts.

They're not, which is why this latest regurgitation of yours is worthless.

Post #42 settles this for the objective, rational reader.

 

[Callinectes]

Why in the fuck would anyone need hide pictures of their family while teaching in a public school?

I told you, it provokes questions. And it doesn't matter if the teachers are gay or straight. If the kid's family situation is different, they might want to know why. Boom, now they're talking about it.

That is the dumbest, anti-American BS I have ever heard.

Is it really anti-American to not want to talk to my 7 year-old about trannies and homosexuals? Or to not want my kid to hear about it from an adult outside the family? Did you know about this stuff when you were in the 3rd grade?

The ignorance and fear is astounding.

Ignorance of what? And if you're a parent and you're not at least a little fearful of sending your kid out into THIS world, you are probably a poor parent.

Plus, discriminate much?

No, that is abhorrent to me as a Christian.

Does the heterosexual teacher need to hide their family photos?

Of course. Don't be ignorant!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Teachers are being requested to remove family pictures as the "don't say gay" law goes into effect in Florida.

It is seriously wrong!

I went through the Catholic school system and I don't remember seeing any teacher's family pics on their desk..even the married "lay" teachers. If this still holds true for most "parochial" schools, then they're spared this controversy.

Personally, I've always said that the "gay family" is an artificial concept. But with 30 years effort, they are making it a "legal" reality and getting the advertising industry to cash in on a new market.

Brave New World, this is becoming.

 

[AProudLefty]

Pretty much everyone has their family pictures on their desks.

 

[AProudLefty]

Does that mean prisms are not allowed in science classes? Asking for a teacher.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let me pull the rug out from under the WSWS when they say, ".... The Times justifies its racial approach by claiming that slavery and the experience of African Americans are subjects long neglected by historians.

Wrong. From my link: Viewed from the perspective of those historically denied the rights enumerated in America’s founding documents, the story of the country’s great men necessarily looks very different. ... Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience. In fact, the harshness of the Wilentz letter may obscure the extent to which its authors and the creators of the 1619 Project share a broad historical vision. Both sides agree, as many of the project’s right-wing critics do not, that slavery’s legacy still shapes American life—an argument that is less radical than it may appear at first glance. If you think anti-black racism still shapes American society, then you are in agreement with the thrust of the 1619 Project, though not necessarily with all of its individual arguments.

As for AIER....I consider libertarians in general as a joke .... a bunch of right wingers who want to smoke dope, get laid and discriminate as they please. Here, we see a more realistic rendering of what happened to black slaves after the Revolutionary War when they were moved to Nova Scotia ... points your source conveniently leaves out https://ageofrevolutions.com/2021/0...alist-refugees-after-the-american-revolution/

And an oft mischaracterization of the point of her work, " ... Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/ar...i-blackness-history-of-slavery-in-watson-talk

So once again, you seem intent on the right wing bullhorn that ignores anything that factually disproves your mantras, let alone put the conclusion into serious contention. You believe what you want....I'll stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Slavery was obviously not a primary mover for the US revolution. Only about 30% of colonists lived in one of the four slave allowing colonies while the other 9 had 70% of the population.
In fact, one of the biggest propaganda coups of the revolution was based on the biggest fear colonists--particularly those on the frontier / more rural areas of colonies--had at the time: Raids and attacks by indigenous peoples.

The British General, Burgoyne made a massive mistake between the start of the war and the incident that incited large numbers of colonists to turn against the British in August 1777. That was the arming and employment of Indians as auxiliary troops in his army. This was bad enough, but then in August 1777 a prominent woman named Jane McCrey was brutally raped and murdered by those same Indians. Burgoyne failed to do anything to discipline those involved as he feared the whole of the Indian auxiliaries would desert if he did.
That incident became fodder for the revolutionaries and news of it spread up and down the colonies--usually embellished with lots of propaganda. That whipped the colonists into a frenzy of hatred against the British out of fear they were next.

Instead of dying down as Burgoyne had hoped, he found the colonists were now rising up in far greater numbers to oppose British rule. It wasn't slavery that made a good issue--slave owners were few in number overall (~ 1.5 to 2% of all colonists), but fear of Indian raids and their brutal nature was.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Let me pull the rug out from under the WSWS when they say, ".... The Times justifies its racial approach by claiming that slavery and the experience of African Americans are subjects long neglected by historians.

Wrong. From my link: Viewed from the perspective of those historically denied the rights enumerated in America’s founding documents, the story of the country’s great men necessarily looks very different. ... Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience. In fact, the harshness of the Wilentz letter may obscure the extent to which its authors and the creators of the 1619 Project share a broad historical vision. Both sides agree, as many of the project’s right-wing critics do not, that slavery’s legacy still shapes American life—an argument that is less radical than it may appear at first glance. If you think anti-black racism still shapes American society, then you are in agreement with the thrust of the 1619 Project, though not necessarily with all of its individual arguments.

As for AIER....I consider libertarians in general as a joke .... a bunch of right wingers who want to smoke dope, get laid and discriminate as they please. Here, we see a more realistic rendering of what happened to black slaves after the Revolutionary War when they were moved to Nova Scotia ... points your source conveniently leaves out https://ageofrevolutions.com/2021/01...an-revolution/

And an oft mischaracterization of the point of her work, " ... Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/art...in-watson-talk

So once again, you seem intent on the right wing bullhorn that ignores anything that factually disproves your mantras, let alone put the conclusion into serious contention. You believe what you want....I'll stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Slavery was obviously not a primary mover for the US revolution. Only about 30% of colonists lived in one of the four slave allowing colonies while the other 9 had 70% of the population.
In fact, one of the biggest propaganda coups of the revolution was based on the biggest fear colonists--particularly those on the frontier / more rural areas of colonies--had at the time: Raids and attacks by indigenous peoples.

The British General, Burgoyne made a massive mistake between the start of the war and the incident that incited large numbers of colonists to turn against the British in August 1777. That was the arming and employment of Indians as auxiliary troops in his army. This was bad enough, but then in August 1777 a prominent woman named Jane McCrey was brutally raped and murdered by those same Indians. Burgoyne failed to do anything to discipline those involved as he feared the whole of the Indian auxiliaries would desert if he did.
That incident became fodder for the revolutionaries and news of it spread up and down the colonies--usually embellished with lots of propaganda. That whipped the colonists into a frenzy of hatred against the British out of fear they were next.

Instead of dying down as Burgoyne had hoped, he found the colonists were now rising up in far greater numbers to oppose British rule. It wasn't slavery that made a good issue--slave owners were few in number overall (~ 1.5 to 2% of all colonists), but fear of Indian raids and their brutal nature was.

Okay, let me just put an end to your incessantly stubborn effort to avoid conceding a logical point for the objective, rational reader to see.

Your first sentence states Sslavery was obviously not a primary mover for the US revolution.

This displays either poor reading comprehension or intentional intellectual dishonesty to misrepresent parts of the discussion. Again, Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/art...in-watson-talk

Got that? I hope so, because it renders your little myopic story (which you do not document) not only unnecessary, but unaccountable to ALL the information in the links I provided.

See, that's the problem with your knee jerk version of conservatism....you isolate, you juxtapose, you promote supposition & conjecture as fact and you consistently try to detour a debate away from any facts that conclude contrary to what you believe.

Now folk like you NEVER admit you're wrong or concede a point. You'll just double down and spew various versions of what you already have done. So unless you've got something original and/or can give a true point for point debate, I'll just let you ramble on and move on to something else.

 

[Whythink]

Your first sentence states Sslavery was obviously not a primary mover for the US revolution.

Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/art...in-watson-talk

.

Are you arguing that 1619 claims slavery was a primary mover of the American Revolution based on the quote from 1619, “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that ]some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”

If so, you are wrong!

SOME COLONISTS IN VIRGINIA does not equate an argument that slavery was a primary mover for the Revolutionary War.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-...-book-japanese-american-incarcerati-rcna35948

I am being serious. I don't understand the logic of denying a book about internment camps because it doesn't present "both sides".

I would love to understand the rational for this. Please!

Why, it's so simple. May I?

We don't want our precious white children to have unhappy or guilty thoughts about something evil that white people did, no matter how long ago it was. It doesn't suffice anymore to explain the public feelings about Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, which resulted in great fear and hate for anyone of Japanese (or Asian for that matter) ancestry. To our great shame, we locked them up. Knowing this will tarnish their image forever of our beloved country. Some of those kids might even grow up to be -- *GASP* -- liberals. You can imagine the horror of *that,* right? </sarcasm font>

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Why in the fuck would anyone need hide pictures of their family while teaching in a public school?

That is the dumbest, anti-American BS I have ever heard.

The ignorance and fear is astounding. Plus, discriminate much? Does the heterosexual teacher need to hide their family photos?

If not, a trump lawyer could win that case without intimidating witnesses.

Eventually the fascist Reichwingers will also demand that any teacher whose partner is of another race not reveal that, either. Next up? Jewelry symbols of any religion except Christianity. We don't want our precious white Xtian children asking what that six-pointed star, or pentacle, or that crescent-and-star necklace is, do we now?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Because it doesn't. The book is an "historical novel" based loosely on the author's family experiences in an internment camp. It is on the order of The 1619 Project. That's the problem with it. Now, if it were added as a fictional book to a school library, I see no problem with it. Adding it as historical narrative or some historically accurate account should be reason to reject it same as with the The 1619 Project.

So since it's a personal account, it's fiction? Don't you wish.

Funny how you RWers weep and cry over the removal of Confederate statues and call it "erasing history," yet here you are -- defending the very same thing you think is cancel culture.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Many more progressive schools are already doing that. The aforementioned The 1619 Project is a perfect example. It is used in thousands of schools across the US as a history text even after being publicly discredited as fiction.

Let's see a link for this nuttery. And not a RW blog either. Thanks.

 

[Earl]

Can we PLEASE give our kids a break from sexual perversion until the 4th grade? And it's not the "don't say gay" law. It doesn't say that anywhere in the law. And did you know that these teachers are allowed to answer questions about that shit? I don't think it's much to ask Mr. Smith the art teacher to stick the wedding photos of him and his husband in the desk drawer until the end of the school day. Stuff like that provokes questions.

Indeed...great post.

 

[Earl]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-...-book-japanese-american-incarcerati-rcna35948

I am being serious. I don't understand the logic of denying a book about internment camps because it doesn't present "both sides".

I would love to understand the rational for this. Please!

Because it was not balanced.

With your twisted logic, historical books about “justified slavery” are just fine to be taught to young school children.

 

[Earl]

The removal of Confederate statues is a denial of history.

Books that present an unbalanced view of internment camps denies historical context.

Pictures of a man and his “husband” in the classroom...this is an attempt to present perversion and deviancy as “normal.”

It is not.

 

[Monad Portal]

Teachers are being requested to remove family pictures as the "don't say gay" law goes into effect in Florida.

It is seriously wrong!

no they aren't.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

One picture/one thousand words. This sums up the OP nicely.

 

[Earl]

If it were not for heterosexuals no gay people would exist. And they certainly can not naturally carry on any family lineage. That should be taught.

Indeed it should but it never will be.