New moderate 3rd party

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

You have a very strange view of the greatness of those upon whom shoulders we stand.

Marble has zero to do with greatness. Marble does serve to remind us of their greatness.

When I hear the names Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, I don’t think of marbleized people. I think of things like willingness to sacrifice their lives and everything they owned for the sake of independence from Britain the most powerful nation in the world. Washington and Jefferson were wealthy accomplished men. They were not a couple of schmoes who had nothing better to do on a Saturday night except fight. . We don’t see that today. We seldom saw that in the history of the world. Yet we had scores of people just like that. Leaders today can’t come close and they are getting further apart. “The founders weren’t perfect “ can never take that away and it is something we all should understand and appreciate. Then we look at what these guys said and did and their value indeed becomes priceless. Without them, the people in Seattle and Portland would be speaking Russian, The Southwest would be Mexico, New England would be Canada, and the Confederate South would likely be something like Cuba. You can think of marble if you want to, but that is irrelevant.

The problem with “the founders weren’t perfect“ talking point is not that we must believe the founders were perfect. The problem is that kids are taught that talking point as the “other side” of the constitution and Declaration. That is a false choice. The slaves owned by Washington and Jefferson would have remained slaves even if both were hanged for treason.

The problem is not teaching the truth and just trying to whitewash history. Yes, slavery would have existed regardless of whether the founders existed or not. However, there is nothing wrong with teaching the whole story and not just the story white people are comfortable with telling.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Speaking of rioting . . . what's your reaction to Lindsay Graham's threat (that's what it is, really) that there'll be riots in the streets if Trump is prosecuted for mishandling of secret documents?

What if he's prosecuted for espionage? Obstruction?

What if he's actually guilty of those charges, and is convicted in a court of law?

These are questions, not hyperbole. I looked it up to make sure . . . .

Threat or prediction?

I would regret any violence.

I have tried to get all Republicans to stop talking about Donald Trump until after the November elections, but nobody listens to me.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You can't teach the story of the United States without pointing out the grand inconsistency between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery (we SHOULD NOT teach that the Revolutionary War was inspired by a desire to keep slaves--that is abject nonsense).

If you are implying that the founders had a choice with the Declaration and chose slavery, I vehemently disagree. Unfortunately, I think that is how history is taught.

The choice was a revolution that maintained slavery, or no revolution. Slavery would have gone on in either case. I already posted a glimpse of what I think North America would look like without the American Revolution. What is your take?

In any event, the debate about the declaration brought focus to the already existing abolition debate. That debate never wained, became more intense, and resulted in the Civil War. Also, at or soon after the Declaration, several colonies abolished slavery, so it is wrong and unfair to say that slavery didn't change. Just another aspect of the issue that isn''t taught.

 

[stollcpa]

*Democractic Party

and that claim is complete bullshit fed to you by right wing propaganda.

Why don’t you try answering a post respectfully? It’s possible to disagree vehemently but still reply respectively. If you change maybe everyone can follow?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The problem is not teaching the truth and just trying to whitewash history. Yes, slavery would have existed regardless of whether the founders existed or not. However, there is nothing wrong with teaching the whole story and not just the story white people are comfortable with telling.

That's just ignroant. There is a lot about the hsitory of slavery that isn't taught because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

That's just ignroant. There is a lot about the hsitory of slavery that isn't taught because it doesn't fit the narrative.

No, ignorant is only telling half the story. Ignorant is thinking this country was all well in the past because we were just ignoring racism.

why are you so afraid of students between taught what happened instead of trying to whitewash it?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

If you are implying that the founders had a choice with the Declaration and chose slavery, I vehemently disagree. Unfortunately, I think that is how history is taught.

The choice was a revolution that maintained slavery, or no revolution. Slavery would have gone on in either case. I already posted a glimpse of what I think North America would look like without the American Revolution. What is your take?

In any event, the debate about the declaration brought focus to the already existing abolition debate. That debate never wained, became more intense, and resulted in the Civil War. Also, at or soon after the Declaration, several colonies abolished slavery, so it is wrong and unfair to say that slavery didn't change. Just another aspect of the issue that isn''t taught.

I'm not implying that. I'm saying the principles espoused in the Declaration and the principles of a democracy were known to be contradicted by the institution of slavery at the time of the Declaration. Can't really get around that.

I agree that there would have been no nation afterwards made up of the 13 colonies if the abolitionists had insisted on no slavery in the Constitution. That can't really be argued. As to how that is being taught today, I have no idea.

Re what NAmerica would look like, I don't know. I don't know if the British would have been as expansionist with the colonies and done the same thing the U.S. did, or what the power politics in Europe would have looked like. For example, if no Revolution, then Napolean does not sell a large swath of NAmerica to the US. Does he sell it to Spain? Keep it? Who knows.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not implying that. I'm saying the principles espoused in the Declaration and the principles of a democracy were known to be contradicted by the institution of slavery at the time of the Declaration. Can't really get around that.

I agree that there would have been no nation afterwards made up of the 13 colonies if the abolitionists had insisted on no slavery in the Constitution. That can't really be argued. As to how that is being taught today, I have no idea.

Re what NAmerica would look like, I don't know. I don't know if the British would have been as expansionist with the colonies and done the same thing the U.S. did, or what the power politics in Europe would have looked like. For example, if no Revolution, then Napolean does not sell a large swath of NAmerica to the US. Does he sell it to Spain? Keep it? Who knows.

I think comparing competing and inconsistent ideas is interesting and fun. That was a huge part of the legal method class in law school. It's really an exercise in developing thinking skills, not teaching history as I believe the slavery issue with the Declaration is taught. The constant "America was born in original sin" or "the founders weren't perfect" talking points serve no instructional purpose unless the purpose of your instruction is to indoctrinate.

 

[DANC]

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea.

there is nothing inherently wrong with the federal government running a debt. It’s just gotten out of hand.

Keynesian economics works, but we need adults who won’t over spend in the good times and/or will never raise tax revenue to cover the deficit spending incurred during bad times.

The economic history of the US prior to the modern monetary and fiscal systems were of boom and bust cycles that were absolutely deviating to the population as a whole every 20-25 years or so.

It's worked in Indiana and many other states.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I think comparing competing and inconsistent ideas is interesting and fun. That was a huge part of the legal method class in law school. It's really an exercise in developing thinking skills, not teaching history as I believe the slavery issue with the Declaration is taught. The constant "America was born in original sin" or "the founders weren't perfect" talking points serve no instructional purpose unless the purpose of your instruction is to indoctrinate.

So better just to teach an inaccurate history lol

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, ignorant is only telling half the story. Ignorant is thinking this country was all well in the past because we were just ignoring racism.

why are you so afraid of students between taught what happened instead of trying to whitewash it?

What are you mumbling about now?

Abolitionist movements, the Missouri compromise, Kansas Nebraska Act, Dredd Scott case, the Civil War, Brown v. Board, civil rights, and more are all important parts of US history as I was taught it. What's whitewashed?

Your problem is you don't want to teach youngsters objective history, you want to indoctrinate them to your POV.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

What are you mumbling about now?

Abolitionist movements, the Missouri compromise, Kansas Nebraska Act, Dredd Scott case, the Civil War, Brown v. Board, civil rights, and more are all important parts of US history as I was taught it. What's whitewashed?

Your problem is you don't want to teach youngsters objective history, you want to indoctrinate them to your POV.

No that is horseshit. Teaching kids the full story of Columbus, our founding fathers, trail of tears etc isn't indoctrination. It is giving a full account of history and trying to be as accurate as possible.

 

[DANC]

We all know what a woman is, arguing this social construct nonsense over a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the (mentally disturbed) populace is a fool's errand.

And the fools are hard at it.

 

[DANC]

I think schools do teach that. At least to the extent that it was MASSIVE WW2 deficit spending that pulled us out of the GD. It wouldn’t have mattered from an economic perspective whether that spending was on the arsenal of democracy or massive public works projects.

I’d have to read up on the Depression in Europe, because I really don’t know enough.

So much bullshit. Paying people to sit on their ass (WPA - an FDR work program that many said stood for We Piddle Around) isn't the same as producing something - like ships, tanks, etc.

One would have thought you'd have learned something from the pandemic when we literally paid people not to work or produce anything. They grew lazy and satisfied and now we can't find any workers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No that is horseshit. Teaching kids the full story of Columbus, our founding fathers, trail of tears etc isn't indoctrination. It is giving a full account of history and trying to be as accurate as possible.

Bravo, so you've read Howard Zinn. Do you really think he delivered objective history, or did he have a hard on for whites?

 

[DANC]

They were never a political party. It was a populist uprising against the bailouts of 2008, which was quickly co-opted by the Republican religious right and molded into nihilist faction that we see today in the Freedom Caucus and the Trump movement.i

Nihilist? Hardly.

 

[DANC]

Speaking of rioting . . . what's your reaction to Lindsay Graham's threat (that's what it is, really) that there'll be riots in the streets if Trump is prosecuted for mishandling of secret documents?

What if he's prosecuted for espionage? Obstruction?

What if he's actually guilty of those charges, and is convicted in a court of law?

These are questions, not hyperbole. I looked it up to make sure . . . .

What was your reaction when Schumer said Gorsuch and Kavanough would reap the whirlwind if Roe was overturned?

 

[DANC]

Why don’t you try answering a post respectfully? It’s possible to disagree vehemently but still reply respectively. If you change maybe everyone can follow?

Do it. Just do it.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think comparing competing and inconsistent ideas is interesting and fun. That was a huge part of the legal method class in law school. It's really an exercise in developing thinking skills, not teaching history as I believe the slavery issue with the Declaration is taught. The constant "America was born in original sin" or "the founders weren't perfect" talking points serve no instructional purpose unless the purpose of your instruction is to indoctrinate.

Huh? I went to a crappy rural Indiana public high school of less than 400 people in the 80s. My U.S. History teacher was a football coach, about 24, and dumb as a post. (He thought the Berlin Wall enclosed all of East Germany). He was a hardcore Republican.

Yet, I learned about the inconsistencies at our founding. It was hardly indoctrination.

As for teaching thinking skills not being a part of teaching history, I disagree. Strongly.

(I think you are complaining about a unilateral perspective being taught here. I agree. But you are writing it (or I'm reading it, maybe) as if you don't want it taught at all.)

 

[hoot1]

I think comparing competing and inconsistent ideas is interesting and fun. That was a huge part of the legal method class in law school. It's really an exercise in developing thinking skills, not teaching history as I believe the slavery issue with the Declaration is taught. The constant "America was born in original sin" or "the founders weren't perfect" talking points serve no instructional purpose unless the purpose of your instruction is to indoctrinate.

The Founders ducked on the slavery issue as it would have been a deal breaker in their attempt to pass a constitution and form a union.

Not an original sin, just a practical way to establish a union. Give future generations the ways and means to deal with slavery.

The Founders like all humans weren't perfect, but their philosophies about governing once put into practice worked amazingly well in my view.

Others may find fault with my ideas, just as the Founders were not always in complete agreement.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Founders ducked on the slavery issue as it would have been a deal breaker in their attempt to pass a constitution and form a union.

Not an original sin, just a practical way to establish a union. Give future generations the ways and means to deal with slavery.

The Founders like all humans weren't perfect, but their philosophies about governing once put into practice worked amazingly well in my view.

Others may find fault with my ideas, just as the Founders were not always in complete agreement.

Agree on all fronts. The more interesting debate is would things be better if slavery prevented the American Revolution.

 

[hoot1]

So much bullshit. Paying people to sit on their ass (WPA - an FDR work program that many said stood for We Piddle Around) isn't the same as producing something - like ships, tanks, etc.

One would have thought you'd have learned something from the pandemic when we literally paid people not to work or produce anything. They grew lazy and satisfied and now we can't find any workers.

Sure many WPA projects didn't turn out as hoped, but here are some the author claims changed America.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Bravo, so you've read Howard Zinn. Do you really think he delivered objective history, or did he have a hard on for whites?

you really think fox news and other conservative news hasn't indoctrinated you into buying their bs?

 

[DANC]

Sure many WPA projects didn't turn out as hoped, but here are some the author claims changed America.

I'm not totally against the WPA - they built the IU Auditorium!

And all the sidewalks in our little town, 30 years after the Depression, had "WPA" stamped on them.

But private companies could have done the same thing if the government just spent the money through them. And do it more efficiently and still put people to work.

 

[Bill4411]

If you are implying that the founders had a choice with the Declaration and chose slavery, I vehemently disagree. Unfortunately, I think that is how history is taught.

The choice was a revolution that maintained slavery, or no revolution. Slavery would have gone on in either case. I already posted a glimpse of what I think North America would look like without the American Revolution. What is your take?

In any event, the debate about the declaration brought focus to the already existing abolition debate. That debate never wained, became more intense, and resulted in the Civil War. Also, at or soon after the Declaration, several colonies abolished slavery, so it is wrong and unfair to say that slavery didn't change. Just another aspect of the issue that isn''t taught.

In context of the time slavery was not unusual. I haven't bothered to look it up but almost most all of the Western hemisphere countries had slaves. Britain certainly did. I would imagine that France, Belgium and most European countries had it in some form or another, especially in Africa. Russia had its serfs, which were just a step above slaves. Errol Flynn was convicted of slave trading in the 1920's in New Guinea. We tend to forget how horrible people can be toward one another, so let's get off our high horse about how horrible Washington and Jefferson.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In context of the time slavery was not unusual. I haven't bothered to look it up but almost most all of the Western hemisphere countries had slaves. Britain certainly did. I would imagine that France, Belgium and most European countries had it in some form or another, especially in Africa. Russia had its serfs, which were just a step above slaves. Errol Flynn was convicted of slave trading in the 1920's in New Guinea. We tend to forget how horrible people can be toward one another, so let's get off our high horse about horrible Washington and Jefferson.

Minor quibble, that doesn't matter much in the grand moral scheme of things, but is simply historically interesting: Britain itself did not have slavery. The British colonies did, but not Britain itself.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In context of the time slavery was not unusual. I haven't bothered to look it up but almost most all of the Western hemisphere countries had slaves. Britain certainly did. I would imagine that France, Belgium and most European countries had it in some form or another, especially in Africa. Russia had its serfs, which were just a step above slaves. Errol Flynn was convicted of slave trading in the 1920's in New Guinea. We tend to forget how horrible people can be toward one another, so let's get off our high horse about how horrible Washington and Jefferson.

Didn't know that about Erro Flynn. Wow.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Minor quibble, that doesn't matter much in the grand moral scheme of things, but is simply historically interesting: Britain itself did not have slavery. The British colonies did, but not Britain itself.

British investors and financiers profited enormously from the international slave trade.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

As for teaching thinking skills not being a part of teaching history, I disagree. Strongly.

Oh, I think studying history is very much a thinking exercise. History is an excellent way to study cause and effect which is a thinking exercise.

What I said about thinking was about making comparisons, like you mentioned with the Declaration and slavery. That history is rudimentary and not much learning there. That comparison is a thinking exercise.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

British investors and financiers profited enormously from the international slave trade.

Yes, they did. Hence my comment about the moral grand scheme.

I guess that's empire for you, huh? You can get away with things in the colonies they won't let you do at home. At least temporarily. Ask Leopold II of Belgium about that.

 

[Bill4411]

Didn't know that about Erro Flynn. Wow.

As David Niven, Flynn's sometime roommate said, “The great thing about Errol was you always knew exactly where you stood with him because he always let you down.”

 

[UncleMark]

Oh, I think studying history is very much a thinking exercise. History is an excellent way to study cause and effect which is a thinking exercise.

And people who actually do study history understand that is an interpretive exercise.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Why don’t you try answering a post respectfully? It’s possible to disagree vehemently but still reply respectively. If you change maybe everyone can follow?

If you change, maybe everyone can follow

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And people who actually do study history understand that is an interpretive exercise.

Of course, That would be History 101.

 

[Sope Creek]

Minor quibble, that doesn't matter much in the grand moral scheme of things, but is simply historically interesting: Britain itself did not have slavery. The British colonies did, but not Britain itself.

Which country/colony received more enslaved people directly from Africa - Cuba or the US?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Which country/colony received more enslaved people directly from Africa - Cuba or the US?

I have no idea. I would assume the US, but maybe the US got a lot of its slaves from the Caribbean?

 

[stollcpa]

If you change, maybe everyone can follow

My response was respectful. You try the same.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

My response was respectful. You try the same.

My response wasn't any different than yours.

 

[stollcpa]

My response wasn't any different than yours.

Your response was fine. Most of the time not. I hope to help Mark clean things up.

 

[ButHerEmails]

No, ignorant is only telling half the story. Ignorant is thinking this country was all well in the past because we were just ignoring racism.

why are you so afraid of students between taught what happened instead of trying to whitewash it?

Maybe we’ve only been teaching the bad parts of slavery?