 |
|
Serious question re teaching of history.
Posted on: August 22, 2018 at 11:38:37 CT
hokie VT
Posts:
67476
Member For:
9.52 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
I have posted before that i took a civil war class at tech last semester. A fascinating subject was turned into a PC indoctrination effort as EVERYTHING was seen through the prism of slavery, racism and oppression.
This semester i am taking a class on the history of virginia. I fear the same agenda, if too a lesser degree.
The question:
To what extent are slavery and racism a part of the history of the nation or the state of virginia? Please do not assume that i am dismissing or diminishing it. It's just a question.
Last semester again, EVERYTHING was considerate of slavery and racism. Is that more than is required to understand the history of the state the nation or the civil war?
If slavery did not exist, how would virginia history have been changed? Slaves were treated horribly, as beasts of burden. No better than oxen or mules. How significant to the historical development of the state and the nation were oxen and mules? And no, i am not making the case for blacks being nothing more than the equal of oxen and mules. I am inquiring about the impact on the advancement of the civilization of the state and the nation that the keeping and treatment of slaves had.
If a timeline showed north america from 1492 forward, how different would it look from the standpoint of territorial expansion, innovation, prosperity, the industrial revolution and the wars we've fought if slavery and racism were not part of the equation?
How different would it look if no slaves were brought here and america was a lilly white nation?
And to influence the pickle's idiots into silence, i'll make it more challenging; should the history of the roman empire be focused on slavery? Should the history of egypt?
Should the history of the aztecs, the mongols and the vikings be focused and therefore diminished because of the barbaric treatment the conquering forces administered to their vanquished enemies?
How polite were the tribes of africa and the american indians to the people they defeated in battles? To what extent should that be an issue in the teaching of african or indian history?
Slavery is in fact a stain on the history of our great nation. But to what extent must slavery and its legacy be addressed in every aspect of american history from 1492 onward?
The pickle and his band of idiots can spare us all their responses like, "Who cares," and "You're an idiot."
Serious responses only, please. Might make for an interesting discussion if that is possible here.
This semester i am taking a class on the history of virginia. I fear the same agenda, if too a lesser degree.
The question:
To what extent are slavery and racism a part of the history of the nation or the state of virginia? Please do not assume that i am dismissing or diminishing it. It's just a question.
Last semester again, EVERYTHING was considerate of slavery and racism. Is that more than is required to understand the history of the state the nation or the civil war?
If slavery did not exist, how would virginia history have been changed? Slaves were treated horribly, as beasts of burden. No better than oxen or mules. How significant to the historical development of the state and the nation were oxen and mules? And no, i am not making the case for blacks being nothing more than the equal of oxen and mules. I am inquiring about the impact on the advancement of the civilization of the state and the nation that the keeping and treatment of slaves had.
If a timeline showed north america from 1492 forward, how different would it look from the standpoint of territorial expansion, innovation, prosperity, the industrial revolution and the wars we've fought if slavery and racism were not part of the equation?
How different would it look if no slaves were brought here and america was a lilly white nation?
And to influence the pickle's idiots into silence, i'll make it more challenging; should the history of the roman empire be focused on slavery? Should the history of egypt?
Should the history of the aztecs, the mongols and the vikings be focused and therefore diminished because of the barbaric treatment the conquering forces administered to their vanquished enemies?
How polite were the tribes of africa and the american indians to the people they defeated in battles? To what extent should that be an issue in the teaching of african or indian history?
Slavery is in fact a stain on the history of our great nation. But to what extent must slavery and its legacy be addressed in every aspect of american history from 1492 onward?
The pickle and his band of idiots can spare us all their responses like, "Who cares," and "You're an idiot."
Serious responses only, please. Might make for an interesting discussion if that is possible here.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Serious question re teaching of history. - hokie VT - 8/22 11:38:37
-