Texas Senate Bill - Can’t teach KKK is morally wrong

Page 7 of 9 [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 1:24 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.


It was the federal authorities who defended the civil rights of African Americans and others against Texas authorities who favored segregation and voter disenfranchisement. You're not saying the feds are wrong in this case, are you?


In that case, the feds weren't wrong. The political discourse shifted between then and now. If we rate racism on the scale 1 to 10, then the opinions back then would have been rated 5 to 10, while the opinions today would be rated 1 to 5. So the most anti-black people today would have been considered the most pro-black back then.

Here is an example. David Duke, in his videos, was saying that he wants the college and job admission to be on the basis of merit-only. His issue was that they seemed to favor colored people and he didn't like it. Now, some of his stats seemed to be exaggerated because he made it look like the majority of Ivy League students were colored, which is simply not true. But the point is that he was defending marit-only admission. Now, who were the people who were advocating "merit only" back in the 19-th century? Probably nobody. Even the people that were in favor of liberating slaves, they were still assuming that blacks should hold lower position at the workplace than whites. It was just something taken for granted. So if you were to take David Duke, with his current views, to 19-th century, he would be the most pro-black person there was, since he would be the only one advocating merit-only situation.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

25 Jul 2021, 2:00 am

QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.


The wording of the new law is a cunning ploy to pass the power of "being offended" to white students. And (yes) in a class of 30 students there will be one white student who will complain that the teacher dared mention slavery and its consequences caused them to feel the lesson victimised them. Don't believe me? there's youtube videos of schoolkids crying giving speeches how CRT is making them hate their country and hate themselves. Some of the most fake videos I have ever seen.

This basically curtails freedom of speech and at some point in the future these opportunistic GOP governors and their MAGA clones will face a legal challenge over a breach of constitutional rights when the first teacher is sacked under this basically Nazi law.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jul 2021, 2:01 am

QFT wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I think this bill is predicated on a concept of traditional authority. In the US, authority has always been held by white English-speaking Christians, so the beliefs underlying the KKK's agenda should be respected and upheld by conservative Texans even while disagreeing with some of their practices. Contrast that with the 9/11 terrorists who were Muslim, Arabic-speaking, foreign, and relatively dark-skinned compared to the people who established the Republic of Texas.

An outright repudiation of the KKK is therefore seen as rejection of authority as understood by mainstream Texans.


To me it seems the opposite. The authorities are telling us that KKK is wrong, so agreeing with any aspect of KKK would be repudiation of authority. By the way, I don't like authorities that much. And that is what drives me to say things like I did in this thread.


It was the federal authorities who defended the civil rights of African Americans and others against Texas authorities who favored segregation and voter disenfranchisement. You're not saying the feds are wrong in this case, are you?


In that case, the feds weren't wrong. The political discourse shifted between then and now. If we rate racism on the scale 1 to 10, then the opinions back then would have been rated 5 to 10, while the opinions today would be rated 1 to 5. So the most anti-black people today would have been considered the most pro-black back then.

Here is an example. David Duke, in his videos, was saying that he wants the college and job admission to be on the basis of merit-only. His issue was that they seemed to favor colored people and he didn't like it. Now, some of his stats seemed to be exaggerated because he made it look like the majority of Ivy League students were colored, which is simply not true. But the point is that he was defending marit-only admission. Now, who were the people who were advocating "merit only" back in the 19-th century? Probably nobody. Even the people that were in favor of liberating slaves, they were still assuming that blacks should hold lower position at the workplace than whites. It was just something taken for granted. So if you were to take David Duke, with his current views, to 19-th century, he would be the most pro-black person there was, since he would be the only one advocating merit-only situation.


Actually, there were plenty of white abolitionists who had favored educating blacks after the Civil War, and putting them into positions of power during Reconstruction. Unfortunately, those blacks were forced from power, and even killed, following the end of Reconstruction.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,881
Location: temperate zone

25 Jul 2021, 5:26 am

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.


The wording of the new law is a cunning ploy to pass the power of "being offended" to white students. And (yes) in a class of 30 students there will be one white student who will complain that the teacher dared mention slavery and its consequences caused them to feel the lesson victimised them. Don't believe me? there's youtube videos of schoolkids crying giving speeches how CRT is making them hate their country and hate themselves. Some of the most fake videos I have ever seen.
.


False comparison.

CRT is new fangled radical retelling of US history that goes way beyond what we are talking about. And may well be beyond what run of the mill public school kids can handle. Not sure I buy that CRT is a good idea for standard curricula in most grades.

What we were talking about is simply teaching history the straight old fashioned way: you get to the post Civil War Reconstruction era of the South- when the Klan's first incarnation formed- and you describe how it was "the enemy of the good guys"- those striving for Black equality. Doing that implies that the Klan were "morally wrong" without requiring the teacher to say those exact words. You might even say that "the KKK was the first modern terrorist organization" without being radical in how you teach- and without straying from the truth- and still not flatter the KKK.

If thats enough to offend anyone then thats the issue. It shouldnt offend anyone.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

25 Jul 2021, 5:28 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Unfortunately, those blacks were forced from power, and even killed, following the end of Reconstruction.


Plenty of cases of black businessmen getting rounded up by mobs dragged from their cars and getting lynched. Never one person was evert investigated or arrested. The message being sent was crystal clear, If you are black and get rich then poor white folk have the right to come in and take what they want from you without repercussion because the police turned a blind eye.

Nowadays racists laugh at blacks for being poor but they were the ones who kept them that way.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

25 Jul 2021, 5:30 am

naturalplastic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.


The wording of the new law is a cunning ploy to pass the power of "being offended" to white students. And (yes) in a class of 30 students there will be one white student who will complain that the teacher dared mention slavery and its consequences caused them to feel the lesson victimised them. Don't believe me? there's youtube videos of schoolkids crying giving speeches how CRT is making them hate their country and hate themselves. Some of the most fake videos I have ever seen.
.


False comparison.

CRT is new fangled radical retelling of US history that goes way beyond what we are talking about. And may well be beyond what run of the mill public school kids can handle. Not sure I buy that CRT is a good idea for standard curricula in most grades.

What we were talking about is simply teaching history the straight old fashioned way: you get to the post Civil War Reconstruction era of the South- when the Klan's first incarnation formed- and you describe how it was "the enemy of the good guys"- those striving for Black equality. Doing that implies that the Klan were "morally wrong" without requiring the teacher to say those exact words. You might even say that "the KKK was the first modern terrorist organization" without being radical in how you teach- and without straying from the truth- and still not flatter the KKK.

If thats enough to offend anyone then thats the issue. It shouldnt offend anyone.


I'm talking about the law around banning talking about the KKK being morally wrong in Texas. It opens the door for white children to claim victimisation if the teacher even mentions the acronym KKK.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

25 Jul 2021, 7:31 am

QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.

I just didn't realize that this is what it was. I thought they just said the teacher shouldn't be forced to say its immoral. But now that you said that the teacher "is" being forced to keep her mouth shut, thats different.

That's not accurate.

They're simply dropping a requirement to teach the KKK is immoral.

Teachers can still teach it.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 8:37 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.

I just didn't realize that this is what it was. I thought they just said the teacher shouldn't be forced to say its immoral. But now that you said that the teacher "is" being forced to keep her mouth shut, thats different.

That's not accurate.

They're simply dropping a requirement to teach the KKK is immoral.

Teachers can still teach it.


Does anyone have a link to the exact wording of that legislature? Since this is the key issue here.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

25 Jul 2021, 8:42 am

QFT wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the exact wording of that legislature? Since this is the key issue here.

There's no exact wording, because they're dropping what already exists, and not adding anything new.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 9:08 am

naturalplastic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.


The wording of the new law is a cunning ploy to pass the power of "being offended" to white students. And (yes) in a class of 30 students there will be one white student who will complain that the teacher dared mention slavery and its consequences caused them to feel the lesson victimised them. Don't believe me? there's youtube videos of schoolkids crying giving speeches how CRT is making them hate their country and hate themselves. Some of the most fake videos I have ever seen.
.


False comparison.

CRT is new fangled radical retelling of US history that goes way beyond what we are talking about. And may well be beyond what run of the mill public school kids can handle. Not sure I buy that CRT is a good idea for standard curricula in most grades.

What we were talking about is simply teaching history the straight old fashioned way: you get to the post Civil War Reconstruction era of the South- when the Klan's first incarnation formed- and you describe how it was "the enemy of the good guys"- those striving for Black equality. Doing that implies that the Klan were "morally wrong" without requiring the teacher to say those exact words. You might even say that "the KKK was the first modern terrorist organization" without being radical in how you teach- and without straying from the truth- and still not flatter the KKK.

If thats enough to offend anyone then thats the issue. It shouldnt offend anyone.


I went to high school in the 90-s so I have no idea about CRT, but from the sounds of it it sounds a bit much. But that shouldn't be something to fire the teachers for. This would be the issue of changing the overall curriculum. A teacher shouldn't be fired for simply following the curriculum, as bad as it happens to be.

Speaking of curriculum, I think even the "old fashioned" narrative you described is a bit one sided. Because there are two separate narratives about the Civil War. The Union narrative (which is what is being taught in schools) is that civil war was all about freeing blacks, where people on the Union wanted to free them and Confederates didn't. The Confederate narrative is that it was about whether or not Southern states should secede. There were some Confederates that were hoping for blacks to eventually be freed, who still fought in the Confederate side. And, conversely, there were some Union folks (including Lincoln himself) who wanted to send blacks back to Africa after freeing them.

Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.

And with KKK same thing. Yes they can be taught about what they did that was bad. But they should also be taught how at some point it was fashionable to be in the klan to the point of notable people being there. Yes, if you put these two things together it makes it complicated and confusing. But if the reality is confusing then this is what the students should be taught.

As far as "morally wrong", I think that either "requiring" a teacher to say it, or "forbidding" the teacher from saying it would amount to teacher lying to the students. And how would the students trust the teachers that lie to them? Think fo the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: There is a law that requires the teacher to say that KKK is morally wrong. The teacher doesn't think its morally wrong, but she says it anyway because she is required to. So thats a lie.

Scenario 2: There is a law that forbids the teacher from saying that KKK is morally wrong. One of the students asks the teacher whether it is morally wrong. The teacher happens to think its morally wrong, but she is forced to say she isn't sure since that is all she is allowed to say. So that is a lie too.

By the way, irrespective of this particular issue, here is the bigger picture. So most kids tend to hear liberal views at schools and conservative views at home. But wait a second. Most teachers are parents too. So if we take someone who is both a teacher "and" a parent, would that person teach liberal views in the classroom and conservative views to their own kids? So don't you think there is something wrong if they tell other people's kids something they aren't willing to tell their own kids?

But again, they shouldn't be fired for it since its not their fault, its the system's fault. But the thing is that the system is forcing them to lie to their students, and thats the problem.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 9:14 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
QFT wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the exact wording of that legislature? Since this is the key issue here.

There's no exact wording, because they're dropping what already exists, and not adding anything new.


Thats what I thought. But the way some posters described it with "at least one student" etc makes it sound that they did add something new. So I wish those posters could provide a reference to where they got it from.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jul 2021, 12:19 pm

QFT wrote:
Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.


If you really don't know enough to know what was true that means the school system failed you, that failure is a problem that needs to be resolved so no more kids grow up not knowing the Lost Cause is nonsense.

I'm sorry that they failed you like that, otherwise you might have more informed opinions to share. :nerdy:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Last edited by funeralxempire on 25 Jul 2021, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jul 2021, 1:41 pm

QFT wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am in favor of free speech. So a teacher should say what she really thinks. If she thinks KKK is immoral, let her say it. If she doesn't think that, she shouldn't be forced to say something she doesn't actually think.


I think you will find that is the crux of the issue. For example the legislation set up by texas governor Abbott makes it possible for the state of texas to fire a teacher who teaches the existence of slavery or mentions the KKK if just one white student claims the curriculum is making them feel victimised (read the wording of the laws passed),


If that is the case, then I agree that this legislation is horrible. Because if the teacher has a classroom of, say, 30 students, and it is in the south, then yes it is very likely 1 out of those 30 will claim to be victimized and she would get fired. Which would be totally unfair, particularly if the other 29 students agree with her.


The wording of the new law is a cunning ploy to pass the power of "being offended" to white students. And (yes) in a class of 30 students there will be one white student who will complain that the teacher dared mention slavery and its consequences caused them to feel the lesson victimised them. Don't believe me? there's youtube videos of schoolkids crying giving speeches how CRT is making them hate their country and hate themselves. Some of the most fake videos I have ever seen.
.


False comparison.

CRT is new fangled radical retelling of US history that goes way beyond what we are talking about. And may well be beyond what run of the mill public school kids can handle. Not sure I buy that CRT is a good idea for standard curricula in most grades.

What we were talking about is simply teaching history the straight old fashioned way: you get to the post Civil War Reconstruction era of the South- when the Klan's first incarnation formed- and you describe how it was "the enemy of the good guys"- those striving for Black equality. Doing that implies that the Klan were "morally wrong" without requiring the teacher to say those exact words. You might even say that "the KKK was the first modern terrorist organization" without being radical in how you teach- and without straying from the truth- and still not flatter the KKK.

If thats enough to offend anyone then thats the issue. It shouldnt offend anyone.


I went to high school in the 90-s so I have no idea about CRT, but from the sounds of it it sounds a bit much. But that shouldn't be something to fire the teachers for. This would be the issue of changing the overall curriculum. A teacher shouldn't be fired for simply following the curriculum, as bad as it happens to be.

Speaking of curriculum, I think even the "old fashioned" narrative you described is a bit one sided. Because there are two separate narratives about the Civil War. The Union narrative (which is what is being taught in schools) is that civil war was all about freeing blacks, where people on the Union wanted to free them and Confederates didn't. The Confederate narrative is that it was about whether or not Southern states should secede. There were some Confederates that were hoping for blacks to eventually be freed, who still fought in the Confederate side. And, conversely, there were some Union folks (including Lincoln himself) who wanted to send blacks back to Africa after freeing them.

Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.

And with KKK same thing. Yes they can be taught about what they did that was bad. But they should also be taught how at some point it was fashionable to be in the klan to the point of notable people being there. Yes, if you put these two things together it makes it complicated and confusing. But if the reality is confusing then this is what the students should be taught.

As far as "morally wrong", I think that either "requiring" a teacher to say it, or "forbidding" the teacher from saying it would amount to teacher lying to the students. And how would the students trust the teachers that lie to them? Think fo the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: There is a law that requires the teacher to say that KKK is morally wrong. The teacher doesn't think its morally wrong, but she says it anyway because she is required to. So thats a lie.

Scenario 2: There is a law that forbids the teacher from saying that KKK is morally wrong. One of the students asks the teacher whether it is morally wrong. The teacher happens to think its morally wrong, but she is forced to say she isn't sure since that is all she is allowed to say. So that is a lie too.

By the way, irrespective of this particular issue, here is the bigger picture. So most kids tend to hear liberal views at schools and conservative views at home. But wait a second. Most teachers are parents too. So if we take someone who is both a teacher "and" a parent, would that person teach liberal views in the classroom and conservative views to their own kids? So don't you think there is something wrong if they tell other people's kids something they aren't willing to tell their own kids?

But again, they shouldn't be fired for it since its not their fault, its the system's fault. But the thing is that the system is forcing them to lie to their students, and thats the problem.


That was taught because the Pro-Confederate argument was a lie invented after the war. There would have been no freeing of the slaves, ever, as the Confederate constitution had forbidden it.
The Union eventually came to fight the war to free slaves - but only after Lincoln had guided popular northern opinion into turning the conflict into a war of liberation.
By the end of Lincoln's life, he had changed his mind about resettling blacks elsewhere. In fact, in the last speech he gave, he spoke of extending full citizenship to blacks. It was his last speech, because in the audience was John Wilkes Boothe, who had exclaimed: "That means n*gger citizenship! I'll run him through!"


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 3:51 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.


If you really don't know enough to know what was true that means the school system failed you, that failure is a problem that needs to be resolved so no more kids grow up not knowing the Lost Cause is nonsense.

I'm sorry that they failed you like that, otherwise you might have more informed opinions to share. :nerdy:


In school they taught me the Union version. As far as Confederate version I only learned it as an adult in my 30-s. But once I learned it I realize I can't really know one way or the other.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

25 Jul 2021, 4:04 pm

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.


If you really don't know enough to know what was true that means the school system failed you, that failure is a problem that needs to be resolved so no more kids grow up not knowing the Lost Cause is nonsense.

I'm sorry that they failed you like that, otherwise you might have more informed opinions to share. :nerdy:


In school they taught me the Union version. As far as Confederate version I only learned it as an adult in my 30-s. But once I learned it I realize I can't really know one way or the other.


You could do your own research instead of believing there's two official accounts and that means truth can't exist. :roll:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

25 Jul 2021, 6:58 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
Now, I personally don't know enough American history to really judge which of the two narratives is true. But that is precisely why I believe both narratives should be taught in schools, so that students can judge for themselves.


If you really don't know enough to know what was true that means the school system failed you, that failure is a problem that needs to be resolved so no more kids grow up not knowing the Lost Cause is nonsense.

I'm sorry that they failed you like that, otherwise you might have more informed opinions to share. :nerdy:


In school they taught me the Union version. As far as Confederate version I only learned it as an adult in my 30-s. But once I learned it I realize I can't really know one way or the other.


You could do your own research instead of believing there's two official accounts and that means truth can't exist. :roll:


I could. I just don't have time because I am specializing in physics and not in history and I there are things in physics I kept wishing to do that I couldn't get to thats why I didn't have time to study anything extra.

But when I find time to do my own research I will. I mean this thing is interesting so even if its not my field I would gladly read about it. I just can't promise you to do it any time soon. But I hope I will get to it some time.

In any case, just the fact that there are people with extensive knowledge of history that take both sides, that is proof enough that its not as clear as you think. Otherwise one of the sides would have been converted to the other side a long time ago. So in order for me to ever say "okay this side is right and that other side is wrong" I would have to become more knowledgeble of history than the best historians on both sides, and this is quite a tall order.