true, it gives an educational view of a different side in the civil war and its conflicts with slavery. The students are not forced to say that slavery is good or anything. We all are also too used to reading about materials and stories describing the negative sides of slavery. It's nothing to be ashamed of because it's all in the past and we cannot change it.Steve_Kow said:I don't see what the big deal is.
I couldn't agree more. Teachers spend way too much time trying to PCify history when none of it is PC. I hated how my Modern American History teacher viewed everything as black and white. For example, he completely negleted the fact that in World War I the British and French were just as responsible as Germany and Austria. History is mostly grey and even some of the more black and white things (Nazi=bad) can still be seen in a greyish light.Garbad_the_Weak said:In any event, it is history, more or less.
The south made those same arguments - the bible justifies slavery (and it does, arguably) and slavery was more humane than unchecked capitalistic exploitation of immigrants, children, etc (and argubably, it was). And in those days, it wasn't a "given" slavery was immoral - some people actually argued it was more moral to keep slaves because Africans lacked the intelligence to govern themselves. And so on, back and forth for 100 years until the south lost the War and the point was mooted.
I don't have a problem with kids examining it to see what they think. It sounds like it was offered to create a debate and discussion and to show the evolution of ideas, and I have no problems with that. Sounds like good teaching of history - even in its ugly nonPC reality.
Don't forget to mention southerners are ignorant, have sex with family members, and eat babies while masturbating to gay bible pron too.SirKnightmare said:I am not talking about all of the South, but it does have an infestation of racists and homophobes who use God as justification for their bigotry.
we were talking about it in a historian's point of view. A historian's job is to tell history in the most unbiased way as possible. You can't avoid the history of slavery and we are NOT defending it.SirKnightmare said:Can't believe you geniuses are defending slavery. I don't want to hear "blah blah I'm just looking at the other side", BS, you are defending it. There were ZERO advantages of slavery.
Read that if you think there were.
I am not talking about all of the South, but it does have an infestation of racists and homophobes who use God as justification for their bigotry.
..and the slave could leave whenever they wanted. RightWell slavery did keep the slaves 1. employed 2. fed 3. healthy. A starving unhealthy slave wasn't very good. Compare this to the factory workers in the North where there was no economic incentive to keeping workers employed or healthy (fedding is a direct relationship to employment in this case).
* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)
It wouldn't surprise me if many of them didn't have an interest in literacy. The gain wouldn't be immediate or obvious.Geeno said:I spent some time at the Boon Plantation in South Carolina when a Boon family member informed me that literacy was an option for slaves, who chose not to.
I'm sure they would eagerly tell you the truth that they whipped the slaves whenever they misbehaved, and committed other terrible atrocities. I know if i were them, it would be the first thing i would mention. [/sarcasm]Geeno said:I spent some time at the Boon Plantation in South Carolina when a Boon family member informed me that literacy was an option for slaves, who chose not to.