This is disturbing...

DrunkPotHead

Diabloii.Net Member
This is disturbing...

I can't believe this is still allowed in school, even if it is a private school.

Forget this thread, the booklet is not being used anymore.
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
""You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said."

Or you can have a moral perspective.
 

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
Steve_Kow said:
I don't see what the big deal is.

The kids might be a little young to adequately gauge the truth of a controversial work that counters common thought of slavery.
 

djIgneo

Diabloii.Net Member
Neither do I. I think the article has a good point that showing only 1 side is indoctrination rather than education. I think schools should do more to encourage students to think for themselves.
 

mhl12

Diabloii.Net Member
Steve_Kow said:
I don't see what the big deal is.
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.
 

axeil

Diabloii.Net Member
Well 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).

Nothing is absolute. In saying that, I still think that slavery was a poor idea in the 1800s and hindered economic development in the Old South but there were some advantages to it.
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
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.

Garbad
 

axeil

Diabloii.Net Member
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.

Garbad
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.

I also hated how my Euro textbook this year found it imperative to include a chapter about women every 5-7 chapters despite the fact that ALL OF IT COULD'VE BEEN COVERED IN ONE CHAPTER. Basically things remained the same each time (1500s/1600s, 1700s, 1800s) until the one about the 1900s. It would 1) make more sense and 2) save on printing costs to just include all the stuff about women and the progression of women's rights in one chapter. I felt like it was done as it was to appease rabid feminists.
 

SirKnightmare

Diabloii.Net Member

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
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.
Don't forget to mention southerners are ignorant, have sex with family members, and eat babies while masturbating to gay bible pron too.

Garbad
 

mhl12

Diabloii.Net Member
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.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140437495/qid=1117671155/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4740020-6921439

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.
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.
 

greatrambino1981

Diabloii.Net Member
Well, this makes me sick. Not the article, but the responses to it.
Well 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).
..and the slave could leave whenever they wanted. Right :rolleyes:
 

asdf

Diabloii.Net Member
i just have 2 things to say about this...

1. slavery, at the time, wasn't much worse than underpaid, overworked factory workers. food and shelter was provided, at the expense of freedom and probably some whippings. with a free person in the factory- they were overworked just the same, with no job security, and therefore could never be sure if they would be able to have their next meal. just because they were free doesn't mean that they could do whatever they wanted, you know.

2. the quotes from that booklet are just horribly, horribly stupid and wrong. it's not showing the southerner's perspective, it's showing the majickal fairlyland of happy care bear slaves perspective. i mean, what the hell is this?
* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)
 

Geeno

Diabloii.Net Member
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.
 

Tor

Diabloii.Net Member
im going a research paper on how christianity is ruining education

this could help
 

Steve_Kow

Banned
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if many of them didn't have an interest in literacy. The gain wouldn't be immediate or obvious.
 

Anakha1

Banned
IMO, slavery should never be put in a positive light, "opposing point of views" or no. If it can be interpreted by the children as justifying slavery it shouldn't be allowed. The world has enough people justifying bigotry without making new ones.
 

DrunkPotHead

Diabloii.Net Member
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]
 
Top