Is history racist?

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
It kind of depends on the teacher. In high school for two years, I had this guy who gave us textbook readings and then talked about the time he was in the Peacecorps for 45 minutes. After awhile I just started doing my other homework in his class.

There was another teacher who would yell and scream and call students names. But he was a great teacher and he taught CRT before that was a thing. We learned about red-lining, Jim Crow laws, code words like "Southern way of life," and examined pictures of lynching.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,208
This is probably not the right thread for but some white supremacists couldn’t handle the fire when they marched through a “real American” city like Philadelphia:

 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,634
I think part of teaching CRT is actually just being a good teacher. Good teachers make you think and question and look beyond the surface. One of the best history teachers I ever worked with used to make kids barter on the silk road. They had certain items that they needed to barter for and they had to role play.

Unfortunately, history class is often a boring recitation of dates, study of maps, and watching History Channel documentaries. History is often thought of as a "boring" class but it's mostly teachers presenting material in a boring way.

Any study of US history that doesn't examine the institutional frameworks is not really studying US history.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
Was slavery an issue in the Revolution? The following quote is from

"Taxation No Tyranny: An Answer To The Resolutions And Address Of The American Congress"
by Dr. Samuel Johnson (a UK Tory), lived 18 September 1709 [Old date, 7 September] – 13 December 1784


We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778

As an archaeologist by training, I have really mixed thoughts about this. Not that the 19th and early 20th century anthropologists weren't racist and the collection was done under deplorable circumstances, or that the collection should be repatriated. DNA analysis can do that. It's the question about whether the CT scans should be banned from study. There is so much to be learned and published about these remains. We cannot undo what was done, but we can learn. Today's imaging technology is so far advanced and it is problematic for me not to use that technology for the advancement of science. I also think the remains should be returned to decedents and not to serve as a political statement to unrelated people. That's what they were used for by Morton and others. We can bring them back to their homes even if it's West Africa with DNA analysis. But, if anybody wants to really understand the origin of politicalized racism in the US, you need look no further than Morton and other early anthropologists. Hitler and the SS didn't come up with the idea of eugenics. That developed in the hallowed halls of US academia in the 1920s.
 
Last edited:

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,954

In Defense of Freedom - of the Press and the Academy​


This is Nikole-Hannah Jones on her decision to take a position at Howard University & and decline the belated tenure at University of North Carolina. There is an intro by Dan Rather, but if you scroll down to the heading in red, the rest is her statement in her words.

It is beautifully and powerfully written.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
Even if she is teaching journalism and not history no one should be hired to teach anything if they wrote all the people behind the American revolution did so because they were afraid king George was going to abolish slavery so they had to break away for slavery
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
:wall: That is not what she wrote: She wrote that it was one of the primary reasons, not the only reason.
And Washington, Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin all owned slaves. Of the most prominent of the founding fathers, only John Adams had no slaves.
It’s a lie either way. The effort to break away from being a colony had nothing to do with slavery. Everyone knows they were all slave owners. It also had nothing to do with their wanting not to be denied the right to vote people in England had! Even limited as it was.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704

A very good essay on the failings of K-12 American history courses.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,848

A very good essay on the failings of K-12 American history courses.


That was good & I mostly agree with it, in terms of how our history is taught.

Interesting how he points out that we’re perhaps the only country that came to blows over the issue of slavery and had to fight a bloody civil war to finally get rid of it. That does indeed say a lot. 😦

Also really agree with what he said about the teaching of modern American history—that is, the idea that Martin Luther King made one great speech, the Civil Rights Bill was easily passed, and boom, the problem of race was solved! That was exactly what I took away from my school years as well.

It’s certainly been an education since then.
 

Simone411

Do stand. Do stand six. Do stand six feet from me.
Messages
17,467
That was good & I mostly agree with it, in terms of how our history is taught.

Interesting how he points out that we’re perhaps the only country that came to blows over the issue of slavery and had to fight a bloody civil war to finally get rid of it. That does indeed say a lot. 😦

Also really agree with what he said about the teaching of modern American history—that is, the idea that Martin Luther King made one great speech, the Civil Rights Bill was easily passed, and boom, the problem of race was solved! That was exactly what I took away from my school years as well.

It’s certainly been an education since then.
Martin Luther King made his speech on August 28th, 1963. That didn't mean the problem of race was solved. I was 5 years old at the time. I turned 6 in September, and was in the first grade.

There were only whites in my school up until the 5th grade. In public buildings like the Court House, Chamber of Commerce, etc. there were water fountains designated for "Whites only" and "Colored only". There were restrooms for "Whites Only" and for "Colored only". At our movie Theatre, the balcony was for "Colored Only" and the floor seats were designated for "Whites Only". It was that way until the movie theatre closed which was in the early 70's.

This is what I had to grow up with in my state of Louisiana. I don't know about other southern states, but I'm pretty sure it was similar to the way the Blacks (African American) were treated.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
That was good & I mostly agree with it, in terms of how our history is taught.

Interesting how he points out that we’re perhaps the only country that came to blows over the issue of slavery and had to fight a bloody civil war to finally get rid of it. That does indeed say a lot. 😦

Also really agree with what he said about the teaching of modern American history—that is, the idea that Martin Luther King made one great speech, the Civil Rights Bill was easily passed, and boom, the problem of race was solved! That was exactly what I took away from my school years as well.

It’s certainly been an education since then.
Lol so having a czar like Russia who just one day decided to abolish serfdom would have been better? Horrible democracy! Why couldn’t US have been a dictatorship!
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
Slavery was one of the issues in the American Revolution, leading up to the Declaration of Independence.


A key situation in the Burning of Norfolk (Jan. 2, 1776) cemented Virginians' allegiance to the Revolutionary side, despite the fact that many of the plantations' customers for cotton, indigo, tobacco, hemp, and sugar were in England.

The British commander was freeing slaves who would serve as troops.

Dunmore reacted to this event by issuing a proclamation on November 7 in which he declared martial law, and offered to emancipate Whig-held slaves in Virginia willing to serve in the British Army. The proclamation alarmed Tory and Whig slaveholders alike, concerned by the idea of armed former slaves and the potential loss of their property.[5] Nevertheless, Dunmore was able to recruit enough slaves to form the Ethiopian Regiment, as well as raising a company of Tories he called the Queen's Own Loyal Virginia Regiment. These local forces supplemented the two companies of the 14th Foot that were the sole British military presence in the colony.[6] This successful recruiting drive prompted Dunmore to write on November 30, 1775 that he would soon be able to "reduce this colony to a proper sense of their duty."[7]
A source on this is here

  • Wilson, David K (2005). The Southern Strategy: Britain's conquest of South Carolina and Georgia, 1775–1780. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 1-57003-573-3. OCLC 232001108.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
Slavery was one of the issues in the American Revolution, leading up to the Declaration of Independence.


A key situation in the Burning of Norfolk (Jan. 2, 1776) cemented Virginians' allegiance to the Revolutionary side, despite the fact that many of the plantations' customers for cotton, indigo, tobacco, hemp, and sugar were in England.

The British commander was freeing slaves who would serve as troops.


A source on this is here

  • Wilson, David K (2005). The Southern Strategy: Britain's conquest of South Carolina and Georgia, 1775–1780. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 1-57003-573-3. OCLC 232001108.
Doesn’t the timeline there indicate the revolution was already going on? That the British were freeing slaves only so that would fight for the British?
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
The Declaration was not written until 1776. That was when a new nation was declared, and the document was signed by representatives of all 13 colonies.

Some historians date the start as early as 1765.
 

VALuvsMKwan

Wandering Goy
Messages
7,632
The equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee, one of the focal points on Richmond's Monument Avenue, will be removed in the next few days after the Supreme Court of Virginia eliminated any legal roadblocks.


Fittingly, the only statue remaining on Monument Avenue is that of Arthur Ashe. :D

I encourage you to watch the locally produced documentary from Virginia Public Media about Monument Avenue's history and last summer's protests which led to the removal of all the Confederate-related monuments there. It has been broadcast here in the Richmond area and apparently will be shown broadly on PBS starting this month.

 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
Now the ridiculous charade of trying to find a place for it instead of destroying it like mostly all want to do.

I like how people talk about museums when museums are banning any confederate things
 
Last edited:

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
Which museums?


 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
So that's two museums (out of at least hundreds), one of which said they didn't have the money needed to take it and another that didn't have the space and also said the statue didn't fit what that museum is about.

Yes, that means no museums anywhere will take any confederate statues.

Btw, if most museums do decide not to take these statues, that kind of shows that the rationale for keeping them because they have historical significance is not real.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
So that's two museums (out of at least hundreds), one of which said they didn't have the money needed to take it and another that didn't have the space and also said the statue didn't fit what that museum is about.

Yes, that means no museums anywhere will take any confederate statues.

Btw, if most museums do decide not to take these statues, that kind of shows that the rationale for keeping them because they have historical significance is not real.
You can see in lots of these articles the people who are demanding they be torn down are the ones defensive about erasing history -they are the ones saying they want them in museums because they say they have historical value. If they would stop being defensive and stop lying and just start promoting destruction that would be so much better.

the people who actually support the statues believe they should be left in place. That moving them is erasing history not just destroying them.

the whole thing about “not having space or money” is just blather! They don’t want to to be picketed by those who oppose the statues but also don’t want to be seen as a museum trying to erase history

Obviously all the statues should be destroyed. But people who are demanding they be torn down don’t want to say that. I don’t get it. It needs to be explained how a person can hold a view that says the statues are evil but need to be in museums.

Plus museums are changing their “mission statements” to exclude anything confederate lol



Here is the whole saga of the Florida confederate statue. lake county banned a museum from taking it.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
You can see in lots of these articles the people who are demanding they be torn down are the ones defensive about erasing history -they are the ones saying they want them in museums because they say they have historical value.
No, they aren't. They are saying "tear them down". And when people say "but that's erasing history," they say "well put them in a museum then." They don't want them in museums and they aren't claiming they want them in museums. They are saying people who want to preserve them can do that if they want to.

You do realize museums don't just accept any random crap that comes along, right? They have purposes and themes. A museum about butterflies or about the history of the Revolutionary War or about natural history of the area isn't going to have any place or any need or any want a Confederate statue. It would make no sense. But a museum about the Civil War should show the people and the uniforms and the equipment for both sides. So that museum is the one that can take the statue. Assuming it's of someone who merits being in a museum and has historical value. Not all of these statues qualify as some of them are of pretty random people.

If you actually read that article all the way through and with comprehension, it says the 98-year-old figure will be relocated and transported to the Museum of Florida History in Tallahassee. So it already has a home in a place that makes sense to put it. Also, that the man has no connection to Lake County so having it in a Lake County museum doesn't make sense. Also, another museum that would be appropriate to house the statue already has one of him. How many statues of Confederate traitors does one museum need? Yes, they also said it would be controversial. But that wasn't the only reason.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
No, they aren't. They are saying "tear them down". And when people say "but that's erasing history," they say "well put them in a museum then." They don't want them in museums and they aren't claiming they want them in museums. They are saying people who want to preserve them can do that if they want to.

You do realize museums don't just accept any random crap that comes along, right? They have purposes and themes. A museum about butterflies or about the history of the Revolutionary War or about natural history of the area isn't going to have any place or any need or any want a Confederate statue. It would make no sense. But a museum about the Civil War should show the people and the uniforms and the equipment for both sides. So that museum is the one that can take the statue. Assuming it's of someone who merits being in a museum and has historical value. Not all of these statues qualify as some of them are of pretty random people.

If you actually read that article all the way through and with comprehension, it says the 98-year-old figure will be relocated and transported to the Museum of Florida History in Tallahassee. So it already has a home in a place that makes sense to put it. Also, that the man has no connection to Lake County so having it in a Lake County museum doesn't make sense. Also, another museum that would be appropriate to house the statue already has one of him. How many statues of Confederate traitors does one museum need? Yes, they also said it would be controversial. But that wasn't the only reason.
I do understand that museums don’t accept everything. The anti statue pro museum people don’t underhand that. The only thing that makes sense is leaving the statues alone or destroying them. I don’t know anyone who is pro statue being pro museum. Because that is an anti statue position. There is a leave history alone side and the other side that doesn’t want to admit it wants all the statues destroyed.

The point the whole museum angle is not an answer and it is the one the anti statue people have created. Not the pro statue people.

the Tallahassee museum said specially they do not want the statue but will hold it until it finds one that does
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
Quite a few of these Confederate statues were mass produced and have little historical value and no artistic value.

Especially the generic Union and Confederate soldiers which are the same statues, except one has US on the belt buckle and one has CS.


Why would any museum want one of those?

An appropriate place might be in a cemetery, especially one where quite a few soldiers were buried.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information