|
|
Post by myboysnme on Feb 12, 2019 20:51:03 GMT
The first Africans in Virginia at Old Point Comfort in 1619 were sold but at Jamestown they were able to obtain freedom and own land. In 1624 some are recorded as working as servants. There were about 20 African people in Virginia at that time and most had become baptized Christians and taken English Christian names.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 12, 2019 20:55:37 GMT
I have to wonder what they are teaching people about history in Virginia. Is that what they call slavery to make it sound better? I have heard people here say that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights. I thought that was preposterous but recently saw an article about the curriculum in Texas undergoing changes because what they have been teaching about the civil war was not historically accurate. So that made me wonder if that person was wrongfully taught. I’m sure that could happen with other topics as well. And by no means am I saying that is ok. The civil was was not about slavery or states rights; , at least not only about those. The abolitionist movement was true but it was utilized as an excuse by rich northern industrialists because they felt that southern slave owner had an unfair labor advantage and they wanted to level the playing field. And states rights was equally an excuse to preserve the southern plantation life for rich plantation owners. The civil war was complicated and students today get a watered down unfair version of what caused the war. The civil war was about MONEY, painting the picture of the north having this solely altruistic goal of freeing slaves is revisionist history at its best. The abolitionist movement wouldn’t have gone anywhere without the rich industrialists, with thier own ulterior motives, backing the movement & the abolitionist candidates & the war itself. It’s unfair to make it like the north was ‘just freeing the slaves’, talk about whitewashing history books. It’s as bad if not worse than teaching people the civil war was only about states rights. The civil war was about MONEY, about the rich getting richer. About keeping the rich rich and the poor poor and the slaves enslaved. To the victor go the spoils |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 12, 2019 20:59:52 GMT
I encourage y'all to check out Tolerance.org's podcast Teaching Hard History! Especially listen to the episodes: Slavery & the Civil War, parts 1 & 2 Slavery & the Northern Economy (nope, we're not exempt, Northerners) Slavery & the Constitution (that 3/5 clause, though) www.tolerance.org/podcasts/teaching-hard-history/american-slaveryAvailable above and on most podcast platforms. Hosted by Hasan Kwame Jeffries, professor at Ohio State. (Incidentally, his brother is Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY 8th District representative. |
|
|
|
Post by SockMonkey on Feb 12, 2019 21:01:01 GMT
I have to wonder what they are teaching people about history in Virginia. Is that what they call slavery to make it sound better? I have heard people here say that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights. I thought that was preposterous but recently saw an article about the curriculum in Texas undergoing changes because what they have been teaching about the civil war was not historically accurate. So that made me wonder if that person was wrongfully taught. I’m sure that could happen with other topics as well. And by no means am I saying that is ok. The civil war was about MONEY, about the rich getting richer. About keeping the rich rich and the poor poor and the slaves enslaved. To the victor go the spoils Yes, about money and power, both of which depended entirely on an economy built around slavery. So... it was about slavery, really, and the preservation of it in order to maintain money and power. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 12, 2019 21:15:10 GMT
The civil war was about MONEY, about the rich getting richer. About keeping the rich rich and the poor poor and the slaves enslaved. To the victor go the spoils Yes, about money and power, both of which depended entirely on an economy built around slavery. So... it was about slavery, really, and the preservation of it in order to maintain money and power. yes, for the south. And for the north, for the rich industrialists, about destroying slavery for money & power because slave owners seemed to have less expenses than they did and it cut into thier business dealings. To the victor go the spoils |
|
|
|
Post by OntarioScrapper on Feb 13, 2019 2:37:58 GMT
I have to wonder what they are teaching people about history in Virginia. Is that what they call slavery to make it sound better? I have heard people here say that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, it was about states rights. I thought that was preposterous but recently saw an article about the curriculum in Texas undergoing changes because what they have been teaching about the civil war was not historically accurate. So that made me wonder if that person was wrongfully taught. I’m sure that could happen with other topics as well. And by no means am I saying that is ok. I'm in Canada. In highschool I took American History. Our teacher handed out the text books which he said he had to. However we weren't going to use them because they were printed in the USA. It was interesting to compare what was in that book. Just baffling. In my province of Ontario we were suppose to get accurate indigenous people history in our schools in September. Well the new Ontario Government under Doug Ford elected last June choose to tell teachers sometime in the summer that in fact they wouldn't be teaching this. EVEN though the teachers already were prepared to do so. FFS. I'm thinking he didn't like the horrible stuff that was being included. Well it happened. Sounds like the same thing. Pretend slavery wasn't so bad and you'll make the people feel better. Well the right people because other people will just get more pissed off. |
|
