• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Tenn. Tea Party wants Slavery removed from school cirriculum

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Source - Read the whole story here

...About two dozen tea party activists held a news conference, then met with lawmakers individually to present their list of priorities and “demands” for the 2011 legislative session that opened Tuesday.

Regarding education, the material they distributed said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

That would include, the documents say, that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.”

The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,” said Rounds, whose website identifies him as a Vietnam War veteran of the Air Force and FedEx retiree who became a lawyer in 1995.
Call me silly, but this seems to me like a step in the completely wrong direction. I thought while I was growing up that I was living in a country dedicated to the truth and being honorable in law and justice. Yet it's clear in the past twenty years that the US is far more concerned with how it looks rather than how it actually is. To me, if this sort of shit continues to spread (Texas has already started censorship like this) then we're no better than the countries we despise such as North Korea (which according to listverse.com teaches: According to North Korean historical literature, Kim Jong Il was born in a log cabin inside a secret base on Korea’s most sacred mountain, Mt. Paekdu. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring, and rainbows appeared).

I don't know about you, but growing up and learning that the founding fathers owned slaves didn't make me hate America or the country. I think most of us were taught that this was a developmental stage for our country and that even though it was terrible, we rose up from it and through great leaders gave people the freedoms they deserved. I'm not sure what the agenda is here, to me it's nothing short of brainwashing.

What about you? Would you honestly allow your kid to go to a school system that routinely doctored the actual history of our country for PR's sake?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Cons, arent you and they arguing for the same thing? Your statement "the founding fathers owned slaves" is inaccurate. SOME of them did, some were vehemently against it. There were many arguments about that very issue and it could have derailed the entire constitution. Long ago when I went to school there were those teachers that seemed to place undue focus on the bad and those that did not.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I agree that history should be taught as accurate as possible. For example, and I just heard this last night when watching Bill Maher, he said the Founders considered black people 3/5ths of a person. Actually, they were counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes. The North didn't want the South to have an unfair advantage in the House due to the population of slaves.

The problem is history is already taught with a slant. I'm not saying that to condone Texas wanting to change history books or this group wanting to change something. But the fact is most things are already taught with a slant, it's sad most subjects aren't taught more objectively.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Cons, arent you and they arguing for the same thing? Your statement "the founding fathers owned slaves" is inaccurate. SOME of them did, some were vehemently against it. There were many arguments about that very issue and it could have derailed the entire constitution. Long ago when I went to school there were those teachers that seemed to place undue focus on the bad and those that did not.
I'm not advocating lying to our children for PR's sake.

I never said ALL the founding fathers owned slaves, don't put words in my posts. If you have a question or want clarification, ask for it, don't make the answers yourself. I know all the founding fathers didn't own slaves, but learning history isn't about basking in all our glory and none of our dirty spots. It's about understanding all of it and how it has framed who we are today.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Not to mention NOWHERE in the source cited does it say anything even remotely like "the tea party wants slavery removed from the curriculum". FYI Cons, that is NOT mocking you. It is pointing out a completely inaccurate and misleading thread title. Should you disagree PLEASE make your argument. Furthermore, I have a question for you: were you taught that the founders were a bunch of slave owners as your comments might suggest? If so, it would seem that it is you who has been subject to "brainwashing" from a bunch of liberal "educators" that placed inordinate emphasis upon certain negatives surrounding the founding of our country.

In answer to your question "Would you honestly allow your kid to go to a school system that routinely doctored the actual history of our country...?" Yes! My daughter goes to public school and it will be my job to undo the slanted misinformation she will be hearing from her liberal union teachers.
------
Since I didn't see your previous post while I was writing mine I will point out that I quoted you, I didn't make it up or try to put words in your mouth. Just read your OP!
------
And I also agree with your statement. But neither is it about an undue focus on the negatives and a minimization of the positives.
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Firstly, you can keep making up things you think I said, I already said if you wanted clarification on my posts, ask. Don't make it up as you go. I'm asking politely, that's all. I know what I said, you don't need to quote me. I failed to say "some" but I also didn't say "all". Are you done debating semantics now?

I would read the article again. The Tea Party group in question wants negative representations of minorities in US history to be amended, like you know, slavery. I don't think it's misleading (unlike you're completely subjective "dipshit sheriff" thread title :lol: ) and with other recent news stories about other school cirriculums engaging in the same kind of censorship I doubt it's anything but on point.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Not to try to derail the thread, but to make a point: I didn't make up anything about your post. If someone were to write "the posters in GFs MD section are conservative" would you point out that it is an inaccurate statement? If they shot back with "I failed to say some, but I didn't say they are ALL conservative" would that satisfy you?

When I make a thread title like "sheriff dipshit" I am inviting criticism. That is part of my bombastic approach which I am prepared to defend.

From your quote from the cited source:
“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers..."

Did you notice the part about "shall obscure"?

Could "minority experience" mean not the racial minority but the numerical minority? As in: yes, there were negatives but those negatives were the minority and in the end the majority prevailed? So, while acknowledging that there were negatives, let them not overshadow the accomplishments?
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
What I gathered from school was that the Founding Fathers were infallible genius heroes, including those who kept slaves ("They were nice to theirs," was a typical teacher response to a raised hand on the subject), while all other slave owners were morally corrupt. The founders of our federal government were just as human and flawed as George Bush or Bill Clinton have proven themselves to be. They were no demigods, nor were they all of one unified political persuasion, conservative or otherwise. They also waged the Revolution with only about a third of America's occupants in their ideological camp. There were as many loyalists to the crown as there were rebels, while a third third didn't give a fig which side won the war. 'Will of the people,' not exactly.

And I don't read Heritage Foundation output, but I have been on the government's own website thomas.gov and perused pre-Civil war letters by articulate and happy-sounding black slaves to their masters and mistresses. Many whites instinctively treated anyone in their charge with common decency; stories of slaves feeling more like kin were a common table topic. Thousands of freed slaves after the Great Emancipation took on their former owner's surnames willingly, with the feeling that they had been humanely treated. The dissemination of this knowledge could potentially be comforting to African Americans pondering their families' pasts. However, the abolitionist tradition of generalizing all slaves' experiences as cruel ones is still with us institutionally today.
Your statement "the founding fathers owned slaves" is inaccurate. SOME of them did
I think it's apt, in his collective context. It's like saying, "The people of China love New Year pageantry," when it's understood that there's got to be at least one cranky old fart somewhere in the country who never goes out to the parades.

I just heard this last night when watching Bill Maher, he said the Founders considered black people 3/5ths of a person. Actually, they were counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes.
That's arguably not a distinction. And by whom was this 3/5 system devised, for what specific census purposes?

No offense, guys, but I can't see either of these responses as a solid refutation worth throwing out there. If I may, one of the biggest fails of MD is that half of it is not arguing the issues, but arguing what one of us meant in a post from two hours before. Grey area minutiae are dead weight, in my two cents, and an impediment to moving the discussion forward.
 
Top