We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.
- Orson Welles
They were counted that way for congressional represntation purposes only, in order to limit the amount of pro-slavery members of congress.... It was not a societal designation that religated them to a less than human status.What is not racist about counting people who were born in the country (ie should be citizens) as 3/5 a person because they were slaves?
Then how do you explain the huge number of Americans who believe that the purpose of the 3/5 clause was to designate black people as less human than white people?Bull crap. I was taught that and students today are taught that. They are taught about the Abolitionist Movement, John Brown, the reasons for the 3/5 clause, etc
You claim you were taught those things, but I'm here to tell you that between 1969 and 1978 in both the Anne Arundal County public school system, and Caroline County school system in the state of Maryland, I was never taught about the 3/5 clause, the Act of 1807, the Act of 1819, or the Act of 1820. I was taught about the underground railroad and the civil war, but when it came to any laws or political opposition to slavery prior to Lincoln, I was not taught a damned thing. That also applies from 1979 through 1983 when I attended the Phoenix Union High School District in Phoenix, Arizona. They pretty much left all of that out and in my opinion, that is information that every child growing up in America should know about. It's called "balance" and anyone who disagrees with that, makes it pretty clear how they want future generations to perceive America, and let's just say it ain't in a positive way.
Only a far left liberal like yourself would think that teaching our children to take pride in America, is nothing more than a political scam.This is the exact type of BS that this wingnut school board is trying to push. It makes it clear that the entire motivation is a political scam
A high school Social Studies teacher in Solon, Ohio asked his students the following question on the 3/5 compromise:
"Was the 3/5’s Compromise a pragmatic solution to the slave issue that ended up being beneficial for our nation’s survival? Or, Was the 3/5’s Compromise an example of hideous racism and also a lack of courage and conviction by some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention?"
While many of them ignored the question parameters and chose both answers, here's how each one (with the exception of 2 that got it right) chose to begin their statements:
I believe that the 3/5's compromise was a very strong form of racism. We as humans should be ourselfs and counted as one whole person no matter what color, shape or size you are.
I believe that the 3/5's compromise was a example of hideous racism because no human being should have their freedom and rights taken away from them.
I think that the 3/5's Compromise was an example of racism as well as hypocrisy.
I think the 3/5 compromise was a big form of racism.
I think the 3/5 compromise was a form of racism.
i think the 3/5 comprimse was americans way of not dealing with one of its biggest issue. this is why not many people like america because we dont know how to clean up our mess. we are always in other people business and worry little about our own
I think the 3/5 compromise was a form of racism. By writing this compromise the founding fathers did not deal with the biggest issue that was happening at the time
The 3/5's compromise was a cheap way for the southern slave owners to get more of a say in government.
I believe that the 3/5's compromise was a big form of racism and harsh equality. The only reason for this was to get more people towards the population. No one should be counted as 3/5's of a person, that is just awful and it makes the United States look bad too.
In my opinion, The 3/5's compromise was a cheap way for the southern slave owners to get more of a say in government.
I think that the 3/5's compromise was a completely racist move. No one person should ever be counted for 3/5's of a person. The African Americans should have been counted as a whole if they were going to do this and give them their full rights.
The 3/5's compromise was a large form of racism within the United States. They are treating African American people as non human beings. Or they were even 3/5 of a human being, that doesnt make any sence. You are either human (which they were) or non human (which they were not). You cant just be 3/5 human.
The 3/5 compromise continues to serve a purpose to this day. Today we use this abomination as a reminder of both how far we have advanced as a society and just how inhumane our ancestors were.
I believe that the 3/5 compromise is indeed racist
I think that the 3/5’s Compromise is an example of hideous racism. Because in this case only the three-fifths of black people would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment; and it is not fair to count a black man as a three-fifths’ person.
And those are what high school students today think...
What made the WWII generation so great was the fact that no matter what a persons politics were, or what their personal or religious beliefs were, they all had one thing in common... They all loved America... They all believed in her greatness and the principals she was founded upon. We couldn't have won WWII without it. We need to instill some pride in future generations or they will end up hating America just like so many people today do... and look where that's gotten us over the last several decades.
Teaching history with some balance is a good thing and something that in my opinion, only someone with an anti-American political agenda could possibly object to.
Here is the section of the first draft of the proposal by school board member Julie Williams that caused all the controversy:
Review criteria shall include the following: instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively. Theories should be distinguished from fact. Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions.
What exactly is so wrong with that? I see nothing objectionable there at all.
Then a second draft was made by another school board member that replaced the paragraph above with the following:
Suggested review criteria include the following: Do the instructional materials present the
most current factual information accurately and objectively? Are theories distinguished
from facts? Do the materials encourage responsible citizenship, respect individual rights,
and present the essentials of the American free enterprise system? Are materials that may
encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife, or disregard of the law done so within the
context of the U.S. constitution? Do the instructional materials include positive aspects of
the United States and its heritage? Is content pertaining to political and social movements
in U.S. history balanced and factual?
Again, I see nothing wrong with this one either.
This whole student protest thing sounds awful fishy to me... Why would students be so up in arms about this proposal? Where did they get the idea that this proposal was a form of censorship, unless that's what their teachers told them to believe?
What would lead a teacher to object to presenting children with material that shows the positive aspects of the United States and its heritage, and object to political and social movements in history being presented in a balanced manner? Why would they object to lessons that instill "patriotism", the promotion of good citizenship, respect for authority, respect for individual rights or lessons teaching the benifits of our free enterprise system? Also, why would they want to teach things that encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife, or disreguard for the law?
Hmmmm... Let's see here... positive aspects of the United States and its heritage... against a balanced view of political and social movements... against patriotism... against teaching good citizenship and respect for authority... against the free enterprise system... likes teaching civil disorder... likes teaching disreguard for the law...
I'm drawing a blank here. Maybe someone else can find a common thread that would explain what would cause teachers to object so vehemently to what was proposed? I just can't put my finger on it.
Interesting enough the 3/5th compromise was not slave owners devaluing slaves at all. The northern states did not want to count slaves as people at all, thereby limiting the southern influence in the House of Representatives by downplaying the population on the south. The southerners wanted slaves counted as people.so if we are to consider the compromise racist, the racism was on the north, not the south. But even here in Georgia my son was taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Complete BS, but we straightened that out. Imoportant to note that history is generally taught from the perspective of the victors and is rarely balanced. I lived the majority on my life in the Chicago suburbs and found much more racism there than here in the south.
You say you want details but I just don't see it.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.