• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School's Nation of Islam handout paints Founding Fathers as racists [W:293]

reinoe said:
Did this take place in a private school? I'm phone posting so my search abilities are extremely limited.
Click to expand...

Read post #24 where a link is provided that debunks the bovine feces reported in the OP by Fox News.
 
Grant said:
You should have just posted the first paragraph.

Americans are far too critical of their history and their country and the effect of this is beginning to show. Americans need their well deserved pride restored, but I doubt that will ever happen in the public school system.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! Now the truth and Grant's agenda.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I taught a lot of other things in History and Geography... maybe you just had a **** teacher.
Click to expand...
In fact I've read a great deal of US history and my education has served me well. But of course you are wandering away from the topic which suggests you may have confused a few of these lessons along the way yourself, demonstrating once again the problems in the US educational system.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! Now the truth and Grant's agenda.
Click to expand...

Actually, the part not highlighted is more illustrative of what he wants.

The latter would be a mere distractive issue.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Whaaaa? Huh? Grant, you are the very person who found the link proving the OP story to be loads of bull****, as in it didn't happen. It wasn't a handout, no one gave it to the kid. It wasn't used in class. Remember the link YOU provided? And now you want to argue the facts that don't exist?
Click to expand...
I said the op may have some truth to it, which means it mat have truth in some areas. I believe, in total, it is untrue..
 
Fiddytree said:
Read my third paragraph I edited. I'm sorry Im not quick enough.
I'm using an iPad mini with Tapatalk and I canonly see a limited
amount of space for some reason.

What I will say is that critical history is important, but it is dependent upon age.
The younger you are, the more emphasis should be on simplifying
the message you wish to teach. You can be multicultural without being spiteful or cynical.

The older you are, the more complicated history should become. Furthermore, the problem with some of this is that people use a slightly historicist perspective, but only when it suits the agenda. The relativism only shows up enough to support, for instance, the idea that critiquing white American power structures is bad. Sudenly that is because it's the 19th century vs. the 21st. Yet, in many other subjects, those qualms go away really quickly. This is because it doesn't suit the agenda. It's not a consistent application of historicism.

Right wingers tend to have few qualms with critiquing Margret Sanger on the same grounds. Historicism would dictate that Sanger would be held to her time. COnversely, many Left wingers, so intent on critiquing the past with the current lens because it impacts us, become mum about this when their intent is to defend one of their heroes.

When it doesn't suit the political agenda, people tend to bend to what they want history to be.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Perhaps we agree on what is needed is perspective.

I've seen MLK criticized because he was a "womanizer" but, after all that he did, who cares? Certainly he was more than that to the nation, and his people, and that is how he should be remembered. The rest is for serious historians who are more interested in the minutiae of a person's life.
 
School's Nation of Islam handout paints Founding Fathers as racists

Grant said:
Thank you. Perhaps we agree on what is needed is perspective.

I've seen MLK criticized because he was a "womanizer" but, after all that he did, who cares? Certainly he was more than that to the nation, and his people, and that is how he should be remembered. The rest is for serious historians who are more interested in the minutiae of a person's life.
Click to expand...

That criticism of MLK is interesting in much the same way that I'd look at the family life of Ben Franklin (which was also not pretty). However, I would tend to look at MLK's more political features and his tactical choices for potential areas of criticism. I like much of MLK's views, but there is some I have open problems with. I don't really hold back with that. In the classroom, I would hold back of course. I might, on the side, for instance, indicate that his form of protest did carry within it some serious legal and ethical concerns, but that is done so students know that such protests often come at a cost. The cost is often being in open violation of the law, with the consequences including jail time. The other part of it would include what dangers may come to the participants--and whether or not Civil Rights Movement leaders in certain areas were ethically justified in including children in these potentially dangerous protests.

You have to be careful with how you bring forth those discussions in class, to make sure you don't give them a partisan impression....but it's not a bad idea to challenge them when they are older (in high school or in an AP course).
 
Fiddytree said:
That criticism of MLK is interesting in much the same way that I'd look at the family life of Ben Franklin (which was also not pretty). However, I would tend to look at MLK's more political features and his tactical choices for potential areas of criticism. I like much of MLK's views, but there is some I have open problems with. I don't really hold back with that. In the classroom, I would hold back of course. I might, on the side, for instance, indicate that his form of protest did carry within it some serious legal and ethical concerns, but that is done so students know that such protests often come at a cost. The cost is often being in open violation of the law, with the consequences including jail time. The other part of it would include what dangers may come to the participants--and whether or not Civil Rights Movement leaders in certain areas were ethically justified in including children in these potentially dangerous protests.

You have to be careful with how you bring forth those discussions in class, to make sure you don't give them a partisan impression....but it's not a bad idea to challenge them when they are older (in high school or in an AP course).
Click to expand...
What I know is that MLK inspired his people when they needed it most and that there was no one else around who could do that. Rosa Parks certainly was an inspiration but she was no public speaker, and had no tactics. He was the right man at the right time and, to me anyway, a great man for what he accomplished. The rest is gossip.
 
Grant said:
In fact I've read a great deal of US history and my education has served me well. But of course you are wandering away from the topic which suggests you may have confused a few of these lessons along the way yourself, demonstrating once again the problems in the US educational system.
Click to expand...

I have wandered away from literally nothing, as I directly and specifically addressed your quoted post.

Why you want to make it personal is beyond me though...
 
apdst said:
How can a claim of racism be made against people, who died before racism existed?
Click to expand...

Wait... did I actually read this correctly? Before racism existed? :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wait... did I actually read this correctly? Before racism existed? :lol:
Click to expand...

Racism wasn't 'til those black people got involved. Until then, well and when they were kept as animals, everything was peachy keen. Don't you know any history?

Racism pretty much began with Obama. It's been all downhill from there.
 
Well a lot of them owned slaves.... So yea...
 
ecofarm said:
Newsflash: In the 1800s, everywhere in the world, everyone was racist. Given this fact, painting anyone from the 1800s as racist is pretty ****ing easy.

Someone needs to explain to the mother that in the 1800s, the world was ****ing racist. Why doesn't she know this? Where the **** did she get educated? Perhaps she should be in class with her child and not complaining about historical facts.
Click to expand...

What is important is what was the social accepted values at the time.
- One, it was an accepted practice to own slaves.
- Two, looking at what was acceptable back then, I doubt they defined racist in the terms used today.

So unless you discuss history in historical context, imo your point is really not valid about racism.
 
mike2810 said:
What is important is what was the social accepted values at the time.
- One, it was an accepted practice to own slaves.
- Two, looking at what was acceptable back then, I doubt they defined racist in the terms used today.

So unless you discuss history in historical context, imo your point is really not valid about racism.
Click to expand...

How does that erode his point?

Hindsight affords us a greater understanding of how racial structures operated.
 
mike2810 said:
What is important is what was the social accepted values at the time.
- One, it was an accepted practice to own slaves.
- Two, looking at what was acceptable back then, I doubt they defined racist in the terms used today.

So unless you discuss history in historical context, imo your point is really not valid about racism.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
Sure one can, and one should. At the same time, one must be aware of historical context.

It's not an "either/or" thing. One can, and really should, view historical figures in both a modern and historical context. It's not that difficult and failing to be capable of such is hardly something I can fix.
Click to expand...



TeleKat said:
Americans aren't critical enough.
Click to expand...

Have you been elsewhere, perhaps a developing country? One might consider the average theocracy suffering slum dweller and the amount of free critical thinking that goes into their expression.

You might be rather surprised that holding Americans out for such a quality is rather comical and most of the ****in' world doesn't question what their authority dictates. That's why the founders made the constitution, to enumerate social authority beyond the will of any tin pot tyrant or mass of idiots.

What country's critical thinking would you like to compare to the US? Please, amuse us.
 
ecofarm said:
There wasn't no racism 'till Obama.
Click to expand...

All that made up stuff about tough times in the 20's for black people in the South is just silly...
 
Bodhisattva said:
All that made up stuff about tough times in the 20's for black people in the South is just silly...
Click to expand...

It was a time when women knew their place, blacks stfu and a white man could bugger about without all this here hemisexuality nonsense. You know, 'merica.
 
ecofarm said:
It was a time when women knew their place, blacks stfu and a white man could bugger about without all this here hemisexuality nonsense. You know, 'merica.
Click to expand...

Good times...
 
Grant said:
Everyone knows racism exists and existed. Is that news?

The problem is that little else is taught in the public school system, certainly little that glorifies America, and students are suffering from ever greater stupidity as a consequence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they're just making up for the time when I went to school, where seldom was heard a discouraging word about the United States or its history. And certainly I never remember any mention of the Founding Fathers as slave owners.
 
apdst said:
How can a claim of racism be made against people, who died before racism existed?
Click to expand...

One of the truly dumb statements ever to appear on this forum.
 
mike2810 said:
What is important is what was the social accepted values at the time.
- One, it was an accepted practice to own slaves.
- Two, looking at what was acceptable back then, I doubt they defined racist in the terms used today.

So unless you discuss history in historical context, imo your point is really not valid about racism.
Click to expand...

Well, it was an accepted practice by some to own slaves. John Adams, who was instrumental in the adoption of the Constitution, considered slavery an abomination. Which, of course, it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom