• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

60e9d9c0585b2.image.jpg
 
Marjorie Taylor Greene not only says that CRT should be outlawed nationally by Congress, but that any teachers should be fired "on the spot, immediately" if they are "caught" teaching CRT (and my guess is that her definition of CRT goes well beyond what it actually is), and that "communist teachers unions" like the American Federation of Teachers should be disbanded. What a great time to be a teacher in America!

Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-critical-race-theory-outlawed-2021-7
 
sailordeac said:
yes, of course, I have

the grievance list, at least, in form, is actually reminiscent of medieval estates' gravamina presented to the ruler at the meetings of the diets

the question was why did they declare their independence from Britain; seems like the Declaration of Independence is a good place to start because there they tell you why they are declaring their independence

the British anti-slavery movement did not have any political traction until after the War of Independence and would only achieve successes in the following century

I'll also leave aside the fact that the North, not the South, was the hotbed of the independence movement, not really sure how you can argue that the North was moved to declare independence from Britain so the southern planters could keep their slaves
Click to expand...

If you don't understand how northern merchants (Hancock, Morris, etc) benefitted from Southern slavery than you have zero understanding of how the colonial commerce system worked.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet

On quick glance, 25 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration were plantation owners or merchants. Most of the rest were lawyers. All of them benefitted from the American export economy which was built on the backs of enslaved Africans.

Northerners may have not owned slaves, but the rich ones (signers of the Declaration) sure as hell benefitted from its existence. Tobacco, cotton, indigo, rice and other cash crops were produced almost solely by slave labor. These products accounted for a majority of colonial American exports. Northern and Middle colony traders shipped these products and have no issue with them being produced using chattel slavery.

Every historical conflict in modern history is based on economics. As a student and now teacher of history it took me awhile to understand this. Almost all of our founding fathers, from the North and South, valued their personal finances over the horrific treatment of other Americans. Protecting and growing their financial interests was the PRIMARY motivation for almost all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

You can claim philosophical, religious, or patriotic reasons; but in the end the Revolution occurred because colonists wanted to protect their wealth. A massive factor in protecting and growing that wealth for everyone was maintaining the brutal and sadistic system of American slavery. So yes, protecting the plantation economy and its right to enslave and work black people to death, was a fundamental motivation of the American Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Even conservatives understand it deep in their alleged hearts.

bbd22599cdaf80b360ee8ce1d9593208.jpg
 
It’s a self-own.

 
Ah, PragerU. I still remember shaking my head at their video lesson in which they dispute that the South switched from Democratic to Republican mainly because of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960, and argue that the Southern Strategy basically never existed, in spite of numerous firsthand accounts from people like Lee Atwater that it not only existed, but was a key feature of GOP presidential campaigns starting with Nixon in 1968 and 1972.
 
BillBrasky said:
If you don't understand how northern merchants (Hancock, Morris, etc) benefitted from Southern slavery than you have zero understanding of how the colonial commerce system worked.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet

On quick glance, 25 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration were plantation owners or merchants. Most of the rest were lawyers. All of them benefitted from the American export economy which was built on the backs of enslaved Africans.

Northerners may have not owned slaves, but the rich ones (signers of the Declaration) sure as hell benefitted from its existence. Tobacco, cotton, indigo, rice and other cash crops were produced almost solely by slave labor. These products accounted for a majority of colonial American exports. Northern and Middle colony traders shipped these products and have no issue with them being produced using chattel slavery.

Every historical conflict in modern history is based on economics. As a student and now teacher of history it took me awhile to understand this. Almost all of our founding fathers, from the North and South, valued their personal finances over the horrific treatment of other Americans. Protecting and growing their financial interests was the PRIMARY motivation for almost all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

You can claim philosophical, religious, or patriotic reasons; but in the end the Revolution occurred because colonists wanted to protect their wealth. A massive factor in protecting and growing that wealth for everyone was maintaining the brutal and sadistic system of American slavery. So yes, protecting the plantation economy and its right to enslave and work black people to death, was a fundamental motivation of the American Revolution.
Click to expand...

There is more than one problem with this account, but the primary one is this: You haven't answered the question of why continued subjugation to the crown posed a threat to the plantation economy.
 
This is a long article, but it's got plenty of interviews with educators and school and district administrators who are leaving their jobs and careers or facing growing pressure to curb what they are teaching. There are also moves around the country from right-wing parental groups to abolish equity and diversity programs in schools. But don't worry, the wording of these state CRT laws isn't going to really change anything in schools!

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/growing-animosity-over-critical-race-083200531.html
 
WakeBored said:
There is more than one problem with this account, but the primary one is this: You haven't answered the question of why continued subjugation to the crown posed a threat to the plantation economy.
Click to expand...

Popular opinion was turning against slavery back in England. A 1772 British court case Somerset v. Stewart ruled that chattel slavery could not exist under British Common Law. A decision that was the antithesis of Dred Scott. The writing was on the wall for the end of slavery and the slave trade in the British empire.
 
Highland Deac said:
This is a long article, but it's got plenty of interviews with educators and school and district administrators who are leaving their jobs and careers or facing growing pressure to curb what they are teaching. There are also moves around the country from right-wing parental groups to abolish equity and diversity programs in schools. But don't worry, the wording of these state CRT laws isn't going to really change anything in schools!

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/growing-animosity-over-critical-race-083200531.html
Click to expand...

Honestly I’d love a sit down with the mouth breathers in our current state GOP party where we discussed classroom techniques and the development of critical thinking skills. Maybe throw in a history debate or two. Preferably on camera. I would reduce those faux Christians and conservatives to tears.

Our current state GOP leaders are so fucking ignorant and delusional, it would be an intellectual bloodbath. Its a gaggle of brain dad sycophants and zealots.
 
BillBrasky said:
Popular opinion was turning against slavery back in England. A 1772 British court case Somerset v. Stewart ruled that chattel slavery could not exist under British Common Law. A decision that was the antithesis of Dred Scott. The writing was on the wall for the end of slavery and the slave trade in the British empire.
Click to expand...

BiffTannen said:
So you haven't read the article from The Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, read The Atlantic and Politico articles I posted a few pages back. There is no evidence for the proposition that anyone in the 1770s thought Somerset would be extended to the colonies.
 
WakeBored said:
Yeah, read The Atlantic and Politico articles I posted a few pages back. There is no evidence for the proposition that anyone in the 1770s thought Somerset would be extended to the colonies.
Click to expand...

I skimmed through the first linked Atlantic article, which was refuting a portion of an extreme version of a BLM curriculum.

“Anyone” seems a reach since Somerset led to massive confusion over the status of slaves in Britain and other colonies. I agree that slavery wasn’t going to be immediately ended in the British Americas, but the creep towards abolition had begun. And knowing how reactionary our founding fathers were (I mean Christ just look how much they overreacted to tiny tax increases, most of which were retracted) it’s not a wild leap to suggest that many we’re concerned about the end of salutary neglect and how it could effect slavery and the continental economic ecosystem.

It’s not insane to theorize that many of our founders were concerned about the long term viability of the plantation economy under British rule.
 
BillBrasky said:
Honestly I’d love a sit down with the mouth breathers in our current state GOP party where we discussed classroom techniques and the development of critical thinking skills. Maybe throw in a history debate or two. Preferably on camera. I would reduce those faux Christians and conservatives to tears.

Our current state GOP leaders are so fucking ignorant and delusional, it would be an intellectual bloodbath. Its a gaggle of brain dad sycophants and zealots.
Click to expand...

Please
 
Idk if that’d go how you think. Charismatic conservatives have been successfully “debating” without the constraints of facts, logic or shame for hundreds of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top