Veritas Press racist description of the Civil War

[maize]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The difference is in SCALE and IMPACT and DIRECT FOCUS ON/TARGETING OF A SPECIFIC PEOPLE GROUP. If you insist on equating the two (before vs during chattel slavery), we’ll have to agree to disagree. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrific. It isn’t the holocaust.

I have never once equated the two.

I have reiterated in several posts that there are aspects of modern racism in the US that go beyond ordinary in-group/out-group bias and that stem directly from the ways slavery was practiced and justified in this country.

 

[maize]

3 minutes ago, Slache said:

I think when you're 2 it does. Long, short, strait, curly. Especially these days when we style our hair to look the way we want. Women with wavy hair often emphasize the curls or straiten it, giving the false illusion that hair only comes in a few types. 

Also, that is the only explanation I can come up with for my kids behavior.

Does your husband have tight curls? I can see a toddler noticing other men with tight curls and pointing out the similarity.

[HomeAgain]

12 minutes ago, Slache said:

I thought that it was until I had toddlers. All 4 of my children (separate ages and this was not a learned behavior) would get excited when they saw African American men because "He looks just like Daddy!" My husband is 99 percent German and if you're grouping by skin color the shoe doesn't fit, but if you're grouping by hair type and style, yes, absolutely. This makes sense to me because skin color is on a spectrum whereas hair type more easily falls into categories.

Or, hear me out, it is that toddlers have only a few distinct schema, comparatively.  They look for a singular, common characteristic in order to fit new information into existing mental categories.  It is no more a defining trait of personhood as is the concept of object permanence developing.

Every person dressed like my husband was "like daddy" to my toddler.  It just is a developmental thing.

[Slache]

Just now, maize said:

Does your husband have tight curls? I can see a toddler noticing other men with tight curls and pointing out the similarity.

Yup.

[Slache]

Just now, HomeAgain said:

Or, hear me out, it is that toddlers have only a few distinct schema, comparatively.  They look for a singular, common characteristic in order to fit new information into existing mental categories.  It is no more a defining trait of personhood as is the concept of object permanence developing.

Every person dressed like my husband was "like daddy" to my toddler.  It just is a developmental thing.

That's what I thought at first, but it didn't matter if the dude was 17 or 70 or how he was dressed or anything. But if he was bald or had a unique style the kids didn't comment.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, maize said:

I have never once equated the two.

I have reiterated in several posts that there are aspects of modern racism in the US that go beyond ordinary in-group/out-group bias and that stem directly from the ways slavery was practiced and justified in this country.

 

When you said “It is no more true…” you are, in fact, setting up a false equivalence.

[maize]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

When you said “It is no more true…” you are, in fact, setting up a false equivalence.

No.

Two things can both be false without being equivalent.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

No.

Two things can both be false without being equivalent.

Yes, two things can. Just not these two. Whatevs. It is what it is. As Donald Hoover pointed out, “This is America.” Bigots gonna bigot and the world still turns.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes, two things can. Just not these two.

Why?

It is false to claim that contemporary racism in the US has not been profoundly shaped by the enslavement of Africans and the arguments made to justify that enslavement.

It is also false to claim that prior to that period, outside of the context of slavery as practiced in this country, there was no significant bias against people with different skin tones.

They are both false.

Acknowledging that slavery is intimately tied to historical and contemporary race relations in this country is not dependent on believing that there would be absolutely zero racial friction or bias had slavery never existed in the US.

I have lived in a lot of places. I have never been anywhere where people didn't categorize and discriminate in various ways based on obvious physical markers. 

I think I must be coming across as minimizing the harm that slavery and racism have done. I'm not trying to. I'm not sure how to express my thoughts more clearly. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by maize

[Sneezyone]

38 minutes ago, maize said:

Why?

It is false to claim that contemporary racism in the US has not been profoundly shaped by the enslavement of Africans and the arguments made to justify that enslavement.

It is also false to claim that prior to that period, outside of the context of slavery as practiced in this country, there was no significant bias against people with different skin tones.

They are both false.

Acknowledging that slavery is intimately tied to historical and contemporary race relations in this country is not dependent on believing that there would be absolutely zero racial friction or bias had slavery never existed in the US.

I have lived in a lot of places. I have never been anywhere where people didn't categorize and discriminate in various ways based on obvious physical markers. 

I think I must be coming across as minimizing the harm that slavery and racism have done. I'm not trying to. I'm not sure how to express my thoughts more clearly. 

It is false to claim that the time, place, and manner of discrimination that occurred starting 400 years ago (and is ongoing) based on skin tone or other immutable characteristics (vs culture, religion, or language) wasn’t entrenched worldwide AS A RESULT of the transatlantic slave trade and the global commodification of human flesh (with an assist from Christian doctrine). Bias and systemic, generational enslavement are not the same thing.

You ARE minimizing slavery by suggesting that every other pedantic experience you had is the equivalent to 400 years of bondage/discrimination.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

46 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It is false to claim that that time, place, and manner of discrimination that occurred starting 400 years ago (and is ongoing) based on skin tone or other immutable characteristics (vs culture, religion, or language) wasn’t entrenched worldwide AS A RESULT of the transatlantic slave trade and the global commodification of human flesh (with an assist from Christian doctrine).

You ARE minimizing slavery by suggesting that every other pedantic experience you had is the equivalent to 400 years of bondage/discrimination.

If you are saying that prior to the past 400 years no group anywhere used skin tone as an in-group/out-group identifier, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

I you insist that I am equating contemporary racism with all in-group/out-group bias you are straight-up gaslighting or completely misnunderstanding my posts because I have made no such equation. And I certainly haven't equated it with my experiences. I discuss my experiences to illuminate where some of my thinking comes from with regards to easy identification and classification based on physical characteristics. Had slavery in the Americas never existed--in fact, had Europeans somehow never come in contact with the peoples of Africa--a person of European descent would still be singled out as an outsider by their skin tone and physical traits in Japan. 

I'm not sure why that is a sticky point. It's just plain human reality. 

I haven't claimed that that makes the experience of a European in Japan anything like that of a Black American. I haven't claimed that racism here isn't a huge massive problem and largely a direct result of our history of slavery. 

I have argued, and stand by the argument, that obvious physical markers like skin tone make for easy in-group/out-group identification and so are easy targets for bias and discrimination. Slavery didn't cause that reality. It did shape the particular developmental path of racism in the US. And easy physical identification of people of African descent made it simpler for people who wanted to identify them as less-than to do so, and continues to make such discrimination easy today. Slavery was justified by the idea that some humans are inherently inferior to other humans, and obvious physical characteristics like skin color made that "inferior human" box far easier to define and the concept easy to solidify.

It's a complex interaction. 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by maize

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, maize said:

If you are saying that prior to the past 400 years no group anywhere used skin tone as an in-group/out-group identifier, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 

I you insist that I am equating contemporary racism with all in-group/out-group bias you are straight-up gaslighting because I have made no such equation. And I certainly haven't equated it with my experiences. I discuss my experiences to illuminate where some of my thinking comes from with regards to easy identification and classification based on physical characteristics. Had slavery in the Americas never existed--in fact, had Europeans somehow never come in contact with the peoples of Africa--a person of European descent would still be singled out as an outsider by their skin tone and physical traits in Japan. 

I'm not sure why that is a sticky point. It's just plain human reality. 

I haven't claimed that that makes the experience of a European in Japan anything like that of a Black American. I haven't claimed that racism here isn't a huge massive problem and largely a direct result of our history of slavery. 

I have argued, and stand by the argument, that obvious physical markers like skin tone make for easy in-group/out-group identification and so are easy targets for bias and discrimination. Slavery didn't cause that reality. It did shape the particular developmental path of racism in the US. And easy physical identification of people of African descent made it simpler for people who wanted to identify them as less-than to do so, and continues to make such discrimination easy today. Slavery was justified by the idea that some humans are inherently inferior to other humans, and obvious physical characteristics like skin color made that "inferior human" box far easier to define and the concept easy to solidify.

It's a complex interaction. 

 

OMG. Yeah. We’re done. Clearly, TIME, PLACE, MANNER, and SCALE are lost here. The prior centuries DO NOT COMPARE. Full stop.

If anyone here systematically denied the complicity of the German government and people (and church) in the Holocaust, or suggested the Holocaust was no different from the Rwandan genocide or Russian invasion of Ukraine, there’d be a massive pile-on. 

Time, place, manner, scale/scope…they matter. Only when it comes to systemic racism and slavery in the western world  does this get a pass. The singularity of the Holocaust in human history isn’t questioned.

And yet, in-group/out-group, it’s all the same. Nothing’s changed, you say. Except rational people know it’s not all the same and everything changed. The transatlantic slave trade is without compare and affected far more than the US.

This is racism in action. If it’s all the same and nothing’s wrong/different/unusual/changed then there’s zero reason to make change. All good. Easy.

Meanwhile, the lost cause myth metastasizes b/c human nature is inevitable and God’s will for humanity makes darkies suffer. All good.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

Sneezy, I AGREE with you that time, place, manner and scale matter.

My intended meaning is clearly not coming through.

I'll try one more time, then probably give up.

Europeans who wanted to exploit Africans as slaves created an imaginary box.

That box was basically labeled "lesser humans, deserving of (even benefiting from!) exploitation."

They claimed humans all fit into a few distinct boxes--races--with those in their own box being inherently superior and deserving of mastership.

That race-boxing and the exploitation and abuse of all kinds that they justified by it are the basis of contemporary racism.

Can we agree that far?

Most of my comments about easy identification by physical characteristics such as skin tone come down to this: the ease with which humans identify people as in-group/out-group by obvious differences in physical appearance made it really easy for that lesser-race box to be defined. You only had to look at someone to know they were inherently inferior and deserving of being enslaved, or of all sorts of other discrimination after slavery was ended.

Racism as we know it in the US couldn't have existed without the history of slavery.

But neither could slavery as it was practiced in the US have existed without obvious physical identifiers making the creation and continuation of a "lesser-race" category possible (and yes, I'm aware that things can get quite blurry around the edges where mixed genetic inheritance is involved; the general principle holds.) 

I'm probably at fault for talking about tangentially related stuff when there is a central theme to a discussion that I'm not directly addressing. I've realized recently that I tend to do this; I disagree on a detail, or just find a side-trail interesting, and don't recognize how people are interpreting that in context of the overall discussion. Or I sometimes miss entirely what most everyone else understands to be the primary issue under discussion. I'm not good at social context.

[Sneezyone]

37 minutes ago, maize said:

Sneezy, I AGREE with you that time, place, manner and scale matter.

My intended meaning is clearly not coming through.

I'll try one more time, then probably give up.

Europeans who wanted to exploit Africans as slaves created an imaginary box.

That box was basically labeled "lesser humans, deserving of (even benefiting from!) exploitation."

They claimed humans all fit into a few distinct boxes--races--with those in their own box being inherently superior and deserving of mastership.

That race-boxing and the exploitation and abuse of all kinds that they justified by it are the basis of contemporary racism.

Can we agree that far?

Yes.

It is supremely annoying (understatement) to have the Confederacy and all that it stands for venerated after everything we know about what it stood for (which is a hell of a lot more than state’s rights) and perpetuated for 400 flipping years…cornerstone beliefs that all boil down to their God-given right to own, use and abuse me for all eternity. Those who insist on holding up the proponents of those views as good and true and wholesome are disgusting but they also wield power and control over the levers of government that I do not. I feel powerless in the face of all the things they can still do, without fear or consequence, to me and mine. It’s not an academic exercise to consider the toxicity of this myth. We are still here, real humans, not stories on a page, still suffering behind the insistence that we were happily enslaved, feel no pain, fear or anguish, are unworthy of freedom, and unable to function without white leadership.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Farrar]

When skin tone is one marker among many that are indicating who is "us" and who is "them" then it's hard to compare that to racism. No one is saying that skin tone has never ever been used as an identifier in pre-modern times. People are not blind to skin tone differences. However, when you look at Western history, it was never once the primary identifier of otherness. Nor did it have a special place as the main identifier of otherness. Instead, religion, language, ethnicity, class, etc. held those primary places. And that is because racism as we conceive of it today, did not exist.

In the 1400's, Portuguese kings were excited to welcome African royalty who converted to Christianity and to treat them as equal bargainers in setting up trade. A century or so later, they used racist rhetoric to justify unequal trade deals and increased incursions as well as the slave trade that sprung up from those meetings. The Western thinking changed. Enslaved people arriving in the Americas in the early 1500's faced radically different treatment than a century later. Again, because the thinking about the humanity and status of these people changed. Someone referenced Bacon's Rebellion above in this post. Another example. In the earlier 1600's, poor whites saw their plight as linked to Black laborers, both enslaved and not. A century later, that was nearly unthinkable as slavery became an issue used by the colonists and the British. Again, because Western thinking had changed. All of that is racism coming into existence in its modern form.

When a Roman citizen or a medieval Frenchman or a Ming sailor noticed skin tone and wrote of that person as an outsider, you have to put it in the context that they were also just as othering of barbarians of their own "race" as we'd conceive of it today. The Romans saw the Celts as wilder and more worthy of scorn than the Carthaginians, the medieval Frenchman would have found the Kievan Rus merchant just as shocking as the Moorish one, the Ming sailor would have seen the Manchurian or Mongolian barbarians as more inferior than the Africans he encountered. Because race was not the same concept.

So yes, I do dismiss the idea that skin tone was ever the primary marker of otherness. UNTIL we come to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

When skin tone is one marker among many that are indicating who is "us" and who is "them" then it's hard to compare that to racism.        

Strawman, no one said they are comparable.

...

So yes, I do dismiss the idea that skin tone was ever the primary marker of otherness. UNTIL we come to the advent of the Atlantic slave trade.

Also a strawman, no one said skin tone was "the primary marker of otherness."

Comments in italics in the quote box are mine.

The rest of your post was interesting and informative.

Strawman arguments based on projected meanings that were never expressed are not useful or productive in discussion.

[Farrar]

25 minutes ago, maize said:

Comments in italics in the quote box are mine.

The rest of your post was interesting and informative.

Strawman arguments based on projected meanings that were never expressed are not useful or productive in discussion.

I would disagree that I'm setting up a strawman. You're saying that racism existed before the Atlantic slave trade. I'm saying racism is not noticing that some of the people your town/empire is othering have a different skin tone. I'm saying racism is seeing skin tone as a defining primary way to define and sort people that is above others. If you disagree that that's what racism is, then we have a totally different disagreement.

[rbk mama]

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

There's something about the concept that racism is natural and normal and has always existed that's so pernicious. I was certainly taught that and made to believe it growing up even as I was also taught that racism was wrong and that judging others by their skin or discriminating was wrong. It was implied that this was a barbaric (but natural) behavior that modern society had somehow fixed. But that's not how it actually went down. And it's an idea that has to be dismantled. It implies that it's beyond our control. That it's human nature to divide humanity by skin tone. But there's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. 

Thank you for pointing out the specifics of this historical evidence.

4 hours ago, maize said:

If you are saying that prior to the past 400 years no group anywhere used skin tone as an in-group/out-group identifier, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. 
....

I'm not sure why that is a sticky point. It's just plain human reality. 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

This is racism in action. If it’s all the same and nothing’s wrong/different/unusual/changed then there’s zero reason to make change. All good. Easy.

Meanwhile, the lost cause myth metastasizes b/c human nature is inevitable and God’s will for humanity makes darkies suffer. All good.

 

I'm still confused by this fixation on racism related to skin color. I think the above posters have made it clear why this is a "sticking point" - and why it has dangerous implications. This thread is about the exceptional and uniquely evil institution of slavery in the Americas, and shifting that focus to skin color seems either randomly tangential or a deliberate attempt to lessen the evil inherent in American slavery. I want to assume the former.

[Paige]

7 hours ago, maize said:

I really doubt the suggestion that complete assimilation is possible where physically obvious distinctions exist. Members of different groups can absolutely gain respect, but that doesn't prevent them from being perceived as "other." They can be given official citizenship and status while still being perceived as not-really-one-of-us.

 

I quoted here because you said it was prompted by my comment about Africans in Rome.

Being in-group does not necessarily mean assimilation by my definition, but I think being Emperor of Rome means that you are pretty well in group. 

https://www.history.co.uk/article/severus-rome’s-first-african-emperor

Rome had black emperors and leaders, European countries had black people in their lineage, and there were black saints and popes. I'm not a historian of anything, but I feel we can't imagine today how much of our history has literally been white washed to justify slavery. 

[maize]

30 minutes ago, Paige said:

I quoted here because you said it was prompted by my comment about Africans in Rome.

Being in-group does not necessarily mean assimilation by my definition, but I think being Emperor of Rome means that you are pretty well in group. 

https://www.history.co.uk/article/severus-rome’s-first-african-emperor

Rome had black emperors and leaders, European countries had black people in their lineage, and there were black saints and popes. I'm not a historian of anything, but I feel we can't imagine today how much of our history has literally been white washed to justify slavery. 

Does Obama getting elected president mean Black Americans are in-group in overall American society and racism isn't an issue?

We have Black generals. Black religious leaders. Black judges.

There wasn't massive sentiment against black people in most European countries, but there also weren't many black people in most European countries. The situations are so dissimilar that I don't think your examples have much relevance. 

I've acknowledged over and over that a lot of our issues with racism are a direct product of slavery and everything that went along with it. 

I also believe that obvious physical distinctions between two groups makes differentiating members of the separate groups extra obvious and hard to ignore. And that humans are biologically and not merely culturally primed to distinguish between in-group and out-group. A reality that contributed to the development of and complicates reconning with contemporary racism.

I have not claimed it is a factor that outweighs all others, not at any point have I minimized the real impacts of slavery.

[Sneezyone]

17 minutes ago, maize said:

Does Obama getting elected president mean Black Americans are in-group in overall American society and racism isn't an issue?

We have Black generals. Black religious leaders. Black judges.

There wasn't massive sentiment against black people in most European countries, but there also weren't many black people in most European countries. The situations are so dissimilar that I don't think your examples have much relevance. 

I've acknowledged over and over that a lot of our issues with racism are a direct product of slavery and everything that went along with it. 

I also believe that obvious physical distinctions between two groups makes differentiating members of the separate groups extra obvious and hard to ignore. And that humans are biologically and not merely culturally primed to distinguish between in-group and out-group. A reality that contributed to the development of and complicates reconning with contemporary racism.

I have not claimed it is a factor that outweighs all others, not at any point have I minimized the real impacts of slavery.

Are you kidding right now? There is no comparison between the dynamics that existed pre- and post-transatlantic chattel slavery. You keep drawing parallels between the two time periods. They’re not analogous. At all. It took thousands of years to achieve a modicum of representation analogous to ancient times. That’s the power of the intervening events. Whatever biological imperatives existed were turbocharged, weaponized toward specific peoples, and codified by the transatlantic slave trade.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 Whatever biological imperative existed were turbocharged, weaponized toward specific peoples, and codified by the transatlantic slave trade.

I agree with this.

I just don't think a handful of individuals achieving prominence in a few ancient or medieval societies is evidence of much of anything at all. If we wouldn't use a handful of handpicked examples from modern society as evidence of the overall state of relations between groups of people, I don't think we should do so with historical examples. It's a weak argument.There were occasional female rulers in historical societies too; doesn't mean women in general didn't face discrimination. 

Maybe I'm just pessimistic; I think that human brains actively look for reasons to distrust each other at least as often as they look for reasons to get along.

And again, as it seems I need to explicitly state this: I am making no claim that racism in its modern form existed in ancient Rome or medieval Europe, or that modern situations are equivalent or parallel.

 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, maize said:

I agree with this.

I just don't think a handful of individuals achieving prominence in a few ancient or medieval societies is evidence of much of anything at all. If we wouldn't use a handful of handpicked examples from modern society as evidence of the overall state of relations between groups of people, I don't think we should do so with historical examples. It's a weak argument.There were occasional female rulers in historical societies too; doesn't mean women in general didn't face discrimination. 

Maybe I'm just pessimistic; I think that human brains actively look for reasons to distrust each other at least as often as they look for reasons to get along.

And again, as it seems I need to explicitly state this: I am making no claim that racism in its modern form existed in ancient Rome or medieval Europe, or that modern situations are equivalent or parallel.

 

We don’t know exactly what it meant back then but all the historical evidence points to the learned nature and humanity of more pigmented groups, particularly indigenous peoples in America, Africa and Asia, and their leadership and talents being respected in part due to their vast wealth and stores of knowledge, something the West didn’t possess until it enslaved those other people groups.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Sneezyone

[maize]

20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We don’t know exactly what it meant back then but all the historical evidence points to the learned nature and humanity of more pigmented groups, particularly indigenous peoples in America, Africa and Asia, and their leadership and talents being respected in part due to their vast wealth and stores of knowledge, something the West didn’t possess until it enslaved those other people groups.

I'm thinking the evidence is mixed at best; here is some of what Columbus thought of natives he encountered:

"They have no arms and are all naked and without any knowledge of war, and very cowardly, so that a thousand of them would not face three. And they are also fitted to be ruled and to be set to work, to cultivate the land and to do all else that may be necessary, and you may build towns and teach them to go clothed and adopt our customs."

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, maize said:

I'm thinking the evidence is mixed at best; here is some of what Columbus thought of natives he encountered:

"They have no arms and are all naked and without any knowledge of war, and very cowardly, so that a thousand of them would not face three. And they are also fitted to be ruled and to be set to work, to cultivate the land and to do all else that may be necessary, and you may build towns and teach them to go clothed and adopt our customs."

Columbus was a murdering thug who couldn’t find his way around the world accurately.  I’m not sure I’d be looking to him for valid assessments of anything. He found a peaceable people and raped, killed and enslaved them because they lacked the means or will to kill first (because, death is a bad thing to most humans) and he just plain wanted to. Lovely exemplar of knowledge and humanity there, as if clothing made Columbus civilized? Can you hear my uproarious laughter? This is where we are tho, right back to celebrating white might makes right. Columbus, confederate, birds of a feather.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Sneezyone

[rbk mama]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

We don’t know exactly what it meant back then but all the historical evidence points to the learned nature and humanity of more pigmented groups, particularly indigenous peoples in America, Africa and Asia, and their leadership and talents being respected in part due to their vast wealth and stores of knowledge, something the West didn’t possess until it enslaved those other people groups.

 

43 minutes ago, maize said:

I'm thinking the evidence is mixed at best; here is some of what Columbus thought of natives he encountered:

"They have no arms and are all naked and without any knowledge of war, and very cowardly, so that a thousand of them would not face three. And they are also fitted to be ruled and to be set to work, to cultivate the land and to do all else that may be necessary, and you may build towns and teach them to go clothed and adopt our customs."

Wait, hold up. Are you really saying that indigenous peoples of America, Africa, and Asia were not respected? Why? Because the only intelligent people on the planet were white Europeans - like Columbus - and they are the only ones whose respect mattered? Your quote kind of proves the obvious fallacy of that belief - he was both despicable and an idiot.

Edited May 19, 2022 by rbk mama

[maize]

Eeh...I was hardly setting Columbus up as a hero 😂😂😂

He is one sample of his culture though. A prominent one. And not good evidence that pre-atlantic-slave-trade folks were all big-table-welcome-everyone-respectfully-to-a-seat. You explicitly claimed that "all the historical evidence points to the learned nature and humanity of more pigmented groups, particularly indigenous peoples in America, Africa and Asia, and their leadership and talents being respected in part due to their vast wealth and stores of knowledge"

Presumably "all the historical evidence" would include historical figures like Columbus?

He clearly has negative biases coming out of every orifice!

[maize]

10 minutes ago, rbk mama said:

 

Wait, hold up. Are you really saying that indigenous peoples of America, Africa, and Asia were not respected? Why? Because the only intelligent people on the planet were white Europeans - like Columbus - and they are the only ones whose respect mattered? Your quote kind of proves the obvious fallacy of that belief - he was both despicable and an idiot.

Sneezy's post certainly read to me, in the context of European attitudes (ancient and medieval) since those had been under discussion, to be referring to respect by Europeans and the historical records relating to European relations with other peoples.

So I responded with historical European records that didn't fit that narrative, suggesting mixed evidence.

If I misinterpreted that she can correct me.

Edited May 19, 2022 by maize

[rbk mama]

1 minute ago, maize said:

Sneezy's post certainly read to me, in the context of European attitudes (ancient and medieval), to be referring to respect by Europeans and the historical records relating to European relations with other peoples.

So I responded with historical European records that didn't fit that narrative, suggesting mixed evidence.

If I misinterpreted that she can correct me.

What exactly is your point in this fixation on racism before the slave trade? Because it does seem, even though you keep saying it isn't, like it is meant to negate some of the evil of slavery. Why do you want to do that so badly? And if you don't - why is it so important to you?

[maize]

I'm going to bow out cause kids need to be put to bed.

This discussion has been interesting, but some seem to be working really hard to see Shades of Confederacy or some such thing in everything I say. 

I'm not sure what to make of that. I promise I don't have a confederate flag on my wall. I did get stationed in Texas once when I was in the military, maybe some kind of mutant zombie confederate slug found its way into my brain and is making me say things in a secret code that I can't understand but you all can? 

Or maybe I'm just autistic and don't parse how other people think so what makes perfect sense to me means something entirely different to other people. Serious about that, it's something I've been wondering about since my son got diagnosed and would kinda explain a lot of things.

[Paige]

11 hours ago, maize said:

Eeh...I was hardly setting Columbus up as a hero 😂😂😂

He is one sample of his culture though. A prominent one. And not good evidence that pre-atlantic-slave-trade folks were all big-table-welcome-everyone-respectfully-to-a-seat. You explicitly claimed that "all the historical evidence points to the learned nature and humanity of more pigmented groups, particularly indigenous peoples in America, Africa and Asia, and their leadership and talents being respected in part due to their vast wealth and stores of knowledge"

Presumably "all the historical evidence" would include historical figures like Columbus?

He clearly has negative biases coming out of every orifice!

Columbus was a terrible person, and I have no doubt you'd agree with that. You seem to be attributing his prejudice towards and evil treatment of the native Islanders to racism, however, where I would assert that it can be easily explained by pure xenophobia, religious intolerance, and even baser things like how power and impunity affects people. If they all looked exactly like him, their treatment probably would not have differed much. My belief is that the dehumanization was because of their different culture. 

And I knew that Barack Obama and today's racism would be pointed out when I brought up the African Emperor- but can you imagine an African Pope, President, Queen, General around 1822? Absolutely not. Sure we had Frederick Douglas and it was a big deal that he could meet Lincoln, but he could not have been President. 

 

[Murphy101]

 

On 5/12/2022 at 11:24 PM, Ellie said:

I promise that believing it was States' rights has nothing to do with oppression and injustice today.

What is this religion you believe in? This States’ Rights?  We believe in God.  We know facts. The civil war decided once and likely for all until the union ends entirely that States’ Rights do not exist aside from the benefit to the Union as a whole.

Your promise is empty in the face of reality because States’ Rights beliefs were never about states’ rights.  It was about Southern white landowners’ rights. I guarantee you they’d never have wasted even one bullet for the rights of anyone not in that category in their states.

Best case scenario is “states’ rights” was a sham excuse for not keeping their word when they signed the constitution.  They knew from the start the deal was to end slavery and their word then was as empty as their words about states’ rights later.

[Green Bean]

So bottom line: VP history sucks.

Pick something else and move on.

❤️

Edited May 26, 2022 by Green Bean

[Sneezyone]

Columbus was part and parcel of the transatlantic slave trade, not before and not after. There's not a whole lot of room for discussion when our understanding of the timeline of human history differs so much.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Shannon001]

Sounds like I found the right conversation!  I was just horrified by watching a sample of Omnibus with my 12-year-old daughter.  Something I cannot take back.  There was no warning about such graphic, up-close nudity.  Can anyone recommend a literature-based Christian curriculum that is truly Christian?   Previously, I was mildly disappointed in Sonlight when I used an elementary program.  One of the books had a very casual dating/kissing scene - no committed relationship.    Recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

[Xahm]

3 hours ago, Shannon001 said:

Sounds like I found the right conversation!  I was just horrified by watching a sample of Omnibus with my 12-year-old daughter.  Something I cannot take back.  There was no warning about such graphic, up-close nudity.  Can anyone recommend a literature-based Christian curriculum that is truly Christian?   Previously, I was mildly disappointed in Sonlight when I used an elementary program.  One of the books had a very casual dating/kissing scene - no committed relationship.    Recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

That's a good question, but you may want to make it it's own thread so it gets the right eyeballs on it. Also, you may want to define "Christian" to help you get answers that will be most helpful to your family. While I'm an observant believer, from the bit you've already said, I think we have different enough perspectives that my suggestions wouldn't fit what you are looking for.

[Dianthus]

4 hours ago, Shannon001 said:

Sounds like I found the right conversation!  I was just horrified by watching a sample of Omnibus with my 12-year-old daughter.  Something I cannot take back.  There was no warning about such graphic, up-close nudity.  Can anyone recommend a literature-based Christian curriculum that is truly Christian?   Previously, I was mildly disappointed in Sonlight when I used an elementary program.  One of the books had a very casual dating/kissing scene - no committed relationship.    Recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

What was the nude content? Was it artwork? Can you send a link to the sample? 

[ktgrok]

On 5/11/2022 at 1:18 AM, Ellie said:

Well, actually, there are plenty of source documents which make just the opposite plain.

The actual articles of confederacy from states involved clearly state that they were NOT in favor of state's rights at all. They were leaving because they were angry about the federal government not forcing non slave states to uphold slave state laws. That's the opposite of state's rights. And it is in their own words. 

[Roadrunner]

I just came to say to Google old threads on Veritas. There has been a lot of discussion in the past. If I remember correctly he was also accused of plagiarism? I hope I am not messing this up. There were some homeschool publishers pushing for Providential view of history, and if I am right, Veritas is one of them. But yes, not surprised at what you are seeing there. Sorry. 

[Slache]

11 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I just came to say to Google old threads on Veritas. There has been a lot of discussion in the past. If I remember correctly he was also accused of plagiarism? I hope I am not messing this up. There were some homeschool publishers pushing for Providential view of history, and if I am right, Veritas is one of them. But yes, not surprised at what you are seeing there. Sorry. 

Yes, that was him.

[ktgrok]

To sum it up, we know VP has at LEAST a foundation of racism, sexism, and plagiarism. At least. Enough to pretty much kick it off the list of things I would ever send my money for. 

(to clarify, nudity in a high school text wouldn't phase me a bit though)

[Licig]

I came to this thread because I was looking at different literature studies. and comparing Veritas vs Memoria. I realize it has been sometime since it was posted. However having newly delved into the period I was drawn into the comments. I read the title, the description of the book and found some lacking perspective on the truth about the Civil War. I grew up in Connecticut, being born and raised in a northern state it wasn't until I was reading Chernow's book on Grant that I questioned anything I knew of the civil war. His take on Grants life was more than enlightening, it sparked interested in a period I had long ruled a black and white issue. There had never been room for right or wrong, or what caused it, until I started digging deeper. Having spent two years now researching the topic I have come to terms with the fact our understanding of the war as a whole is severely lacking. I've seen mention of the rape and abuse of slaves, and agree that it was disgusting. But that didn't mean that the rape and abuse of southerners during the war wasn't also disgusting. That the Union get to proclaim some kind of hero status in ending slavery is appalling to me now. They no more wanted to end slavery than the south wanted to keep it, they may not have owned slaves directly but they certainly made their fortunes off their backs. Though admittedly the North had a stronger abolitionist movement, it was not the focus for the Union. The topic of the war being about states rights is in my eyes roughly 50 percent right. The Unions focus was to keep the country as a Union at all costs, Lincoln even had it on the table to keep slavery if the South would remain in the Union. So if we really want to acknowledge the evils of the war we need to be clear that neither side actually considered slavery their only focus, or possibly even the main one. The north bandstanded to seem righteous in the end, but in reality both sides focus was greed, the people caught in the middle who fought, often were given little choice, they were fighting for their homes, and the children, their families, when your town is burning do you really care what a politician is saying? No, you fight the people who set it on fire. At a certain point you have to realize that both sides were wrong, that it's a disgusting mark on our country. We should have never allowed it to happen here.  We need to be thankful that the end result was the abolition of slavery, not because that was the focus of the Union but because the south was destroyed. People suffered on both sides, but the utter destruction of the southern states shouldn't be overlooked. What a blight it was on our history, though what a lesson that should not be overlooked, and should be taught to our children. Even from the perspective that is not our own, not to encourage that moral compass but to understand it in context of the period. We can not look at historical events through the moral compass of today, it is impossible to do. Denying the humanity of any race for gain, for lack of understanding, for superiority happens still today, and yet we forget to learn from our history we argue one side cares more than another. When the fact is unless each individual stands for what is right, then those in power will use you to meet the needs of their greed. They will imprison, divide, and use anything to their own gain. We have a wound that needs to scar over and heal in this country, but in order to do so we must recognize the evils that they are all too good at hiding in the light,  pointing the finger to blame, all the while profiting from it. We argue how wrong slavery is all while buying Chinese goods made with slave labor, watching Disney movies filmed in the same Provence as Uighurs are enslaved in. We agrue about slavery that happened long ago all while not standing up against it today. I'm not going to talk about every type of slavery we are so apathetic to stand up against today, but I wonder if we turned our energy and anger against what we allowed once, the energy we spend arguing about who was wrong and what were the real causes of this or that, toward fighting active slavery what our history books will say about us instead. 

[Eos]

 

On 11/30/2022 at 9:46 AM, Licig said:

At a certain point you have to realize that both sides were wrong,

No, dear, you are wrong.  Please apply critical thinking.  What-about-the-bad-northerners does not a moral argument make.

[Rosie_0801]

Locking a zombie thread.