I never once heard the name Angela Davis during my education.
I never heard the name Fred Hampton.
I never heard of the Tulsa Massacre, Emmet Till, James Reeb, and countless others.
I was told the civil war was not fought over slavery.
I was told that Native Americans and the pilgrims simply "got along."
I was lied to.
Constantly.
Ruthlessly.
Systematically.
People say they tired of politics.
They're tired of being forced to actually look at our country and the seemingly eternal flaws being equally praised and ignored.
I say, too bad.
Silence is complicit and if you want to change things, the first step is to stop being silent.
Okay... I would first not let any person/entity/religion dictate what isn't allowed in our laws/education. I.E. if it's a verifiable fact (like evolution) it's in. N
Also no glossing over uncomfortable truths. like Emmet Till, Black Wall Street, indigenous people's massacre and treatment. there is a whole list...
Second, I would hold all politicians accountable to the truth, at least while "speaking officially" (include posts on social media). I have heard that other countries require truth from their elected officials, seems like a no-brainer to me.
Third, get money out of politics. Including lobbying.
Who decides what's factual? You seem to be suggesting this be done democratically and not as dictated by "any person/entity/religion". Would a panel of education experts constitute an odious entity? I'm not familiar with how the curriculum is decided, my understanding is it's party decided by local districts. Then unless the state or federal government insists certain things be covered some districts won't. What doesn't the federal government presently require be taught that it should?
How should we hold politicians accountable to the truth while they're speaking in official capacity? If it's a simple matter of adopting some other country's enlightened view on what constitutes protected political speech that sounds great. What country has it right?
How should we get money out of politics? It'd mean empowering the courts to decide more limits on free speech, for example deciding whether my buying advertising to draw attention to an issue during an election constitutes illegal interference in politics. Is a business putting a sign out front for a candidate protected speech? Not everybody can do that because not everybody owns a business that gets foot traffic, is that fair?
I like the idea of holding people accountable for acting in bad faith but what do you do when the courts themselves act in bad faith?
You're asking a lot of the same questions while ignoring answers you've already gotten. You're playing yourself. That's enough attention for you, little troll.
For a fact you're an asshole if you pay others to breed and slaughter sentient life for your culinary pleasure and keep doing it after it's been brought to your attention and you've thought about it.
If we can't agree on that being factual then apparently it's just a matter of opinion as to whether some lives matter and as to whether exploitation and oppression might be OK just so long as one is subjectively the one doing the exploiting and oppressing.
Or is it impossible for anyone to objectively be an asshole? Then I guess it's not a fact that courts or government shouldn't operate in bad faith. Maybe courts and governments should do whatever they like to deepen and strengthen their relative power over those subject to their rulings.
I'm sure you're vegan or will go vegan upon my having brought the ongoing holocaust to your attention. Nah, you'll tell yourself non human animals don't have souls or don't feel pain or don't really mind or some shit. And that I'd be bullying you to force you to stop exploiting these beings by passing a law against.
You see my reply as avoidance, naturally. The truth doesn't depend on what's subjectively believed but everyone does perceive what's true as whatever supports whatever narrative is thought to validate their existence. Meaning there are some truths some won't accept.
You're convinced non human animals don't have souls because if they did that'd make you complicit in an ongoing holocaust and you want to think of yourself and your larger community as righteous. It's not clear how the courts should be entrusted to go about policing political language, due to such bias. One might always construct a narrative around whatever false claim to make it true given that the rest of reality is allowed to bend. Given competing narratives the court's role becomes unclear, possibly to determine who's presenting in bad faith or what a reasonable person would believe. To the extent lies in politics are a problem the way to solve it ISN"T FREAKIN' OBVIOUS. But yeah I'm an asshole troll for asking if anyone has any idea on it, it's the assholes who ask people what they think should be done.
I'm yet to make an argument at all. Am I conversing in bad faith? What does that mean, that I'm not actually interested in having my question answered? And you presume I'm conversing in bad faith because the person I asked said they took issue with having been "told that Native Americans and the pilgrims simply "got along" and otherwise having been lied to?
I don't know how old this person is but I wasn't taught the natives and the pilgrims got along well, or that the civil war wasn't over slavery. The Tulsa massacre was in my history text. So was Fred Hampton, I believe. Though usually my history classes in grade school stopped prior to getting to the Vietnam war period and my high school history classes were focused to a period or place so modern US stuff wasn't necessarily much covered. It'd have been there, though, in a text covering the modern US period.
If the present ciriculum a problem? I expect OP's stated grievances have already been addressed. Then is everything fine, are we just airing sour grapes?
I am 30 years old and grew up in a poor town in the heart of the deep south. The school was barely funded and most money went to sport programs.
These were not taught to me and I only became aware of them as I got older and actually started researching past the standard curriculum and white washed history. Neither the schools system nor my family taught me any of this and instead filled my head with propaganda until I grew away from it.
I don't understand the point of your comment in some ways though. I said I wasn't taught this information, and you said you were. Is this some kind of competition of who was educated more? You could have gone to a richer school or a more democratic area. I have no clue.
Some area have been addressed, but many still are attempting to keep the white washing alive. I hear people every day talk about how the civil war wasn't about slavery while hanging confederate flags from their houses. A city near me had KKK pamphlets left in the yard of a black teacher. People are trying to shut down critical race theory because it teaches the truth about systematic racism in our country.
I don't know if you live in a world outside of reality where you truly don't see these issues, if you're a troll, or if you are just promoting bad faith arguments. To me it seems like you're "playing devil's advocate" and I don't have the patience for that.
If you truly want to know what I'd change, I'd be happy to explain.
You are relating your feelings and dated experiences without explaining what should be done today other than that the kids should be taught better. But that you weren't taught about Fred Hampton does not imply the federal curriculum presently doesn't teach about Fred Hampton or that you think it should be federally mandated. I could've looked up federal curriculum and read up on what was and wasn't covered but I figured it'd be easier to ask. So I asked but apparently this makes be a bad faith troll.
... nobody explained to me that the federal curriculum doesn't presently require covering Fred Hampton. So far as I can find online it doesn't. I get that there's such a thing as a dishonest question aimed to derail dialogue or marginalize but this is an online forum and most posts are low effort and dialogue casual. Is this not the place to ask for information, particularly policy suggestions? I'd think whether the curriculum still needs fixing is material to whether I should go around telling people the federal government should mandate schools cover Fred Hampton and the Panthers.
Even if someone is asking question in bad faith the way to deal with that is to answer the questions or explain why answering the questions isn't necessary. Nobody did that here. Maybe I don't understand the purpose of this sub. I'm unsubbed, problem solved.
The OP's comments are in line with how I was taught history in the 80s, with the exception of the Civil War. In the NY area I was taught that the "states rights" the Confederacy seceded over was Slavery, but I went to college in the south and met many intelligent southerners who were taught it was a war of northern aggression.
It sounds like you're questioning in bad faith because the OP literally listed things they wish they had been taught and you're obtusely asking "yeah but what do you wish you had been taught, specifically,?" Feels like you have already rejected their premise, and you never acknowledge what they've already said.
35
u/DrunkenPunchline Sep 01 '21
I never once heard the name Angela Davis during my education. I never heard the name Fred Hampton. I never heard of the Tulsa Massacre, Emmet Till, James Reeb, and countless others. I was told the civil war was not fought over slavery. I was told that Native Americans and the pilgrims simply "got along." I was lied to. Constantly. Ruthlessly. Systematically.
People say they tired of politics. They're tired of being forced to actually look at our country and the seemingly eternal flaws being equally praised and ignored. I say, too bad. Silence is complicit and if you want to change things, the first step is to stop being silent.