New Texas history books will downplay slavery, omit KKK and Jim Crow

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
80% of Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners, they were fighting against the tyranny of the industrial north over the agrarian south. Obviously slavery was a part of the issue, but there is much more to the Civil War than just that.

Off course 80% of the Confederates soldiers weren't slave owners hell you got Blacks that wore the gray because they were slave owners themselves, but the point is they fought for the right for their better offs to own slaves and the states rights issue was about owning and transporting slaves, they were in some cases more destitute than slaves, but for the fact that liberated former slaves would now be their potential equals, the advent of Jim Crow bore that out, the newly liberated were set upon by the planter class to keep them from progressing by using whites who had no real stake in the system, having a "white"
skin with no known history of African genetic stuff guarantee you entry of sorts, the majority bought into the skin game protecting the planter class when they in fact had more in common with the newly liberated , this attitude is still played out in today's political arena.

a reply to: Ameilia

You are so right!

The number of white slaves in the US was far from negligible.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade

The thing is, nobody seems to give a fart about the fact that slavery exists today!

MODERN SLAVERY

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

When a black confederate was captured by by the Union they were summarily executed.

Black Americans were treated horribly in the North and South.

Lincoln's plan was to send all the freed former slaves to Central America.

We apparently need a lot more history in the books, not less.

True, the colony of Liberia was being used as a template for relocation, there was a nascent back to Africa movement even before the civil war and well before Marcus Garvey, Paul Cuffee an African American ship owner , businessman and patriot from Massachusetts, was instrumental in setting up the colony of Sierra Leone ,so the idea free members of African descent could have find a home in the USA was a very long debate.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Spider879


Just because Jim crowe isn't mentioned in discussing the civil war means nothing it's importants isn't until the 60s in US history when people stood up to have it removed.

I suspect it was pretty important to those black people it affected before then. That seems to be the theme here; lets pretend none of it happened because it makes us look bad and we can't have that.

In a school curriculum explaining the southern Democrats and how they created the kkk would take entirely to much time in a class that covers snag Ivan history. In and school age classroom they can only hit so much information. Could you imagine how long it would take to go into the reasons Democrats blocked equal rights. And how they resorted to violence to maintain the stays quo.

Most colleges will go into the politics of the civil war but not elementary and high schools.

In the UK high school history covers slavery and US jim crow laws kkk and US civil rights issues in detail.
If a foriegn country can take the time to cover it then the USA surely can find the time!

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Spider879

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I call BS and shenanigans.

The Civil War was based on not only slavery, but specifically BLACK slavery.

Time to man up America.

Pay the reparations.

And who pays those reparations?

Whose wallet does it come from?

a reply to: crazyewok
40 acres and a mule plus interest in my opinion.

a reply to: antoinemarionette

I care about modern slavery, I think it's disgusting. Of all the atrocities ISIS and Boko Haram have committed, the slavery troubles me the most. I think I would rather be shot.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Spider879


Just because Jim crowe isn't mentioned in discussing the civil war means nothing it's importants isn't until the 60s in US history when people stood up to have it removed.

I suspect it was pretty important to those black people it affected before then. That seems to be the theme here; lets pretend none of it happened because it makes us look bad and we can't have that.

In a school curriculum explaining the southern Democrats and how they created the kkk would take entirely to much time in a class that covers snag Ivan history. In and school age classroom they can only hit so much information. Could you imagine how long it would take to go into the reasons Democrats blocked equal rights. And how they resorted to violence to maintain the stays quo.

Most colleges will go into the politics of the civil war but not elementary and high schools.

In elementary and high school I was certainly taught enough European history. Large chunks of American history were missing, especially the controversial parts. I think that is a little backwards.

Something else to be outraged over.

Another perpetual victim.

Hopefully they leave out part about black slave trade in Africa being started and run by other blacks selling there own people into slavery. If they never did this there wouldn't have been a black slave trade.

I'm sure they will leave that one out for sure.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: Ameilia

You are so right!

The number of white slaves in the US was far from negligible.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade

The thing is, nobody seems to give a fart about the fact that slavery exists today!

MODERN SLAVERY

No.

"The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free." source and academia.edu

Slavery today is Human Trafficking and it is a massive concern all over the world. What do you mean 'nobody seems to give a fart'?

a reply to: Spider879

I wrote in a post not that long ago really that if parts of history were omitted from books and now the Internet, maybe things wouldnt continue as they are now... things wouldn't go round and round in circles! people could move on without thinking about past issues! yes, these things happened but until we as a people get past that, there will always be 'revenge' in peoples minds. It will hold people down and they will never forget.

For example, you did mention kkk stuff would be omitted but also if written text about 'Crusades' and such were omitted then maybe the Islamic crusades wouldn't be happening now. There is so much in History which would have been best forgot about... 'Hiroshima' is another... they will never forget that.. WWII remembrance day will be continuing for how any more years?? Forever it seems..

People can't move on fully until events are forgotten.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: Ameilia

You are so right!

The number of white slaves in the US was far from negligible.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade

The thing is, nobody seems to give a fart about the fact that slavery exists today!

MODERN SLAVERY

No.

"The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free." source and academia.edu

Slavery today is Human Trafficking and it is a massive concern all over the world. What do you mean 'nobody seems to give a fart'?

Your writer is wrong I suggest he looks into Cromwell and and his extermination plan to get rid of the irish.During the 1650s during Cromwells Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. Cromwell had convinced the crown he could remove the Irish problem however it did not go smoothly with Cromwells extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others.

1641 to 1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. These slaves were not ever there servants and they could not work off anything they were slaves period. And yes there children were to. From 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. This was ethnic cleansing on a mass scale by the British mo archey.

The difference becomes later as the Irish continually rebelled against there masters. This is one of the reasons they were so much cheaper than black slaves they were harder to manage

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: Ameilia

You are so right!

The number of white slaves in the US was far from negligible.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

The Irish Slave Trade

The thing is, nobody seems to give a fart about the fact that slavery exists today!

MODERN SLAVERY

No.

"The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These are not the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free." source and academia.edu

Slavery today is Human Trafficking and it is a massive concern all over the world. What do you mean 'nobody seems to give a fart'?

Your writer is wrong I suggest he looks into Cromwell and and his extermination plan to get rid of the irish.During the 1650s during Cromwells Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. Cromwell had convinced the crown he could remove the Irish problem however it did not go smoothly with Cromwells extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others.

1641 to 1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. These slaves were not ever there servants and they could not work off anything they were slaves period. And yes there children were to. From 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. This was ethnic cleansing on a mass scale by the British mo archey.

The difference becomes later as the Irish continually rebelled against there masters. This is one of the reasons they were so much cheaper than black slaves they were harder to manage

a reply to: crazyewok

I'd be fine with reparations for blacks and indians, as long as it came in the form of land. The Feds own 80% of the land out west, it should be put in the hands of private citizens to make use of. Probably would heIp with urban crime too. I know the government wants to herd everyone into cities (easier to control), so this will never happen, but I'm for it.

Slavery is as old as prostitution and just as popular today. The point I want to make is all the organisations and individuals that made their fortunes and are still around PAY IT BACK. The catholic church sent out missionaries all over Africa at a time when they where not even attributed a SOUL. Why would the catholic church be trying to recruit followers who where not allowed into their HEAVEN.
The catholic church could give all the money they personally made from backing and supporting slavery to the countries they raided.
I have a firm believe that there is 1 person in this world with the power to instigate a true new world order. This person could end world poverty by distributing its vast wealth, it could mobalize the largest army the world has ever witnessed. This could all be done with no fuss and no wars.
If you believe in GOD or not would you not work toward this goal if asked.
The Pope has more power than he realises, he could change the world for the better with 1 speech.
sorry if of thread but slavery and reparition is what could change the world.

a reply to: Spider879

Imagine the same tactics of shaping history by omissions and preferred additions, amplified over 1000's of years...we know nothing.

Wow when I was in school you couldn't go through a single school year without relearning about the holocaust and slavery. This is like the exact opposite of what I was raised with.

I learned and relearned and relearned over and over again about these two subjects to the point where my ability to feel anything but a groan when they come up was lost.

It's not that I logically and rationally don't have a problem with the holocaust or slavery, but at this point, emotionally all I am capable of feeling for these two things is, "not this again" because there is such a thing as desensitization.

What's going on in Texas is omitting too much, and for seemingly nefarious reasons, BUT let's not forget there's such a thing as too much too.

a reply to: Spider879

Dammit Texas! Doing it AGAIN to textbooks. At least it is only contained to Texas schoolbooks and not the entire country this time...

originally posted by: spacedog1973

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Spider879


Just because Jim crowe isn't mentioned in discussing the civil war means nothing it's importants isn't until the 60s in US history when people stood up to have it removed.

I suspect it was pretty important to those black people it affected before then. That seems to be the theme here; lets pretend none of it happened because it makes us look bad and we can't have that.

That is what history books have become across the nation. Remember recently when Oklahoma lawmakers vote to ban AP History? Well it recently expanded to even more states.

I remember growing up and going to school in Texas. We didn't hear much about slavery, the civil war, WWI, but we fought the battle of the Alamo every damn day.