Obama renames (reverts) Mount McKinley, our highest mountain.

[kpt018]

I believe in climate change, but i can understand how some doubt it due to the amount of misinformation being put out there these days. I dont think you can judge anyone for what they believe on that issue now or in the future.

But youre not getting it. Even the people who spoke out against slavery would almost definitely be considered racists by todays standards. Hell everyone in the world pre 1970 would be by todays standards. How about womens rights ? Would anyone from that time period pass the standards of today for that issue? I think not. So should we condemn everyone from that time period for that too ? What about gay rights ? Are you seeing how ignorant it is to judge people from several hundred years ago by todays standards yet ?

You're right, I don't follow. People who spoke out against slavery would be criticized? How so?

And there is no excuse for our leaders, there is a scientific consensus on the matter. History will look very poorly upon them for this and several other issues.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Even the Pilgrims, who escaped persecution in Europe to become the earliest settlers in America, are conspicuously absent from the controversial AP history course.

This is actually a great example of the fact that the history you want taught is propaganda. The pilgrims were religious fanatics who left countries that welcomed them because those countries wouldn't convert. The pilgrims were basically an early version of right-wing fear-mongering about islam in europe but real.

 

[2GunTommy]

You're right, I don't follow. People who spoke out against slavery would be criticized? How so?

And there is no excuse for our leaders, there is a scientific consensus on the matter. History will look very poorly upon them for this and several other issues.

My point is that many who spoke out against slavery would still be considered racists by todays standards. Get it now ? Or is being against slavery the only pre requisite for not being a racist ?

You're actively complaining about teaching the bad. How much bad is okay?

I'm not going to take it from your source either because it is a blatant opinion piece with a clear bias. It's fucking hilarious that you're even typing the word "bias".


Edit: I looked at a lot of the links within your "article" and what's hilarious is that they never present a single one of these supposed marxist examples. I suspect neither they nor you know what the fuck the AP test is. Also, Jon Birch Society, lol. How was there not a single example AP test question given?

This is actually a great example of the fact that the history you want taught is propaganda. The pilgrims were religious fanatics who left countries that welcomed them because those countries wouldn't convert. The pilgrims were basically an early version of right-wing fear-mongering about islam in europe but real.

How much bad is ok and how to teach it is the argument isnt it ?
The pilgrims were "religious fanatics" huh ? Again maybe by your standards of today, but by the standards of their own day ? No. They were looking for freedom from religious persecution, but keep spreading your anti American propaganda Your revealing your own bias here. Right wing fear mongering of islam in Europe huh ? Pathetic, but keep talking, you only prove my point further with every radical "progressive liberal" anti American statement you make. Its actually both scary and sad that you work in an educational institution.

 

[Ayin]

This is actually a great example of the fact that the history you want taught is propaganda. The pilgrims were religious fanatics who left countries that welcomed them because those countries wouldn't convert. The pilgrims were basically an early version of right-wing fear-mongering about islam in europe but real.

It is boggling to me that many in the US don't seem to know or want to accept this.

 

[UpaLoompa]

How much bad is ok and how to teach it is the argument isnt it ?

I'm making fun of your argument: "Talking about a little of the bad is okay but not too much...".

The pilgrims were "religious fanatics" huh ? Again maybe by your standards of today, but by the standards of their own day ? No. They were looking for freedom from religious persecution, but keep spreading your anti American propaganda Your revealing your own bias here.

You realize that the pilgrims did not leave Holland for reasons having anything to do with religious persecution, right? They basically gave up on Holland because living there was more work than they'd expected.

You might also look into the religious beliefs of the pilgrims.

 

[7437]

I didn't say that. I just don't see Obama's need and the need of liberals to try rewrite history or change names. He already did that by saying Hamilton will be replaced by a woman on the $10

Sorry to get I'm the way of your hate for Obama with facts, but he is not the one making the call about changing the 10. That would be treasury secretary Jack Lew.

 

[Ayin]

Sorry to get I'm the way of your hate for Obama with facts, but he is not the one making the call about changing the 10. That would be treasury secretary Jack Lew.

As long as it's all of those weak Liberals who are caving to special interests and engaging in identity politics, can't we all just agree to use the catch-all "Obama" for all the bad that's being done?

 

[7437]

As long as it's all of those weak Liberals who are caving to special interests and engaging in identity politics, can't we all just agree to use the catch-all "Obama" for all the bad that's being done?

That appears to be the case a lot of the time. "Obama" is like a pronoun for someone you disagree with.

 

[Tekk]

 

[cooks1]

My argument was against holding them to the standards of today instead of the standards of their own day. By todays standards the very large majority of people of their time would be racist, even the ones who spoke against slavery. Any rational person can see how ignorant it is to hold people to standards set hundreds of years after their death.
And the reason I have a problem with schools teaching all the things you mentioned is it wont be taught without bias and with an understanding that many of these behaviors as horrible as they are to todays standards, were somewhat the norm of their day. Ie duels etc. We should be focusing on the great things they accomplished and inspiring kids to do the same one day, not having radically liberal teachers trashing our founding fathers. As a matter of fact Im pretty sure the common core curriculum was doing just that and now has been changed again due to public backlash.

What you are describing is called indoctrination. And I do not believe in it. I believe in education.

Education would be giving people all the relevant information, including the necessary context, and allow them to use their own judgement and critical thinking to come to their own conclusions.

If a reasonable person were given all the information up front, with the relevant context, I suspect what they would conclude that racism, prejudice, and barbarism were a lot more prevalent in those times than now.

 

[Bat Dad]

Wow dude. Bringing someones daughter into this in defense of Obama, a man you dont know at all. I hope you talk to someone like that in real life and they punch your teeth down your throat. Probably never happen though since im sure youre a fake ass tough guy who doesnt have the balls to say something like that to someones face. Then again the drugs have probably rotted all your teeth anyway.



Yes. I know. And as soon as i learned that, i totally changed my stance. you didnt read all my posts.



Some did, some didnt. My argument was against holding them to the standards of today instead of the standards of their own day. By todays standards the very large majority of people of their time would be racist, even the ones who spoke against slavery. Any rational person can see how ignorant it is to hold people to standards set hundreds of years after their death.
Lol. I have no issues with Eskimos if those are the indigenous people you are referring to. Did I ever say anything to that effect ? And as ive said several times now, I have no problem with the name change after learning that the Alaskans have been wanting to change it for a long time. Keep reading. I know its hard to read all my posts before you attack me, what with having to defend yourself against all the 26lb dogs attacking you all the time. But when your finished emptying your clip on the next deadly chihuahua maybe you can catch up ?

omg dude you really are a tryhard eh?

 

[2GunTommy]

What you are describing is called indoctrination. And I do not believe in it. I believe in education.

Education would be giving people all the relevant information, including the necessary context, and allow them to use their own judgement and critical thinking to come to their own conclusions.

If a reasonable person were given all the information up front, with the relevant context, I suspect what they would conclude that racism, prejudice, and barbarism were a lot more prevalent in those times than now.

Yes i agree, all the information. What im saying is that some of the positive has been omitted while the negative is being emphasized. Kind of the same thing you are falsely accusing me of wanting done. Were those things more prevalent than now ? Yes. does that mean we should just write them off as bigots,racists and ignore the great things they accomplished ? No. But that seems to be what is being done. Exactly what you SAY you are against.

I'm making fun of your argument: "Talking about a little of the bad is okay but not too much...".
You realize that the pilgrims did not leave Holland for reasons having anything to do with religious persecution, right? They basically gave up on Holland because living there was more work than they'd expected.

You might also look into the religious beliefs of the pilgrims.

http://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/who-were-pilgrims

"England was a Roman Catholic nation until 1534, when King Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) declared himself head of a new national church called the Church of England. Although he and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth I (reigned 1558-1603), changed some things that made the Church of England different from the Roman Catholic Church, a few people felt that the new Church retained too many practices of the Roman Church. They called for a return to a simpler faith and less structured forms of worship. In short, they wanted to return to worshipping in the way the early Christians had. Because these people wanted to purify the church, they came to be known as

 

[SovietMusic]

What you are describing is called indoctrination. And I do not believe in it. I believe in education.

Education would be giving people all the relevant information, including the necessary context, and allow them to use their own judgement and critical thinking to come to their own conclusions.

If a reasonable person were given all the information up front, with the relevant context, I suspect what they would conclude that racism, prejudice, and barbarism were a lot more prevalent in those times than now.

Why don't they teach students about black slave owners? or about how africans sold each other into slavery?

Or why don't we teach kids that most white people didn't even fucking own slaves?

Surely these should be taught if we're worried about presenting all of the information and providing context.

 

[2GunTommy]

omg dude you really are a tryhard eh?

Try hard or go home :icon_twis

Why don't they teach students about black slave owners? or about how africans sold each other into slavery?

Or why don't we teach kids that most white people didn't even fucking own slaves?

Surely these should be taught if we're worried about presenting all of the information and providing context.

Because as much as these guys say they want all the fact presented, what they really want is just the facts that support their anti American agenda. Self hating liberal apologists are some of the most sickening people. Im done with them.

 

[KOQ24]

Try hard or go home :icon_twis




Because as much as these guys say they want all the fact presented, what they really want is just the facts that support their anti American agenda. Self hating liberal apologists are some of the most sickening people. Im done with them.

you got pwned and now youre crying.
pathetic

 

[UpaLoompa]

Im done with you. You and your radical liberal friends wont be satisfied until youve convinced everyone that our country was founded by a bunch of hateful racists whose accomplishments are overshadowed by their bigotry.

I absolutely don't think that at all. Frankly I'm one of the most patriotic people you're likely to ever meet. The difference is that I direct my patriotism toward the ideals on which this country supposedly rests. Those ideals, stemming from the Enlightenment and rationality, are an impressive basis on which to form a struggling new country. The ideals about personal liberty, governmental restraint, etc. deserve respect and admiration. It's not unflawed though, many Enlightenment philosophers used circuitous and flawed logic to justify racism and sexism despite both clearly contradicting central tenets they espoused. The founding fathers were no different. The founding fathers deserve admiration for some things but they do not deserve our worship.

Also, your link about the Pilgrims is somewhat amusing in that it agreed with my point that the Pilgrims didn't leave Holland due to persecution. It also verifies what I suspected about your reading level.
http://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/who-were-pilgrims
It also says a lot about your critical thinking ability that you went to a site that basically functions to present an idealized view of the pilgrims as part of a tourist attraction.

 

[Jjunk]

Im filing this one under who gives a shit

 

[cooks1]

Yes i agree, all the information. What im saying is that some of the positive has been omitted while the negative is being emphasized. Kind of the same thing you are falsely accusing me of wanting done. Were those things more prevalent than now ? Yes. does that mean we should just write them off as bigots,racists and ignore the great things they accomplished ? No. But that seems to be what is being done. Exactly what you SAY you are against.

And I am telling you is that is horseshit. Complete utter horseshit. What is happening in education, even today, is that only the virtuous aspects of our forebearers are discussed. Certainly in the written text, and in all but the most forward thinking classrooms. An American kid would have to be in a University classroom before he or she was actually taught any of the less principled behaviors of our ancestors, other than slavery in general. And to be fair some US history texts do a half decent job of covering the civil rights movement these days. But that's about it.

http://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/who-were-pilgrims

This is fucking editorial content from a website for a plantation you numskull. It has absolutely NOTHING to to with what is being taught in schools. Are visiting these kinds of places good to broaden ones perspective? Sure. But that does not let our educational system off the hook for basically deifying some very fallible and often amoral people, who also happened to do some great things.

Im done with you. You and your radical liberal friends wont be satisfied until youve convinced everyone that our country was founded by a bunch of hateful racists whose accomplishments are overshadowed by their bigotry.

You should be done. It's probably best that you flee the conversation. Because it's obvious you can't make the distinction between what is being taught to children in classrooms and PC drivel that turns up on the internet.

 

[cooks1]

Why don't they teach students about black slave owners? or about how africans sold each other into slavery?

Or why don't we teach kids that most white people didn't even fucking own slaves?

Surely these should be taught if we're worried about presenting all of the information and providing context.

They should teach all those things as well. Especially the part about most white people not owning slaves. That really helps put in perspective that people largely knew it was wrong even back then.

White people don't have a monopoly on naughty behavior. And it would do the black community good to know that their own people often played a large role in their ensalvement.

Like I said. Give people all the information and context, let them make their own decisions.

 

[lil billy]

yes Obama, we know how much you care about the natives, glad youre keeping priorities in order.

meanwhile on navajo land:

it appears theyve got plans to sue your administration - comments?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/us/navajo-nation-water-epa-spill/