Miami mocked for Africa-themed police for Black History month

[Shadow Wolf]

Get with the times, toots!
This ain't elementary school in pre-21st century
rural Indiana. Blacks get credit these days.
And they rule in the Victimhood Olympics.
Oh, & the reparations are just start'n to flow.

It may be the 21st century, but a lot of people still think "race traitor" is a valid and legit concept and can't name people who aren't white who contributed to anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

It may be the 21st century, but a lot of people still think "race traitor" is a valid and legit concept and can't name people who aren't white who contributed to anything.

And many blacks believe that inter-marriage is
to be a race traitor too. But we shouldn't focus
upon the fringes. Most don't think that'a way

 

[Stevicus]

From my history books at school the English came, improved what the French and Spanish had, fought against angry, spiteful Natives and what they didn't do themselves was apparently the result of magic. And of course the perpetual stupidity that it's the claim that Columbus discovered America. And it's actually worse when the Church teaches it. Their version of history, biology and human evolution would be approved of by Uncle Ruckus (especially the part of saying how being white is the original and default human color).
You also have to consider where I'm from. There it's a norm to hear people complain about Black History Month and anything that spotlights black people in a positive way. I heard that crap all the time.

I actually got different versions of history, since I attended schools in California, New York, and Arizona. But there was also a lot of pop culture "history" which floated about. Most of what I know about history was either learned at the university level or self-taught, since the K-12 history was woefully insufficient. In New York, I recall the teachers were a bit more progressive and liberal, whereas in Arizona, they were more conservative and of a certain patriotic bent. Sometimes I think there are those who think that history is not really supposed to tell the truth as much as make kids feel good and proud about the country they were born in.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I actually got different versions of history, since I attended schools in California, New York, and Arizona. But there was also a lot of pop culture "history" which floated about. Most of what I know about history was either learned at the university level or self-taught, since the K-12 history was woefully insufficient. In New York, I recall the teachers were a bit more progressive and liberal, whereas in Arizona, they were more conservative and of a certain patriotic bent. Sometimes I think there are those who think that history is not really supposed to tell the truth as much as make kids feel good and proud about the country they were born in.

Even at college (a community college) I had a history teacher trying to distort and confuse the Civil War to not be about slavery.
But definitely school history has agendas that don't put teaching facts first. Such as it tends to glorify empires while dismissing everybody else as uncivilized barbarians who were warring against the Empire.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even at college (a community college) I had a history teacher trying to distort and confuse the Civil War to not be about slavery.
But definitely school history has agendas that don't put teaching facts first. Such as it tends to glorify empires while dismissing everybody else as uncivilized barbarians who were warring against the Empire.

History is never about "facts".
It's about themes, eg, conflicts, rivalries, conquest,
religion, power, etc. Facts are just evidence culled
to support the believed theme.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

History is never about "facts".
It's about themes, ie, conflicts, rivalries, conquest,
religion, power, etc. Facts are just evidence culled
to support the believed theme.

It's a fact the Civil War was fought over slavery. That that isn't up for debate. Columbus did not discover America. That fact is not up for debate.
Why then is it taught different in school history. People knew then the world was flat, Columbus was looking for a way to evade Ottoman trade tarrifs, he thought he landed in India and he was a terribly ineffective governor and brutal slaver (even for his time). We teach he discovered America and just cut out entirely he was really just a failure and not a good person.
We glorify Jefferson but don't mention he plagiarized John Locke and had a slew of kids with a slave he owned. Instead of teaching the facts that Washington wasn't that great of a person we teach up an entirely false and made up story that tremendously and greatly overexagerates his honesty. And despite the fact both men died owning slaves history gets taught in a way that allows people to believe they didn't.
School history also tends to ignore Black Wall Street.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a fact the Civil War was fought over slavery. That that isn't up for debate.

Everything is up for debate.
Sometimes it's about the facts.
Other times it's about the themes.
I've heard many a leftist say that it wasn't about slavery.

Columbus did not discover America. That fact is not up for debate.

He did discover it.
But he wasn't the first.
So the debate is about the significance
& consequences to which group.

Why then is it taught different in school history. People knew then the world was flat, Columbus was looking for a way to evade Ottoman trade tarrifs, he thought he landed in India and he was a terribly ineffective governor and brutal slaver (even for his time). We teach he discovered America and just cut out entirely he was really just a failure and not a good person.
We glorify Jefferson but don't mention he plagiarized John Locke and had a slew of kids with a slave he owned. Instead of teaching the facts that Washington wasn't that great of a person we teach up an entirely false and made up story that tremendously and greatly overexagerates his honesty. And despite the fact both men died owning slaves history gets taught in a way that allows people to believe they didn't.

These days the popular history themes are
decrying the sins of white men, but embiggening
blacks & women. Facts are culled toward those ends.

School history also tends to ignore Black Wall Street.

Think history ignores blacks?
Imagine being Chinese...or worse yet, aboriginal...you know, Injuns.

See?
History is a collection of agendas.
Those wax & wane in popularity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everything is up for debate.
Sometimes it's about the facts.
Other times it's about the themes.
I've heard many a leftist say that it wasn't about slavery.

The VP of the CSA himself confirmed it was about slavery.
Technically you can debate evolution, but it's silly and foolish to do so.

Think history ignores blacks?
Imagine being Chinese...or worse yet, aboriginal...you know, Injuns.

That was part of that "by magic" I mentioned earlier.

He did discover it.
But he wasn't the first.
So the debate is about the significance
& consequences to which group.

He didn't discover it. Other European groups new it was here, the Chinese knew it was here, the Natives obviously knew it was here.

These days the popular history themes are
decrying the sins of white men, but embiggening
blacks & women. Facts are culled toward those ends.

Which is sloppy. As is trying to make history fit into a theme. That's revisionist. We don't know all the facts if history, but we do know a lot of it. Like how it is a fact that George Washington abandoned Thomas Paine to die in a French prison while the French Revolution was raging on. But Washington wasn't a good person. Paine, on the other hand, went to jail a lot for victimless crimes that shouldn't be criminal (like blasphemy). That too is as much a fact as the fact we evolved from apes.

 

[Stevicus]

Even at college (a community college) I had a history teacher trying to distort and confuse the Civil War to not be about slavery.
But definitely school history has agendas that don't put teaching facts first. Such as it tends to glorify empires while dismissing everybody else as uncivilized barbarians who were warring against the Empire.

To be sure, it's a complicated war with a complicated history, along with many other aspects of U.S. history, including slavery and westward expansion, which were both part of the same general equation. As a result, the memorialization of it and the historiography has also had a complicated history. I had a history teacher who was from a former Confederate state who taught more of a "lost cause" version of history, though not the complete snow job one might hear from the more fanatical pro-Confederate types. I think he tried to gloss over "the cause" as much as focus on examining the military history - the campaigns and battles.

I also remember a history pageant we did in sixth grade (when I was in NY), and part of it involved a couple of kids, one dressed in a blue Union uniform and the other in gray, reciting a touching poem about a soldier who fell at Cemetery Hill. That was also a big part of the Civil War history package - the sadness and tragedy of "brother against brother." It wasn't that anyone was denying slavery as the primary cause, but it was more a feeling where the cause was secondary because the war itself was so horrible and sad, but once it ended, we made up and we were one big happy family again. That seemed to the primary objective in handling Civil War history.

Of course, President Abraham Lincoln (whose birthday is in six days, in case anyone still celebrates it) has gone down in history as the one who freed the slaves and preserved the Union, viewed by many as truly the greatest President in U.S. history. His temple in Washington DC is one of the most prominent and stately - a symbol of America itself. Archeologists in the future may uncover it someday and believe that Lincoln was worshiped as a god - and there may be some truth to that. Was Lincoln really that great? And if he wasn't that great, why did we make him great? Why did America need to have a great martyr to die for our sins? Were our sins forgiven?

I think Lincoln acted in the best interests of the United States, as they were at that time, and I believe that his Abolitionist beliefs were truly sincere. The Election of 1860 was a bit of a debacle, though Lincoln's election proved that it was time for America to change. Slavery had to end, it was already ending everywhere else and rapidly becoming an anachronism. Compromising was over, and it was time for an all-or-nothing gambit to settle the question of slavery once and for all. However, I don't believe the North's motives were entirely compassionate or humanitarian. Most still believed in the basic concepts of white supremacy, yet still opposed slavery for other reasons. Economically, southern cotton was no longer "king," as northern industries started to dominate the national economy. England was seeking out other sources of cotton, so they didn't need it anymore. Also, they were importing food from the Union states, which they needed more than Confederate cotton, which they could get from other places (Egypt, I think).

I think the key problem with approaching the history of slavery and the Civil War, it's not that people keep saying that the war was not about slavery (which I agree is a gross distortion of historical fact), but it's that there have been generally poor excuses and explanations for what took place in the Postbellum period. It's often what's told in the results and aftermath which gives away the underlying causes of the war. Slavery did end, which is a historical fact, though we also know that life didn't really get that much better for anyone who wasn't white in America during that time. But on paper, the 14th Amendment ensured that everyone would be a free and equal citizen of the United States - even those confused indigenous people in the western territories who somehow thought they were living in their own country. They became citizens, too, whether they wanted to be or not. "Separate But Equal" was probably one of the biggest piles of BS lawyers ever came up with, but that remained the law of the land until 1954, almost 90 years after the end of the Civil War and the end of slavery.

That's why I might sometimes get impatient when people argue about the Civil War, and by extension, arguments over the Confederate flag and all those statues that they were tearing down a few years ago. Even though I agree with the reasons for tearing them down and that they should be torn down, some of it seemed a bit misplaced and misdirected. Do we really need to argue about the Confederate States of America or what reasons they might have had for existing? They lost the war. The United States of America won the war. We don't need to ask why the Confederate States wanted slavery or racism, since that part is obvious.

The greater historical issue to resolve is why the United States chose to maintain Separate But Equal and a generally white supremacist set of policies and institutions, which largely continued unabated after the Civil War and didn't face any significant legal challenges until after World War II.

I think we're at the point now where America is in a position not unlike that of Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down where he asks "I'm the bad guy?" After a trail of murder and mayhem, he suddenly reflects and wonders "Wait, did I do something wrong?"

 

[Revoltingest]

The VP of the CSA himself confirmed it was about slavery.
Technically you can debate evolution, but it's silly and foolish to do so.

History differs from science.
Whatever theme one believes, one can find
confirming evidence. And debate still exists,
your objections notwithstanding.

That was part of that "by magic" I mentioned earlier.

He didn't discover it. Other European groups new it was here, the Chinese knew it was here, the Natives obviously knew it was here.

And yet, there is still argument about it.
You have one view that hinges on his
not being the first. Others see him as the
first to make it known & accessible to
European countries.

Which is sloppy. As is trying to make history fit into a theme. That's revisionist. We don't know all the facts if history, but we do know a lot of it. Like how it is a fact that George Washington abandoned Thomas Paine to die in a French prison while the French Revolution was raging on. But Washington wasn't a good person. Paine, on the other hand, went to jail a lot for victimless crimes that shouldn't be criminal (like blasphemy). That too is as much a fact as the fact we evolved from apes.

For you, history is about Washington being bad.
There are other themes, eg, Washington's greatness
in the revolutionary war & subsequent government.

"The history" doesn't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

History differs from science.
Whatever theme one believes, one can find
confirming evidence. And debate still exists,
your objections notwithstanding.

There's no evidence of the cherry tree story, we know it's made up, but it's still taught anyways.
Amd that's my point. We teach fallacies, myths and distortions instead of facts.
Yes, you can the "barbarians" were causing problems for Rome, but the facts are those "barbarians" were most of our ancestors and were fighting against Roman tyranny. That's not taught either.

For you, history is about Washington being bad.
There are other themes, eg, Washington's greatness
in the revolutionary war & subsequent government.

To me it's about being accurate. It's not necessarily easily done, it's not even necessarily possible in many points in history, but there is a difference between teachings the facts as we know them and teaching biases and agendas.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no evidence of the cherry tree story, we know it's made up, but it's still taught anyways.
Amd that's my point. We teach fallacies, myths and distortions instead of facts.
Yes, you can the "barbarians" were causing problems for Rome, but the facts are those "barbarians" were most of our ancestors and were fighting against Roman tyranny. That's not taught either.

To me it's about being accurate. It's not necessarily easily done, it's not even necessarily possible in many points in history, but there is a difference between teachings the facts as we know them and teaching biases and agendas.

Having "The Truth" about history can be
as bad as having "The Truth" about religion.

 

[Stevicus]

Teacher suspended after Black History announcement showed pic of orangutan eating a watermelon (msn.com)

A middle school teacher in Bexley, Ohio is on leave and the school has launched an investigation following a racist presentation shown to students on morning announcements to mark Black History Month, reported WBNS this week.

"According to the school district, the image appeared on a green screen behind the two student anchors," said the report. "The image of an orangutan eating a watermelon was displayed immediately after a historical fact was read about Black History Month, according to Superintendent Dr. Jason Fine. The video announcements are recorded on the Friday before they are shown. The district did not say if anyone watched the video before it aired."

Per the school district, the teacher in charge of the morning announcements has been suspended pending an investigation, and families were sent a letter notifying them of the incident.

"The use of racist images in any context is unacceptable and goes against the values of inclusiveness and respect for all individuals that we take seriously at Bexley City Schools and at Bexley Middle School," said the letter. "This material has no place in a learning environment and can cause significant harm to students and members of the school community. We have taken swift action to investigate how this was able to occur and will be instituting further safeguards on all announcement productions moving forward."

They suspended the teacher, although it's not clear if the teacher was actually involved in it or if it was just mischievous middle school students.

This comes after a series of other racist incidents shocked schools up and down the country this month.

Last week, a California middle school was shocked to discover a seventh grader posted an Instagram collage of five classmates and the principal, all of whom are Black or mixed-race, with the caption, "Happy black history month to all of the monkeys." In another incident at a boarding school in Tennessee, two students posted a Snapchat in which they used racial slurs and threatened to burn Black people on a cross.

 

[Revoltingest]

They suspended the teacher, although it's not clear if the teacher was actually involved in it or if it was just mischievous middle school students.

The important thing is to punish a scapegoat.
This must be done quickly, before any investigation.

 

[Shaul]

I'm offended. Now dance until I am mollified.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Teacher suspended after Black History announcement showed pic of orangutan eating a watermelon (msn.com)

They suspended the teacher, although it's not clear if the teacher was actually involved in it or if it was just mischievous middle school students.

That depends if we are evolutionary related to orangutans.


Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

Apparently we are, according to National Geographic, a staple and mainstay in many many schools.

That teacher deserves a raise for teaching truthful scientific facts and theories. A keeper for sure.

The watermelon just shows that people and our evolutionary cousins have excellent taste for cuisine.

I personally love watermelon as well as chicken and I'm not even black.