Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: SquidVicious on January 20, 2016, 12:36:45 PM
-
I don't think it should. It's disempowering for black kids to hear that their ancestors were slaves treated like animals and creates resentment towards those who had nothing to do with customs and laws dating back 400 years. It also creates subliminal feelings of superiority for white kids to hear that whites owned blacks for 250 years.
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
-
Of course. Can't white wash history anymore then it currently is. Next, people will want to stop teaching about nazis.
-
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
LOL then what is the point of any history? Just some boring shit that some dead guys did 1000 years ago, amirite?
-
Of course. Can't white wash history anymore then it currently is. Next, people will want to stop teaching about nazis.
It's not whitewashing. It's just not worth teaching. Kids in middle school and high school spend TWO YEARS studying the Civil War and mostly on slavery. Not a single semester on WWI, WWII, Vietnam, War of 1812, French-Indian War, Korea, Gulf War or any other subject. It's all about slavery and the industrial revolution. Fuck that noise.
-
It's not whitewashing. It's just not worth teaching. Kids in middle school and high school spend TWO YEARS studying the Civil War and mostly on slavery. Not a single semester on WWI, WWII, Vietnam, War of 1812, French-Indian War, Korea, Gulf War or any other subject. It's all about slavery and the industrial revolution. Fuck that noise.
Um, I learned about WW I, WW II, and Vietnam in high school.
-
It's an important time in our history that still affects how people today's world.
I don't know if covering it imparts false senses of insecurity or security.
Considering today's politically correct climate... books will eventually be rewritten so kids are taught blacks weren't slaves. New books will say they wanted to come here, worked to pay back, expenses, and any whipping was just to teach us rhythm. :)
-
only as a hands on course....
-
only as a hands on course....
You want to touch school aged children?
-
yes because everyone should know how to own slaves
at least not as uppity as the current crop with the pants sagging and the running into police officer's bullets
-
You want to touch school aged children?
send pictures
-
Should we also not teach about women's rights?
How should the Louisiana purchase be taught?
Is it OK to teach about WWII or will this cause students with German, Japanese and Russian heritage to feel bad?
Lol
-
It's an important time in our history that still affects how people today's world.
I don't know if covering it imparts false senses of insecurity or security.
Considering today's politically correct climate... books will eventually be rewritten so kids are taught blacks weren't slaves. New books will say they wanted to come here, worked to pay back, expenses, and any whipping was just to teach us rhythm. :)
Would that be politically correct? Or would the books written by white liberals be re-written to teach that the African slaves were the original inventors of the combustion engine, cotton gin, and electricity and that Ford, Whitney, Franklin and Edison all misappropriated their ideas and turned them into fortune and fame?
On a serious note, is there a valid argument to be made against hearing over and over again that your ancestors were treated like animals in a zoo? Does that not impact one's self-esteem? Any objective person can tell you that Africans are much prouder and more self-confident than American blacks, yet it is also their history.
-
Should we also not teach about women's rights?
How should the Louisiana purchase be taught?
Is it OK to teach about WWII or will this cause students with German, Japanese and Russian heritage to feel bad?
Lol
Why Russians? We won
-
Why Russians? We won
Was Stalin always a hero or did Hitler just try and double cross him?
-
Was Stalin always a hero or did Hitler just try and double cross him?
Stalin was a brutal dictator that murdered millions of people for the communist utopia that never was.
-
Was Stalin always a hero or did Hitler just try and double cross him?
No. Yes.
-
Stalin was a brutal dictator that murdered millions of people for the communist utopia that never was.
I can assure you that no American schools even spend a day on Stalin.
-
Would that be politically correct? Or would the books written by white liberals be re-written to teach that the African slaves were the original inventors of the combustion engine, cotton gin, and electricity and that Ford, Whitney, Franklin and Edison all misappropriated their ideas and turned them into fortune and fame?
On a serious note, is there a valid argument to be made against hearing over and over again that your ancestors were treated like animals in a zoo? Does that not impact one's self-esteem? Any objective person can tell you that Africans are much prouder and more self-confident than American blacks, yet it is also their history.
Africans can be insufferably arrogant. I've had many amusing experiences with them. Some fat, nitwit, actually tried telling me she wasn't black, LOL! Told her if the cops came they'd find her just as black as me. She didn't STFU until I offered a computer so she could show me Nigeria was in Europe. :)
^ On some level, there may have been a pre-existing grudge about being asked if there was any way she could get her Nigerian brothers and sisters to stop sending those goddamn emails needing help getting millions of dollars out of the country.
-
Stalin was a brutal dictator that murdered millions of people for the communist utopia that never was.
Oh. Well this information about the ruler of Russia may cause those of Russian decent to feel inferior that such an individual was able to control the masses.
Similar to the practice of Africans selling African Hebrews to people of various colors for slavery could make people feel bad.
The topic is interesting but I think the wrong question is being asked.
-
Why Russians? We won
http://www.b99.tv/video/russian-rhapsody/
-
In principle history is not taught to make people feel a certain way but in fact the history taught in schools does suck. Certain things get *cleansed* all the time. I'm all for fixing it up but I would recommend a more comprehensive approach. Black people haven't even been able to vote for 50 years so you can try to erase it but there's the problem of the folks who are still alive with recollections of mistreatment. This is another unfortunate side effect of slavery, the historical artifacts are not so easy to be rid of. This is why I advocate for the complete elimination of the concept of race as the final solution to this problem.
-
Um, I learned about WW I, WW II, and Vietnam in high school.
This.
America's public school system already sucks. No need to make it shitter.
-
I don't think it should. It's disempowering for black kids to hear that their ancestors were slaves treated like animals and creates resentment towards those who had nothing to do with customs and laws dating back 400 years. It also creates subliminal feelings of superiority for white kids to hear that whites owned blacks for 250 years.
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
Yes, they should know that they bought and sold themselves into slavery, owned slaves themselves, the first slave owner in America was a black man, and some blacks owned the most slaves in a state.
-
Yes, they should know that they bought and sold themselves into slavery, owned slaves themselves, the first slave owner in America was a black man, and some blacks owned the most slaves in a state.
First one is commonly known.
Any peer-reviewed references for the other claims?
-
It's not whitewashing. It's just not worth teaching. Kids in middle school and high school spend TWO YEARS studying the Civil War and mostly on slavery. Not a single semester on WWI, WWII, Vietnam, War of 1812, French-Indian War, Korea, Gulf War or any other subject. It's all about slavery and the industrial revolution. Fuck that noise.
I'll accept the trolling. How long did slavery, not just in this country, but in the New World last? Each Euro country had it's own unique form. How did slavery shape Americans views of race and each other?
It is is white washing, no two ways about it. Slavery and the Industurial Revolution are what shaped this country, morally and economically. Depending on where you live, a lot of time is spent on the topics you listed, but those are events. Kids in HS also spend a lot of time on civics/government, yet most people don't know the three branches of government, which came first the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. And many still don't know what the Electoral College is, some even believe it is a real college that you can enroll in.
Bottom line, when it comes to our own history, Americans know or care very little for it, yet people in other countries know more about America than its own citizens. Now that should be your biggest question.
-
I don't think it should. It's disempowering for black kids to hear that their ancestors were slaves treated like animals and creates resentment towards those who had nothing to do with customs and laws dating back 400 years. It also creates subliminal feelings of superiority for white kids to hear that whites owned blacks for 250 years.
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
they should teach that it was black people that made them slaves in the first place and sold them....thats thing that black people that arenragging on whites always forgets and nevee mention
-
I'll accept the trolling. How long did slavery, not just in this country, but in the New World last? Each Euro country had it's own unique form. How did slavery shape Americabe views of race and each other?
It is is white washing, no two ways about it. Slavery and the Industurial Revolution are what shaped this country, morally and economically. Depending on where you live, a lot of time is spent on the topics you listed, but those are events. Kids in HS also spend a lot of time on civics/government, yet most people don't know the three branches of government, which came first the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. And many still don't know what the Electoral College is, some even believe it is a real college that you can enroll in.
Bottom line, when it comes to our own history, Americans know or care very little for it, yet people in other countries know more about America than its own citizens. Now that should be your biggest question.
Are they in the ACC? :)
-
First one is commonly known.
Any peer-reviewed references for the other claims?
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~arihuang/academic/abg/slavery/history.html
Link has documentation at the bottom of the page. Interesting information.
-
In principle history is not taught to make people feel a certain way but in fact the history taught in schools does suck. Certain things get *cleansed* all the time. I'm all for fixing it up but I would recommend a more comprehensive approach. Black people haven't even been able to vote for 50 years so you can try to erase it but there's the problem of the folks who are still alive with recollections of mistreatment. This is another unfortunate side effect of slavery, the historical artifacts are not so easy to be rid of. This is why I advocate for the complete elimination of the concept of race as the final solution to this problem.
As long as you have continents with Africans, Asians, Euros, and Indians the concept of race will not be eliminated. It's a liberal fools dream.
And let's not forget colorism.
-
As long as you have continents with Africans, Asians, Euros, and Indians the concept of race will not be eliminated. It's a liberal fools dream.
And let's not forget colorism.
it's certainly a provocative proposal but you can't just slander this notion as liberal idiocy without elaborating!
:D
-
only as a hands on course....
Figures...:D
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/10/22/2984AB2E00000578-3119063-image-a-24_1433971574702.jpg)
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/13/13b9c94fc593b513c484977cbf17c6e85695adb3dabfa40ac0072ca793b65e20.jpg)
-
Yes, they should know that they bought and sold themselves into slavery, owned slaves themselves, the first slave owner in America was a black man, and some blacks owned the most slaves in a state.
You forgot to add that it was Whitey that freed the slaves.
-
You forgot to add that it was Whitey that freed the slaves.
That would me telling people the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
-
Yes, they should know that they bought and sold themselves into slavery, owned slaves themselves, the first slave owner in America was a black man, and some blacks owned the most slaves in a state.
This quote makes no sense, my hook-nosed Ashkenazi friend.
Your beloved grandpa was a slave-owner Adam, correct?
-
I need to go to bed, I mis-read the title of this thread.
-
This quote makes no sense, my hook-nosed Ashkenazi friend.
Your beloved grandpa was a slave-owner Adam, correct?
He either didn't finish reading the stories or is playing fast and loose with the truth. For example, the Dutch captured the one guy Adumbass is referencing and sold him as an indentured servant. Once his servitude was up he got land and also had indentured servants. We all know Irish, Italians, and others were indentured servants with free children. The black dude had an indentured servant who felt working for someone else was in his best interests. Since the indentured servant wasn't from a British commonwealth, he was classified as property. He might technically be him the first in America to legally own a person as property but that's a very self-serving interpretation in regards to slavery and blurring the lines in cases where it was occurring simultaneously with indentured servitude.
-
It's an important time in our history that still affects how people today's world.
I don't know if covering it imparts false senses of insecurity or security.
Considering today's politically correct climate... books will eventually be rewritten so kids are taught blacks weren't slaves. New books will say they wanted to come here, worked to pay back, expenses, and any whipping was just to teach us rhythm. :)
Bingo! The goal should be to teach the evils of slavery and the social injustice that went with it.
-
He either didn't finish reading the stories or is playing fast and loose with the truth. For example, the Dutch captured the one guy Adumbass is referencing and sold him as an indentured servant. Once his servitude was up he got land and also had indentured servants. We all know Irish, Italians, and others were indentured servants with free children. The black dude had an indentured servant who felt working for someone else was in his best interests. Since the indentured servant wasn't from a British commonwealth, he was classified as property. He might technically be him the first in America to legally own a person as property but that's a very self-serving interpretation in regards to slavery and blurring the lines in cases where it was occurring simultaneously with indentured servitude.
Might I also remind that one of the LARGEST Slave owners in the South was a Free Black man in Carteret County, NC. John Carruthers Stanly
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_TGfl23VjLM/TZHmwUVJt6I/AAAAAAAACnU/x9bWfE8Mc9I/s640/John+Wright+Stanley+House.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fJTwYU9iDqQ/TZHwBimo9dI/AAAAAAAACnY/Kossvmas3eE/s200/John+Carruthers+Stanly.jpg)
John Carruthers Stanly
1774-1846
Black Slaveholder
Stanly, born a slave in 1774, was the son of an African Ibo woman and the white prominent merchant-shipper John Wright Stanly. He was apprenticed to Alexander and Lydia Stewart, close friends and neighbors of his father. They saw to it that John received an education and learned the trade of barbering. At an early age, they helped him establish his own barbershop in New Bern. Many of the town’s farmers and planters frequented his barbershop for a shave or a trim. As a result, Stanly developed a successful business. By the time he reached the age of twenty-one, literate and economically able to provide for himself, his owners petitioned the Craven County court in 1795 for his emancipation. However, he was not completely satisfied with the ruling of the court and in 1798, through a special act, the state legislature confirmed the emancipation of John Carruthers Stanly, which entitled him to all rights and privileges of a free person.
Between 1800 and 1801, Stanly purchased his slave wife, Kitty, and two mulatto slave children. By March 1805, they were emancipated by the Craven County Superior Court. A few days later, Kitty and Stanly were legally married in New Bern and posted a legal marriage bond in Raleigh. Stanly’s wife was the daughter of Richard and Mary Green and the paternal granddaughter of Amelia Green. Two years later, in 1807, Stanly was successful in getting the court to emancipate his wife’s brother.
Some politically correct Court Historians end the story here, if they acknowledge the existence of black slaveholders at all. What a noble thing, to purchase and emancipate one's own family! But there is much more to the story.
After securing his own and his family’s freedom, Stanly began to focus more on business matters. He obtained other slaves to work for him. Two of them, Boston and Brister, were taught the barbering trade. Once they became skillful barbers, Stanly let them run the operation while he used the money they helped him earn to invest in additional town property, farmland, and more slaves.
Through his business acumen, Stanley eventually became a very wealthy plantation owner and the largest slaveholder in all of Craven County. He profited from investments in real estate, rental properties, the slave operated barbershop, and plantations from which he sold commodities such as cotton and turpentine.
Stanly’s plantations and rental properties were operated by skilled slaves along with help from some hired free blacks. To improve his rental properties in New Bern, he used skilled slaves and free blacks to build cabins and other residences and to repair and renovate these properties. During the depression of the early 1820s it was slave labor that kept Stanly economically stable.
The 1830 census reveals that Stanly owned, 163 slaves. He has been described as a harsh, profit-minded task master whose treatment of his slaves was no different than the treatment slaves received from white owners. Stanly’s goal, shared by white southern planters, was on expanding his operations and increasing his profits.
During the early 1820s, Stanly’s wife, Kitty, was taken seriously ill. She became bedridden and, despite careful attention by two slave nurses, she died around 1824. It was at this same time that Stanly began to face a series of financial difficulties. His fortune began to plummet when the Bank of New Bern, due to the national bank tightening controls of some state and local banks, was forced to collect all outstanding debts. Unfortunately, Stanly had countersigned a security note for John Stanly, his white half-brother, in the amount of $14,962. Stanly was forced to assume the debt. This, along with his own debts forced him to refinance his mortgages and sell large pieces of property, including slaves. When these options did not resolve his economic woes, he resorted to mortgaging his turpentine, cotton, and corn crops, as well as selling his barbershop, which had been operating continuously for forty years. Without a steady flow of income, his fortunes continued to decline. In 1843, his last 160 acres of land were sold at public auction. Three years later, at the age of 74, John Carruthers Stanly died. At the time of his death he still owned seven slaves.
-
-
So a wealthy slaveowner would forgo having sex with his freshly showered and perfumed white wife to sneak into the horse stalls and have sex with the black woman who hadn't showered in weeks and then impregnate her? Seems like the template for alpha males like Arnold was well laid hundreds of years ago.
-
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0603/heritage.html
-
i'm not sure about slavery - but slayer should definitely be taught in schools
-
I don't think it should. It's disempowering for black kids to hear that their ancestors were slaves treated like animals and creates resentment towards those who had nothing to do with customs and laws dating back 400 years. It also creates subliminal feelings of superiority for white kids to hear that whites owned blacks for 250 years.
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
Modern Schools is where the elites now train their wage slaves. In some ways the olden day slaves had it better, back then a slave owner had a responsibility to house, feed and provide medical assistance to their workers. These days wage slaves are left to fend for themselves with minimal resources. The Elites are as clever as fuck, they have convinced the masses from the working and underclasses that they aren't actually slaves all the while convincing them that class mobility is much more prevalent than what it really is. Ingenious.
-
Modern Schools is where the elites now train their wage slaves. In some ways the olden day slaves had it better, back then a slave owner had a responsibility to house, feed and provide medical assistance to their workers. These days wage slaves are left to fend for themselves with minimal resources. The Elites are as clever as fuck, they have convinced the masses from the working and underclasses that they aren't actually slaves all the while convincing them that class mobility is much more prevalent than what it really is. Ingenious.
Pretty good observation.
-
Pretty good observation.
Well, that's my take on it anyway. It's a marxist viewpoint, based on cultural hegemony which describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of that society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class worldview becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm; as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural, inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.
-
First one is commonly known.
Any peer-reviewed references for the other claims?
Nope...all true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
-
Nope...all true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
I've tried typing this slowly in the past but it doesn't seem to make any difference:
Wiki
is
not
a peer-reviewed
source.
Any retard with the internet and a computer can make Wiki entries.
-
I've tried typing this slowly in the past but it doesn't seem to make any difference:
Wiki
is
not
a peer-reviewed
source.
Any retard with the internet and a computer can make Wiki entries.
Lmao at Vince thinking a Wikipedia page is peer-reviewed. :D
-
Lmao at Vince thinking a Wikipedia page is peer-reviewed. :D
He's not alone in thinking it to be a definitive, reliable, source.
-
of course it should be taught, it's still a common practice world wide; especially in the Religion of Peace
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/05/Yazidi-Sex-Slaves-YouTube-video-640x480.jpg)
(http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1407510/isis-yazidi-sex-slavery.jpg)
-
of course it should be taught, it's still a common practice world wide; especially in the Religion of Peace
Let's face it: School has basically become daycare for low income families. We're probably setting too high a standard expecting kids to be educated.
-
Let's face it: School has basically become daycare for low income families. We're probably setting too high a standard expecting kids to be educated.
HA! Agreed.
-
Any retard with the internet and a computer can make Wiki entries.
And get them deleted in a second if they don't conform with the current system of lies.
-
Nope...all true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
wikipedia was found to be about as accurate as the other encyclopedias (oxford, brittanica.)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
as for this fellow specifically he probably did own slaves but no one claims this is typical so it's not meaningful. You may find jews who were nazis too it doesn't mean anything because it's an absurd anomaly.
-
Wikipedia is mostly correct. And when a bad edit is made,it usuallygets corrected within a few minutes.
I don't get it,how do they keep an eye on this amount of content? ???
-
Also the holocaust should be taught as one of the biggest scams ever. Bigger than 9/11.
-
I've tried typing this slowly in the past but it doesn't seem to make any difference:
Wiki
is
not
a peer-reviewed
source.
Any retard with the internet and a computer can make Wiki entries.
This guy existed....there's a landmark in the area where he was born you moron
-
This guy existed....there's a landmark in the area where he was born you moron
You sincerely don't understand that N=1 means nothing?
Read a book or do a little research about how hard it was for freed slaves to stay free, indentured folks to have their contracts honored, the transition from indentured servitude to slavery for blacks (but not whites) before jumping on Adumbass' bandwagon. I'm not naïve enough to believe being more knowledgeable on the topic will help. It might stop you from taking whatever popular position is advanced in order to fit in better or look intellectual.
A few black guys owning slaves or having indentured servants doesn't mean shit. It was how people lived back then.
Kids should be taught American and World history in school. Ignoring history will only increase the number of dumbasses.
Wiki is fine for looking up shit quickly. No one with a brain would use it as a legitimate source to prove an argument because it announces that the argument has no foundation in actual thought or education. Peer review means other experts had a chance to read your article, conclusions, study, etc...and examine how conclusions were drawn.
FWIW, You can be wrong as fuck with an opinion based upon peer-reviewed material but at least there's some thought process behind the mistake that can be fixed with better information.
-
i'm not sure about slavery - but slayer should definitely be taught in schools
qft
-
Lmao at Vince thinking a Wikipedia page is peer-reviewed. :D
You do realize that you can scroll down further and there are source links, tons and tons for each article. You can then verify those sources.
Why do you not realize this?
-
Let's face it: School has basically become daycare for low income families. We're probably setting too high a standard expecting kids to be educated.
It depends on the families.
As with anything, generalizing is problematic.
Take my kids for instance. I require they do well in school. If they don't there are consequences. I'm sure there are some kids they go to school with that just don't care, but that's the issue of their families, not mine.
-
It depends on the families.
As with anything, generalizing is problematic.
Take my kids for instance. I require they do well in school. If they don't there are consequences. I'm sure there are some kids they go to school with that just don't care, but that's the issue of their families, not mine.
Mine do well and get pushed hard because education is important.
-
Mine do well and get pushed hard because education is important.
Exactly.
We generalize a lot, but you and I both know how we are in our families and how other families are as well.
Generally, I assume there are more people who "want" to do well, than people who truly don't care.
Especially the child's parents and what not.
-
Mine do well and get pushed hard because education is important.
Do they realize that you are a moron?
-
Do they realize that you are a moron?
by your argument we should teach German history by focusing on Jew Nazi's such as the "ideal soldier" Werner Goldberg.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/WernerGoldberg.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg
hahah fool.
-
Do they realize that you are a moron?
I have two teenagers.
It's implied :)
-
I don't think it should. It's disempowering for black kids to hear that their ancestors were slaves treated like animals and creates resentment towards those who had nothing to do with customs and laws dating back 400 years. It also creates subliminal feelings of superiority for white kids to hear that whites owned blacks for 250 years.
Other than instilling misguided guilt in liberal white kids whose ancestors didn't arrive here until well after slavery was abolished, what's the point?
Yes, we should. We should also learn about the ongoing, PRESENT-DAY, slave trade in which Africans enslave African children in the chocolate trade.
We can also get a bit of history about the Berber slave trade in which white women were sexually enslaved by Northern Africans. And then a little dose of the Jewish-Israeli slave trade of Slavic women, as well as the enslavement of millions of Italians, Germans, Balts, and Slavs by Jewish commies in the gulags of Siberia to be worked to death on the White Sea Canal.
Yes, let's learn it all. It's a two way street.
-
You do realize that you can scroll down further and there are source links, tons and tons for each article. You can then verify those sources.
Why do you not realize this?
Thanks for trolling, TA!!
-
Thanks for trolling, TA!!
It's not feigned ignorance for the sake of being argumentative. Someone who understood the difference wouldn't make such a post.
-
Thanks for trolling, TA!!
I'm not at all though. You wouldn't have posted such a stupid ass response had you known that there are sources at the bottom that are clickable and that you can verify for yourself that are contained in each article.
Try it out. If you need additional help, I can assist.
-
I'm not at all though. You wouldn't have posted such a stupid ass response had you known that there are sources at the bottom that are clickable and that you can verify for yourself that are contained in each article.
Try it out. If you need additional help, I can assist.
Persisten trolling!! Solid!!
-
Exactly.
We generalize a lot, but you and I both know how we are in our families and how other families are as well.
Generally, I assume there are more people who "want" to do well, than people who truly don't care.
Especially the child's parents and what not.
It's probably a little easier for my kids to believe education is important because such a high percentage of the people around them went to college.
-
Yes. You should teach kids to be slaves. Would do 'em good.
-
Also the holocaust should be taught as one of the biggest scams ever. Bigger than 9/11.
What about a real holocaust: 50 million Europeans croaking and tortured at the hands of commies.
-
I think some are just meant to be slaves, their mentality screams for being controlled by better knowing masters. Or else they act like savage apes and endanger people.
-
I think some are just meant to be slaves, their mentality screams for being controlled by better knowing masters. Or else they act like savage apes and endanger people.
Actually apes are better than some of the subhumans residing in human societies these days.
-
It should be taught because we're doing it all wrong these days.
-
It is part of history. Yes, it sucked, but it happened. I gave the New York Life Insurance company credit for disclosing their entire history, the bad, and the good. They insured slave holders, for slave loss. They were honest, and said it was part of their past....They were not pleased with it, but it was truth.... Its like not mentioning Internment camps for the Japanese during WW2. It is not a great thing, but it happened.... :'(