Texas GOP Pushes to Whitewash American History for Schoolchildren

[Big Abraham]

Mr. Ramos questioned how the Texas Revolution, a six-month rebellion that concluded in the spring of 1836, could be associated with patriotism and freedom when the state’s new Constitution explicitly legalized slavery seven years after Mexico had abolished it.

Because a majority of the people in a given area rebelling against its authoritarian rulers and establishing a sovereign nation is inherently patriotic and free? Also, the idea that the men of the Texas Revolution were all fighting for slavery is an even greater denial of history than the idea that none of them were slaveholders. Have none of these people ever heard of Davy Crockett?

[Big Abraham]

In 1920, the non-Mexican, immigrant population of Texas was around two thousand. Sounds like you're saying that "patriotism" consists of moving onto a piece of land (illegally, if need be) and then, shortly thereafter, telling its legal claimants that it's yours now.

I assume you mean 1820. Anyway, you are obviously severely misinformed about the history of Texas. The "Old Three Hundred" that moved with Stephen Austin into the region were invited by the Spanish (later Mexican) government in an attempt to populate the sparsely populated frontier. Mexico had actively encouraged immigration and wanted to increase settler number by enacting the General Law of 1824 which enabled all heads of household, regardless of race, religion or immigrant status, to acquire land in Mexico, which they purchased.

It also looks a lot like you are denying the personhood of Mexicans, Native Americans, and slaves - and I don't think you even realize you're doing it.

Yay! Declarative statements are fun! Since you've provided no evidence or reasoning to back up your incendiary assertion, I'll join the fun. You sir, are clearly denying the personhood of white Texans, and persons named Big Abraham. Tsk tsk.

(And that's all without getting into how Coahuila and Texas were a single state until 1835... in which American immigrants were a minority.)

Ok, and? The American immigrants were not a minority in Tejas, the place which, you know, actually revolted and won their independence.

And as for Texas and slavery, here are a few excerpts from the Texas Constitution of 1836

Yeah I never actually denied that slavery existed in the Republic of Texas, and was constitutionally sanctioned (as it was in the United States, mind you). What I claimed is that not all Texians owned slaves, and that "fighting for slavery" was not their main cause. Is reading comprehension not your strong suit?

How little has changed in almost two centuries. The government of Mexico was certainly flawed, and Santa Anna was no champion of democracy.

"Certainly flawed" and "no champion of democracy" certainly are "whitewashed" ways to describe a bloodthirsty authoritarian government.

But that does not justify attempts to whitewash (nearly literally) the history of Texas, or any history. The United States of America has done a lot of good in spite of our historical flaws. Refusing to understand the very real lessons of history in favor of some feel-good fantasyland will not lead to better future.

No one said you can't teach the "very real lessons of history," whatever that means to you. That doesn't mean teaching an inaccurate view of the Texas Revolution, which this article is positing and you are apparently endorsing. And it sounds like you're too busy moral posturing over there to come up with any concrete examples of what "feel-good fantasyland" you're even talking about.

[Big Abraham]

Why are people arguing with the Confederate apologist?

When have I defended Confederates?

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

 I call B.S. on this, what exactly was in your history curriculum that was guilt tripping whites about? Explain an example or cite something, reference a textbook because I don't believe you and would like to actually see an example of this.


 

It's the same typical nonsense you get in some universities about how the wealth of America, and that of white people in particular, is essentially due only to slavery and Native genocide, how everything was taken from them and they were given scraps in return, and of course naturally being a suburban Portland school with 95+ percent white students this is likely going to generate a great deal of shame. It wasn't an explicit part of the curriculum to "guilt trip whites," it was more of the manner in which it was conveyed. It was in public high school where I first came into contact with concepts like "white privilege," which I remember being taught as a fact to the students by my English teacher. I don't have any textbooks to cite, I can only cite my personal experience, which you are free to disbelieve for whatever reason, but a simple online search will reveal that many other people, especially of the recent generation, had similar experiences in public school, especially if they grew up in a liberal area as I did

[Big Abraham]

I don't believe you based on your other posts about a wide range of topics, you seem to have a lot of racial animus. You just admitted there was nothing in the curriculum that explicitly did what you just said a few posts ago was a "constant guilt tripping of whites". So you just made up a bunch of nonsense based on your feelings.

Yeah, no. Being taught "white privilege," and that all our nation's and white family's wealth is due to enslaving and raping other races, regardless of whatever my own personal opinions on the subject matter are, is not "based on my feelings." That were material that were objectively presented to us as fact. And even if producing "white guilt," was not the written intention, it surely was the product nonetheless.

Also notice how I never referred to such material as "leftwing." It is decidedly liberal, not leftist.

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

 I call B.S. on this, what exactly was in your history curriculum that was guilt tripping whites about? Explain an example or cite something, reference a textbook because I don't believe you and would like to actually see an example of this.


 

It's the same typical nonsense you get in some universities about how the wealth of America, and that of white people in particular, is essentially due only to slavery and Native genocide, how everything was taken from them and they were given scraps in return, and of course naturally being a suburban Portland school with 95+ percent white students this is likely going to generate a great deal of shame. It wasn't an explicit part of the curriculum to "guilt trip whites," it was more of the manner in which it was conveyed. It was in public high school where I first came into contact with concepts like "white privilege," which I remember being taught as a fact to the students by my English teacher. I don't have any textbooks to cite, I can only cite my personal experience, which you are free to disbelieve for whatever reason, but a simple online search will reveal that many other people, especially of the recent generation, had similar experiences in public school, especially if they grew up in a liberal area as I did

Oh I see so just acknowledging bad things our nation did is “guilt tripping” to you 🙄

So you believe that all wealth that this country possesses, and that white people individually possess, is all due to slavery and Indian removal? Not only is that objectively false, but is a slap in the face to the tens of millions of European laborers who sailed to America to work in our factories, shipyards, mines, and railroads.

Or maybe you're just one of the ones who's been a product of the same false classroom lessons I had to go through in the public school system, except you've been foolish enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated by them. In that case, my condolences.

[Big Abraham]

Remember that most textbooks in the south used to romanticize slavery and portray slaves as happy and loving their owners. Conservatives have always used the education manipulate the future electorate through culture. They claim that removing the stars and bars and confederate statues is erasing history when they are the ones actual manipulate history.

An Alabama history textbook said slavery was a form of social security and that slave owners treated slaves well.

 Everything is projection with the right. They know that they've lied about American history, that's why they see the most meager attempts to begin to correct the record as such a serious threat.

The difference is that very few history teachers are teaching right-wing lies.

Wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's clear that in America, left-wing lies are more often taught than right-wing ones in context of the schools.

For the most part, public schools seem to conform to the prevailing politics of the community. I grew up in the suburbs of Portland, a notoriously "progressive" city, and so in most of the history classes I took beyond elementary school I had to endure constant guilt-tripping over how much white people made blacks and Indians suffer. In rural conservative areas, I would imagine you get more of the "shining city on a hill" type rhetoric, extolling the virtues of great god-fearing patriots. In either case, lies and ideology are placed above historical truth.

 I call B.S. on this, what exactly was in your history curriculum that was guilt tripping whites about? Explain an example or cite something, reference a textbook because I don't believe you and would like to actually see an example of this.


 

It's the same typical nonsense you get in some universities about how the wealth of America, and that of white people in particular, is essentially due only to slavery and Native genocide, how everything was taken from them and they were given scraps in return, and of course naturally being a suburban Portland school with 95+ percent white students this is likely going to generate a great deal of shame. It wasn't an explicit part of the curriculum to "guilt trip whites," it was more of the manner in which it was conveyed. It was in public high school where I first came into contact with concepts like "white privilege," which I remember being taught as a fact to the students by my English teacher. I don't have any textbooks to cite, I can only cite my personal experience, which you are free to disbelieve for whatever reason, but a simple online search will reveal that many other people, especially of the recent generation, had similar experiences in public school, especially if they grew up in a liberal area as I did

Oh I see so just acknowledging bad things our nation did is “guilt tripping” to you 🙄

So you believe that all wealth that this country possesses, and that white people individually possess, is all due to slavery and Indian removal? Not only is that objectively false, but is a slap in the face to the tens of millions of European laborers who sailed to America to work in our factories, shipyards, mines, and railroads.

Or maybe you're just one of the ones who's been a product of the same false classroom lessons I had to go through in the public school system, except you've been foolish enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated by them. In that case, my condolences.

Umm yes? I mean not the entirety of the wealth this nation but you seriously are being ridiculous if you are going to argue that our nations wealth is not mostly indebted to the fact that for almost a hundred years we had a source of free manual labor and that’s not getting into the clear objectionably fact that none of the wealth would be here without the Native removal in the first place

(1) No, it's not mostly indebted to slavery. Partially? Of course. But the wealth of this nation was by and large built by the industrial working class. Slavery by then had long since been abolished in the North and had ceased to be a profitable economic system. The South, which was dependent on it, consistently lagged behind even in international markets, which is why the British and the French refused to recognize the Confederacy. The United States did not become a wealthy nation capable of competing with the established European powers until large-scale European immigration and industrialization which occurred in the second half of the 19th century.
(2) To assume that Indian removal was necessary for the wealth to be created in the first place says more about your beliefs than it does mine. (Never mind the fact that most of the natives died from disease in the first place, rather than systematic murder.)

[Big Abraham]

So you believe that all wealth that this country possesses, and that white people individually possess, is all due to slavery and Indian removal? Not only is that objectively false, but is a slap in the face to the tens of millions of European laborers who sailed to America to work in our factories, shipyards, mines, and railroads.

Or maybe you're just one of the ones who's been a product of the same false classroom lessons I had to go through in the public school system, except you've been foolish enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated by them. In that case, my condolences.

(Not that you asked me specifically, but) No, I don't believe that. I also don't believe that that's literally and unexaggeratedly what you were taught in high school.

While I can't speak for all public schools in the area, yes, we had indeed been literally taught that the wealth of America was by and large generated by slavery and Indian removal, which Hindsight believes is apparently "ridiculous" to question, which goes to show I was probably not the only one who heard this in public school

[Big Abraham]

I didn’t say it was necessary for the wealth to be created in saying it did because without the removal then American History is changed entirely and the nation we are talking about is completely different from the one we currently live in. This isn’t the “what if” board arguing about moving parts of history around and if it would changes things we are discussing the current reality we live in and in that reality what happened to the Natives is a disgustingly huge building block upon which this countries society is supported on.

Sure but correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they were removed, doesn't mean that's what generated the wealth of America, unless you can somehow show a causal relationship. And even then, I fail to see how that's incumbent upon white people

Also I didn’t get these ideas from being taught it in public school fwi I got these ideas from my own independent reading

The "I am enlightened by my own intelligence" meme personified.

[Big Abraham]

So you believe that all wealth that this country possesses, and that white people individually possess, is all due to slavery and Indian removal? Not only is that objectively false, but is a slap in the face to the tens of millions of European laborers who sailed to America to work in our factories, shipyards, mines, and railroads.

Or maybe you're just one of the ones who's been a product of the same false classroom lessons I had to go through in the public school system, except you've been foolish enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated by them. In that case, my condolences.

(Not that you asked me specifically, but) No, I don't believe that. I also don't believe that that's literally and unexaggeratedly what you were taught in high school.

While I can't speak for all public schools in the area, yes, we had indeed been literally taught that the wealth of America was by and large generated by slavery and Indian removal, which Hindsight believes is apparently "ridiculous" to question, which goes to show I was probably not the only one who heard this in public school

I mean, you're already walking it back from "all" to "by and large."

Actually, in my original post I said "essentially all," which is my paraphrase for, "nearly all," i.e. "by and large." Obviously I have to paraphrase to a certain extent because I haven't been in a high school classroom for at least five years. You can split hairs all you want, but it in indisputable that they were referring to the vast majority of the wealth, regardless of whatever exact percentage you want to give it.

[Big Abraham]

I didn’t say it was necessary for the wealth to be created in saying it did because without the removal then American History is changed entirely and the nation we are talking about is completely different from the one we currently live in. This isn’t the “what if” board arguing about moving parts of history around and if it would changes things we are discussing the current reality we live in and in that reality what happened to the Natives is a disgustingly huge building block upon which this countries society is supported on.

Sure but correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they were removed, doesn't mean that's what generated the wealth of America, unless you can somehow show a causal relationship.

Also I didn’t get these ideas from being taught it in public school fwi I got these ideas from my own independent reading

The "I am enlightened by my own intelligence" meme personified.

But if they aren’t removed then the wealth in its current form is not generated because the country is completely different so wealth in its current form wouldn’t of happened. That’s a clear relationship and beyond you personal invested reasons there is no reason to play ignorant to that relationship or to dismiss it as a attempt at white guilt tripping

Yes, but how can you attribute most or nearly all of the wealth to that fact alone? Just because it happened? That's irrelevant. If you take away the fact that the English were the first European group to settle America in large numbers, that doesn't mean that because England settled America that means "most or nearly all of the wealth" is because the English settled here. You have to demonstrate a causal link. And once again, no attempt on your part to even evaluate the relationship between Indian and white settlers, other than your dismissive "it was all genocide" claim a few posts earlier which is obviously false.

[Big Abraham]

So you believe that all wealth that this country possesses, and that white people individually possess, is all due to slavery and Indian removal? Not only is that objectively false, but is a slap in the face to the tens of millions of European laborers who sailed to America to work in our factories, shipyards, mines, and railroads.

Or maybe you're just one of the ones who's been a product of the same false classroom lessons I had to go through in the public school system, except you've been foolish enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated by them. In that case, my condolences.

(Not that you asked me specifically, but) No, I don't believe that. I also don't believe that that's literally and unexaggeratedly what you were taught in high school.

While I can't speak for all public schools in the area, yes, we had indeed been literally taught that the wealth of America was by and large generated by slavery and Indian removal, which Hindsight believes is apparently "ridiculous" to question, which goes to show I was probably not the only one who heard this in public school

I mean, you're already walking it back from "all" to "by and large."

Actually, in my original post I said "essentially all," which is my paraphrase for, "nearly all," i.e. "by and large." Obviously I have to paraphrase to a certain extent because I haven't been in a high school classroom for at least five years. You can split hairs all you want, but it in indisputable that they were referring to the vast majority of the wealth, regardless of whatever exact percentage you want to give it.

Apparently not, since I think you're exaggerating due to your personal biases.

It's not really that far out there dude. Many mainstream media outlets teach the exact same thing, such as Forbes, The New York Times, and this Atlantic article that straight up claims "slavery made America." And yet you find it unthinkable they'd teach the same concept at my high school?

[Big Abraham]

I didn’t say it was necessary for the wealth to be created in saying it did because without the removal then American History is changed entirely and the nation we are talking about is completely different from the one we currently live in. This isn’t the “what if” board arguing about moving parts of history around and if it would changes things we are discussing the current reality we live in and in that reality what happened to the Natives is a disgustingly huge building block upon which this countries society is supported on.

Sure but correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they were removed, doesn't mean that's what generated the wealth of America, unless you can somehow show a causal relationship.

Also I didn’t get these ideas from being taught it in public school fwi I got these ideas from my own independent reading

The "I am enlightened by my own intelligence" meme personified.

But if they aren’t removed then the wealth in its current form is not generated because the country is completely different so wealth in its current form wouldn’t of happened. That’s a clear relationship and beyond you personal invested reasons there is no reason to play ignorant to that relationship or to dismiss it as a attempt at white guilt tripping

Yes, but how can you attribute most or nearly all of the wealth to that fact alone? Just because it happened? That's irrelevant. If you take away the fact that the English were the first European group to settle America in large numbers, that doesn't mean that because England settled America that means "most or nearly all of the wealth" is because the English settled here. You have to demonstrate a causal link. And once again, no attempt on your part to even evaluate the relationship between Indian and white settlers, other than your dismissive "it was all genocide" claim a few posts earlier which is obviously false.

Because all that wealth was generated from resources and land they had first that is the clear relationship.  

Not really though, because the indigenous tribes had by and large not been aware of such resources. They had lived on the land, but it had not been developed. Unless you think it was some great historical crime to develop the soil? In which case you'd better wish you had been born in 1600, because the human civilization would have long since collapsed due to a lack of carrying capacity (but that's beside the point)