https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455692529790328835

It's over. VA is RED!

Every day you seem to say dumber things than the day before.

Thanks for identifying yourself as somebody who is triggered by facts.

You misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not disputing that the Civil War was about slavery, and that the social aftermath of slavery reverberated for a long long time. What I'm disputing is your claim "slavery was the defining feature of the American economic model". Again: if that was the case, the North would not have defeated the South on the back of its superior economy. Also, while the South still had a huge economy on the eve of the Civil War, it was obvious by that time that they were massively falling behind relative to the North, but also relative to industrializing European economies. Even without the Civil War, if they had been able to secede and continue their slave economy, they would still have turned into an impoverished shithole over time.

At the end of the day, the wealth and power of the North was not built on slavery to a meaningful degree and it was the North that powered the country's rise to a global power from 1877 to 1960. I simply do not believe that the United States would be notably less wealthy or powerful today if slavery had never existed in the country. It was a huge, unsettled country full of resources to exploit, that saw tremendous population growth and attracted the smartest, most innovative people from around the world.


Again: the social impact of slavery was huge and persistent - but I consider its economic impact/contribution to the rise of America to be overstated. (Wealth distribution within a country is a social issue in my book.)

You've clearly never driven on the same road as a black woman.

I promise you have never triggered me. You are nothing but words on a screen.

That being said you do give me my daily dose of leftist stupidity, I actually thank you for that. Although I am fully aware of your political talking points and awful, radical ideas, I still need to be reminded that there are millions of people who truly believe in this horrible bullshit.

So thank you Netflix guy. You have become an important part of my recliner time these past few days.

I don't see why, its redundant. Sincere moral convictions don't develop by being told what is right and wrong by authority figures. Teaching that slavery was wrong is just masturbatory self-flagellation when children are already inundated with social and political messages that slavery is wrong.
You can teach slavery and the wrongs of slavery without being a preacher giving a demonizing sermon. When the facts are laid out, most people don't struggle to come to their own abolitionist opinions.
Teaching history through a lens of 'ethics' or 'morals' is opening the door to a biased political lens of history that demands moral judgment of people who have been reduced to caricatures of themselves, stripping away facts and circumstance we find inconvenient and playing every wrong as one-sided.
The teaching of native american / white settler interactions is a prime example of this. If its taught through a dry lens of history divorced from moral judgment, a reasonable person would be able to identify that both whites and natives perpetrated atrocities against each other, yet that they both lived in peace at times, that they comingled and integrated at times, that they lived in isolation away from each other at times, that most of the worst deeds against their populations were perpetrated intraracially. You'd be able to learn that whites and natives were both in some respects regressive and barbaric, in others enlightened. In short, they were all subject to the human condition, just in different circumstance. But take all that nuance and complexity and feed it into the meat grinder of social justice and you're left with a pastiche of myopic narrative the depth of a disney cartoon.
And to that point- how many children leaving schools today have heard about the trail of tears or americans terrorizing natives, versus how many have heard of native-on-native battles and displacements? At first they weren't even teaching about the 1862 war in Minnesota schools, but now they want to revise history and teach it from the moral lens of claiming it was a crime against indians. It bubbled up with that gallows art display being publicly demolished by chainsaw wielding natives a few years back. A sort of holocaust revisionist lite spectacle
If the kraut apologists ever trend in vogue it will be nuremberg's gallows being burned in effigy for our terrible crime of the illegal and barbaric mass execution of german patriots

This post was edited by Goomshill on Nov 2 2021 07:10pm

I love that the people who committed the crimes are against the teaching of those crimes. It is like the people who were lynching people are ashamed of it or are trying to hide so deep in the closet they're with R Kelly.

It is like Francos followers after Franco died, they made it illegal to teach about the crimes they committed, now people in Spain have no idea what happened only that bad shit happened.

Imagine being so ashamed of your history that teaching it makes one upset.

This is an extremely long winded way of saying you want to whitewash history.

I can't imagine you actually read it if that's your genuine takeaway.