Trump wants 'Patriotic Education'.

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
Well, that is so US specific that it is difficult to translate to other countries.

But when a studend from some school team is told not by his teacher to not do something at a school event, does it anyway and gets suspended, it sounds about right. And if afterwards people decide that that teacher was wrong to forbid it and the suspension gets lifted, it seems how it should proceed as well.

What exactly is the problem ?
" After Friday night’s game, Little Miami superintendent Gregory Power and the school board conducted an investigation. Williams and Bentley, who are reportedly sons of a police officer and firefighter respectively, were told not to run onto the field with these flags before the game but did it anyway. " Why would someone tell these two kids to not do what they did?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,674
643
118
Because they are the school team. And if they use flags as the school team at a school event, people assume that is the stance of the school. Which it was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Funny, you could do a litany about some of the most f'd up colonies in global history and what they have in common, like Haiti and Vietnam? French.
Haiti, sure, but is Vietnam really among the "most fucked up?" Vietnam these days is doing pretty well for itself, and I don't think Vietnam was treated particuarly harshly compared to other domains.

Granted, you could make a point about the French colonial empire being worse, than, say, the British, where the French fought to preserve their holdings (including Vietnam), while the British generally let things happen peacefully.

As others have pointed out, while the US has changed itself for the better a couple of times, it usually was trailing behind other nations and also often pretty late overall.
By what standards?

I mean, if we're talking about stuff like slavery and women's suffrage, then the United States does tend to lag behind a number of nations, but in the global context, it's still been ahead of the game.

But Americans often don't know that because you have hardly anything but American history at school. Your achievements get glorified and those of other nations not even mentioned. And then you start believing this whole great nation nonsense.
Isn't that true of most countries though? Most countries are going to centre on their own history in, well, history. I mean, certainly that was generally true for me, even if the scope of history still went well beyond Oz itself (or at least in the history units I nominated).
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,674
643
118
I mean, if we're talking about stuff like slavery and women's suffrage, then the United States does tend to lag behind a number of nations, but in the global context, it's still been ahead of the game.
Do you really believe that ?

Most of the world never had a slave based economy. Which means abolishing slavery was easier and usually earlier. Other forms of unfree labor mostly vanished when industrialisation hit. While the US was not the last, it was far from early and all the other latecomers where otherwise behind the times as well.
It looks better when considering women's suffrage where the dates are spread around but there was a big wave of change during and after WWI where the US is part of (not one of the early adopters, bit still within the bunch)

The only things where the US can claim to be one of the first are democracy (as flawed as their system may be) and religious freedom (even if the treatment of nonprotestants or even nonchristians was in practice not actually better most of the time)

Isn't that true of most countries though? Most countries are going to centre on their own history in, well, history. I mean, certainly that was generally true for me, even if the scope of history still went well beyond Oz itself (or at least in the history units I nominated).
In the first vouple of years of my school life in the GDR, history eductaion was indeed utterly worthless. But after the end of the cold war that actually changed. While it certainly remained somewhat eurocentric overall, most topics were indeed about events in other countries, especcially anything that maded waves elsewhere.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Do you really believe that ?

Most of the world never had a slave based economy.
Most of the world's civilizations would disagree with you.

Which means abolishing slavery was easier and usually earlier.
1600757946561.png



While the US was not the last, it was far from early and all the other latecomers where otherwise behind the times as well.
If we look at the history of slavery abolition (barring attempts in the ancient world to ban it), the US is somewhere in the middle.

In the first vouple of years of my school life in the GDR, history eductaion was indeed utterly worthless. But after the end of the cold war that actually changed. While it certainly remained somewhat eurocentric overall, most topics were indeed about events in other countries, especcially anything that maded waves elsewhere.
If your education was Eurocentric, and you grew up in a European country, aren't you kind of proving my point?

I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that. Maybe US historical education is myopic, I dunno. I've certainly had people say as much. By own history education was fairly wide ranging, but that's mostly because I took history electives right up to the end of school.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Funny, you could do a litany about some of the most f'd up colonies in global history and what they have in common, like Haiti and Vietnam? French.
No, this doesn’t count, try again.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Do you really believe that ?
I also believe that. Lots of places had slavery after the US, most of the Americas were decidedly worse with slavery. For all the arguments about religious Americans, Europe still has monarchies and state religions. For all the arguments about US immigration policies, Europe still has jus sanguinis citizenship laws, You can be born in Italy and denied citizenship because your parents are immigrants.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
I recall Hirsch reported that decades ago it was noted that large numbers of students knew little about basic U.S. or world history, geography, etc.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
...So, a bit off-topic here, but anyone else remember four years ago or so when Saelune was going on about how bad it was going to get? Honestly at the time I thought she was grossly exaggerating as this was around the time I fell out with the conservative side of things with their constant "Obama is literally satan!" nonsense, but goddamn if she turned out to be right.

Saelune, where ever you are, I just want to say sorry for not believing you, you were right.
They also said Trump was going to have transexuals in concentration camps so.... I don't see how you think they were prophetic somehow.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
They also said Trump was going to have transexuals in concentration camps so.... I don't see how you think they were prophetic somehow.
You do realize he has been doing that to LGBTQ asylum seekers right?

HE actually is gutting asylum and endangering their lives, not just subjecting them to abuse in detention camps.

Trump has been hard at work to remove their rights for a while now.

 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,674
643
118
Most of the world's civilizations would disagree with you.
Slave based economy means that there are enough slaves to be economically relevant. And that was hardly true for any place outside the Americas.
If we look at the history of slavery abolition (barring attempts in the ancient world to ban it), the US is somewhere in the middle.
So let us look who is even later : The crumbling Ottoman empire and the crumbling Qing empire, both notorious for having problems with modernisation and a bunch of colonies and recent ex-colonies. Nearly everyone else abolished it earlier.

For all the arguments about religious Americans, Europe still has monarchies and state religions.
I mentioned both as cases where the US were indeed early.

But as for monarchs and state religios in present-day-Europe : Are those actually relevant anywhere outside of the Vatican, Monaco, Liechtenstein etc ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
The only things where the US can claim to be one of the first are democracy (as flawed as their system may be) and religious freedom (even if the treatment of nonprotestants or even nonchristians was in practice not actually better most of the time)
Arguably, being one of the first of the nations that still exist to this day, for certain values of "still exist".
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Slave based economy means that there are enough slaves to be economically relevant. And that was hardly true for any place outside the Americas.
So let us look who is even later : The crumbling Ottoman empire and the crumbling Qing empire, both notorious for having problems with modernisation and a bunch of colonies and recent ex-colonies. Nearly everyone else abolished it earlier.

I mentioned both as cases where the US were indeed early.

But as for monarchs and state religios in present-day-Europe : Are those actually relevant anywhere outside of the Vatican, Monaco, Liechtenstein etc ?
When we discuss how our current economic system is "slave based" it is on the basis that workers exist to make the " owners" wealthy, while the workers are never able to move up in position or wealth accumulation. They do all the work, but only the " owner" is the one who increases their actual wealth.

Plantations provided food and shelter for slaves, but the slaves never changed their position to be able to obtain wealth. The same can be said of our current economy, not just in the US, but look at much of the world. If only the owners or executives of said businesses are the ones actually increasing their accumulated wealth due to the work the workers do and the workers are only " just surviving" but not actually increasing their accumulated wealth as well, It is STILL a slave based economy If at the end of a workers life they have not accumulated any wealth, they were financially left off no better than the slaves. OTOH, if the workers accumulate as much wealth as the executives or owners, it is not.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Slave based economy means that there are enough slaves to be economically relevant. And that was hardly true for any place outside the Americas.
Off the top of my head, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mali Empire, Summeria, the Ayubbid Empire, Egypt, Nubia...

Slavery's been part of economies for the last 12,000 years. Anywhere you found agriculture on any continent in the world, you'd find slavery forming a good chunk of the economy. This isn't even getting into the semantics of slavery 'outside' the economy (e.g. Aztecs taking slaves and sacrificing them wouldn't make them materially richer, but it doesn't make the slavery itself less heinous).

When we discuss how our current economic system is "slave based" it is on the basis that workers exist to make the " owners" wealthy, while the workers are never able to move up in position or wealth accumulation. They do all the work, but only the " owner" is the one who increases their actual wealth.

Plantations provided food and shelter for slaves, but the slaves never changed their position to be able to obtain wealth. The same can be said of our current economy, not just in the US, but look at much of the world. If only the owners or executives of said businesses are the ones actually increasing their accumulated wealth due to the work the workers do and the workers are only " just surviving" but not actually increasing their accumulated wealth as well, It is STILL a slave based economy If at the end of a workers life they have not accumulated any wealth, they were financially left off no better than the slaves. OTOH, if the workers accumulate as much wealth as the executives or owners, it is not.
Wealth inequality is a thing, but it's a leap to say it's equivalent to slavery.

Like, slavery's pretty much at rock bottom. Somewhere up above it is stuff like serfdom or indentured labour. Working for a wage might not be glamarous, it might not even allow you to increase your wealth, but it isn't slavery.

One of the first jobs I had was at a car wash. We were literally paid by the minute (which is illegal). Not the best job in the world, but if it was slavery, I wouldn't have been able to say "screw it" and leave the job (which I did). And frankly, if I'm working for an employer, I'm not really concerned if they're making more money than me. They're the one who starts the business, they're the one who makes the downpayments, they're the one who takes the up-front risks.

CEOs being paid 200x than their employees is one form of insanity, but if I go to work for someone, I'm not overly concerned if I'm paid less than someone higher than me. And it isn't any different in local government either.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Off the top of my head, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mali Empire, Summeria, the Ayubbid Empire, Egypt, Nubia...
And arguably Australia if you count convicts, or if you don't, depending on the "economically relevance" of the enslaved Aboriginal Australians. Not sure of the numbers of the latter, though.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
You do realize he has been doing that to LGBTQ asylum seekers right?

HE actually is gutting asylum and endangering their lives, not just subjecting them to abuse in detention camps.

Trump has been hard at work to remove their rights for a while now.

First link has this, " While Barrera remained in detention, she watched dozens of other trans migrants enter Cibola and be granted parole within months, sometimes weeks." So if this is about trans people then why were others allowed in quickly?

The second one says this, " Many transgender women in ICE's custody arrived in the United States after fleeing life-threatening persecution in Central America, the region of origin for many migrants like Roxsana, Johana, and the authors of that letter. As quoted by Buzzfeed, Roxsana Hernandez was initially fleeing her native Honduras after being raped. “Trans people in my neighborhood are killed and chopped into pieces,” she said. “They kill trans people in Honduras. I’m scared of that.”"

If America started putting trans people in concentration camps when Trump took office then why are so many still coming to America when they'll just die here from our concentration camps designed to specifically kill them? This is also yet again, an immigration related situation and both this and the previous one were about New Mexico specifically, do you have evidence that this is some border wide policy? Is California also doing this with their immigrants?

Third link has nothing to do with concentration camps either, it's about definitions of words which is still in question.

The fourth one we already went over in another thread a long time ago and it was a nothing burger. I can assure you it was a nothing burger because once someone clarified what that was actually about everyone shut up about it. Typically that only happens when no one has anything to interpret for outrage.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Limit
Wealth inequality is a thing, but it's a leap to say it's equivalent to slavery.

Like, slavery's pretty much at rock bottom. Somewhere up above it is stuff like serfdom or indentured labour. Working for a wage might not be glamarous, it might not even allow you to increase your wealth, but it isn't slavery.
If all slaves had was a roof over their heads and food, and at their end of their life they had nothing to show for it, that is all so many all over the world have, hell even in the US. We have so many now that don't even have a roof over their heads or are able to keep food on their table. When they freed slaves, the reason why so many came back to work was because they literally had nothing and no means to survive. Many more just died instead:

Just look at the sheer number of people who have no wealth. NONE. Nothing to show for their lives no matter how hard or long they worked.

That is what is still happening. They work JUST to barely have a roof over their head and when they are gone they don't even have that left to leave to their kids because it is either taken by the county for back taxes, the bank for unpaid mortgage or they never owned it in the first place and they just paid rent. SO many just die in debt instead. I disagree that it isn't slavery, it is just " wage slavery" Hell, even back then there were "masters" who would let you come and go as you please, but if you wanted to survive you would always come back regardless. Many people have no other option to survive these days. You are looking at it from the perspective of small businesses, they are not the wealthy. I was a small business owner as well. The wealthy are on the right of that chart. Small business owners do not fall into that category.

Where did the people who own these things now get their money?
Are they more deserving than the person who has worked hard t sometimes two and 3 jobs their entire life and have nothing to show for it? Did they work harder? How many of them inherited their money from those who MADE their money from slave labor? There is no wealth being reinvested into communities and most people just wind up being forced to make someone else wealthy and will die with nothing.
 
Last edited:

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
They come here because they were legally supposed to be able to claim asylum. Trump is breaking US law by denying them and imprisoning them when they shouldn't be doing that at all. Trump admin breaking US own laws isn't what many expect when they come here. There is no reason why they should be in detainment camps at all, as that is not what we are suppose to do with asylum seekers. Detainment is supposed to be for criminals. Seeking asylum in the US is protected under law, it is not a crime.

They keep coming here for the same reason you quoted above. They will die if they stay where they were.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
And arguably Australia if you count convicts, or if you don't, depending on the "economically relevance" of the enslaved Aboriginal Australians. Not sure of the numbers of the latter, though.
Fun fact about Australia, free settlers actually outnumbered convicts quite significantly. But even then, convicts would come as indentured labour, not slavery. Indigenous Australians would be somewhere in-between (i.e. not technically slaves, but had wages withheld). Plus, there's blackbirding.

Though to be frank, Australia is among the last places I think of when it comes to slavery, and this isn't out of a white blindfold view of history, it's more the fact that if you look at the history of the world, you find slavery EVERYWHERE. I'm not even sure why "economic slavery" is an argument that 's even being used. If I owned another human being as, say, a sex slave, I might not be making a dent on the economy, but it doesn't make my actions any less heinous. And if we're applying this on the level of nations and empires, so, to list a few, the United States used slaves to grow cotton, the Ottoman Empire used slaves to work in salt mines, various Arab caliphates used slaves for harems and soldiers, and the Aztecs used slaves for human sacrifice. Does slavery become worse if it's used to fund the economy?

Also, even if we're doubting the scale of slavery in numerous societies...


Not saying any of that's ideal, but I can't call it slavery. And even if it is "wage slavery," I'd still rank that above slavery, serfdom, or indentured labour.

Granted, just writing that is kind of like saying it's better to eat dogshit rather than catshit, but at the very least, there's a potential 'out' from such positions that the other forms of labour I mentioned above wouldn't allow.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Fun fact about Australia, free settlers actually outnumbered convicts quite significantly. But even then, convicts would come as indentured labour, not slavery. Indigenous Australians would be somewhere in-between (i.e. not technically slaves, but had wages withheld). Plus, there's blackbirding.
IIRC, the pearl fishing industry in the top end was dominated by young Aboriginal girls kidnapped from local communities. Who were also used for other things, of course.

Though to be frank, Australia is among the last places I think of when it comes to slavery, and this isn't out of a white blindfold view of history, it's more the fact that if you look at the history of the world, you find slavery EVERYWHERE.
Oh, absolutely, just thought I'd add that name to the list.