LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI enjoyed the spelling of "Black" with a "q". It seemed exotic, but why not just go all the way and Frenchify it? Blaques.
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Why is the subject of black slavery taught to elementary school children?
What are our educators thinking this solves?
Why is there such an imperitive that every blaq child know that they are the only ones descended from slaves?
This does absolutely no good to the self esteem of children. Why not focus on positive world history rather than its darkest moments, especially considering developing minds?
For example, why not teach young blaq children of African civilizations? Why only teach them about slavery? Of course they can learn about African civilization when they are older, but does this not strike anyone as backwards?
All children deserve a positive education. They do not need an education that intentionally divides, shames, and race-baits. This does not mean that I am proposing ‘book burning’ or revising history. I am simply proposing that our educators re-consider the timing of presenting such subject matter.
Slavery is a subject best handled at a more mature age than it is currently being presented.
All peoples on this planet have had ancestors that were enslaved at some point. Other groups hardly make their peoples enslavement the focal point of their childrens historical education. With good reason.
Hoffman reveals: The Forgotten Slaves--Whites in Servitude
When Europeans Were Slaves: Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common Than Previously Believed
I know that some will have a knee-jerk response with the catch phrase "those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it" --- Spare me this dribble, we are talking about little kids.
Citizen
I enjoyed the spelling of "Black" with a "q". It seemed exotic, but why not just go all the way and Frenchify it? Blaques.
reino ,
Glad you are amused...
Any comments regarding the subject of the thread?
Citizen
Well the two links emphasized slavery in Europe. Most world history isn't taught until middle-school. Kids learn American history at a very early age, and while Europe had dismissed slavery almost entirely, it was still alive and well in the U.S., hence, when kids learn about Black slavery, it's because that's because it was still part of American culture.
Actually you should read the first link more closely, it deals with White Slavery in America, a subject ignored in elementary education (with good reason)
That said, you seem to be exercising circular logic...
Correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying: Slavery is taught in America because slavery is taught in America?
That is not a reason, it is a circular argument.
I have no problem with it being taught in American schools.
Those who wish things like this weren't part of a school curriculum are, generally, people who don't like to admit it happened.
Like it or not, it's part of American history, and it should be taught as such...
Steve,
I disagree with you completely. You appear to be thinking in the terms of an adult. We are talking about children, they do not have the ability to process information the same fashion as an adult.
...Be objective, kids only pick up the very, very, basics of anything you tell them. They are still only just beginning to develop their identities.
Think of all the history that is taught to children regarding slavery ...
...(give it a moment)...
Ok, now of all that history, what kids that age actually remember is:
-White people owned black people and treated them really bad until a really good white guy named Abraham Lincoln freed them, the end.-
I was taught all kinds of useless crap in school. Most of it I don't remember and what I do remember I never need to know.Originally Posted by The.Devyl
Why, then should the focus be on slavery?
That is my question exactly.Why, then should the focus be on slavery?
Maybe they want whites to continue to feel guilty - hence the EEOC regulates large companies and corps so that every race under the sun must work in their company. Then again, it could be for the logic of teaching history...
Vice President
This needs to be taught to children. They need to learn to recognize evil at an early age.
Besides, this subject is so offensive to the white supremacist types that they go out of their way to prevent its being taught. And anything that bugs those aryan nation freaks has merit even if there were no other reason.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
Frank Zappa
Your thread begs the question "What age should we teach students about slavery?"
My problem is this, if we stop teaching children such subjects as "the dark side" of history at the age it's currently taught, when can it be taught? Will they wait until high school to find out the what WWII was about? On the flip side, I can see where you are going with this. Negative attitudes toward races may develope early on in life because of some things that are taught.
Maybe because I have lived in the South my entire life, I was taught that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (at least for the South). I'm not going to debate whether that is right or wrong, but I can say that I've never truly felt like I was hated by a black person. I've had the "cold shoulder" treatment before, but nothing too bad. My point is that I really don't think that anything bad comes from teaching children the subject. It was, is, and always will be the responsibility of parents separate fact from fiction for their children and teach them right from wrong.
Just a question, has anyone ever come across this quote from "the great emancipator" in their studies of the Civil War:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862)
President
Because when you teach history, you need to teach all of it. The good and the bad.
That being said, I dont believe that elementary school is the proper time to assign Uncle Toms Cabin to the kiddies for summer reading.
Vice President
I think anyone who has studied the period even a little bit is familiar with this quote.
It was written just before signing the emancipation proclamation. Whatever else he may have been, Linoln was an astute politician and he knew that only the preservation of the union was an adequate reason for most northern whites to support abolition.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
Frank Zappa
Because you say so?My point is that I really don't think that anything bad comes from teaching children the subject.
Please provide proof that learning about black slavery is beneficial to an elementary aged child.
A child needs to know only enough history to provide a solid identity of who their 'people' are and where they come from (POSITIVE NOT NEGATIVE). A child really deserves to know positive things about life.
Let children be children! Why is that so hard to do? Why do some of you think that children are just miniature adults, with ablility to process information the same way an adult does?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks