• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This doesn’t have to be controversial, just read the confederate state’s declarations of succession. The cause of the civil war isn’t open for interpretation. The people who succeeded litterally wrote down and formally publicized their reasons.

    none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization

    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah that’s your first mistake. You assume magas read. They don’t. Then you assume they care about facts. Big mistake, buddy. They don’t!

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      and a blow at slavery is a blow at civilization

      Oh fuck if I had three wishes one of them would be to get a hatchet and get into a ring with whatever fucktard wrote that.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m already angry enough at humanity.

          I’m genuinely ready to go to the street and burn shit down and I don’t even live in the states. (I’ve got some of my own problems where I live as well.)

      • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Why a hatchet? Why not them just hogtied and you with a loaded 12ga shotgun? Pump-action and with magnum slugs!

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I like to get in there.

          A firearm is so… impersonal.

          edit tldr haptic feedback

          • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ok so him tied up and you have the hatchet. Why give rhe fuck would you give them a chance? They wouldn’t give you one.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              “Tied up”? Where’s the fun in that?

              I want to see the look in their face when they realise they’ve given it their all and still have not a chance in hell. I fucking love seeing the desperation in the eyes of racists and fascists everywhere when they realise they don’t have any more fallbacks and have to rely on their own person, which is always inadequate.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Don’t forget the part where if you joined the Confederacy you signed:

      "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    They barely teach about it as it is. My daughter’s social studies textbook had page after page about Marbury v. Madison and two paragraphs about Harriet Tumbman.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Harriet Tubman was a great hero, but she did not shape society. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional. That’s massive. Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade rely on that.

      Judicial review has been adopted by republics around the world (though not all). Writing as a European, I believe it’s a greatly underappreciated US contribution to global culture and the cause of democracy and human rights.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional.

        That is literally all a 14-year-old needs to know about it.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          At 14 a “normal” kid is in 9th grade, correct? As in they didn’t start early, skip a grade, start behind, or get held back. At 9th grade, we should be preparing our kids for higher education. They need at least a paragraph so that the more curious kids take a further look into things.

          I agree that Harriet Tubman and the UR deserve more attention than Indiana history books teach, I went to HS at MCHS in Madison, IN. And, boy howdy did they whitewash history back in the '90s.

          At least we have what’s left of the Internet now so that you can supplement poor teaching materials.

          As a Music Ed major, which is Education with extra classes tacked on, I would be interested to hear what GB history books are like once you guys get over there.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            What more than that do most people need to know about Marbury v. Madison? What is the significance or relevance to day of the debates over it and the events leading up to it? Because I don’t think that is anywhere near as important as the emphasis you place on it.

            Knowing that judicial review is a thing and that SCOTUS can do it and why they have that power should be enough for most people.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the SC to strike down laws as unconstitutional.

              That only gives the what and how of the situation, not the why. Some explanation of why they were given that power is useful for the average citizen

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Some explanation is not a dozen long online textbook pages. Especially when women as a whole in the 19th century rated four short pages.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          What are they actually taught about MvM?

          I’m not sure what kids should be taught about Tubman. Generally, I don’t think hero stories have much to say on society or history. Tubman makes for a good exception, as her story teaches the lesson that African-Americans and women were not merely passive objects of history but people who made their own decisions. It also teaches us that there are things that even the supposedly powerless can do. Even so, how much of her actual biography belongs in a social studies text?

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Recently watched a drunk history episode about spies, one of the segments featured Harriet Tubman. Absolutely worth a watch, you can find it on YouTube free.

      Did you know she was Americas first female military leader? I didn’t till I saw that! And I got a half decent education where they didn’t gloss over slavery (helps I grew up in NY).

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    It was always about bringing slavery back.

    Ever since we shed blood to end it, they’ve been trying to bring it back.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Slavery never ended.

      Ever see those stupid laws like “don’t ride a horse on a Sunday?” Or look at when “vagrancy” laws were passed, or differences in sentencing between crack and coke.

      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Look at prison rates and racial backgrounds in the south. Look at how felonies are used to disenfranchise. Look at the war on drugs.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    In his 6min 1A speech the week after winning he’s going off about censorship and social media moderation. He asked Republican legislators to send retain your records letters to the universities in their states. He then said he was going to pull funding from all universities guilty of censorship/moderation not just going forward, but in the past as well.

    He had a bit about never using the “labels” misinformation and disinformation going forward. It’s unclear if that piece is included in that threat to universities.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This is just a continuation of the current indoctrination system. For example, they don’t teach about the founding slavers either. Everything is a whitewash.

    A culture that is founded on racist delusions and fantasies is not capable of teaching accurate history.

  • Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    3 days ago

    It makes them uncomfortable to talk about it. Or acknowledge it’s lingering effects. It’s much more uncomfortable for the people suffering the lingering effects. But that’s not what’s important./s

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 days ago

      It doesn’t make them uncomfortable. They just don’t want people to know that they’re still doing it.

      • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Still doing it / going to significantly ramp it up. Think those immigrants are ever getting out of the camps? Nah, they’ll just be free labor now. As will plenty of Americans.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      Didn’t you hear? The past was always better, and Now is always the low ebb in the decline of our civilization until we return to the values that made yesterday great.

      If the past is somehow to blame for the problems of today, that might mean there was something wrong with the past. If that’s the case, then maybe other things from the past have problems, including things that I like or benefit me personally, or that changing would imply a lot of big scary changes that I’m not ready for.

      That’s why attempts to talk about little mistakes from the past like chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, phillipino genocide or endemic discrimination and institutionalized racism are just attempts by bad people to tear down perfection and keep us from returning to a simpler, better time where those mistakes never happened.

  • positiveWHAT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 days ago

    I can’t believe the US is about to let illiberal “Christo” tyrants win without a fight. Should do as Jon Stewart said, play on their level and just don’t confirm the votes.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      3 days ago

      Trump doesn’t qualify for president, per the 14th amendment. I’m kind of pissed that the fucking constitution is being treated as novel law and not the foundation for our laws.

      • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 days ago

        But that is in an amendment so it only has to be followed 3/5ths of the way.

        I’m actually really surprised we didn’t have a new lawsuit about his ability to take the oath of office. Not that it will actually matter but these Trump sycophants should have to state publication they don’t care what the law says.

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61084161

          None of that has been tried in a court since the supreme Court ruling. And insurrection isn’t even one of the charges in the indictment.

          We can’t have a lawsuit about that till a ruling is handed down saying he did any of those things

          Which the Republicans knew, so they just had to delay until he won again and can pardon/dismiss/fire Jack smith/etc

          • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Nothing in the 14th section 3 says he must be charged with it even tried for insurrection. The Colorado trial court judge, after hearing all of the J6 evidence against Trump, found that he did engage in insurrection but did not remove him from the ballot. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/appeal-filed-in-colorado-14th-amendment-case/

            The Colorado Supreme Court eventually ruled that he should be removed from the primary ballot.

            SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.

            Edit: a word

            • Omega@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              SCOTUS did not take up the question of if Trump had participated in an inspection inspection, they only ruled that a state could not remove a candidate under the 14th section 3.

              Which is odd, since the constitution CLEARLY and DIRECTLY states that it takes an act of congress to put an insurrectionist onto the ballot. So requiring congress to take them off isn’t just unfounded, it’s in direct contradiction to what’s written.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why? The repugs have been nothing but a constant clown show for the last 20 years. Its only going to get more ludicrously insane now that there are more of them on the rolls