Author of Foreign Legions mod 7.0,EB's NTW Total Music, Knights of St. John mod, The Wardrobe of 1805 mod
!Under Proud Patronage of Gunny!
Call me paranoid, but between this and earlier attempts to sanitize slavery, along with the near-annual attempts to rehabilitate the Confederacy, I think some of the higher-ups in the Republican party are testing the waters to see if they could get away with repealing or bypassing the 13th Amendment.
Nothing stops them from trying again once Republicans are in power. Like I said, I think this was testing the waters.
GOP YT weird pandering to incels?
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
The co-author (Wichger) of the legislation responded to this criticism directly:
W/regard to the alleged banned words, they do not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the legislation. They were instead listed in an addendum to Wichger's education committee hearing testimony.Detractors of this legislation assert that we are “trying to prohibit teachers from teaching about racism.” This could not be further from the truth. Assembly Bill 411 does not restrict teaching and inquiry about the history of racism; it restricts indoctrination, abusive pedagogies, and state-sanctioned racism. Directing teachers not to inculcate beliefs is very different from telling teachers they can’t acknowledge the existence of certain ideas.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/mis...2021_08_11.pdf
The causes of the Civil war are well known. Btw, a promise actually was made at the end of the Civil War, that the ex-slaves they could receive one mule and forty acres of land,but that promise was never applied by the winning side. After the war, the North did not consider the Black population were ready to become citizens, or even property owners, and they let the White population regain control of the South and impose a strict system of racial segregation, which was to allow them to retain power for another century, until 1965.Am I wrong?
But if you recuse to have a discussion about racial segregation in the US, or in the European ex-colonial powers,then you are in trouble.
In France, for example they like to say "oh, this is a long time ago, it’s too late for reparations". Really? do you know that the French state received from Haiti huge payments for almost a century and a half, between 1825 and around 1950? This was in order to compensate the slave owners in France, in metropolitan France, who had lost their property because of the independence of Haiti.
I quote,
in 1825, King Charles X decreed that he would recognize independence, but at a cost. The price tag would be 150 million francs – more than 10 years of the Haitian government’s entire revenue. The money, the French said, was needed to compensate former slave owners for the loss of what was deemed their property.By 1883, Haiti had paid off some 90 million francs in reparations. But to finance such huge payments, Haiti had to borrow 166 million francs with the French banks Ternaux Grandolpe et Cie and Lafitte Rothschild Lapanonze. Loan interests and fees added to the overall sum owed to France.The payments ran for a total of 122 years from 1825 to 1947, with the money going to more than 7,900 former slave owners and their descendants in France. By the time the payments ended, none of the originally enslaved or enslavers were still alive.
Last edited by Ludicus; January 29, 2022 at 01:33 PM.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
I agree with you on this, these are all things I try to include in my lessons when I teach the Civil War. It reminds me of a joke about a debate between a northerner and a southerner about the causes of the Civil War.
Essentially, there is no way to get around that slavery started the civil war. There was growing social and political pressure in the north to emancipate the slaves, and that new western states in the union should thus ban slavery when they join the union. This was also compounded by the geography encompassing the new territories, where the climate of the American Midwest, Southwest, and Rockies was not conducive to the sort of cash crop agriculture slavery profited from. Nonetheless, the South wanted to at least maintain a balance of slave states versus free states out of fear that a senate majority of pro-free senators would pass a statute or even a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. To completely throw out the abolitionist cause would be to try inventing a fantasy history of our past. It also, of course, completely covers up the evil thoughts and actions Americans in the past did to uphold slavery, which contemporary Americans need to know about to prevent falling into such mental traps again. It also does a massive disservice to all the black and white men and women who died trying to set people free in the name of abolition, eliminating a whole set of role models for our modern society.Northerner: The war started over slavery.
Southerner: No, it was over states' rights!
Northerner: The states' rights to what...?
The same likewise goes for the tragedy of Reconstruction. What started off with noble intentions of punishing the South for their treason and to make good for the oppressed, the desire for consensus resulted in watering-down the terms of Reconstruction until it began to look something like a Southern victory. Again, we need to discuss this in the curriculum because it stands as a tragic case of what happens when people give up on their ideals and when we fail to follow our intentions through. The story of Reconstruction is an important example of the essence of America: it began with the noble reformist intention of trying to achieve a more perfect union (as stipulated in the preamble to the Constitution), but ultimately failed due to the attributes of American stubbornness, the desire to makes things easy, and the wish to create consensus, even at any cost.
Last edited by EmperorBatman999; January 29, 2022 at 11:42 PM.
Author of Foreign Legions mod 7.0,EB's NTW Total Music, Knights of St. John mod, The Wardrobe of 1805 mod
!Under Proud Patronage of Gunny!
Then, by all means, go and see the bill. Links are given in the source.
Oh, I am not going to put too much trust in a politician's attempts to muddle the waters.
And that was the point I was trying to make: That guy wanted to ban words. Sure, it won't pass. But he tried.
Last edited by alhoon; January 30, 2022 at 02:43 AM.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
The link wasn't working initially. Though as above, I saw nothing in the legislation which sought to ban words. Feel free to cite the provision.
There's no point asking the question if the response will just be dismissed out of hand.Oh, I am not going to put too much trust in a politician's attempts to muddle the waters.
So far as I could see, there wasn't anything in the legislation which sought to ban words. So it looks as if he didn't, in fact, try.And that was the point I was trying to make: That guy wanted to ban words. Sure, it won't pass. But he tried.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
As explained here, I could only find that addendum attached to Wichger's committee hearing testimony, not the the legislation (despite the article's claims otherwise).
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
Civil War was first and foremost, consequence of industrialization, with Union being "okay" with institute of slavery, provided that CSA remains within the state. In fact, Lincoln himself despised Africans and stated that he'd let South keep slavery if that mean they won't secede:
Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, asked President Lincoln what the purpose of the ongoing war was. On August 22, 1862 Lincoln answered:“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 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.”
Not only that, but a state legislator in Oklahoma is trying to pass a law that will allow teachers who teach anything that "goes against religion" to be fined 10,000 dollars.
The issue of course goes beyond the anti-public education sentiment (and science, and history, etc) portion of this...what constitutes religion? Even in Oklahoma you will have a variety of faiths represented in the classroom. A lesson that would be heretical to one student may be completely fine with another. Where is the line drawn? Because while this is obviously an attempt to protect Christians from the bane that is "reality", what is to stop the Satanic Temple from suing a religious teacher for not teaching science? All religions must be equal under the law, and I most certainly hope that non-Christians abuse the out of this law if it passes to show how goddamn stupid this idea is.
It all boils down to one question...Why is the conservative base so against public education, children, and teachers in general? How much lower do they want their education rankings to sink?
I'm glad I live in a sane state. It's bad enough that Yokel Haram, Mayo ISIS, and Ya'll Qaeda are trying to terrorize the school boards into submission or otherwise trying to take them over, but at least they are still bound by our state laws. I can't imagine being a teacher in one of the states that are basically trying to implement Christian sharia law into their education and library systems.
Things I trust more than American conservatives:
Drinks from Bill Cosby, Flint Michigan tap water, Plane rides from Al Qaeda, Anything on the menu at Chipotle, Medical procedures from Mengele
The text of the proposal states that schools may not employ someone who "promotes positions which are in opposition to closely held religious beliefs". The language is limited and vague, but there is a difference between promoting a belief/philosophy/religion and a neutral teaching of it. The wording would indeed appear to prevent evangelical staff from proselytizing Muslim or Jewish students, for instance.
Last edited by Cope; February 03, 2022 at 09:56 PM.
The thing is, to some parents, a neutral teaching of a subject is advocating/condemning a subject. Where can the line be drawn?
I'm genuinely surprised that I did not get in trouble when I taught one lesson that briefly went into the similarities and differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It was necessary because the students did not get requisite lessons from their previous year, and it was relevant to the unit I was on. And one student had an absolute fit that I would not let him believe that Christianity not only is descended from Judaism as similar faiths (for god's sake the Bible literally has half of the text stolen from the Jewish faith) but that I had the gall to say that Christians and Catholics are all under the same umbrella of...you know...Christianity. The student got offended I suggested such a thing. But I even drew a diagram on the board that illustrated the fact and included Judaism at the top, Christianity below it, and multiple branches showing Catholicism and Protestantism splitting, with Protestantism then splitting between Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, etc. Even threw Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses into the diagram for and giggles, even though I knew a few Jehovah's Witnesses were in my classes. I knew I was right to teach this lesson, and administrators would have had my back.
Under either the OK proposed law or the passed Indiana law, I could have been sued for such a factual lesson, for the simple fact that I "hurt a student's religious beliefs" or "Taught an unapproved lesson" since it was basically improvised.
I trust neither the wording nor especially the intent of these laws. They are simply designed to hamper teachers from educating children in red states. And how far will they go? How ignorant of reality do they want the kids to be?
Things I trust more than American conservatives:
Drinks from Bill Cosby, Flint Michigan tap water, Plane rides from Al Qaeda, Anything on the menu at Chipotle, Medical procedures from Mengele
They would ban educating the masses at all if they could get away with it. They want to suppress critical thinking, creativity, and leadership qualities in the masses as a way for their party to exert greater control over the population.
A well-educated critical thinker is much less likely to fall for their lies about the presence of dark-skinned others posing a dire threat to the country. So Republicans rightfully see education and learning as the greatest threat to their party. The Republican party continually defunds education and encourages outright hatred of experts so they can keep their base poor and voting to make themselves poorer.
And it works. The average Republican voter automatically, mindlessly dismisses anything anyone with an education says. The Jewish space lizards control mainstream science so everything scientists have proven is wrong and should not be listened to, but persecution complex enthusiast Tucker Carlson is an authority on viruses and vaccines and is to be believed without question.
Of course these same Republican politicians and pundits are all highly educated themselves and know that getting an education makes one far more likely to succeed at life. Convincing their base to reject education is their way of kicking the ladder away once they get to the top.
From the teacher’s/school’s perspective, the line is drawn at being able to prove on the balance of probability that the instruction was neutral.
I'm genuinely surprised that I did not get in trouble when I taught one lesson that briefly went into the similarities and differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It was necessary because the students did not get requisite lessons from their previous year, and it was relevant to the unit I was on. And one student had an absolute fit that I would not let him believe that Christianity not only is descended from Judaism as similar faiths (for god's sake the Bible literally has half of the text stolen from the Jewish faith) but that I had the gall to say that Christians and Catholics are all under the same umbrella of...you know...Christianity. The student got offended I suggested such a thing. But I even drew a diagram on the board that illustrated the fact and included Judaism at the top, Christianity below it, and multiple branches showing Catholicism and Protestantism splitting, with Protestantism then splitting between Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, etc. Even threw Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses into the diagram for and giggles, even though I knew a few Jehovah's Witnesses were in my classes. I knew I was right to teach this lesson, and administrators would have had my back.
Under either the OK proposed law or the passed Indiana law, I could have been sued for such a factual lesson, for the simple fact that I "hurt a student's religious beliefs" or "Taught an unapproved lesson" since it was basically improvised.
I trust neither the wording nor especially the intent of these laws. They are simply designed to hamper teachers from educating children in red states. And how far will they go? How ignorant of reality do they want the kids to be?
I can’t comment on Indiana law unless the specific provision is cited. W/regard to the OK proposal, teaching that mainstream Christians view the Old Testament as a sacred text is not a “promotion” of that belief. Further, it seems highly improbable that Christians would sue a school for teaching an integral aspect of their faith (i.e. the connection between the Israelites/ancient Hebraic texts and Christ’s ministry).