400 Years of African Slavery in America

[Josh]

I would start with the biblical example of the Jubilee. Possibilities I've thought of include:
....
....
....
Real estate can't be inherited more than 2 or 3 generations.

Say what? How do you get that one from the biblical example of the Jubilee?

Reasonable question, as the Jubilee gave land back to the families of earlier owners! The starting point was a fair distribution of land. In 50 years things were expected to become inequitable so property was then redistributed in a fairly equal manner. I'm thinking of the principle of Jubilee and how it would be applied to a situation that has had an unfair distribution for centuries. I'd like to hear other's ideas on how to address generational inequity.

Transferring all land to the government won’t make things fairer.

[Bootstrap]

Why is it that the only one to generate the slightest notice or attention not to mention all the fear and loathing is the the one that focuses on slavery and race? I find that both curious and telling.

Roger Daniels & Richard Vague don’t make sweeping claims about the true founding of America being about business or attempt to reframe American history tout court around immigration.

But a lot of histories make sweeping claims about American history revolving primarily around the wars we have fought, or based on American Exceptionalism. And a lot of histories tell very little American history from the perspective of anyone other than white males.

I think there is bias in the 1619 Project. But I think there are also things to learn from it, balancing some of these other tellings of history. I certainlly wouldn't use the 1619 Project as the only resource in a history class. But I would use it as one of the resources.

[Szdfan]

Why is it that the only one to generate the slightest notice or attention not to mention all the fear and loathing is the the one that focuses on slavery and race? I find that both curious and telling.

Roger Daniels & Richard Vague don’t make sweeping claims about the true founding of America being about business or attempt to reframe American history tout court around immigration.

But a lot of histories make sweeping claims about American history revolving primarily around the wars we have fought, or based on American Exceptionalism. And a lot of histories tell very little American history from the perspective of anyone other than white males.

I think there is bias in the 1619 Project. But I think there are also things to learn from it, balancing some of these other tellings of history. I certainlly wouldn't use the 1619 Project as the only resource in a history class. But I would use it as one of the resources.

I don’t know what history common core standards are like (since I’m focused on English), but if the history standards are anything like that English standards, you couldn’t use the 1619 Project as a sole source, since one of the requirements in English is that we provide texts from a variety of viewpoints and perspectives. I imagine that the 1619 Project is a valuable resource, but it’s not going to be the only one.

[JimFoxvog]

Transferring all land to the government won’t make things fairer.

Maybe fairer as all have the same claim on the land; just their vote--but sure has the potential for tremendous abuse. I couldn't support such a plan.

[Ken]

Roger Daniels & Richard Vague don’t make sweeping claims about the true founding of America being about business or attempt to reframe American history tout court around immigration.

But a lot of histories make sweeping claims about American history revolving primarily around the wars we have fought, or based on American Exceptionalism. And a lot of histories tell very little American history from the perspective of anyone other than white males.

I think there is bias in the 1619 Project. But I think there are also things to learn from it, balancing some of these other tellings of history. I certainlly wouldn't use the 1619 Project as the only resource in a history class. But I would use it as one of the resources.

I don’t know what history common core standards are like (since I’m focused on English), but if the history standards are anything like that English standards, you couldn’t use the 1619 Project as a sole source, since one of the requirements in English is that we provide texts from a variety of viewpoints and perspectives. I imagine that the 1619 Project is a valuable resource, but it’s not going to be the only one.

No serious teacher would ever teach from a single source like that. Especially not in any kind of advanced history class. You would compare and contrast different histories and narratives and engage in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of every one. The panic by conservatives about how racism is taught in history class is really something to behold. I guess when you don't have any other policy prescriptions you demagogue HS history curriculum standards and start new culture wars.

I actually expect some of this material to show up in AP and IB US History curriculum standards and exams. Which school boards and state boards of education have zero control over. So states that try to ban and regulate how history is taught will only be hamstringing their own student's success and preparation.

[Szdfan]

No serious teacher would ever teach from a single source like that. Especially not in any kind of advanced history class. You would compare and contrast different histories and narratives and engage in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of every one. The panic by conservatives about how racism is taught in history class is really something to behold. I guess when you don't have any other policy prescriptions you demagogue HS history curriculum standards and start new culture wars.

I actually expect some of this material to show up in AP and IB US History curriculum standards and exams. Which school boards and state boards of education have zero control over. So states that try to ban and regulate how history is taught will only be hamstringing their own student's success and preparation.

There was a piece by a history teacher in Texas in response to H.B. 2497 and H.B. 3979 which prohibits teachers from “ linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States” and establishes the “1836 Project” to promote awareness about the creation of Texas by focusing on the founding documents.

As the piece points out, there are unintended consequences from teaching Texas’s founding documents in school:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... chers.html

Let’s read the 1836 Texas Declaration of Independence. It not only exposes the tyranny of Mexican leader Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, but also describes how Anglo Texans consistently bent and broke Mexican laws. In class, we can talk about how one of the laws that Texans violated was Mexico’s decade-old abolition of slavery. The declaration also describes Stephen F. Austin’s incarceration. In discussing what happened there, we can discover that Mexican officials rightly suspected Texans of fomenting illegal revolutions for years.

Let’s read Texas’ single most foundational document, the 1836 Constitution of the Republic of Texas. We will find several values familiar to present-day Texans: divided government, religious freedom, and the right to bear arms. But we will also find some “values” that don’t track very well in 2021. That it was illegal for either Congress or an individual to simply emancipate a slave. That even free Black people could not live in Texas without specific permission from the state. That “Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians” had no rights as citizens.

Let’s read Republic of Texas President Mirabeau Lamar’s message to the Texas Congress in December of 1838, where he calls for the “total extinction or total expulsion” of all Indigenous peoples in Texas. This included the Texas Cherokee, who had long-standing land rights recognized by Mexico and by Texas’ previous president, Sam Houston. In class, we can talk about how Lamar would make good on his proposal by sending a Texan army to massacre and drive out the remaining Cherokee in July 1839.

Finally, let’s take a close look at the “Declaration of Causes,” the document an elected Texas convention published in February 1861 to explain why the state was seceding from the United States. Here, no reader needs the 1619 Project or CRT to help them conjure the spirit of systemic racism. The document’s writers aren’t shy about their intentions. They believed in some “undeniable truths”: Their beloved state of Texas had been established “exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity.”* In Texas, Black people had “no agency” and were “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” This enslavement was not just a temporary necessary evil; it was a positive good, “the revealed will of the Almighty Creator” to “all Christian nations.” This is “Christian heritage,” but not necessarily the kind the bill establishing the 1836 Project says it wants to promote.

[Ken]

No serious teacher would ever teach from a single source like that. Especially not in any kind of advanced history class. You would compare and contrast different histories and narratives and engage in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of every one. The panic by conservatives about how racism is taught in history class is really something to behold. I guess when you don't have any other policy prescriptions you demagogue HS history curriculum standards and start new culture wars.

I actually expect some of this material to show up in AP and IB US History curriculum standards and exams. Which school boards and state boards of education have zero control over. So states that try to ban and regulate how history is taught will only be hamstringing their own student's success and preparation.

There was a piece by a history teacher in Texas in response to H.B. 2497 and H.B. 3979 which prohibits teachers from “ linking slavery or racism to the “true founding” or “authentic principles” of the United States” and establishes the “1836 Project” to promote awareness about the creation of Texas by focusing on the founding documents.

As the piece points out, there are unintended consequences from teaching Texas’s founding documents in school:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... chers.html

Let’s read the 1836 Texas Declaration of Independence. It not only exposes the tyranny of Mexican leader Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, but also describes how Anglo Texans consistently bent and broke Mexican laws. In class, we can talk about how one of the laws that Texans violated was Mexico’s decade-old abolition of slavery. The declaration also describes Stephen F. Austin’s incarceration. In discussing what happened there, we can discover that Mexican officials rightly suspected Texans of fomenting illegal revolutions for years.

Let’s read Texas’ single most foundational document, the 1836 Constitution of the Republic of Texas. We will find several values familiar to present-day Texans: divided government, religious freedom, and the right to bear arms. But we will also find some “values” that don’t track very well in 2021. That it was illegal for either Congress or an individual to simply emancipate a slave. That even free Black people could not live in Texas without specific permission from the state. That “Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians” had no rights as citizens.

Let’s read Republic of Texas President Mirabeau Lamar’s message to the Texas Congress in December of 1838, where he calls for the “total extinction or total expulsion” of all Indigenous peoples in Texas. This included the Texas Cherokee, who had long-standing land rights recognized by Mexico and by Texas’ previous president, Sam Houston. In class, we can talk about how Lamar would make good on his proposal by sending a Texan army to massacre and drive out the remaining Cherokee in July 1839.

Finally, let’s take a close look at the “Declaration of Causes,” the document an elected Texas convention published in February 1861 to explain why the state was seceding from the United States. Here, no reader needs the 1619 Project or CRT to help them conjure the spirit of systemic racism. The document’s writers aren’t shy about their intentions. They believed in some “undeniable truths”: Their beloved state of Texas had been established “exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity.”* In Texas, Black people had “no agency” and were “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” This enslavement was not just a temporary necessary evil; it was a positive good, “the revealed will of the Almighty Creator” to “all Christian nations.” This is “Christian heritage,” but not necessarily the kind the bill establishing the 1836 Project says it wants to promote.

This is all so ridiculous. Most average HS students would no more pay attention to the arcane historical details set out in the 1619 project as they would say the Louisiana Purchase or Whig Party. But get the state legislature involved in banning material and suddenly their curiosity is going to be raised and they'll want to find out more. Same thing happens in science class when I assign students research projects on famous scientists from history. It is always the evangelical kids from fundamentalist families who want to research Darwin. For everyone else he is just a random scientist of no more interest than any other.

[Only an Anz]

What’s the matter with Baylor?

I don't know. Perhaps it is that the denomination that runs Baylor was explicitly founded in support of slavery and to provide a safe refuge for slaveowners? That the university administration virulently supported the Confederate cause and encouraged faculty and students to join the fight for slavery and against abolition? Or perhaps that Baylor operated as a segregated whites-only university until 1963, a full 100 years after the end of the Civil War? Perhaps it is rather unseemly for Baylor to deflect and point to say the Aztecs and say "look at them...they were worse than us"

It was a simple question that did not require a sarcastic response. I agree with Josh; your logic is faulty.

I didn't read that as sarcastic. Perhaps you can provide us FACTS (rather than an ad hominem dismissal on the basis of perceived tone) to explain why Baylor isn't problematic.

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't know. Perhaps it is that the denomination that runs Baylor was explicitly founded in support of slavery and to provide a safe refuge for slaveowners? That the university administration virulently supported the Confederate cause and encouraged faculty and students to join the fight for slavery and against abolition? Or perhaps that Baylor operated as a segregated whites-only university until 1963, a full 100 years after the end of the Civil War? Perhaps it is rather unseemly for Baylor to deflect and point to say the Aztecs and say "look at them...they were worse than us"

It was a simple question that did not require a sarcastic response. I agree with Josh; your logic is faulty.

I didn't read that as sarcastic. Perhaps you can provide us FACTS (rather than an ad hominem dismissal on the basis of perceived tone) to explain why Baylor isn't problematic.

1. I asked what was wrong with Baylor because I did not know the history of that institution that both Ken and you clearly do.
2. His response to me was one that I read as sarcastic but I could also use snide and condescending.
3. I didn't dismiss his facts based on the tone of his response, though I did politely point out that I thought his tone was unnecessary for the delivery of said facts.
4. That is to say, I was neither attacking Ken or his tone in an attempt to discredit his response (the definition, I think, of an ad hominem argument). Instead I was simply asking that he respond to honest queries more respectfully.
4. I would tend to agree, assuming Ken's summation of Baylorian history is accurate, that Baylor's history is problematic.
5. I also agree with Josh that if we use a "problematized history" as our basis for the dismissal of every declaration from persons or institutions with whom are disinclined to agree, we may find, through the force of our logic and provided we're willing to follow that logic, that there remain very few institutions or persons left to whom we can appeal or seek guidance from. In fact I know of only one person to whom the adjectives "perfect" and "sinless" apply.
6. Indeed, the dismissal of facts or arguments based solely on a "problematic history" seems to me to be a kind of ad hominem fallacy.

[Ken]

It was a simple question that did not require a sarcastic response. I agree with Josh; your logic is faulty.

I didn't read that as sarcastic. Perhaps you can provide us FACTS (rather than an ad hominem dismissal on the basis of perceived tone) to explain why Baylor isn't problematic.

1. I asked what was wrong with Baylor because I did not know the history of that institution that both Ken and you clearly do.
2. His response to me was one that I read as sarcastic but I could also use snide and condescending.
3. I didn't dismiss his facts based on the tone of his response, though I did politely point out that I thought his tone was unnecessary for the delivery of said facts.
4. That is to say, I was neither attacking Ken or his tone in an attempt to discredit his response (the definition, I think, of an ad hominem argument). Instead I was simply asking that he respond to honest queries more respectfully.
4. I would tend to agree, assuming Ken's summation of Baylorian history is accurate, that Baylor's history is problematic.
5. I also agree with Josh that if we use a "problematized history" as our basis for the dismissal of every declaration from persons or institutions with whom are disinclined to agree, we may find, through the force of our logic and provided we're willing to follow that logic, that there remain very few institutions or persons left to whom we can appeal or seek guidance from. In fact I know of only one person to whom the adjectives "perfect" and "sinless" apply.
6. Indeed, the dismissal of facts or arguments based solely on a "problematic history" seems to me to be a kind of ad hominem fallacy.

This is kind of an old thread. But my tone wasn't intended to be sarcastic, snide, or condescending. But I do expect that I probably have 100x more experience with Baylor than anyone else here.

We lived in Baylor for 13 years. Probably half the teachers I taught with in Waco were grads of the Baylor school of education and I had student teachers from Baylor nearly every year of the 10 years I taught in TX. Dozens if not hundreds of former students of mine went to Baylor. My wife was an affiliate faculty member at Baylor which was largely a bureaucratic requirement so that her medical residency program could accept medical interns from Baylor. But it did give her faculty perks like cheap football tickets so we went to a couple of Baylor games every year. Every year my HS held our graduation ceremonies at the Baylor basketball arena. A lot of the social events that my wife's employer would hold happened on the Baylor Campus. A bunch of the parents of the kids on the soccer team that I coached for 10 years were Baylor professors. As were many of the parents of our daughter's friends. And for a decade my HS aquatic science classes worked together with the Baylor Environmental Science Program and professors on a long-term wetlands restoration project: https://www.baylor.edu/crasr/

That said, we also arrived in Waco the same year that the school went through it's big basketball/murder scandal that nearly destroyed the program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_Un ... ll_scandal and we left 13 years later when they were in the midst of their football/rape scandal that also nearly blew up the university. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_Un ... lt_scandal and I knew teachers who's families were more or less shredded in the fallout (lots of lower level people with dubious connections to anything that happened lost their jobs).

So I actually do have a lot of background with the place and I do know a lot of the history, including the more hidden histories of both Baylor and Waco.

It is a decent enough place with lots of good people or we would not have maintained connections for so long. But there is most definitely a certain arrogance about the place and a lot of higher-level administrative types there have severe blind-spots about the school's role in the community and it's history. Or probably more accurately they just want to whitewash their history and paint over it all in their efforts to turn Baylor into the Catholic Notre Dame, or some such. And they do a lot of willfully arrogant and high-handed things in how they deal with and relate to the local community which is largely Black and Hispanic (the neighborhoods surrounding Baylor). In fact pretty much everyone there talks about that phenomenon as "the Baylor Bubble"

https://www.google.com/search?q=baylor+bubble

So yes, Baylor (or at least official Baylor) isn't perhaps the most reliable or unbiased source when it comes to our history of segregation or race relations in the south.