Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as U.S History goes, yes some the the text books are very slanted. In my education on U.S. History we were taught all the wonderful thing the United States did. There was very little mention on slavery or the attempted genocide committed on the Native American peoples. Yes, history is bias, it all depends on who is writing the books and how much truth do they want to be told.
But the point a seek to re-emphasize is that the instruction I got, admittedly helped by a personal enthusiasm for statecraft, was probably better than if an Approved-as-Politically-Correct version had been spoon-fed by an instructor with a personal, or union-driven agenda.
You blame the apparently villainous teachers; James Loewen (author of the 'Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong' book to which I linked in the last comment) blames the textbooks. I only read part of Loewen's book, but I recall that he analyzes all of the most frequently used history textbooks and finds them all biased/lacking. I think Loewen points to the more deserving scapegoat. The teachers are complicit if they're unable or unwilling to supplement the material presented in the book, but realistically, most are, as they're tied to a fixed curriculum.
and the rapidly-rising value of all self-supporting labor would have rendered it uneconomical in any case
I fail to see how slavery could ever have been rendered uneconomical from the perspective of 19th century slaveholders. Yes, they were purchased for a price, but I'd love to hear you elaborate on the argument that it would've disappeared 'a few years later' in an alternative US where the Civil War never happened, out of purely self-interested economic reasons on the part of the Southern aristocracy
I didn't think it was the right word myself. But I was too lazy and tired to double check.
I am sure you do know the correct word for your correction... It starts with P.....
Who said anything about "command driven"?? (But how many students today know anything about Woodrow Wilson in WW2, now that you mention that??)
when you said equivocal, you meant equivalent. Or equatable, which would actually be the better choice, heh
I believe the word both of you are searching for is "equivalent"
But the point remains: Since its emergence, now half a century ago, the libertarian perspective has opposed both the blind obedience preached by the "traditionalist" Right, and the economic ignorance peddled by the radical Left -- because both rely upon the concentration, and abuse, of the legal monopoly on coercion based in the nation-state.
Except for the fact that your "reasoning" is not anchored in, for example, the recognition that political, expressionary, and economic liberties are unitary and indivisible -- that the right to private property and freedom of enterprise is as important as the right to freedom of speech.
You have merely assembled a collection of sometimes-contradictory platitudes, sanctioned them as Absolutely Politically Correct, and set your own clique up as judge, jury, and court of final appeal.
and in the anarcho-capitalist world that is the logical endpoint of a staunchly libertarian mindset, coercion would cease to exist? When all markets operate like black markets, what sort of world are we left with? A world free from coercion?
People identify with things in their life that MUCH outweigh the idea and ideals of patriotism, citizenship and nationality.....gender, religion, political-party, race, ethnicity, language.
Yeah, the country that people are a citizen of falls very low on the totem-pole of importance, when compared to many other things.
The idea of some sort of overarching unity, due to citizenship/nationality, in a country of 330-million, is just hilarious.
Elements of the Scout Law include helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind. The anti-PC crowd is essentially none of those things.
Actually it's trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent -- qualities whose mention today evokes only mocking laughter in this wiseass culture in which we wallow. Therein lies an explanation for the OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
