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.
well just guessing but i think the awareness of the horrors of the old south have been instilled in the school already but if you focus on it too much you create the very emotional frenzy that caused these events.
we are trying for peace especially in the schools.
This is the thing. Hiding history only makes for more ignorance. There were so many things that were never even taught to me in college. One needs to learn history very well.
And speaking of keeping peace, I don't think it would be keeping the peace in schools to show "Gone With The Wind" in class. That was shown in my history class. Looking back on it, I can't really believe my teacher would have shown that.
What was the context in the illegal showing of the film in your history class. I ask because if you want to teach about "The Lost Cause" fabrication, it's an excellent source.
Emmet Till's murder followed (by about three months) the lynching of Mack Parker, also in rural Mississippi; that incident remains the last recorded instance of a "traditional" lynching -- that is, a seizure of a black defendant accused of a heinous crime by a mob against a white victim. It has stood for nearly sixty years.
In that sense, Till might be viewed as one more soldier and late casualty in a long-term campaign, but that is a point suitable for discussion only in a higher-level history course. It should not be homogenized and spin-doctored to fit the purposes of those pushing a broad-spectrum indoctrination in the so-called "progressive" agenda intended for those at a more impressionable age.
Emmet Till's murder followed (by about three months) the lynching of Mack Parker, also in rural Mississippi; that incident remains the last recorded instance of a "traditional" lynching -- that is, a seizure of a black defendant accused of a heinous crime by a mob against a white victim. It has stood for nearly sixty years.
In that sense, Till might be viewed as one more soldier and late casualty in a long-term campaign, but that is a point suitable for discussion only in a higher-level history course. It should not be homogenized and spin-doctored to fit the purposes of those pushing a broad-spectrum indoctrination in the so-called "progressive" agenda intended for those at a more impressionable age.
That is one confusing post.
What the "traditional" lynching of Mack Parker has to do with Emmett Till escapes me because Till wasn't accused of a crime, just the violation of "accepted" social norms.
That being the case Till was not a "soldier" nor a late victim of a long-term campaign. A campaign conducted by whom for whom is a mystery that you need to clarify.
Homogenized. pushing broad-spectrum indoctrination, well that's about as meaningless as most word salads tend to be.
As for the requirement to discuss this issue at a higher level history course, is patently ridiculous.
Emmett Till was nothing more and nothing less than a black kid who was clueless regarding the "proper" behavior of a young black male in the Deep South who allegedly committed the worst social offense possible accosting a white woman.
At 14 years old, Till's murder even offended the sensibilities of Mississippi's white establishment and the story was widely reported in the state's media, but it was when Till's body was returned to Chicago that the story exploded into the national and international press. Chicago's black media the Chicago Defender and nationally circulated Jet Magazine were not hesitant to publish the open casket photographs of Till's mutilated body, pictures that shocked the nation when they were picked up by Look Magazine.
So when you write of the "progressive" agenda it buggers the mind as to what the hell you are writing about.
Where i'm from we didn't learn about it until the 11th grade when I took an AP history class with a teacher who was very determined to teach us the reality of history.
Itt wasn't until college that I learned Christopher Columbus viewed the natives as savages. It just wasn't something that was discussed.
The 'majority' has little to gain from being taught about Emmet Till. it only leads to resentment. Then the 'majority' feels as though the education system is pushing a liberal agenda and harping on something certain groups should get over.
I don't know, maybe it is time to begin omitting and glossing over certain aspects of 'history.' That doesn't mean those events will be erased, but maybe race relations will be better. Especially considering everyone nowadays is a victim.
I'm white, and a member of the "current" majority. I think that white people have a great deal to learn from being taught about Emmet Till, the Scotsboro Boys, the use of lynching for social and electoral control, etc.
Learning about those events (and many more recent examples) does cause a lot of feelings. As members of the white majority, we have the luxury of ignoring them. Actively learning about them, seeing ourselves and our race's historical stance toward others is not an easy or simple process. Not teaching these things may make us feel better in the moment, but does not further race relations.
Emmet Till's murder followed (by about three months) the lynching of Mack Parker, also in rural Mississippi; that incident remains the last recorded instance of a "traditional" lynching -- that is, a seizure of a black defendant accused of a heinous crime by a mob against a white victim. It has stood for nearly sixty years.
In that sense, Till might be viewed as one more soldier and late casualty in a long-term campaign, but that is a point suitable for discussion only in a higher-level history course. It should not be homogenized and spin-doctored to fit the purposes of those pushing a broad-spectrum indoctrination in the so-called "progressive" agenda intended for those at a more impressionable age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It appears that you are justifying lynching.
I'm not justifying lynching, but I am calling attention to the oversimplified pablum which the elitists who control our public schools would like to dish out.
I stand by my original point, for a reason which I have expressed above in bold-face script.
What happened in a small community in rural Mississippi in the early stages of the civil-rights struggle needs to be taught, but in the context of much-broader trends which would unfold over another twenty years. It is a case of right vs. wrong; fair vs unfair, and in the end, an example of how social and economic forces redress imbalances and grievances, but it should not be oversimplified and turned into another appeal for blind "progressivism".
Emmett Till's family had escaped the legalized peonage of the Deep South some years before -- part of an exodus of two million people which was driven entirely by technical progress which reduced the need for stoop labor and rendered useless the mechanism by which dumb brutes such as J. W. Milam enjoyed a slightly-higher status in a dead-end agrarian economy. The threat to that unjustifiable power-structure was every bit as much a factor as simple racism, and Emmett Till embodied it. But this is a complexity that can't be explained and understood before the junior-high school level at the earliest.
The same avoidance of oversimplification and polarization can be applied to Jim Crow laws, which did not originate until they were promoted as a sop to the "redneck revolt" by agrarian and working-class whites in the wake of the defeat of the Confederacy and the collapse, and near-complete impoverishment of the previous social order. No one knows what might have happened if those resentments had been channeled into a stronger resistance and a guerilla war that would have prolonged Reconstruction.
And as has been noted in other posts, the people who organized more-sophisticated protests such as the Montgomery bus boycott and made certain that the brutalities inflicted upon Emmett Till were left out in the open for all to see knew exactly what they were doing -- and it worked. But the rough edges of both sides of the civil rights struggle, particularly among white working-class social conservatives living in the North (and including the rural Central Pennsylvania in which I spent my formative years) did not arise until various strains of Left-leaning ideologues attempted to hijack it in order to support a broader ideology.
We Americans have created the most diverse society on earth, and arguably the most accomodating. We have our differences, and we try to air and resolve them in the finest spirit of what came to be known as the Enlightenment. It was in that spirit that two strong-willed and very-different Americans -- Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks -- were accorded, consecutively, one of the nation's greatest honors upon their passing.
I can understand and honor that respect for diversity. But if some of you over there in Deep Left Field can't -- perhaps you should haul your sorry selves over to Europe where you'll feel more comfortable among the structure, stagnation, and resentments which might yet morph into some very ugly consequences.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-16-2016 at 07:14 PM..
I'm not justifying lynching, but I am calling attention to the oversimplified pablum which the elitists who control our public schools would like to dish out.
A passable piece of polemic for Great Debates but essentially devoid of any historical value, and the last I checked this was the history forum.
So while we are on the topic of oversimplification:
Quote:
an exodus of two million people which was driven entirely by technical progress.
When you have 2 million people fleeing the worst forms of oppression, I think an argument could be made that their exodus can't be "entirely" ascribed as being the result of "technical[logical] progress."
Quote:
The threat to that unjustifiable power-structure was every bit as much a factor as simple racism,
In any discussion of regarding the power structure of the south, built upon racism, justified by racism, its a bit specious to describe racism as a "factor" when it was inseparable from every aspect of southern life.
Quote:
The same avoidance of oversimplification and polarization can be applied to Jim Crow laws, which did not originate until they were promoted as a sop to the "redneck revolt" by agrarian and working-class whites in the wake of the defeat of the Confederacy and the collapse, and near-complete impoverishment of the previous social order.
Jim Crow laws were nothing more and nothing less than a slightly watered down version of the slave codes that had existed in the South for centuries and were hardly just a "sop to agrarian and working class whites. It was a social order that underlaid every aspect of southern life for white rich and poor.
Quote:
No one knows what might have happened if those resentments had been channeled into a stronger resistance and a guerilla war that would have prolonged Reconstruction.
That makes no sense, why would white resentments channeled into "stronger resistance" have prolonged Reconstruction, particularly in light of the fact that white resentment, and guerrilla warfare hastened the demise of Reconstruction.
Quote:
But the rough edges of both sides of the civil rights struggle, particularly among white working-class social conservatives living in the North did not arise until various strains of Left-leaning ideologues attempted to hijack it in order to support a broader ideology.
You really need to explain this in full in a historical context. "Left-leaning ideologues attempted to hijack it in order to support a broader ideology." What would that ideology be?
I'm not justifying lynching, but I am calling attention to the oversimplified pablum which the elitists who control our public schools would like to dish out.
I stand by my original point, for a reason which I have expressed above in bold-face script.
What happened in a small community in rural Mississippi in the early stages of the civil-rights struggle needs to be taught, but in the context of much-broader trends which would unfold over another twenty years. It is a case of right vs. wrong; fair vs unfair, and in the end, an example of how social and economic forces redress imbalances and grievances, but it should not be oversimplified and turned into another appeal for blind "progressivism".
Emmett Till's family had escaped the legalized peonage of the Deep South some years before -- part of an exodus of two million people which was driven entirely by technical progress which reduced the need for stoop labor and rendered useless the mechanism by which dumb brutes such as J. W. Milam enjoyed a slightly-higher status in a dead-end agrarian economy. The threat to that unjustifiable power-structure was every bit as much a factor as simple racism, and Emmett Till embodied it. But this is a complexity that can't be explained and understood before the junior-high school level at the earliest.
The same avoidance of oversimplification and polarization can be applied to Jim Crow laws, which did not originate until they were promoted as a sop to the "redneck revolt" by agrarian and working-class whites in the wake of the defeat of the Confederacy and the collapse, and near-complete impoverishment of the previous social order. No one knows what might have happened if those resentments had been channeled into a stronger resistance and a guerilla war that would have prolonged Reconstruction.
And as has been noted in other posts, the people who organized more-sophisticated protests such as the Montgomery bus boycott and made certain that the brutalities inflicted upon Emmett Till were left out in the open for all to see knew exactly what they were doing -- and it worked. But the rough edges of both sides of the civil rights struggle, particularly among white working-class social conservatives living in the North (and including the rural Central Pennsylvania in which I spent my formative years) did not arise until various strains of Left-leaning ideologues attempted to hijack it in order to support a broader ideology.
We Americans have created the most diverse society on earth, and arguably the most accomodating. We have our differences, and we try to air and resolve them in the finest spirit of what came to be known as the Enlightenment. It was in that spirit that two strong-willed and very-different Americans -- Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks -- were accorded, consecutively, one of the nation's greatest honors upon their passing.
I can understand and honor that respect for diversity. But if some of you over there in Deep Left Field can't -- perhaps you should haul your sorry selves over to Europe where you'll feel more comfortable among the structure, stagnation, and resentments which might yet morph into some very ugly consequences.
People like you, who constantly suggest that American citizens with a different viewpoint than your own should leave America are just as guilty -- if not more guilty -- of hijacking American principles "to support a broader ideology". If that's the principle you believe in, then perhaps you should consider leaving the country. Your viewpoint is no more valid than the progressive viewpoint; it's just your ego that makes it seem so. Instead of people like you constantly harping about the threat of abridging the freedom of speech, you should begin to realize that you are the ones attempting to abridge that freedom by pushing people out of the country. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in some right wing dictatorship in Central or South America or Africa. In the America I believe in, I accept that people like you out in deep right field have different opinions than my own. And I don't expect you to leave the country just because you think differently than me.
People like you, who constantly suggest that American citizens with a different viewpoint than your own should leave America are just as guilty -- if not more guilty -- of hijacking American principles "to support a broader ideology". If that's the principle you believe in, then perhaps you should consider leaving the country. Your viewpoint is no more valid than the progressive viewpoint; it's just your ego that makes it seem so. Instead of people like you constantly harping about the threat of abridging the freedom of speech, you should begin to realize that you are the ones attempting to abridge that freedom by pushing people out of the country. Perhaps you would be more comfortable in some right wing dictatorship in Central or South America or Africa. In the America I believe in, I accept that people like you out in deep right field have different opinions than my own. And I don't expect you to leave the country just because you think differently than me.
With one very important difference:
I do not seek to aggrandize and further centralize Federal power in order to subvert the Constitution, redistribute incomes and control of the means of production, and force my views on other people, nor do I seek to seek to oversimplify historical fact to recruit the young and impressionable in a manner the great totalitarians of the 1930's would admire.
You appear to have no reservations about a rush to oversimplified "justice" -- provided you are leading the attack, and the party being subjugted is one of whom you disapprove.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-17-2016 at 12:30 AM..
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.
