Regards to MO being a Confederate state and Southern. (St. Louis: racist, rated)

[onegoalstl]

Originally Posted by kshe95girl

You gotta remember, the area was all French, it was called the Illinois Country by the French, they came down from French Canada.
My ancestor came down the river to from French Canada to Kaskaskia, which was on the Illinois side before the Mississippi changed course in 1881 and the island became attached to Missouri, (its still considered part of Illinois). At one time, Kaskaskia was the capital of Illinois, and the largest city in all of the Louisiana territory, you would never know it now, to look at it.....one of my German ancestors owned most of it in the late 1800s. (Wish I had a piece of it now, prime farmland!)
That city, Fort de Chartes, Sainte Genevieve, and some other outposts were established before STL, and all the others.
Sainte Genevieve is called the Mother City of the West.....you should read the history of the region, its fascinating, you seem to like history.
And yes, to answer your question, thats why there are such large Catholic populations in NOLA, Louisiana, and Mobile.

Problem is history classes in the colleges are all slanted. Like I'm taking a Cilvilization one this coming semester and it's mainly about American History and the book was written from some author from the Northeast and California. Like it explains MO history some, but it seems slanted and doesnt explain for example how the civil war started in MO when those Union troops shot at those people in st louis or how MO had a replacement government installed.

It also had a small section about the French in Missouri, but made them to be racist slave owners.

The end of the textbook talks about Obama and bascially describes how great of a person he is. I notice all these textbooks are always written by authors either from the Northeast or California. To them places like Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee are flyover country or are a bunch of hillbillies.

It's funny because in college you also have older people like in their 40s, 50s in your classes and they usually say how they can tell how stuff is slanted. I take classes, and I'm only 27 but I too can tell how a lot of the stuff being taught in history classes and overall agenda is slanted.

I go to the South County campus and a lot of the guys even younger than me say they agree there is a big liberal agenda.

[erikthealien]

I still thinkl the state should be split in half. The upper part is unquestinably midwest and the lower half has southern sensibilities.


I could see why people would want st louis to be part of illinois. It's a midwestern city.

[erikthealien]

Originally Posted by onegoalstl

Problem is history classes in the colleges are all slanted. Like I'm taking a Cilvilization one this coming semester and it's mainly about American History and the book was written from some author from the Northeast and California. Like it explains MO history some, but it seems slanted and doesnt explain for example how the civil war started in MO when those Union troops shot at those people in st louis or how MO had a replacement government installed.

It also had a small section about the French in Missouri, but made them to be racist slave owners.

The end of the textbook talks about Obama and bascially describes how great of a person he is. I notice all these textbooks are always written by authors either from the Northeast or California. To them places like Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee are flyover country or are a bunch of hillbillies.

It's funny because in college you also have older people like in their 40s, 50s in your classes and they usually say how they can tell how stuff is slanted. I take classes, and I'm only 27 but I too can tell how a lot of the stuff being taught in history classes and overall agenda is slanted.

I go to the South County campus and a lot of the guys even younger than me say they agree there is a big liberal agenda.

Just wondering, but you do realize that the confederacy practiced human bondage, right? Are you a confederate apologist or something?

[RichMonk]

Originally Posted by erikthealien

I still thinkl the state should be split in half. The upper part is unquestinably midwest and the lower half has southern sensibilities.


I could see why people would want st louis to be part of illinois. It's a midwestern city.

I still don't see how it makes sense to split up a state because of regional differences.

In my opinion, places that are run with a few opposing ideas become the most successful and efficient. Also, splitting the state would allow both parts to sink into complete obscurity. Missouri A and Missouri B would lose much of its regional and federal political influence.

It concerns me that there is such divisive behavior between the North and the South of our nation. Both have made great contributions to what it means to be a United States of America. We are an extremely varied nation. For me, that is where American exceptionalism really comes from.

As far as MO being Confederate or whatever, I think, is a difficult distinction to make. The Civil War was awful. Neighbors killing each other, homes burned and lives ruined. All this so the Federal Government could assert its dominance and so the Confederacy could keep their decision whether or not to have a group of humans enslaved. There are numerous better ways it could be done better, but, unfortunately, brothers decided to pick up their guns and shoot each other.

But that is America, take it or leave it. I love it anyway.

Just my 2 cents

[Curmudgeon]

Quite frankly, having lived in NC, AL, VA, GA and KY in the past, some of them more than once, I find many very southern elements here in the Ozarks/south of much of I-44 and thoroughly enjoy them. Since it's quite different than the more northern half of the state, I find it nice balance that needn't be disturbed. If nothing else, it provides citizens with choices.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by onegoalstl

Problem is history classes in the colleges are all slanted. Like I'm taking a Cilvilization one this coming semester and it's mainly about American History and the book was written from some author from the Northeast and California. Like it explains MO history some, but it seems slanted and doesnt explain for example how the civil war started in MO when those Union troops shot at those people in st louis or how MO had a replacement government installed.

It also had a small section about the French in Missouri, but made them to be racist slave owners.

The end of the textbook talks about Obama and bascially describes how great of a person he is. I notice all these textbooks are always written by authors either from the Northeast or California. To them places like Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee are flyover country or are a bunch of hillbillies.

It's funny because in college you also have older people like in their 40s, 50s in your classes and they usually say how they can tell how stuff is slanted. I take classes, and I'm only 27 but I too can tell how a lot of the stuff being taught in history classes and overall agenda is slanted.

I go to the South County campus and a lot of the guys even younger than me say they agree there is a big liberal agenda.

I would bet $ that these books are available either at the library at your school, or at the public library, they will give a huge insight into the history of the Illinois country before the Americans showed up.
Carl J. Ekberg | LibraryThing
No slanted history from Professor Ekberg, just straight up history of Missouri before it was Missouri.......
BTW, the French were not racist. Yes, they owned slaves, but read at least the history of Ste Gen, and you will find out a great deal about the attitudes of the French regarding slavery and Indians.
The history of the area is one of my big interests, I love history, sorry for taking this thread off-topic a bit.

[RichMonk]

I don't feel like digging in a library right now but since you seem to know, maybe you could elaborate.

How can you enslave a people (that is an ethnic group), and not be racist? I'm curious. In general, what was their attitude?

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by onegoalstl

I go to the South County campus and a lot of the guys even younger than me say they agree there is a big liberal agenda.

Yes, because conservatives would never try to rewrite the history books for their own purposes ...

The Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by erikthealien

I still thinkl the state should be split in half. The upper part is unquestinably midwest and the lower half has southern sensibilities.


I could see why people would want st louis to be part of illinois. It's a midwestern city.

This particular bit has been beaten to death already, but I will reiterate one more time......
Missouri does not become Southern til one travels south of US60.

[Cali BassMan]

Originally Posted by RichMonk

How can you enslave a people (that is an ethnic group), and not be racist? I'm curious. In general, what was their attitude?

The English word slave derives through Old French and Medieval Latin from the medieval word for the Slavic people of Central and Eastern Europe, who were enslaved by more powerful Europrean Coutries. (whites enslaving other whites)

American Indians often enslaved another tribe they had beaten in war, sometimes the same tribe would enslave a smaller band of thier own tribe.

The Bible often talks of slaves

The Slaves from Africa sent to America were sold by other blacks.(Blacks enslaving blacks)

Google Slavery Today and you will see it still is an institution that exists today, mostly as endentured servants in Asia (Asians enslaving Asians)

So no I don't believe it was racist, it was about money.....

Not trying to defend slavery in any way, just saying I believe it started out as a money thing like most evils in the world.....