Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by smltwnrckr

  1. Once when I was a journalist, I interviewed a dude who had a cool business. He basically had a bunch of reptiles and stuff and would go to schools and bring out the snakes and lizards and spiders to teach kids about nature, and about animals and biology. Basically the school version of dudes like the crocodile hunter on Jay Leno. He had completely different presentations for kids in private schools (the vast majority of them being christian schools) and public schools because the private schools wouldn't let him talk about evolution. So he would just not address why snakes have no legs and lizards have legs. I'll send my kid to the school that acknowledges that objective facts are true.
  2. I mean, I got a conservative backlash when I suggested slavery existed in the cotton production process during the first half of the 1800s. So, perhaps you need to check your sources on your assertions.
  3. Can I get a @youngredbullfan up in diz house? I appreciate the times when we're not going after each other.
  4. I mean, you were apologizing for native american genocide not that long ago on here. So, if the shoe fits.
  5. Do the teacher's unions even have any power in Wyoming? Honest question. I always assumed not.
  6. You know a whole bunch of the examples of too much "CRT" in schools and too much "woke" education comes out of charter schools, private schools and elite public schools, right? Reading Toni Morrison is hard. If you can read her, you are smart. Sometimes it's a simple as that.
  7. I think you'll find that I'm not woke at all, and I'm not accusing people of being racist or white supremacist. I'm just pointing out that this page in a book about important inventions leaves a few pretty important pieces out, and considering the context of people passing laws in states trying to ban teachers and books that maybe include some of those pieces... well, it may be relavent. As may be the reactions. If people are sick of the "crap" that is objectively true historical facts, well... maybe the use of "triggered" here is apt. Good, I love questions. How does saying slavery existed in a page about eli whitney, or putting another inventor whose invention didn't lead to the civil war, do such a thing? Honestly. Please answer me that. Probably from their parents, who are projecting something onto otherwise innocuous content. Or who watch too much Fox News, and who are primed to have an immediate and volatile reaction to the suggestion that the Cotton Gin was bad for slaves. No Not from books in their school library, or their teachers. Why?
  8. Scope creep? And I'm the one being accused of getting into the weeds here. The Guttenburg page talks about the Bible, and the Morse page talked about connecting the country. The Bell page talks about improving the lives of the hearing impaired. So these are not all strictly dedicated to the mechanics of the machine. Also, do you think a single vendor would have cared if they put Howe or Tesla or Ford in there instead of Whitney?
  9. I mean, the first four lines describe how hard it was to pick the seeds out of the cotton. So, the impact on the labor is part of the message. People on here all the time talk about media bias being evident by which stories they decide to tell, and which particulars they include and leave out. But now, suddenly omission of the key fact that makes the Cotton Gin a relavent invention at all is not consequential?
  10. I don't even remember getting it then.
  11. It expanded the demand for field laborers picking the cotton. It made the experience of slavery much more brutal while also making that form of labor much more vital to the southern economy and society. So for the people acxtually producing it, it made it harder and longer and dirtier and more brutal.
  12. Not very clear. The connection between the steam engine and genocide is not as clear and direct as the connection between the gin and slave labor. The machine was made to mechanize the processing of cotton, which was an industry that had largely a slave labor force supporting it. So in that sense, it is directly connected to the expansion and increased brutality of slavery in the south. The steam engines and baskets comparison relates more to the portrayal that the invention made things better for them because cotton production was more efficient... it's like saying the steam engine was better for the miwok because theh got to sell more baskets.
  13. The connection is not direct as the cotton gin. This example is more like saying that the steam engine made it easier for indians to sell their baskets.
  14. I'm not even suggesting that children's books have to teach that racism is bad. I just think that those books shouldn't erase history. The book says the cotton gin made the work of cotton production better for those producing it. The opposite is the truth. If the book said the printing press made things worse for people who like words, I would point that out as a problem too.
  15. I mean, that's the point though. All I am saying is that this book is an example (one of many, but just one) of why we need to have more conversations about this. Blaming someone like me for the laws being passed in red states to BAN these kinds of conversations seems to be like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I mean, you've said you have no problem with the suggestion that they pick a different inventor since Eli's invention has a lot of ... baggage attached to it. I think that would be the most reasonable thing. They don't have the inventor of the birth control pill in the book, either.
  16. How is it f**ked to point out that slavery existed and that the Cotton Gin made it worse? That's literally an objective statement of fact.
  17. I think 8 year olds need to know who Dr. King is because he was the voice of the non-violent arm of the civil rights movement. He actually offers a pretty good entry level position to discuss civil rights - in the past, people were treated different because of their skin color... then there was a movement to try and fix that. A lot of people were angry and scared, and MLK was a leader who said there is a way to do it without hurting each other. It's why I would much rather have a book about Dr. King for 8 year olds than a book about Malcom X or the Black Panthers. Both are relvaent to the civil rights movement too, but kids can learn about those more complicated aspects of civil rights in time. That is just my personal opinion. I remember a while back, during the last threat about the Seuss books with the racist pictures, @thelawlorfaithful making a good point about a book he read about Hank Aaron as a young person to think about these issues. And I remember that, because when I was a kid I really gravitated toward the Aaron story as one to think about that time and the problems of race at the time. I think that when you're dealing with little kids, the stories that you choose to tell matter more than the way you choose to tell them. Because, unless you're a lunatic, you're going to tell the stories to young kids pretty much the same way. So there is something at stake when we choose which stories to tell young children about the past or present.
  18. Most of the books written under the publishing brand that are not by him are, frankly, not very good. He had a way with language and ideas that was generationally unique. I think that him and Shel Silverstine are maybe 2 of the 3 best for young children of the last 100 years.
  19. What in God's name are you blabbering about?
  20. So this now gets into the discussion of how to teach history. Some people suggest that learning simply about inventions and memorizing the names of the people given credit for those inventions is a way to... erase certain aspects of history. Those people are not going to be able to suggest that in classrooms in a lot of states soon. As to your point that we don't need to include the thing that makes the invention relavent... it seems to me that would be like saying the machine gun prolonged WWI but not saying why. What's the point?
  21. Ironically - my kids and the kids I teach will know more about the industrial revolution than yours will. But they won't get triggered every time someone points out an objectively true fact about it. That's all.
  22. Couldn't you say the same about any machine? Or any invention? I'm sure that budding electricians would find the electric chair an interesting invention, too. But no one knows the name Southwick. I actually find it interesting and curious that every kid in America is taught that Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin. But they have to wait til high school or college to learn why that mattered in American history.
  23. I picked an older age to also cover elementary school history curriculum. Personally, I would have no problem if we wait til jr high or high school to learn about the relationships between industrialization and the expansion of slavery.
  • Create New...