Oklahoma Bans AP US History

[Cyrisnia]

^^This.

As of now American politics has taken a turn to a state of number wanking similar to a bad International Incidents thread.

At this point, putting NSG in charge of Oklahoma would be better.

Eh. Nah. Most of it would be liberal with a strong voiced conservative majority, and all of the government would fight. Not to mention that we'd have to donate the panhandle part of it to the people who last in NSG about a week.

[Conserative Morality]

It's not a false equivalence. Both major parties, and even a lot of minor parties, care more about votes than anything else. What differences there are aren't due to the parties themselves as much as their base.

Parties are also kind of made up by their base. So I mean, I suppose if you said "Oh, if the Democrats were conservatives, then they'd have no problem with this!" then you'd be right, but pointlessly so. Either the claim is that both parties are the same insofar as they seek votes under a 'big tent' system, which is so broad as to be meaningless for any point of comparison, or the claim is that the vast majority of the voter base of the Democratic party don't matter, and the party as a whole is more than willing to go Republican if it got them Republican votes.

[New Chalcedon]

Which is how the early US economy - even in the North - got a good head of steam to compete with European (non-slave-trading, by the 19th century) economies.

Really? Oh, wait. No...

From your first link (NY):

In 1664, the English took over New Amsterdam and the colony. They continued to import slaves to support the work needed. Enslaved Africans performed a wide variety of skilled and unskilled jobs, mostly in the burgeoning port city and surrounding agricultural areas. In 1703 more than 42% of New York City's households held slaves, a percentage higher than in the cities of Boston and Philadelphia, and second only to Charleston in the South.

...

Scholars have estimated that 15,000 to 20,000 enslaved Africans and African Americans were buried during the 17th and 18th centuries in the cemetery in lower Manhattan, making it the largest colonial cemetery for Africans in North America.

This discovery demonstrated the large-scale importance of slavery and African Americans to New York and national history and economy.

...

Steps toward abolition of slavery accumulated, but the legislature also took steps back. Slavery was important economically, both in New York City and in agricultural areas. In 1799, the legislature passed a law for gradual abolition. It declared children of slaves born after July 4, 1799 to be legally free, but the children had to serve an extended period of indentured servitude: to the age of 28 for males and to 25 for females. Slaves born before that date were redefined as indentured servants but essentially continued as slaves for life.

I'm sorry - did the economy of New York only begin at the time of the Revolution? Slavery was abolished in the early 19th century, but by then it had served its purpose - New York City was well-established as a commercial and industrial hub, based at least partly off slave labour.

From your second source (Pennsylvania):

The wealthy used them as domestic servants and part of the trappings of wealth. Middling merchants kept slaves as servants, while also using some as apprentices in the business, or other jobs also occupied by indentured servants. As Philadelphia was a port city, many slaves were used in jobs associated with shipping. They worked as gangs in rope-walks, and learned sail making. Some sailors took slaves with them as workers so that the sailors could increase their share of profits, as the slaves would be given none. In rural areas, slaves generally worked as household servants or farmhands, and sometimes both depending on need, just as farm families took on all jobs. Iron masters who owned slaves sometimes leased them locally to work at charcoal manufacture and the surface mining of limestone and iron ore.

Hmm....used in shipping, trading, mining, farming and manufacturing. Nope, nothing economy-building there at all!

From your third source (Massachusetts):

By the mid-18th century, enslavement of Africans had become common practice in Massachusetts. A 1754 census listed nearly 4500 slaves in the colony. Abolitionist sentiment had been growing, especially as the philosophical underpinnings of independence and democracy became common parlance in the colony. While Massachusetts had derived wealth from the Triangle Trade, its merchant and mixed economy was not dependent on slave labor to the extent of southern states.

Not as dependent upon slavery as the first two - but Massachusetts' wealth was significantly enhanced by the slave trade, kick-starting its economy.

In your zeal to "prove" that slavery wasn't involved in setting up the North's advanced economy (as at the Civil War), you simply established that slavery and the slave trade were integral to the wealth of the North - by the Civil War, they'd gotten past the economic need for it and instead relied upon cheap immigrant labour (unlike the South, in which planters couldn't attract - and weren't interested in attracting - European indentured servants for immigration).

Slavery was heavily involved in building up the industrial base by which the North won the Civil War, by your own sources' admission.

[Insaeldor]

So because the AP history doesn't say american is the second coming of crist personified as a country it's worth a ban? I don't think sticking your head in the sand whenever America's done a bad is the proper way to educate kids. I've taken AP US history here in Kansas and it is not some anti-american conserasy to make kids vote democrat or hate America or anything of the sort it through my experiences was fairly transparent in its text. But then again that's kansas.

Anyways have fun being stupid Oklahoma.

[Ermarian]

Um... doesn't this move pretty much disqualify most Oklahoma high school students from most colleges?

I'm not sure if they thought this through.

[Master Shake]

I would prefer if a neutral view was presented on history.

huh...I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you...

The problem with most college classes is you always have some person who just goes overboard. They get on some tangent and just drill it into the students brain...

I think a more neutral course would work not only for Oklahoma, but for the rest of the Union aswell....

[Tequillistador]

Um... doesn't this move pretty much disqualify most Oklahoma high school students from most colleges?

I'm not sure if they thought this through.

No more than American ecclectic/classic education history books used by homeschoolers disqualifies them.

[Master Shake]

Um... doesn't this move pretty much disqualify most Oklahoma high school students from most colleges?

I'm not sure if they thought this through.

No..not really..maybe from colleges outside of Oklahoma though...but that is a different story...

[Forsher]

Um... doesn't this move pretty much disqualify most Oklahoma high school students from most colleges?

I'm not sure if they thought this through.

No..not really..maybe from colleges outside of Oklahoma though...but that is a different story...

As I understand the AP system, it simply means that these pupils lose out on something that many universities will take as being worth some level of credit or, even, as sufficient to stand in place of some of their courses. See here. Interestingly, I would broadly parallel them with Scholarship in NZ but it's far from an equivalent.

The pupils would still be able to attend universities based on their normal schoolwork, SAT/ACT score and the rest of it.

[American California]

I don't remember APUSH being unpatriotic. It was pretty neutral, and even patriotic in some cases.


However, it did spend an obscenely boring amount of time on the women's movement. Talk about a snoozer.

[Master Shake]

I don't remember APUSH being unpatriotic. It was pretty neutral, and even patriotic in some cases.


However, it did spend an obscenely boring amount of time on the women's movement. Talk about a snoozer.

Don't let the Feminists hear such talk or they will cut of your bratwurst!

[American California]

I don't remember APUSH being unpatriotic. It was pretty neutral, and even patriotic in some cases.


However, it did spend an obscenely boring amount of time on the women's movement. Talk about a snoozer.

Don't let the Feminists hear such talk or they will cut of your bratwurst!

That reminds me of this funny video where feminists in Brazil went into an ape-like frenzy to maul a man because he pulled his pants down for like three seconds. They literally crawl up the building likes rats in a manic bloodlust for this guy, and the whole time, his expression just screams, "I don't give a fuck"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3CNTO6LG4g

[Myrensis]

Man, this is just depressing. I get "American Exceptionalism" as a feel good ideological/political idea, but seriously demanding that it be part of school history curriculum? Why not just rewrite the books to say that absolutely nothing happened on September 11, 2001, because no dirty terrorist could ever penetrate the AMERICAN FREEDOM SHIELD.

[The Holy Therns]

If you want to censor a history course for not being "patriotic" enough you must be pretty ashamed about your history.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Really? Oh, wait. No...

From your first link (NY):

In 1664, the English took over New Amsterdam and the colony. They continued to import slaves to support the work needed. Enslaved Africans performed a wide variety of skilled and unskilled jobs, mostly in the burgeoning port city and surrounding agricultural areas. In 1703 more than 42% of New York City's households held slaves, a percentage higher than in the cities of Boston and Philadelphia, and second only to Charleston in the South.

...

Scholars have estimated that 15,000 to 20,000 enslaved Africans and African Americans were buried during the 17th and 18th centuries in the cemetery in lower Manhattan, making it the largest colonial cemetery for Africans in North America.

This discovery demonstrated the large-scale importance of slavery and African Americans to New York and national history and economy.

...

Steps toward abolition of slavery accumulated, but the legislature also took steps back. Slavery was important economically, both in New York City and in agricultural areas. In 1799, the legislature passed a law for gradual abolition. It declared children of slaves born after July 4, 1799 to be legally free, but the children had to serve an extended period of indentured servitude: to the age of 28 for males and to 25 for females. Slaves born before that date were redefined as indentured servants but essentially continued as slaves for life.

I'm sorry - did the economy of New York only begin at the time of the Revolution? Slavery was abolished in the early 19th century, but by then it had served its purpose - New York City was well-established as a commercial and industrial hub, based at least partly off slave labour.

From your second source (Pennsylvania):

The wealthy used them as domestic servants and part of the trappings of wealth. Middling merchants kept slaves as servants, while also using some as apprentices in the business, or other jobs also occupied by indentured servants. As Philadelphia was a port city, many slaves were used in jobs associated with shipping. They worked as gangs in rope-walks, and learned sail making. Some sailors took slaves with them as workers so that the sailors could increase their share of profits, as the slaves would be given none. In rural areas, slaves generally worked as household servants or farmhands, and sometimes both depending on need, just as farm families took on all jobs. Iron masters who owned slaves sometimes leased them locally to work at charcoal manufacture and the surface mining of limestone and iron ore.

Hmm....used in shipping, trading, mining, farming and manufacturing. Nope, nothing economy-building there at all!

From your third source (Massachusetts):

By the mid-18th century, enslavement of Africans had become common practice in Massachusetts. A 1754 census listed nearly 4500 slaves in the colony. Abolitionist sentiment had been growing, especially as the philosophical underpinnings of independence and democracy became common parlance in the colony. While Massachusetts had derived wealth from the Triangle Trade, its merchant and mixed economy was not dependent on slave labor to the extent of southern states.

Not as dependent upon slavery as the first two - but Massachusetts' wealth was significantly enhanced by the slave trade, kick-starting its economy.

In your zeal to "prove" that slavery wasn't involved in setting up the North's advanced economy (as at the Civil War), you simply established that slavery and the slave trade were integral to the wealth of the North - by the Civil War, they'd gotten past the economic need for it and instead relied upon cheap immigrant labour (unlike the South, in which planters couldn't attract - and weren't interested in attracting - European indentured servants for immigration).

Slavery was heavily involved in building up the industrial base by which the North won the Civil War, by your own sources' admission.

I think that was the point Madiganistan intended to make.

[Madiganistan]

In your zeal to "prove" that slavery wasn't involved in setting up the North's advanced economy (as at the Civil War)

Jesus Fuck, you sure did discern a lot about context, personal motive, and intent from a four word post. I can see how you won that bronze medal for forum debate you're so proud of.

The difference between this statement:

Slavery was heavily involved in building up the industrial base by which the North won the Civil War, by your own sources' admission.

and this statement:

Which is how the early US economy - even in the North - got a good head of steam to compete with European (non-slave-trading, by the 19th century) economies.

are so astronomical that I actually broke my neck from shaking my head at your response. Good thing the ACA covers NSG-related injuries.

[Bojikami]

This is idiotic.

[Chestaan]

Do you honestly think the states can do any better?

A few will fuck up, sure. On the whole, though, the states can handle many of their affairs far, far better than some suit hundreds of miles away.

Surely, though, education is one of those areas where there should be a unified policy? Apart from local history/local current affairs shouldn't all students across the states have the same curriculum?

[Republic of Coldwater]

What the hell. There has been shit in every country's history, and it would be retarded to not teach it so the people of that country won't do shit like that again.

[Gauthier]

I would not be surprised if they wanted to change the National Anthem to "America, FUCK YEAH!!"

[New DeCapito]

Why have 16% of the poll people said yes?

[Euro Asian Republics]

Normally, I do not post on NSG, but I must say this.

Americans don't like seeing America portrayed 'badly'. Which is fair, really. Nationalism aside, no one wants to admit to the horrid shit in their peoples' past. Except apparently, the Europeans, who never shut up about it.

That's my opinion on the matter.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I would not be surprised if they wanted to change the National Anthem to "America, FUCK YEAH!!"

Actually, that is a good idea!

brb starting whitehouse.gov petition.

[Benierra]

what's AP history? What do they teach at the moment?

[Katganistan]

"Let's ignore the shit we did in the past that's not so praiseworthy -- and bury it!"

Yeah, getting really tired of the willfully ignorant censorship brigade in the center of the US.