Why is educating about Tubman bad?

Dutch Uncle said:
Destroying monuments leaving only smooth green lawns instead of building more monuments or otherwise putting the history into context is, indeed, burying the past.

Ask HS graduates why 2% of the US population died during the Civil War begins and ends with one word "slavery". No context, nothing beyond that...and quickly forgotten.

Now, here we are 160 years later and our nation is severely divided once more. Why? IMO, because we, as a nation, refuse to embrace the past and learn from it.
Click to expand...
Your method is to support traitors and losers.
It honors them. That is not teaching history, that’s honoring traitors and losers. I’d rather have a park instead of a statue of Robert E Lee, a man who betrayed his country.
 
Last edited:
Phantasmal said:
That’s not the disagreement Dutch, neither of us wants to bury the past.

You just think the statues preserve the past. I think they pervert it. The traitor and losers aren’t to be honored as heroes. They declared war on this country. They don’t deserve monuments to honor them.
Click to expand...
Disagreed.

No, I think they represent the past, warts and all.
 
Phantasmal said:
Your method is supports traitors and losers.
It honors them. That is not teaching history, that’s honoring traitors and losers. I’d rather have a park instead of a statue of Robert E Lee, a man who betrayed his country.
Click to expand...
The fact you keep harping on this same point over and over again is interesting, Phan.
 
Lionfish said:
Mr. Tiny Penis the CEO of my fan club, I do it so all of us can see what a depraved child you are in your response. You have yet to let any of us down. That answer your question?
Click to expand...
Oh Miss Piggy, I can see I've rattled your bed again. Your flirtations are one thing, but to become so upset with me that you start speaking for everyone crosses over into another, more psychological, area.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
He fought for his country Virginia. How could he be a traitor?

Before the war, it was said 'the United States are' - grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is', as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is'.
Shelby Foote, American historian

penntoday.upenn.edu

From ‘the United States are’ to ‘the United States is’ | Penn Today

Political scientist Melissa M. Lee on how the linguistic shift from plural to singular demonstrates the evolution of sovereign authority in the U.S.
penntoday.upenn.edu penntoday.upenn.edu
Click to expand...
Because he fought against the United States.

I understand how it was thought about at the time, but he did fight the Union, on behalf of continued slavery.

Harriett Tubman, was much more of a hero. Not born of privileged class. Did what she could. I can tell you many white southerners see him as a man who stood up for what they call 'the old way". Which is inintended with racial overtones.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
At Sumpter, its up for debate, South Carolina occupied a Union base, owned by the Untied States.
Click to expand...
Soooo, like Nixon ending the war in Vietnam by attacking Cambodia and Laos, Lincoln invaded Virginia because of South Carolina at Fort Sumpter?

Did Lincoln invade Virginia to end slavery or did he invade Virginia to restore the Union?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Soooo, like Nixon ending the war in Vietnam by attacking Cambodia and Laos, Lincoln invaded Virginia because of South Carolina at Fort Sumpter?

Did Lincoln invade Virginia to end slavery or did he invade Virginia to restore the Union?
Click to expand...
Lincoln invaded to save the Union. Nixon attacked Cambodia on behalf of the United States of America.

Lincoln also wanted to end slavery, but that was not why he invaded.
 
Jarod said:
Lincoln invaded to save the Union. Nixon attacked Cambodia on behalf of the United States of America.

Lincoln also wanted to end slavery, but that was not why he invaded.
Click to expand...
Correct. Lincoln invaded Virginia to save the Union, not because of South Carolina's bombardment of Fort Sumpter...where they killed no one.

Still, because most Americans don't understand history and would rather just bury it, most would reply "to end slavery" and run around screaming all Confederates were traitors.
 
Last edited:
Phantasmal said:
Dear Goddess, you support the Confederate side on this? Is that why you argue on their behalf?
Please clarify, thanks
Click to expand...
No. You, like many MAGAts on JPP who claim I'm a Democrat, assume that because I focus on facts, I must support their opposition.

Had Lincoln followed the Constitution and allowed the Southern states to secede, how would history have changed? Would industrialization have replaced slavery? Would the US have entered the Spanish-American War? WWI? Had WWI dragged on without US involvement would WWII have even happened? The technological developments and the US becoming the first Superpower? The speculation is fun, but in the end, I think it worked out for the best.
 
TOP said:
I'm beginning to wonder... With the way some of these people post around here, I'm Sometimes leary if any of them really are professionals tgry claim to be..... Who would jeopardize a legitimate career... Or even a former career... by posting some of the things that they do?
Click to expand...

^ ^ ^ OMG look at that delicious low-hanging irony fruit! Thanks, Toxic. You're the best at hypocrisy and least self-aware of anyone else on this forum, even CFM and Text and Vols! Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone printed out YOUR posts and sent them to the schools you've mentioned many times, where you pretend to have "taught"? :laugh:

O0Mr4S0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top