If he is open to it, I would love to see Kevin Kruse, history professor at Princeton, on The Glenn Show. He was recently interviewed by Thor Benson from WIRED.
Kruse is partisan; very much on the Democrat side. So no, he's not unbiased. But in my experience, he's intellectually honest. Provocative? Yes. A liar? No.
He said this about Mr. Allen:
"Allen is a partisan player. He’s an academic, but he’s a political scientist. He has no background in history. He has no expertise here, and it shows."
Slightly off topic, but disturbing to my mind. One of my children is a teacher in an "average" high school in the western Chicago suburbs. He says that high school students have to take one year of US history, usually during the 11th or 12th grade. Currently, the regular course covers the years 1900 to the present. The colonial period, Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Reconstruction are all skipped in favor of more recent events. Regular students only learn about the earlier periods in middle school. The exceptions are the few students who take Advanced Placement US History, which covers the earlier periods and continues to the present.
Dr. Wilfred Reilly, a poly sci professor at Kentucky State, an HBCU, responded to the controversy on Twitter by saying that some of the slaves who had learned skilled trades were able to earn and keep money from applying their trade and that some of them were able to use said money to purchase their freedom.
I am not at all a fan of Ron DeSantis, but I thought him challenging VP Harris and any history expert of her choosing to debate him and his expert (whom I believe is one of the people who set the curriculum and happens to be black) was a savvy move and kind of a surprisingly reasonable one for DeSantis.
I wish people were as pissed off at kids not being able to read or do math as they seem to be over the content of AP history courses. Kids need to grow into adults with critical thinking skills, yet much of the debate seems to be over which ideology to uniformly imprint on all of them, rather than how to better develop the skills to sort things out on their own, like adults are supposed to be able to do. We're failing a great many of them.
There is a closely guarded secret that has been deliberately buried by mainstream media and historians: After the Civil War (and during the war), millions of freed Black people were funneled into concentration camps in America and killed through forced starvation, and other means.
Many of these locations were called “contraband camps”, and they were hastily built internment camps that were generally in proximity to Union army camps. One gruesome camp, in particular, was located in Natchez, Ms. The Devil’s Punchbowl is a place located in Natchez, where during the Civil War, authorities forced tens of thousands of freed slaves to live in these American death camps.
Researcher Paula Westbrook said, “The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave ’em shovels and said bury ’em where they drop.”
“When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez. The population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight,” Westbrook said. “So they decided to build an encampment for ’em at Devil’s Punchbowl which they walled off and wouldn’t let ’em out,” Don Estes, former director of the Natchez City Cemetery, said.
In Natchez, Mississippi alone, officials estimate that in just one year, over 20,000 free Black people were killed in the concentration camp called The Devil’s Punchbowl-- SPMG Media
I ran this by a distinguished black historian who is a friend. It was a private communication, so I am not stating his name, but he knows his African American history better than almost anybody. While he thought the offending phrase could have been a bit better worded, he basically agreed with Glenn's remarks at the beginning of this post. Beyond that, he thought it was a surprisingly broad section on African American history. Far more than he was taught in the 60s or his children were taught in the 80s. Unlike most commentators in the press, he looked at the rest of the history curriculum as well and was pleased to see that it works to infuse black history into every other part of the curriculum too.
Lots of very good comments here. But a few from people with very big chips on their shoulders. So big the weight is dragging them down. I haven't noticed that in Glenn's comments sections before. I don't always look in, so maybe it's more common than I thought. If so, it's too bad.
Dr Cherry points us to the work of an economist who tells us that the diet of the slave exceeded the daily dietary requirements of 1964. We contrast that with the statement by Frederick Douglass that under was his child hood companion. We also look at the condition of the slaves described in many slave narratives. When we look for other sources for diets of enslaved people, we find that the diets were monstrous.
We do not give Conservatives the moral authority to say that we trust their every utterance. Finding flaws in the curriculum proposed by DeSantis is a natural human reaction. Questioning sources provided by a Conservative is also a natural human reaction.
At the risk of talking out of school, I will post BEFORE I read the full article. I contend that this statement... “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” is NOT problematic. That is a fact. (It might be inelegant in its construction. It might insult our sensibilities, given how we *feel* about slavery. Those are beside the point.) Hell, it is a fact the slavers often took slaves from Africa because of their skills. The slaves then applied those skills and could have, in fact, sold them in a market-based system. That does not mean that chattel slavery was a jobs program! That does not mean that chattel slavery was a good thing. That does not mean that the lives of these skilled laborers were improved by them being kidnapped and brought to America. Both can be true, i.e., they could learn things that were applicable outside of the slavery paradigm AND they could be victims of horrible, systematic racism-based brutality. I hope I conveyed the appropriate nuance. I am relatively certain, however, that either way, I will be "reeducated" by other posters. I look forward to it! If I feel differently after reading the piece, I reserve the right to amend my views!
here is my overall concern , some of the arguments are not about redress and reform but about delegitimizing the american project and enlightenment values and slavery and racism are an excellent cudgel to do it.
I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.
If he is open to it, I would love to see Kevin Kruse, history professor at Princeton, on The Glenn Show. He was recently interviewed by Thor Benson from WIRED.
Kruse is partisan; very much on the Democrat side. So no, he's not unbiased. But in my experience, he's intellectually honest. Provocative? Yes. A liar? No.
He said this about Mr. Allen:
"Allen is a partisan player. He’s an academic, but he’s a political scientist. He has no background in history. He has no expertise here, and it shows."
If this is true, we should know about it.
Slightly off topic, but disturbing to my mind. One of my children is a teacher in an "average" high school in the western Chicago suburbs. He says that high school students have to take one year of US history, usually during the 11th or 12th grade. Currently, the regular course covers the years 1900 to the present. The colonial period, Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Reconstruction are all skipped in favor of more recent events. Regular students only learn about the earlier periods in middle school. The exceptions are the few students who take Advanced Placement US History, which covers the earlier periods and continues to the present.
The narrative restricted solely to unending victimization is among the most racist of all.
The story is anecdotal, but the results, I suspect, applied to a lot of people during and post-Slavery.
https://www.tiktok.com/@garrisonhayes/video/7265364474612239659
I didn't *personally* fact-check, but this content creator is generally pretty solid with his arguments.
Just putting it out there.
Dr. Wilfred Reilly, a poly sci professor at Kentucky State, an HBCU, responded to the controversy on Twitter by saying that some of the slaves who had learned skilled trades were able to earn and keep money from applying their trade and that some of them were able to use said money to purchase their freedom.
I am not at all a fan of Ron DeSantis, but I thought him challenging VP Harris and any history expert of her choosing to debate him and his expert (whom I believe is one of the people who set the curriculum and happens to be black) was a savvy move and kind of a surprisingly reasonable one for DeSantis.
I wish people were as pissed off at kids not being able to read or do math as they seem to be over the content of AP history courses. Kids need to grow into adults with critical thinking skills, yet much of the debate seems to be over which ideology to uniformly imprint on all of them, rather than how to better develop the skills to sort things out on their own, like adults are supposed to be able to do. We're failing a great many of them.
Speaking of Florida, why are some of its high schools removing Shakespeare from the curriculum?
There is a closely guarded secret that has been deliberately buried by mainstream media and historians: After the Civil War (and during the war), millions of freed Black people were funneled into concentration camps in America and killed through forced starvation, and other means.
Many of these locations were called “contraband camps”, and they were hastily built internment camps that were generally in proximity to Union army camps. One gruesome camp, in particular, was located in Natchez, Ms. The Devil’s Punchbowl is a place located in Natchez, where during the Civil War, authorities forced tens of thousands of freed slaves to live in these American death camps.
Researcher Paula Westbrook said, “The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave ’em shovels and said bury ’em where they drop.”
“When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez. The population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight,” Westbrook said. “So they decided to build an encampment for ’em at Devil’s Punchbowl which they walled off and wouldn’t let ’em out,” Don Estes, former director of the Natchez City Cemetery, said.
In Natchez, Mississippi alone, officials estimate that in just one year, over 20,000 free Black people were killed in the concentration camp called The Devil’s Punchbowl-- SPMG Media
Here is the Lost Cause education that Florida students will receive via Prager U
This is their lesson on Frederick Douglass
Conservatives will cheer
https://twitter.com/davidhth/status/1688623282096926720?s=57&t=l8XxLtAy7PR0pMVSwGllUQ
Here is the link to the standards, which everyone who has an opinion should read for themselves.
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf
I ran this by a distinguished black historian who is a friend. It was a private communication, so I am not stating his name, but he knows his African American history better than almost anybody. While he thought the offending phrase could have been a bit better worded, he basically agreed with Glenn's remarks at the beginning of this post. Beyond that, he thought it was a surprisingly broad section on African American history. Far more than he was taught in the 60s or his children were taught in the 80s. Unlike most commentators in the press, he looked at the rest of the history curriculum as well and was pleased to see that it works to infuse black history into every other part of the curriculum too.
Lots of very good comments here. But a few from people with very big chips on their shoulders. So big the weight is dragging them down. I haven't noticed that in Glenn's comments sections before. I don't always look in, so maybe it's more common than I thought. If so, it's too bad.
Dr Cherry points us to the work of an economist who tells us that the diet of the slave exceeded the daily dietary requirements of 1964. We contrast that with the statement by Frederick Douglass that under was his child hood companion. We also look at the condition of the slaves described in many slave narratives. When we look for other sources for diets of enslaved people, we find that the diets were monstrous.
https://www.sciway.net/afam/slavery/food.html#:~:text=We%20know%20today%20that%20active,by%20his%20ration%20of%20corn.
We do not give Conservatives the moral authority to say that we trust their every utterance. Finding flaws in the curriculum proposed by DeSantis is a natural human reaction. Questioning sources provided by a Conservative is also a natural human reaction.
Sorry - it's "Be nice".
Kipp dropping "Work hard. Be kind." is the saddest thing I've read in a long time.
At the risk of talking out of school, I will post BEFORE I read the full article. I contend that this statement... “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” is NOT problematic. That is a fact. (It might be inelegant in its construction. It might insult our sensibilities, given how we *feel* about slavery. Those are beside the point.) Hell, it is a fact the slavers often took slaves from Africa because of their skills. The slaves then applied those skills and could have, in fact, sold them in a market-based system. That does not mean that chattel slavery was a jobs program! That does not mean that chattel slavery was a good thing. That does not mean that the lives of these skilled laborers were improved by them being kidnapped and brought to America. Both can be true, i.e., they could learn things that were applicable outside of the slavery paradigm AND they could be victims of horrible, systematic racism-based brutality. I hope I conveyed the appropriate nuance. I am relatively certain, however, that either way, I will be "reeducated" by other posters. I look forward to it! If I feel differently after reading the piece, I reserve the right to amend my views!
here is my overall concern , some of the arguments are not about redress and reform but about delegitimizing the american project and enlightenment values and slavery and racism are an excellent cudgel to do it.
I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.