Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Common core, as far as I'm aware, only really covers math and english. Science, history and other courses are still up to state or local discretion.

[Trekkin]

Common core, as far as I'm aware, only really covers math and english. Science, history and other courses are still up to state or local discretion.

The CCSSI does actually include a history and a science component as part of the ELAS CCR anchor, but they're more about process than content in that the learning objectives are about analytical skills rather than the recall of specific facts. That said, it's a fuzzy line between the CCSSI itself and the profusion of recommendations surrounding it, as many of the exemplar texts necessarily endorse factual history and science to much Deep Southern consternation.

[Karnewarrior]

God forbid people are reminded that their great-grandpappy fought for Slavery. 

[Frumple]

Treasonous great-great gandpappy that fought for slavery and had the temerity to lose, thank you very much. Scum sucking immoral disloyal ratfuckers didn't even manage to cash the check their traitor asses wrote *spits*

[Trekkin]

Treasonous great-great gandpappy that fought for slavery and had the temerity to lose, thank you very much. Scum sucking immoral disloyal ratfuckers didn't even manage to cash the check their traitor asses wrote *spits*

That does tend to be how it's taught, yes, so some degree of animus toward that narrative is perhaps understandable. I'm not saying the South was in the right at all, but when it's oversimplified into this Saturday morning cartoon story of enlightened abolitionist Northerners fighting to free the slaves from the evil slaveowning South, there's enough inaccuracy there for their descendants to whine about bias and how a "relatively small" percentage of Southerners owned slaves (okay, 20-49%) and the Northerners could be racist too and on and on until the backfire effect makes them Confederate loyalists all over again.

[PTTG??]

Between States Rights and Slavery, only one was protected by the Confederate constitution.

[Loud Whispers]

Between States Rights and Slavery, only one was protected by the Confederate constitution.

Neither really, because written constitutions protect nothing

[Rolan7]

Between States Rights and Slavery, only one was protected by the Confederate constitution.

Cute, but the Confederacy itself was a test case as to whether states had a right to leave.  Besides, they did outright guarantee extra rights for states in their Constitution.

I don't *support* those extra rights, but it's very alienating when people insist that it was purely about slavery.  Or even racism.  The Northern capitalists with their personal factory-towns didn't have some enlightened respect for human value, they just had a different business model.

And I wouldn't say "My great-grandpappy" fought for slavery.  People who owned slaves got exempted from fighting.  People fought for their states, or for the power of the Union over the states.  The correct side won, in my opinion, but... I dunno, I just think that Abolitionists *in the South* who risked everything to save people, are worth more praise than Northern power brokers who *finally* got backed into war.

[Kagus]

Mah great-grandpappy's house was part of the underground railroad!

The American one, not the Norwegian one. Norwegian great-grandpappy was a man who smoked while gumming chew.


Yes I have more than two great-grandfathers, but the other ones never really came up much in conversation.

[Trekkin]

Between States Rights and Slavery, only one was protected by the Confederate constitution.

Cute, but the Confederacy itself was a test case as to whether states had a right to leave.  Besides, they did outright guarantee extra rights for states in their Constitution.

It must also be borne in mind that just as the South called slavery a states' rights issue, so too did the North use abolitionism both to engage in epic whataboutism concerning their own racism and as a cause célèbre with which to justify punitive attitudes towards the South.

The Civil War was indeed about states' rights in that the root cause of the dispute can be traced to the Articles of Confederacy and subsequent replacement by the Constitution leaving unanswered certain ultimately critical questions of the autonomy of the states in the most volatile way imaginable. It was also about slavery, because it was the specific issue of states' rights that led to an absolute moral imperative in conflict with an equally absolute cultural and economic imperative and ultimately made compromise impossible.

[birdy51]

Well by gum, me grandpappy and me grandpappy weren't around for the Civil War, no sir, but I am sure that they were doing fine things in Germany. Oh, yes sirree yes. Alles gutes im Deutschland.

[MrRoboto75]

Well by gum, me grandpappy and me grandpappy weren't around for the Civil War, no sir, but I am sure that they were doing fine things in Germany. Oh, yes sirree yes. Alles gutes im Deutschland.

It was about countries' rights.

[SalmonGod]

This says exactly what I felt in response to most criticisms of Bernie in 2016, but wasn't able to express as coherently.

And it may be the most important thing to understand about politics right now.

[smjjames]

This says exactly what I felt in response to most criticisms of Bernie in 2016, but wasn't able to express as coherently.

And it may be the most important thing to understand about politics right now.

From the article: 'But I don’t want to be controversial, so let me make up a more sci-fi premise.
Let’s pretend there was a climate disaster that threatens extinction of life on the planet. '

@author: Nice sci-fictioning of Global Warming. And of course, later on it becomes obvious he's talking about Global Warming rather than something 'sci-fi'

[Trekkin]

This says exactly what I felt in response to most criticisms of Bernie in 2016, but wasn't able to express as coherently.

And it may be the most important thing to understand about politics right now.

From the article: 'But I don’t want to be controversial, so let me make up a more sci-fi premise.
Let’s pretend there was a climate disaster that threatens extinction of life on the planet. '

@author: Nice sci-fictioning of Global Warming. And of course, later on it becomes obvious he's talking about Global Warming rather than something 'sci-fi'

Unfortunately, the author stops one step short of the trick.  The real trick isn't to ask how to get there before you've decided to go; the real trick is to act like that's a trick so that your opponents stop doing it and then when they end up trying something actually impossible you can dismiss them as unrealistic at your leisure.

Put another way, had Trump actually announced his plan in 2018 to put people on Mars by the end of his first term, we'd have laughed because that timefame is impossible (all ultracrepidarian techno-pissant declarations of supreme faith in NASA notwithstanding), and we can prove it's impossible by showing that the set of available solutions is empty. How we can get there defines where we can feasibly think about going or what has to change, and you need that feedback loop to lead effectively.

The greatest trick Republicans ever pulled was teaching liberals that good governance is bad leadership.