What's taught to kids in school these days? Could be from a Twilight Zone episode!!

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
@GopherT

You got people passing laws in this country without reading them. Do you really think they want to "review" older laws to ensure they are not outdated? Some people just don't like paperwork. They like the illusion they are working. They let the courts settle the old laws.
I wasn't suggesting they did, I was only laughing at you (so I wouldn't have to crying at your ignorance) when you correlate slavery with hiding nickels on ones nose.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
There was a case of a dairy farmer in the Ann Arbor area many years ago where two mentally disabled men were kept in actual servitude to this guy who didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/31/us/neighbors-say-two-slaves-were-friendly-but-helpless.html

Wow, what a memory - thanks for pulling that one out.

I think it is great that the NYTimes and many other newspaper companies make these pre-Internet era articles available.

Quite a quote here...
''There is no state statute in Michigan that prohibits slavery,'' he said.​

Good thing a federal law existed.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Cry all you want. I've seen the government inaction.

I could have used the age of sexual consent in the example. I'm crying at the state of the nation.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
I was in a 3rd or 4th grade class and they probably started studying US history in that class as they had pictures of every US President hanging at the top of the wall, going around the room. This all seems normal but here is where I felt like I was in the twilight zone. Every picture was of a black man. The facial features and hair style were clearly identifiable as the president it depicted. The hair might not have been so white for the wigs on earlier presidents, and all had black hair when pictured without wigs.

At first I thought it was the lighting in the room, but really doubted that. I turned on all the lights and took a closer look. Yup, no doubt about it. These people had a complexion between Mr & Mrs Obama. I then decided to look at the names to make sure this wasn't something else but was really confused b/c I knew the facial features of many of the earlier presidents and a number in between that were unmistakable, LIKE JFK!!!!
If there were pictures of "every US President", then the oldest ones were hand drawn. A good drawing will include shading - something like this...

Now, could you describe the images in detail (photos, color vs black & white, line drawing vs gray scale vs ???).

And, how would you categorize these portraits?
Do you perceive the Andrew Jackson and John Adams to be different? Any others?


image.jpg
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
Some insane or arcane laws on the books still exist in these United States.
So your saying that my source was/is wrong? And that the cmartinez reference was correct? If so why would they need to pass a law in 1829 to end slavery? I don't understand the point your making.

According to the link by cmartinez, his champion(Fr. de las Casas) was actually partly responsible for the start of the African slave trade.
 

dannyf

Joined Sep 13, 2015
2,197
The greatest time is coming soon. Trump 2016!
that may very well be. I have had friends who had attended a couple trump rallies (in the northeast, of all places) telling me how crowded those venues were and how fired up the crowds were; i just saw videos of his trip to canfield, oh and i have to say that there is a disconnect between what's on the ground and what's on tv.

it would not surprised me if a brexit-like event takes place this side of the pound. that would be hillaryous, :)
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
that may very well be. I have had friends who had attended a couple trump rallies (in the northeast, of all places) telling me how crowded those venues were and how fired up the crowds were; i just saw videos of his trip to canfield, oh and i have to say that there is a disconnect between what's on the ground and what's on tv.

it would not surprised me if a brexit-like event takes place this side of the pound. that would be hillaryous, :)
A little more detail please.
 

Robin Mitchell

Joined Oct 25, 2009
819
@shortbus That law was added more because of "book keeping". What I mean is that slavery in the UK at this time was frowned upon and had been for hundereds of years. Also, even if you had a slave they could just walk away, thanks to King Henry the VIII
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
What I mean is that slavery in the UK at this time was frowned upon and had been for hundereds of years.
A lot of things that are "frowned upon" still happened. Take the institution of slavery, it was started(among the white population) in America by English settlers. And the slaves were brought to America and sold by the English for the most part. Did the slavers tell the slaves about Henry VIII's pronouncement? What I'm trying to get across is that other countries point at the US and say, "you guys had slaves". As if the other counties didn't.

And it still goes on today, even though it is "frowned upon" and illegal. http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,218
You should dig deeper. And do you really think "indigenous people" can't be slaves? Not all slave were African in origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexicans
Thanks for your posts, shortbus. It made me dust off my history books and "dig deeper", as you suggested.

There were several times in Mexico in which slavery was "abolished". The first one being stated de facto by none other than the monarchs responsible for the discovery of America themselves, King Fernando and Queen Isabel of Spain. History tells us that when an expedition to the continent came back and presented them with several gifts, a few natives that had been captured where brought before them, tied up and chained together. For this reason, the Queen was extremely angry and ordered them released immediately, because no human being should be made to suffer such humiliation.

Another instance of "abolition" was declared by their grandson, Carlos I of Spain (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor). But both cases that I've mentioned so far are not mentioned in the Wikipedia, nor could I find them after a Google search. This info that I'm sharing with you is the result of a very interesting talk that I had with a friend of mine who happens to have a degree in the "History of Latin Law". So I'm afraid you're gonna have to take my word for it.

The very interesting article that you linked me to, also mentions that one of Guerrero's predecessors, Hidalgo (Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, which according to our official history books is the "Father of our Patria", but according to the real registered history was in fact an opportunistic, ambitious, power-hungry, unscrupulous SOB), had also "abolished slavery" in 1810. This makes for at least four times in which slavery was abolished in my country.

So this information helps me clarify my point, which still is:
  • Slavery did exist in Mexico for all practical reasons, since many natives (but not all) were being taken advantage of by people of European descent.
  • Slavery never existed as a legal institution, since there were no laws regulating their treatment nor recognizing their existence.

Those several attempts at "abolition" were aimed at stopping the very nasty practice of the ownership of slaves, that existed as a de facto custom in several parts (but not everywhere) of the country.

Among many points that I'd like to mention, here are the four most relevant ones:
  • There were never any laws describing how to deal with escaped slaves, since they had no legal existence.
  • There have never been any "Reservations" where the natives were relegated to. The natives where free to roam about any part of the country that they wished.
  • Any Spaniard that became involved in a relationship with a native and had children with her (sometimes with him) was obligated by law to marry said native, and to give his last name to his children, who were immediately recognized as citizens under the law.
  • Mexico had its first native president (who was 100% native, with no European ancestry) in the person of Benito Juarez, in 1858. Which was something unthinkable in any other country in the whole American continent in those days. (I don't like Juarez much btw, but that's a different discussion).

Those were, of course, points that were aiming for an ideal, but in reality other things happened:
  • The natives were many times stripped and displaced from their lands.
  • They were subjugated by the Europeans who, although did actually mix with them and had many offspring, continued to subjugate them even after many generations of mixed-race descendantship.
  • They were, for all practical purposes, in many instances enslaved, or at best treated as third-class citizens.
  • And another interesting point that is not often mentioned, is that natives also owned slaves in many other parts of Mexico. And this custom dates from even before the Spaniards arrived into the country, and survived many years after. But that's another story.
So no, my initial point was never to say that "no bad things ever happened in Mexico". In fact, the whole American continent, North, Central and South, suffered many horrors that were inflicted by European immigrants. (and that were also inflicted by the natives themselves, even before the arrival of the Europeans)

As one final observation, I think that we need to learn history without judging it from a modern perspective, and look at it through the eyes of its contemporaries instead. Judging if humanity at the time was in fact progressing towards a better existence, or taking steps back into more savage times.
 
Last edited:

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
Like I said in my last post to robin Mitchell, my intent wasn't to point fingers at other countries but to point out that they all did the same as the US did, at times in their history. But in most history books, only the US is stated as slave holders. And the natives did it to individual tribes before the Europeans came.

And I agree about filtering history in the newer history books. There was a big flap and outrage over the state of Texas and their "new history" a few years ago. I've always been interested in early US history, and the things I was taught in school don't hold up when you read some of what was written by people in personal letters from the actual time it took place.
 
Top