• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Slavery was invented in the United States (Allegedly)

Graham2001

Graduate Poster
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,743
Some more nonsense courtesy of the 'Science Adviser' for Coast2Coast AM...

“Most of my students could not tell me anything meaningful about slavery outside of America,” Pesta told The College Fix. “They are convinced that slavery was an American problem that more or less ended with the Civil War, and they are very fuzzy about the history of slavery prior to the Colonial era. Their entire education about slavery was confined to America.”

The full article (from a blatantly right wing source) is below:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29719/

A less biased source confirming/disproving this would be welcome.

Though I would say that the story does fit in with many jokes told about the United States education system and with the way many Conspiracy Theorists seem to think the World ends at the continental borders of the United States.
 
Or much of anything else.


On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three out of the 32 correctly identified him as president. Interestingly, more students— six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.
 
I take it someone hasn't read the Bible.

While I don't consider the Bible to be a history textbook, the above is a classic example of students not being encouraged to use their school library to supplement what they learned in class.

I still have vivid memories of pouring over the history section in my school library and discovering the Byzantine Empire and Justinian's attempt to reconquer the Western Roman Empire, none of which had been covered in my history courses.

I also found this while poking around online, it is from a site set up by someone who was interviewed on an early episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe and which dates from around 1994 (The latest of the textbooks mentioned dates from 1993).

n the year 869, a group of slaves rose in a great rebellion against the Abbasid empire -- an empire whose territories now form Iraq, Kuwait and parts of Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. For fourteen years, the slaves fought their Abbasid masters in the marshlands of what is now southern Iraq. And in the end, they were crushed. Their leader's head was paraded through the streets of Baghdad, and their uprising became nothing more than a bloody footnote to the history of Islam.

Not even as a footnote, however, does the uprising appear in any of six world-history texts that I have examined during an inquiry into the treatment of slavery in schoolbooks...


...


Viewed in one way, this omission may not seem grave, for the rebellion in 869 had no lasting impact on the development of Islam or on the overall course of history. Viewed in another way, though, the omission illustrates a serious failing of all the books in question, because the slaves who staged that rebellion were blacks. They had been imported from East Africa to drain marshes and to toil under conditions as bad as any that would exist, much later, in Brazil or in Mississippi or on the Caribbean islands

http://www.textbookleague.org/35slave.htm
 
Why is this a problem? If kids knew stuff they wouldn't pay good money to go to college.

History is just made up stories about stuff. We can't go back and verify any of it. And besides, no one is going to graduate with a degree in slavery. It's not like corporate America is clamoring to hire a fresh crop of slavers. That job title got automated away long ago.
 
Serious question, SG: What are you trying to say?

I can think of no way to parse your sentence that makes any sense in this context.

It made perfect contextual sense to me.

Both the old, and new testament are full of references to slavery.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority of the students in question, have had some exposure to these texts.
 
That's generally frowned upon in U.S. schools these days.

What makes you say that?

My understanding is that some states still encourage the teaching of creationism.

This link details the hundreds of schools that are allowed by their state to teach creationism.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

All schools, regardless of funding sources, are allowed to teach the history of religion according to this ACLU statement.

https://www.aclu.org/other/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools
 
Last edited:
It made perfect contextual sense to me.

Both the old, and new testament are full of references to slavery.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority of the students in question, have had some exposure to these texts.

I dunno. It kinda seems like you and SG are criticizing American college students for a) being unfamiliar with the Bible, and b) not accepting it as an accurate historical record.

I mean, maybe if the story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt was given as much weight in high school history curricula as is the story of Africans enslaved in America, these kids would get to college with a much more complete picture of slavery through the centuries.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's starting to look like that's what you're saying: Kids should pay more attention to the Bible as literally true, and maybe schools should do a better job teaching the Bible to them as literally true.
 
What makes you say that?

My understanding is that some states still encourage the teaching of creationism.

This link details the hundreds of schools that are allowed by their state to teach creationism.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

All schools, regardless of funding sources, are allowed to teach the history of religion according to this ACLU statement.

https://www.aclu.org/other/joint-statement-current-law-religion-public-schools

We're not talking about the history of religion. We're talking about the history of slavery. There's a huge difference between teaching the bible as a record of stories some people used to tell each other, once upon a time; and teaching the bible as a literal account of real stuff that actually happened, and that should form a part of the student's accurate and complete world view.
 
Bible: as in one of the best known texts in the world. Who doesn't know there are many stories of slavery in the Biblical record?

The point was, you'd have to have been raised in a box to not know slavery has been around for thousands of years.
 
I dunno. It kinda seems like you and SG are criticizing American college students for a) being unfamiliar with the Bible, and b) not accepting it as an accurate historical record.

I mean, maybe if the story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt was given as much weight in high school history curricula as is the story of Africans enslaved in America, these kids would get to college with a much more complete picture of slavery through the centuries.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's starting to look like that's what you're saying: Kids should pay more attention to the Bible as literally true, and maybe schools should do a better job teaching the Bible to them as literally true.

That was a fair effort to put words in my mouth.

My post simply said that, "I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority of the students in question, have had some exposure to these texts."

We are discussing students in the mighty, Gawd fearin' U S of A.

Good point about the teaching of American history over religion. :thumbsup:

Only, it would seem to be a moot point, given the topic of this thread.

We're not talking about the history of religion. We're talking about the history of slavery. There's a huge difference between teaching the bible as a record of stories some people used to tell each other, once upon a time; and teaching the bible as a literal account of real stuff that actually happened, and that should form a part of the student's accurate and complete world view.

Bible: as in one of the best known texts in the world. Who doesn't know there are many stories of slavery in the Biblical record?

The point was, you'd have to have been raised in a box to not know slavery has been around for thousands of years.

Hope that clears things up for you.
 
Last edited:
Serious question, SG: What are you trying to say?

I can think of no way to parse your sentence that makes any sense in this context.

In terms of the thread title "Slavery was invented in the United States (Allegedly)", the United States has only existed since 1776. The Bible, in particular Leviticus, talks about slavery, and it predates the creation of the USA by at least 1400 years (Council of Nicea was in 325 AD).

ergo, the United States did not invent slavery!


ETA: But if you want a reference without the bible, there was slavery in the British Isles since at least the 5th century AD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles
 
Last edited:
I can think of no way to parse your sentence that makes any sense in this context.

I read it as a problem with minimal cultural literacy. I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of god, but in order to believe slavery was invented in the United States, you never even watched The Ten Commandments. Or Spartacus, for that matter.
 
Some more nonsense courtesy of the 'Science Adviser' for Coast2Coast AM...



The full article (from a blatantly right wing source) is below:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29719/

A less biased source confirming/disproving this would be welcome.

Though I would say that the story does fit in with many jokes told about the United States education system and with the way many Conspiracy Theorists seem to think the World ends at the continental borders of the United States.
Well, they seem to think the world of evil ends at the continental borders of the United States, anyway.
 
I wonder how many students would be surprised to hear that there are over twice as many slaves in the world right now than the entire number of African slaves shipped to the US over a 350 year period. Not surprising when the latter is all they ever hear about.
 
Is that what you're saying? Because it's starting to look like that's what you're saying: Kids should pay more attention to the Bible as literally true, and maybe schools should do a better job teaching the Bible to them as literally true.



The hell?

Whether the stories in Genesis and Exodus are literally true, the Bible still functioned as a code of laws for an entire early people for hundreds to thousands of years. Not only that, but it was considered a very modern, benevolent code of laws by its practitioners. So, the hundred or so laws about how to keep, treat and free slaves represents a crucial historical document.

And other ancient codes/myths likewise give us insight into the longstanding human problem of slavery. I don't think anybody has to believe that the flood was literally true to believe that early Jews and just about everybody else practiced enslavement.
 
Some more nonsense courtesy of the 'Science Adviser' for Coast2Coast AM...



The full article (from a blatantly right wing source) is below:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29719/

A less biased source confirming/disproving this would be welcome.

Though I would say that the story does fit in with many jokes told about the United States education system and with the way many Conspiracy Theorists seem to think the World ends at the continental borders of the United States.

During the 17 century Britain and Ireland were regularly raided by African slavers and men, women and children taken to Africa to be slaves. (Mediterranean Europe was even worse, the coast was almost depopulated by the intensity of slave raids.)
 
I read it as a problem with minimal cultural literacy. I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of god, but in order to believe slavery was invented in the United States, you never even watched The Ten Commandments. Or Spartacus, for that matter.

Just to clarify, pretty sure I'm one of the more outspoken atheists on the forum.

Yes, this: "a problem with minimal cultural literacy."
 
I dunno. It kinda seems like you and SG are criticizing American college students for a) being unfamiliar with the Bible, and b) not accepting it as an accurate historical record.

I mean, maybe if the story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt was given as much weight in high school history curricula as is the story of Africans enslaved in America, these kids would get to college with a much more complete picture of slavery through the centuries.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's starting to look like that's what you're saying: Kids should pay more attention to the Bible as literally true, and maybe schools should do a better job teaching the Bible to them as literally true.
Dude, how long have you known me on this forum? And you think I was suggesting kids should be taught the Bible is true?

It still has some historical value. Knowing slavery existed for thousands of years is reflected in one of the most widely read 2,000 year old texts. The details need not be true anymore than any other ancient text is literally factual.
 
Just to clarify, pretty sure I'm one of the more outspoken atheists on the forum.

Yes, this: "a problem with minimal cultural literacy."

More to the point, if the article in the OP and the one from the Textbook League are to be believed then the problem may actually lie in the teaching of the history of slavery in the United States, without providing the surrounding history (eg the context) for it.

Combine that with the anti-intellectual cast of much of the (and I have no other words to use here.) 'Social Justice' movements and I can see both how this idea could arise and why students would be unwilling to look elsewhere to find additional information on the subject.

I mean, if there are students out there who have been convinced that simply encountering contradictory ideas will cause severe mental trauma, are they going to even bother to look for it.
 
That's generally frowned upon in U.S. schools these days.

I think that is demonstrably false. The Bible is not taught in public schools, but I, as an atheist, would take notice if my younger relatives said that it was "frowned upon." This is a falshood perpetuated by people who say that prayer is banned in schools. It is not. Watch any sport, you see young kids (and spectators) praying all the time.
 
I think it is troubling that young people in college still think that Ben Franklin was a president. It might be trivial to some, but if they think that, it exposes a lack of knowledge about what he WAS involved in. His contribution to USA history is relevant, so if they don't know the history of his contributions, that implies that they don't know anything about Jefferson, Adams, etc.

ETA: I was getting off topic, but as to the OP, the USA certainly didn't invent slavery, but they were late to the party forbidding it. It sincerely makes me sad that no one reads anymore.
 
Last edited:
I take it you've never been to the mighty, Gawd fearin' U S of A.

I haven't. I'm not sure of your point though. Latest studies tell me that ~30% of current college students identify as having "secular" beliefs. The rest identify as being religious, or "spiritual".
 
I will admit to not having read the article, but most U.S. High School students only have to take American History classes to graduate; World History or other History courses are usually optional.

So yes, I can see that in an American History class the concentration (for whatever time it is given in the school year) will be on what happened in the USA in regards to slavery, not the long and unpleasant history of the practice throughout time. Which for those students who don't pick up a book outside of class, might lead to conclusions which are in error.

I'll do that much to defend my once-upon-a-time profession, the Franklin as President is all on them...but if I had to guess, comes from his picture being on the $100.
 
I will admit to not having read the article, but most U.S. High School students only have to take American History classes to graduate; World History or other History courses are usually optional.

Even in world history for most of it slavery isn't important. You learn more about roman laws and aqueducts than roman slavery.
 
Even in world history for most of it slavery isn't important. You learn more about roman laws and aqueducts than roman slavery.

My 1976 university 'Modern History' course (Arts elective in a science major) concerned itself with the period from the Renaissance to the Indistrial Revolution and included nothing about slavery.
 
My 1976 university 'Modern History' course (Arts elective in a science major) concerned itself with the period from the Renaissance to the Indistrial Revolution and included nothing about slavery.

Why would it? The focus is on the important people and issues and slavery just wasn't important.

It plays a much more important role in american history. This is also because slavery wasn't generally limited to one race.
 
I haven't. I'm not sure of your point though. Latest studies tell me that ~30% of current college students identify as having "secular" beliefs. The rest identify as being religious, or "spiritual".

If you had been, then you know that you're not likely to see much praying taking place in a public school.
 
I dunno. It kinda seems like you and SG are criticizing American college students for a) being unfamiliar with the Bible, and b) not accepting it as an accurate historical record.

I mean, maybe if the story of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt was given as much weight in high school history curricula as is the story of Africans enslaved in America, these kids would get to college with a much more complete picture of slavery through the centuries.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's starting to look like that's what you're saying: Kids should pay more attention to the Bible as literally true, and maybe schools should do a better job teaching the Bible to them as literally true.

Well, the Exodus account shouldn't be given as much weight as from all available evidence it is ahistorical and mythical, not reflective of actual events.
However the Bible rather explicitly is supportive of slavery. The early Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts, while they could be freed after seven years, there were ways to exploit it. Non Hebrews could be kept as chattel slavery.
Being familiar with the Bible would show that slavery has been a constant in human history, without needing it to be literally true.
 
What I have heard more often is that America invented the absolute connection between race and slavery. The theory is that all American slaves were black, and in some southern states, all black people were slaves, no free black people allowed.

I don't think that is completely correct, but it is perhaps less wrong. There was certainly a lot of black slavery in South America and the Caribbean, but I don't know whether or not that existed alongside free black people in the same areas.

Earlier nations had slaves, but tied slavery to warfare, conquest, and debt. They did not place entire races in the category of "slave", and often had mechanisms (sometimes very difficult) where slaves (or their children) could obtain freedom. Race-based perpetual hereditary slavery seems somewhat unique to the Americas.

Then again, there are those who also think Indentured Servitude was a colonial invention.. While "Indentured Servitude" includes a wide range of conditions from "probably not slavery" to "definitely slavery", I find it hard to believe that is was an invention of the British Colonies. My guess is that indentured servitude is nearly as old as book-keeping itself. Once some humans learned to make loans, other humans learned the hard way what it takes to pay them off.
 
What I have heard more often is that America invented the absolute connection between race and slavery. The theory is that all American slaves were black, and in some southern states, all black people were slaves, no free black people allowed.

I don't think that is completely correct, but it is perhaps less wrong. There was certainly a lot of black slavery in South America and the Caribbean, but I don't know whether or not that existed alongside free black people in the same areas.

Earlier nations had slaves, but tied slavery to warfare, conquest, and debt. They did not place entire races in the category of "slave", and often had mechanisms (sometimes very difficult) where slaves (or their children) could obtain freedom. Race-based perpetual hereditary slavery seems somewhat unique to the Americas.

Then again, there are those who also think Indentured Servitude was a colonial invention.. While "Indentured Servitude" includes a wide range of conditions from "probably not slavery" to "definitely slavery", I find it hard to believe that is was an invention of the British Colonies. My guess is that indentured servitude is nearly as old as book-keeping itself. Once some humans learned to make loans, other humans learned the hard way what it takes to pay them off.

Religion too. The first 'slave trade' to the caribbean from England were Irish catholic indentured servants - effectively slaves. This was a policy of the protestant commonwealth under Cromwell. The European slaves taken by Barabary slavers to Africa were legitimate targets as they were not muslims, conversion from christianity to islam could change status from slave to servant. this remains an issue in modern slavery in sub-saharan Africa.
 
Back
Top Bottom