Florida indoctrinating it's teachers?

[Taxslave2]

I'm sure I'll get the "It's MSNBC thus not true".

That said, if it IS even a bit true, this is seriously bad for kids in Florida.

All I see is some kid fresh out of skool not liking Desantis fixing the damage several generations of lefty’s fave inflicted on kids. This girl is a prime example of that damage.
As best I can remember, all the founding fathers were prodistent and their idea of separation of church and state was to keep Catholic Church out of government because they didn’t like what they saw in Catholic countries in Europe.

 

[petros]

As best I can remember, all the founding fathers were prodistent and their idea of separation of church and state was to keep Catholic Church out of government because they didn’t like what they saw in Catholic countries in Europe.

Ummmm no. Record keeping, census, education, social programs, healthcare were all in the hands of Churches of all denominations.

 

[The_Foxer]

I did a look into it; first hit was this whole "Irish Slaves" thing, which is not true

It's true. Sorry but while some indentured people were treated as indentured, a very large number were simply treated as slaves. And frequently their children were straight up slaves if born in 'captivity'. (remember they were kept with the black slaves and any child was considered a slave).

If you put a fancy name on slavery - it's still slavery.

 

[The_Foxer]

Ummmm no. Record keeping, census, education, social programs, healthcare were all in the hands of Churches of all denominations.

Sure but that's not the same as actually having a direct say in the policy making.

And it's not the same as allowing christian values to influence elected officials decisions, which seems to be the point they're trying to make.

Personally i'm more Pro-COMPLETE-division, where religious ideology is completely kept out of the gov't decision making process. But in truth, that's probably not what the founding fathers of either of our countries intended. They probably more intended that the gov't should not influence the church itself or vice versa, not that the principles couldn't be respected.

 

[petros]

Sure but that's not the same as actually having a direct say in the policy making.

And it's not the same as allowing christian values to influence elected officials decisions, which seems to be the point they're trying to make.

The original intent of the term has been tainted.

Values were inherent when that was written as a reference to clerical aspects of the Church not values or influences.

 

[The_Foxer]

The original intent of the term has been tainted.

Values were inherent when that was written as a reference to clerical aspects of the Church not values or influences.

Well i guess that's what i was saying - there is a difference between Christianity and a christian church organization. The church and the state must be seperated, but that does not necessarily imply that the principles or teachings of Christianity should be ignored. Although truth be told i kind of lean towards the idea that they SHOULD be when it comes to gov't But i think the founding fathers accepted that distinction. Go gov't should be influenced by any religious organization, even if the teachings guide them in some of their decision making.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well i guess that's what i was saying - there is a difference between Christianity and a christian church organization. The church and the state must be seperated, but that does not necessarily imply that the principles or teachings of Christianity should be ignored. Although truth be told i kind of lean towards the idea that they SHOULD be when it comes to gov't But i think the founding fathers accepted that distinction. Go gov't should be influenced by any religious organization, even if the teachings guide them in some of their decision making.

An individual legislator's thinking (and voting) can be influenced by whatever fairy tale trips his trigger. He just has no business imposing his fairy tale on folks.

 

[petros]

An individual legislator's thinking (and voting) can be influenced by whatever fairy tale trips his trigger. He just has no business imposing his fairy tale on folks.

Ill remember that next time a pipeline or highway is being built across "sacred lands".

 

[The_Foxer]

An individual legislator's thinking (and voting) can be influenced by whatever fairy tale trips his trigger. He just has no business imposing his fairy tale on folks.

Well that's true of course, using the state to impose a religion on people would be pretty horrible too and is part of the division of church and state. As you say, he can vote how he likes.

 

[Taxslave2]

It's true. Sorry but while some indentured people were treated as indentured, a very large number were simply treated as slaves. And frequently their children were straight up slaves if born in 'captivity'. (remember they were kept with the black slaves and any child was considered a slave).

If you put a fancy name on slavery - it's still slavery.

Happened with Scottish miners as well. Dunsmuir in particular, treated his miners like they did in Scotland. Worse than slaves. At least slaves had a monetary value. He is largely the reason unions came to BC mines.

 

[Serryah]

It's true. Sorry but while some indentured people were treated as indentured, a very large number were simply treated as slaves. And frequently their children were straight up slaves if born in 'captivity'. (remember they were kept with the black slaves and any child was considered a slave).

If you put a fancy name on slavery - it's still slavery.

Fact check: First slaves in North American colonies were not “100 white children from Ireland”

Shared thousands of times on Facebook, a meme showing a black-and-white photograph of three white children in ragged clothing claims that “the first slaves imported into the American colonies were 100 White children in 1619, four months before the arrival of the first shipment...

www.reuters.com

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too (Published 2017)

Widespread memes used against African-Americans say America was built by Irish slaves whose history has been covered up. That’s false, historians say.

www.nytimes.com

Fact check: The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves

Social media claims that the Irish people were enslaved in the colonial Americas and treated as brutally as or worse than African slaves are false.

www.usatoday.com

Indentured servitude describes a system of labor by which a servant worked for four to seven years in exchange for passage to and food and shelter in the New World ( here ). Historian Alan Taylor explained that many of these indentured servants prior to 1620 “were forcibly transported either as unwanted orphans or as criminals punished for vagrancy and petty theft,” while after 1620 most were “technically volunteers” ( here ).


The life of an indentured servant was hard ( here ). Servants received severe punishments, and contracts could be extended for breaking a law like running away, or becoming pregnant. But although the system was harsh, it can’t be equated with the brutal system of racialized chattel slavery that came to dominate the American agricultural economy by the turn of the 18th century. Though some of the first enslaved Africans were initially treated similarly to indentured servants, slave laws passed in Massachusetts in 1641 and in Virginia in 1661 stripped blacks of any freedom they had been previously given.

Slavery in British North America and eventually the United States was not only a permanent condition, but a hereditary one passed down from mother to child ( here , here ). Considered chattel, enslaved people were bought, sold, and treated as property ( here ). This was not the case with indentured servitude, which declined in the second half of the 17th century as colonists made the full transition to African slave labor ( here, here, here ) Provided by the Library of Congress, collections of primary sources on American slavery can be found here .


But please, feel free to rewrite history.

 

[pgs]

Happened with Scottish miners as well. Dunsmuir in particular, treated his miners like they did in Scotland. Worse than slaves. At least slaves had a monetary value. He is largely the reason unions came to BC mines.

They brought the Hawaiians in for strike breaking , heads that is .

 

[The_Foxer]

First slaves blah blah blah

Irrelevant. Nobody said anything about this claim.

Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too (Published 2017)

Widespread memes used against African-Americans say America was built by Irish slaves whose history has been covered up. That’s false, historians say.

www.nytimes.com

Innacurate. You can determine the bias from the opening line where they complain that its' "Used against blacks". Here's a cited article showing that your article is simply an exercise in confirmation bias.

Irish Slaves in the Americas

Irish Slaves (Public Domain)When we think of slavery in America, we think of black slaves brought over from Africa. They were not alone. For a time the Irish were also enslaved. Some historian try to sugar-coat the practice by referring to them as 'indentured servants,' but this is a distortion...

virily.com

Oh and look - one of your sources specifically is debunked

FACT CHECK: Did America Have More Irish Slaves?

Slavery is a much older phenomenon than what developed in 17-19th century America. Many don’t realize that there may be more Irish slaves in America.

www.lombardiletter.com

It's common for those on the left, such as yourself, to feel the need to deny history and in fact rewrite it while claiming others are doing it instead.

Obviously you feel that if it's true it somehow takes away from the blacks slavery. It does not.

But lets be clear - you and the articles are spreading misinformation and lies for political reasons. The histories are quite clear. While not all indentured servants were slaves, many were and were treated the same or worse as any other slave (in america) and absolutely were slaves in practice.

Forced to come against their will, forced to live in horrid conditions and brutally beaten, 'technically' allowed to buy their freedom but paid so little if anything that they never possibly could. And it absolutely was generational, with their children with other slaves being owned as slaves as well.

but hey - lie to yourself if it makes you feel better.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's true. Sorry but while some indentured people were treated as indentured, a very large number were simply treated as slaves. And frequently their children were straight up slaves if born in 'captivity'. (remember they were kept with the black slaves and any child was considered a slave).

If you put a fancy name on slavery - it's still slavery.

I disagree. I sometimes hear of people from other cultures being "enslaved" in the U.S., by which they mean confined to the house and forced to work without pay.

That's not slavery. Two key differences between that and the chattel slavery practiced in the U.S. is that a chattel slave is just that. . . chattel. They are not regarded as human beings by the law. The owner can beat them, rape them, and kill them with complete impunity.

The other is that chattel slavery for Blacks in America was hereditary.

The specific reason that the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery AND "involuntary servitude" is that they are different.

That's the deal. Slavery is not having to work hard. It is not being flogged. Slavery is a legal status, and in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment, that status was "chattel," like a pair of trousers or a goat.

Indentured servants were treated harshly, as were the people who built the railroads. You could do things to an indentured servant you couldn't do to an employee. But indentured servants' legal status was "human beings" or "persons."

The people being held and forced to work are not slaves. They are victims of kidnapping and false imprisonment. If they can escape and contact the authorities, their captors will be punished and they will be free. If a slave escaped, the authorities would return him to his owner.

 

[Serryah]

It's common for those on the left, such as yourself,

Not on the left, specifically, but sure, keep thinking that

to feel the need to deny history and in fact rewrite it while claiming others are doing it instead.

Nah, I try not to deny history or rewrite it, I leave that up to the idiots who are uncomfortable, like DeSantis in Florida and those like him.

I rather prefer my history to be filled with as much accurate information as possible, regardless of how bad it is.

Obviously you feel that if it's true it somehow takes away from the blacks slavery. It does not.

I agree, it doesn't, don't know why you're making the ASSumption that I feel it does.

Point of fact, ANY slavery is wrong/evil/disgusting, etc... and while I can agree that there WAS white slavery at one point, in this specific instance, I'm waiting to see what Jin meant by it.

But lets be clear - you and the articles are spreading misinformation and lies for political reasons.

LOL - okay then.

The histories are quite clear. While not all indentured servants were slaves, many were and were treated the same or worse as any other slave (in america) and absolutely were slaves in practice.

Treated the same as, and worse, is not the point. The point is indentured servitude is NOT slavery. Now, did people who owned the indentured servant treat them LIKE Slaves - absolutely, I'm sure some did. Did those same people likely lie, cheat and betray the indenture contract between them and the servant? Absolutely, I'm sure many did.

But it's still NOT slavery.

Forced to come against their will, forced to live in horrid conditions and brutally beaten, 'technically' allowed to buy their freedom but paid so little if anything that they never possibly could. And it absolutely was generational, with their children with other slaves being owned as slaves as well.

Yes, absolutely, I can agree with this wholeheartedly.

But that "Technically" is still what makes the indentured person 'better' than a Slave, as a slave canNOT be freed, unless their master permits it somehow.

but hey - lie to yourself if it makes you feel better.

Well, considering your lies make YOU feel better, I'll try to do the same, then, since it works so well

 

[Serryah]

I disagree. I sometimes hear of people from other cultures being "enslaved" in the U.S., by which they mean confined to the house and forced to work without pay.

That's not slavery. Two key differences between that and the chattel slavery practiced in the U.S. is that a chattel slave is just that. . . chattel. They are not regarded as human beings by the law. The owner can beat them, rape them, and kill them with complete impunity.

The other is that chattel slavery for Blacks in America was hereditary.

The specific reason that the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery AND "involuntary servitude" is that they are different.

That's the deal. Slavery is not having to work hard. It is not being flogged. Slavery is a legal status, and in the U.S. until the 13th Amendment, that status was "chattel," like a pair of trousers or a goat.

Indentured servants were treated harshly, as were the people who built the railroads. You could do things to an indentured servant you couldn't do to an employee. But indentured servants' legal status was "human beings" or "persons."

The people being held and forced to work are not slaves. They are victims of kidnapping and false imprisonment. If they can escape and contact the authorities, their captors will be punished and they will be free. If a slave escaped, the authorities would return him to his owner.

Shh... your facts will make him unhappy.

 

[The_Foxer]

I disagree. I sometimes hear of people from other cultures being "enslaved" in the U.S., by which they mean confined to the house and forced to work without pay.

I agree that could be true of both slaves and actual indentured servants (although an indentured servant MUST be paid SOMETHING or it's more akin to slavery) so it's not in and of itself definitive on its own.

That's not slavery. Two key differences between that and the chattel slavery practiced in the U.S. is that a chattel slave is just that. . . chattel. They are not regarded as human beings by the law. The owner can beat them, rape them, and kill them with complete impunity.

For many stretches of time that also applied to irish indentured servants. As noted in some of the material i posted they were frequently tortured, burned and killed without any recourse or consequence.

The other is that chattel slavery for Blacks in America was hereditary.

it was frequently for the irish as well. If an irish IS had a child with a black slave (remembering they were frequently kept in the same lodging) then the child was a slave as well. That was not so automatically with 'regular' white people.

The specific reason that the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery AND "involuntary servitude" is that they are different.

The reason that they are included in the same amendment is that they can easily be functionally the same, and banning one without the other doesn't solve the problem.

The simple reality is that for large hunks of time and for many irish IS's the difference in practical terms was non existent. It would be like saying that the blacks who worked at farmer A's plantation weren't REAL slaves while the ones at farmer B's were - because farmer A would let the slaves buy their own freedom someday if they could save enough money. It wouldn't be an accurate statement. Both were slaves despite there being slight differences in the terms of their slavery.

I do concede that not all Indentured people were treated as or could be considered slaves, but many were and should be. And i feel that this sense out there that recognizing this horrid injustice somehow takes away from the horrid injustice of black slavery or that one has to be worse than the other is simply faulty thinking. Two things can be true at once. black slavery was horrible and irish slavery was horrible.

 

[The_Foxer]

Shh... your facts will make him unhappy.

You can always tell when someone knows their wrong when they feel the need to yap after their betters after having been shown to be wrong Sorry your 'facts' turned out to be false. But at least now you know better.

 

[Serryah]

You can always tell when someone knows their wrong when they feel the need to yap after their betters after having been shown to be wrong Sorry your 'facts' turned out to be false. But at least now you know better.

Yeah, TB does know a bit more about things than I do, it's why I pay attention more to his posts than others. I can learn a lot, even if sometimes I don't agree with him.

(Really you should take your own advice though, cause knowing shit is a good thing! )

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

it was frequently for the irish as well. If an irish IS had a child with a black slave (remembering they were frequently kept in the same lodging) then the child was a slave as well. That was not so automatically with 'regular' white people.

Wrong. The "calf follows the cow." The child of a female slave was a slave. The child of a male slave had the status of its mother.