Critical Race Theory.

The Boston Tea Party was a critical event leading to the Revolution. I genuinely dont know what the Boston Massacre is but if its when English soilders shot into a crowd of innocent people those events that led to the Revolution are a big deal in history class because we live in America. Not having an argument beyond.

The important issues of race are detailed in history class. The negotiations between the states on slavery and the laws of how to count slaves and events leading to the Civil War like John Brown

 

Its a shame that events like Tulsa get lost in time. It's up.to us to keep their memory alive. Tulsa as many blacks died that died was just a historical event

6,000 Texans died in the Hurricane of 1900. Its a critical event in the history of Texas.

Its not taught about in school not even Texas History class

 

They aren't individually pivotal to history. The plight of black people up through the civil rights movement is well covered including violence against blacks

 

Somewhat tangentially related - this series of blogs (I’ve posted the link to the first and the rest are linked at the end of that one) a fantastic read on the history of white supremacy and it’s function as a unifying mythology for America. I know that 2nd part is likely to work up a number of you, but the history part of this is really educational - you can learn a lot without necessarily accepting the author’s premise.

https://www.politicalorphans.com/a-post-racial-america-its-better-and-worse-than-you-think/

 

Its not a pivotal event because its one neighborhood in Tulsa in the midst of well known violence towards blacks. Im not arguing against it being taught, its not necessary.

 

I was never taught anything about the Baker-Fancher party, or really anything related to Utah history. Westward expansion was largely just a generalized coverage of covered wagon trains, Oregon Trail on an Apple IIc, Lewis and Clark, and the Donner Party as relates to whites. There was a bit about the Chinese working on the railroad and a unit or two on Native Americans (Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, a couple of major tribes like Sioux, Commanche, and Pueblo).

 

That’s not always been completely true and the blog talks about this. For centuries, most Europeans had little to no contact with non-whites, and so those nations banded together based on other mythologies (Catholicism vs Protestantism was a major one). Prior to the US Civil War, Anglo Saxon Protestant supremacy was as dominant a mythology as white supremacy. Catholics from Ireland, for example, were loathed almost as much as blacks (though obviously they weren’t subject to anything as heinous as chattel slavery). Basically, the white in white supremacy took a while to reach the form that it did in post Civil War America.

Another topic that the article points out is that the South was populated by a fair number of Royalists (aka the Cavaliers) after the English Civil War, and their particular set of values clearly influenced much of the Southern “chivalry” and later many of the arguments used to defend slavery.

There is a lot covered by these blogs and you should give it a read. The author used to write a blog for the Chronicle called “Building a Better GOP” (he was a Jack Kemp Republican) and after moving to Illinois, was the chair of his local Illinois Republican Party. He resigned when Trump received the official nomination for President. I am a big fan of his Political Orphans site even though he and I are rather far apart on economic philosophy.

 

That's a glaringly huge caveat, innit?

Post civil war changed an implicit worldview (legal generational slavery... Humans as property) into a challenged and taboo practice(total abolition).

To anecdotally claim Baptists feeling more superior than Presbyterians was more prevalent than the thought of whites being more superior to slaves they beat around without a fear or worry about from God or the law is an incredible leap of compartmentalisation...almost tone deaf to the victims during that age's zeitgeist.

There are plenty of accounts of how northerners treated freed blacks after emancipation. It wasn't because they read kkkraker scribbles from ye old posting board and thought "this David Duke fellow is convincing... Making me drop me hate for the Poope lovin limeys and Italianos. White Powar!"

This was always about money/power. Imperialists used any and all forms of slave or cheap labor to the brink of exhaustion and beyond, where the church mostly looked the other way. When white humanists got their way and abolished slavery, it became focused upon cheap labor where share croppers could even end up worse than they were under slavery.

In the North, former looked down groups were allowed to rise up institutionally like law enforcement or union representation. Owners and leaders, cognizant of socialism/communism spreading across old Europe, divided the working classes by focusing it all on race. It's far easier to extract profits when winners and losers were created among them. Irish need not apply... Because the freed Blacks took yer jerbs! Quite a Masterclass to twist a potential common point of bonding or empathy (wage suppression and exploitation) and flip it into a desperate zero sum grab for survival.

So there wasn't a prevalent ideology of white supremacy. It was as baked in and innate as "blood and lineage" masked as "heritage and tradition". They assumed these ideas were so true they used nascent science with those assumptions as implicit conclusions.

That doesn't mean whites are evil or it's cultures are stained. Every culture has that implicit pride, the leftover baggage we all have to deal with. But we worship our Founding Fathers and that "success story" that it opens ourselves to blind spots we choose to ignore and allow to fester.

And the debate continues...

 

You’ve actually spelled out pretty much what the blogs do (at least on that particular subtopic) although you seem to have gotten the impression that I said something counter to it. That’s not the case at all.

To be clear, I’m only countering the idea that white supremacy as a dominant, all-permeating worldview is something that’s been eternal since the dawn of civilization (or even the dawn of European civilization). That’s not the case, though to be clear, it’s certainly not due to the people of those times’ enlightened view of African Americans as equal - it’s because there were practically no black people in many societies. So the societal boogeymen role fell on others and consequently structural bigotry (laws, traditions, etc) targeted other groups.

That’s all I’m saying here. Read the blog.

 

I remember being taught about the Galveston Hurricane several times in history class. In middle school even had one of the last survivors of the hurricane speak at my school.

 

Doesnt change my point. This was a common story among race riots in those days. Black man gets accused of sexual assault resulting in race riots. You can single out Tulsa if you want but the point im making is sadly it isnt unique to the time period.

There were race riots when Jack Johnson won the heavyweight title. While it would certainly be beneficial to highlight Tulsa the bigger history lesson is it was a violent period in American history

Tulsa would be beneficial as an example of a race riot

Again my point is its nothing wrong that this particular event isn't taught about.

 

I wrote a few things. What in particular is wrong? There a lot of tragic events that get lost in the course of time.

That doesn't mean they should be taught in history class

 

well that's embarrassing. although I suppose he was put on the spot with such an unexpected question