American History Quiz.

[kpete]

[Mister Ed]

1. Ssshh. In many states, they're working to make it illegal to mention these facts in school.

Keep it on the down-low. If you don't speak of it, then it never happened, right? And isn't still happening...right?


bitter

[KS Toronado]

5. Yep, all their screaming about Critical Race Theory

Is really Erase Race History

[Tadpole Raisin]

2. To continue...

Have been shot in the back (from any distance & with no weapon), been stepped on, ‘kneeled’ on and suffocated right up to the present day.

Really, what are they complaining about?

Thank you for posting this!

[rurallib]

3. That there looks like the kind of radical liberal commie socialist stuff

that good Muricans on the right are trying to stop

[world wide wally]

4. Brilliant

[intheflow]

6. Yes, except for #2.

Assuming a start date of 1619 and an end date of 1865, Black Lives were enslaved for 246 years, not 400. Say Black Lives have been subjugated, say they've been subject to generational trauma and disruption. But that one point will nullify the whole thing for racists looking to argue with this. I love the idea of this all around, but enslavement is not the same as being disenfranchised, and I am pro-not giving racists any fodder to argue with. I mean, they'll argue with the truth, but their arguments can be disproved by the truth. And the history of Black lives in America is horrific enough without embellishment.

[SunnyATT]

12. Unfortunately "Slavery" did not end for Black Americans in 1865.

"Black" codes, vagrancy laws, and the criminalization of Black Americans existed long after the Civil War. In 1865, lawmakers amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery "except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". The crime often was no written proof of a permanent resident or employment. Black men, women, and sometimes children were picked up, locked up, and put to work as prison laborers under horrific conditions. A slave had monetary value to the owner, a prisoner none and death from exposure, malnutrition, or exhaustion was not uncommon. A book written by Douglas Blackmon, "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans" was featured in an enlightening PBS documentary that covers the period from the Civil War to WWII. Some could argue that "modern day slavery" still exists as companies like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, AT&T, et alia continue to profit from prison labor.

[intheflow]

14. No. Enslaving people ended in 1865.

Last edited Thu Jul 22, 2021, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Everything else you listed falls under disenfranchisement, racism, etc. The 13th Amendment was obviously a way to continue cheap labor, but the fact that prisoners are paid (a sickeningly paltry wage, but still) enables naysayers to truthfully argue that slavery ended. I'm well aware of how oppression (including school-to-prison pipelines, housing inequities, etc.) has continued and impacted Black people emotionally and economically, but words mean things and "incarcerated" and "prison wage" ? "enslavement." Even the term "wage slave" (an oxymoron that doe not in anyway equal literal enslavement) needs the qualifier "wage" before "slave", and also applies to all lives because there is no legal statute saying Burger King can only hire Black people, and indeed, outside of cities, most of those jobs go to white people because they ran all the Blacks out of town.

[zipplewrath]

17. You're right

It's best not to over state the facts for fear of undermining the larger point. I'm not crazy about the last point because all manner of people could be violently attacked for "addressing" the wrong upper class person. Romeo and Juliet is a "timeless" classic specifically because of this point. I understand the whole Emmett Till aspect of the assertion, but that is really a larger part of the whole lynching philosophy of the time. I.e. that black people were subject to the "judgement" of any white person, at any time, for any issue, without consequence.

[intheflow]

22. I'm confused.

Romeo and Juliet were rich kids from political families (i.e., "nobility" ). Neither family had social status over the other; to wit, from the prologue: "Two households, both alike in dignity." Romeo and Juliet is in no way a story of classism. Maybe like if Barron Trump and Sasha Obama inexplicably fell in love. (Not that the Trumps and the Obamas hold the same societal base, but it could be argued both families are theoretically wealthy, high social profile, and "warring." )

Lynching Black men for talking to white women is because of racism, not classism. When we hear the word "lynching," we don't think of Latino or Asian bodies, nor Native Americans. Lynching is so associated with Black Americans, there's even a famous song about strange fruit hanging from trees.

[TimeToGo]

20. You are correct

Lots of bad stuff has happenend go black people since the civil war, but slavery ended in 1865.

We would jump down the throat of right wingers (rightly) if they made that kind of error and made that claim.

We can do better. It isn’t hard and it doesn’t hurt the overall point.

[LiberalArkie]

7. Native Americans fit most of those also.

Natives were not US citizens until 1924.

[txwhitedove]

8. Thank you! I was about to give the same answer.

[Snackshack]

9. What happened...

To Native Americans living in this country is every bit as bad if not worse. They didn’t even get a mention in the constitution and from the end of the Civil War into the 1900’s were systematically rounded up and hemmed into dead patches of land that they could not sustain themselves on or they were just annihilated.

[intheflow]

10. Don't forget their children were also taken from them and sent to "Indian" boarding schools.

And we know that was inhumane and heartbreaking for their families and communities, often resulting in abuse and even death for the kids.

[Marcuse]

13. The Constitution does mention Indians.

[link:https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ751642|

The phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" appears in both Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. This essay examines the phrases "excluding Indians not taxed" and "subject to the jurisdiction" of sections 1 and 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment as they apply to Indians. This essay, through analysis of constitutional and legislative history, will demonstrate that "tribal" Indians were purposefully excluded from citizenship. The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly defined "tribal" Indians as "Indians not taxed," as not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This essay delineates the jurisdictional links between taxation and citizenship and discusses how the courts have repeatedly misconstrued the pertinent phrases. Solid arguments will verify that acts which imposed citizenship on all Indians, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition against tribal Indian citizenship, are unconstitutional. Finally, this essay substantiates that "Indians not taxed" was defined to mean that "tribal" Indians are not taxable as long as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe in any degree and hold tribal allegiance in any degree. (Contains 125 notes.)

[malaise]

11. K & R

for truth

[crickets]

15. K&R for visibility.

[moondust]

16. The Shining City on a Hill

"Ye shall teach the children that everything is beautiful," sayeth the GQP. "It's the law!"

[Red Mountain]

18. Good line of reasoning....

if you think they can be reasonable.

[onethatcares]

19. thank you

n/t

[Tommymac]

21. K & R for A n/t

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread kpete.

[The Jungle 1]

24. 400 years

I can honestly state I did not know it was that long.
I can also state that this number was not taught in my high school American history class. Wonder why not?

[YoshidaYui]

25. How about how MUSIC has forever changed in America??

Last edited Fri Jul 23, 2021, 09:36 AM - Edit history (3)

How about Sports forever changed in America??