Integrating History with Math goes wrong...

Slavery is not personal. No one alive today has ever been or owned a slave. I think people drag it on too much. I'm not making light of it. But it happened a long time ago. When are we going to let it go? Racism is alive, and always will be, I suppose, but thats not in the same boat as slavery.

It is like that book MegCanada mentioned. This issue is still alive today, I think it part of it is the way it gets treated, as something so terrible we can barely talk about it. Is it terrible? Yes. Should we avoid talking about it? NO! This wound will never heal if we dont.
 
Whenever we need to buy a new car, I usually do a fair bit of research. On one occasion, my shortlist included a model built by Volkswagen. To my surprise, my wife (who, like me, grew up in Britain) rejected the idea out of hand. Why? Because Hitler founded that company in the 1930s and it has a checkered past. Was her objection illogical? Was she allowing herself to be "enslaved"? After all, she didn't live through WWII, and her father was just a child back then. It was many decades ago. Will the "wound never heal"?

While I didn't understand my wife's reasoning, I didn't question it - and we didn't buy a VW. Sometimes we live with irrationalities based on history and the past of our ancestors, even though no one around us understands why. So be it. I'm not going to question those on whom a family history of slavery still casts a dark shadow. It's the way it is. It doesn't matter that I don't understand, and I shall try to be sensitive in my response. Ultimately, what harm is there in that? The alternative is unnecessary hurt feelings.
 
Cornish Steve said:
Whenever we need to buy a new car, I usually do a fair bit of research. On one occasion, my shortlist included a model built by Volkswagen. To my surprise, my wife (who, like me, grew up in Britain) rejected the idea out of hand. Why? Because Hitler founded that company in the 1930s and it has a checkered past. Was her objection illogical? Was she allowing herself to be "enslaved"? After all, she didn't live through WWII, and her father was just a child back then. It was many decades ago. Will the "wound never heal"?

While I didn't understand my wife's reasoning, I didn't question it - and we didn't buy a VW. Sometimes we live with irrationalities based on history and the past of our ancestors, even though no one around us understands why. So be it. I'm not going to question those on whom a family history of slavery still casts a dark shadow. It's the way it is. It doesn't matter that I don't understand, and I shall try to be sensitive in my response. Ultimately, what harm is there in that? The alternative is unnecessary hurt feelings.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is, however, that your wife would most likely not judge others harshly if they bought a Volkswagon. She would probably not protest outside a company, if they used Volkswagons in their fleet. She also wouldn't refuse to shop from an auto dealer, simply because they had Volkswagons on their lot. And I'm sure she would not insist that her children never set foot in a Volkswagon bus driven by a teacher on a school trip.

It's one thing to have a personal history that guides your actions. It's another when you try to impose that personal history on others, outside your immediate family.
 
That's all true, but we're discussing an incident in which teachers forced an issue unnecessarily on all students in a math class - a big majority of whom are from a minority community descended from slaves. It was injudicious to say the least, and I don't believe the hoo-ha about it can be put down to parents trying to inflict their will on others.

Far less so, actually, than parents who seek the introduction of prayer in public schools - which definitely falls within the scenario you present.
 
Cornish Steve said:
Whenever we need to buy a new car, I usually do a fair bit of research. On one occasion, my shortlist included a model built by Volkswagen. To my surprise, my wife (who, like me, grew up in Britain) rejected the idea out of hand. Why? Because Hitler founded that company in the 1930s and it has a checkered past. Was her objection illogical? Was she allowing herself to be "enslaved"? After all, she didn't live through WWII, and her father was just a child back then. It was many decades ago. Will the "wound never heal"?

While I didn't understand my wife's reasoning, I didn't question it - and we didn't buy a VW. Sometimes we live with irrationalities based on history and the past of our ancestors, even though no one around us understands why. So be it. I'm not going to question those on whom a family history of slavery still casts a dark shadow. It's the way it is. It doesn't matter that I don't understand, and I shall try to be sensitive in my response. Ultimately, what harm is there in that? The alternative is unnecessary hurt feelings.
Click to expand...

Your wife’s objection was more than reasonable and no she was not enslaving herself to a past that she didn’t experience. What she was doing was making a choice and standing by convictions to not fund a company that was created through dirty money. I am going to assume that your wife would still discuss Hitler and WWII with your children although she chooses not to fund a company that stands against her convictions.

Here is the difference, I am assuming the parents we are speaking about do not have a problem shopping at stores that white people opened and I am sure still drive cars from companies that were started by white people. What they do not want to do is explain slavery to their children. What are they going to do when their children are taught faulty information? What happens when ill thought out questions raise their heads such as the ones they just experienced? What are they going to do when their children hear about slavery at other times or read it in a book at home and ask questions?

Is it their choice to not discuss slavery with their children? Absolutely.
Yet, like it or not, slavery isn’t going to stop rearing its ugly head because it played too big of a roll in history and should be understood and our children can become better people from it, such as your wife. Having a proper knowledge of Hilter and WWII has helped her make a choice to not purchase a vehicle she believes was made through dirty means. To me, that is wisdom and knowledge, not self-slavery. Not wanting to discuss the past of our ancestors because it causes pain is self-slavery and breeds ignorance in our children. I pray that every American is pained from the past of slavery regardless of race, but rise above it and conquer, don’t hid.


Sorry for any major mistakes.:D I am in a rush to get out.
 
I was just thinking, part of the big issue parents had with this thing was the fact that they would have to adress the subject of slavery with their children.

Now, riddle me this: how can you send your child to school and NOT have to eventually deal with this subject. It is part of every history curriculum, is it not? Eventually every child is going to come in contact with this, unless you live under a rock.
 
MomToMusketeers said:
I was just thinking, part of the big issue parents had with this thing was the fact that they would have to adress the subject of slavery with their children.
Click to expand...
If that's how the matter has been reported, it's a little misleading. Some parents noted that the topic should be explained sensitively, by them, when their children are at an appropriate age. What they objected to is the school raising the issue way too casually to children who are just 7 or 8. It's not avoiding the issue. It's choosing the right time and place to explain perhaps the defining issue in their heritage. I can understand that.

Maybe a good comparison is the parent who believes sex education should be explained by them when a child is maybe 10 or 11. How would that parent feel if the school casually raised the topic when their child is much younger? Rightly, they'd be upset.
 
Cornish Steve said:
If that's how the matter has been reported, it's a little misleading. Some parents noted that the topic should be explained sensitively, by them, when their children are at an appropriate age. What they objected to is the school raising the issue way too casually to children who are just 7 or 8. It's not avoiding the issue. It's choosing the right time and place to explain perhaps the defining issue in their heritage. I can understand that.

Maybe a good comparison is the parent who believes sex education should be explained by them when a child is maybe 10 or 11. How would that parent feel if the school casually raised the topic when their child is much younger? Rightly, they'd be upset.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I guess this would take us into a whole new area for thought; what should schools be allowed to teach and not teach?

The one thing I am certain of is the fact that when we place our children in the care of a system for at least six hours a day, we give up some power and authority over what they will hear and see.
 
Emma's#1fan said:
The one thing I am certain of is the fact that when we place our children in the care of a system for at least six hours a day, we give up some power and authority over what they will hear and see.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The authorities decide what is appropriate for a child to hear and when - regardless of parental opinion. Sometimes the teaching is intentional; at other times, such as the example we're discussing, it's casual. Either way, parents have little say in the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top