COMM MOVED TO !historyphotos@piefed.social
Peter (fl. 1863) (also known as Gordon, or "Whipped Peter", or "Poor Peter") was an escaped American slave who was the subject of photographs documenting the extensive keloid scarring of his back from whippings received in slavery. The "scourged back" photo became one of the most widely circulated photos of the abolitionist movement during the American Civil War and remains one of the most notable photos of the 19th-century United States.
MAGA: What did he do to deserve that?
“Ok, well it wasn’t illegal, but he should have known better”
"He benefitted from it because he learned useful skills."
Is there a /s tag that also conveys absolute disgust?
He just did that to make President Trump look bad!
Also MAGA: keep that out of the Smithsonian, we don’t want anyone to think slavery was bad or anything
The park service was ordered months ago to remove anything that made Americans in the past look bad. They had to display QR codes at all parks so citizens could report signage that made Americans look bad.
Internal reports are full of visitors complaining about how signage makes the Confederacy look bad or how the signage at a historic plantation focuses too much on slavery.
It's wild
I'd be tempted to write a complaint that the signs asking for people's opinions on things that make America look bad makes America look bad. It's a legitimate complaint too.
MAGA: Why did he make them do that to him?
"To be fair, which country didn't have slavery" and brutalize them, so it was completely fair for the time.
or
"The Africans themselves sold the slaves" Were we not supposed to buy them and use them as property? Are you serious?
or
"They now live in the best country in the world, you're welcome"
He should have complied!
“Toughened him right up, made him a man of principle and character!”
Didn't support Israel.
So, after I saw Trump's remarks on Slavery yesterday, I turned to my 8 year old and asked him "was slavery good or bad?"
And he was surprised by the question and said "Bad. Definitely bad." And I asked if he had to think hard about that answer at all and he said "No... Why would anyone think slavery was good?" And I responded with I am trying to figure it out myself.
Trump doesn't see humans. He sees property.
As much as I hate to say something that has any possibility of being interpreted as defending Trump, I don't think he was trying to say that slavery was good (I'm referring specifically to his "museums talk too much about slavery being bad" comments from the other day). I think he was attempting to express, in his haphazard and thoughtless manner, a belief that is widely held among certain people, specifically white rural people. Namely, that focusing on the negative takes away from the positive.
Now, I don't agree with that sentiment but I do think it's helpful to understand the intent, or at least how his base is likely to interpret such comments. You and I probably share the belief that understanding history in all of its ugliness is necessary to both appreciate how we got to where we are and prevent us from making similar mistakes in the future. His base doesn't care about any of that. All they know is that talking about slavery makes them uncomfortable so they would rather ignore it. It's not as much about glorifying or whitewashing slavery as it is about avoiding discomfort. A lot of the time they will end up doing one of the first two in order to avoid the topic but that appears to me to be a simple attempt at justifying their desire to avoid the subject entirely.
I see where you're going with this and I accept the possibility Trump is just clumsy and avoidant on the issue.
But you must be aware that there is a strong belief amongst MAGA types and deep conservatives in general that slavery was benign if not beneficial to those subjugated. D'Souza wrote a whole book about it.
They believe liberals exaggerate the bad parts of slavery due to irrational white guilt and black people agree because they are whiners and want reparations.
I strongly suspect this plays into Trump's rants regarding museums and history curricula.
Yeah, I don't think so. He is trying to erase white guilt which is the only thing that is holding back a lot of people from wholesale attacking minorities.
What your saying is a gross simplification and not at all what the goal of this all is. His administration is literally trying to erase history and roll back whatever meager protections anyone other than white males enjoy.
This also is about people not receiving consequences for their actions. Trump has never received any consequences so why should his country. It is a denial of reality. The US is not a place of systemic racism when clearly it is.
Trump may be a bumbling old man but this is straight out of the white supremacist's playbook.
I don't disagree with your assessment of Trump and his goals, or at least what the goals of the people he's surrounded by are. However, I've been talking about how I believe most of his base pereceives his comments which is usually pretty different from what he's literally saying. His base hears what they want to hear in whatever he says and in this case I think that is "I don't need to force myself to confront an uncomfortable topic" not "slavery is good".
I see your point about what some people may think about what he has said.
No one is forcing anyone to confront the horrors of slavery, what is happening here is they are trying to erase it. You literally have to go to a museum and look in the specific section about slavery to see a watered down version of what happened. Even this apparently is too much though.
So while he may be whitewashing the debate with statements like we focus too much on slavery being bad (which we don't and also it was very bad) the reality is the administration is busy erasing history by using its clout to remove historical references to minorities and women.
Damn WOKE Lemmy … where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.
~PS. /s~
Right, I mean what about all the benefits that black people received from being slaves.
Also /s because we live in a shitty timeline.
When France colonized Africa and Asia, it was to build roads and schools for them, to free woman from the barbaric Islamic veil. And we only did nice things:
/s I hate that we have similar politicians trying to reinstate colonization propaganda in school programs
destroy any pre existing system to replace it with a better system for colons
Like high fiber diets?
The one I had in mind was the destruction of Vietnam's previous teaching system to replace it with colonial schools. It resulted in a lot less alphabetization of Viet people. Also, the roads that were built were just pipeline from plantations to ports to have the resources exported as fast as possible.
I don't know about high fiber diets
alphabetization of Viet people
..?
I don't know about high fiber diets
That was just a joke based on "colon"
ccording to Tran Duc Thao, Viet Nam had a school system that provided very high alphabetization of the people. After the colonization, the old school system was wiped out and replaced by a colonial system...
That was just a joke based on the typo "colon"
I am tired
Given that alphabetization means to order by letter of the alphabet, this doesn't clear anything up for me.
Pictures like this had the same radicalizing effect to Northern liberals as the photos of starving Palestinians have on US/UK modern day liberals.
Incidentally, the IDF has been systematically targeting and assassinating journalists throughout Gaza and the West Bank.
Well over 200 journalists have been murdered by lDF at this point.
Fuck Israel, genocidal scum!
Why are we always talking only about the bad effects of slavery when there were so many good?
/s if not obvious.
It's that damned Smithsonian. Always talking about how bad slavery was, none of the upside.
Think of all the cheap cotton!
Florida teaches that slavery 'allowed black people to learn important trades valuable in their later years'. Seriously. Yes. They do.
I wish we could know is real name. He should be remembered for who he is. Not who he was branded as.
I watched the movie about him, it was pretty nice. It's called "Emancipation"
Jeez that is brutal.
What, nothing about success‽
And people claim there's a god watching over us who set this world up
Not to mention he supposedly made the people that did this and loves us at the same time. Yeah right.
What is even more disgusting is thay a while ago some fascists claimed that this was actually a black African slave rescued by Europeans to showcase the brutality of Arab slavery.
They literally tried to bullshit on one of the most documented photographs of the US civil war.
Man.. wtf.
Reminds me of one of Denzel's best performances in the 1989 movie "Glory"
All have to have this to my list. Idk how I missed a move with a cast like that.
Hey, at least he learned a lot of valuable skills, amirite?
Please tell me that the /s is obvious...
Yeah, most slaves actually super enjoyed the experience and wanted to keep being slaves when the North got them all fired
Also /s
Orange turd says slavery should be taught in schools as a positive thing. Fucking retard asshole.