Wisconsin teachers suspended after asking students how they would punish slaves

[Valjean]

But they would learn oppression
from the oppressor's point of view, no?

How would teaching kids history and critical thinking teach oppression? Oppressors are those who don't think, who accept the status quo uncritically.
Understanding the oppressor's point of view would be a valuable aid in discerning our own oppressive viewpoints.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But they would learn oppression
from the oppressor's point of view, no?

They too are repressed in the issue as the must follow the code or be punished themselves. What would you do? You don't have a choice.

 

[Augustus]

No way should we be presenting slavery with any sort of moral ambiguity whatsoever to impressionable minds. Especially if the "crime" that the slave is going to be punished for in the scenario is nothing but "disrespect." What another load of crap that is alone. "Disrespect?!" Seriously? Slave owners... get over yourselves. I feel absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone worried over singular acts of disrespect that don't result in actual physical damage (like libel/slander affecting business/income, or damage to reputation, etc.) ZERO sympathy. Get over YOURSELF. Or, more aptly... develop some freaking self-respect. You don't have any if mere words "hurt."

No way should we expose children to history without the stultifying filter of presentism where we assume people 4000 years ago should have instinctively viewed the world through the lens of 21stC liberalism?

This "lesson" (whatever the intent) reeks of stupidity all around. A huge lack of perspective in my estimation.

To me your lack of perspective is exactly why people should try to view history without the assumption that modern liberal values are the inevitable consequence of some form of historical teleology.

 

[Vinayaka]

It was a huge step in curriculum circles here in Canada to include slavery as part of studying Greece, as it was to include more indigenous studies in Canadian history. For years stuff was taught like all was hunky-dory, outright lies.

Even in my teacher training 50 years ago, there was silly stuff going on. Some of the old guard professors lacked plain common sense on a lot of stuff.

 

[Valjean]

No way should we expose children to history without the stultifying filter of presentism where we assume people 4000 years ago should have instinctively viewed the world through the lens of 21stC liberalism?



To me your lack of perspective is exactly why people should try to view history without the assumption that modern liberal values are the inevitable consequence of some form of historical teleology.

So moral principles have changed, or is it that expediency has changed? When slavery benefited the rich and powerful; when the economy depended on it, no-one saw the injustice in it.

I suspect future generations might find as much glaring injustice in today's 'modern liberal values' as we see in the ancients'. Few people measure their society's values against abstract moral principles. They're blind to what would seem obvious inconsistencies

 

[Revoltingest]

I suspect future generations might find as much glaring injustice in today's 'modern liberal values' as we see in the ancients'. Few people measure their society's values against abstract moral principles. They're blind to what would seem obvious inconsistencies

Thru a wormhole in time & space, a news item landed
on my computer.....
Protesters today toppled MLK statues.
"No one who ate the meat of innocent
animals should be celebrated!"

 

[Stevicus]

Protesters today toppled MLK statues.
"No one who ate the meat of innocent
animals should be celebrated!"

Not to mention being part of the Patriarchy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No way should we expose children to history without the stultifying filter of presentism where we assume people 4000 years ago should have instinctively viewed the world through the lens of 21stC liberalism?

As stated, teach them about the time period, sure. And let them know what slavery is/was. But do you honestly think we should do anything after that lesson besides explain all of the horrors that humans have gone through as a result of slavery? Do you think we should get them thinking on what kinds of punishment "slaves deserve?" If it's about ACADEMICS, then keep it to the facts. If it is about morals also, then don't get them to contemplate what punishment they think slaves "deserve" for idiotic things like "disrespect." That strictly goes against ANY moral teaching that is at all worth its salt on any level, in my opinion - which I am not at all shy to share. There's no good reason I can think of to get people to see slavery from the slaver's point of view. I, for one, do not, in any way, want people sympathizing with a slaver. I am unwilling to allow such notions to simply stand, unchallenged. And I don't care how innocuous YOU think it is.

To me your lack of perspective is exactly why people should try to view history without the assumption that modern liberal values are the inevitable consequence of some form of historical teleology.

I don't even give a crap about "modern liberal values." What I care about is not propagating the inane idea that it is actually even plausible to literally own another human being. As soon as one realizes that they themselves would not like to be "owned," then they should necessarily extend that idea to other human beings. To not do so is the influence of something like stupidity at best, sociopathy second best, and perhaps psychopathy or sadism at worst.

You see, I firmly believe that I am completely able and within rights (rights that function with absolute impunity against any and all other human beings' encroachment - such as my right to my own thoughts on matters) to come to whatever decision I wish about any and all issues, social, moral or otherwise. It just so happens that on the idea of "slavery" I land in a square marked "not on my watch." I don't know where you land, but it does seem you might like entertaining the idea, or something. I can't really tell. In the end, history can be taught and explained - but it should never become a discussion about what morally questionable things might actually be okay if we just look at it differently - maybe from the perspective of someone who lived and died a long time ago?

Point ultimately being - if we, as a society, value our current moral treatment of slavery as a "no no," then we should likely safeguard that by teaching our progeny that it is a horrific and demonstrably evil (man as pertains to man) institution. We should not present it in some morally ambiguous "Hey - people used to do this, things were different back then, so maybe?" scenario. Be direct in all language referencing slavery to indicate that it is not to be humored in any corner.

 

[Kooky]

They too are repressed in the issue as the must follow the code or be punished themselves. What would you do? You don't have a choice.

So do you learn oppression at school
by being oppressed
or by being the oppressor?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

They too are repressed in the issue as the must follow the code or be punished themselves. What would you do? You don't have a choice.

Umm... you ALWAYS have a choice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Umm... you ALWAYS have a choice.

If only the real world were that simple and easy. If only our ape brains made it just as easy to act is it is to talk.
"Do it or face harsh punishments" isn't much of a choice. Of course most people talk a big game they have choice and they are above doing that, bull. We know from basic psychology, sociology, and neurosciences it does not work like that. Rather, we can reasonably assume the pressure to conform will be great enough that you'll do as you're told.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So do you learn oppression at school
by being oppressed
or by being the oppressor?

Who's being an oppressor or being oppressed?
It's a question asking basically what would you be legally obligated to do in this situation. It's not even asking what you personally would do. Like when a Southern slave hunter came into the North. The law was the law, the slave hunters often had it on their side. What are going to do if you're a Northerner who's found to be assisting run away slaves? Your own family to think about. And then there are those social norms and expectations, and North or South black people are largely expendable and less than second-rate citizens.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If only the real world were that simple and easy. If only our ape brains made it just as easy to act is it is to talk.
"Do it or face harsh punishments" isn't much of a choice. Of course most people talk a big game they have choice and they are above doing that, bull. We know from basic psychology, sociology, and neurosciences it does not work like that. Rather, we can reasonably assume the pressure to conform will be great enough that you'll do as you're told.

I understand the supposed psychology, etc. But I think the ideal is that you do face the harshness, if only to make the next person who stands up to what they feel is wrong have a slightly easier time of it, or to gain a bit of backing to the idea that anyone can stand up at all. It's why the idea of a martyr even exists. Can't really deny that martyrs for causes are a thing - and they made their choice. They took their stand, regardless all the "psychological research" you could possibly muster. And yes, I know the anecdotes (exceptions) are not all (the rule), but they are something - and many of us hold that something in high regard for a very obvious reason.

I'd like to think I'd make my choices - even given grave consequences. I do try to be courageous in the face of what I deem unfair opposition. I do, and I will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd like to think I'd make my choices - even given grave consequences. I do try to be courageous in the face of what I deem unfair opposition. I do, and I will.

Everyone does.
And then the Nazis took over Germany. They find their survival instinct is kicks in strong. They discover they are human and despite their talk their brain screams to go along with it and take the path of least resistance. The fascist seize control, and those doing the talking learn they are just as human as the next person who talked but did not act.

 

[Augustus]

As stated, teach them about the time period, sure. And let them know what slavery is/was. But do you honestly think we should do anything after that lesson besides explain all of the horrors that humans have gone through as a result of slavery? Do you think we should get them thinking on what kinds of punishment "slaves deserve?"

The statement was not about 'deserve' but "A slave stands before you. This slave has disrespected his master by telling him ‘You are not my master’ How will you punish this slave?”

I think we should make people think about things like this. Most people assume that had they been around in the past they would have been 'one of the good guys' as their current moral framework would be self-evidently true to them even then. This is obviously nonsense, and people should be made aware.

Making any argument against punishing the slave would only make sense with an anachronistic application of contemporary morality.


If someone says 'I wouldn't punish them as it goes against their human rights' you get to teach them that such things didn't exist then and would have made no real sense. You would have been mocked as an idiot.

If someone said 'punishing for disrespect is cowardly', you can teach them that you would have been a social pariah in an honour society for doing that, and taught them about social conformity as a powerful force driving immoral behaviour.

I want people to think how they would act in such a society so they appreciate the one we live in today all the more.

What I care about is not propagating the inane idea that it is actually even plausible to literally own another human being. As soon as one realizes that they themselves would not like to be "owned," then they should necessarily extend that idea to other human beings. To not do so is the influence of something like stupidity at best, sociopathy second best, and perhaps psychopathy or sadism at worst.

Human history has shown it is very possible to literally own another human being, and it was not 'sociopathy' but part of the rational and ethical order of things to the people involved.

I want people to know this and think about this rather than spout empty platitudes.

Point ultimately being - if we, as a society, value our current moral treatment of slavery as a "no no," then we should likely safeguard that by teaching our progeny that it is a horrific and demonstrably evil (man as pertains to man) institution. We should not present it in some morally ambiguous "Hey - people used to do this, things were different back then, so maybe?" scenario.

If you value a world where slavery is a no-no it's worth teaching people about how, for the vast majority of human history, it was present in basically every society and that how pretty much no one thought it was morally problematic.

People should understand that a concept as artificial as Human Rights came from a particular set of circumstances and was not self-evidently true, natural to human civilisation or the inevitable consequence of 'progress'

I want people to know how fragile such things are rather than teaching people to be pompous and self-righteous simply because they had the fortune to be born in a different time and place and were socialised into a different set of values.

People should know how easy it can be for humans to become oppressors and society to become oppressive.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Everyone does.
And then the Nazis took over Germany. They find their survival instinct is kicks in strong. They discover they are human and despite their talk their brain screams to go along with it and take the path of least resistance. The fascist seize control, and those doing the talking learn they are just as human as the next person who talked but did not act.

And yet the choice still remains there, staring them in the face.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The statement was not about 'deserve' but "A slave stands before you. This slave has disrespected his master by telling him ‘You are not my master’ How will you punish this slave?”

Assuming that they must be punished. That's what your wording does, which is no better.

I think we should make people think about things like this. Most people assume that had they been around in the past they would have been 'one of the good guys' as their current moral framework would be self-evidently true to them even then. This is obviously nonsense, and people should be made aware.

I'd rather we let them know the horrid side alone, and let them make their decisions about it then. Show them the worst, and then let them contemplate whether or not it is worth it.

Making any argument against punishing the slave would only make sense with an anachronistic application of contemporary morality.

This is untrue. Otherwise it never would have changed. Obviously there was SOMEONE who "first" (hahahaha... what a joke) had the thought that there was something wrong with slavery. Perhaps there were a great many who didn't dare to speak up, because everyone was just so used to letting a-holes be a-holes. But again, the tide changed because there were marks on people's consciences FROM THE GET-GO.

If someone says 'I wouldn't punish them as it goes against their human rights' you get to teach them that such things didn't exist then and would have made no real sense. You would have been mocked as an idiot.

Once again - there were plenty of people at the very least THINKING against slavery. Even at the out-set. People seeing genuinely horrifying situations play out before them, vowing not to be like that slaver or slave-owner, and speaking against it, at least in secret, with some sympathetic ear. You think I am being naive to assert "modern" morality on these past times. I think YOU entirely naive to believe that these things were just hunky dory with EVERYONE. What a crock.

If someone said 'punishing for disrespect is cowardly', you can teach them that you would have been a social pariah in an honour society for doing that, and taught them about social conformity as a powerful force driving immoral behaviour.

I agree with this, teaching people about conformity and, with understanding, that they can be on the lookout for themselves going against their own principles would be a great thing.

I want people to think how they would act in such a society so they appreciate the one we live in today all the more.

You cannot assume how anyone would act. That is, quite honestly, insulting.

Human history has shown it is very possible to literally own another human being,

This is absolutely not true. Human history has only shown that it is possible for a person to literally believe that they are able to own another human being, and that, sadly, other human beings will back this notion up with them. In my estimation, it is even impossible to literally own a piece of land. There is what you can protect (or have protected for you) and there is what you cannot. There is no such thing as literal "ownership." Except, perhaps, in the case of one's own thoughts.

and it was not 'sociopathy' but part of the rational and ethical order of things to the people involved.

Any of those who witnessed the actual atrocities and did not feel the twinge of their conscience tugging at them were likely sociopaths.

If you value a world where slavery is a no-no it's worth teaching people about how, for the vast majority of human history, it was present in basically every society and that how pretty much no one thought it was morally problematic.

Again - this isn't true. "Pretty much no one." I don't buy it, and you have no evidence of such. You don't know the people's thoughts. There were plenty who helped in the underground railroad. Some slave owners even, who made sure they weren't among the worst of them, purposefully, and very likely because they understood how unfair the situation was.

I want people to know how fragile such things are rather than teaching people to be pompous and self-righteous simply because they had the fortune to be born in a different time and place and were socialised into a different set of values.

Ahh... so I am pompous and self-righteous, all because I would oppose slavery and ideas that it should maybe be entertained in some corner for the sake of "academia." Whatever you want to think. You are entitled to your own thoughts... I just don't have to agree. And I don't.

People should know how easy it can be for humans to become oppressors and society to become oppressive.

Believe me, even though I think as I do, I understand this idea very well. Again - assume as you will. I don't care how you think or what you think about me. I will continue to be as vocal against these kinds of things as I wish. And you can be as vocal against my attempts as you wish. We'll see who gets tired first.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And yet the choice still remains there, staring them in the face.

Yes, and some do.
My money is always on the bulk majority of the masses falling in line, more so once the torture and executions begin.
It's easy to talk. Most people do. Most people don't realize you don't know until you've been in that situation. I've not been in it, but I know from my education and situations of philosophical similarity that we just don't know until it's upon us. Many, probably most, do not back up their talk with action.

 

[Augustus]

This is untrue. Otherwise it never would have changed. Obviously there was SOMEONE who "first" (hahahaha... what a joke) had the thought that there was something wrong with slavery. Perhaps there were a great many who didn't dare to speak up, because everyone was just so used to letting a-holes be a-holes. But again, the tide changed because there were marks on people's consciences FROM THE GET-GO.

There's no actual evidence for this, and using the same logic everything we currently consider immoral was always known to be immoral "because there were marks on people's consciences FROM THE GET-GO".

Perhaps everyone also always knew it was wrong to eat animals as 'meat is murder' but they were just used to letting aholes be aholes.

You cannot assume how anyone would act. That is, quite honestly, insulting.

Of course you can. You can assume that almost everybody would fall within the boundaries of the typical range of morality in the society.

Assuming you would be some remarkable historical outlier is pure conceit, and why such thought exercises are important.

Again - this isn't true. "Pretty much no one." I don't buy it, and you have no evidence of such. You don't know the people's thoughts. There were plenty who helped in the underground railroad. Some slave owners even, who made sure they weren't among the worst of them, purposefully, and very likely because they understood how unfair the situation was.

You can assume that given not a single person actually wrote about it prior to the 4th C and that basically every society practiced it that it wasn't very common for people to be morally opposed to slavery.

Ahh... so I am pompous and self-righteous, all because I would oppose slavery and ideas that it should maybe be entertained in some corner for the sake of "academia." Whatever you want to think. You are entitled to your own thoughts... I just don't have to agree. And I don't.

No, I believe it is pompous and self-righteous to assume you would be some kind of historical outlier rather than being typical of the society you were born into.

Do you believe it remotely probable you would have been anti-slavery had you been born in ancient Babylon? Or would you most likely have been typical of the time and place?

Any of those who witnessed the actual atrocities and did not feel the twinge of their conscience tugging at them were likely sociopaths.

History and probability are greatly against this being true. It's not like people secretly believed in solidarity with a common humanity before such concepts even existed.

Believe me, even though I think as I do, I understand this idea very well. Again - assume as you will. I don't care how you think or what you think about me. I will continue to be as vocal against these kinds of things as I wish. And you can be as vocal against my attempts as you wish. We'll see who gets tired first.

Teaching people that they are morally special for holding the typical morality of the day but that everyone in the past was a 'sociopath' for holding the typical morality of the day is not the smartest ploy to avoid moral complacency if you ask me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's no actual evidence for this, and using the same logic everything we currently consider immoral was always known to be immoral "because there were marks on people's consciences FROM THE GET-GO".

Wrong again - as stated, the evidence is in the fact that things changed. They changed. They did. You can't deny that. It is history, and modernity in action. Done deal. The very fact that it changed means that people were swayed. Meaning that there obviously had to be a first, and more likely many minds already against the ideas. Had a mind never had those thoughts, then things wouldn't have changed. There would have been no need. So, at some point historically, there were people who were, personally, against slavery - even if they didn't act out against it directly. Hell - even The Bible (that much morally depraved pile of wasted pages) contains some understanding that it is not great to be enslaved. Hence the Exodus. Hence "Let my people go." The evidence abounds, honestly. The Golden Rule, when that was coined, intrinsically contains the idea that slavery isn't something that should be done. If you wouldn't want it for yourself...

Perhaps everyone also always knew it was wrong to eat animals as 'meat is murder' but they were just used to letting aholes be aholes.

Did I say "EVERYONE?" Nope. No I didn't. Which makes you hyperbolic - a form of strawman. And even then, therewere people even in antiquity who did find there to be an issue with killing animals to eat them. Hence the reason you had cultures develop who thanked the animal for their sacrifice. The understanding is there that there is an unsavory type of deed being done in the killing. That idea is ancient.

Of course you can. You can assume that almost everybody would fall within the boundaries of the typical range of morality in the society.

But not everybody. And that was my point anyway. You even used the qualifier "almost" yourself. That is tacit agreement with my point. You can't assume how a single individual will react. To lump them altogether with their respective "group", or "tribe" may be stereotypically "accurate" - that is, accurate only in approximation. But in the end, you can't be entirely sure. And even those people who were the standard would take offense at being called the standard in the way that you are so flippant about it. "Of course you can." We have a genius on our hands everybody!

Assuming you would be some remarkable historical outlier is pure conceit, and why such thought exercises are important.

Oh please. I'm not claiming to be the outlier - I didn't exist in history. All I am saying is that there were such outliers. Hence the reason we find ourselves with slavery being abolished from law. When the hell did I insert myself into the historical scenario at all? I have been talking about how I would handle and react to these ideas in the here and now - given this idea of teaching someone about the past. You really want to teach them AND walk the line of our current, modern moral standards (this is what I am advocating, by the way)? Then you have them think about slavery from the point of view OF THE SLAVE. Not the slaver. Not the master. Screw that. There is absolutely no reason for it. Have them view it from the point of view of the slave.

One of the smartest things I have ever heard is an idea about who and how one might go about formulating a fair/equitable society. And the idea is that you have the lawmakers, those in charge, those writing the charter think and assume that they are among those who would be the most underprivileged within the societal scenario being examined. Write your rules and laws with that perspective held firmly in your mind. YOU, however, are advocating the opposite. That it might be really awesome to formulate the standards for society from the point of view of, instead, the money lenders, corporate executives, stock brokers, etc. Again - I don't think it's a great idea, and I am telling you so.

You can assume that given not a single person actually wrote about it prior to the 4th C and that basically every society practiced it that it wasn't very common for people to be morally opposed to slavery.

So what? Appeal to numbers much?

No, I believe it is pompous and self-righteous to assume you would be some kind of historical outlier rather than being typical of the society you were born into.

Again genius, when did I insert myself into the role of a person from these past societies? YOU are the one who keeps insisting that I did this, or that I am doing this. I am stating that in the here and now, I don't want to see slavery given morally ambiguous treatment of any sort.

Do you believe it remotely probable you would have been anti-slavery had you been born in ancient Babylon? Or would you most likely have been typical of the time and place?

Uh... I have no idea. Never said I did. I live in this time. I live now. In modernity, and I don't want to see people being told to think like a master. Think like a slave. That's what I want. I (the modern person, who has the benefit of thousands of smarter minds having worked this all out before me historically) want you to think like a slave when you contemplate slavery. Done.

Teaching people that they are morally special for holding the typical morality of the day but that everyone in the past was a 'sociopath' for holding the typical morality of the day is not the smartest ploy to avoid moral complacency if you ask me.

I am for everyone using their own morality to judge "the way forward" for themselves, and the rest of us reviewing and peer-testing each others solutions and coming up with what we think the best for the masses. And this includes using your past mistakes and the things you found to be bad or even horrible to gauge what you TEACH to your progeny as part of that way forward. Kind of like EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. What I am against is treating lightly those things that we have found to be "bad" or "wrong" or detrimental to our masses. Prescribing a view of things from the point of view of the slaver or master, instead of from the point of view of the slave is just not cool in my opinion, and I am telling you so.