“Let’s say… they just decide … ‘Oh, we’re gonna get rid of…history,” Kilmeade posed. “We got new history. This is America built off the backs of slaves on stolen land, and that curriculum comes in.”
“We don’t send them money,” Trump responded. “We would save half of our budget.”
So… Wait. I heard about the controversy with CRT, but what’s this? Are they really saying native Americans were treated fairly and slavery wasn’t a big part of the southern economy??
Gotta love how the faux host, Brian Kilmeade, is already implying that 'murica being built off the backs of slaves and stolen land is “new history” instead of factual history
I find there’s usually an angle, rather than the wholesale reinvention of history. So I wonder what they’re aiming for here? (Or really, is it a literal bare faced rewriting of history because that feels like a sad escalation)
If it were finding an “angle”, I suspect it’s going to be something like “native American tribes partnered with the colonies in their wars with each other, much of the land was bought in a voluntary way, only some of it was stolen etc”. And “it’s unfair to characterise the whole of America being built on slavery, state of Mississippi maybe, state of New York less so”. Or something like that.
I’ve no idea what numbers they’d pull out for either of these, or where the actual objective truth lies.
The “angle” is that slavery is very inconvenient for their world view. If you want to Make America Great Again you have to pick a time in the past when it was great. For most on the Right that means a time before the civil rights movement but for another huge segment on the Right it’s the time when the country was founded… They truly believe the Constitution was perfect after the Bill of Rights (when the 2nd Amendment was added).
So… Wait. I heard about the controversy with CRT, but what’s this? Are they really saying native Americans were treated fairly and slavery wasn’t a big part of the southern economy??
Gotta love how the faux host, Brian Kilmeade, is already implying that 'murica being built off the backs of slaves and stolen land is “new history” instead of factual history
I find there’s usually an angle, rather than the wholesale reinvention of history. So I wonder what they’re aiming for here? (Or really, is it a literal bare faced rewriting of history because that feels like a sad escalation)
If it were finding an “angle”, I suspect it’s going to be something like “native American tribes partnered with the colonies in their wars with each other, much of the land was bought in a voluntary way, only some of it was stolen etc”. And “it’s unfair to characterise the whole of America being built on slavery, state of Mississippi maybe, state of New York less so”. Or something like that.
I’ve no idea what numbers they’d pull out for either of these, or where the actual objective truth lies.
The “angle” is that slavery is very inconvenient for their world view. If you want to Make America Great Again you have to pick a time in the past when it was great. For most on the Right that means a time before the civil rights movement but for another huge segment on the Right it’s the time when the country was founded… They truly believe the Constitution was perfect after the Bill of Rights (when the 2nd Amendment was added).