Were you taught about the whites who voluntarily went to live in native societies (and the blacks who escaped to them), and who were forced to return? And about the laws passed by white communities forbidding their members from living in native societies?
I only ask because I wasn’t educated here, but had heard tell of the capture of whites you reference, but until recently had heard nothing of the voluntary aspect, and the involuntary nature of the return at times.
Yes, I think I was. I do not recall specifically where I learned it but I remember hearing about those things when I was younger.
Ahh.
Sure, if Christians want to celebrate their Christian heritage they are more than welcome to. Like everyone else I disagree with the slant the Texas Board of Ed is pulling out with this one, but I do think that Christianity was an integral part of our history and should be recognized.
Though I didn’t mean a dry list of dates, that’s kind of pointless. It’s far more interesting when you try to cover their narratives. Obviously you can’t tell every narrative, but it’s useful to let people know what various narratives were, particularly when you teach them about the dialectical conflict between narratives. That’s the very most interesting part of history IMO. The individuals do not survive for centuries but the narratives do, and the way narratives propagate through a semi-Democratic cultural process is simply fascinating to me.
You are in the minority then. That aspect seems to be ignored from speaking to people.
Where I grew up was in the Southwest so Native American issues was a much bigger part of my state history in New Mexico, so that might be part of why it happened that way. I didn’t learn about the Iroquois relationship much in depth until I was older and moved out East.
Maybe we can “blame” that on the lack of school prayer.
Indeed, and it was recognized in my school and in the history my daughters took. What isn’t recognized, and certainly won’t be in Texas, was the crucial role deism played in the revolution. Jefferson especially was able to enumerate rights from the natural god, while disavowing the supposed link between the Christian God and the king. In Europe at the time (and even today, to some extent) the power of government comes from God. The United States was one of the first western nations (if not the first) where the power of government came from the people and their natural rights. That’s pretty crucial, and very inconvenient to those claiming we are a Christian nation.
I don’t have any quotes or other info in front of me, but I’m willing to bet that opponents of womens’ suffrage and/or the womens’ movement of the 60s/70s at times cited Christian belief.
And there’s nothing wrong with teaching that they cited Christian belief.
But if you’re willing to teach that, you should also be willing to teach that slave-owners at times cited Christian belief.
There’s nothing wrong with mentioning Christianity’s role in history. What’s wrong is trying to give history classes a witnessing slant. That that could happen in these supposedly free united states (and that it apparently has happened in science classes there) is simply horrifying. Horrifying, I tell you, horrifying!
I’m not sure what role Deism, specifically, played in the founding. While the D of I can be said to be the product of a Deist (albeit of the monotheistic strain) it could just as well have been the product of common ground of devout religionists. I don’t think there is any way to determine this one way or the other at this point. A look at the personal beliefs of the actual founders would be helpful, though.
As far as the latter part of your paragraph, you omit or gloss over an important distinction. A crucial difference between the U.S. and European nations was that while their governments came from God, our rights came from God. Our government was through the populace, and existed in order to secure and protect those natural God-given, unalienable rights.
I think that, in combination with a less generous attribution to Deism (which I think is fair), argues well for this being founded as a Christian nation. One in which any religion may be practiced. But many states had officially established religions. This was fine with the founders.
[quote=“DanBlather, post:95, topic:503050”]
I think we are straying from the point here. If we are to teach that Christianity is the basis for American exceptionalism, then we have one of two choices:
No, it is absolutely true. We were the only nation that saw the rights of man as flowing directly from our Creator. And that the king (government) was NOT the source of those rights. As Voyager already mentioned, the U.S. differed from European nations in that the governing was born of the people, not handed down from God.
[quote=“magellan01, post:111, topic:503050”]
But the difference is not that we were Christian, but that we viewed that rights belonged to the people. You seem to say that in your post then contradict yourself.
ETA: In other words, what differentiated the US from other countries was not their religious philosophy, but their political philosophy.
Where do natural rights come from I wonder?
From the idea of a creator of all who/which has no favorites.
Sounds a lot like the Christian God.
Uhh, nature? Was that a trick question?
Really, nature creates rights? How do we discern the rights that nature provides us and why are so many other countries unable to perceive these natural rights that we so naturally deserve?
I mean I know what Thomas Jefferson would say, he would say that they are provided by the Divine Creator, but that’s sort of an appeal to Natural Law, which is a very Christian notion.
It’s actually a very humanist notion.
That tells me a name of a philosophy but not from where these rights derive. Where do they come from?
But not like the author of American Exceptionalism.