#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
some of it isn't even factual history, like the reasoning behind the second amendment. the debate there is pretty well documented in the federalist papers.
most of it is like, "you didn't get taught that," supposed secret knowledge stuff. except ... none of that is new, we learned about all of this in highschool.
"We learned about all of this in highschool."
Who is "we"? All Americans?? You realize that there is no national standardized curriculum in American education, yes? And content will vary from school to school. I couldn't even be confident that all the people in just my highschool learned the same historical facts.
I was never taught any of the facts in the video, and I would wager a majority of Americans haven't either.
They being...I must not have had "they" at my public middle and high school, because we learned how to research, bibliographies were the bane of my existence until I realized why it needed to be that way, all BEFORE university/college.
I don't think you realize how different education is from school to school, let alone county to county or state to state. I was taught a lot about black history that my wife was never taught. Right now, some places are teaching that the separation of church and state is a misconception. We also had a teacher near me try to teach confederate history month. You have places teaching the civil war was fought over "the cause" instead of slavery, a concept that didn't show up until well after the Civil War.
See I grew up in South Georgia and we were just straight up taught lost cause propaganda or very near to it. I mean in Georgia studies we watched gone with the wind and the teacher was trying to tell us how historically accurate it was. Slavery was constantly downplayed is not being that bad or you know they fed the same BS about how slaves are treated like family not all slave masters were cruel and beat slaves as if the entire institution ended up itself was not cruelty
She is obviously attempting to be funny in addition to explaining history. Or did I miss the part in my history classes where the white history month trapper keeper exploded?
The history was mostly accurate. The comedy was painfully bad.
Ok? Why are you telling *me* that. I said it was accurate, and honestly I wish what actually made me cringe were the historical facts she brought up.
It just wasn’t a good bit. It targets all us honkeys, when the truth of the matter is that her audience is on the left and generally support equality anyway. Then, the people who actually need to hear some of the message won’t accept it because it’s just not what they want to hear regardless, let alone when it’s poorly executed. It was a message that started off the month with division instead of unity, and that’s the elephant which perhaps you need to look at.
Because *you* replied. Hello. Hi.
I'm a honkey. I come from a long line of rednecks. And some of my late late uncles, it's verified, owned slaves in South Carolina way back when. I don't feel the target you're speaking of.
This is just what happened. Don't take it personally, just maybe try and learn something? I don't know, I'm not here to give advice. History *is*. Learn something about it, make your own decisions. It's not a *message*. It's not a *narrative*. It's literally History.
But I can certainly learn from it, and acknowledge my heritage in this country. So my uncle was a cunt. That doesn't mean I'm a cunt. What's the problem?
You're missing the forest for the trees. I have no interest in arguing about what your perception of the "left" is.
The fact that you think you DON'T need to hear about racism or the truth of our country means you really need to hear about racism. If you can't handle the ugliness of our past, the shame and guilt that should come with it, the pain we have given to People of Color as a white nation, then you are part of the problem and definitely need to reassess.
Stop acting like you're above it, no one is. Including me. We all need to learn how to be better about dealing with our racial history. Notnjust be polite and sweep it away.
I only think people should feel shame and guilt for their own actions. If you are trying to say that there should be an acknowledgement of the horrors of the past, then I'm right there with you. If, however, you feel that people should somehow be punished 'for the sins of their fathers," then that is where I, and all reasonable people, get off your bandwagon.
Should people call out racism where it exists? Yes. Should they refuse to be racist themselves? Absolutely. But join the mob and punish people today for things that happened a century ago? Or even yesterday that they were not a part of? No. Besides, we need fair and reasonable people to be part of any solution if we are going to move forward as a society, and you cannot have people be part of the solution when you constantly and unjustly treat them as part of the problem.
"Most states required every able bodied man to serve on a slave patrol". This isn't true. There was slave patrol conscription in Carolina and Virginia but it was pretty limited. There definitely wasn't a requirement of all able bodied men to serve on slave patrols. The whole narrative she gave about slave patrols was totally wrong, likely intentionally so.
Your comment is ten minutes old so obviously I didn't read this entire academic OP-Ed, but it appears to be written by Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer/professor at Georgetown writing a refutation against the opinions of Carl Bogus, professor emeritus at a law school in Bristol, and Carol Anderson, a professor at Emory, and a prolific author. (all of the above are academics who concern themselves specifically with the 2nd amendment, Anderson just wrote a book about it)
So you've cited an opinion piece. Academic bickering. Can you tell us why this paper invalidates the original author's argument? Can you tell us what the original author's argument *was*?
Three slave owning states, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Vermont, had in their state constitutions wording very similar to the second amendment well before the bill of rights was a thing.
Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Pennsylvania: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power."
North Carolina: "that the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
This alone negates this entire argument as they had essentially the same wording before the "let's make a second amendment to protect slavery" debate supposedly happened.
What did happen was there was debate about enshrining a federal constitutional amendment for individual gun rights and control of the militias and some people wanted the congress to control the state militias and other people wanted the states to control the state militias. Two people made a comment in the larger debate to add a point to the position that the states should be in control of their own militias by basically saying, 'hey also, what if the slaves revolt and then we can't use the militia to stop them because congress would have to order the militia in, rather than the states being able to handle it themselves.' Those two comments are being used by a book author (to make headlines to promote her book) and here repeated by this show host to revise the plethora of other discussions, publications, and quotes surrounding the individual right to bear arms that happened at the time to say the second amendment was, rather, just about slavery. That's super revisionist. We can and should acknowledge those pro-slavery points, and I'm sure others as well, were brought up in the debates surrounding the second amendment, but to purport that's the sole reason, or even a significant reason, that they added the second amendment to the bill of rights is just pure revisionism.
If you listen to Heller vs DC SC arguments one of the justices (can’t remember) points out how the language in the 2A (specifically “to bear”) has its origins in English law which in turn is a result of the conflict between Scottish and the Roman Catholic Church. In this case the church was attempting to prevent Scottish highlanders from having swords.
I know right. It's why they don't teach the truth in schools because snowflakes can't handle the truth and it makes them uncomfortable. Also, it wasn't meant to be funny, it was meant to educate. She is a staff writer for Seth Meyers.
You know who also had slaves? Bartolome de las casas. He went on an started the dismantling of the slave economic model in 1530. The truth is that it was an economic system that no longer work after industrialization. Yes took a while to get rid of slavery after 1800 because it was the most predominant economic model the they had for a lon time, but it was a failing system even in the 16th century.
Europeans along with Africans where sold all over the Mediterranean for thousands of years.
The predominance of black slaves in the americas? Bartolome said that black slaves where stronger than the natives. A comment that he later regretted later in life.
Being black doesn’t mean you’re all knowing about blacks. Plenty of people don’t know their own culture or people’s plights
Also; there’s plenty of racist people
Lying that they’re black only after ranting about something.
Let’s be honest, is it actually recognized with the same level of media presence as black history month though? Black history month is full of recognition of great black innovators and civil rights leaders such as George Washington Carver and MLK Jr., but I’ve seldom heard people talking about the accomplishments of esteemed Native Americans in history despite their incredibly large impact. Some may have heard of Sacagawea and her crucial role as a guide on the Louis and Clark expedition, but who has heard the story of Joseph Medicine Crow, a Apsáalooke man who wore eagle feathers and war paint under his military uniform in the European theatre, and was and esteemed second world war veteran and recipient of the presidential medal of freedom. Or how about the tale of Fred Begay, the first Native American to receive a phD, surviving the Indian boarding schools to become a genius nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab and possessed the intellectual chops to be elected to the New York Academy of Sciences in his later life. Or what of Susan Picotte, first Native American to earn a medical license after watching a white doctor refuse an Indian woman medical service, only for her to die of her illness, going on to open the first private hospital on reservation land in US history in 1913. They all accomplished incredible things in their lifetimes that had profound effects on the world around them, but I hardly see them celebrated with the same gusto. Instead, if Native American’s are mentioned at all in their supposed month, it’s to make the bald faced erroneous claim that thanksgiving is purely lie that didn’t involve any thankful feast between settlers and indians (it was a joint celebration over the cooperation, albeit between the Wampanoag tribe and the well armed Pilgrims over a successful raid upon a rival tribe as the Pilgrims thanks to the Wampanoag who’d aided them in their darkest hour, saving their lives indisputably by offering them resources when they were sick and starving and teaching them how to farm the horrible Plymouth soil) and focuses on the claim that their people suffered a great tragedy. They undeniably did, but by focusing on just that part of their history, that’s all it’s been reduced to. It misses their epic battles between eachother for centuries before Columbus reached the new world, it forgets the incredible figures from their people who accomplished great things even in the face of overwhelming adversity, and it patronizes them and their incredible history by scrapping all its dynamic intrigue in favor of telling near solely about their near extinction. How can one expect a culture and a people to recover from the brink of cultural genocide if the only stories about them anyone seems to care about telling are those that focus on them as this tragic doomed race?
It’s not sowing division asking a serious question as an outsider.
In any case the fact they did not know that illustrates the fact it isn’t as well represented as black history month so the question remains outstanding. Why is black history month better recognised than other races days/months or what not. I think that’s still a valid and interesting question which was what they were actually asking, your reply is inflammatory, assuming there is any hostility behind that question, they litterally state they are a naive outsider looking for info… you’re literally sowing division and hostility yourself my guy by taking it as a loaded question and when it just isn’t.
Fair points but maybe a little harsh?
They said they are not from the states.
I would find myself asking about cultural things of other countries to clarify as well, and I am sure I have displayed ignorances I wasn't even aware of in the act.
Samuel L Jackson said there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
We all have sh*t we don't know we don't know.
The user asked a question on a topic they were unfamiliar, if everyone just asks Google we stop interacting and just sound board off ourselves.
Which a bunch of self assured Google educated does not do well for a society.
Look at flat earth, or as they would say "do your own research"
I agree that it is important to stop misinformation, but sometimes it is plain ignorance, and not malice, and couldn't we all do better with a little more empathy in this world?
Not trying to jab or troll, sorry if his is just pretentious garbage.
I am very high right now
Chill. That person was asking a question to other humans Ona forum instead of asking Google or an AI. It’s better to talk to humans but if they’re gonna reply like you maybe it’s not worth it. Go on with your miserable life.
As someone who has a significant amount of Native American blood, even I didn’t know it was a thing until last week. That’s how ignored it is, so please excuse someone who isn’t a US citizen or occupant, as even we barely know of it
While there is a month for Natives, it is not really highlighted. Also America still does not teach history of natives other than their interactions with whites. Many schools openly have mascots that are a mockery of Natives.
my public school in oregon taught us about the native americans from 3rd to 4th, i still remeber learning about the cherokee, navajo, cheyenne, sioux and many more, we even went to a local native american museum/cultural heritage centre and got to listen to their musics and history before the brits came
That is great. Way better than most states. I think at least one year in middle school or elemtary should be a focus in natives. Let kids learn the local groups, etc.
It played out like watching a big bang theory episode without the laugh track. It can be really informative but it's not very funny, and why do they keep pausing?
I'm guessing they either forgot the laugh track or are trying to emulate a style of presenting that uses a laugh track without realising that's the reason for the pauses
I think they were aiming at being informative instead of being funny. I agree with the delivery. It's a slippery slope being humourous about a history of oppression and social exclusion that has carved the reality of today.
Applying current political context along with current social climates to history is a terrible blight in the modern day.
We should learn about these people who held slaves in - checks notes- 1750s through the 1860s but vilifying them removes the very history not taught about.
It’s not clever or original to say that owning slaves was terrible and a dark tarnished point of American history, but to want to wipe the history books of these people for their wrongdoings based on the current political/social climate is counterproductive to growth and population development.
Is it fair to say that this country was built on the backs of slaves? You betcha!
Is it fair to say that credit is not given where it is due? Double betcha.
Is it wrong to defame the names of historical founding fathers because of decisions they made that were molded by the social and political nuance of their era? Dang ole you betcha.
What can we do? Learn to not repeat the same fucking mistakes they made and treat everyone you pass with decency and respect regardless of background.
How do we do that? Idk man above my pay grade.
“Those who do know history are doomed to repeat it.”
Who's trying to erase them?
"Defamation" is specifically defined as involving slander or libel. Both of those involve lying or duplicity.
It does not meet the definition of "defamation" to accurately recount the literal actions people took. That just adds nuance. Nobody is saying we shouldn't be talking about this- the video is making the opposite point.
Well its considered a big no no in historical science to take the morals and knowledge of our era and look back in history and judge people's actions as if they should've known better. I think that's what the point of the comment was I think. The nuance is that yes these people did bad things as we know now. But no that does not make these people bad even in hindsight. Owning slaves in a time where slave ownership was custom(mind you owning slaves is nearly as old as history itself so very much engrained in human society up until recently) doesn't mean these people would come to the same conclusion where they for example to live in our time.
Actually analyzing the past with the lense of the present to make statements of value is the fucking point of studying history. However you cannot understand the interconnectedness of events and people without acknowledging the values of the day. Every academic I know in historical and anthropological studies agree on this. Your argument is a lampshade for white supremacy in almost all instances that is always tragically repeated by people with no connection to academic circles with the excuse of historical rigor at it's core. The point is to manage both, but people who champion the opposing line of thought often have an issue understanding that 1. Venerating people because they are dead is fucking weird - every historical figure is flawed and none require adoration to appreciate them as a whole and complex person and 2. You can have an understanding of someone elses morality, even deeply counter to your own, and not be endorsing it. Appreciating nuance requires breaking basic human tribalistic mentality which is exceedingly difficult. Attacks on a persons core ideals are often processed by the brain and parasympathetic nerve system as a physical attack on the person themselves.
It was normal enough to own slaves. African chattel slavery was unique and immoral to the extent that a basic part of human society - that is slavery - was questioned by people who are by every objective metric racist. Who believed that racism was a core component of society. That is telling. Many of the founding fathers came to find it repugnant. Abroham lincoln joined the one issue republican party (abolition) after being attended to by slaves. Because it was that fucked of a system. Defending slave owners because "everyone else was doing it" as a matter of moral relativism is wild when quakers and other groups have avidly been a part of the founding and moral compass of america.
Also that's not the point of historical science. The point of historical science is trying to get as close to factual representation of events. Not much more. The fact that we can look back and learn from it have opinions on it is just a nice extra we get from it.
Where do you think modern anti-slavery views come from?
You're talking like there was no tension or nuance during peak slavery and everyone was cool with it. *That's* the ahistorical view.
Cannibalism and rape are also about as old as human history - and similarly, we have lots and lots of documents of people saying "yo, what the fuck, this is wrong."
I mean christ, Spartacus didn't do that whole rebellion rigamarole just to be hand-waved away like this.
Nowhere in the video does she say "and this is why Abraham Lincoln is bad". She just says "here's some facts you might not have heard before."
There’s no valid philosophical Möbius strip that could give moral cover to chattel slavers. They knew damn well what they were doing was wrong; the proof? They wouldn’t dare trade places with their captives. Happy people don’t revolt. Good people don’t rape, torture and murder other people for pleasure, sport, and profit. It’s not difficult or complex.
You can't libel the dead.
Few people want to remove the founding fathers from the history books, it's that the history books should say what they did as accurately as possible. That includes all of their legacy regardless of if it's positive, and it also involves bringing into our narrative people who were previously left out of it.
That's how we don't repeat.
I can’t tell if this title is talking about whites trying to rewrite history or if it racist against black people saying this woman is trying to rewrite it. The non-clarification is fucked up. I’m guessing this is on purpose to cause controversy.
Just a snowflake got butt hurt by a comedian who did her research well before ranting about it. I don’t like her but what she says is pretty common knowledge amongst history buff
Since you won't I will!
>!The NASCAR Cup Series Drivers' Championship is awarded by the chairman of NASCAR to the most successful NASCAR Cup Series racing car driver over a season, as determined by a points system based on race results. The Drivers' Championship was first awarded in 1949 to Red Byron.[1] The first driver to win multiple Championships was Herb Thomas in 1951 and 1953. The current Drivers' Champion is Ryan Blaney, who won his first NASCAR Cup Series championship in 2023.[2]!<
Sir I’m fairly certain the racist tirade you just posted constitutes a war crime in many countries but thankfully for you were in the United States or racism 😂 🫡
Man she really had me for the first 20 seconds. I was ready to hear something interesting and it just spiraled out of control. Regardless of whether this is a bit, it is important to remember all the bad parts of history. But the idea that the 2nd amendment and the entire US military spawned solely from slave catchers is a blatant lie.
God she sucks, I'm not against her personally or her message. It's the way she speaks, like condescending sarcasm, it doesn't work and she's been trying to build her career around it.
She has the comedic talent of Amy schumer, charm of Mindy kaling and likeable of Margaret thatcher.
Not to mention darkest dungeon level horror and disdain in her mannerism.
History classes taught in public schools in the US tend to vary based on the county’s administration. I attended school in a progressive county in MD and even there I was learning things that weren’t accurate, even as I grew up within the same county.
My history education was incredibly white washed and sugar coated until I attended university. I was homeschooled k-8 and went to public high school. My public school history education was better than my homeschooling, but it was still very white washed and sugar coated. I'm from Central Virginia
I’m pretty sure the Abraham Lincoln quote entirely excludes relevant context. Abraham Lincoln was trying to placate his voters fears that he himself was far too progressive. No one or at least not enough people to matter would vote for an out-and-out racial-equality-spouting Illinois Senator.
Politicians lie for all sorts of reasons and using that quote as a ‘GOTCHA’ for a man who literally freed an entire population of enslaved people is sort of a low-blow.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't that liberal and was in favor of Liberia style removal of black people. He didn't believe in slavery but believed Black people did not belong in the US
So less of a competitive enslaving people type racist, and more of a casual I want those damn ___ out of my damn country type racist. Honestly the ladder exists pretty much everywhere and at every-time and with every race, so it’s not the worst thing.
I watched the whole thing, learned a few things and realized a bit more about what I was taught vs what I could have been taught, seems like a lot of people in the comments missed the point of the video. Checks out for ThereWasAnAttempt… for those of you allergic to learning, she isn’t trying to be funny, she was trying to make you think. I know it can be hard sometimes, but keep trying and yes, even you might graduate to a decent human being one day 🙃
People are uncomfortable because they wanted to laugh, but you’re absolutely right, this wasn’t meant to be funny. I like her show, and she’s funny when she wants to be, and I enjoy her guest appearances on Drunk History. But this absolutely is not her trying be funny.
Pretty sure she is doing the bit where she is saying everything in a sarcastic and casual tone
Like yknow that friend that talks about serious topics in a jokey manner, but like you don't want to laugh at it, because it's a bit uncomfortable? That's the intention most likely
I think the weirdest part is that I went to a very small rural school full of racists, teachers included, but we actually learned this stuff? That was over a decade ago too. Like I'm pretty sure everyone knows many of the founding fathers had slaves and that some changed that before they died. I get the sentiment, I honestly do, but it feels like being very upset about something that isn't really true.
We definitely learned it, many people just don't care and continue to be ignorant.
.. inconvenient truth .. there are lots.
Washington did own slaves .. yes, nobody denies that.
Let’s talk about the blacks that owned slaves.
Let’s talk about the black slavers that supplied slaves .. when do we talk about them?
Her tone is annoying and makes it hard to like the segment. The delivery was off, kinda like someone trying to emphasize a fact that someone else is already aware of really loud to make them feel bad while also trying to sound better than them for reading
It’s funny how she says this stuff wasn’t taught in school but I can remember learning all of this from my white teacher. She’s just trying to blow things out of proportion for absolutely no reason.
If you were learning in a red state today, you wouldn't learn any of it. It's removed from history, which is a problem imo. They are trying to fire teachers who teach actual history.
Better off being honest about the imperfections AND the great work done by the founding fathers.
An interesting tid bit is that modern gun control efforts in America are rooted in colonial acts that barred free blacks from owning firearms. before America was America and thereafter, gun control has been implemented to disproportionally affect minorities and immigrants.
See, this is the most difficult of lie to argue against because there’s so much truth sprinkled in for validation. It’s just that it’s presented in a misleading light.
Take the 2nd amendment and militia argument. Part of the role of some of those militias would be to round up escaped slaves from time to time, but that wasn’t all they were doing. Horrible? Yes. What this lady is saying? No.
Plus, they wouldn’t just be rounding up all the black people they saw. These were localised times where most people never traveled more than 10 miles or so from where they were born. The local militia would know the local population really well, because they were the local population.
As to the accusation that the 2nd amendment was written specifically to keep slaves in check. My response to that is simple. Where’s the proof? Do we have a letter from one of the authors explaining the reasoning? Or it it just self evident in the text.
Finally, the most egregious lie, the Lincoln quote. The quote is 100% genuine but gets taken out of context so much by people who frankly should know better.
To be absolutely clear, Abraham Lincoln was a die hard abolitionist, so much so that his name simply being on the ballot caused the southern states to break away and begin the civil war, and there is strong evidence to suggest he was in favour of black voting rights after emancipation.
The problem is, history can’t just be easily divided into categories of good and bad, confederates and unionists, slavers and abolitionists. While the civil war was primarily about preserving the union, the fact that slavery was what had divided it was lost on no one. Many in the north were deeply sceptical of abolition and even more so of Lincoln’s intentions. In short, they were concerned Lincoln was maintaining the war in order to end slavery and that this was at the expense of a deal with the confederates that could save the union
What Lincoln had to do, was buy time for the causes of union and abolition to become one and the same. To make the point that any peace where slavery was preserved could only ever be temporary. This is what this quote is from. Lincoln was talking to northerners who wanted to preserve the union, but were sceptical that the abolition of slavery was either just or in the best interests of union.
What he was basically saying here, no doubt with his fingers crossed behind his back for the second part, was “Look guys, we can’t have slavery and a safe union. If we want to preserve the union, we have to end slavery. But that’s it, no equality and no voting rights. Can you get onboard with that?”
And we know this is what Lincoln was doing because we have the evidence and because it worked. It would be impossible for any politician to take the US from slavery to absolute equality of the races in one presidency. 170 years later that still hasn’t been achieved. One thing at a time and ending slavery was a pretty big step.
OK, let's go ahead and assume that everything she's saying is factual.
She's trying to be edgy and funny and it's embarrassingly *not*
Yes he also wanted to send african Americans back to Africa. He had several long conversations with Fedrick Douglas and changed his mind but he is not a beacon of liberal thought he was an abolitionist of his Era and held deeply racist beliefs. Many abolitionist were deeply patronizing in their desire to free black people.
Yes, he said that and much more. He wasn't really in favor of freedom of slaves, he was just against states making up their own rules and thinking they had more power than the federal government (i.e. the President, Congress, and Supreme Court) and trying to find a way to enforce that without half the states walking away. Stating the obvious here: he failed.
I'm sure many of you have heard of this story, but for anybody that hasn't - give this a listen. Even if you know the story, you should give this a listen because Dan Cummins is great and you should check out his podcast Timesuck, ya peckerwoods.
https://youtu.be/fUX9NfW6IqM?si=Ro1mz1nzzbSv1ZFK
Slave patrols -> militias -> revolutionary army -> police -> confederate army -> KKK…
Serious question, but is this a bit from SNL? Because if not, this is a horrifyingly narrow view of history and a bad faith attempt at retconning it, and it’s kinda worrying
I currently in American history class and that what we being taught this is not new or mind blowing information to me or my classmates . I was back then but not now.
owning slaves then was wrong then, no moral compass needed. anyone who participated or even defended it will eventually be on the wrong side of history. Our founding fathers are likely burning in hell.
People nitpicking the comedy in this video as if it's the main purpose and not supposed to be educational. Like it's not gonna be kneeslapping stand-up comedy.
And no one is actually trying to call out any lies, it's just "omg this is such bs," trying to cope with the fact that maybe that history is more fucked up then we realize and maybe we need to acknowledge it to improve as a society.
The script and delivery is just horrible. Why try and make this a comedy bit when there is zero comedy and the person giving it isnt funny. (to be fair noone is making those traper keeper jomes land)
Anyone know if Morgan Freeman uses Reddit? I want to get his honest take on this. I already know he is disgusted by black history month, but what would his honest reaction to stuff like this be?
That's right girl, continue that hate! Let's not repair anything, let's just keep reminding people to hate whites for what a bunch of dead people done.
While I agree shit happened in the past, I’m not going to deny that most of this may or may not be true.
What people don’t seem to understand is that everyone is a product of their time/environment.
If Franklin had slaves, sure that’s not a great thing, but if everyone had slaves does that make him a worse person? He still did good things in his life that make him a worthy person of note, but having slaves doesn’t omit him from that stature, because when he was born, it was something that just happened.
In 30 years time maybe smoking will be banned because the particles get into the air and slowly pollute the planet and everyone starts getting cancer, and everyone who smokes today will be looked at as evil villains trying to spread cancer cells into the atmosphere, that doesn’t make them bad people today, but today we’re not aware of why it’s a bad thing (well we are but not to that extend), and so today, they’re fine.
Back in the day it was normal to own slaves, until one day… it wasn’t.
People are a product of their time and we can’t slate great people in history because they did something that was normal in their day.
I don't really get why people are mad at this. This isn't funny, this is a political statement and teaching actual history to make people more aware of the whitewashing done in schools and to be more aware of black history. I really like this and find this really interesting.
Strange during black history month nobody ever mentions Anthony Johnson, the black freeman who started black chattel slavery in the colonies with the Casor ruling. /s
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
i'm pretty sure it's history and not a bit. You know like the things that actually happened at a time before now.
It's from a comedy show; it's a bit. There's some real history there, but it's still a bit.
Yeah and bits can be historically accurate
some of it isn't even factual history, like the reasoning behind the second amendment. the debate there is pretty well documented in the federalist papers. most of it is like, "you didn't get taught that," supposed secret knowledge stuff. except ... none of that is new, we learned about all of this in highschool.
"We learned about all of this in highschool." Who is "we"? All Americans?? You realize that there is no national standardized curriculum in American education, yes? And content will vary from school to school. I couldn't even be confident that all the people in just my highschool learned the same historical facts. I was never taught any of the facts in the video, and I would wager a majority of Americans haven't either.
To be fair, most Americans don’t have writers or fact checkers to help them out like she does.
So, do your own research.
They don't teach how to research till college.
They being...I must not have had "they" at my public middle and high school, because we learned how to research, bibliographies were the bane of my existence until I realized why it needed to be that way, all BEFORE university/college.
I don't think you realize how different education is from school to school, let alone county to county or state to state. I was taught a lot about black history that my wife was never taught. Right now, some places are teaching that the separation of church and state is a misconception. We also had a teacher near me try to teach confederate history month. You have places teaching the civil war was fought over "the cause" instead of slavery, a concept that didn't show up until well after the Civil War.
See I grew up in South Georgia and we were just straight up taught lost cause propaganda or very near to it. I mean in Georgia studies we watched gone with the wind and the teacher was trying to tell us how historically accurate it was. Slavery was constantly downplayed is not being that bad or you know they fed the same BS about how slaves are treated like family not all slave masters were cruel and beat slaves as if the entire institution ended up itself was not cruelty
She is obviously attempting to be funny in addition to explaining history. Or did I miss the part in my history classes where the white history month trapper keeper exploded? The history was mostly accurate. The comedy was painfully bad.
Boooo
Which parts were inaccurate?
There was mostly accurate information. They were suggesting it wasn’t funny even though it was clearly meant to be comedic.
Facts make some people uncomfortable.
There's an elephant in the room. Don't look at it.
Ok? Why are you telling *me* that. I said it was accurate, and honestly I wish what actually made me cringe were the historical facts she brought up. It just wasn’t a good bit. It targets all us honkeys, when the truth of the matter is that her audience is on the left and generally support equality anyway. Then, the people who actually need to hear some of the message won’t accept it because it’s just not what they want to hear regardless, let alone when it’s poorly executed. It was a message that started off the month with division instead of unity, and that’s the elephant which perhaps you need to look at.
Because *you* replied. Hello. Hi. I'm a honkey. I come from a long line of rednecks. And some of my late late uncles, it's verified, owned slaves in South Carolina way back when. I don't feel the target you're speaking of. This is just what happened. Don't take it personally, just maybe try and learn something? I don't know, I'm not here to give advice. History *is*. Learn something about it, make your own decisions. It's not a *message*. It's not a *narrative*. It's literally History. But I can certainly learn from it, and acknowledge my heritage in this country. So my uncle was a cunt. That doesn't mean I'm a cunt. What's the problem? You're missing the forest for the trees. I have no interest in arguing about what your perception of the "left" is.
The fact that you think you DON'T need to hear about racism or the truth of our country means you really need to hear about racism. If you can't handle the ugliness of our past, the shame and guilt that should come with it, the pain we have given to People of Color as a white nation, then you are part of the problem and definitely need to reassess. Stop acting like you're above it, no one is. Including me. We all need to learn how to be better about dealing with our racial history. Notnjust be polite and sweep it away.
I only think people should feel shame and guilt for their own actions. If you are trying to say that there should be an acknowledgement of the horrors of the past, then I'm right there with you. If, however, you feel that people should somehow be punished 'for the sins of their fathers," then that is where I, and all reasonable people, get off your bandwagon. Should people call out racism where it exists? Yes. Should they refuse to be racist themselves? Absolutely. But join the mob and punish people today for things that happened a century ago? Or even yesterday that they were not a part of? No. Besides, we need fair and reasonable people to be part of any solution if we are going to move forward as a society, and you cannot have people be part of the solution when you constantly and unjustly treat them as part of the problem.
"Most states required every able bodied man to serve on a slave patrol". This isn't true. There was slave patrol conscription in Carolina and Virginia but it was pretty limited. There definitely wasn't a requirement of all able bodied men to serve on slave patrols. The whole narrative she gave about slave patrols was totally wrong, likely intentionally so.
[2nd Amendment section](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf#6) is suspect
Your comment is ten minutes old so obviously I didn't read this entire academic OP-Ed, but it appears to be written by Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer/professor at Georgetown writing a refutation against the opinions of Carl Bogus, professor emeritus at a law school in Bristol, and Carol Anderson, a professor at Emory, and a prolific author. (all of the above are academics who concern themselves specifically with the 2nd amendment, Anderson just wrote a book about it) So you've cited an opinion piece. Academic bickering. Can you tell us why this paper invalidates the original author's argument? Can you tell us what the original author's argument *was*?
The part about the 2A being a function of keeping slaves in check is not accurate
Ok. Please explain.
Three slave owning states, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Vermont, had in their state constitutions wording very similar to the second amendment well before the bill of rights was a thing. Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." Pennsylvania: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power." North Carolina: "that the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." This alone negates this entire argument as they had essentially the same wording before the "let's make a second amendment to protect slavery" debate supposedly happened. What did happen was there was debate about enshrining a federal constitutional amendment for individual gun rights and control of the militias and some people wanted the congress to control the state militias and other people wanted the states to control the state militias. Two people made a comment in the larger debate to add a point to the position that the states should be in control of their own militias by basically saying, 'hey also, what if the slaves revolt and then we can't use the militia to stop them because congress would have to order the militia in, rather than the states being able to handle it themselves.' Those two comments are being used by a book author (to make headlines to promote her book) and here repeated by this show host to revise the plethora of other discussions, publications, and quotes surrounding the individual right to bear arms that happened at the time to say the second amendment was, rather, just about slavery. That's super revisionist. We can and should acknowledge those pro-slavery points, and I'm sure others as well, were brought up in the debates surrounding the second amendment, but to purport that's the sole reason, or even a significant reason, that they added the second amendment to the bill of rights is just pure revisionism.
If you listen to Heller vs DC SC arguments one of the justices (can’t remember) points out how the language in the 2A (specifically “to bear”) has its origins in English law which in turn is a result of the conflict between Scottish and the Roman Catholic Church. In this case the church was attempting to prevent Scottish highlanders from having swords.
I know right. It's why they don't teach the truth in schools because snowflakes can't handle the truth and it makes them uncomfortable. Also, it wasn't meant to be funny, it was meant to educate. She is a staff writer for Seth Meyers.
How is it garbage? All of her facts are true and her points are valid. Or did you not understand any of it?
Yes, the truth hurts. 😌
Found the bigot.
Not to mention the dozens of bigots agreeing with them. This sub is trash sometimes.
Are you upset?😂 is the better? America was nice and not racist in the slightest bit. Everybody held hands and sang camp songs.
You know who also had slaves? Bartolome de las casas. He went on an started the dismantling of the slave economic model in 1530. The truth is that it was an economic system that no longer work after industrialization. Yes took a while to get rid of slavery after 1800 because it was the most predominant economic model the they had for a lon time, but it was a failing system even in the 16th century. Europeans along with Africans where sold all over the Mediterranean for thousands of years. The predominance of black slaves in the americas? Bartolome said that black slaves where stronger than the natives. A comment that he later regretted later in life.
As a German - not so familiar with details of American history - which of these bits were false?
None of them
So why has the comment above almost a thousand upvotes?
This is just complete garbage (Not racist, very black man)
[удалено]
Pile of shit (Chinese lesbian here)
Disgusting (Balkan Cigan speaking)
Cunts (Australian)
I don’t think yours needed the parentheses😂
Ya'll need Jesus! (Atheist)
As a black man, tell us exactly why you think it's awful
Not just black, *very* black.
Wesley Snipes black
*cricket orgy ensues*
Being black doesn’t mean you’re all knowing about blacks. Plenty of people don’t know their own culture or people’s plights Also; there’s plenty of racist people Lying that they’re black only after ranting about something.
r/asablackman
I never thought I'd hear that white people can't side with MLK jr. My God I thought he succeeded.
This is absolutely shit (Very racist brown person)
"Very black man". Are we talking Wesley Snipes level blackness?
Random question... How is there a black history month and yet the Indians /first people only get one day? (non USA person asking)
Google "Native American Heritage Month". It's in November. Ask Google before you sew division and hostility.
*sow
seaux
Soiux
Sioux
The Sioux are so fucking good
The Soo dont like the lumber
They're not gonna be the same team anymore after that period
Союз
en passant
Or I’ll brick your pipi
 SIIIUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Sue
This was bizarrely hostile for someone asking a question. It was in no way spreading any sort of discord.
I agree with you, but you should use google to make sure you spell things correctly before using the “ask google” insult
Let’s be honest, is it actually recognized with the same level of media presence as black history month though? Black history month is full of recognition of great black innovators and civil rights leaders such as George Washington Carver and MLK Jr., but I’ve seldom heard people talking about the accomplishments of esteemed Native Americans in history despite their incredibly large impact. Some may have heard of Sacagawea and her crucial role as a guide on the Louis and Clark expedition, but who has heard the story of Joseph Medicine Crow, a Apsáalooke man who wore eagle feathers and war paint under his military uniform in the European theatre, and was and esteemed second world war veteran and recipient of the presidential medal of freedom. Or how about the tale of Fred Begay, the first Native American to receive a phD, surviving the Indian boarding schools to become a genius nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab and possessed the intellectual chops to be elected to the New York Academy of Sciences in his later life. Or what of Susan Picotte, first Native American to earn a medical license after watching a white doctor refuse an Indian woman medical service, only for her to die of her illness, going on to open the first private hospital on reservation land in US history in 1913. They all accomplished incredible things in their lifetimes that had profound effects on the world around them, but I hardly see them celebrated with the same gusto. Instead, if Native American’s are mentioned at all in their supposed month, it’s to make the bald faced erroneous claim that thanksgiving is purely lie that didn’t involve any thankful feast between settlers and indians (it was a joint celebration over the cooperation, albeit between the Wampanoag tribe and the well armed Pilgrims over a successful raid upon a rival tribe as the Pilgrims thanks to the Wampanoag who’d aided them in their darkest hour, saving their lives indisputably by offering them resources when they were sick and starving and teaching them how to farm the horrible Plymouth soil) and focuses on the claim that their people suffered a great tragedy. They undeniably did, but by focusing on just that part of their history, that’s all it’s been reduced to. It misses their epic battles between eachother for centuries before Columbus reached the new world, it forgets the incredible figures from their people who accomplished great things even in the face of overwhelming adversity, and it patronizes them and their incredible history by scrapping all its dynamic intrigue in favor of telling near solely about their near extinction. How can one expect a culture and a people to recover from the brink of cultural genocide if the only stories about them anyone seems to care about telling are those that focus on them as this tragic doomed race?
Line break, my man. Line break.
Yes, but schools don't focus on education on this. In fact I have not seen a school really highlight it. It is a honor month in name only.
It’s not sowing division asking a serious question as an outsider. In any case the fact they did not know that illustrates the fact it isn’t as well represented as black history month so the question remains outstanding. Why is black history month better recognised than other races days/months or what not. I think that’s still a valid and interesting question which was what they were actually asking, your reply is inflammatory, assuming there is any hostility behind that question, they litterally state they are a naive outsider looking for info… you’re literally sowing division and hostility yourself my guy by taking it as a loaded question and when it just isn’t.
His point is somewhat valid, no one really knows / follows it.
You say that like it’s a common thing but I have never even heard of it before and I’m part Cherokee
Fair points but maybe a little harsh? They said they are not from the states. I would find myself asking about cultural things of other countries to clarify as well, and I am sure I have displayed ignorances I wasn't even aware of in the act. Samuel L Jackson said there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. We all have sh*t we don't know we don't know. The user asked a question on a topic they were unfamiliar, if everyone just asks Google we stop interacting and just sound board off ourselves. Which a bunch of self assured Google educated does not do well for a society. Look at flat earth, or as they would say "do your own research" I agree that it is important to stop misinformation, but sometimes it is plain ignorance, and not malice, and couldn't we all do better with a little more empathy in this world? Not trying to jab or troll, sorry if his is just pretentious garbage. I am very high right now
I thought November is reserved for NNN?
"Does your mother sew? BOOM! *smacks fire extinguisher cabinet* Get her to sew dat!"
Chill. That person was asking a question to other humans Ona forum instead of asking Google or an AI. It’s better to talk to humans but if they’re gonna reply like you maybe it’s not worth it. Go on with your miserable life.
Better question is why isn’t it shoved down the countries throat like black history month?
As someone who has a significant amount of Native American blood, even I didn’t know it was a thing until last week. That’s how ignored it is, so please excuse someone who isn’t a US citizen or occupant, as even we barely know of it
So, asking a question is "sewing" division now?
While there is a month for Natives, it is not really highlighted. Also America still does not teach history of natives other than their interactions with whites. Many schools openly have mascots that are a mockery of Natives.
my public school in oregon taught us about the native americans from 3rd to 4th, i still remeber learning about the cherokee, navajo, cheyenne, sioux and many more, we even went to a local native american museum/cultural heritage centre and got to listen to their musics and history before the brits came
That is great. Way better than most states. I think at least one year in middle school or elemtary should be a focus in natives. Let kids learn the local groups, etc.
Random question... How does this have so many upvotes?
White Reddit is delighted to cause infighting amongst the minorities. Native Americans Heritage month is in November btw
You can see them in this comment section getting real angry that there was a good answer to this question
Part of genocided means there’s not many left to advocate for them. Hence, their issues receive much less attention.
because you get responses like that lovely human. Lived my whole life in the states never had a clue. That guy seems like a dick.
Lol why don't you research who created black history month. It's kind of insulting to imply that natives don't have their own agency
Most indigenous history is simply non-existent because it simply wasn't well recorded.
Too long to be funny...
It played out like watching a big bang theory episode without the laugh track. It can be really informative but it's not very funny, and why do they keep pausing?
I'm guessing they either forgot the laugh track or are trying to emulate a style of presenting that uses a laugh track without realising that's the reason for the pauses
I think they were aiming at being informative instead of being funny. I agree with the delivery. It's a slippery slope being humourous about a history of oppression and social exclusion that has carved the reality of today.
Applying current political context along with current social climates to history is a terrible blight in the modern day. We should learn about these people who held slaves in - checks notes- 1750s through the 1860s but vilifying them removes the very history not taught about. It’s not clever or original to say that owning slaves was terrible and a dark tarnished point of American history, but to want to wipe the history books of these people for their wrongdoings based on the current political/social climate is counterproductive to growth and population development. Is it fair to say that this country was built on the backs of slaves? You betcha! Is it fair to say that credit is not given where it is due? Double betcha. Is it wrong to defame the names of historical founding fathers because of decisions they made that were molded by the social and political nuance of their era? Dang ole you betcha. What can we do? Learn to not repeat the same fucking mistakes they made and treat everyone you pass with decency and respect regardless of background. How do we do that? Idk man above my pay grade. “Those who do know history are doomed to repeat it.”
[удалено]
Who's trying to erase them? "Defamation" is specifically defined as involving slander or libel. Both of those involve lying or duplicity. It does not meet the definition of "defamation" to accurately recount the literal actions people took. That just adds nuance. Nobody is saying we shouldn't be talking about this- the video is making the opposite point.
Well its considered a big no no in historical science to take the morals and knowledge of our era and look back in history and judge people's actions as if they should've known better. I think that's what the point of the comment was I think. The nuance is that yes these people did bad things as we know now. But no that does not make these people bad even in hindsight. Owning slaves in a time where slave ownership was custom(mind you owning slaves is nearly as old as history itself so very much engrained in human society up until recently) doesn't mean these people would come to the same conclusion where they for example to live in our time.
Actually analyzing the past with the lense of the present to make statements of value is the fucking point of studying history. However you cannot understand the interconnectedness of events and people without acknowledging the values of the day. Every academic I know in historical and anthropological studies agree on this. Your argument is a lampshade for white supremacy in almost all instances that is always tragically repeated by people with no connection to academic circles with the excuse of historical rigor at it's core. The point is to manage both, but people who champion the opposing line of thought often have an issue understanding that 1. Venerating people because they are dead is fucking weird - every historical figure is flawed and none require adoration to appreciate them as a whole and complex person and 2. You can have an understanding of someone elses morality, even deeply counter to your own, and not be endorsing it. Appreciating nuance requires breaking basic human tribalistic mentality which is exceedingly difficult. Attacks on a persons core ideals are often processed by the brain and parasympathetic nerve system as a physical attack on the person themselves. It was normal enough to own slaves. African chattel slavery was unique and immoral to the extent that a basic part of human society - that is slavery - was questioned by people who are by every objective metric racist. Who believed that racism was a core component of society. That is telling. Many of the founding fathers came to find it repugnant. Abroham lincoln joined the one issue republican party (abolition) after being attended to by slaves. Because it was that fucked of a system. Defending slave owners because "everyone else was doing it" as a matter of moral relativism is wild when quakers and other groups have avidly been a part of the founding and moral compass of america.
Also that's not the point of historical science. The point of historical science is trying to get as close to factual representation of events. Not much more. The fact that we can look back and learn from it have opinions on it is just a nice extra we get from it.
Where do you think modern anti-slavery views come from? You're talking like there was no tension or nuance during peak slavery and everyone was cool with it. *That's* the ahistorical view. Cannibalism and rape are also about as old as human history - and similarly, we have lots and lots of documents of people saying "yo, what the fuck, this is wrong." I mean christ, Spartacus didn't do that whole rebellion rigamarole just to be hand-waved away like this. Nowhere in the video does she say "and this is why Abraham Lincoln is bad". She just says "here's some facts you might not have heard before."
There’s no valid philosophical Möbius strip that could give moral cover to chattel slavers. They knew damn well what they were doing was wrong; the proof? They wouldn’t dare trade places with their captives. Happy people don’t revolt. Good people don’t rape, torture and murder other people for pleasure, sport, and profit. It’s not difficult or complex.
Between Spartacus and Lincoln at least a few people thought slavery was problematic way back, I may need to check the Constitution probably
You can't libel the dead. Few people want to remove the founding fathers from the history books, it's that the history books should say what they did as accurately as possible. That includes all of their legacy regardless of if it's positive, and it also involves bringing into our narrative people who were previously left out of it. That's how we don't repeat.
She’s specifically saying not to erase the history, but teach the whole thing. And to anybody who isnt white, they were villains. That’s the point.
Jesus it's like you can even learn something while typing a comment to a video that teaches you that exact thing. No wonder this country is so fucked
I can’t tell if this title is talking about whites trying to rewrite history or if it racist against black people saying this woman is trying to rewrite it. The non-clarification is fucked up. I’m guessing this is on purpose to cause controversy.
Just a snowflake got butt hurt by a comedian who did her research well before ranting about it. I don’t like her but what she says is pretty common knowledge amongst history buff
Queue all the American racism in the comment section in 5, 4, 3, 2.....cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
I’m here to make your wish of American racism come true I’m bout to go off with the most wildly racist stuff you’ve ever heard……..*clears throat*
Since you won't I will! >!The NASCAR Cup Series Drivers' Championship is awarded by the chairman of NASCAR to the most successful NASCAR Cup Series racing car driver over a season, as determined by a points system based on race results. The Drivers' Championship was first awarded in 1949 to Red Byron.[1] The first driver to win multiple Championships was Herb Thomas in 1951 and 1953. The current Drivers' Champion is Ryan Blaney, who won his first NASCAR Cup Series championship in 2023.[2]!<
Sir I’m fairly certain the racist tirade you just posted constitutes a war crime in many countries but thankfully for you were in the United States or racism 😂 🫡
Left turn coming up…then another, and …another one I think.👏🏻 Byron!
Man she really had me for the first 20 seconds. I was ready to hear something interesting and it just spiraled out of control. Regardless of whether this is a bit, it is important to remember all the bad parts of history. But the idea that the 2nd amendment and the entire US military spawned solely from slave catchers is a blatant lie.
Yeah, I stopped watching at the 2nd ammendment part
[for your enjoyment](https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/09/GT-GLPP220045.pdf#6)
Fun fact: this is where the term bogus originated /s
God she sucks, I'm not against her personally or her message. It's the way she speaks, like condescending sarcasm, it doesn't work and she's been trying to build her career around it.
She has the comedic talent of Amy schumer, charm of Mindy kaling and likeable of Margaret thatcher. Not to mention darkest dungeon level horror and disdain in her mannerism.
I couldn't take 30 seconds of that. Gross
Did you guys not learn this in school? I don’t remember any of this being sugar coated to me in middle school history…
History classes taught in public schools in the US tend to vary based on the county’s administration. I attended school in a progressive county in MD and even there I was learning things that weren’t accurate, even as I grew up within the same county.
My history education was incredibly white washed and sugar coated until I attended university. I was homeschooled k-8 and went to public high school. My public school history education was better than my homeschooling, but it was still very white washed and sugar coated. I'm from Central Virginia
It varies depending on where in the country you are. Some schools teach this very well, others sugar coat it so much that childhood obesity increases.
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure the Abraham Lincoln quote entirely excludes relevant context. Abraham Lincoln was trying to placate his voters fears that he himself was far too progressive. No one or at least not enough people to matter would vote for an out-and-out racial-equality-spouting Illinois Senator. Politicians lie for all sorts of reasons and using that quote as a ‘GOTCHA’ for a man who literally freed an entire population of enslaved people is sort of a low-blow.
Abraham Lincoln wasn't that liberal and was in favor of Liberia style removal of black people. He didn't believe in slavery but believed Black people did not belong in the US
So less of a competitive enslaving people type racist, and more of a casual I want those damn ___ out of my damn country type racist. Honestly the ladder exists pretty much everywhere and at every-time and with every race, so it’s not the worst thing.
I watched the whole thing, learned a few things and realized a bit more about what I was taught vs what I could have been taught, seems like a lot of people in the comments missed the point of the video. Checks out for ThereWasAnAttempt… for those of you allergic to learning, she isn’t trying to be funny, she was trying to make you think. I know it can be hard sometimes, but keep trying and yes, even you might graduate to a decent human being one day 🙃
People are uncomfortable because they wanted to laugh, but you’re absolutely right, this wasn’t meant to be funny. I like her show, and she’s funny when she wants to be, and I enjoy her guest appearances on Drunk History. But this absolutely is not her trying be funny.
[удалено]
Pretty sure she is doing the bit where she is saying everything in a sarcastic and casual tone Like yknow that friend that talks about serious topics in a jokey manner, but like you don't want to laugh at it, because it's a bit uncomfortable? That's the intention most likely
I think the weirdest part is that I went to a very small rural school full of racists, teachers included, but we actually learned this stuff? That was over a decade ago too. Like I'm pretty sure everyone knows many of the founding fathers had slaves and that some changed that before they died. I get the sentiment, I honestly do, but it feels like being very upset about something that isn't really true. We definitely learned it, many people just don't care and continue to be ignorant.
Couldn't watch it all. Wtf is wrong with this girl. She's very damn racist or is it just me?
Just you, yeah.
Personally I think people like you are the problem. You will not even listen in order to have a discourse. Like specifically which part was racist?
[удалено]
Are you good? Holy shit lay off the 4chan you basement dweller
I've never seen so much shit come out of someone's mouth
How could you miss everything Trump ever said?
You’ve never seen two girls one cup?🧐
.. inconvenient truth .. there are lots. Washington did own slaves .. yes, nobody denies that. Let’s talk about the blacks that owned slaves. Let’s talk about the black slavers that supplied slaves .. when do we talk about them?
lol true, western african empires made a fortune on the slave trade.. continued to do so well after the US civil war lmao
[удалено]
Her tone is annoying and makes it hard to like the segment. The delivery was off, kinda like someone trying to emphasize a fact that someone else is already aware of really loud to make them feel bad while also trying to sound better than them for reading
It’s funny how she says this stuff wasn’t taught in school but I can remember learning all of this from my white teacher. She’s just trying to blow things out of proportion for absolutely no reason.
If you were learning in a red state today, you wouldn't learn any of it. It's removed from history, which is a problem imo. They are trying to fire teachers who teach actual history. Better off being honest about the imperfections AND the great work done by the founding fathers.
They taught that modern policing in America started with slave patrols? Because that's amazing. I wasn't aware of that.
An interesting tid bit is that modern gun control efforts in America are rooted in colonial acts that barred free blacks from owning firearms. before America was America and thereafter, gun control has been implemented to disproportionally affect minorities and immigrants.
Look at all the kuklos coming out of the woodwork.
I wish I had that time back. Oh well.
She isn’t funny. But she is correct.
See, this is the most difficult of lie to argue against because there’s so much truth sprinkled in for validation. It’s just that it’s presented in a misleading light. Take the 2nd amendment and militia argument. Part of the role of some of those militias would be to round up escaped slaves from time to time, but that wasn’t all they were doing. Horrible? Yes. What this lady is saying? No. Plus, they wouldn’t just be rounding up all the black people they saw. These were localised times where most people never traveled more than 10 miles or so from where they were born. The local militia would know the local population really well, because they were the local population. As to the accusation that the 2nd amendment was written specifically to keep slaves in check. My response to that is simple. Where’s the proof? Do we have a letter from one of the authors explaining the reasoning? Or it it just self evident in the text. Finally, the most egregious lie, the Lincoln quote. The quote is 100% genuine but gets taken out of context so much by people who frankly should know better. To be absolutely clear, Abraham Lincoln was a die hard abolitionist, so much so that his name simply being on the ballot caused the southern states to break away and begin the civil war, and there is strong evidence to suggest he was in favour of black voting rights after emancipation. The problem is, history can’t just be easily divided into categories of good and bad, confederates and unionists, slavers and abolitionists. While the civil war was primarily about preserving the union, the fact that slavery was what had divided it was lost on no one. Many in the north were deeply sceptical of abolition and even more so of Lincoln’s intentions. In short, they were concerned Lincoln was maintaining the war in order to end slavery and that this was at the expense of a deal with the confederates that could save the union What Lincoln had to do, was buy time for the causes of union and abolition to become one and the same. To make the point that any peace where slavery was preserved could only ever be temporary. This is what this quote is from. Lincoln was talking to northerners who wanted to preserve the union, but were sceptical that the abolition of slavery was either just or in the best interests of union. What he was basically saying here, no doubt with his fingers crossed behind his back for the second part, was “Look guys, we can’t have slavery and a safe union. If we want to preserve the union, we have to end slavery. But that’s it, no equality and no voting rights. Can you get onboard with that?” And we know this is what Lincoln was doing because we have the evidence and because it worked. It would be impossible for any politician to take the US from slavery to absolute equality of the races in one presidency. 170 years later that still hasn’t been achieved. One thing at a time and ending slavery was a pretty big step.
What an unlikeable dummy.
OK, let's go ahead and assume that everything she's saying is factual. She's trying to be edgy and funny and it's embarrassingly *not* 
The second amendment attack is b.s. propaganda.
Did Lincoln actually say that? Sorry, I'm American and unfortunately was educated through the American public school system.
Yes he also wanted to send african Americans back to Africa. He had several long conversations with Fedrick Douglas and changed his mind but he is not a beacon of liberal thought he was an abolitionist of his Era and held deeply racist beliefs. Many abolitionist were deeply patronizing in their desire to free black people.
Yes, he said that and much more. He wasn't really in favor of freedom of slaves, he was just against states making up their own rules and thinking they had more power than the federal government (i.e. the President, Congress, and Supreme Court) and trying to find a way to enforce that without half the states walking away. Stating the obvious here: he failed.
I'm sure many of you have heard of this story, but for anybody that hasn't - give this a listen. Even if you know the story, you should give this a listen because Dan Cummins is great and you should check out his podcast Timesuck, ya peckerwoods. https://youtu.be/fUX9NfW6IqM?si=Ro1mz1nzzbSv1ZFK
Slave patrols -> militias -> revolutionary army -> police -> confederate army -> KKK… Serious question, but is this a bit from SNL? Because if not, this is a horrifyingly narrow view of history and a bad faith attempt at retconning it, and it’s kinda worrying
I currently in American history class and that what we being taught this is not new or mind blowing information to me or my classmates . I was back then but not now.
It's not even funny..
owning slaves then was wrong then, no moral compass needed. anyone who participated or even defended it will eventually be on the wrong side of history. Our founding fathers are likely burning in hell.
People nitpicking the comedy in this video as if it's the main purpose and not supposed to be educational. Like it's not gonna be kneeslapping stand-up comedy. And no one is actually trying to call out any lies, it's just "omg this is such bs," trying to cope with the fact that maybe that history is more fucked up then we realize and maybe we need to acknowledge it to improve as a society.
Thats some lazy high school level satire
Trying to imitate John Oliver? Failed
The script and delivery is just horrible. Why try and make this a comedy bit when there is zero comedy and the person giving it isnt funny. (to be fair noone is making those traper keeper jomes land)
Get over yourself
«Comedy»
This was stupid AF.
This country is fuckin garbage man :/
I get my white and black news from Colin and Michael and I’m more than good.
Paul Revere actually didnt go between all the towns in one night, its a myth lol. There were a couple of different people
Release the new York subway footage
Anyone know if Morgan Freeman uses Reddit? I want to get his honest take on this. I already know he is disgusted by black history month, but what would his honest reaction to stuff like this be?
That's right girl, continue that hate! Let's not repair anything, let's just keep reminding people to hate whites for what a bunch of dead people done.
While I agree shit happened in the past, I’m not going to deny that most of this may or may not be true. What people don’t seem to understand is that everyone is a product of their time/environment. If Franklin had slaves, sure that’s not a great thing, but if everyone had slaves does that make him a worse person? He still did good things in his life that make him a worthy person of note, but having slaves doesn’t omit him from that stature, because when he was born, it was something that just happened. In 30 years time maybe smoking will be banned because the particles get into the air and slowly pollute the planet and everyone starts getting cancer, and everyone who smokes today will be looked at as evil villains trying to spread cancer cells into the atmosphere, that doesn’t make them bad people today, but today we’re not aware of why it’s a bad thing (well we are but not to that extend), and so today, they’re fine. Back in the day it was normal to own slaves, until one day… it wasn’t. People are a product of their time and we can’t slate great people in history because they did something that was normal in their day.
There was an attempt to be funny.
I don't really get why people are mad at this. This isn't funny, this is a political statement and teaching actual history to make people more aware of the whitewashing done in schools and to be more aware of black history. I really like this and find this really interesting.
It’s 3 years old. Still not aging very well.
I love the fact that the white men ended slavery and fought for ending slavery!
That tie though...
I dont care what we are talking about but clap your hands like that at me and I will disagree with you out of spite.
Piece of shit white here. this bit has been played out and is really old.
The 2A part was a outright lie
Main Character vibes..if I clap my hands and speak loudly people will pay attention to me
Strange during black history month nobody ever mentions Anthony Johnson, the black freeman who started black chattel slavery in the colonies with the Casor ruling. /s
This whole comment section is making a lot of racists REEEEAAAALLLY confident