Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@neutrino78x I think you might be talking about something else. If it helps clarify, I'll note that there were no nuclear weapons during the Mexican–American war.

If it's what you're saying, I'll agree that our foreign policy was somewhat better since we got nukes than it was before – we usually at least *pretend* we're doing things for good reasons since then.

@AnonymooseGuy That's a common argument among the identity-left (which utterly dominates political discourse on instances like mastodon.social): consider some element of culture or society today, then draw some kind of tenuous BS connection back to some super racist (or otherwise oppressive) thing from the past. Then, use that to beat people over the head.

I have literally seen this argument applied to excel spreadsheets, ice cream trucks, Trader Joes, you name it. I think most people aren't buying it. 😂

However, I think Cassandra is supporting my claim here, that things are better, and getting better. See the followups for specifics.

@Raven47 "Little has changed so far." 😂

@M_U@toot.community What a silly thing to say.

@M_U@toot.community You can really see the difference here in TX over the last 60 years. "Jasper 25" I have no idea what you're talking about 😂

@M_U@toot.community you mean the brown people who are US soldiers? Well okay, but see my point about us becoming more isolationist. Exactly for this reason: reluctance to spend American lives.

@M_U@toot.community not that AUMF has anything to do with what we're talking about.

@M_U@toot.community Lincoln not being enthusiastically abolitionist doesn't support your claim that US sentiment and education haven't improved in this respect in the last 40–50 years; hopefully that is clear.

Neither does AUMF. Also I'll note we're far more isolationist today: look at the rise of Trump and others. I seriously doubt AUMF would even pass today.

@trwnh @vyr wow so the screed was in response to someone who wanted to remove emojis. Sort of the exact opposite of what was implied by OP. interesting.

@TootUncommon@mstdn.party Hey I said less so in the last few decades; I'm not that old.

For me personally (and I said this elsewhere in these threads) I think things like e.g. Mexican-American war were presented a bit benignly, I feel like I should have been taught about things like Tulsa, etc. But overall not nearly as bad in this respect as the rest of the comments here are implying about US education.

@Dervishpi @TootUncommon@mstdn.party exactly. I was 80s California, things were getting better already, I guess. Although I still didn't learn about Tulsa for example – still lots of him for improvement.

@TootUncommon@mstdn.party exactly

@TootUncommon@mstdn.party heh, I think US history classes sometimes err on that side. less so in the last few decades etc.

@TootUncommon@mstdn.party early on that wasn't really true, I think; it was more widespread. But to your point we had a civil war (at least partly) about it, while Germany didn't.

I'm not sure how germane to OP this is, though – the point is do we teach our history honestly?

(I think we have a lot of room for improvement, but do far better than you'd think after reading this thread 😂 )

@TootUncommon@mstdn.party The myth is that US can do no wrong and our history is a beacon of righteousness in a world of brutality and suffering.

Pretty much nowhere in the US in the last few decades, I think. I was in elementary school in the 80s, I think my history classes made some wars like the Mexican–American war or Philippines look like we were the good guys, but they sure taught about slavery; not at all the experience you'd think after reading this thread.

There were textbooks used in some places like 50 years ago that try to make slavery look like a benevolent thing.

@unearth Don't we? I was trad-style homeschooled and I sure did. What do they teach you guys in public schools!

@PublicLewdness It's funny when someone complains about something literally by doing the exact thing they're complaining about.

@quercus24
So we have these three ~facts
* old people are more likely to vote
* young people are less likely to be "conservative"
* Johnson (admittedly?) was trying to squelch young people vote (very patronizing, in addition to shady)

But what I said could still be true: it just doesn't work. Even if some of Johnson's aides admit intent.

In the past, voter suppression was more effective: you have to own land, or the ids cost money, or straight-up poll taxes, or ... But these days it seems like voter id laws just don't really work as a suppression tactic. (I don't know whether they work for other purposes, so I'm not like trying to argue for voter id laws here.)