# Student Traumatized After Underground Railroad Reenactment



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

“All the black kids were slaves and all the other people were white,” says Dawn Peterson, a parent of one of the student’s who participated in the lesson.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

What is your opinion of the reenactment?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your opinion of the reenactment?


I did not see it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

That is history, good or bad, we must not hide it. I fail to understand why it would be traumatic. The Underground Railroad was a good thing.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Its the world we live in where people are hurt offended and traumatized by everything, Bunch of Pansy's .


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I did not see it.


The silly games you play. What is your opinion of the link you provided?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The silly games you play. What is your opinion of the link you provided?


I think we should erase all offensive events in our past. We cannot continue to offend people. How can we progress as a society, as a country, if we keep reminding ourselves of all the past mistakes and atrocities?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I think we should erase all offensive events in our past. We cannot continue to offend people. How can we progress as a society, as a country, if we keep reminding ourselves of all the past mistakes and atrocities?


Based on your prior posts, you're lying in this one. The silly games you play.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Based on your prior posts, you're lying in this one. The silly games you play.


I was just trying to get along with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I was just trying to get along with you.


Don't lie in your posts on my account. 

I'd say we're off topic, but based on what you've posted you don't care.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't lie in your posts on my account.
> 
> I'd say we're off topic, but based on what you've posted you don't care.


I think the kid is a spoiled brat with zero coping skills, and their parents are probably proud of the kid.

I care deeply.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Maybe if this kid had learned history as it was she wouldn't have been traumatized.
Maybe if kids weren't coddled by a helicopter society, she wouldn't have been traumatized by reality.
Maybe this is a lesson that will stick. Lots of times the most meaningful things have some angst attached.

Buck up, don't get your panties in a twist, learn from it - you'll be stronger for it.

And to think because of one (edited), the school is going to have discussions about continuing the Reenactment. Now that's sad!


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Oh my, I just watched Roots and all the slaves were black and all the slave holders were white. It must of have been hard for Alex Haley, Lavar Burton, et al to cash their pay checks.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

It looks like there have been many incidents of parents being upset with reinactments in other states too. Unless you know what was involved it's hard to say.
Personally, I wouldn't want my child to play a part as a slaveowner either!
Read all you want about history, but putting yourself, playing out a part, as a child, not so sure.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Based on the bit of video, I don't have enough information to form an opinion on if a 11-12 year old is a "spoiled brat with zero coping skills", a "snowflake", or anything else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

doozie said:


> It looks like there have been many incidents of parents being upset with reinactments in other states too. Unless you know what was involved it's hard to say.
> Personally, I wouldn't want my child to play a part as a slaveowner either!
> Read all you want about history, but putting yourself, playing out a part, as a child, not so sure.


Or slave hunter/catcher either. It depends on how this was done, which we absolutely don't know, were the "slaves" chased through the woods by the "slave catcher"?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or slave hunter/catcher either. It depends on how this was done, which we absolutely don't know, were the "slaves" chased through the woods by the "slave catcher"?


Yes.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

M5farm said:


> Its the world we live in where people are hurt offended and traumatized by everything, Bunch of Pansy's .


ya.. that's going beyond reasonable. If a reenactment of an historical event is traumatizing to someone, they need to seek professional psychological help.
Meanwhile, the person claiming to be traumatized will go home and play Grand Theft Auto or watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

This link puts a bit of a different spin on the events:
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/lo...erground-railroad-simulation-i-was-frightened

"Bailey told her mom they were chased through the woods, threatened and told to sing for their freedom. 

"They were told to hide several different times, to lie about who they are, steal food,” mother Dawn Peterson said.

Peterson says she knew nothing of this activity, and now wants her money back and a promise from the school that this will never happen again. "

If the students and parents were aware of the event beforehand and chose to participate that is one thing. But for a sudden surprise event with no notification it's totally different. Even the salves who experienced the actual events knew what they were getting into.

A few years back a YMCA camp was forced to stop their reenactment:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...complains-of-racially-insensitive-experience/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Danaus29 said:


> This link puts a bit of a different spin on the events:
> http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/lo...erground-railroad-simulation-i-was-frightened
> 
> "Bailey told her mom they were chased through the woods, threatened and told to sing for their freedom.
> ...


Thank you for providing more information.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The balance is edging ever closer to a reset of some form or fashion. It seems that too many people are demanding that they never be exposed to anything that might offend or upset them. There was nothing on the Certificate of Live Birth that guaranteed them any sort of a life without disappointment or a life safe from offense and strife. Life is about what you make of it, if you're always looking for stuff to cry about then, well... that's what makes you happy.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

But what are you willing to let YOUR child be exposed to,disguised or presented as an educational experience.
We're talking about young children here.
I've been reading about other of these "experiences of reenactment as a history lesson " can be quite upsetting to some kids. You don't need to "feel" scared to learn something.
In some cases the kids don't even know they will be part of something, they are just thrust into the "experience".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doozie said:


> But what are you willing to let YOUR child be exposed to,disguised or presented as an educational experience.
> We're talking about young children here.
> I've been reading about other of these "experiences of reenactment as a history lesson " can be quite upsetting to some kids. You don't need to "feel" scared to learn something.
> In some cases the kids don't even know they will be part of something, they are just thrust into the "experience".


They should have the shyt scared out of them at least once, preferably more.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> They should have the shyt scared out of them at least once, preferably more.


Just curious, do you have children of your own? 

Parents decide on what is acceptable for their children.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just curious, do you have children of your own?
> 
> Parents decide on what is acceptable for their children.


Yes


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Yes


To which are you indicating yes?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> The balance is edging ever closer to a reset of some form or fashion. It seems that too many people are demanding that they never be exposed to anything that might offend or upset them. There was nothing on the Certificate of Live Birth that guaranteed them any sort of a life without disappointment or a life safe from offense and strife. Life is about what you make of it, if you're always looking for stuff to cry about then, well... that's what makes you happy.


Do you realize we're talking about an 11 year old girl? Adults can fend for themselves, kids can't.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Everything on here either has to be "my" way or the highway it seems. You either totally agree or disagree. There is no grey just black and white. 

How many of us here had a reenactment of the underground railroad to learn about it? I didnt. Was it really necessary to teach this way? If you did have a reenactment why not put the white kids as slaves and black kids as slave hunters? It might create a sort of empathy or it might not. 

Ok so one kid was allegedly traumatized. Maybe it was a ploy for attention and maybe not. [some of]You guys may need to back up a bit and think about the whole picture.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

doozie said:


> But what are you willing to let YOUR child be exposed to,disguised or presented as an educational experience.
> We're talking about young children here.
> I've been reading about other of these "experiences of reenactment as a history lesson " can be quite upsetting to some kids. You don't need to "feel" scared to learn something.
> In some cases the kids don't even know they will be part of something, they are just thrust into the "experience".



I am pretty sure that I do not want the schools teaching things like proper masturbation procedures or Anal sex the right way or anything of a sexual nature, I certainly do not want men in dresses talking to kindergartners about how "anything goes"


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> That is history, good or bad, we must not hide it. I fail to understand why it would be traumatic. The Underground Railroad was a good thing.





M5farm said:


> Its the world we live in where people are hurt offended and traumatized by everything, Bunch of Pansy's .





HDRider said:


> I think the kid is a spoiled brat with zero coping skills, and their parents are probably proud of the kid.
> 
> I care deeply.


I would question the humanity of anyone not moved/disturbed/traumatized, whatever you want to call it, by participating in a re-enactment like that. 

When you watch a gory horror movie, do you not walk away disturbed?
When you watch a war movie, do you not walk away moved?

Take either of those experiences, and magnify the emotion by making them an interactive experience.

Then magnify them by making the “story” about whether you walk away free or livestock. 

Then consider the effect of being 11 years old when you experience this. 


The only concrete thing I take away from this story is that we know that this young girl is not a sociopath. 

I consider that a win for humanity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your *opinion of the link* you provided?


It worked just as it should.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Your points have been extrapolated [I love that word, kinda like saying "grommet"] below.


You said: 
"I would question the humanity of anyone not moved/disturbed/traumatized, whatever you want to call it, by participating in a re-enactment like that. "

Reading the 10,000 day war was brutal. Moved? Disturbed? Traumatized? No. That allowed me to stand a small distance away and see through the eyes of others. I did not take the words of Major John C. Patty as gospel, I allowed him to speak to me through his book, his words so that I might understand one man's word, verified at many intersections.

Now the point of order presents itself, should we ban the book, The 10,000 day war, so that others might not be harmed with the adjectives that you used? Should other books that reveal acts of others in somewhat of a historical fashion because they are gruesome? Should history present itself as something that can be viewed through rose colored glasses or should these things be allowed to present the full force of that which happened?

You said:
"When you watch a gory horror movie, do you not walk away disturbed?
When you watch a war movie, do you not walk away moved?"

I find it troubling to watch a gory movie who's only intention is to scare people. While I have not walked away troubled, these scenes in the movie have, a few times, visited me in my dreams. So, no, I do not seek out movies that display token violence just for entertainment.

While, again, I have found that the efforts from Hollywood seek to present something that is marginally true, with my father fighting in WWII, I find those movies to lend a courage to those that watch them, sort of a feel good nebulae. I would hope that if we are ever presented with a war that might end our culture, I would like to think that these movies might be a template for the behavior of others. However, we have not had to defend ourselves for a very long time. It is possible that we, as a people, have been herded into feeding on the pablum that has been offered for our consumption.

You said:
"Take either of those experiences, and magnify the emotion by making them an interactive experience.

Then magnify them by making the “story” about whether you walk away free or livestock.

Then consider the effect of being 11 years old when you experience this."

I remember 11 years old. For a few prior to me being 11, we played games [OK, trying to set the stage here] where we would use plastic army men and set them up in a portion of the yard as if we all were bringing our troops to attack the other people. There was one round of using a playground ball to either knock over the standing men or to flip the men who represented a prone position. After one round, we were allowed to move our "men" forward about a foot, then the attacks commenced. This continued until someone had men left either standing or the almighty Prone Position Soldier was upright for only one person's team.

Another game was to use our model ships, destroyers, carriers, battleships and cruisers to operate in a world theater the size of a modest back yard, we had a shoe box where we would throw different numbers of dice with regards to Attack, move, or retreat. We had rules that we made up where a Carrier attack was dependent upon the number of plastic planes we could glue to the deck, the battleship carried the firepower of the guns that could be glued to the deck, the same with all of the ancillary ships, one battle would take a whole afternoon.

This was the non-conflict-ish games that we played. Our other games were Nipos against GIs which was a sort of "hide and seek" game that ranged over the neighborhood, we killed each other over and over. The worst part was when you got killed and you had to fall to the ground in somebodies yard that had sandspurs... That was brutal.

Herein lies the point:
From the stories of those that went where they thought that they should be and did what they thought they should be doing, we patterned our games after that, earlier than 11 years old. While all the above was somewhat benign, it still had all kinds of killing and destruction. While I have no idea if our servicemen were actually sent to "protect our freedoms" or not, we believed that they did.

You said:
"The only concrete thing I take away from this story is that we know that this young girl is not a sociopath. 

I consider that a win for humanity."

I'm not sure I understand why you see this as a concrete take away. Maybe if you consider all the things that I described above as either sociopathic or borderline sociopathic then I can understand what you are saying. However, if you are granting her clarity of mind because she was involved in something that represented something that actually happened and responded in a fashion where she was against learning about something that had been a mainstay of our country for a portion of time then, I question your logic. [not in an insulting way] 

How do we learn things? What is the best way to learn something? Is there only one method where we can grasp, in depth, the gravity of who we are?

I am Ok with some not cottoning to this method or that method, but let's consider what is actually happening here. 

Really? Due to her individual response to that particular means of presenting a certain history for people to learn from, we as a people would banish this particular method due to political correctness?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> To which are you indicating yes?


Both


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

We don't know the extent of this child's traumitization though. Did she just not like being forced to be a participant, or has she been waking up from night terrors as a result of her experience every night since?
Not your kid not your problem?
I'm long removed from the school system, do you have a choice to exclude your child from Shines example of sex Ed, or portions of it?

Upon further thought, if I were black, no way would I ever be ok with my child playing a slave "game" but that's just me.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Wow. 
That was a whole lot of point-missing, for one post. Nothing I said had anything to do with taking one monolithic side, or the other, on this. I didn’t make any comment about how the school should stop teaching the history of the Underground Railroad, even in this manner. My point was, entirely, that I get how this experience could have been traumatic for someone, especially a youngster. 

Your reading a history book, or playing toy soldiers in your backyard does not even remotely equate to what these kids experienced. You even admit that you got to experience the Vietnam war through another’s eyes, and that you and your friends made up elaborate rules for your game. 

These kids were not told exactly what would be happening, they were made to experience it with their own eyes, and the experience was based around one of the most horrific (THE most horrific, in my mind) scenarios of human history: _do you die or do you survive, and, if you survive, are you free or someone else’s property_?

Imagine taking a group of 6th graders on one of those haunted-house walks. You’d be silly not to expect at least a few of the 11 year-olds to be upset by it- not to mention a few of the parents. 

Then imagine that the haunted house is based on Treblinka. Oh, and, for good measure, the Jewish kids get to play the part of the Jews- you know, for realism. 

Some parents are bound to be upset that you did it, and I’d have counselors talking to any of the kids who weren’t _moved/ upset/ traumatized_ by it. 



Shine said:


> You said:
> "I would question the humanity of anyone not moved/disturbed/traumatized, whatever you want to call it, by participating in a re-enactment like that. "
> 
> Reading the 10,000 day war was brutal. Moved? Disturbed? Traumatized? No. That allowed me to stand a small distance away and see through the eyes of others. I did not take the words of Major John C. Patty as gospel, I allowed him to speak to me through his book, his words so that I might understand one man's word, verified at many intersections.
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Monkey
Imagine taking a six year old through the real Underground Railroad. 

That’s trauma. 

Play acting history should give a dose of that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Monkey
> Imagine taking a six year old through the real Underground Railroad.
> 
> That’s trauma.
> ...


Why? We changed the world so that wouldn't happen again. Should 11 year old kids have a dose of what it was like in a trench in WWI or WWII being hit with mustard gas? Dying in a gas chamber at Auschwitz? Should there be reenactments of something like that so it's a "dose of reality".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

this guy knows the trauma of the slave experience.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think its important to relive as much history as you can to understand where you come from and thus where you are going.
I've wore the slave bracelets ,sat in the bilge of a sailing ship, hopped a freight, plowed behind horses and used a outhouse.
I am not traumatized I am educated.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

There is an excellent article titled Classroom simulations: proceed with caution | Teaching tolerance
(I am unable to link) that may better explain what it puts a child through as part of a "learning" experience.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

so this is not the first time this school has done this, annual thing, so everyone should have been prepared. I used to take cotton bolls in and have students separate the lint from the boll and the seed . Don't recall anyone being upset about that. Of course I got in a lot of trouble from admin around then. Trying to run off/ fire the teachers that had been there awhile so they could hire inexperienced teachers for less money. I was also told not to use the word Yankee because we had some and they were offended.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We got it good. Better than maybe any time in human history. 

Who knows what tomorrow will bring. 

Coping with hardship is difficult for the best of us. A little lesson is all good.

That aside. Walking in another’s shoes, even for only a few steps, helps keep it real. 

Good times now. Maybe bad times around the bend.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

whiterock said:


> I was also told not to use the word Yankee because we had some and they were offended.


LOL Ive never met a yankee that didn't see it as a point of pride.
Of course when I was In Alaska it was great fun to refer to my Yankee friends Maine home as "one of those itty bitty southern states.
Of course Id refer to your home in the same way........


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Monkey
> Imagine taking a six year old through the real Underground Railroad.
> 
> That’s trauma.
> ...


No doubt. I guess that was my point. Why would we be shocked that one or more of the kids were deeply affected by it?

I got a closed-memorial tour of Auschwitz a few years back, and I “wasn’t right” for a couple days, and didnt sleep well for a week. I was moved and disturbed, without question. 

Was I traumatized? I suppose it depends on the connotation of the word. It’s not the word I would use, but I don’t reckon it would be much of a reach to say that, either. 

We’re not talking about a parent saying that the schools shouldn’t be teaching the Underground Railroad to 6th graders, though, I suppose if we were, I’d still consider her opinion to be her prerogative. 

We’re talking about a parent being upset about the particularly immersive way in which it was taught, without what she considered to be full prior-disclosure. 

I thought we all supported the parents’ right to speak up about whether they think the public school teachings are appropriate or not. 

I know I do, and that has no bearing on whether or not I agree with this particular parent’s opinion- just that I get her opinion, and I don’t find it wholly ridiculous, or her daughter’s reaction to be “snowflakish”.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why? We changed the world so that wouldn't happen again.


I wish that were true, but I’m not banking on it. 

I consider that the best way to honor those who lived it; to keep vigilant against those who are still doing it to others today, and never let myself be lulled into thinking it doesn’t happen now and can’t happen again.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

I think the "I'm offended" movement (and the counter "I don't care if you're offended") Has gotten so strong we don't even listen to the situation anymore before we roll our eyes and move on.

Schools and other places have disclaimers and permission slips for everything else (at least in my home state) was there anything like that in this instance that warned how intense a situation this could be?

The reenactment should definitely not stop, but they should consider much more care and warning for those participating.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> Why? We changed the world so that wouldn't happen again.


LOL
Tell that to some people in Africa or the Middle East


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I wish that were true, but I’m not banking on it.
> 
> I consider that the best way to honor those who lived it; to keep vigilant against those who are still doing it to others today, and never let myself be lulled into thinking it doesn’t happen now and can’t happen again.


I'm ever the optimist. I don't think that Auschwitz could happen again, even the current administration condemned what Syria did and as horrible as it was it's not nearly what the Nazi's did to the Jews.

I agree. I read a heartbreaking article the other day about the Holocaust fading from memory, and it just shouldn't. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/holocaust-education.html


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm ever the optimist. I don't think that Auschwitz could happen again, even the current administration condemned what Syria did and as horrible as it was it's not nearly what the Nazi's did to the Jews.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide There is also a list of contemporary genocides occurring from the 90s to 2014 on the right hand side of the page.

edit:right hand not left hand; good thing I don't work in a hospital.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prismseed said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide There is also a list of contemporary genocides occurring from the 90s to 2014 on the left hand side of the page.


You're right, I'm wrong. I should have mentioned all genocides.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> These kids were not told exactly what would be happening, they were made to experience it with their own eyes, and the experience was based around one of the most horrific (THE most horrific, in my mind) scenarios of human history: _do you die or do you survive, and, if you survive, are you free or someone else’s property_?


At least they weren't forced to reenact the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek, or any of the hundreds of horrors in the early history of the formation of the United States. The Romans and the Mongolians had their periods of horrors also. Lots of things far worse, IMO, than the slaves flight to freedom.



HDRider said:


> Monkey
> Imagine taking a six year old through the real Underground Railroad.
> 
> That’s trauma.
> ...


Imagine being a 6 year old slave. The parents who took their children on that desperate trip were trying to give them better lives. How many slave children were taken from their parents and sold to work in a rich person's house or field? How many of those children did not survive long under the mistreatment given by overseers or cruel slave holders? 

Personally I think it's quite racist to make all the black children pretend to be runaway slaves and the white children the hunters or helpers. It should have been mixed up. 

I won't say it can never happen again. There are many places in our world where people can get away with abusing, torturing and even killing other people. A few laws are all that stand between now and the past. Some people will never see past the color of other peoples skin. And some people will never see the value of other peoples lives.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Why were the White students not slaves also? Every race, ethnic group, religion, or nationality have been the subject of slavery.
I'm of Austrian descent. My "people" were enslaved by the tens of thousands by the Turks. Before the turks it was probably the Romans or the Tribe the other side of the mountain. Slavery was, and is, still happening today.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

If the student would have been shown the fact that there were black slave owners also... would the student be more or less traumatized?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm ever the optimist. I don't think that Auschwitz could happen again, even the current administration condemned what Syria did and as horrible as it was it's not nearly what the Nazi's did to the Jews.
> 
> I agree. I read a heartbreaking article the other day about the Holocaust fading from memory, and it just shouldn't. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/holocaust-education.html


I think you define "Auschwitz" in very narrow terms. Extermination attempts of groups still happens on a regular basis.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No doubt. I guess that was my point. Why would we be shocked that one or more of the kids were deeply affected by it?
> 
> I got a closed-memorial tour of Auschwitz a few years back, and I “wasn’t right” for a couple days, and didnt sleep well for a week. I was moved and disturbed, without question.
> 
> ...


Why do you think her reaction made the news?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I would question the humanity of anyone not moved/disturbed/traumatized, whatever you want to call it, by participating in a re-enactment like that.
> 
> When you watch a gory horror movie, do you not walk away disturbed?
> When you watch a war movie, do you not walk away moved?


It is important what you call it. Moved? certainly. Disturbed? perhaps. Traumatized? Why? If one went through the real thing, sure, it would/should be life alteringly traumatic. To reenact such events can/should be moving, but, traumatic? Please.

No, I am not disturbed by fiction. I can separate fiction/non-fiction
Yes, a documentary war move is capable of moving me. Traumatizing? No.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I have to agree the slaves and hunters should have to change paces for a second run.
Something Ive learned from similar situations, You don't wanna be in the second group of slaves.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

popscott said:


> If the student would have been shown the fact that there were black slave owners also... would the student be more or less traumatized?


How about if the student were told that a black man captured black men and women and sold them to the white man would the student be less traumatized?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HappySevenFarm said:


> How about if the student were told that a black man captured black men and women and sold them to the white man would the student be less traumatized?


I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you trying to justify American citizens owning other American citizens by saying black people did it too?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is important what you call it. Moved? certainly. Disturbed? perhaps. Traumatized? Why? If one went through the real thing, sure, it would/should be life alteringly traumatic. To reenact such events can/should be moving, but, traumatic? Please.
> 
> No, I am not disturbed by fiction. I can separate fiction/non-fiction
> Yes, a documentary war move is capable of moving me. Traumatizing? No.


Most adults can separate fiction from non fiction, but how about an 11 year old kid? If video games/movies can make them violent (that's not my contention) than how about real life, in a dark woods, being chased by a slave catcher? Can you see the difference?


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you trying to justify American citizens owning other American citizens by saying black people did it too?


Not trying to justify anything like that. Just saying that black men in Africa captured other black men and women and sold them to the white man.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you trying to justify American citizens owning other American citizens by saying black people did it too?


No one is justifying slavery today. Judge people by their times, and not by looking back, and looking down, on them.

I have said it before, and said it to you. You cannot judge people 200 years ago by today's standards.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I think some here are missing the point. It is the method of teaching the lesson, and how it is disturbing to some children, not the lesson itself.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> No one is justifying slavery today. Judge people by their times, and not by looking back, and looking down, on them.
> 
> I have said it before, and said it to you. You cannot judge people 200 years ago by today's standards.


You didn't make the statement, HappySevenFarm did. 

Isn't he (and a bunch of others) judging an 11 year old by how she reacted to something that happened 150 years ago? The fact that some Americans had no issue, and fought a war, over owning other Americans is still relevant today.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't make the statement, HappySevenFarm did.
> 
> Isn't he (and a bunch of others) judging an 11 year old by how she reacted to something that happened 150 years ago? The fact that some Americans had no issue, and fought a war, over owning other Americans is still relevant today.


Was the child traumatized by slavery of old, or by the current reenactment?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Was the child traumatized by slavery of old, or by the current reenactment?


Current reenactment based on very real events. No matter how you try to say it slavery is a current issue, and will most likely always be one.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Not trying to justify anything like that. Just saying that black men in Africa captured other black men and women and sold them to the white man.


So that makes it better that Americans owned other Americans?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Most adults can separate fiction from non fiction, but how about an 11 year old kid? If video games/movies can make them violent (that's not my contention) than how about real life, in a dark woods, being chased by a slave catcher? Can you see the difference?


I think the difference between reality and acting can be explained to most 11 year olds.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you trying to justify American citizens owning other American citizens by saying black people did it too?


Or, simply trying to paint a complete picture.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think that Auschwitz could happen again


It can't as long as people are armed and able to defend themselves.
Otherwise you're at the whim of the next tyrant.



> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you trying to justify American citizens owning other American citizens by saying black people did it too?


No one is trying to "justify" anything by simply stating facts.
You can't change history by ignoring it or pretending it never happened.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is trying to "justify" anything by simply stating facts.
> *You can't change history by ignoring it or* *pretending it never happened*.


Oh no? Look at your history books today....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> Oh no? Look at your history books today....


Today's history books simply lie about history, but they do not change it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> So that makes it better that Americans owned other Americans?


Nothing is going to make slavery any better nor worse. Slavery has existed for thousands of years. Hiding the facts will never change the facts. Teaching the facts may deter its reappearance.... At least in some of its ugliest forms.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> It is important what you call it. Moved? certainly. Disturbed? perhaps. Traumatized? Why? If one went through the real thing, sure, it would/should be life alteringly traumatic. To reenact such events can/should be moving, but, traumatic? Please.
> 
> No, I am not disturbed by fiction. I can separate fiction/non-fiction
> Yes, a documentary war move is capable of moving me. Traumatizing? No.


You’re leaving out two very important details: this is an 11 year old we’re talking about, and the experience was interactive, unlike the book and movie examples you mention. 

Too, the point I was making with comment about “traumatized” not being the word I would have chosen to describe my tour of Auschwitz was a nod to the fact that words like that can mean subtly different things to different people. 

Saying that you, as an adult, not being able to be truamatized by a book or a movie doesn’t really have any bearing on what we could/should expect this girl’s reaction to be.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Why do you think her reaction made the news?


Slow news day? Lots of things make the news. 

We’re talking about it here because you offered it up for discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> I think some here are missing the point. It is the method of teaching the lesson, and how it is disturbing* to some* children, not the lesson itself.


How many complained or were "disturbed"?
Not everyone will always be happy with everything.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re leaving out two very important details: this is an 11 year old we’re talking about, and the experience was interactive, unlike the book and movie examples you mention.
> 
> Too, the point I was making with comment about “traumatized” not being the word I would have chosen to describe my tour of Auschwitz was a nod to the fact that words like that can mean subtly different things to different people.
> 
> Saying that you, as an adult, not being able to be truamatized by a book or a movie doesn’t really have any bearing on what we could/should expect this girl’s reaction to be.


Read it again I did mention it being an interactive exercise and my remarks about books, and movies were responses to your questions. I don't blame the 11 year old for being "traumatized", I blame whomever told her she was "traumatized" She wasn't. Disturbed, perhaps, but, not traumatized. We use such emotional buzz words with reckless abandon these days and it serves no useful purpose.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Not trying to justify anything like that. Just saying that black men in Africa captured other black men and women and sold them to the white man.


And that makes it clear that its not a black -white issue


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Plenty of other stories out there on this sort of learning experience, good and bad, and plenty of other schools have decided to discontinue this type of experience as well.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> So that makes it better that Americans owned other Americans?


I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. But, as Farmerga said, maybe just trying to show a complete picture. For more of a complete picture on slavery in America, there were thousands of blacks who owned thousands of black slaves. You could probably be safe in saying that there were black slave catchers as well.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I am in my sixties and I can still be traumatized by re-enactments of historical events (live performances or TV shows) so the fact that the response of young children to something upsetting is to get upset is nothing to sneer at. Especially if it is new information and for the young it is all new information. 

Even when you are older and have read and lived a lot of history it still can trouble your mind. The Cuban missile crisis shaped all of my opinions on anything nuclear. The plaster casts taken at Pompeii get me upset every time. The first time I saw a film about the French Revolution where the people were being beheaded my sister and I ended up crying hysterically. We were 9 and 8 at the time and my Dad left the room to answer the door not realizing what was about to be shown on the TV. Never saw him move so fast as to to turn off that set. To this day I won't watch anything about the French Revolution. Even turned down tickets to Les Miserables.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HappySevenFarm said:


> I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. But, as Farmerga said, maybe just trying to show a complete picture. For more of a complete picture on slavery in America, there were thousands of blacks who owned thousands of black slaves. You could probably be safe in saying that there were black slave catchers as well.


You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been. It was justified for centuries by all different types and races of people, and that simply doesn't make it right. Do you understand? American citizens owning other American citizens was wrong. Correct?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been. It was justified for centuries by all different types and races of people, and that simply doesn't make it right. Do you understand? American citizens owning other American citizens was wrong. Correct?


Justify Slavery? Where do you see that? Where do you see anything that supports your admonishment "Do you understand"? You certainly have a way with words when you want to try to destroy people using things that they neither implied or suggested... Please - try to "be nice" like it says in the rules...


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been. It was justified for centuries by all different types and races of people, and that simply doesn't make it right. Do you understand? American citizens owning other American citizens was wrong. Correct?


Once again, I haven't justified anything. You are trying your best to find something that is not there. If you want to get technical, the slaves were not citizens until a year or two after the civil war but that has nothing to do with anything I've said. For the record I do believe it's wrong and would not wish that upon any human being.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been. It was justified for centuries by all different types and races of people, and that simply doesn't make it right. Do you understand? American citizens owning other American citizens was wrong. Correct?


In reading this post I don't see where anybody is justifying slavery. They are just expanding on the historical facts. It reminded me of a video I saw today put out by Campus Reform. They were asking college students about Trump sending National Guard to the border. As you can guess they all had derogatory things to say about Trump and his actions. Than they got hit with the truth. Obama did the same thing in 2012, troops on the border. The ones that weren't embarrassed by their stupidity said they would have to look at Obamas "intentions" in doing the same thing Trump did. One woman even said that Obama didn't give shoot to kill orders.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Once again, I haven't justified anything. You are trying your best to find something that is not there. If you want to get technical, the slaves were not citizens until a year or two after the civil war but that has nothing to do with anything I've said. For the record I do believe it's wrong and would not wish that upon any human being.


Thank you for stating that slavery is wrong. Your original posts were "but, blacks owned black slaves too" which to me is a justification, mileage may vary.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The student "Outing Club," which has gone backpacking, kayaking, and hiking in state parks over the course of its 98-year-existence, will no longer be allowed to host outdoor events after administrators conducted a risk assessment, according to _The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette._
_
_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery.


Everyone you've accused of that has said you're wrong.
Repeating it yet again won't change that.



Irish Pixie said:


> Your original posts were "but, blacks owned black slaves too" which *to me* is a justification, mileage may vary.


To you, only.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for stating that slavery is wrong. Your original posts were "but, blacks owned black slaves too" which to me is a justification, mileage may vary.


When I read @HappySevenFarm ‘s original comment, what I get was that slavery (writ-large) is/was not strictly a racial issue. The article seemed to point to some of the emotional distress coming from the teacher’s (horribly stupid) decision to make all of the black children “slaves” and all of the white children “slave owners”. 

Even if it was intended as a bit sarcastic or semi tongue-in-cheek, I took Happy’s point to be more about how big a part the implied racism really played in the emotional distress.

I didn’t take it, AT ALL, as an attempt to justify slavery, just because dark-skinned people have participated in it. Your read seems like a reach to me, but I get that my “take” may not be the only reasonable one. That said, in fairness, he did clarify that your inference is not what he was trying to say. At that point, why keep beating him up about what you thought he meant?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for stating that slavery is wrong. Your original posts were "but, blacks owned black slaves too" which to me is a justification, mileage may vary.


Blacks did own black slaves.... Blacks rounded up other blacks and sold them into slavery to the highest bidders long before Columbus sailed west to reach the east. Millions of whites have been bought and sold as slaves over the centuries. Slavery in many ugly forms has been practiced since the dawn of mankind, and still happens all day everyday. Knowing the facts, teaching our kids about the horrors in the world, nor stating those facts has nothing to do with trying to justify anything. Do you understand?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> When I read @HappySevenFarm ‘s original comment, what I get was that slavery (writ-large) is/was not strictly a racial issue. The article seemed to point to some of the emotional distress coming from the teacher’s (horribly stupid) decision to make all of the black children “slaves” and all of the white children “slave owners”.
> 
> Even if it was intended as a bit sarcastic or semi tongue-in-cheek, I took Happy’s point to be more about how big a part the implied racism really played in the emotional distress.
> 
> I didn’t take it, AT ALL, as an attempt to justify slavery, just because dark-skinned people have participated in it. Your read seems like a reach to me, but I get that my “take” may not be the only reasonable one. That said, in fairness, he did clarify that your inference is not what he was trying to say. At that point, why keep beating him up about what you thought he meant?


I did take it as a justification, and as soon as he said that he thought all slavery was wrong I thanked him and dropped it.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been.


The problem is the demonization of the white man in relation to slavery without any perspective what so ever that blacks were involved in the slave trade. People are calling it a racial issue but it is a human issue. Slavery existed long before the white man came to Africa, and it continues to this day.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prismseed said:


> The problem is the demonization of the white man in relation to slavery without any perspective what so ever that blacks were involved in the slave trade. People are calling it a racial issue but it is a human issue. Slavery existed long before the white man came to Africa, and it continues to this day.


I agree. And it's still wrong to own another human being for whatever reason. 

The vilification of the white men and woman that fought to own other Americans is just in my opinion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree. And it's still wrong to own another human being for whatever reason.
> 
> The vilification of the white men and woman that fought to own other Americans is just in my opinion.


Does this mean you are ok with renting people as long as you don't actually own them?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does this mean you are ok with renting people as long as you don't actually own them?


Do the HT administration actually genetically-engineer their moderation staff in a lab, selecting from the genome for super intelligence, or did they just luck out and find you in the wild?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Do the HT administration actually genetically-engineer their moderation staff in a lab, selecting from the genome for super intelligence, or did they just luck out and find you in the wild?


Pure luck on their part when they found me.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did take it as a justification, and as soon as he said that he thought all slavery was wrong I thanked him and dropped it.


You kinda didn’t, though- not that simply at least. 

He stated multiple times that he didn’t mean what you asked him if he meant. Was he supposed to read your mind that he needed to say “slavery is wrong” before you’d drop your accusation that he was trying to justify it? Those are two different things, and not everyone would make the connection that you did, right off the bat.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Pure luck on their part when they found me.


Yeah. They got a real winner. 

You should put Pixie’s statement and your reply in your signature line. 
It’s just that brilliant.


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're still trying to justify slavery. It's wrong for one human being to own another, and it always has been. It was justified for centuries by all different types and races of people, and that simply doesn't make it right. Do you understand? American citizens owning other American citizens was wrong. Correct?


The early Presidents had slaves and today are loved my most people. I think I now hated all those great Presidents because they had slaves. They didn't break the law at that time but had to be very bad men to have slaves.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

gerold said:


> The early Presidents had slaves and today are loved my most people. I think I now hated all those great Presidents because they had slaves. They didn't break the law at that time but had to be very bad men to have slaves.


Be careful with that logic.

There may come a time when the burning of fossil fuels for the selfish endeavor of posting ones own thoughts to something as frivolous as an internet forum may be viewed as a criminal wasting of future generations’ resources.


----------



## Prismseed (Sep 14, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> The vilification of the white men and woman that fought to own other Americans is just in my opinion.


This is a misrepresentation that bothers me. Note I am not saying slavery is right at all but try to see this from another angle.

Imagine instead of a civil war to end slavery it was a war to end abortion. Pretend anti-abortion won and abortion was abolished. As the victors they would write history that the war was about ending baby murder. Everyone who fought against them was fighting to murder babies. Anyone who fought against them deserves to have their existence erased from history because they wanted to murder babies.

But you and I both know that people fought not because they wanted to murder babies, they fought because they felt it was none of the federal government's business to place such a mandate on the states. They fought even though the president invited them to lead the union armies; refusing because they chose loyalty to state over federal government; and that choice cost them everything when they lost.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> The vilification of the white men and woman that fought to own other Americans is just in my opinion.


Most of the people who fought in the Civil War didn't own any slaves.
The war wasn't about slavery, and Lincoln wouldn't have freed them had he not needed more soldiers near the end.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You kinda didn’t, though- not that simply at least.
> 
> He stated multiple times that he didn’t mean what you asked him if he meant. Was he supposed to read your mind that he needed to say “slavery is wrong” before you’d drop your accusation that he was trying to justify it? Those are two different things, and not everyone would make the connection that you did, right off the bat.


I did, and I kept at it until he admitted he didn't agree with owning people. Apparently, we see the situation differently, and that's fine. 

Don't go there with my sig line, it refutes another I don't agree with, and the discussion will end (and it has every single time) badly. I totally agree that HT got a winner tho, that was brilliant and spot on.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gerold said:


> The early Presidents had slaves and today are loved my most people. I think I now hated all those great Presidents because they had slaves. They didn't break the law at that time but had to be very bad men to have slaves.


I don't agree that they were very bad men to own slaves, I do believe that most people knew it was wrong, included the founding fathers.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Not trying to justify anything like that. Just saying that black men in Africa captured other black men and women and sold them to the white man.


That was a mainstay of the Arab moe's. Like it or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Prismseed said:


> This is a misrepresentation that bothers me. Note I am not saying slavery is right at all but try to see this from another angle.
> 
> Imagine instead of a civil war to end slavery it was a war to end abortion. Pretend anti-abortion won and abortion was abolished. As the victors they would write history that the war was about ending baby murder. Everyone who fought against them was fighting to murder babies. Anyone who fought against them deserves to have their existence erased from history because they wanted to murder babies.
> 
> But you and I both know that people fought not because they wanted to murder babies, they fought because they felt it was none of the federal government's business to place such a mandate on the states. They fought even though the president invited them to lead the union armies; refusing because they chose loyalty to state over federal government; and that choice cost them everything when they lost.


I don't agree, people would fight for the same reason as slavery, people (women) have rights. I'm not discussing it further because it will get thrown into the pit so fast our heads will spin.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

krackin said:


> That was a mainstay of the Arab moe's. Like it or not.


Arab moe's?


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Arab moe's?


You decode that. They are still doing the same thing. ISIS was a huge proponent. You a fan?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

krackin said:


> You decode that. They are still doing the same thing. ISIS was a huge proponent. You a fan?


Nope, not a fan of religion at all, and I loathe extremists of any ilk.

What's an Arab moe's?


----------



## gerold (Jul 18, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Be careful with that logic.
> 
> There may come a time when the burning of fossil fuels for the selfish endeavor of posting ones own thoughts to something as frivolous as an internet forum may be viewed as a criminal wasting of future generations’ resources.


I was pulling Irish's chain. Just kidding about the slave owners at that time. Of course at that time it was not illegal to have slaves. A lot of people that could afford to have slaves did have slaves and at that time nothing was wrong according to the law with having salves.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did, and I kept at it until he admitted he didn't agree with owning people. Apparently, we see the situation differently, and that's fine.
> 
> Don't go there with my sig line, it refutes another I don't agree with, and the discussion will end (and it has every single time) badly. I totally agree that HT got a winner tho, that was brilliant and spot on.


You didn’t ask him his stance on slavery, though. You just kept accusing him of trying to justify it until he lucked into telling you that he thought it was wrong. It wasn’t a fair accusation the first time you made it, and it only continued to make you look worse the more times you repeated it.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to about the signature line. I do 99% of my internetification on a phone, so I don’t actually see folks’ signature lines. What does yours say, and where should I not go with it?

ETA: do I have one? I don’t recall ever putting one up, but who knows?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You didn’t ask him his stance on slavery, though. You just kept accusing him of trying to justify it until he lucked into telling you that he thought it was wrong. It wasn’t a fair accusation the first time you made it, and it only continued to make you look worse the more times you repeated it.
> 
> I’m not sure what you’re referring to about the signature line. I do 99% of my internetification on a phone, so I don’t actually see folks’ signature lines. What does yours say, and where should I not go with it?


My apologies, it was just your reference with Irish Pixie and sig line.. I misunderstood, or leaped to an assumption. Either way, I was wrong. It's about human rights, and what women can do with their bodies.

I don't think mind reading was warranted, everyone should abhor slavery at least in my opinion.

ETA: You don't have a sig line. You can add one in your profile, mine are often profound. :wink:


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not a fan of religion at all, and I loathe extremists of any ilk.
> 
> What's an Arab moe's?


Extremists. You are a tad behind the curve, 750 AD going forward to today. Maybe more that a tad. Hitler and Tojo deemed them as worthy allies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

krackin said:


> Extremists. You are a tad behind the curve, 750 AD going forward to today. Maybe more that a tad. Hitler and Tojo deemed them as worthy allies.


Whatever you say... What's an Arab moe's?

ETA: "Tojo" is pejorative.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you say... What's an Arab moe's?
> 
> ETA: "Tojo" is pejorative.


Phewl is pejorative, you are fool. 

Hideki Tojo


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I loathe extremists of any ilk.


LOL



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> What does yours say, and where should I not go with it?





Irish Pixie said:


> It's about human rights, and what women can do with their bodies.


Here's what it really says.

I'm not seeing the "human rights" thing, since it is obviously not favoring the right to bear arms:



> *Guns kill people.*
> Planned Parenthood provides healthcare, birth control, and a choice.


It sounds "extremist" to me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for stating that slavery is wrong. Your original posts were "but, blacks owned black slaves too" which to me is a justification, mileage may vary.


But arn't you in favor of slavery under certain circumstances?
I know I am and I thought most people were.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

krackin said:


> Phewl is pejorative, you are fool.
> 
> Hideki Tojo


My apologies, you were referencing the person, not as a slur on the Japanese as a whole. Tojo in general is pejorative. Calling me a fool isn't nice, and if I cared one iota about your opinion of me I would be crushed by your name calling.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

We have most certainly grown into a strong and capable collection of people....


----------



## Vjklander (Apr 24, 2018)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does this mean you are ok with renting people as long as you don't actually own them?


I believe that is called 'employment'.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

M5farm said:


> Its the world we live in where people are hurt offended and traumatized by everything, Bunch of Pansy's .


After he sees his therapist his mom can give him some cookies and milk.


----------

