This The New PBS?! Viral Kids Cartoon Teaches Slavery As ‘No Big Deal', Company's Co-Founder Wants To Indoctrinate Children With Right-Wing Ideology
The clip, featuring a cartoon version of Christopher Columbus, suggests the institution of slavery was 'as old as time and has taken place in every corner of the world.'
In the video, Columbus goes further, stating:
'Being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? Before you judge, you must ask yourself, 'What did the culture and the society of the time treat as no big deal?''
This framing, packaged in a colorful cartoon format for kids, is part of PragerU's library of 'educational' videos.
The Grio reports that PragerU co-founder Dennis Prager has been blunt about his mission, admitting the goal of the programming is to indoctrinate children into right-wing ideology.
MSNBC adds that PragerU said in its 2022 annual report that it openly said it wanted to battle it out with PBS and Disney.
'Arming parents and educators with the pro-America content they are craving — we are going toe-to-toe with massive youth media companies like PBS Kids and Disney,'
While the videos mimic the style of regular children's programming, the messaging has drawn heavy criticism. According to The Grio, previous PragerU clips have denied Native American history, dismissed Indigenous Peoples' Day as 'designed to make Americans feel guilt,' denied climate change, and pushed Islamophobic rhetoric.
Ew.
Despite the controversy, PragerU has gained official partnerships in states like Alaska, Louisiana, and South Carolina, with The Grio confirming Florida became the first state in 2023 to approve PragerU content for public school curricula.
The biggest endorsement yet has come from the Trump administration. On July 24, President Trump signed a bill slashing $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — a move that threatens PBS, NPR, and more than 1,500 local stations.
Just one day later, PragerU joined forces with the Department of Education to unveil a White House museum exhibit titled 'The Road to Liberty.' The exhibit even used AI-generated 'commentary' from the Founding Fathers that leaned heavily into conservative talking points.
This is a continuation of Trump's wider cultural push. Previously reported by BOSSIP, his administration has launched a 'comprehensive review' of Smithsonian museums — including the National Museum of African American History and Culture — with the stated aim to 'celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.'
The impact is already being felt. The National Museum of American History temporarily removed references to Trump's two impeachments, while National Portrait Gallery director Kim Sajet resigned after Trump claimed he had fired her.
Let's be clear: a cartoon Columbus trying to convince kids that slavery was 'no big deal' is not only disgusting — it's dangerous revisionist history. With PragerU circling as a possible replacement for PBS and Trump actively reshaping museums, we're seeing an attempt to rebrand America's darkest truths under the banner of 'exceptionalism.'
If slavery can be brushed off as a minor inconvenience, what else might be 'erased' next?
#BanPragerU
The post This The New PBS?! Viral Kids Cartoon Teaches Slavery As 'No Big Deal', Company's Co-Founder Wants To Indoctrinate Children With Right-Wing Ideology appeared first on Bossip.
SEE ALSO
This The New PBS?! Viral Kids Cartoon Teaches Slavery As 'No Big Deal', Company's Co-Founder Wants To Indoctrinate Children With Right-Wing Ideology was originally published on bossip.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: CAIR's national deputy director defends the group against L.A. Times op-ed
To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer's recent column repeats bigoted, discredited conspiracy theories about American Muslims ('Label the Muslim Brotherhood's branches as terrorist organizations,' Aug. 15). Just as extremists once smeared Catholic and Jewish Americans as disloyal and accused Black civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters of being communist agents, Islamophobes today falsely claim that American Muslim institutions are part of a global terrorist conspiracy. The main target of Hammer's article was my civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. For more than 30 years, CAIR has defended free speech, racial equality and religious liberty while consistently condemning all forms of bigotry — including antisemitism and Islamophobia — and unjust violence. We have spoken out against terrorism so often that ISIS once put a target on our executive director. Like other American Muslim institutions, CAIR is an independent nonprofit, not an agent of any foreign group. If Hammer's real grievance with CAIR is our advocacy for Palestinian human rights, polls show that most Americans oppose U.S. support for Israel's devastating war in Gaza. Does Hammer smear American Muslim groups because he fears our growing civic engagement will continue to reorient U.S. policy on Israel and Gaza in a more just, humane direction? Anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian activists are entitled to lash out, but the rest of us should not take their bigoted conspiracy theories seriously. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, Washington, writer is a civil rights attorney and the national deputy director of CAIR.
