Slavery is an atrocity. Slavery in the US was overwhelmingly horrific for blacks. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments benefited blacks, and real progress was initially made in the post-Civil War era. Black men were voting and, in many instances, getting elected to public office. Then organized bigotry, the then-racist Democratic Party and Plessy v. Ferguson came along and things quickly deteriorated. The decades that followed were disastrous for blacks, particularly in the south. Finally, in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education marked an important change. So did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
You can’t say that!
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
OK, but they used those examples in a statement put out to defend whatever the language was that they used, not in the curriculum, as far as I can tell from that article. What does the curriculum say?
The critics are clearly exaggerating and using hyperbole as quoted in that article, and others (here's one where they call this curriculum "fascism at its best." ). I'm pretty sure the Florida curriculum isn't as egregious as that and I'm pretty sure the writers of this didn't mean to glorify or whitewash slavery.
Here's a link to the actual Florida State standards. 216 pages, 20 pages of which is devoted to standards surrounding African American history and slavery, putting the lie to the argument that Florida isn't teaching that. There's lots of room for this supposed whitewashing of history to show through, here. Can anyone find something wrong other than this?
By the way, if anyone can find the standard that says that slaves benefitted from slavery and could point it out, I'd be grateful. I cannot locate it here.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not crediting slavery. Yes they were able to learn skills and the slaves would have probably learned certain skills, the ones they chose. They weren't given a choice though. They were forced to learn certain skills. And for the slaves who were freed, some of them did turn the things they learned as slave laborers into something they could make a living off of later. That isn't "Yay, slavery!" As I said, it helps set the stage for the next chapter in the black American experience.
They would have, but they by and large would not have done it here. Without the African slave trade this all looks way different. None of that is how it played out though. They were forced over here. They were forced to learn a skill with their life and well being on the line. Some of them used those skills after emancipation to support themselves. Some taught themselves new skills. They were seen as an economic and political threat to whites in the South because of this and reconstruction broke down as part of a political deal then along came old Jim Crow. It is a sordid story for sure but that is reality. Now, I wouldn't introduce that level of complexity into the discussion until high school.
Glad I have you to correct my errors. I used to pay people to do that and you do it for free.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Clever response. Tip of the cap.
I have no idea what the curriculum says, but those two that put out the statement were part of the group who came out with this curriculum, so if they got those basic facts wrong, I'm not super confident in other facts that they're throwing out there.
As to your last question, I believe what you are looking for is at the bottom of page 6.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
And from what I can tell, all of it is covered in the Florida standards. Fascism at its best, dontcha know.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Thanks, Baller. So here's the offending language among the 20 pages of standards to be applied in Florida:
SS.68.AA.2.3 Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).
Benchmark Clarifications: Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Take a look at the quoted standard. Do you believe that language "credi
That clarification is an absolutely horror show. How did that get in there? Christ.
Which is true. I think you would have to be really careful in how you presented that but it isn't false. And I have already provided how that truth ends up having an impact down the road. When the services that used to be free were now in the realm of open economic activity, the freed slaves were a competitor with their former slave masters and normal old whites who lived in the south. That is part of the Jim Crow story.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Meh. I think it fails to foresee the politically motivated attack on the entire effort, but in and of itself, it (1) doesn't mention the institution of slavery or credit it with anything and (2) makes the slave the subject, crediting agency. That some slaves did acquire skills in spite of their enslaved status is not a lie as Kamala Harris accused.
Why this needs to be included, I don't know. I'm not sure it's all that important, although learning about the day-to-day existence of slaves would seem important and obviously the pecking order of slaves within their communites while enslaved and after emancipation would play into that (see 12 Years a Slave, Django Unchained, etc.).
I wonder: if that same standard were used to describe serfs under feudalism, would it be seen as offensive? The common worker under Soviet-era communism? Certain men under Spartan militarism? The pariahs in the Indian caste system? Jews in Medieval Europe (which is covered if you read the Merchant of Venice and how Jews were forced into early banking and money lending because of other areas they were shut out of because of anti-semitism)?
I feel like many on this board can have this conversation. The board is NOT reflective of American society as a whole.
I also think ascribing any benefit to slavery, even tangentially, is a no go for a generalized curriculum which should, at least through highschool, only teach/preach the moral disaster that was slavery. We should discuss how we claim to be a coutry founded on Judeo Christian or even liberal western values, but still managed to enslave million of people. We shouldn't blame the whites of today of course, but we should have highschoolers understand there was no benefit to slavery. Not to the economy, not to the slaves own personal edification. Nothing. If they move beyond highschool we can have more nuanced conversations.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I guess I have a blind spot (but understand they existed in the past) to the efforts to paint slave masters as benevolent caretakers and slaves as children who should be appreciative that they were rescued from their African cultural hellscape. That notion just blows my mind. If you think that viewpoint still runs rampant, I guess it makes sense to be overly cautious here. Much of it, of course, is going to come down to the individual teachers which people fail to realize (same goes when they try to force in progressive/anti-racist ideology into the history curriculum).
For me, I received a shitty education from a rural Indiana school and was never taught anything close to this, so I consider these warnings overblown. I look at those Florida standards and see a much more enlightened, nuanced viewpoint than I was taught and so the notion that it is "fascism" is just ridiculous. Do we all think we grew up in a fascist system? It's true this means that my viewpoint is based on my own personal experience and the anchoring effect.
Yeah I don’t even remember it other than slavery=worst thing ever. Why we’re trying to reopen that can of worms at the high school level baffles me. I suspect it has to do with the very confusing identity politics games we’re playing as a country right now.
I just agree with Tommy that the baseline should be Germany and the Holocaust. If they want to learn more about the nuances, have at it but not in a state mandated curriculum at that level.
My two cents.
If historical accuracy is critical to you then you must REALLY hate the 1619 project.
Which, btw, is being taught in schools nationwide.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The German Holocaust, though, occurred at a time when people everywhere found that shocking--that just wasn't done. United States slavery existed during a time when slavery was ordinary among men across the world. Does that mean it wasn't terrible? No. But it does differentiate it from the Holocaust.
If you want to play the "which was worst?" game and think of these things in terms of atemporal groups based on skin color or background (which I think is the fundamental error of all this talk and storytelling), I think what the United States did to the native American population might be worse. Compare the numbers of native Americans and African Americans in 1800 to 2000. It's ugly.
The Biden administration offered grants for the teaching of Ibram Kendi and the 1619 project. The 1619 project is part of Californias state curriculum.
If the current curriculum is myth based, I’d rather stick with that one than go to the one Biden is advocating.
Biden Administration Cites 1619 Project as Inspiration in History Grant Proposal
The Biden administration's proposal is part of a heated battle over racism and what students should learn about America's past.www.edweek.org
DeSantis stock goes up
and be born in Hawai'i Kenya. C’mon man, you’re in Florida. Get with the “proper new history”!
indiana.forums.rivals.com
I've been pretty consistent on this topic
"... how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit." That sounds to me as if slavery allowed them to learn the skills. If I were in a job interview and I said "though my current job I was able to learn 'X'", would that not be crediting my job with at least assisting?
The Germans pressed many captured people into factory work for them. I wonder if Ukrainians, Poles, French think of their time in German factories as developing "skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit"? I don't see what other purpose could be there but to soften everything else said about slavery. Especially because it probably is the last thing discussed, I think people tend to remember the opening and closing. So the last thing they hear on slavery is some slaves were able to develop skills that would help them.
Skills they could have developed as free men and women. Some slaves had food, water, and clothes too. Should that be mentioned.
My idea on slavery. 1) explain chattel slavery vs Roman or Greek. 2) discuss trade, and the northern participation 3) describe what "typical" life was like. It is fair to mention some slaves had it much better and some much worse. 4) Discuss Fugitive Slave Act, underground railroad, and Dred Scott.
Yes, they may have learned to grow watermelon (as an example mentioned). That sort of thing can be mentioned in the daily life. "Many times slaves grew their own food". That is more part of daily life than slavery.
But as written, it seems likely this will be the conclusion on slavery. "Slaves are emancipated and in some cases the skills learned provided personal benefit post-war" is softening.
Marv you don’t know what full stop means. Fing boomers man. Ponderous. Anyway. I love how the right and left rename shit. The crazy libs call convicts “court involved individuals” lol. Like they went to small claims court. Slavery will be rebranded by the right a jobs training program for those with a Pantone of Hot Fudge 19-0913 or darker
it's used often in the nonprofit world. so too is justice-involved individuals. below is an example. it's nationwide.
Located at 214-A Commerce Place in Elizabeth, is the newest branch of the New Jersey Re-entry Corporation (NJRC). A nonprofit agency that serves court-involved individuals, by providing critically needed services to empower them to achieve healthy self-sufficiency, thereby reducing recidivism and fostering safer communities.
National Judicial Task Force to Examine State Courts' Response to Mental Illness
Led by an Executive Committee, joined by 40 additional judges, court, and behavioral health experts, and funded by the State Justice Institute, the Task Force spent two years developing tools, resources, best practices, and policy recommendations for the state courts to help in their efforts to effectively respond to the needs of court-involved individuals with serious mental illness.
Last edited:
CoH, completely agree, each one of us should be recognized as individuals because we are.
Unfortunately we too often see all "colored" folks as being part of a group (which our social contract labels as a Black race). This then obscures treating each of them as an individual (one of a kind). On top of that, we bring crime statistics and other stigmas into play regarding their "race".
Thus when seeing a person of color on the street it is easy to think about those crime statistics and stigmas while forgetting you are seeing a fellow human being.
So many have changed. Another example i've been corrected on is substance abuse. it's not abuse anymore. it's just use. mentally ill is mental health needs. needy or poor is verboten now. you don't serve or help the needy. barriers is a new replacement word that's a catchall. experiencing financial barriers. helping those to overcome financial barriers. on and on
I hear ya, but I get the "mentally ill" change. That just sounds terrible and gives oxygen to the stigma.
there are many that are an improvement. some are silliness. anyone who volunteers (boards etc) knows how impt words are and words that stigmatize to that world. state agencies more and more as well. but the nonprofits are usually at the forefront.
Yes, particularly if they're related to social services or education.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
You're reading a lot into a clarification of a standard that I don't believe is warranted. If I'm on the political side attacking this, your proposed teaching that some slaves had it better than others, means I would say "Oh, you're saying slavery was good for some of them? White washer!" As for your job comp, what you would say is "I have developed this skill. Aren't I great? And I did that in overwhelmingly bad conditions! Look at me! I'm awesome!" Why are we assuming the teachers won't focus on that and instead will teach kids that slavery was actually a good thing for some?
Re slavery comps, why just those? Why wouldn't you compare it to the world at the time of US Slavery? Compare it to what was going on in Brazil, the Caribbean, Africa, etc. during the same time.
I think every single thing you mention you would teach is in the Florida standards. So can we dispense with the canard that Florida has eliminated black history from its curriculum?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Yep, I see the same language shift at the non-profit I volunteer for that provides pro-bono services for kids in family law courts here. Poor has been replaced by low-income. That one seems reasonable. Can't wait for income-challenged.
It’s stupid all around. Of course the knee jerk reaction by the Left is right out of the playbook. But it’s also a stupid teaching point for the woke-allergic to rally around. Tribal conflicts. Stupid.
Again, the point is about the END of slavery, it is a modifier saying "ok, we are at reconstruction, thank God for us Whites, we provided Blacks the skills they needed to get by".
Somewhere you said you do not know why it is there, it is there to get White Southern votes. That is the only reason. If that is why it is there, and if you think it is wrong tell me the specific reason that makes more sense, if that is why it is there my explanation fits perfectly.
But let's do this for everything, do we tell people Pearl Harbor sank our obsolete battleships so Pearl made us stronger by guaranteeing a modern navy?
FDR had polio, the bright spot is Eleanor said it made him stronger and braver. Polio helped make the US a stronger nation.
If we are going to, as Tim Scott said, put a silver lining on slavery, let us do it for everything.
It is there to win votes. He isn't trying to win votes of people who hate what the CSA stood for, nor of Blacks.
Can you find a single other state that requires a "skills to compete" requirement?
Interesting thoughts. As Brad noted, one has to ask why something is an important element to teach in the limited time available and how that element is going to be woven into the larger instruction. Particularly in lower grades, it's a difficult challenge. Absent the context of the economic threat that many southern whites felt that newly freed slaves presented, I'm not sure I see a compelling case to include it in a limited instruction period over other elements of a complex history.
