Thanks! Those articles were quite informative! I didn’t read all of them And it seems to me that it’s a bit of an overreaction, here are some relevant parts of various links you posted:
Politifact:
The controversial part is in this “benchmark clarification” about slave labor: “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”
The rest of the document includes specific standards about slavery, including the development of slavery and the conditions for Africans as they were brought to America. It also covers how slave codes resulted in enslaved people becoming property without rights, abolitionist movements, state and federal laws, revolts by slaves, and the Civil War.
CBS News:
“The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented,” said Dr. William Allen and Dr. Frances Presley Rice, members of the group, before listing examples like Crispus Attucks and Booker T. Washington. “Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.”
And from the last link (the actual curriculum, on page 71:
SS.68.AA.2.4
Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be
applied for their personal benefit.
So that’s like 65 pages of non-offensive content, and one sentence that people have issue with. And given the quotes above, I honestly don’t see a problem with it.
The curriculum makes it absolutely clear that slavery is completely unacceptable and really hurt entire groups of people. It goes through the terrible conditions Africans went through, and the unfair treatment leading up to and including emancipation. The curriculum in no way takes the tone of a slave owner apologist, it merely states that many former slaves were able to use skills they learned (by force) to make a life for themselves after achieving freedom. It’s not in any way implying that slavery was a good thing, but that some former slaves were able to use the skills they acquired to support themselves after gaining freedom.
It’s kind of like saying a soldier conscripted to fight in Vietnam who was injured due to fighting in the war was able to use skills after coming home to find gainful employment (e.g. maybe they use flight skills to become a pilot, or survival skills to teach survival classes). The conscription was still a terrible thing, but they were able to make something somewhat positive out of it.
At least that’s how I understand the curriculum and the commentary about it. If I’m missing something, please correct me.
You are focusing way to much on the fact that “oh well the rest isn’t too bad, it’s just one bad part.” and you don’t seem to understand the issues with the bad part.
It doesn’t matter if the rest is inoffensive. None of it was offensive before. You think they’re going to start with this one change? Do you really not see how this is just their foot in the door? They’re rubbing their hands together salivating over people like you because you’re the stepping stone they’re looking for to gain leverage for future changes. You’re the hot water they want to use to slowly boil all the frogs in the pot.
And the slaves DID NOT BENEFIT FROM SLAVERY. Even the implication is disgusting. I don’t understand how anyone could honestly believe that. Think about it, for one goddamn moment. They did not learn these skills BECAUSE of slavery. Did white people need to be slaves to learn the same skills? Obviously not. Imagine how many black people could have learned and applied these skills, like blacksmithing and so on, if they’d been given the freedom to CHOOSE to do so on their own terms for their OWN sake, not for the sake of the people with bloody whips in their hands. My god dude, actually think about what the fuck you’re saying.
You’re twisting it again. Nobody is arguing that slavery was a good thing for the slaves, the argument is that freed slaves were able to use the skills they gained to make a life for themselves. Given that there’s ~65 pages before this detailing the terrible conditions slaves lived in, it’s absolutely ridiculous to see this as anything other than a transition to reconstruction-era US.
The message kids should and will likely take from this isn’t that slavery was somehow good, but quite the opposite. It was a terrible atrocity, and the people enslaved were just like you and me. But these weren’t unskilled people, when freed, they were able to jump in and engage in the economy. The success here was limited, not because of their lack of skill, but because of intolerance.
And it’s not the final chapter in the discussion on slavery either, there are more references to it later, such as on pages 125-136, give or take. So the point of mentioning the skills slaves gained isn’t to somehow justify it, but to set the stage for future discussion on issues black people experienced afterward, and why the Civil Rights movement needed to happen.
I think it’s important to discuss as many aspects of an issue as possible. Just look at discussion of US foreign intervention in US schools, we almost never mention the negatives associated with it, and instead the US is painted as a savior in most cases, but we ignore things like crimes committed by US soldiers. Schools shouldn’t be a place to push an agenda, but to educate in a way that teaches kids to see that each issue has multiple sides.
If you genuinely don’t see the issue with what’s happening here then I’m not going to waste any more energy arguing with you. What they’re doing here is dangerous, even if you’re too blind to see it.
I’ll wait to see how it ends up being implemented.
What I see here is certain groups wanting a specific agenda pushed (I’m guessing the group that wants reparations), and Florida is resisting that. And if they stick to keeping the narrative as neutral as possible, I’m on board. I’ll keep an eye on the news for this coming school year and see if there’s anything to truly worry about.
But what I see is teaching a broad curriculum covering a variety of aspects of the African slave era, celebrating accomplishments and detailing atrocities. I guess we’ll see if teachers maintain that tone.
Thanks! Those articles were quite informative! I didn’t read all of them And it seems to me that it’s a bit of an overreaction, here are some relevant parts of various links you posted:
Politifact:
CBS News:
And from the last link (the actual curriculum, on page 71:
So that’s like 65 pages of non-offensive content, and one sentence that people have issue with. And given the quotes above, I honestly don’t see a problem with it.
The curriculum makes it absolutely clear that slavery is completely unacceptable and really hurt entire groups of people. It goes through the terrible conditions Africans went through, and the unfair treatment leading up to and including emancipation. The curriculum in no way takes the tone of a slave owner apologist, it merely states that many former slaves were able to use skills they learned (by force) to make a life for themselves after achieving freedom. It’s not in any way implying that slavery was a good thing, but that some former slaves were able to use the skills they acquired to support themselves after gaining freedom.
It’s kind of like saying a soldier conscripted to fight in Vietnam who was injured due to fighting in the war was able to use skills after coming home to find gainful employment (e.g. maybe they use flight skills to become a pilot, or survival skills to teach survival classes). The conscription was still a terrible thing, but they were able to make something somewhat positive out of it.
At least that’s how I understand the curriculum and the commentary about it. If I’m missing something, please correct me.
You are focusing way to much on the fact that “oh well the rest isn’t too bad, it’s just one bad part.” and you don’t seem to understand the issues with the bad part.
It doesn’t matter if the rest is inoffensive. None of it was offensive before. You think they’re going to start with this one change? Do you really not see how this is just their foot in the door? They’re rubbing their hands together salivating over people like you because you’re the stepping stone they’re looking for to gain leverage for future changes. You’re the hot water they want to use to slowly boil all the frogs in the pot.
And the slaves DID NOT BENEFIT FROM SLAVERY. Even the implication is disgusting. I don’t understand how anyone could honestly believe that. Think about it, for one goddamn moment. They did not learn these skills BECAUSE of slavery. Did white people need to be slaves to learn the same skills? Obviously not. Imagine how many black people could have learned and applied these skills, like blacksmithing and so on, if they’d been given the freedom to CHOOSE to do so on their own terms for their OWN sake, not for the sake of the people with bloody whips in their hands. My god dude, actually think about what the fuck you’re saying.
You’re twisting it again. Nobody is arguing that slavery was a good thing for the slaves, the argument is that freed slaves were able to use the skills they gained to make a life for themselves. Given that there’s ~65 pages before this detailing the terrible conditions slaves lived in, it’s absolutely ridiculous to see this as anything other than a transition to reconstruction-era US.
The message kids should and will likely take from this isn’t that slavery was somehow good, but quite the opposite. It was a terrible atrocity, and the people enslaved were just like you and me. But these weren’t unskilled people, when freed, they were able to jump in and engage in the economy. The success here was limited, not because of their lack of skill, but because of intolerance.
And it’s not the final chapter in the discussion on slavery either, there are more references to it later, such as on pages 125-136, give or take. So the point of mentioning the skills slaves gained isn’t to somehow justify it, but to set the stage for future discussion on issues black people experienced afterward, and why the Civil Rights movement needed to happen.
I think it’s important to discuss as many aspects of an issue as possible. Just look at discussion of US foreign intervention in US schools, we almost never mention the negatives associated with it, and instead the US is painted as a savior in most cases, but we ignore things like crimes committed by US soldiers. Schools shouldn’t be a place to push an agenda, but to educate in a way that teaches kids to see that each issue has multiple sides.
If you genuinely don’t see the issue with what’s happening here then I’m not going to waste any more energy arguing with you. What they’re doing here is dangerous, even if you’re too blind to see it.
I’ll wait to see how it ends up being implemented.
What I see here is certain groups wanting a specific agenda pushed (I’m guessing the group that wants reparations), and Florida is resisting that. And if they stick to keeping the narrative as neutral as possible, I’m on board. I’ll keep an eye on the news for this coming school year and see if there’s anything to truly worry about.
But what I see is teaching a broad curriculum covering a variety of aspects of the African slave era, celebrating accomplishments and detailing atrocities. I guess we’ll see if teachers maintain that tone.