New Florida curriculum says slavery had “personal benefits” for slaves

Good thread

 

This is especially where a lot of folks on the left lose me.

You can't chalk up that 90% loss to worse circumstances and prejudices towards Blacks because that just doesn't make any sense.

The economic landscape in America changed dramatically over the course of 100 years, one of the big ones is globalization and less of an emphasis on agriculture, including in the South. So yes, while I'm aware redlining existed just like I'm aware racists exist today, and you won't find a bigger hater of Eminent Domain than me , that is not the root of all of Black America's problems. It's a Hell of a lot lower on the list now than it was 50 years ago... and even more so 100 years ago.

 

That'd be a horrible reason to hate or even criticize all Muslims, of course. But not sure why anyone should have qualms about condemning a rapist ancestor.

 

It's already been pointed out to you that such discussions need to be by PM, not on the board. If I answered here, you'd turn the thread into an argument about that and not the subject of the thread.
That's the board rule and there's not going to be an exception because you think you deserve special attention.

I'll send you a PM.

 

Please explain.

 

Good piece

 

Dude is king of the strawman. Pretty sure he set an all-time single post record for strawman fallacies just up thread.

 

I wasn't putting that characterization on you. I was trying to convey the context that many of us have heard and read that sort of stuff over the years from people who had self-serving - if not worse - motives. So we are suspicious when we hear or read things that sound like they're going in that direction.

No, our country today is not as racist as it was in 1865. Or even 1965. Not even close. I'm not saying that someone somewhere might not have claimed that, but I can't think of a single mainstream person who is making that argument.

Whatever skills slaves learned were by and large intended for the benefit of the slave owners, though I imagine there might have been some slave owners who were less inhumane. Most slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read and write, for example - many thinking their becoming literate would be problematic and dangerous. Even after emancipation, Black Americans were still often doing extremely physically-demanding jobs, as did many Chinese children and adults who Americans brought in to be laborers in railway construction. I don't think that was considered "skilled" labor though - at least my understanding is that the compensation wasn't consistent with it being considered "skilled," even though they were certainly paid something.

 

I didn't say it was the root of all of Black America's problems. You asked a question about land ownership, and I thought that history was notable. I'm sure there were economic changes during the 20th century which affected landowners and farmers generally. Were White land owners and farmers as likely to be killed, lynched, intimidated, or have their land taken with little or no payment?

 

Definitely not as likely no.

There's no question a lot of cultures and ethnicities have experienced prejudice in their American story, but that of the Black community is particularly unique and difficult.

 

This is a prime example of putting ideologues in key positions to push things through versus having those pesky deep state SME who know what they are doing.
I wonder how many lawyers vetted this and crafted the language (I imagine a bunch) or just a bunch of Qarens, Qens and grifters for jeebus.

 

Post emancipation, blacks were denied opportunity during reconstruction and Jim Crow. Did some succeed? Yes. But the example is not the rule.

 

No it’s not. It is the reality of the country being whitewashed. Segregation was about more than sitting on the back of the bus. And in black history classes, we already teach about contributions of blacks to this country. This thread is about the racist curriculum that you condemn and want to deflect from.

 

Very few write the things that 715 rants about. It's like a never-stopping conveyor belt loaded with straw man fallacies.

 

Ya'll didn't have to fight me on this. Go back to the first couple pages. It was a nice two seconds where we all sang Kumbaya together.

 

The context is everything on this topic and the Post article doesn’t give us much. Is the curriculum just stating enslaved individuals learned certain skills via their enslavement - matter of factly? Or is it being presented as a “feature” or “benefit” of enslavement? If it’s just stating it matter of factly, I don’t see an issue. That actually did happen - it’s history. If it’s being spun as a “benefit” or as a “boon” to the enslaved individuals, we can probably do away with that.

 

It's a description/clarification of a state standard and the word "benefit" is part of the description, which was posted up thread. Wait, here it is: P. 6

https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

Benchmark Clarifications: Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

Keep in mind that the standards are not curriculum per se. They are legal mandates for what is learned, but not how. IOW, they dictate content to a certain extent, but the standards are not the content, if that makes sense.

 

I don’t know. Lots of nuanced complexity. The issue is middle school though, not college level critical thinking

 

Is that really a response to something anyone here posted?

 

No