FL schools to teach that "Blacks benefited from slavery" and "massacres had reasons"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't really paying attention to this news story because it appeared to be so obviously BS that it wasn't worth reading. Then I realized that was the wrong way to go, because if we quit paying attention to potential abuses of power, we won't notice them when they happen.

So I looked into this story and, well, it was intentionally misconstrued to smear Florida. I don't know why I bother.

Oh well by all means, share your proof with the class.

It’s still a dumb thing to say and a dumb way to say it. Were they more likely to earn a trade if they were slaves than if they were free? Hell No. So slavery didn’t give them skills. Working gave them skills and occasionally their aptitude was recognized and their owners rented them out as tradesmen, for the benefit of their owner. They would have learned more skills and benefited more from their skills if they were free. It’s not a “benefit” of slavery. If Florida can name the slaves who learned skilled trades, there weren’t very damn many of them. After the Civil War, there immediately were many more Black skilled tradesmen in many more industries than there had been in slavery because slavery had intentionally kept most of them ignorant and isolated as captive field hands.

Regardless, nothing stated is not true. They did learn skills that benefited them. And, this press release cites specific examples.
Sorry that disturbs you so.

A few slaves learned skills despite slavery, not because of it. Many more would have learned specialized skills if they had not been slaves. It’s stupid to attribute their skills to slavery. It’s because of slavery that there were so few with specialized skills.

DP. The statement explains why this clarification was included.

From your arguing, it sounds like you prefer to teach Black students and white students that slaves were oppressed and did nothing, could do nothing. Nothing. And by extension...

Of course slaves didn’t do nothing. They did plenty. They built most of the country. They were good at all kinds of things. No one ever said different. But they were slaves. They couldn’t leave. They couldn’t choose. They couldn’t decide anything for themselves. They couldn’t disagree with what their owner commanded them to do. Slavery held all slaves back, but especially those who had skills, because they would have thrived if they were free.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Derides*

Of course he does! Even though his “useless” education was instrumental in allowing him to achieve his goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thank God, Republicans made slavery illegal.
Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.

I know. Strange then that so many 20th century Democrats left to join the Republican party after the Democratic party embraced civil rights. What happened to the Republican party that racists decided it was a better home for them than the Democrats? And why doesn't today's modern Republican party embrace its progressive, woke past? Such a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess this is false like the Nebraska abortion story where she was jailed for concealing the body not for the abortion . Yet you even get Steve descano lying about it

It’s on pages 6 and 71 of the relevant document, at least the nugget about how they got great personal skills from being enslaved.

DP. I looked at pages 5-6 and 70-72, and the standards are fine. As a whole, and all the subsections in context. Read all of it and you'll see that it's fine. And a much more detailed history than I learned in school, including my college history class.

Clearly you didn't learn how to parse and analyze texts very well. Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thank God, Republicans made slavery illegal.
Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.

I guess you aren't familiar with the Southern Strategy.

In 1964, when democrat LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, racist southern democrats started a 25 year process of leaving the party for the GOP. This included KKK members and Dixiecrats.

So, the modern GOP is yesterday's democrats and today's democrats are the party that Abe Lincoln would recognize as his own.

If you really don't know this, then it may be worth bettering yourself with some facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank God, Republicans made slavery illegal.
Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.

I know. Strange then that so many 20th century Democrats left to join the Republican party after the Democratic party embraced civil rights. What happened to the Republican party that racists decided it was a better home for them than the Democrats? And why doesn't today's modern Republican party embrace its progressive, woke past? Such a shame.

You are wilfully misreading of the statement describing the purpose of the standards. Today's modern Republicans have done a pretty good job with this one. If you can look at the issue objectively, you'd see that.

Today's GOP is doing well representing its progressive roots? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did we think Florida Man was a scholar?!

Well, DeSantis, who’s happy to spearhead this mess, went to Yale and Harvard Law — so he may or may not be a scholar, but he definitely knows enough about what an excellent education can be to know that he’s deliberately condemning students and educators in Florida to something substandard.

Funny, he didn’t go to college in Florida. He’s turning a backwards state into an even greater intellectual backwater.

He graduated magna cum laude from Yale and earned a law degree from Harvard. Sounds as if the schools in Florida gave him a great education and preparation for those challenging Ivies.

Challenging ivies? You mean crappy leftist woke useless education. He decides his elite education.

He achieved high academic honors at those schools, yet many posters here and on other threads have described him as stupid. He most certainly is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't really paying attention to this news story because it appeared to be so obviously BS that it wasn't worth reading. Then I realized that was the wrong way to go, because if we quit paying attention to potential abuses of power, we won't notice them when they happen.

So I looked into this story and, well, it was intentionally misconstrued to smear Florida. I don't know why I bother.

Oh well by all means, share your proof with the class.

It’s still a dumb thing to say and a dumb way to say it. Were they more likely to earn a trade if they were slaves than if they were free? Hell No. So slavery didn’t give them skills. Working gave them skills and occasionally their aptitude was recognized and their owners rented them out as tradesmen, for the benefit of their owner. They would have learned more skills and benefited more from their skills if they were free. It’s not a “benefit” of slavery. If Florida can name the slaves who learned skilled trades, there weren’t very damn many of them. After the Civil War, there immediately were many more Black skilled tradesmen in many more industries than there had been in slavery because slavery had intentionally kept most of them ignorant and isolated as captive field hands.

Can you read? Do you have a brain and any understanding of what children can learn, both good and bad?

I wish I could say I'm surprised that you would argue about this ... but I'm not. SMH

Just how did these skills "benefit" the enslaved person who had them? What a bizarre things to say.

Of course it's fine to discuss how some enslaved people were highly skilled in various artisan fields, despite being held in bondage. To say they "benefited" from this is ahistorical. A person who is born enslaved and dies enslaved, never having experienced freedom, has never benefited from anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank God, Republicans made slavery illegal.
Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.

I know. Strange then that so many 20th century Democrats left to join the Republican party after the Democratic party embraced civil rights. What happened to the Republican party that racists decided it was a better home for them than the Democrats? And why doesn't today's modern Republican party embrace its progressive, woke past? Such a shame.

You are wilfully misreading of the statement describing the purpose of the standards. Today's modern Republicans have done a pretty good job with this one. If you can look at the issue objectively, you'd see that.

Republicans are embracing being progressive and woke? Since when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank God, Republicans made slavery illegal.
Democrats fought to keep slavery legal.

I know. Strange then that so many 20th century Democrats left to join the Republican party after the Democratic party embraced civil rights. What happened to the Republican party that racists decided it was a better home for them than the Democrats? And why doesn't today's modern Republican party embrace its progressive, woke past? Such a shame.

You are wilfully misreading of the statement describing the purpose of the standards. Today's modern Republicans have done a pretty good job with this one. If you can look at the issue objectively, you'd see that.

Please read what this “today’s modern Republican” wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't really paying attention to this news story because it appeared to be so obviously BS that it wasn't worth reading. Then I realized that was the wrong way to go, because if we quit paying attention to potential abuses of power, we won't notice them when they happen.

So I looked into this story and, well, it was intentionally misconstrued to smear Florida. I don't know why I bother.

Oh well by all means, share your proof with the class.

It’s still a dumb thing to say and a dumb way to say it. Were they more likely to earn a trade if they were slaves than if they were free? Hell No. So slavery didn’t give them skills. Working gave them skills and occasionally their aptitude was recognized and their owners rented them out as tradesmen, for the benefit of their owner. They would have learned more skills and benefited more from their skills if they were free. It’s not a “benefit” of slavery. If Florida can name the slaves who learned skilled trades, there weren’t very damn many of them. After the Civil War, there immediately were many more Black skilled tradesmen in many more industries than there had been in slavery because slavery had intentionally kept most of them ignorant and isolated as captive field hands.

Can you read? Do you have a brain and any understanding of what children can learn, both good and bad?

I wish I could say I'm surprised that you would argue about this ... but I'm not. SMH

Just how did these skills "benefit" the enslaved person who had them? What a bizarre things to say.

Of course it's fine to discuss how some enslaved people were highly skilled in various artisan fields, despite being held in bondage. To say they "benefited" from this is ahistorical. A person who is born enslaved and dies enslaved, never having experienced freedom, has never benefited from anything.

This statement is breathtaking.

246 years is a lot of heartbreak.

[Anonymous]

I still want to understand the difference between Germany and the American south. Why are the Germans so much better at acknowledging the evil they did? Why are Americans so resistant to it? I have to say I admire the Germans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to understand the difference between Germany and the American south. Why are the Germans so much better at acknowledging the evil they did? Why are Americans so resistant to it? I have to say I admire the Germans.

I wonder if Germany has anything in its curriculum that requires that the people interred in camps benefitted in some way?

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine if this were required in Germany " although nazism presented sigificant challenges to the jews they benefited by forced migration to the united states"