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:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

Yeah, so? If they're so interested in teaching about the lives of slaves, why aren't there benchmarks teaching about their everyday lives?
How they were branded like livestock, live in cramped little shacks with dirt floors, were underfed, had their children taken away and sold, whipped and beaten as punishment, forbidden to learn to read and write, etc, etc...

Why does Florida want to avoid what slavery really is?

That is also taught. It's not a clarification - that is already taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

This is common knowledge.

But what you’re gliding right over is that the enslaved could only do so with the permission of the person who owned them, so no, not just like any other skilled worker.

[Anonymous]

I don't see this as a compete negative. It means they were learning for themselves even while in slavery disputing the myth that they weren't capable of learning and just followed their masters' rules. I guess it depends on how it's worded along with how much brutality is also taught, but the idea that culture and skill was acquired even while enduring trauma is positive.

[Anonymous]

They want you to believe that the poor, huddled slaves were grateful to their masters for their food, shelter and opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see this as a compete negative. It means they were learning for themselves even while in slavery disputing the myth that they weren't capable of learning and just followed their masters' rules. I guess it depends on how it's worded along with how much brutality is also taught, but the idea that culture and skill was acquired even while enduring trauma is positive.

Sincere question: is there something wrong with you? The context is that they were slaves--they were enslaved. There is no positive spin on this. Why are you trying so hard to create one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see this as a compete negative. It means they were learning for themselves even while in slavery disputing the myth that they weren't capable of learning and just followed their masters' rules. I guess it depends on how it's worded along with how much brutality is also taught, but the idea that culture and skill was acquired even while enduring trauma is positive.

Who are you to justify the Blacks enslavement had a silver lining? Do you also think the holocaust had some silver lining? Do you have no shame?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

This is common knowledge.

But what you’re gliding right over is that the enslaved could only do so with the permission of the person who owned them, so no, not just like any other skilled worker.

And not only did the skilled slaves need permission to work for someone other than their employer, but they also frequently had to turn over all or most of their wages to their employer. Plus, you know, they were slaves.

[Anonymous]

Don't educate your kids with that Florida garbage. Shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

Hooray just enough to buy the pair of shoes their enslaver wouldn't give them.

Sorry about those pesky facts. They can be so inconvenient.

What is inconvenient is teaching the vocational benefits of slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

This is common knowledge.

But what you’re gliding right over is that the enslaved could only do so with the permission of the person who owned them, so no, not just like any other skilled worker.

It depends. Some skilled slaves were skilled workers that worked for their masters first and any other jobs as they chose. Some didn't. There were regional variations and differences in different time periods. It was complicated and not one-dimensional. In general, slaves were treated as one step lower than the lower class servants. Sometimes much worse, but by far the worst were the field workers. Being a slave in the city was safer. And the slave women who were mistresses of the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

[Anonymous]

Factual error on page 8:

Analyze the development of labor systems using indentured servitude
contracts with English settlers and Africans early in Jamestown, Virginia.
Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes indentured servitude of poor English settlers and the extension of
indentured servitude to the first Africans brought to Jamestown, Virginia by the Dutch in 1619.

The first Africans brought to Jamestown were enslaved people and they were brought to Virginia by the English, not the Dutch.

Arrival of "20 and odd" Africans in late August 1619, not aboard a Dutch ship as reported by John Rolfe, but an English warship, White Lion, sailing with a letters of marque issued to the English Captain Jope by the Protestant Dutch Prince Maurice, son of William of Orange. A letters of marque legally permitted the White Lion to sail as a privateer attacking any Spanish or Portuguese ships it encountered. The 20 and odd Africans were captives removed from the Portuguese slave ship, San Juan Bautista, following an encounter the ship had with the White Lion and her consort, the Treasurer, another English ship, while attempting to deliver its African prisoners to Mexico. Rolfe's reporting the White Lion as a Dutch warship was a clever ruse to transfer blame away from the English for piracy of the slave ship to the Dutch. https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm

Long report here on the first Africans who were brought to Virginia - https://hampton.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24075/1619-Virginias-First-Africans?bidId=

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

This is common knowledge.

But what you’re gliding right over is that the enslaved could only do so with the permission of the person who owned them, so no, not just like any other skilled worker.

It depends. Some skilled slaves were skilled workers that worked for their masters first and any other jobs as they chose. Some didn't. There were regional variations and differences in different time periods. It was complicated and not one-dimensional. In general, slaves were treated as one step lower than the lower class servants. Sometimes much worse, but by far the worst were the field workers. Being a slave in the city was safer. And the slave women who were mistresses of the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

Treated quite well? What the heck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

This is common knowledge.

But what you’re gliding right over is that the enslaved could only do so with the permission of the person who owned them, so no, not just like any other skilled worker.

It depends. Some skilled slaves were skilled workers that worked for their masters first and any other jobs as they chose. Some didn't. There were regional variations and differences in different time periods. It was complicated and not one-dimensional. In general, slaves were treated as one step lower than the lower class servants. Sometimes much worse, but by far the worst were the field workers. Being a slave in the city was safer. And the slave women who were mistresses of the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

Oh cool, the rape apologist has shown up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the Florida Board of Education link, OP?

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

You haven’t read the 200 pages, have you? Lol!

Are you familiar with how to search a pdf?

pages 6, 71: "Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

pages 17, 133: "Clarification 2: Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans but
is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921
Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre." (these are all riots/massacres which were started by white people - violence by black people was in self-defense)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

This is the benchmark that clarifies: "Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation)"

Why is it necessary to point out that while they learned these skills in order to serve their masters, enslaved people would also be able to darn their own socks?

Some skilled slaves could also work for others, not their masters, for pay. Just like any other skilled worker. Maybe you would learn something if you go to school in Florida.

Hooray just enough to buy the pair of shoes their enslaver wouldn't give them.

Sorry about those pesky facts. They can be so inconvenient.

What is inconvenient is teaching the vocational benefits of slavery.

WTAF! How about teaching your daughter the sexual pleasure of rape?

They’ll get to that next. Then they’ll explain the benefits of being denied adequate food and housing and how preventing the enslaved from getting an education was helpful for reasons.

Racism with a soupçon of toxic positivity. Not everything has an upside.

[Anonymous]

There is no justification or positive spin for slavery. Period. Being a "city" slave vs. a "country" or "field" slave or any other variation of a slave does not make the condition of being in slavery any less abominable. Acquiring a highly valued skill while a slave in no way ameliorates the status of being a slave. Anyone who can't see that has a screw loose and a weak moral compass.