Florida bans AP African-American Studies course from schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

Yes, indeed.
And, it is important to note that even African American history teachers had huge concerns about the original curriculum. Competent teachers, that is.

Leon County Commissioner Bill Proctor, a Black Democrat, agreed with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, R., last week that a proposed AP African American history course that was rejected by the state's Department of Education constitutes propaganda rather than a legitimate educational curriculum. DeSantis blocked the course on grounds that it violated the Sunshine State's Stop WOKE Act that was passed last year.

"I think it’s trash," Proctor said about the curriculum.

"There is grave concern about the tone and the tenor of leadership’s voice from the highest spaces in our state being hostile to teaching of African American history," he noted, according to Tallahassee Reports.

"Well frankly I’m against the College Board’s curriculum. I think it’s trash. It’s not African American history. It is ideology," Proctor continued.

"I’ve taught African American history, I’ve structured syllabuses for African American history. I am African American history. And talking about ‘queer’ and ‘feminism’ and all of that for the struggle for freedom and equality and justice has not been no tension with queerness and feminist thought at all," he argued.

+100
Good for Bill Proctor.

Proctor proposed a 15-member panel to help craft an adequate course that includes, among other topics, the struggle for freedom from slavery, economics, the Black family, societal contributions and poverty.

And this: In a tweet last month, Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the course was “filled with Critical Race Theory and other obvious violations of Florida law.”

“We proudly require the teaching of African American history,” he said. “We do not accept woke indoctrination masquerading as education.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/calling-trash-proctor-pushes-desantis-202114905.html

AP clarifies:

The Times reporting is rife with inaccuracies. Despite their claim that Black feminism is “purged” from the course, the facts are that the course framework explicitly includes this material as required content

Note especially the last required topic: Black lesbians’ special role in developing alternatives to mainstream feminism are cited explicitly, including the Combahee River Collective.

The Times reports that gay experience is not in the course, but deliberately ignores that several explicit references to gay Black Americans were included. In addition to the previous material about the role of Black lesbians, a section was also included in the Civil Rights Movement portion calling out Bayard Rustin and Pauli Murray by name and noting their contributions as required content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

DP, but all you dopes and Floridians who don’t know shit about Black history need to STFU.

The Harlem Renaissance in Black Queer History
https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/harlem-renaissance-black-queer-history

African American literary critic and professor Henry Louis Gates once reflected that the Harlem Renaissance was “surely as gay as it was Black, not that it was exclusively either of these.” Gates’s comments point to the often-overlooked place of the Harlem Renaissance within queer history.

The Harlem Renaissance, a literary and cultural flowering centered in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood that lasted from roughly the early 1920s through the mid-1930s, marked a turning point in African American culture. Developments from Zora Neale Hurston’s folklore-influenced fiction to Duke Ellington’s colorful orchestrations reflected an assertive and forward-thinking Black identity that philosopher Alain Locke dubbed “The New Negro.”

Black queer artists and intellectuals were among the most influential contributors to this cultural movement. Like other queer people in early twentieth century America, they were usually forced to conceal their sexualities and gender identities. Many leading figures of the period, including Countee Cullen, Bessie Smith, and Alain Locke, are believed to have pursued same-sex relationships in their private lives, even as they maintained public personas that were more acceptable to mainstream audiences. From a modern vantage point, the work of these artists and their peers is part of the foundation of modern Black LGBTQ art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Ah you reveal your agenda. Thought so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Ah you reveal your agenda. Thought so.

That's actually *your* agenda. FYI.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

Pathetic is trying to argue racism is over

We get it. You people hate the very idea of a class that focuses on AA experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

Are you black? Regardless, you're extremely pedantic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

Pathetic is trying to argue racism is over

We get it. You people hate the very idea of a class that focuses on AA experience.

Sure, continue twisting things to suit your narrative. You just look idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

Are you black? Regardless, you're extremely pedantic.

I thought you didn’t see color, so why are you asking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

Are you black? Regardless, you're extremely pedantic.

I thought you didn’t see color, so why are you asking?

Because for someone who's not black, you seem to be taking it upon yourself to speak for black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

So... on the one hand you want to be treated exactly like everyone else. But then you also want your race recognized and singled out. But when we do that, you call us "racists." And you're calling others hypocritical! Make up your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

"You racists"? Hon, I have it on good authority that we're all racist.