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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, that’s the GOP.

[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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

PP here. I find all of this very interesting and have done some research on it. I guess that makes me a low life.

[Anonymous]

LIVE FREE or DIE

or SLAVERY if there's GOOD VOCATIONAL TRAINING

[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.

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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

PP here. I find all of this very interesting and have done some research on it. I guess that makes me a low life.

You can do “research” and still be low life if your “research” says that slaves who were mistresses were “treated well” and somehow you use that as evidence of slaves “benefited from slavery”!

Shame on your education since it did not make you wise! Shame on your humanity since you do not even realize how offensive your statements are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Of course it does. Some slaves were treated much worse than others. I would consider one less abominable than the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1145014.page

That thread is misleading and should be closed.

Can you explain why, PP?

Yes PP, please explain why this thread is misleading. Let us know what we are missing.

I think they were saying THAT thread is misleading, the one that was linked above.

[Anonymous]

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)

Ok. What exactly to you dispute?

NP. Are you for real? The “and by” implies that Black people are at fault for the massacres that were perpetrated against them. That’s what sane, non-KKK members dispute.

It does not imply that.

[Anonymous]

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)

Ok. What exactly to you dispute?

dp.. ffs.. this is a complete spin on slavery to make it appear that slaves benefited from this horrible institution in our history. Only a MAGA white person would think this way.

It's like saying blacks had it better when they were slaves because at least they had jobs and a roof over their heads.

Seriously warped and f*n tone deaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Of course it does. Some slaves were treated much worse than others. I would consider one less abominable than the other.

A decent person would consider slavery to be abominable, period.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

9th grade slavery lesson in Florida
Pro: You learn valuable vocational skills
Con: The value created by those skills goes into your owner's pockets.
Pro: You may have lots of sex
Con: It's probably rape
Pro: Your rapist won't sell those kids to another slaver
Con: He will sell the ones you had with your husband
Pro: You are baptized a Christian
Con: Where you read about all the slaves in the Bible
Pro: If you're lucky you might work in the plantation house
Con: The plantation house is where most of the raping happens

Now that you know the "many sides" of slavery, what are your thoughts? If you lived in the antebellum south, would you find this to be an interesting career option? Why or why not?

[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.

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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

PP here. I find all of this very interesting and have done some research on it. I guess that makes me a low life.

It is a f***ed up thing to be fascinated about. Harriet Beecher Stowe answered that question for everyone. Sure, it would have been better to be owned by August St. Clare than by Simon Legree, but it would be even better to not be owned by anyone and have freedom and equal access to opportunity. In UTC, the “good and kind” slaveowner died and his widow sold a bunch of the slaves to the cruelest mfer she could find.

[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.

But do you know what they couldn't do? Decide to leave and move somewhere else and set up their own shop. You know why? Because they were enslaved and did not have that right. Nor the right to vote.

Also did you know that the payment you are touting often didn't go to the enslaved worker but to the "master" of the enslaved worker? I bet you did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I seriously cannot believe grown up educated people can justify owning another human being as mistress in exchange of a “house of their own”… but what do you expect from low lives like this PP!

PP here. I find all of this very interesting and have done some research on it. I guess that makes me a low life.

It is a f***ed up thing to be fascinated about. Harriet Beecher Stowe answered that question for everyone. Sure, it would have been better to be owned by August St. Clare than by Simon Legree, but it would be even better to not be owned by anyone and have freedom and equal access to opportunity. In UTC, the “good and kind” slaveowner died and his widow sold a bunch of the slaves to the cruelest mfer she could find.

People are fascinated by all sorts of things: the battle of Thermopylae, Nazi Germany, Incan human sacrifice, and the lives of slaves in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Florida parents better reteach their children to counteract this garbage curriculum.