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

[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)

What is historically incorrect in the bolded statement?

Wink wink, nudge nudge

[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 raped by the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

Fixed it for you.

[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 raped by the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

Fixed it for you.

Not sure if you're that naive. Maybe you are...

[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)

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.

Yes it does. There is no need for the "and by" unless you are accusing Black people of violence. And I bet you're a supporter of "stand your ground."

When will Florida begin teaching about the violence perpetrated by George Zimmerman?

[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 raped by the owners could be treated treated quite well, including being given houses of their own.

Fixed it for you.

Not sure if you're that naive. Maybe you are...

Said the rape excuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think a lot of holocaust survivors talk about their experience and how they got by if they survived and then what that experience gave them to move forward into the world. I don't remember glossing over any aspect of that experience.

[Anonymous]

Looking forward to Florida's new Holocaust history lesson: concentration camp inmates were beaten, gassed, shot, tortured, but also sometimes learned new trades or got to impress the Nazis with their old trades and skills like the musicians who played at camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think a lot of holocaust survivors talk about their experience and how they got by if they survived and then what that experience gave them to move forward into the world. I don't remember glossing over any aspect of that experience.

Sounds like you don't read a lot of holocaust memoirs.

I suggest you start with Jean Amery, At the Mind's Limits.

[Anonymous]

Neither slavery nor the Holocaust had any redemptive value. None.

[Anonymous]

There are now hundreds of books on the holocaust and the aftermath and they cover a lot of different experiences.

I don't know that it needs to be a line item revision in Florida legislature as required, but perhaps it has some connection to future history of blacks in America. I don't know. I haven't read all the standards. Is the writing actually white washing or are there actually more historical accounts of blacks in America and Florida in particular which has a rich black history?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think a lot of holocaust survivors talk about their experience and how they got by if they survived and then what that experience gave them to move forward into the world. I don't remember glossing over any aspect of that experience.

Holy WTF. What their Holocaust experience" gave them"? Find someone to remove you and your family from your home, split you up, starve some of you, rape some of you, kill some of you, etc. And then let us know what the experience "gave you".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are now hundreds of books on the holocaust and the aftermath and they cover a lot of different experiences.

I don't know that it needs to be a line item revision in Florida legislature as required, but perhaps it has some connection to future history of blacks in America. I don't know. I haven't read all the standards. Is the writing actually white washing or are there actually more historical accounts of blacks in America and Florida in particular which has a rich black history?

I think you should read Isabel Wilkerson, Warmth of Other Suns. Highly recommend it. You'll learn a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither slavery nor the Holocaust had any redemptive value. None.

Redemptive value? No. But people lived it. And just waving a hand and saying it was bad doesn't teach anything or honor their experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither slavery nor the Holocaust had any redemptive value. None.

Redemptive value? No. But people lived it. And just waving a hand and saying it was bad doesn't teach anything or honor their experience.

Of course not. You should teach the details of its evilness and the effects it had on Black families for generations to come. People should know that those movies with happy Black folks singing songs down on the plantation are propaganda and not realistic. They should know about babies being taken from their mother's arms and couples being slip up and the daily violence that occurred and the way that slavery suppressed the building of any kind of generational wealth. They should learn how slaves built things, built the U.S. economy, left their marks on every aspect of American life. No waving a hand necessary.

[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:

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.

It’s not complicated. They were slaves. They didn’t choose or control their lives. Pretending that your great great grandfather treated his slaves well is offensive. To the extent that slaves were somewhat protected, it was only because they were valuable property.