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:

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?

accusing black people of violence is not the same as implying black people are at fault for the massacres that were perpetrated against them.

This new school imperative goes against Floroda law. Florida is a stand your ground state. It does not recognize defending yourself as violence. Are you saying self-defense IS violence? Well Florida doesn’t think so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



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

.Do the standards say "Blacks benefited from slavery" and "massacres had reasons"?

Those are their logical conclusions, yes.

[Anonymous]

From some of the pro-slavery/Holocaust posts in this thread, it's clear that America is f**ked!

[Anonymous]

This is for an AP class on African American history. There is going to be a lot in there. We didn't even have this course before and there isn't one for any other race. Two standards in a year-round course specializing in African Americans? Why is this such a big deal?

[Anonymous]

To me it's a step forward that they approved the course. Let the kids write their essays and do their own research. Standards will change. It's good the class is moving forwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is for an AP class on African American history. There is going to be a lot in there. We didn't even have this course before and there isn't one for any other race. Two standards in a year-round course specializing in African Americans? Why is this such a big deal?

Actually, no, it doesn't apply only to the AP class on AA history.

"The standards also require middle schools to teach students about skills that slaves developed that could have been beneficial to them."

Source: Washington Examiner (2nd paragraph). https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/florida-board-education-approves-african-american-history-standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is for an AP class on African American history. There is going to be a lot in there. We didn't even have this course before and there isn't one for any other race. Two standards in a year-round course specializing in African Americans? Why is this such a big deal?

Based on this thread alone, it is clear the main one on general American history left a lot of people ignorant on a lot of issues that impact our country to this day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is for an AP class on African American history. There is going to be a lot in there. We didn't even have this course before and there isn't one for any other race. Two standards in a year-round course specializing in African Americans? Why is this such a big deal?

Actually, no, it doesn't apply only to the AP class on AA history.

"The standards also require middle schools to teach students about skills that slaves developed that could have been beneficial to them."

Source: Washington Examiner (2nd paragraph). https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/florida-board-education-approves-african-american-history-standards

I can imagine the comments after class when teaching this standard. ‘See slavery wasn’t all bad, they learning how to farm.’ Such BS.

[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.

And they equally, and more often, could be treated quite badly, in addition to their perfectly legal rape, by being beaten, starved, separated from their children (both their rapists’ and any others) and abused, all with complete legality.

The potential choice of certain individuals to treat their rape victims well does nothing to ameliorate the evil of a system in which it was perfectly legal to do anything but.

[Anonymous]

I went to college with someone who came into a U.S. history course believing that there had been numerous full battalions of Black soldiers fighting voluntarily to defend the confederacy.

I felt so bad for him, because he had no say in where he was born, but he was humiliated and looked both like a gullible idiot AND potentially like a racist just because he’d been educated in a backward state. The professor gave him some extra reading about how certain states teach the Civil War and why, but I just think of him whenever I read about things like this, and how the smartest of these kids who go to good colleges are going to be humiliated unnecessarily.

[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.

"Mistresses"???! They were rape victims imprisoned by their rapists. Doesn't matter if the prison had nice curtains, 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.

"Mistresses"???! They were rape victims imprisoned by their rapists. Doesn't matter if the prison had nice curtains, PP.

+1 you think the party that so concerned about trafficking would recognize women who were trafficked.

[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.

"Mistresses"???! They were rape victims imprisoned by their rapists. Doesn't matter if the prison had nice curtains, PP.

Revisionist whitewashing of American history is alive and well on DCUM.

[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.

"Mistresses"???! They were rape victims imprisoned by their rapists. Doesn't matter if the prison had nice curtains, PP.

+1 you think the party that so concerned about trafficking would recognize women who were trafficked.

+2

It makes sense though. They’re only interested in the twisted fairy tale version of trafficking (whatever that dumb qanon movie is out right now that experts say is going to harm the cause of helping trafficked teens because it’s so inaccurate) so of course they like the moron romantic novel version of “oh she was a mistress, so romantic.”

“Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written by Herself” actually does a good job showing how these “mistresses” were procured - by dirty White slave owners letting little girls know they were next, by those predatory men trying to set up situations in which they would be alone with a young girl who was not only a child but also legally not a person. There’s nothing romantic about any of this. It’s so disgusting that people try to act like there is.

[Anonymous]

Did we think Florida Man was a scholar?!