Reverse CRT: Florida Upstages Texas In History Class Teaching About Slavery

The very fact that they had a conservative write the curriculum was the mistake. Keep politics out of education - DeSantis wanted to get involved because of his agenda though. Played with matches and he got burned.

He's managed to give Trump a world of fodder to destroy him in debates, if they ever do debate, which I doubt. But if they did, man that is going to be pure entertainment.

 

because after all, the only good curriculum is a lefty curriculum

 

or maybe, just maybe....maybe a non-partisan one.

 

good luck with that. Education is in essence morally contested terrain

 

This I agree with. Any policy discussion on how to teach history of the country you are part of will always be inherently political.

 

I don't think I even ever talked about him.

 

I doubt that. Or at the very least you spammed a **** ton of tweets about it.

 

this is well done

Slavery with Benefits . . . Seriously?

https://lawliberty.org/slavery-with-benefits-seriously/

excerpt:

So, where does the truth lie in this dispute? And why has it triggered such a national and rather nasty political firestorm?

To understand this controversy and do justice to what is involved and what is at stake, there are three questions that must be addressed:

1. What does the passage in question mean?
2. Is the passage true?
3. Should the passage have been written differently, and if so, why and how?
4. Are there long-term implications and perhaps deeper agendas driving this controversy?

The question of what the passage means is answered by basic grammar and logic. Unfortunately for {VP Kamala} Harris, her accusation doesn’t have a leg to stand on; it is a classic case of the “false cause” fallacy at work. This is a sleight of hand in which condition is substituted for cause. The Florida standards do not say that slavery caused slaves to benefit; the passage asks how, in some cases, those in the condition of slavery took it upon themselves to use their skills to advance themselves. Harris’s claim is also a non sequitur. If it were written as a syllogism, it would look something like this:

Major Premise: People often benefit personally from the skills they develop in their work

Minor Premise: Some slaves worked in trades requiring the development of specialized skills

Conclusion: Slaves benefited from slavery​

Any schoolgirl can see that this conclusion violates the rules of logic. In fact, to my knowledge, no one involved in this debate has said or thinks that slavery was in any way beneficial to slaves. To accuse anyone of this is sheer malicious nonsense. The Veep and Politifact—and the myriad news sources, commentators, and civic leaders who have knowingly repeated such false, hurtful, and incendiary accusations – should know better.

The second and third questions are related and produce four possible answers:

A. Enslaved people didn’t develop any skills in any instance

B. Enslaved people developed skills but did not benefit personally from them in any instance

C. Enslaved people developed skills which, in some instances, they applied for their personal benefit

D. Enslaved people developed skills which, in some instances, they applied for their personal benefit, but we shouldn’t talk about this​

A great body of scholarly literature exists demonstrating that some slaves developed not only specialized skills but, in some cases, became highly skilled workers. So A is clearly false. B is clearly false as well, based on ample scholarly evidence demonstrating the fact that a number of enslaved persons utilized their skills, both during slavery and after emancipation, to support themselves and their families. Indeed, some slaves bought their freedom with savings they accumulated from their work. Accordingly, C must be true. C is essentially a restatement of the passage at issue from the new Florida standards, albeit a bit stronger in that it requires proof of the benefit, not just that there was potential benefit in some cases. The statement by the Vice President, then, is patently false.

But was it wrong for the Florida Workgroup to make the statement, even if true? Or if not wrong, should they have worded it differently? Some people are offended by the presence of the word “benefit” in the same sentence as the word “slavery” because, even if the syntax and semantics do not bear it out, one might infer a causal connection between the two. Perhaps it would have helped to add to the sentence a phrase making clear the evils of slavery, modifying the passage to read: “how, despite the oppressive system of slavery, slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” While this characterization of slavery as oppressive and inhumane permeates the Florida African American History standards generally, still, I am willing to grant that this added clarification, though unnecessary, may still have been valuable.

In sum, the passage of the Florida standards in question is actually about human determination, tenacity, and ingenuity in the face of the massive and awful obstacles imposed by the institution of slavery. Harris’s allegation is not only false and damaging, it diminishes the achievements of black Americans who, against the odds, labored so courageously to resist its effects.

Whether real or politically fabricated, Harris’ sentiments are a continuum of the expression of racial distrust, anger, and resentment that followed in the wake of the George Floyd murder and which has since encompassed the nation. After this came racial protests that escalated into violence in Minneapolis and then Charlottesville. In cities across America, statues of Founders, generals, and other leading figures were slated for removal, vandalized, or torn down, including those depicting Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Francis Scott Key, and George Washington. Add to these Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Preceding all of these events was the introduction of the 1619 Project in the New York Times.
​

more at the link

​

 

The problem with the theory you have here is that apparently the majority of the panel setting the curriculum had problems with having slavery had benefits thing. Problem was two people on the panel, who apparently are far right - insisted on that language.

So no, it wasn't well intentioned - it was known it would be controversial and they didn't care.

 

I don't see how you can possibly know this

 

It really isn't well done.

This quote from the passage tells me everything I need to know about the intent. The intent is to show that "bootstraps" solves the injustices of slavery. It shows the industrious Blacks found ways to make slavery benefit their ancestors providing the implication that black families that failed was a fault of their own failings in gumption and work ethic.

Any time spent with a conservative right wing individual you can't tell that this is the intent of spreading this narrative about some slaves learning valuable skills that benefited their ancestors. Look at any right wing rhetoric on evidence that shear will and bootstraps solves wealth inequality. They will give anecdotes of some hard working individual getting out of their conditions they were born with as evidence that wealth inequality isn't a problem.

Same talking point here. The notion that slaves exist who developed skills and trades from their enslavement that helped their future ancestors is an attempt at the right wing Florida government in providing the bassos and os trigs of the world another anecdote to explain why wealth inequality isn't an issue because "look a these slaves who made something of themselves".


The reality is if these Black slaves weren't slaves, and were given the same opportunities as white children of slave owners, they'd have significantly more skills and significantly higher literacy rates.

Tl'dr:

The entire point of this right wing talking points about slaves who found ways to make better of their situation and benefit their ancestors is for right wing individuals to have more anecdotes as ammunition that wealth inequality is a pure individual human issue and it can all be solved through "bootstraps". That is the intent of this talking point.

 

yes, actually it is

The key line that could have helped avoid all the trouble:

. . . it would have helped to add to the sentence a phrase making clear the evils of slavery, modifying the passage to read: “how, despite the oppressive system of slavery, slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

​

 

Ya dude. That's great anecdote ammunition for some right winger to show how slavery didn't put down the actual hard working black folks therefore wealth inequality is an individual human issue, not a system issue.


No amount of slavery benefited future generations of black families. Those individuals who learned skills that were useful despite their conditions would have been that much more successful in an environment of individual liberty and basic safety nets.

Dude, stop acting like we aren't naive fools. People like me have interacted with enough right wing conservatives in our lifetimes to understand the intent of this type of rhetoric.

 

It was reported. I am sure you have read it in numerous places given how closely you follow the issue.

 

nope, haven't seen it

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...oversial-parts-states-new-standards-rcna96490

 

Well, ATW, that's quite the spin you got going on there............any other far right extreme views you have to share that are total BS? Please tell me you dont actually believe in this crap and you just want to spam the rest of us with nonsensical BS

 

thanks for the link, and I'll grant you that there was some discussion. But if the best they have is anonymous "sauces," then I'd say there's a better than 50/50 chance there's some cover-your-ass hindsight-is-20/20 post hoc justification going on there. But I'll grant they debated it--which shouldn't be surprising, I would hope they would have discussed every point in the standards document.

I'd add that it seems to me then they'd also have to explain why the same basic wording exists, almost word-for word if I'm not mistaken, in the AP course standards for African American studies