There is enough information about these two "scholars" to call their intention towards the black history standards completely into question. 

A 1994 Florida statutecreated the Commission of Education's African American History Task Forceand requires the state's public schools to teach on the subject in response to attempts to cover up the Rosewood massacre of January 1923, when a mob of white men destroyed a town in Florida's Levy County.

Three black members have said they were not contacted or asked for any input from the Florida Ed. and were blindsided when the new standards came out.

I wonder who the National Park System hired to write all of these lies about "hiring out"?

nps .

Hiring out, especially in urban areas, could provide opportunities for the enslaved to earn additional income, make connections within the free Black and white communities, and envision possibilities for freedom. In Virginia’s towns and cities, enslaved hires could be found living and working on nearly every street, in stores and artisan shops, and at hotels, train stations, and along waterfronts. Elizabeth Keckly, a formerly enslaved Black seamstress who found great success in Washington, D.C., as a dressmaker for Mary Todd Lincoln and other prominent women, used the connections she made as a hired-out seamstress to finance the purchase of her freedom. Enslaved men and women could also gain some autonomy by engaging in self-hire, in which they marketed their skills to potential employers and negotiated with their enslavers as to weekly or monthly payments through their wages. Most self-hire occurred with skilled urban enslaved tradesmen: masons, wagon and cart drivers, blacksmiths, cobblers, and carpenters. Self-hired slaves arranged their own housing and meals, could interact the larger community, and attend African American churches. They had more opportunities to become literate, and their greater mobility led to more developed knowledge of the local and regional landscape. Consequently, this contributed to the increased likelihood that self-hired enslaved workers would attempt to emancipate themselves. At the same time, their freedom was limited by a number of factors. They had to make regular payments to their enslavers or lose their position; they were supervised by white employers and public authorities; and they were restricted by laws meant to limit their movement and autonomy.

The experience of John M. Washington, an enslaved person in Fredericksburg who emancipated himself during the American Civil War (1861–1865) and later wrote a narrative of his life, illustrates how the enslaved could use their employment to their advantage. Washington was born in May 1838 and lived in six different households during his twenty-four years of enslavement. His mother, Sarah, a seamstress and laundress, was often hired out and away from him, including to an employer in Staunton in the Shenandoah Valley. Washington was hired out to employers in Fredericksburg beginning at age twenty. In 1859, he drove his employer’s horses and tended his livestock and garden. During 1860, Washington was hired out to the Alexander and Gibbs tobacco factory. As the American Civil War (1861-1865) began in 1861, Washington was hired out to a saloonkeeper in Richmond. At Christmas of that year, he returned to Fredericksburg, where he was employed as a steward and barkeeper at a hotel called the Shakespeare House. He took advantage of this setting to gain intelligence on the movement of Confederate and Union troops in the area. In April 1862, joined by a cousin and a free Black acquaintance, Washington escaped across the Rappahannock River to Union forces in Falmouth.  

White society’s concern about the unsupervised activities of hired enslaved persons in urban areas—including their interactions with free Blacks and their access to money, alcohol, and gambling—resulted in enactment of an 1801 law in Virginia to prohibit self-hire by enslaved Blacks. This was partially to limit the autonomy of hired enslaved workers and partially to protect white laborers and artisans from competition. This law, and others like it, was not regularly enforced, however, due to the monetary advantages of hiring out for owners, employers, and some enslaved men and women. Until the demise of slavery after the Civil War, hiring out remained an attractive practice for white enslavers and employers alike.

And what would you expert from a Southern state whitewashing its history:  encyclopediavirginia

in that same year, 1860, the venerable historian Ira Berlin writes in his classic text,  Slaves Without Masters ,   “fully 40 percent of the Southern free Negro population were classified as mulattoes, while only one slave in ten had some white ancestry.” The obvious reason:  Masters were more likely to free slaves who looked like—and, in many cases, descended from—them . And sometimes—not often enough—these slaves were able to earn enough money working on their own to purchase their freedom and that of their wife and children.  theroot

Free blacks were appx 10% of the black population in America . About 90% lived and died as slaves. 

So there was very little utility to teaching skills to blacks with the intention of them being able to use those skills to their own benefit. 90% of the benefit, at least, went to the white masters. 

At best, the claim that slavery benefited the slaves is very disingenuous. Why should that be part of a lesson plan for kids? 

OK.

Born enslaved, craftsman Henry Boyd purchased his freedom and built a successful furniture factory in Cincinnati, Ohio.

In the 1830s, after first saving enough money to purchase the freedom of his enslaved brother and sister back in Kentucky, Henry Boyd established his own furniture shop in Cincinnati, Ohio. He specialized in the manufacture of bedsteads, which were advertised as quick and easy to assemble, sturdy, and vermin-proof. Boyd’s patented design employed an innovative technology—double-threaded rails that screwed into the bedposts, strengthening the frame and making the beds relatively easy to assemble and ideal for travel. Boosted by testimonials from leading citizens, Boyd was soon shipping his famous “Patent Bedsteads” to customers throughout the South and West. To meet the growing demand, Boyd introduced steam-powered machinery that enabled his factory to produce over 1,000 bedsteads a year by the mid-1840s.

searchablemuseum

So there was very little utility to teaching skills to blacks with the intention of them being able to use those skills to their own benefit

That wasn't the white owners intent, but sometimes it was the result.

Why should that be part of a lesson plan for kids? 

Why should it be left out?

Why should it be left out?

The same reason they want to change to party of slavery to conservatives, they don't want honest history taught, the want it sanitized for their benefit. 

"Conservatives" isn't a party.  It's an ideology.  

Why should it be left out?

Because it would be like saying Holocaust camp survives, learned factory skills in the camps. Both slaves and Jews were where they were because they were dehumanized.

The same reason they want to change to party of slavery to conservatives, they don't want honest history taught, the want it sanitized for their benefit. 

Or as I posted here: 1.2.10 it is trying to turn a bad thing into a good one.

I am so SICK of people that can't or won't comprehend the shift in ideology that happened in the 2 parties. I guess they're just stupid

hy should that be part of a lesson plan for kids? 

Can you point me to your attacks against the AP curriculum for including that in their lessons?

[deleted]

Because it would be like saying Holocaust camp survives, learned factory skills in the camps. Both slaves and Jews were where they were because they were dehumanized.

I have read the Florida AA History standards and they make clear that slavery was dehumanizing.  It is a historical fact that slaves that were hired out had some benifits over plantation slaves in the fileds.

In some cases, this gave enslaved workers the opportunity to leverage their value as laborers and assert their autonomy. Where there was a high demand for workers, skilled slaves were often able to influence hiring decisions, and according to Oast, “sometimes urban slaves were even permitted to make their own hiring arrangements without the involvement of their owners, a practice called self-hire."

To appeal to these workers, hirers of slaves would pay cash bonuses directly to them for labor performed beyond assigned duties and allow them free time outside of work hours. In addition, Oast described how rather than provide room, board and clothing to their enslaved workers, many tobacco manufacturers instead gave them a stipend, allowing them to make their own purchasing decisions, and for some, opt to live in communities among free Blacks.

Such forms of compensation gave enslaved workers a degree of independence and economic power that undermined some of the paternalistic social structure of slavery.

about.proquest

If we want the history of US slaver taught, we should teach it comprehensively with all of it's complexities. 

It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that  including the undisputed fact that some slaves learned skills  is suddenly immoral and racist just because Florida included it in their curriculum. Most school curriculums, like the AP course, make the same explicit point.  Even the far left scholars who contributed to the 1619 Project have have made the exact same point in their works.

But Desantis=Bad! is the level of thought here. 

I have read the Florida AA History standards and they make clear that slavery was dehumanizing.  It is a historical fact that slaves that were hired out had some benifits over plantation slaves in the fileds.

First of all, AP history has a national and not just in Florida. Second, the depth to which those students studied that period is far more intense and comprehensive, so it is appropriate to teach that. As regular curriculum goes, they do not go into that level of detail, and therefore, it could come across that slavery was a good thing. It was not, nor was the minimal amount of worth that those skills came from. 

If we want the history of US slaver taught, we should teach it comprehensively with all of it's complexities. 

In regular ed, it is not taught on that level, and as I said, no one wants to be a slave to gain some skills. 

Seems that a lot of the bitching against this is from partisan people who state that slavery never benefitted the slaves.  When I read the standards, it reads to me that some people did benefit by learning skills in spite of being a slave.  

Hmmm..... It seems the College Board does not agree with you.

www.msn.com   /en-us/news/us/college-board-pushes-back-on-florida-work-group-member-who-likened-new-black-history-standards-to-ap-curriculum/ar-AA1eEC0n

College Board pushes back on Florida work group member who likened new Black history standards to AP curriculum

5-6 minutes   Invalid Date

It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that  including the undisputed fact that some slaves learned skills  is suddenly immoral and racist just because Florida included it in their curriculum. Most school curriculums, like the AP course, make the same explicit point.

This is what is disingenuous to claim. The AP is for in-depth study. Regular history courses do not go into that level of inquiry and that is why making it sound like slavery was indentured where you walked away with wonderful skills, is utterly wrong.

Seems that a lot of the bitching against this is from partisan people who state that slavery never benefitted the slaves

I am not partisan. I am a former teacher whose kids were AP students all the way, so I know the difference in the level of instruction they get compared to their non-AP counterparts.

The question that the conservatives dont want to answer is why? Why include such a standard. If slavery benefited any slaves it was very few. Only about 10% of slaves were ever freed. So 90% were not, and had no chance to have their "skills' benefit themselves. 

The Florida standard does not mention that the vast majority of slaves were never freed, in fact it has this language ... "after they were freed"  which could logically be read as suggesting they were all freed in turn. 

The College Board is clear, it remains to be seen if it penetrates the thought process of some.

This is not political for me, John. This is a matter of how our history is taught how our youth goes forward thinking about one of the worst periods in this regard that our nation had.

The Florida standard does not mention that the vast majority of slaves were never freed

That's in the section on the 13th Amendment.

The controversy is entirely political, but I agree that objectively it shouldnt be a political issue. 

is is what is disingenuous to claim. The AP is for in-depth study.

Lol. Your claim is students who aren't in AP classes are so dumb, so incapable of grasping basic concepts, that a single (factually correct ) standard  in a 200 plus page outline demonstrating how terrible slavery is will cause students to believe  slavery is  no different than indentured servitude. That one clause (that smart kids can somehow tolerate learning) will somehow override everything else  kids are taught about how horrible slavery was. 

That's insane.  If that were true, we should just disband schools for anyone who can't get into AP classes. 

Why do you think our national park system also "makes  it sound like slavery was indentured where you walked away with wonderful skills?  Last time I looked, the national parks educate kids of average intelligence

[deleted]

The controversy is entirely political, 

You got that right, the hyperbole is about historical facts or the best way to present them, it's about politics and wining or losing.  

A side by side cross-walk or comparison between the College Board AP AA History and the new Florida standards would find little difference except in organization and that the Florida stands are K-12, not one year. 

You seem to have the same confusion that 1st warrior did. When we talk about slaves that were not freed, as slaves, we are of necessity talking about the time before emancipation. Why is that important?  Because the majority of the Africans that were ever slaves lived and died in slavery. 

Because the majority of the Africans that were ever slaves lived and died in slavery. 

I don't understand what that fact has to do with the standard under discussion.

that is why making it sound like slavery was indentured where you walked away with wonderful skills, is utterly wrong.

Have you read these standards?  Which ones gave you the impression that they will teach that slavery was like indentured service and then you walked away with wonderful skills?

Has NY made their AA History framework transparent and on line for public evaluation?

Because the standard implies that all slaves were eventually freed. The millions that died prior to the Emancipation Proclamation were never freed, except by death. 

Because the standard implies that all slaves were eventually freed.

I don’t know where you find that implication.

ecause the standard implies that all slaves were eventually freed.

You think this standard "implies" that all slaves were eventually freed:

 "Once free, American Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others."  That's it?  That's too much for the other standards to overcome?

Since you don't want students who aren't in AP classes exposed to facts that present even the remotest possibility of confusing them, I assume you must support removing all books from libraries (or at least preventing non-AP scholars from having access to) that contain any nuance , right? Can't risk exposing kids to facts that present the slightest danger of creating mistaken impressions, right?  

Lol. Your claim is students who aren't in AP classes are so dumb, so incapable of grasping basic concepts, that a single (factually correct ) standard  in a 200 plus page outline demonstrating how terrible slavery is will cause students to believe  slavery is  no different than indentured servitude.

I never said the word dumb. Those are your words. What I said, is that there needs to be context to understanding that slavery was not a jobs program and the average kids learns maybe 1 month out of a school year about slavery. By throwing that into a junior high curriculum, kids can walk away with the wrong assumption.

What I said, is that there needs to be context to understanding that slavery was not a jobs program and the average kids learns maybe 1 month out of a school year about slavery. By throwing that into a junior high curriculum, kids can walk away with the wrong assumption.

Of course, and that’s up to the teachers lesson plan on this section.  How is it taught in NY state?

Teachers' lesson plans are supposed to follow the curriculum. 

Read here:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/nysed

Thanks Perrie,

Teachers' lesson plans are supposed to follow the curriculum. 

Indeed, I didn’t see as much on AA History here as in the Florida Standards, do you?

I saw nothing on the underlying racism to explain the colonial or national actions on slavery, did you?

I could find the explicit cause of the Civil War in the attachment, what did I miss?

Was there any curriculum on the lingering structural racism found in the Northeast?

I also didn’t see anything on the NY race riots or massacres, did I miss that?

Apparently so, since it is taught.

Where was that in the framework you attached?

Indeed, I didn’t see as much on AA History here as in the Florida Standards, do you?

I saw nothing on the underlying racism to explain the colonial or national actions on slavery, did you?

I could find the explicit cause of the Civil War in the attachment, what did I miss?

Was there any curriculum on the lingering structural racism found in the Northeast?

I gave you the outline. If you want to go into details, all of which is covered, then you can do your own browsing around.

I did browse around.  I tried to apply the criticisms of the Florida Standards to the NY Framework and I found the NY Framework much less comprehensive and less focused on racism, the explicit cause of the civil war.  I found nothing on the New York Draft Riots which were  the deadliest riots in US history.

I'm sorry but NYS does all of the things that Florida does and then some, including our native tribes, and events that happened specifically to the state. But I am sure you know that.  

I found nothing on the New York Draft Riots which were the deadliest riots in US history.

It is covered since it is a low point in our history. Do you know the reasons why it happened? We actually learn that in out schools.

I'm sorry but NYS does all of the things that Florida does and then some, including our native tribes, and events that happened specifically to the state. But I am sure you know that.

If you had read the Florida standards, you would know that it also included native tribes and events particular to Florida. 

It is covered since it is a low point in our history. Do you know the reasons why it happened? We actually learn that in out schools.

Maybe I missed seeing it in the framework that you cited.  The Draft Riots followed a change in the draft laws.  Also NYC had a large economic interest in cotton.  The Democrats Political machine and their newspapers were telling white working class that emancipation would cost them their jobs as cheaper Black labor would migrate north.

I never said the word dum

You don't have to. Your point makes no sense otherwise. you believe kids have to be prevented from learning facts because any nuance, no matter how small within the context of the entire course (the frame you should be looking at) will supposedly cause them to walk away with dramatically wrong conclusions about what they've been  taught.  Your whole point is that kids are too dumb to handle any nuance. 

I hope you are alerting the Nartional Park System to get them to change their teaching guildeines, and probably should make sure kids books like Frederick Douglass's autobiography are " banned" from school libraries. Can't have kids come across that Douglass learned skills as a slave. 

You do know that the single sentence in the new curriculum that the left is trying to exploit was also a part of a Marxist curriculum that Kamala & the lefties supported.

Gov DeSantis who did not create the new curriculum, has offered to debate Kamala Harris on the subject.

Harris wisely refused.

I hate to break it to everyone, but Biden's own national  park system is teaching kids that some slaves benefited from the skills they learned!

They are even, shudder, presenting arguments for and against slavery!

When will Kamala appear at the Tuskegee Institute National Historical Site  to denounce the Biden/Harris  admisntration as racist?

I hate to break it to everyone, but Biden's own national  park system is teaching kids that some slaves benefited from the skills they learned!

It's not Biden's national park system. It's our national park system. And they teach about slavery at  selected areas where there is context. You might want to start here: nps

They are even, shudder, presenting arguments for and against slavery!

There is an argument for slavery? You have got to be kidding me. There is no argument for slavery. End of subject.

And thanks for making my point. For you to be able to say that there is an argument for slavery goes to show how one can misinterpret information and why this topic, like so many other topics has to be taught in context.

This NPS site seemed to find some benefits;

nps

Did you actually read this?

Here read this:

Hiring out enslaved people allowed for the strengthening of the “peculiar institution” as the profitability of enslaved agriculture diminished in the upper South. Enslavers in the upper South who struggled financially often made money by selling enslaved people “down the river” to the more profitable sugar and cotton plantations of the deep South. However, enslavers also relied on the hiring out system to continue profiting off of slave labor. The hiring out system also helped the upper South remain a society based around the institution of slavery. Enslavers could make a larger profit long term by hiring out people instead of selling them outright. Furthermore, hiring out allowed poorer whites to have a “taste” of mastery through hiring and further engrain enslaving Black people as a signifier of social status.

Additionally, historian Johnathan D. Martin contends in his book Divided Mastery that “hiring allowed whites from different classes to ‘share’ slaves among themselves in a way that reassured them of their power and superiority.” Therefore, hiring-out acted not only as an economic boon for enslavers but also as a tool for perpetuating the myth of racial solidarity among whites in the Old South, where the enslavement of Black people functioned as the unifying force among white Southerners. As a result, many poor whites aspired to become enslavers to fulfill their personal and societal desires. Meanwhile, wealthy white enslavers used their status over Black Southerners as justification for their rule over poorer white Southerners as well.

So basically this confirms that hiring out perpetuated slavery and gave even poor people a taste for enslaving.

Yes, I did read that.  It was one of several effects of the practice, did you read the others?

I read the whole thing and it only proved my case. I'm sorry, but I have no interest in continuing this discussion any further since it doesn't seem like you truly want a discussion, but rather a game of gotchya, and I don't do that.

I read the whole thing and it only proved my case.

Of course it did.

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in continuing this discussion any further since it doesn't seem like you truly want a discussion, but rather a game of gotchya

One hell of a rebuttal.

One hell of a rebuttal.

Thank you.

Exactly.

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in continuing this discussion...

What "discussion"? There is no "discussion". Discussion requires good faith from all parties. Here we have only ex cathedra declaration.

Ms. Rice sounds like a self-hating black woman

Why does DeSantis keep appointing people like these two to positions of responsibility for the education of Florida's children?  He must know there will inevitably be a fallout from it. 

This begs the question, why did they need new standards, other than that DeSantis wanted the new standards to reflect more favorably on the conduct of whites over the decades and centuries? I looked at the list of standards, and while many of them certainly look harmless, there is a word that is virtually missing from all of them - racism.  I dont think that is an accident or oversight. 

Why does DeSantis keep appointing people like these two to positions of responsibility for the education of Florida's children?

I doubt if anyone will ever find the answer to that question

 I looked at the list of standards, and while many of them certainly look harmless, there is a word that is virtually missing from all of them - racism.

Students shall develop an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.

Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination , as well as topics relating to the enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust laws.

fldoe

[Deleted]

Since, as we’ve seen play out on these pages, Harris and her parrots got humiliated on substance as they attacked standards they previously supported and still teach kids, progressives have moved onto ad hominem attacks.  

Sad, but predictable.

When you fail in an accurate critique of the substance, you go after the messengers, it’s SOP in political play books.

"Some of the folks…eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life,"

Yeah, you know: like, being an older slave with a skill.

What a pile of garbage this is. They make it sound like slavery was a trade school. After a brief apprenticeship, these folks went on to good paying jobs, providing for themselves.  We’ll just ignore the reality that they were force bred to be slaves, born a slave, and then lived and died a slave.

And of course, all of this was absolutely necessary for the benefit of African slaves and their descendants. Because obviously people in Africa have no skills. Those ignorant subhumans have no concept of smithing, carpentry, farming, weaving, and so on. They needed white people to teach it to them. Right?

This is embarrassing. Stop trying to make people feel good about slavery. 

Yeah, you know: like, being an older slave with a skill.

Well done. 

What a pile of garbage this is. They make it sound like slavery was a trade school. After a brief apprenticeship, these folks went on to good paying jobs, providing for themselves.  We’ll just ignore the reality that they were force bred to be slaves, born a slave, and then lived and died a slave.

DeSantis and some of his other clowns have made it sound that way, but the actual standards don't.  

Here is what the Collège Board AP Framework says about the same topic:

In addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians, and healers in the North and South. After they were freed, they used these skills to provide for themselves and others.

Neither justify slavery because of this historical fact.

After they were freed, they used these skills to provide for themselves and others.

The vast majority of slaves were NEVER freed. Where does it say THAT in that standard? 

DeSantis and some of his other clowns have made it sound that way, but the actual standards don't.

They do, though, because this is also in the law:

banned instruction that would make students "feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race."

So the teachers are legally obligated to avoid the negative aspects of slavery (you know, the important parts) because all it takes is one family complaining that little Jimmy came home feeling bad about what he learned in school today. Get it wrong, and at best you lose your job. At worst, you go to jail.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Even a blind person could see you didn't/don't know what you're talking about.

Jesus Christ, we are talking about slavery BEFORE emancipation. Obviously after emancipation there were no more slaves. 

o the teachers are legally obligated to avoid the negative aspects of slavery (you know, the important parts) because all it takes is one family complaining that little Jimmy came home feeling bad about what he learned in school today. Get it wrong, and at best you lose your job. At worst, you go to jail.

Get that Strawman!  

So what is your point?

They do, though, because this is also in the law:

So your issue is the law, not the standards.

Obviously after emancipation there were no more slaves.

And yet you said the above.

The vast majority of slaves were NEVER freed.

So which is it? Or are you alluding to the fact that "vast majority" were already dead

It’s not a straw man. I have quoted facts and responded to them by predicting consequences. This should not be that hard.

The law drives the standards. It’s all problematic.

I'm not going to explain this 20 times for you guys.  Emancipation freed the living slaves in 1865. It did not free the millions who had died prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. That was the majority of all slaves, and they were never freed. 

Emancipation freed the living slaves in 1865. It did not free the millions who had died prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

Of course not, who has argued otherwise?

How so?  The board that wrote them were legislators.  How would you like this standard rewritten?

t’s not a straw man.

Of course it is. No one is losing their job or going to jail because a kid feels bad about slavery.  

A teacher could lose their job if he tells a kid that he should feel bad about slavery because of his race. 

See the difference?  Do you think teachers should teach kids that their race makes them guilty for the acts of others? 

Do you think teachers should teach kids that their race makes them guilty for the acts of others? 

The sins of the fathers, or in this case, 4th great grandfathers or 5th, 6th, etc. 

A teacher could lose their job if he tells a kid that he should feel bad about slavery because of his race. 

You’re misrepresenting the law. It is very broad - in my opinion, unconstitutionally overbroad. Here is a link to the full statute:

myfloridahouse

It reads, in part,

760.10 Unlawful employment practices. —
(8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of … passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:

7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

I have bolded some important words. Espouse. Promote. Advance. Inculcate. Compel. These enclose a myriad of behaviors, communications, and possible curricula far beyond merely telling a student directly that they should feel bad about slavery.

A teacher could simply highlight atrocities without telling anyone how they should feel, and so long as any student subjectively feels bad as a result, the teacher could be in violation of the law.

The standard isn’t the problem. The wording everyone is talking about is a clarification. 

First, here is a link to the whole standard:

fldoe

And here is the standard in question, followed by the agenda-driven clarification:

SS.68.AA.2.3

Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).

Nothing wrong with that, by the way. It’s perfectly reasonable to learn what kind of work was done by slaves. But then we get the clarification:

Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

First, why? Why are we trying to put a positive spin on slavery? 

And second, what personal benefit? Are they intending to say that if a slave learned how to build his master’s mansion, he was somehow allowed to build one for himself, too? Or if a slave can cook for the master he can cook for himself? Don’t you think people in Africa know how to build a home or cook dinner? They didn’t need slavery in America to learn these things.

What slave worked for anyone’s benefit other than his master’s? Even in the rare case where a slave somehow managed to make money on the side, it would have only been because his master allowed it. Wouldn’t he have been much better off as a free man?

Again: Why is it Florida’s goal to look for the silver lining in slavery?

ou’re misrepresenting the law. 

Not at all.  The statute requires an affirmative direction from the teacher or material that they  MUST feel guilt because of their race.   Each requirement in the statute matters. 

light atrocities without telling anyone how they should feel, and so long as any student subjectively feels bad as a result, the teacher could be in violation of the law.

  That's simply false. Simply highlighting  atrocities doesn't satisfy  the requirement  promote the claim that students are responsible for or MUST feel guilty for the atrocities committed by others. You can't just skip that part.

It becomes even more absurd of an argument when the statute demands teachers while teaching African Americana history (Florida is one of the few states who require that subject be taught) :

 382 discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate
383 manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been
384 infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
385 racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the
386 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial
387 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and
388 how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust
389 laws.

Again: Why is it Florida’s goal to look for the silver lining in slavery?

Not so much a silver lining but historical accuracy.  Hiring out slave labor was very controversial in the white south because:

• It weakened the paternalistic argument that slaves couldn’t take care of themselves 
• It provided slaves with greater autonomy to communicate with each other, learn to read and write and build self confidence 
• Provided money to buy themselves out of slavery or provide more to their family

First, why? Why are we trying to put a positive spin on slavery? 

Do you find it inaccurate?  How does this differ from the College Board AP class spin?

And second, what personal benefit?

• Wages that they kept, some bought there freedom, others provided more to their families
• Greater autonomy to learn to read &write, communicate with others feel more self confident 
• Challenge the paternalistic philosophy buttressing slavery

Don’t you think people in Africa know how to build a home or cook dinner? They didn’t need slavery in America to learn these things.

Were Africans skilled at carpentry, masonry, plastering, needlecraft, shoemaking, barrel making, distilling, cocking commercials, shop clerking, etc?

Again: Why is it Florida’s goal to look for the silver lining in slavery?

Why do you take away that from the totality of the standards?

You’re being naive if you really think the law will exist within such a narrow framework. People make all sorts of extreme arguments in court when politics or a cash settlement is on the line. I am sure that many teachers in Florida are petrified about how they will address America’s racial history.

Were Africans skilled at carpentry, masonry, plastering, needlecraft, shoemaking, barrel making, distilling, cocking commercials, shop clerking, etc?

Yes. I think you might be surprised at the skills and culture of African civilization.

Why do you take away that from the totality of the standards?

I think I have been clear about why I have these concerns.

What sources do you have for these skills?

Interesting. I have read the 'entirety' of the comments up to this point. Assuming there is more left to be added (later) I will pick up with this on Wednesday evening PST.  I am exhausted right now. Good point, Tacos, In my opinion. This comment shall 'mark' where I should begin reading again. 

not technically, no, but freed slaves often had no where to go so they stuck with their former masters and worked for no pay

many slaves were born and died on the plantation long before emancipation

Read it again. That is exactly what I fucking asked. JFC

I guess you didn't read the last part of my comment................

My apologies.

No need to apologize..........have a good day.

I would have thought that to be common knowledge.

Historical accuracy?????????????????

Why don't you list two or three things that I wrote that is historically inaccurate.

To ask a question.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

As always, you are more correct here than anyone else.  

Interesting, yet again. BTW, I would be highly interested in learning WHO takes it upon themselves to try to 'guilt-trip' white students today in the classroom.  Is/was that really possible (happening)? Possible, to the level of needing state-level 'correction' in law? Or, did DeSantis see an opportunity to foist upon the education curriculum a pretense at defending kids from a so-called, woke-boogeyman?

I would be highly interested in learning WHO takes it upon themselves to try to 'guilt-trip' white students today in the classroom.  

Do you see that in their new Standards of Learning?

Why is it Florida’s goal to look for the silver lining in slavery?

Because DeSantis, conservative governor of Florida has taken up the mantle of defender of conservative children's spirits. And why is a 'defender' necessary? Because MAGA conservatives presently hold a fight profile in politics. That is, MAGA conservatives will not concede 'ground' to any perceived liberal 'concern' or interests. 

Now then, if MAGA adults are in a long-term fight posture, that stance translates over into fear of the Classroom when these strivers against liberals learn their kids may be exposed to a counternarrative (that weakens their small children's resolve to grow up as hard-nosed fighters like their surrounding conservative MAGA family members). 

To that end, when one thinks it not wise or good for the mission to accent the negative: 

[Hook: Bing Crosby]
You've got to accenttchuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mr. In-Between

[Chorus: Bing Crosby]
You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith, or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

[Verse: The Andrews Sisters]
To illustrate
His last remark
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do
Just when everything looked so dark?

[Hook: Bing Crosby]
Man, they said we better
Ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive
E-lim-i-nate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mr. In-Between
No, do not mess with Mr. In-Between!
Do you hear me, hmm?

Bing Crosby, The War Years December 1944.

MAGA is (simply) looking out for its (future) self-interests, and more besides. 

So your issue is with DeSantis, not the new AA History standards.

I agree with you. We can always find someone on the fringe of what is reasonable. I have no doubt that a few teachers exist who are telling white kids they should feel some kind of racial shame. But enough that we needed legislation for it? Of course not.

But this is how the world is these days. One person tweets an absurd comment, and politicians or media turn that into “people are saying . . . “ But they aren’t. It’s one nutty person. And we collectively freak out over nothing.

these strivers against liberals learn their kids may be exposed to a counternarrative

This is familiar to me. My family spent 6 or 7 years in an evangelical church. Not because we agreed with everything that went on there, but because I wanted a relaxed, convenient, local church with a robust kids program. Our church had all this. The band was amazing!

But one of the things they did was counsel the congregation to avoid influences that might poison our minds. Don’t listen to the wrong music. Don’t watch the wrong movies. Don’t listen to people who have other beliefs. 

I saw this as cowardly. Where was their faith? Did they not really believe the things they said they believed? Could they not argue in favor of their beliefs? To me, if a belief system is this fragile, it isn’t worth holding on to. 

When we ultimately came to fully appreciate how toxic their attitudes were toward women and LGBT people, we left and found what I think is a more Christ-like church that loves and affirms all people. We’re a lot happier now, and more devoted than ever to our faith.

That’s what we get for thinking.

Last Thanksgiving, we attended an interfaith service at the Mormon temple across the street from my house. My pastor was there (we’re Lutherans now) along with several others from our church. There were also Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other faiths I couldn’t even name. Several hundred people. It was beautiful. You know who didn’t show? The evangelicals. Too afraid, I guess.

The fundamentalists/evangelicals are a trial to us all as a nation. As a Church, they are definitely behind the religious moves in the legal arena to separate themselves from having to professionally interact with LGBTQ people, shutting down the whole of abortion proceedings, while promoting the use of churches as charity programs instead of secular government. The interesting thing about that last is how close in proximity it would put 'forbidden' people with 'worldly' ideas if they only had the churches to go to for aid/assistance/no spiritual help!

Do fundamentalists really think certain groups of people want to seek aid from people who look down their noses at them-if they look in their direction at all?

If I have an issue with this, for I am undecided for now if I do or don't as I read/hear more about it, it would be with a governor who appointed a team to review the AA curriculum where subtle changes may be creating a distortion 'field' in how slavery is to be perceived by future Floridians. That would be of great concern to me, because it would be indicative of a hidden agenda which seeks to displace one perception that is real for a different perspective that over time seeks to soften and 'retexturize' a harsh reality which needs to be there as history.

As for the standard itself. I suggest that since it is a word (benefit) that is causing a rift - remove the offending word. And watch the accompanying confusion and resentment over a word evaporate. 

What does that mean?

It means did you see something in the standards of learning about guilt-tripping?

Okay, since you repeated yourself, why would you think I have suggested or implied that the standards reference guilt-tripping? Are you savvy about the peripheral statements made around Florida education studies on racial matters and the governor? If not, then I can see why you would ask such an awkward question, otherwise the question is moot.

Thanks for the clarification.

I am not sure I clarified anything! In any case, if you are satisfied: You're welcome!

hey make it sound like slavery was a trade school. After a brief apprenticeship, these folks went on to good paying jobs, providing for themselv

Who said this?  

It'd be nice if someone could actually deal with the standard itself, and not some exaggerated strawman. 

Who said this?

The governor said it. It’s right there in the seed. Read the seed.

Oh, so you didn't understand the point. He was asked a question about why the scholars included the standard and gave a factual answer.  He  didn't  "make slavery sound like a trade school," he was refuting the lie that the standards aren't accurate.  

He  didn't  "make slavery sound like a trade school,"

Yes, he did. He made it sound like an opportunity - something positive. That is my opinion. I quoted what he said and then gave my characterization and analysis of the implications of his words. That’s what we do here.

. He made it sound like an opportunity - something positive. That is my opinion. I quoted what he said and then gave my characterization and analysis of the implications of his words. That’s what we do here.

Right. And I did the same. 

He was explaining what types of things the standard referred  to in response to a question about that  specific standard.   To take that as proof of his, or the curriculum's,  overarching theme about the entirety of the slaves experience is either idiotic or disingenuous.    That's my opinion. 

Some slaves did learn skills. That is a fact.   That's not controversial nor has it ever been considered controversial to teach students that fact  until DeSantis' opponents needed a weapon to attack him.  That's also a fact.  

So the issue is more of DeSantis’s garbled defense that the standard itself.

Some slaves did learn skills. That is a fact.

And therefore, what? What is the point? What is the desired learning outcome?

In the study of history, many things are true and factual. But that does not make them worthy of inclusion in the curriculum. A study of history should give students a valuable understanding of our collective past.

The real question is why does anyone - you, DeSantis, the state of Florida - want to stress learned skills over the human atrocities in a study of slavery? There is an agenda with either choice. The agenda in Florida is - by law - to not make white kids feel bad about slavery. If that is the main learning objective, that is shameful.

I’m saying it for like the third time now. The law begets the standard.

What is the point? What is the desired learning outcome?

Ask the academics who created the AP standards, or the national park educational guides for students, or the countless scholars who've included that information in their texts on the subject. Truth and nuance  is always helpful to understanding a subject.  Why do you think it isn't? 

you, DeSantis, the state of Florida - want to stress learned skills over the human atrocities in a study of slavery

I've not seen a single person advocate for that, nor a single statement made by a person in authority in Florida that could honestly be interpreted to support that inference. 

Why don't you apply those standards to the organizations that teach kids the exact same thing? If you were attacking the Advanced Placement Collège Board and scholars do the same thing, you'd at least have the advantage of consistency. To single out only Florida, while ignoring every other state/board/scholar who does the same makes it easy to dismiss your motives as partisan. 

The agenda in Florida is - by law - to not make white kids feel bad about slavery

Right.  Teachers should not  make kids feel guilty for the crimes other have committed.      I don't believe in collective or racial guilt.  Few non racialists do, to my knowledge.  you think teachers should make indian kids feel guilty for atrocities Indians committed in the 19th century?   Or should teachers only focus on making white kids feel guilty for what other white people did hundreds of years ago?  

I've not seen a single person advocate for that, nor a single statement made by a person in authority in Florida that could honestly be interpreted to support that inference. 

They literally went out of their way to write a law making it illegal for a teacher to make a white student feel bad about slavery. Something a teacher cannot be guaranteed to control. What more do you need? 

Or should teachers only focus on making white kids feel guilty for what other white people did hundreds of years ago?  

Defacto Jim Crow racial oppression ended in the mid 1960's,  50 some years ago. Even with that there is still widespread white racism. 

Why should a recitation of racism in the past make white kids today feel guilty?  Because they see their parents and grandparents whine about it? 

You occasionally go on and on about all the people communists killed. The great majority of those people were killed by communists not alive today (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) . Why should communists today be tarred with a broad brush?  They didnt kill those people. 

This is the level of argument you are making. 

Why should communists today be tarred with a broad brush?  They didnt kill those people. 

Exactly, Russian kids today shouldn’t be made to feel bad about what Stalin did or what Putin is doing.

Like the structural racism in the Northeast, Upper Midwest or West Coast?

why should a russian kid feel bad about what communists in the past did? 

illegal for a teacher to make a white student feel bad about slave

that's just nonsense.  All you are doing is layering bullshit upon layer of bullshit.  You are misrepresenting the law and the standards.  Even if you think its the proper role of teachers  to  assign guilt to literal kids based on their  race, it doesn't support a claim that these standards stress learned skills over the human atrocities.  Focusing on one sentence in a 200 page document and claiming that's what the program stresses is simply dishonest. No other way to describe it.

\

hy should a recitation of racism in the past make white kids today feel guilty?

What are you talking about? The standards call for teaching about racism.  Do you think a 10 year old should be told by a teacher that they are personally to blame for slavery because of the color of their skin? 

Why should communists today be tarred with a broad brush?  They didnt kill those people. 

Are communists born communists? I thought one joined the communist party. 

If someone starts a pro slavery party and advocates brining it back, I will attack them just like I do communists. Okay? 

The standards call for teaching about racism.  Do you think a 10 year old should be told by a teacher that they are personally to blame for slavery because of the color of their skin? 

Show us your proof that children are being told they are personally responsible for slavery. I dont believe it. 

As far as teaching about "racism" , of course children should be taught about the history of racism. It is a dominant theme in the history of this country. There has never been a time when racism has not been a major factor in American society, and that is covering hundreds of years. 

How many non communists were there in Stalinist Russia? 

Alive or dead?

how us your proof that children are being told they are personally responsible for slavery. I dont believe it. 

I didn't say anyone had violated the law. I described what the law prohibits. 

 , of course children should be taught about the history of racism

Did you read the standards? Teaching the history of racism is required. 

As far as teaching about "racism" , of course children should be taught about the history of racism.

Agree, how is it taught in Illinois?

Teaching the history of racism is required. 

So what? It should be. 

Show us your proof that teachers are telling white kids that they are personally responsible for slavery. That is what you said. 

Ok, let me go at this a little differently

HOW DO GERMAN SCHOOLS TEACH ABOUT WWII?

Nazi ideology and atrocities:

Head-on, the students are confronted with the crushing effects of totalitarian regimes, racial ideologies and where these can lead. In addition to photo and video documentaries, most schools organize mandatory school trips to holocaust memorials, usually former concentration camps. This does not only apply to history class. Students are also introduced to works of literature tackling the issue of Nazism and ethnic hate in Europe of the time.

This can include but is not limited to authors such as Berthold Brecht and Thomas Mann. Additionally, Jewish voices are amplified in terms of Jewish poetry, reports from survivors, and historical documentaries focusing on the long-term consequences of hate and violence. Some of the literature choices indicate that the schools try to emphasize the aspects of humanity and also the problem of group mentality and prejudice, as seen in works such as the post war play “Andorra” by Max Frisch, and more recent works such as “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” (from 2006 by John Boyne) and “The Reader” by Bernhard Schlink, but also the diaries of Anne Frank. Excerpts of pro-Nazi texts are studied also, once the students are deemed mature enough to handle this. In this vein, experts from “Mein Kampf” are tackled in advanced history class, stressing the contradictions within the text, what contemporary citizens might have identified with, and the lack of morality therein. Interestingly, as if to complement Nazi ideology with a similar type of prejudice, the other major topic focused on intensely is that of slavery, racism, and segregation in America.

According to this article german schools tackle the subject of nazisim "head on". Why arent they afraid that German kids will feel personally guilty about being German? Maybe its because there is no need for them to feel personally guilty. 

Oh by the way...

Some of the literature choices indicate that the schools try to emphasize the aspects of humanity and also the problem of group mentality and prejudice,

If a German teacher discusses "group mentality and prejudice," are they making German kids feel personally guilty for what Nazis do? 

Head on eh:

• How many hours of Holocaust instruction is there
• Which grades
• What are the standards
• What has been the reduction in antisemitism there over the years since this instruction started

I guess you have work to do. 

What evidence do you have for their heads on approach in comparison to these Florida standards or are you just talking shit?

I am responding to Seans claim that it is wrong to discuss the history of racism in American schools. German schools evidently approach their abhorrent history "head on". Why shouldnt we do the same ? 

And stop asking questions. Just give your opinions. 

am responding to Seans claim that it is wrong to discuss the history of racism in American schools

When did I make that claim?  Did I claim Florida's law was illegal? 

Why arent they afraid that German kids will feel personally guilty about being German? M

Again, you are missing the point. If kids feel guilty for being German, that's one thing. Teaching German kids that they must feel  personally guilty for the crimes committed 80 years ago is insane.  Racial guilt passed through generations is the type of thing actually Nazis believe.  

The standards call for teaching about racism.  Do you think a 10 year old should be told by a teacher that they are personally to blame for slavery because of the color of their skin? 

Are you claiming now that there is no connection between these two sentences of yours? It sure seems like one follows the other. 

I asked you for proof that American kids are taught that they are personally guilty of slavery and racism.  Still waiting.

Some of the literature choices indicate thatthe schools try to emphasize the aspects of humanity and also the problem of group mentality and prejudice,

Apparently the Germans discuss group mentality and prejudice in relation to the nazis. Do we not have group mentality in America, or are we that special ?  Has racism been historically an individual by individual thing?  Of course not. 

Those two sentences mean: 

(1) Racism is taught in Florida

(2) Teachers should not teach kids their whiteness makes them personally responsible for racist  acts that happened in the 19th century. 

Not sure how those things are inconsistent.  

you believe in the American ideal of individual responsibly right? That you can't be punished or discriminated against because of who your ancestors are?  

discuss group mentality and prejudice in relation to the nazis.

Yes, that group mentality applies to Nazis and the Germans who went along with them. Not their great great grandchildren who've never met an actual Nazi.  

Show us your proof that American kids are taught they are personally responsible for slavery. 

There are still nazis in germany. 

bing

Show us your proof that American kids are taught they are personally responsible for slavery. 

Why?  What does that have to with anything? It's only relevant as an example of what behavior the Florida law actually prohibits. If its not happening, no one will ever be charged under the law. That's a good thing!

I hope teachers aren't teaching kids a racialist worldview. Surprisingly, that's apparently controversial. 

What are the equivalent German standards?

Are you saying that the German education on the Holocaust isn’t very effective?

Why?  What does that have to with anything?

Because you said it.  You didnt just make it up did you? 

Even if you think its the proper role of teachers  to  assign guilt to literal kids based on their  race

I haven’t suggested anything like that. I am saying that an ordinary teaching of history may inspire guilt in a white student. If that happens, and a student says he feels that way because of what he learned in school, the teacher could lose their job or go to jail. For sure, some enterprising family and their lawyer will eagerly sue the teacher, the school, and the district for emotional damages. That’s the MFing world we live in.

I am saying that an ordinary teaching of history may inspire guilt in a white student. If that happens, and a student says he feels that way because of what he learned in school, the teacher could lose their job or go to jail. Fo

I know what you are saying. I'm telling you that isn't supported by the statute. 

  You didnt just make it up did you? 

John you are talking in circles and not making any sense. You appear to be conflating two different discussions.  I did not make up the Florida Statute. Do you need it cited here yet again? 

I don't know how to make this any simpler.   I am talking about what activities Florida has outlawed under House Bill 7. Teaching white kids that their race makes them personally responsible for slavery is what Florida prohibits.   

Teaching white kids that their race makes them personally responsible for slavery is what Florida prohibits. 

So you dont know of any such instances, you are just applauding the preventative nature of the statues. LOL. That is not how your comments on this over all these months have been perceived. 

Sean, I take exception to your claim that liberals (DeStantis' opponents) need to attack him. We, would like to have a Florida state official who does not go out of his way to use vulnerable minorities as bait for MAGA attention and fodder for his claims of child protector. Nobody is denying MAGA children their rights or their feelings; indeed liberals are not responsible for the historic actions conservatives took regarding slavery nor are liberals in any way behaving irresponsibly to bring up the activities conservatives are REPEATING in the present. 

You have no right to have your liberties made the 'life-blood' of the nation while hewing out policy prescriptions that treat liberals as contaminates in society that should be shunned and/or muted.

indeed liberals are not responsible for the historic actions conservatives took regarding slavery

What is your source for that assertion?

In the North it was more common for individual enslaved people to learn specialized skills.  Ministers, doctors, tradesmen, and merchants also used enslaved labor to work alongside them and run their households.

How do you know that none of these slave holders were liberals?

Well, let's just go with general knowledge. Exceptions do not establish the rule. Thus, we can speak with confidence that in the South the majority of slave holders were conservatives. 

We can know this because in order to push back against conservative slaveholders, its opposite on the spectrum would have been liberal (progressives), thereabouts.

You haven’t established any rule, you make up things to suit you’re bias.

I'm sorry, where did I write I, moi, "established" a rule? Moreover, you have some nerve claiming I have biases that properly should offend some conservatives. It is conservatives who seek to constraint and suppress liberals - not the other way around.  And if you are feeling constrained and suppressed by liberals some conservatives need to do analyses of how that occurs when it is conservatives who behave as though the whole of the country should under conservative control and not democratic control by all of the citizenry!

Liberals spend their days working hard to get conservatives to accept that people are more than ideology-driven. That people come first, then things. But, of course, that in the conservative-mind defaults to claims of socialism. Even though it should not!

And, yours an untruth. And oh by the way, I am in a better position to know!

Yes, that is true. Conservative democrats. 

The vast majority of Americans today who are racist are democrats, for some reason they still feel people of color are inferior and can't get by without their help.

I'm sorry, where did I write I, moi, "established" a rule?

My mistake, who’s rule are you referencing?

Moreover, you have some nerve claiming I have biases that properly should offend some conservatives.

I didn’t claim that, I claim that you have biases that offend those that know US history.

And if you are feeling constrained and suppressed by liberals

I don’t feel constrained or suppressed by you at all.

Slavery was recognized by every one of the original 13 Colonies, and slaveholders made up nearly half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They were all conservatives.

Liberal and conservative definitions then don’t map to todays definitions.  Liberalism then, attributed rights to individuals that no government, could violate which offered one of the most important legal and ideological protections for slavery in the nineteenth century. Liberalism defined rights as private, and the ultimate such right was the right to hold private property.

Going all the way back to Aristotle, a classic liberal, he asserted reminded that humanity depended on slaves.

Writing about history should require knowing it.

And oh by the way, I am in a better position to know!

To know what, you consistently are unable to list any freedoms that conservatives have taken away from you.

Your exaggerations are more an example of hyperbolic trolling than anything else.

Was it conservative Democrats running the NYC Political Machine that targeted Blacks during the 1863 Draft Riots?

Bluster much?

Now that is interesting, because according to you people of color must be inferior to whites if they can't properly discern who is politically for them and politically against them.  And with that being the case, do try to clearly explain why it is so hard for republicans and conservatives to persuade people of color to forsake democrats who you SAY act against their best interests. Please go ahead, INSULT PEOPLE OF COLOR with your answer.

Conservative democrats. If you are going to do this, you will do it RIGHT! No more pretense of delusion.

My mistake, who’s rule are you referencing?

Do work on your skills of interpretation. They will come in handy here. The rule, as it is, is about exception and recognizes and accepts that nothing is 100 percent (perfect) in our world. This is commonsense understanding that come from living a long life. I assume you have done that too.

As for the rest of your lecture it is superfluous. First, who cares that slaveholders (masters) controlled the constitutional convention? It was only two states (Georgia and South Carolina (I think) which for financial reasons would not agree to a necessary UNAMIOUS signing of a constitutional document that ended slavery.  Indeed, those two states almost caused the convention itself to dissolve without a constitutional contract. Clearly, the other 11 colonies were going to be liberal and progressive enough to free their slaves, but for a lack of unanimity.  

Second, why would you think I am writing about liberal and conservatives DEFINITIONS of the past? 

It's just 'old' shit you're stirring around it in order to avoid decent and today's points!

And Aristole, . . . really?!

So says the conservative 'serving' under a party dedicated to a bunch of crooks (but not you though) who won't throw the lead crook out of the party, because he is useful as a 'hammer' to break things other conservatives did not wish to get indicted and possibly have to go to jail for crimes committed.

Not read about it. Don't plan too. Possible EXCEPTION. Generally speaking, nothing is 100 percent perfect. Nothing I know of anyway. How about you? You found true. perfection in this life somewhere?

Well Texan, you would have 'long days and nights' if you really cared to talk about all the shit conservatives have done to the citizens of this country who have wanted no part of them from the start! Including slavery as an institution. Just ask Drinker:

5.3.60  Drinker of the Wry Slavery was recognized by every one of the original 13 Colonies, and slaveholders made up nearly half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They were all conservatives.

There it is. Drinker wrote: 'Slaveholders were all conservatives.' 

But, of course, you won't see that because it will mean you will have to be 'mean' to Drinker.   /s

Well you got me CB, I failed to proofread and typed “were” instead or weren’t,  

The rule, as it is, is about exception and recognizes and accepts that nothing is 100 percent (perfect) in our world. This is commonsense

i understand that most things aren’t 100%,  You wrote “indeed liberals are not responsible for the historic actions conservatives took regarding slavery”,  Ok, you didn’t really mean 100%, well about what was the real percentage and what is your source for that number?

As for the rest of your lecture it is superfluous.

Of course it is to you as you don’t care for history as it was, only what you want it to be.

So says the conservative 'serving' under a party dedicated to a bunch of crooks (but not you though)

Once again you contradict yourself.

Not read about it. Don't plan too.

Exactly, why learn any history that contradicts your assumptions and biases,

Awww.    The thing is if they were not conservatives in their politics - what do you imagine their political views to be? Please proceed. 

Commonsense requires a source with you? . . . Can you tell me why?

Of course it is to you as you don’t care for history as it was, only what you want it to be.

This part of your comment is unworthy of additional comment (this is all you will get, that is). 

Retort much, too?

There are liberal democrats who split off from the conservative democrats over the long arc of time. Or, more to the point, conservative democrats, the majority of which, split off from the liberals.  I am pretty sure you know this already. But, being that you push an agenda each time you comment. . . no acceptance or admission of the truth can be expected to come from your 'pen.'   Joe Manchin is obviously a conservative democrat 

Many of our early Congressmen owned slaves.  The weren't just from the South but from every state in New England and some from the MidWest.  These enslavers came from all parts of the political spectrum including  Democrats, Federalists, Whigs, Unionists, Populists, Progressives, Prohibitionists and some Repubs.

I know you mocked my comment about Aristotle who was anything but a conservative in his time, this time I'll try John Locke.  Locke as you know, was one of the principal founders of classical  liberalism and democratic philosophy.  On of his foundational principles was the right to own private property, even when that property was slaves.

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and were from the South.  Given the context of their time and place, do you believe that they were conservatives?

The Dred Scott case was decided 7-2.  On e in the majority was a Whig while one of the two dissenters was a Dem.

You can't take our complicated history and distill it as simply as uyou are want to do.

At the point in this discussion where I am writing about liberals and conservative 'matters' it is in our time—OUR LIFETIME THEREABOUTS (as you may be older than me by a lot); why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why are you reaching back into and 'training' on various other history points other than to be distracting and annoying?!

We've have and shall accomplish what is needed. The struggle with tired, old, meddlesome some conservatives wages on!

At the point in this discussion where I am writing about liberals and conservative 'matters' it is in our time—OUR LIFETIME THEREABOUTS ; why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

The topic is AA History, not just our lifetime thereabouts; why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Why are you reaching back into and 'training' on various other history points other than to be distracting and annoying?!

You asserted that all the slavers were conservatives, I disputed that with some examples.  I'm sorry if you find historical facts as distracting and annoying.

i asserted no such thing, and yet that is getting lost in this minutia of your incessant commenting on the past history (see 5.3.48 ). You seem to be putting out 'filler' which is intentionally or unintentionally distorting and dragging out the discussion. It is my RIGHT to tell you what I AM WRITING ABOUT and not yours! 

And I quoted you at 5.3.70 with this:

5.3.60   Drinker of the Wry  Slavery was recognized by every one of the original 13 Colonies , and  slaveholders made up nearly half the delegates  to the Constitutional Convention.  They were all conservatives. There it is. Drinker wrote: ' Slaveholders were all conservatives.' 

Now get with it or just drop it. I will not keep trying to process this (as it is distracting) and getting farther off-course of the topic.  And, as I lack proper sleep this AM, this line of commenting is giving me a headache right now! 

i asserted no such thing,

See (5.3.48) "indeed liberals are not responsible for the historic actions conservatives took regarding slavery"

yet that is getting lost in this minutia of your incessant commenting on the past history

I'm not lost, again the discussion was American slavery, which is of course, "past history.

You seem to be putting out 'filler' which is intentionally or unintentionally distorting and dragging out the discussion.

I'm sorry that you can't see it as relevant to the discussion.

It is my RIGHT to tell you what I AM WRITING ABOUT and not yours! 

You frequently get asked for examples of conservatives taking away your freedoms, instead of remaining mute to those challenges, feel free to use me as an example.

You frequently get asked for examples of conservatives taking away your freedoms, instead of remaining mute to those challenges, feel free to use me as an example.

First the issue you seem stuck on is not slavery, but who were the slave masters politically. I insist they were overwhelmingly conservatives, and you take a counter position that liberals were slaveholders (as well or more. Exceptions, are to be expected). 

I am not 'every' black person in the country, therefore when I write about conservative activism I don't need to address what is happening or not happening to me personally. Though, I could. But, why? Conservatives have given no indication or signal that they are 'going to help a 'brother out' by switching or ending any of their long-term policy prescriptions for the country.

That said, let's attempt to respond to this request for a "challenge question" with "traditional marriage."  I am celibate, so I have no personal 'harm' from the marriage question. But, the issue of traditional marriage is something conservatives continually push as idea for the country. Why? The term was spawn in answer to same-sex marriage becoming a political possibility. When you think about it - no opposite sex marriage is threatened to end or not come about when homosexuals are allowed to marry! 

Traditional marriages will always be in the majority, because of its nature. Yet, "traditional marriage" conservatives continue to push an agenda that somehow that type of marriage is THREATENED by homosexuals. Thus, conservatives are using homosexuals as a "boogeyman" trying to take away or 'best' their marriages in society.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!

That is just one example of an oppressive policy prescription coming out of the (conservative) Right.

First the issue you seem stuck on is not slavery, but who were the slave masters politically

That’s because you identified it as almost wholly a conservative issue, and I disagreed.

I not interested in going off topic in the middle of a thread.  I’ve been deleted and fined before when I’ve done that.

I can appreciate that you don't want to go off-topic. I finally addressed the "challenge question" and it fell flat at your feet, nevertheless. Now, as I anticipated, you have gone 'mute.' 

Now, as I anticipated, you have gone 'mute.'  

I finished a long walk, had to take a dump and don’t use my phone while doing so.

Sharing is caring.

Exactly and I care.

See 5.3.89. (It is as if you don't even read the thread with these 'put up' questions and remarks.) 

Same-sex marriage is not 'taken from you [me])" because some conservatives could not keep it away.

However, same-sex marriage is not even 10 years old yet and already a supreme court justice is laying legwork to revisit a reversal of its precedent. You already know that a conservative-led SCOTUS 'killed' 50 years of abortion precedence with a 'stroke of a pen.' It will be just as easy for 6 conservatives to reset precedence on same-sex marriage by kicking it back to the states (rights).  Watch this space, because it highly probably is coming in the next high court session.

Some conservatives don't play stupid catch us if you can games. We see what y'all are about even when we can't stop it. Though, goodness knows why it can't be done!

The amount of insincerity in this discussions coming from some conservatives is astonishing and disgusting. 

Moment of Soapbox delivery:

Honestly, I don't know why some people are allowed to come here and spread propaganda and make heartless appeals with passion in the face of truth-continuously and with abandon.

And one more thing. I don't owe you any set of facts about my personal life/conflicts/suppressions anyway. Accept what I volunteer to share, because I am under no illusion that you give a damn about any liberal dreams, expectations, or realities anyway. 

I don't need validation from inconsiderate, mean-spirited, and shady people, some conservatives. Never have and never will. Here is what some conservatives need to know: Y'all are screwing around in other people's lives, as if somehow our 'joy' is an affront to some conservative freedoms, liberties, and even existence!

You can ask any damn thing you wish, and receive what I deem to give back in return or not. It really does not matter to me, since I have discerned as I already have stated: Some conservatives' come here to stifle discussions and offer little else, in my opinion.

I repeat, I don't need or even want validation from insincere and heartless people. What use would that be to people who my life? None!

And with this comment I am choosing to end this valuable time spent on a futile waste of time. See you down the path-or not!

Go for it! As I won't reply back to you-the field is yours all to yourself!

declaring yet more of your freedoms and rights are being squelched somehow (mysteriously)

Yesterday, I offered myself for use as an example of someone who squelches his freedom.  Maybe he has already forgotten.

I am going to 'skip' ahead of my usual comment reading (busy morning coming up) and offer this thought without knowing if others have shared it already. After slavery ended, which is what I assume this controversy is over; there were benefits of work-related skills to the former slaves, . . . if one ignores the obvious generational and life path changes that slavery as an institution legally foisted upon Africans brought here. . .and attached to this country, but not welcomed as its citizenry. 

The original AP standard article uses the word, "provide. . . ."   The new AP standard ("conservative edition") uses the word, "benefit. . . ." 

Why not strike out the offending word?  Remove the word, benefit and use a more judicial word instead.

All for now. Talk later.

After slavery ended, which is what I assume this controversy is over; there were benefits of work-related skills to the former slaves, .

[Deleted]

There are no slaves today

Nobody who was a slave is alive today

Nobody that owned a slave is alive today

What the hell are all these people complaining about today?

What the hell are all these people complaining about today?

They are owed boatloads of money.

They might think so

... and no lasting consequences!

No racism!

Paradise!

Florida’s demographics:

• 56.1% White (51.1% Non-Hispanic White)
• 15.1% Black
• 2.9% Asian
• 0.3% Native American
• 0.1% Pacific Islander
• 6.5% Some Other Race
• 19.1% from two or more races

What does your state look like?

AZ. Look it up.

I found your state:

State of Confusion 

I guess if black people exist, the state has no racism? Is that the purpose of those statistics?

You know, in 1850, the percentage of black people in Florida (see page 401) was much higher. Of course, they were slaves, so simply counting people by race doesn’t seem to tell us much.

I guess if black people exist, the state has no racism? Is that the purpose of those statistics?

No, I wondered about the diversity in Bob’s state, but he didn't want to share.

BTW, people vote with their feet.  Black people are leaving the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast.

simply counting people by race doesn’t seem to tell us much.

The Federal government disagrees.

So you're saying that people move around? Yes! They do. HINT: People migrate from state to state for a host of reasons.  And will continue to do so. Besides, California is 'top-heavy' anyway and can stand some of these citizens going home.

Finally, we have a South Dakota ad promising "big things" to people who come to- the Mount Rushmore State-to live running in California. I say, "whoopee!" 

It's not a competition if we all consider we have a 50 state home, exception some 'fools' in the body of states think they are better than their other members. 

People migrate from state to state for a host of reasons. 

Yes, and Black people are leaving LA, SF, Chicago, Detroit and NYC and moving to Memphis, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami and Dallas.  And not just in the major metro areas like San Antonio; Raleigh and Greensboro, N.C.; Orlando and Little Rock.  After WW I there was a Black migration out of the South to the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast.

Now there is a Reverse Migration underway.  The percentage of Blacks in the South have been increasing for over 30 years.

They are leaving for jobs, affordable housing and to get out from under the structural racism in the North that has prevented the generational wealth that white people there have created.

So what? People move. More proof that their feet are not nailed to the ground. BTW, people move from red states too. I thought you knew. 

It is all so sad, when in order to live in some semblance of peace-people have to move due to false conflicts foisted upon them by hard-cases who nonstop keep political shit stirred up!

The country is dividing (moving) into political silos, largely because some conservatives won't stop with the culture divides and driving citizens to distraction, angst, and fear!

It is what it is, nevertheless!

No, I wondered about the diversity in Bob’s state, but he didn't want to share.

That doesn’t explain the significance of the statistics.

The Federal government disagrees.

I don’t understand the significance of this either.

and to get out from under the structural racism

Your source for this is?