The DeSantis gambit

[bruto]

What's ol' Howard up to these days?

He seems to be a kind of roving pundit these days, not doing much that's specific.

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to be under the assumption that this portrayal of Florida's curriculum is accurate. It is not.

Now, I understand why you are operating under that false assumption. What I don't understand is why Tim Scott is. He should know better than to trust the press.

So, what part of "this portrayal of Florida's curriculum" is not accurate?

Are middle schoolers not to be taught:

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).

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

(Florida’s State Academic Standards – Social Studies, 2023)

 

[dirtywick]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=60faa4ebae224f2cb31bd53bb7d5dfa9&ei=14

it's convenient that you can pretty much always assume the worst with these guys and be right

 

[Ziggurat]

So, what part of "this portrayal of Florida's curriculum" is not accurate?

What's inaccurate is that this was portrayed as a benefit of slavery. Some slaves managed to benefit themselves despite slavery, not because of it, and the curriculum doesn't actually suggest otherwise.

 

[acbytesla]

What's inaccurate is that this was portrayed as a benefit of slavery. Some slaves managed to benefit themselves despite slavery, not because of it, and the curriculum doesn't actually suggest otherwise.

Oh please. A distinction minus a difference.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh please. A distinction minus a difference.

Hardly. The difference is incredibly important. And the facts are actually true as well.

What's particularly odd is the idea that this is somehow viewed as a bad truth, that it would somehow be better if slaves never managed to benefit themselves, if they were instead only victims with no ability to alleviate their oppression in any way. Why wouldn't the alternative, that even the oppressed can sometimes overcome their circumstances at least in part, be more empowering? Why wouldn't you want stories about slaves who managed to accomplish something despite their slavery to be told?

 

[dirtywick]

haha ok

 

[lobosrul5]

Hardly. The difference is incredibly important. And the facts are actually true as well.

What's particularly odd is the idea that this is somehow viewed as a bad truth, that it would somehow be better if slaves never managed to benefit themselves, if they were instead only victims with no ability to alleviate their oppression in any way. Why wouldn't the alternative, that even the oppressed can sometimes overcome their circumstances at least in part, be more empowering? Why wouldn't you want stories about slaves who managed to accomplish something despite their slavery to be told?

It really depends on how its being framed:

A) Slavery was really awful, but some slaves were able to learn to read while working at a printing press and were able to better themselves after being freed or even used it to pass messages along the underground railroad.

or

B) You see slavery wasn't THAT bad. They could learn skills which their masters would reward them for by giving them better conditions since their labor was more valuable. Heck, it was if anything a better system than the hardships of sharecropping where poor black workers were at the mercy of market conditions and crop failures.

That Tim Scott is criticizing it leads me to believe its more along the lines of option "B".

 

[Ziggurat]

It really depends on how its being framed:

A) Slavery was really awful, but some slaves were able to learn to read while working at a printing press and were able to better themselves after being freed or even used it to pass messages along the underground railroad.

or

B) You see slavery wasn't THAT bad. They could learn skills which their masters would reward them for by giving them better conditions since their labor was more valuable. Heck, it was if anything a better system than the hardships of sharecropping where poor black workers were at the mercy of market conditions and crop failures.

That Tim Scott is criticizing it leads me to believe its more along the lines of option "B".

Never trust the press, they want it to be B because that's a better story. So that's how they're reporting it, and for some reason Tim Scott believed the press when he should know better. But a better story doesn't make it true. It's option A.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190...idas-new-history-standards-stands-by-cirricul

ETA: here is the actual standards document:
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

The line getting all the attention is at the bottom of page 6. But there's a lot more content in there, and as a whole it really doesn't read as any sort of excuse for slavery at all.

 

[The_Animus]

Of all the things they can talk about regarding slavery, and the limit to how much curriculum they can include, it seems really odd to choose to include that.

When talking about the women's rights movement, do they also intend to talk about how women being kept at home taught them useful skills? How about when discussing child labor? Surely it's important to point out the valuable skills those kids learned when they weren't maimed on the job.

It could be taught in a way that is benign, but when it comes to Republicans assurances that their intent is not the deplorable one obvious to most people...

Let's just say no one would be shocked when leaked audio surfaces of Republicans behind closed doors taking about how blacks were better off under slavery and this new curriculum will highlight that.

 

[Stacyhs]

What's inaccurate is that this was portrayed as a benefit of slavery. Some slaves managed to benefit themselves despite slavery, not because of it, and the curriculum doesn't actually suggest otherwise.

Wow. That's some spin! As I already quoted and cited direct from Florida’s State Academic Standards – Social Studies, 2023:

Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

What this is saying is that a slave could have learned cooking skills that 'benefited' her personally because it got her out of picking cotton/tobacco in the fields and into the Big House to cook for her owners. Field slave to house slave! What a 'benefit'!

Hardly. The difference is incredibly important. And the facts are actually true as well.

What's particularly odd is the idea that this is somehow viewed as a bad truth, that it would somehow be better if slaves never managed to benefit themselves, if they were instead only victims with no ability to alleviate their oppression in any way. Why wouldn't the alternative, that even the oppressed can sometimes overcome their circumstances at least in part, be more empowering? Why wouldn't you want stories about slaves who managed to accomplish something despite their slavery to be told?

It was never for the slaves' benefit: it was for the slave owners' benefit. Skilled slaves were worth more and anything they produced belonged not to them, but to their owners.

The College Board disagrees with DeSantis and you:

"We resolutely disagree with the notion that enslavement was in any way a beneficial, productive, or useful experience for African Americans," the College Board said in a statement to USA TODAY. "Unequivocally, slavery was an atrocity that cannot be justified by examples of African Americans’ agency and resistance during their enslavement."

That anyone would attempt to present this as anything other than what it is...a whitewash of slavery...is appalling.

 

[The Atheist]

De Santis' real gambit might be to wait until Donny runs out of money: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-campaign-finances_n_64c89c6be4b03ad2b89a69fa

 

[lobosrul5]

De Santis' real gambit might be to wait until Donny runs out of money: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-campaign-finances_n_64c89c6be4b03ad2b89a69fa

At which point Trump cries and asks all his suckers to give him $1000 for some new NFT's.

 

[Stacyhs]

Of all the things they can talk about regarding slavery, and the limit to how much curriculum they can include, it seems really odd to choose to include that.

When talking about the women's rights movement, do they also intend to talk about how women being kept at home taught them useful skills? How about when discussing child labor? Surely it's important to point out the valuable skills those kids learned when they weren't maimed on the job.

It could be taught in a way that is benign, but when it comes to Republicans assurances that their intent is not the deplorable one obvious to most people...

Let's just say no one would be shocked when leaked audio surfaces of Republicans behind closed doors taking about how blacks were better off under slavery and this new curriculum will highlight that.

Don't forget that sex trafficking benefited those forced to become prostitutes because they learned 'skills' they could use later to benefit themselves.
Who can argue a skilled hooker could make more money?

 

[Ziggurat]

What this is saying is that a slave could have learned cooking skills that 'benefited' her personally because it got her out of picking cotton/tobacco in the fields and into the Big House to cook for her owners. Field slave to house slave! What a 'benefit'!

No. Read my other link.

It was never for the slaves' benefit: it was for the slave owners' benefit.

Slavery was for the owner's benefit. And slave owners wanted slaves to learn certain things also for the owner's benefit. But slaves sometimes learned things the owners didn't want them to learn, and that could benefit the slaves. Or they found ways to benefit themselves which their owners may not have intended. That's something to be admired, isn't it?

Nothing about slaves learning skills that benefited them (which as a factual matter is uncontested) implies that slavery benefited them. Nothing about the curriculum implies that slavery benefited them.

The College Board disagrees with DeSantis and you:

The college board is responding to press reports, not to the actual contents of the curriculum. And it's always and only that one line, taken out of context. Out of the pages and pages on the topic, just one line.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. Read my other link.



Slavery was for the owner's benefit. And slave owners wanted slaves to learn certain things also for the owner's benefit. But slaves sometimes learned things the owners didn't want them to learn, and that could benefit the slaves. Or they found ways to benefit themselves which their owners may not have intended. That's something to be admired, isn't it?

Nothing about slaves learning skills that benefited them (which as a factual matter is uncontested) implies that slavery benefited them. Nothing about the curriculum implies that slavery benefited them.



The college board is responding to press reports, not to the actual contents of the curriculum. And it's always and only that one line, taken out of context. Out of the pages and pages on the topic, just one line.

 

[Ziggurat]

The less you try to understand, the worse it becomes.

Honestly, it's like you don't want to know the truth. The truth isn't useful, the fiction is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if Ziggurat's bizzare interpretation of that requirement was correct it would still be obvious attempt to water-down the horrors of slavery.

You haven't actually read the curriculum, have you?

 

[Stacyhs]

You're working from second-hand reporting focused on a single out-of-context sentence.

No, I am not. It was a quote directly from The College Board. If you need further evidence, as apparently you do:

“We are aware that some in Florida have reviewed the Advanced Placement (AP) African American Studies framework and have suggested that the state’s recently approved middle school African American History standards align with our course requirements,” the College Board said in a statement. “We resolutely disagree with the notion that enslavement was in any way a beneficial, productive, or useful experience for African Americans.”

It added: “Unequivocally, slavery was an atrocity that cannot be justified by examples of African Americans’ agency and resistance during their enslavement.”

I've gone to the actual curriculum document, and heard from one of the drafters. I'm not the one with my head in the sand.

As I've said twice now, I quoted and cited from the actual curriculum document: Florida’s State Academic Standards – Social Studies, 2023 for what the curriculum says. How do you think I got that if I hadn't gone to the 'actual curriculum document'?

Out of curiosity, exactly how do you think slaves personally benefited from skills learned as slaves other than along the lines of the example I gave?

 

[gnome]

You haven't actually read the curriculum, have you?

Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural
work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing,
transportation).
Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be
applied for their personal benefit.

What "context" is evident here besides that they felt it necessary to include a "clarification" that the skills could be applied for their personal benefit?

If I hadn't read a single news story and only read this, I would still think it was trying to argue that slaves received some benefits from slavery.