The DeSantis gambit

[Stacyhs]

Except that's not my argument. I don't care what the GOP says. This sub-discussion isn't about the GOP. It's about what the curriculum says. And it doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Go read it yourself. This one sentence is the only thing anyone is objecting to, and they're doing so on the basis of an assumed meaning that the sentence itself doesn't even contain.

The majority of the group that wrote that curriculum did NOT want that 'clarification' included:

Most of Florida work group did not agree with controversial parts of state's new standards for Black history, members say
“Most of us did not want that language,” one work group member said.

A majority of the members of the Florida work group that developed new standards for teaching African American history opposed the sections that have recently drawn criticism, including that middle schoolers be instructed that enslaved people developed “skills” that could be used for their “personal benefit,” three members of the work group said.
The members, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal, told NBC News that the majority did not want to include that change or a requirement that high school students be taught about violence perpetrated “by African Americans” when learning about events like the Ocoee and Tulsa Race massacres.
“Most of us did not want that language,” one member said, adding that two of the 13 members of the group pushed to include those specific items.

The work group members who spoke to NBC News said that only two members of the work group, William Allen and Frances Presley Rice, advocated for the criticized language. Allen and Presley Rice, both Black Republicans, released a joint statement last week defending the new standards as “comprehensive and rigorous instruction on African American history.”

“People were very vocal” and questioned “how there could be a benefit to slavery,” one work group member said about the language. Allen, the member said, countered the arguments by using Frederick Douglass as an example.

“However, Dr. Allen is focusing on the few slaves who actually did learn something and keeps alluding to Frederick Douglass,” one work group member said. “What he is saying is not accurate for most of the slaves.”

All three members described him in separate interviews as “persuasive” and “knowledgeable” and said the group deferred to him.

Two members said the matter was tabled for a later discussion and did not recall it ever being voted on. One of those members called the language in the final product “problematic” and said the group “could have done a better job” if it had been given more time to work.

So who is William Allen? He's a very conservative, Trump supporting Republican and controversial figure. He opposes Affirmative Action and is the former COO of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education which was founded by conservative Star Parker who opposes abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage and using tax dollars to fund birth control. She believes the government, through welfare, has 'destroyed the Black family' and keeps Blacks in the mindset of "How do I keep on the (government) plantation (welfare)?

It's not hard to see why Allen promotes an absurd idea that some slaves 'personally benefited' from 'skills learned as slaves'. He reminds me of people like Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who fought against the ERA and LGBTQ+ who support Trump.

 

[bruto]

OK, I opened the document and read at least a part way through it. For those who do not want to, I should mention that it appears the first African American history section is only in the first 26 or so pages. There is a lot of context here, and it's clear that a large portion of the curriculum is fairly routine and attempts in some way to deal with reality, but there are certainly some issues here. The second African American History strand begins on page 124.

The section labeled SS 68 AA 2.3 is the one that's been cited over and over again, and which is most debatable. But a good portion of the rest has some issues that seem at least questionable, including explicit clarification of issues involving comparison of slave conditions in other countries, a pretty direct blaming of Africans and others for slavery itself, and a bit of what seems at least like equivocation regarding African-American artists and authors who, like Zora Neale Hurston, found it opportune, if not downright necessary, to leave Florida in order to lead lives unencumbered by its backward social structure and segregation, as well as what might be construed as a backhanded compliment to the Black towns in Florida which, while they existed only because of segregation and oppression, are now touted as contributors to the State's culture.

The second section largely mirrors the first, and once again seems to want to dilute the issue of slavery in the US by sending us all over the world where other slaves slaved for others, and blaming the Africans for selling them to us. And of course, though it's hard to pin down, the outline here indicates a dispassionate discussion of slavery, which while it might be factual as far as it goes, does not appear to say much about whether there is anything actually wrong with slavery.

I do, however, note that, if the curriculum is followed, SS.912.AA.4.6 and subsequent sections appear to take a pretty hard view at the contributions of not only organizations but the Florida government itself, for the prolongation of segregation.

So Ok, now I have read at least a good part of the curriculum, including, I think, most of what is pertinent here. In the context of the curriculum, it is clear that the whole thing is not a whitewash of slavery and segregation, which would after all be too over the top even for De Santis. But the fact remains that there are some sore points, and the pertinent one, which everyone keeps citing, stills stands out, and still appears to have no place in this curriculum except as an opening for the "up side" of slavery.

So while I will go so far as to say that the whole curriculum does not stink of fascist revisionism or the like, I see no reason to relent on the faults that I think are the direct result of an attempt to soften the condemnation of slavery, and no reason at all to consider that as anything but pernicious.

 

[The_Animus]

The majority of the group that wrote that curriculum did NOT want that 'clarification' included:

So who is William Allen? He's a very conservative, Trump supporting Republican and controversial figure. He opposes Affirmative Action and is the former COO of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education which was founded by conservative Star Parker who opposes abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage and using tax dollars to fund birth control. She believes the government, through welfare, has 'destroyed the Black family' and keeps Blacks in the mindset of "How do I keep on the (government) plantation (welfare)?

It's not hard to see why Allen promotes an absurd idea that some slaves 'personally benefited' from 'skills learned as slaves'. He reminds me of people like Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who fought against the ERA and LGBTQ+ who support Trump.

I saw that article today and planned to post it later when I got home but you beat me to it. All this originated from two bigoted idiots. Who could have possibly seen this coming?!

 

[Ziggurat]

The section labeled SS 68 AA 2.3 is the one that's been cited over and over again, and which is most debatable. But a good portion of the rest has some issues that seem at least questionable, including explicit clarification of issues involving comparison of slave conditions in other countries

Why is that an "issue"? Do you think those comparisons will only make the US look good? I don't think they all will, nor do I think they're all intended to.

a pretty direct blaming of Africans and others for slavery itself

It sounds like you don't want students to be taught that Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Given that this is what actually happened, why is teaching it an issue? I don't get the objection here. Do you want students to falsely believe that African slaves were all captured in Africa by white Europeans?

what might be construed as a backhanded compliment to the Black towns in Florida which, while they existed only because of segregation and oppression, are now touted as contributors to the State's culture.

I keep hearing about how we need to include more of the contributions of various minorities and under-represented groups in what we teach. Florida is trying to do that, but somehow it's a problem that they're doing that because the conditions under which it happened weren't ideal. Is it better to just ignore their contributions? Because I thought that was supposed to be bad.

And of course, though it's hard to pin down, the outline here indicates a dispassionate discussion of slavery, which while it might be factual as far as it goes, does not appear to say much about whether there is anything actually wrong with slavery.

I disagree. For example (page 12):

SS.912.AA.2.7 Analyze the contributions of founding principles of liberty, justice and equality in the quest to end slavery.​

This seems like a pretty explicit statement that slavery was antithetical to liberty, justice and equality, all of which are good things, and which naturally makes slavery a bad thing. Or SS.912.AA.1.7, which includes the following clarifications:

Clarification 1: Instruction includes the harsh conditions and their consequences on British American plantations (e.g., undernourishment, climate conditions, infant and child mortality rates of the enslaved vs. the free).
Clarification 2: Instruction includes the harsh conditions in the Caribbean plantations (i.e., poor nutrition, rigorous labor, disease).
Clarification 3: Instruction includes how slavery was sustained in the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana and Brazil despite overwhelming death rates.​

Infant and child mortality, overwhelming death rates... sounds pretty bad to me.

So while I will go so far as to say that the whole curriculum does not stink of fascist revisionism or the like, I see no reason to relent on the faults that I think are the direct result of an attempt to soften the condemnation of slavery, and no reason at all to consider that as anything but pernicious.

I don't think it's possible to come up with a curriculum on a subject like slavery which will make everyone happy. Nor do I think this one is above any and all criticism. But there's a lot more sturm und drang about it than it deserves.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I notice, however, that you are being careful not to say you have actually read that 216-page document.

Because I didn't,

Thank you. It's nice to establish that someone who repeatedly questioned whether others had read the document hasn't read the full document himself.

because only part of it has to do with African American history, and that's the controversial part.

What you're saying, I think, is that the controversy of which you are aware (thanks to the press and other media) has to do with African American history.

But there are other parts that might be controversial. Consider SS.912.P.10.1 ("Define culture and diversity."). Or SS.912.P.10.4 ("Discuss psychological research examining race and ethnicity."). Or SS.912.P.10.7 ("Discuss psychological research examining gender similarities and differences and the impact of gender discrimination.") and SS.912.P.10.8 ("Discuss the psychological research on gender and how the roles of women and men in societies are perceived."). Or SS.912.P.13.4 ("Discuss the history of intelligence testing, including historical use and misuse in the context of fairness.") or SS.912.P.13.18 ("Discuss the influences of biological, cultural, and environmental factors on intelligence.").

And what's your point anyways?

I think I've already answered that question:

I find it amusing when someone who appears not to have read a document repeatedly suggests, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that others haven't read it either.

But that's just a matter of my own amusement.

bruto and others have addressed more serious points. It would be hard to improve upon this summary:

OK, I opened the document and read at least a part way through it. For those who do not want to, I should mention that it appears the first African American history section is only in the first 26 or so pages. There is a lot of context here, and it's clear that a large portion of the curriculum is fairly routine and attempts in some way to deal with reality, but there are certainly some issues here. The second African American History strand begins on page 124.

The section labeled SS 68 AA 2.3 is the one that's been cited over and over again, and which is most debatable. But a good portion of the rest has some issues that seem at least questionable, including explicit clarification of issues involving comparison of slave conditions in other countries, a pretty direct blaming of Africans and others for slavery itself, and a bit of what seems at least like equivocation regarding African-American artists and authors who, like Zora Neale Hurston, found it opportune, if not downright necessary, to leave Florida in order to lead lives unencumbered by its backward social structure and segregation, as well as what might be construed as a backhanded compliment to the Black towns in Florida which, while they existed only because of segregation and oppression, are now touted as contributors to the State's culture.

The second section largely mirrors the first, and once again seems to want to dilute the issue of slavery in the US by sending us all over the world where other slaves slaved for others, and blaming the Africans for selling them to us. And of course, though it's hard to pin down, the outline here indicates a dispassionate discussion of slavery, which while it might be factual as far as it goes, does not appear to say much about whether there is anything actually wrong with slavery.

I do, however, note that, if the curriculum is followed, SS.912.AA.4.6 and subsequent sections appear to take a pretty hard view at the contributions of not only organizations but the Florida government itself, for the prolongation of segregation.

So Ok, now I have read at least a good part of the curriculum, including, I think, most of what is pertinent here. In the context of the curriculum, it is clear that the whole thing is not a whitewash of slavery and segregation, which would after all be too over the top even for De Santis. But the fact remains that there are some sore points, and the pertinent one, which everyone keeps citing, stills stands out, and still appears to have no place in this curriculum except as an opening for the "up side" of slavery.

So while I will go so far as to say that the whole curriculum does not stink of fascist revisionism or the like, I see no reason to relent on the faults that I think are the direct result of an attempt to soften the condemnation of slavery, and no reason at all to consider that as anything but pernicious.

 

[Ziggurat]

bruto and others have addressed more serious points.

You haven't. bruto did, and I responded to him. Copying him again here serves no purpose.

 

[Stacyhs]

While it's true that African tribes captured and sold other Africans into slavery, that was largely due to the market created by European Trans-Atlantic slave traders.

If the subject is slavery in the Americas, and particularly in the American colonies/antebellum South, then that should be included in the lessons.

If, however, the subject is the discussion of 'slavery' in general, then lessons must also include that almost every society in history has kept slaves regardless of color, even including their own people.

But to teach that, 'in some instances, slaves personally benefitted from skills they learned as slaves' is teaching something that happened so very rarely as to be negligible.

 

[Stacyhs]

You haven't. bruto did, and I responded to him. Copying him again here serves no purpose.

I asked you for examples of slaves who personally benefitted from skills they learned as slaves. You gave Frederick Douglass, whom you used due to William Allen's own use of Douglass in your link. But it was apparent that you did not know that his mistress only taught him the alphabet and he taught himself to read later. A skill that he learned despite slavery, not because of it.

Do you have any other examples? And, please, do not use Allen's other example of Booker T. Washington as he was freed at age 9, so learned no skills during slavery that personally benefitted him.

 

[bruto]

Aside from the finer points of who was responsible for the Africans and their part in slavery, or for the enslavement of other people by other people, the curriculum in question is one of social studies, with particular reference, according to its own headings, to African-American social studies, and it would be at least worth questioning how much world history should be taught therein.

And again, while various arguments can be brought about various things, what seems important here is whether the assigned curriculum is or is not designed to put the American practice of enslavement, as it was practiced and enforced, in a more positive light.

 

[Stacyhs]

Aside from the finer points of who was responsible for the Africans and their part in slavery, or for the enslavement of other people by other people, the curriculum in question is one of social studies, with particular reference, according to its own headings, to African-American social studies, and it would be at least worth questioning how much world history should be taught therein.
And again, while various arguments can be brought about various things, what seems important here is whether the assigned curriculum is or is not designed to put the American practice of enslavement, as it was practiced and enforced, in a more positive light.

Exactly.

 

[bruto]

Of course it depends a little on how you look at things, but I think some people who are defending this whole business are not recognizing the Trojan Horse.

It's likely that most of the curriculum in question is about the same as it always was, and much of it is the sort of thing that is reasonable to teach, but there is a reason why so many people have fixated so particularly on that one glaring new element.

In some other threads, it has appeared that Ziggurat is pretty knowledgeable about scientific matters, and his opinions on such things has tended, at least to this lay person's view, to be pretty good and worth paying attention to.

I suspect, though of course I can't know for sure, but I suspect that if a curriculum on science instruction were presented in which most is reasonable and proper, but one small new subsection instructed teachers to present flat earth theory as legitimate, he, like most persons of a scientific bent, would consider that to be a fly in the soup big enough to send the whole bowl back to the kitchen.

This is how I see the section of the SS curriculum under discussion, especially given the political context under which it appears.

 

[Ziggurat]

I asked you for examples of slaves who personally benefitted from skills they learned as slaves. You gave Frederick Douglass, whom you used due to William Allen's own use of Douglass in your link. But it was apparent that you did not know that his mistress only taught him the alphabet and he taught himself to read later. A skill that he learned despite slavery, not because of it.

You seem to think that only skills taught to slaves by their owners count. No such limitation is included in that sentence.

 

[dudalb]

Equality and diversity are now forbidden in Orlando...https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/politics/disney-reedy-creek-dei/index.html

You know The Mouse will strike back in some way.

 

[Trausti]

You seem to think that only skills taught to slaves by their owners count. No such limitation is included in that sentence.

This is how the crazy racist AP African American Studies framework put it. Where is the outrage?

https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-african-american-studies-course-framework.pdf

 

[Ziggurat]

Equality and diversity are now forbidden in Orlando...https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/politics/disney-reedy-creek-dei/index.html

You know The Mouse will strike back in some way.

That only applies to programs and contracts funded by CFTOD itself, not to any programs run by anyone else including Disney. Disney can still run DEI programs of its own if it chooses. And no, Disney will not do anything about it. There is nothing they can do about it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to think that only skills taught to slaves by their owners count. No such limitation is included in that sentence.

LOL. Really? You're actually going try and pull this obvious tactic?

I asked you for examples of slaves who personally benefitted from skills they learned as slaves. Where do you see the words "owners" in that sentence?

Having some trouble doing that, are ya?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Zig, what purpose does talk about " acquiring skills" in the context of Slavery serve but to partially absolve the slavers?

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, what purpose does talk about " acquiring skills" in the context of Slavery serve but to partially absolve the slavers?

To show the resilience and resourcefulness of slaves. I would have thought that's a good thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL. Really? You're actually going try and pull this obvious tactic?

I asked you for examples of slaves who personally benefitted from skills they learned as slaves. Where do you see the words "owners" in that sentence?

Having some trouble doing that, are ya?

Douglas counts, but you want to disqualify him. That's the only basis on which to do so.

 

[dann]

With resilience, are you talking about how the skills were whipped into them?!
Or is it about how some of them taught themselves to read in spite of being punished if they were discovered?