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.
