Turns out, slavery is good ... for the slaves

[Majors]

Wait, you’re saying he didn’t lie because the proof of him lying comes from Twitter? When the person walked through every single name he listed and that information, such as several of them being born decades after slavery ended, is easily and widely available for free? Oh ok

“No way he could be wrong, he’s Black!!” Lol

Again, citing one person of 1.1K followers…seems had he been lying there would be more coming out rebutting against each word. More credible sources than Alexander- Sex Critic. Seems like low hanging fruit to discredit. Do you believe everything on Twitter?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

It's only temporary.

Check back next week when a brand new topic will far reaching broad brush implications will enrage us.

Quality post.

In the meantime, please send all your money to the candidate who was being attacked over (insert political topic du jour), because it’s the only way to save this country.

 

[McDad]

Quality post.

In the meantime, please send all your money to the candidate who was being attacked over (insert political topic du jour), because it’s the only way to save this country.

Can't. I'm sending all my money to the candidate who has sworn to stop the candidate being attacked because it's the only way to REALLY save the country.

 

[RikidyBones]

Can't. I'm sending all my money to the candidate who has sworn to stop the candidate being attacked because it's the only way to REALLY save the country.

I'm spending all my money on hookers and blow because yolo. Hunter has it right.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Can't. I'm sending all my money to the candidate who has sworn to stop the candidate being attacked because it's the only way to REALLY save the country.

Perfectly normal, can’t judge.

 

[NashVol11]

Again, citing one person of 1.1K followers…seems had he been lying there would be more coming out rebutting against each word. More credible sources than Alexander- Sex Critic. Seems like low hanging fruit to discredit. Do you believe everything on Twitter?

Plenty of other people have said so as well lol. If he says a “slave benefitted” and they were born in 1885 long after slavery ended, he’s not hilariously wrong because Twitter? This conversation is making us all dumber

 

[85SugarVol]

340 posts and not a single person has given a reason why this addition is necessary good times

I just don’t get the need here.

And I’m usually very much in the “eff you and your claims of ‘need’” camp.

 

[LouderVol]

Don't really see the point in including this in the curriculum. Feels like an attempt to qualify slavery as being not so bad because some slaves may have learned some trades while enslaved. Some slaves perhaps did, and went on to be successful, but if the tweets earlier expanding on the named individuals is correct, they apparently couldn't find very many actual cases of this if they had to use a bunch of people who weren't even slaves, or were slaves but were not taught that profession as part of their work duties.

I'm guessing the intent was to push back against CRT and rile folks up which is exactly what is happening.

it was one clarification of one bullet point on one page of 216 pages. and it wasn't even one of the main curriculum points, it was a "clarification" which taken in context were offered up on pretty bullet and just offered additional context for whatever the point was.

why are people acting like this is some key point blasted on every page of some white power manifesto?

honestly if you handed this document to 1000 people only the SJW looking to be offended would ever find it. and the only way they could be offended by it was to chop up and parse the actual point.

 

[RockyTop85]

It's only temporary.

Check back next week when a brand new topic with far reaching broad brush implications will enrage us.

There would be nothing to dispute if everybody had just agreed that this is just 3 more atoms of moisture in the hurricane of humiliation that comes with being from Florida.

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

It's only temporary.

Check back next week when a brand new topic with far reaching broad brush implications will enrage us.

It is an LG thread, so enragement is pretty much mandatory. If one can’t be enraged in one of these LG specials then one simply can’t ever be enraged.

 

[RockyTop85]

I just don’t get the need here.

And I’m usually very much in the “eff you and your claims of ‘need’” camp.

If you’re talking about a semester-long college course, I can see it. For grade school where they’re going to spend a week or two on the subject, nah.

Once you move on to reconstruction era, there is opportunity to discuss these topics and the cited individuals and that doesn’t equivocate about the institution of slavery.

 

[LouderVol]

If you’re talking about a semester-long college course, I can see it. For grade school where they’re going to spend a week or two on the subject, nah.

Once you move on to reconstruction era, there is opportunity to discuss these topics and the cited individuals and that doesn’t equivocate about the institution of slavery.

you do realize that is what the curriculum was doing, right?

this is the section the "offensive" item was taken from:
"SS.68.AA.2 Analyze events that involved or affected Africans from the founding of the nation through Reconstruction."

 

[Lawrence Wright]

you do realize that is what the curriculum was doing, right?

this is the section the "offensive" item was taken from:
"SS.68.AA.2 Analyze events that involved or affected Africans from the founding of the nation through Reconstruction."

I’m all for teaching kids about Reconstruction.

 

[McDad]

It is interesting how the assumptive position is these enhancements to the curricula are intentionally done to qualify, or equivocate slavery. Maybe that is the intention but I think reasonable people are able to grasp good things can come from horrible situations. Examples:
war is hell, but many of our medical advancements were made during times of war.
assassination of a political leader fosters improvements in protection.
virus and bacterial outbreaks kill millions but we get stronger immune systems.
Nazi Germany was horrible but the scientific minds and advancements was astonishing.

 

[NashVol11]

it was one clarification of one bullet point on one page of 216 pages. and it wasn't even one of the main curriculum points, it was a "clarification" which taken in context were offered up on pretty bullet and just offered additional context for whatever the point was.

What is the point of or need for this “clarification?”

*Crickets*

Story of this thread

 

[NashVol11]

It is interesting how the assumptive position is these enhancements to the curricula are intentionally done to qualify, or equivocate slavery. Maybe that is the intention but I think reasonable people are able to grasp good things can come from horrible situations. Examples:
war is hell, but many of our medical advancements were made during times of war.
assassination of a political leader fosters improvements in protection.
virus and bacterial outbreaks kill millions but we get stronger immune systems.
Nazi Germany was horrible but the scientific minds and advancements was astonishing.

Let’s revise the curriculum to add in the “good things” that came from the Holocaust, amirite?

 

[McDad]

Let’s revise the curriculum to add in the “good things” that came from the Holocaust, amirite?

You could. Nothing is changing the fact is occurred, was unconscionable, and hopefully never happens again. It wouldn't be wrong to find something that, in a minuscule way, gave some hope to the future which came from hopelessness from the past.

 

[bamawriter]

What is the point of or need for this “clarification?”

I'm not sure I understand how it's "clarification." It's a statement of fact. Call me naive, but I don't see how this particular statement of fact can be deemed offensive unless one is really looking to be offended.

 

[LouderVol]

What is the point of or need for this “clarification?”

*Crickets*

Story of this thread

They don't offer any explanations for the particular clarifications, or the points in general.

here is the next clarification, under the same section:
"Clarification 1: Instruction includes how collaboration of free blacks, whites, churches and organizations assisted in the Underground Railroad (e.g., Harriet Tubman, William Lambert, Levi Coffin, William Still)."

I am not a teacher so I have no idea how these points are supposed to be used. Are the teachers supposed to drop them verbatim? Are they required to mention them at all? Are the students tested on it, or is it purely an "educational" item.

To me it reads as additional information the teacher can provide if they are asked about the particular subject point.

maybe if both sides didn't jump to conclusions and actually read up on the context of the matter at hand so many people wouldn't just assume they should be mortally offended by something they have no first hand knowledge of.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm not sure I understand how it's "clarification." It's a statement of fact. Call me naive, but I don't see how this particular statement of fact can be deemed offensive unless one is really looking to be offended.

i think its just the term they use.

like I said there are bullet points which seem to be the main "subject", and then some of them include "clarifications". Some of the clarifications are indeed clarifying remarks, some are examples, and some are additional information, or through in some context not included in the one sentence "subject".

https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf
I dropped this link earlier, and it doesn't appear anyone actually bothered to look at it. Go to page 6 to find the offensive subject matter in question.

 

[volinbham]

It is interesting how the assumptive position is these enhancements to the curricula are intentionally done to qualify, or equivocate slavery. Maybe that is the intention but I think reasonable people are able to grasp good things can come from horrible situations. Examples:
war is hell, but many of our medical advancements were made during times of war.
assassination of a political leader fosters improvements in protection.
virus and bacterial outbreaks kill millions but we get stronger immune systems.
Nazi Germany was horrible but the scientific minds and advancements was astonishing.

all else being equal and given the rest of the curriculum I'll assume the author meant the addition in a positive way. that said, it's hard to see the educational value is worth the potential misunderstanding/interpretation.

characterizing the curriculum as trying to white wash slavery or making an argument that slavery wasn't that bad is pure dishonesty for political gain.

 

[RockyTop85]

you do realize that is what the curriculum was doing, right?

this is the section the "offensive" item was taken from:
"SS.68.AA.2 Analyze events that involved or affected Africans from the founding of the nation through Reconstruction."

No, I didn’t “realize that” because the conclusion is not supported by the context.

The last slaves were freed in Galveston about 16 days after the war ended and reconstruction began. There’s no grade-school level overview of reconstruction that involves discussion of “slave’s duties” or “skills slaves learned from their slavery” which is commingled with reconstruction, precedes abolition, and requires additional discussion of reconstruction era figures, later.


Why are you even making up BS to try to defend this? At worst, it is an embarrassment for the Florida Department of Education. Literally if everybody was like “oh, lol, that’s dumb they should fix that,” this thread would be on page 3 by now.

 

[NashVol11]

I'm not sure I understand how it's "clarification." It's a statement of fact. Call me naive, but I don't see how this particular statement of fact can be deemed offensive unless one is really looking to be offended.

Elite job of completely avoiding the question you quoted

 

[NashVol11]

They don't offer any explanations for the particular clarifications, or the points in general.

here is the next clarification, under the same section:
"Clarification 1: Instruction includes how collaboration of free blacks, whites, churches and organizations assisted in the Underground Railroad (e.g., Harriet Tubman, William Lambert, Levi Coffin, William Still)."

I am not a teacher so I have no idea how these points are supposed to be used. Are the teachers supposed to drop them verbatim? Are they required to mention them at all? Are the students tested on it, or is it purely an "educational" item.

To me it reads as additional information the teacher can provide if they are asked about the particular subject point.

maybe if both sides didn't jump to conclusions and actually read up on the context of the matter at hand so many people wouldn't just assume they should be mortally offended by something they have no first hand knowledge of.

We’re now up to probably 10 different people who still can’t tell me the point of teaching the “benefits from slavery” but defending it anyway

 

[LouderVol]

No, I didn’t “realize that” because the conclusion is not supported by the context.

The last slaves were freed in Galveston about 16 days after the war ended and reconstruction began. There’s no grade-school level overview of reconstruction that involves discussion of “slave’s duties” or “skills slaves learned from their slavery” which is commingled with reconstruction, precedes abolition, and requires additional discussion of reconstruction era figures, later.

View attachment 565437
Why are you even making up BS to try to defend this? At worst, it is an embarrassment for the Florida Department of Education. Literally if everybody was like “oh, lol, that’s dumb they should fix that,” this thread would be on page 3 by now.

uh, there were other freed slaves before Juneteenth 1865 and the start of Reconstruction. are we just supposed to ignore all those people? It doesn't seem racist, or whatever the accusation here is, to include a clarification on the duties of slaves and how SOME slaves MIGHT have learned some skills while performing those duties. Your argument seems even more racist. I guess you think the children should be taught that the slaves didn't learn any personal skills and it was only due to their white slave owners that they were able to perform any of these functions.

and this is why I asked if anyone actually read the post. If the clarification read as simply as LG put it at the start.
"instruction includes how slaves developed skills which were applied for the own benefit", that would read as a bunch of racist white washing bs.
instead the actual line includes two different qualifying words/statements. "In some instances" and "Could be". which imo completely changes the tone of the clarification. and both of those qualifiers, I would assume, are true.

I am not defending any particular leaning, I am for history. History is uncomfortable and filled with plenty of "incompatible" moments in a diametric world our politics have created. From a purely educational point the clarification is not a false statement. and to that point people had to settle for chopping up the statement to make it worse than it is.

I feel like if 99.99999999999% of people read that entire curriculum without being told there was this particular racist line they wouldn't have found the clarification in context to be offensive.