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.
