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

#427
#427
85SugarVol said:
Yea I just don’t know how much benefit is derived at that age from such a nuanced discussion.

The cost appears to be quite high though.
Click to expand...

If it weren’t for the anti-CRT thing a few years ago, do you think this would this have generated any attention? Kind of feels like a counterpunch to all of that, to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#430
#430
RockyTop85 said:
Also, a public, grade school education needs to be understood by people who, for example, struggle with the concept of different nations in Africa or who think that historical facts are variable based on the number of twitter followers of the person who aggregates them.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
#431
#431
RockyTop85 said:
If it weren’t for the anti-CRT thing a few years ago, do you think this would this have generated any attention? Kind of feels like a counterpunch to all of that, to me.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the level of pushback to this addition is a reaction to the pushback to CRT? Idk, certainly seems plausible.

If it wasn’t Florida? I think that plays a part too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and RockyTop85
#433
#433
RockyTop85 said:
I’m sorry, but I stopped reading after the first sentence. Whether there were slaves freed before 1865 has zero relevance to whether this teaching point applies to reconstruction.

Read the discussion and the education standards and try again. Or don’t.
Click to expand...
the discussion where it took to page 10, and me showing up and wandering what the heck is actually being argued about, to go and find the actual quote instead of relying on the media to tell me how to feel?

I don't call that a discussion. This was two echo chambers yelling at each other without having the slightest clue what they were supposed to be arguing about.

and the section wasn't just about reconstruction, not sure why that one period of time is the only place to discuss things that happened well before reconstruction without being racist? The subject was talking about the duties or slaves, the clarification was on how those duties COULD HAVE applied to SOME slaves personal lives. It doesn't go into any greater detail. like when these skills could have applied to some of their personal lives. if they could have learned them outside of slavery, or that slavery somehow kept their relative skill level down below what it would otherwise be in those areas. It literally just mentioned that some, could have used them in their personal lives. thats it. doesn't offer any commentary on that being a good thing, or redeeming slavery, just literally just lists the fact.
 
#434
#434
volinbham said:
if this were one tiny note in a major curriculum about Japanese internment I'd view the same; true but probably not necessary.

doubt it would generate the mass hysteria about the FL curriculum
Click to expand...
Is it demeaning to Jews to say that Nazi scientists advanced several key areas of technology via exploitations and genocide of their people? because that is already taught, or at least it was to me.

again its a fact, you can like it or not. but its true. the text doesn't say anything about it being good, or somehow redeeming slavery. its literally just a point. no opinion, no justifications, no implications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#435
#435
LouderVol said:
the discussion where it took to page 10, and me showing up and wandering what the heck is actually being argued about, to go and find the actual quote instead of relying on the media to tell me how to feel?

I don't call that a discussion. This was two echo chambers yelling at each other without having the slightest clue what they were supposed to be arguing about.

and the section wasn't just about reconstruction, not sure why that one period of time is the only place to discuss things that happened well before reconstruction without being racist? The subject was talking about the duties or slaves, the clarification was on how those duties COULD HAVE applied to SOME slaves personal lives. It doesn't go into any greater detail. like when these skills could have applied to some of their personal lives. if they could have learned them outside of slavery, or that slavery somehow kept their relative skill level down below what it would otherwise be in those areas. It literally just mentioned that some, could have used them in their personal lives. thats it. doesn't offer any commentary on that being a good thing, or redeeming slavery, just literally just lists the fact.
Click to expand...

Huff posted the standard verbatim on page 5 or something FYI, and asked what the point of it was (which still doesn’t really have an answer)
 
#437
#437
NashVol11 said:
Huff posted the standard verbatim on page 5 or something FYI, and asked what the point of it was (which still doesn’t really have an answer)
Click to expand...
ok fair point, I guess I missed his post. but that snip didn't provide a lot of context.

Like I pointed out earlier, the use of the term "clarification" seems to be much of the cause of resentment. and if you just look at that snippet from huff, or rely on the completely unbiased opinion piece LG provided and parroted it comes across pretty bad. but if you go look you see these "Clarifications" are pretty standard throughout. 99% of them don't have anything remotely controversial in them, and a fair number of them are not how I would normally classify a "Clarification" which would lead me to believe that this group has a non-standard usage of the phrase. which is pretty common in any specialized text, I know architecture uses several phrases differently than most people's understanding would have them understand it. So the usage and the context of "clarification" not being 'clarification' says, to me at least, this wasn't meant to be offensive, and or part of some white washing.
 
#438
#438
85SugarVol said:
Are you saying the level of pushback to this addition is a reaction to the pushback to CRT? Idk, certainly seems plausible.

If it wasn’t Florida? I think that plays a part too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, basically. I think the initial call out emulates the right’s response to CRT and the reaction is probably exacerbated by that.

Couple people have pointed out that it’s weird for people to jump to the worst case scenario or be offended by this. I think that looking at it as a continuation of the CRT debate it makes more sense why it might be seen as fertile political ground.
 
#439
#439
RockyTop85 said:
Yeah, basically. I think the initial call out emulates the right’s response to CRT and the reaction is probably exacerbated by that.

Couple people have pointed out that it’s weird for people to jump to the worst case scenario or be offended by this. I think that looking at it as a continuation of the CRT debate it makes more sense why it might be seen as fertile political ground.
Click to expand...
A two line continuation in a document 99% of people never would have even known about without this article drumming up anger against it, yet alone read?

ok, how about this thought exercise, what do you think of the rest of the curriculum beyond this one clarification in question? Does it continue the CRT debate in a manner adversely favorable to the anti-CRT crowd?

also seeing as how CRT is still up for public debate you are taking a very absolutist stance regarding the morality of the CRT debate in a manner I am assuming is being used to discourage actual debate about the subject.
 
#440
#440
LouderVol said:
the discussion where it took to page 10, and me showing up and wandering what the heck is actually being argued about, to go and find the actual quote instead of relying on the media to tell me how to feel?

I don't call that a discussion. This was two echo chambers yelling at each other without having the slightest clue what they were supposed to be arguing about.

and the section wasn't just about reconstruction, not sure why that one period of time is the only place to discuss things that happened well before reconstruction without being racist? The subject was talking about the duties or slaves, the clarification was on how those duties COULD HAVE applied to SOME slaves personal lives. It doesn't go into any greater detail. like when these skills could have applied to some of their personal lives. if they could have learned them outside of slavery, or that slavery somehow kept their relative skill level down below what it would otherwise be in those areas. It literally just mentioned that some, could have used them in their personal lives. thats it. doesn't offer any commentary on that being a good thing, or redeeming slavery, just literally just lists the fact.
Click to expand...
Pretty wild to claim to be the only one to have read a document right after having to move the goalposts because you were wrong about what the document said. But don’t let that stop you, this is getting good. 🍿
 
#441
#441
Auschwitz memorial with a word after Fox predictably tries to "what about the positives" for the Holocaust

 
#442
#442
RockyTop85 said:
Pretty wild to claim to be the only one to have read a document right after having to move the goalposts because you were wrong about what the document said. But don’t let that stop you, this is getting good. 🍿
Click to expand...
where was I wrong about the contents of the document? I was wrong that no one had posted the direct quote before, I will throw myself on your divine mercy for missing a post in 300 some odd post thread, at the time. but no one has even attempted to say that I have been wrong about the ACTUAL WRITTEN contents of the document. I have a different opinion on the meaning of said content, but unless I missed something else some one posted, I haven't been wrong.

you were the one claiming the section was ONLY talking about the reconstruction period, right after you were corrected for complaining that that particular clarification should only be brought up when talking about.....the reconstruction period. I was the one pointing out that it was included in a section that included reconstruction.

I pointed out the qualifiers, that even in the post I missed wasn't actually discussed.
 
#443
#443
LouderVol said:
where was I wrong about the contents of the document? I was wrong that no one had posted the direct quote before, I will throw myself on your divine mercy for missing a post in 300 some odd post thread, at the time. but no one has even attempted to say that I have been wrong about the ACTUAL WRITTEN contents of the document. I have a different opinion on the meaning of said content, but unless I missed something else some one posted, I haven't been wrong.

you were the one claiming the section was ONLY talking about the reconstruction period, right after you were corrected for complaining that that particular clarification should only be brought up when talking about.....the reconstruction period. I was the one pointing out that it was included in a section that included reconstruction.

I pointed out the qualifiers, that even in the post I missed wasn't actually discussed.
Click to expand...

😂 If I go back and show you this isn’t what actually transpired will you change your avatar to a dunce cap for a month?
 
#444
#444
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that "hurricane of humiliation" being from Florida while a Southerner or being from Florida while being a damn yankee? Surely there has to be a difference between the uncultured local heathens and the invading elite.
 
#445
#445
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic but I’d always heard it was in/near Texarkana. Granted Galveston being even deeper south would make sense
 
#447
#447
Vol8188 said:
Plenty have you just didn’t like the reasons. You don’t have to like them, but you could at least try not to blatantly lie
Click to expand...

He only likes history that allows for forever victimhood. I’m sure he has no issues with CRT making white kids feel guilty for being white or garbage like the 1619 project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#448
#448
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That brings up something that in many pages has not really been addressed here. If slaves learned nothing of value while being slaves, was it morally or rationally responsible to emancipate them? Obviously they would have had no useful skills or even the knowledge necessary for self preservation and sustenance. It seems that the one sentence that has enraged so many is either obviously true or emancipation followed by the follies known as Reconstruction was an egregious act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, whodeycin85 and StarRaider
#449
#449
Vol8188 said:
Slightly off topic but I’d always heard it was in/near Texarkana. Granted Galveston being even deeper south would make sense
Click to expand...
. You’re probably right. Looks like the June 19 (Juneteenth) date was just the day it was announced in Galveston. Doubt every plantation owner in Texas was just like “aight then, guess we got to pay for labor.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol8188
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top