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

#132
#132
C-south said:
I understand the tribal affiliation just fine but they are still black people in the same part of Africa. Tribal affiliation has nothing to with the fact that black people sold black people. But…..since tribal affiliation seems to be some relevant issue maybe they’re saying it’s an innate quality since it still happens today and has carried over here.
Click to expand...

Nah dawg. Why you gotta be trippin like dat?
944d0f3d957050e1a23e7e21b42aa193_md.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#133
#133
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL. If you click on their link, it takes you to the "personal benefit" benchmark clarification.
Click to expand...
Read it last night. It is an opinion piece by what I would bet good money on is a leftist with an agenda to push. The piece reeks of it.
Quote me from the curriculum. Don’t depend on what someone on an editorial board tells you what to think. It is blatantly obvious the quotes are parsed to stir someone like you who may want to believe this into a rage.
And full quotes with context from the curriculum, not phrases to support the position you have planted your flag on.
 
#135
#135
GroverCleveland said:
Read it last night. It is an opinion piece by what I would bet good money on is a leftist with an agenda to push. The piece reeks of it.
Quote me from the curriculum. Don’t depend on what someone on an editorial board tells you what to think. It is blatantly obvious the quotes are parsed to stir someone like you who may want to believe this into a rage.
And full quotes with context from the curriculum, not phrases to support the position you have planted your flag on.
Click to expand...
It is not an opinion piece ... Read what @n_huffhines posted in post #131.

I don't believe for a minute that you have read any of the Florida Board of Education approved curriculum.

The language reads ...."developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

To make such a point is to suggest that such skills could not have been developed on their own, as free men and women. It's despicable.
 
#137
#137
n_huffhines said:
Regardless of what we think is implied or explicit, what is the fkn point in teaching this?

View attachment 565212
Click to expand...
Why is this verboten? I referenced earlier in this thread a historical placard in Chattanooga detailing the business success of a man from Quitman, Georgia in (again, it has been at least 15 years since I read it) I believe blacksmithing among other things. If he learned that skill as a slave in South Georgia should that not be taught? And if so, why? Because teaching that historical fact, in some convoluted way, condones slavery while everyone involved condemns slavery?
Who is it that are so mentally or psychologically infirm they cannot handle this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and whodeycin85
#138
#138
BowlBrother85 said:
It is not an opinion piece ... Read what @n_huffhines posted in post #131.

I don't believe for a minute that you have read any of the Florida Board of Education approved curriculum.

The language reads ...."developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

To make such a point is to suggest that such skills could not have been developed on their own, as free men and women. It's despicable.
Click to expand...
Again, you use a word ”suggest.” By definition, it does not explicitly say what you claim it does. But you go be butt hurt and outraged and whatever makes you happy. I feel sorry for you BB.

But I do thank you for the discussion. It was enlightening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#139
#139
GroverCleveland said:
Why is this verboten? I referenced earlier in this thread a historical placard in Chattanooga detailing the business success of a man from Quitman, Georgia in (again, it has been at least 15 years since I read it) I believe blacksmithing among other things. If he learned that skill as a slave in South Georgia should that not be taught? And if so, why? Because teaching that historical fact, in some convoluted way, condones slavery while everyone involved condemns slavery?
Who is it that are so mentally or psychologically infirm they cannot handle this?
Click to expand...


I think its the "to their personal benefit" language that is the problem. It suggests minimizing the horrible aspects of slavery by balancing it with "the good."

I doubt, if you could ask any slaves, that they'd say that learning some skill made the experience worth it. In fact, pretty sure about that.
 
#140
#140
GroverCleveland said:
Why is this verboten? I referenced earlier in this thread a historical placard in Chattanooga detailing the business success of a man from Quitman, Georgia in (again, it has been at least 15 years since I read it) I believe blacksmithing among other things. If he learned that skill as a slave in South Georgia should that not be taught? And if so, why? Because teaching that historical fact, in some convoluted way, condones slavery while everyone involved condemns slavery?
Who is it that are so mentally or psychologically infirm they cannot handle this?
Click to expand...

Look, I can accept that there is some truth to the statement applied across the entire population. I am not freaking out about this. I am not mentally or psychologically infirm. But I am asking what is the point, and you didn't answer. It's a completely unnecessary lesson. It serves no purpose, except for to soften the horrors of slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and gcbvol
#141
#141
GroverCleveland said:
Why is this verboten? I referenced earlier in this thread a historical placard in Chattanooga detailing the business success of a man from Quitman, Georgia in (again, it has been at least 15 years since I read it) I believe blacksmithing among other things. If he learned that skill as a slave in South Georgia should that not be taught? And if so, why? Because teaching that historical fact, in some convoluted way, condones slavery while everyone involved condemns slavery?
Who is it that are so mentally or psychologically infirm they cannot handle this?
Click to expand...
He could have learned that skill without having been a slave. It is atrocious to list a skill learned during enslavement, as being a "personal benefit," of having been enslaved.
 
#142
#142
lawgator1 said:
I think its the "to their personal benefit" language that is the problem. It suggests minimizing the horrible aspects of slavery by balancing it with "the good."

I doubt, if you could ask any slaves, that they'd say that learning some skill made the experience worth it. In fact, pretty sure about that.
Click to expand...
Again, it “suggests.” Does. Not. Say. That.

Could not agree with you more on your second statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#144
#144
n_huffhines said:
Look, I can accept that there is some truth to the statement applied across the entire population. I am not freaking out about this. I am not mentally or psychologically infirm. But I am asking what is the point, and you didn't answer. It's a completely unnecessary lesson. It serves no purpose, except for to soften the horrors of slavery.

If Osama Bin Laden hadn't killed all those people on 9/11, then America would have never been so united in the aftermath.

Cool, weird point, history book.
Click to expand...
Somebody wants to emphasize that at least a few slaves benefitted (at least to a small degree) from the experience. It is an attempt to soften the teaching of slavery in schools.
 
#146
#146
BowlBrother85 said:
He could have learned that skill without having been a slave. It is atrocious to list a skill learned during enslavement, as being a "personal benefit," of having been enslaved.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, you go do you. If looking for things to be outraged about, I have to say you do a pretty good job of it. Life is too short for me to spend my time that way, but again, I do appreciate your willingness to share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, UT_Dutchman and SpaceCoastVol
#148
#148
EasternVol said:
You should read the thread. The concept has its defenders here.
Click to expand...

I did not see where the curriculum itself made that claim but may have missed it.

Clearly slavery was different than indentured servitude, where freedom was essentially traded for learning skills or purchasing passage to the new world. The key being that for a lifetime slavery, there was no expectation that the slave could benefit outside of his thralldom. For the indentured, they had hope to improve after their term.

However, what many do not know is that many indentured contracts were illegally extended and it was indeed this extension that became a lifetime chattel for black africans who were shipped here. Slavery for life initially ONLY existed (even for black people) as a criminal punishment - and could happen to white people as well.

Indeed, the first slave for life in America who was not a criminal was owned by a black man Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia who himself had been indentured and then freed. He bought the indenture contract of John Casor and then would not let him go. The courts eventually (on appeal) upheld his right to keep Casor in thrall.

Take that in for a moment - the first black slave for life in America was owned by another black man who had been freed himself and it was partially through his actions that the laws changed for others to keep black africans for a lifetime of slavery.

DO YOU THINK THAT GETS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS? But shouldn't it be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, whodeycin85, EasternVol and 1 other person
#150
#150
Gandalf said:
I did not see where the curriculum itself made that claim but may have missed it.

Clearly slavery was different than indentured servitude, where freedom was essentially traded for learning skills or purchasing passage to the new world. The key being that for a lifetime slavery, there was no expectation that the slave could benefit outside of his thralldom. For the indentured, they had hope to improve after their term.

However, what many do not know is that many indentured contracts were illegally extended and it was indeed this extension that became a lifetime chattel for black africans who were shipped here. Slavery for life initially ONLY existed (even for black people) as a criminal punishment - and could happen to white people as well.

Indeed, the first slave for life in America who was not a criminal was owned by a black man Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia who himself had been indentured and then freed. He bought the indenture contract of John Casor and then would not let him go. The courts eventually (on appeal) upheld his right to keep Casor in thrall.

Take that in for a moment - the first black slave for life in America was owned by another black man who had been freed himself and it was partially through his actions that the laws changed for others to keep black africans for a lifetime of slavery.

DO YOU THINK THAT GETS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS? But shouldn't it be?
Click to expand...
It was mentioned that the curriculum made the claim, and some agreed with that.
I'm glad you posted what you did. Too many oversimplify issues and end up missing important points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Gandalf
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top