DeSantis signs bill requiring FL students, professors to register political views with state

[ZiprHead]

How are Floridians not storming the castle??

Because they agree with him. DeSantis is more popular than ever.

It is unexpected that parents prefer schools teach the usual academics rather than indoctrinate their children in a political ideology. Stupid parents.

Teaching the history of slavery and discrimination this country committed against minorities is political ideology now?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You see, teaching American history is indoctrinating children. Teaching evolution in school science classes is indoctrinating children.

 

[ZiprHead]

You see, teaching American history is indoctrinating children. Teaching evolution in school science classes is indoctrinating children.

From the PBS article:

More recently, DeSantis rolled out a civics education initiative that he says will make sure students in elementary, middle and high schools aren't taught a distorted view of history.

"You're learning the real history. You're learning the real facts," he said. "It's not going to be done in a way to indoctrinate students with whatever modern agenda someone may have."

Barbara Segal, a high school government teacher in Fort Lauderdale, recently took a three-day training session on Florida's new civics standards. She says, "They were pushing an ideological agenda." In the training materials, Segal says, slides said it was a "misconception" that the Founding Fathers wanted strict separation of church and state and that they in fact wanted religion to be promoted.

Some of the most jarring material seemed to downplay the role of slavery in the country's founding, including one that stated that only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies.

"Which means," Segal concluded, "we're not that bad."

As first reported by the Miami Herald, the training materials were prepared for the state by groups including the Bill of Rights Institute, founded by Charles Koch and Hillsdale College, a small Christian school in Michigan that is influential in developing conservative education policies.

Nope, no indoctrination there.

 

[Bomb#20]

From the PBS article:

...
Barbara Segal, a high school government teacher in Fort Lauderdale, recently took a three-day training session on Florida's new civics standards. ...

Some of the most jarring material seemed to downplay the role of slavery in the country's founding, including one that stated that only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies.

"Which means," Segal concluded, "we're not that bad."

Nope, no indoctrination there.

Hang on. It says Segal concluded it means, "we're not that bad." Did the material conclude "we're not that bad", or was that just a gloss Segal read into it? If it's a fact that only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies, surely you aren't objecting to teaching the history of slavery?

Assuming that's a gloss Segal read into it, why did she find it so jarring? Did she want to teach her students we are that bad?

 

[lostone]

Actually, that is the kind of history and civics I was taught in Northeastern NC when I was in public high school back in the 1950s, and is nothing new to Southern states. We also had student led prayers at the start of the day from a book of devotions, and every one of us had to lead those prayers on a rotating basis. Once or twice a month we even had chapel services held in the school auditorium led by a local pastor that everyone in the school attended. In spite of that, many of us rejected religion.

 

[laughing dog]

From the PBS article:

...
Barbara Segal, a high school government teacher in Fort Lauderdale, recently took a three-day training session on Florida's new civics standards. ...

Some of the most jarring material seemed to downplay the role of slavery in the country's founding, including one that stated that only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies.

"Which means," Segal concluded, "we're not that bad."

Nope, no indoctrination there.

Hang on. It says Segal concluded it means, "we're not that bad." Did the material conclude "we're not that bad", or was that just a gloss Segal read into it? If it's a fact that only 4 percent of enslaved people from Africa came to the colonies, surely you aren't objecting to teaching the history of slavery?

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Assuming that's a gloss Segal read into it, why did she find it so jarring? Did she want to teach her students we are that bad?

Desantis and Trump would be soooo proud of you.

 

[Elixir]

Between 1492 and 1820, about 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas. At the same time, at least 8.8 million enslaved Africans were brought here.
So no, we weren’t THAT bad, we only owned about three darkies per person.

Yes, we were that bad. But the wee-uns must never know.

 

[Politesse]

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Well, in a vacuum, that seems quite suspect. That said, I can't agree with the idea that it isn't an important fact. I do think it is important that the transatlantic slave trade in its totality be understood, and the differences of scale between the US and the Caribbean states like Haiti and Cuba (that we later made attempts to colonize, let's note very clearly) are significant points in that history. It is true that in both quantitative scale and cruelty, our slave markets paled in comparison to those of Brazil and many parts of the Caribbean, and that is a significant fact even for understanding just US history; we were still part of and frequently party to those other projects of mass enslavement, certainly by economic connection and often direct politics as well. Florida is a especially salient place to bring these facts up, in fact, as they themselves were not "the colonies" until fairly late in the story nor therefore probably considered as part of that 4%. By the time Florida joined the Union, the debate over slavery had reached a boiling point, and their annexation (along with their considerable slave population) was one of many tinderbox moments in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Florida had been a slave-owning colony for nearly a century before any of the British colonies ever received a shipment of human cargo, and at the start of the Civil War, around 45% of its population was enslaved. Unlike many of the other Southern states, its slave population was also rapidly climbing at that point, and was a major reason why they were very quick (third, I think?) to join ranks with the Confederacy despite having nothing like the obvious historical and cultural ties shared between, say, Georgia and Virginia.

To say nothing of the fact that if the role of other colonial states and African nations in slavery are obscured, it leaves a huge window propped open for white nationalist propagandists to pop their head in later and go "hey kids, guess what your teachers didn't tell you about slavery..."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Well, in a vacuum, that seems quite suspect. That said, I can't agree with the idea that it isn't an important fact. I do think it is important that the transatlantic slave trade in its totality be understood, and the differences of scale between the US and the Caribbean states like Haiti and Cuba (that we later made attempts to colonize, let's note very clearly) are significant points in that history. It is true that in both quantitative scale and cruelty, our slave markets paled in comparison to those of Brazil and many parts of the Caribbean, and that is a significant fact even for understanding just US history; we were still part of and frequently party to those other projects of mass enslavement, certainly by economic connection and often direct politics as well. Florida is a especially salient place to bring these facts up, in fact, as they themselves were not "the colonies" until fairly late in the story nor therefore probably considered as part of that 4%. By the time Florida joined the Union, the debate over slavery had reached a boiling point, and their annexation (along with their considerable slave population) was one of many tinderbox moments in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Florida had been a slave-owning colony for nearly a century before any of the British colonies ever received a shipment of human cargo, and at the start of the Civil War, around 45% of its population was enslaved. Unlike many of the other Southern states, its slave population was also rapidly climbing at that point, and was a major reason why they were very quick (third, I think?) to join ranks with the Confederacy despite having nothing like the obvious historical and cultural ties shared between, say, Georgia and Virginia.

To say nothing of the fact that if the role of other colonial states and African nations in slavery are obscured, it leaves a huge window propped open for white nationalist propagandists to pop their head in later and go "hey kids, guess what your teachers didn't tell you about slavery..."

It also means students who later learn the real history of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow. Segregation and racism will take a strong dislike of being lied to by right wingers. And with the internet, that is going to happen sooner or later.

 

[laughing dog]

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Well, in a vacuum, that seems quite suspect. That said, I can't agree with the idea that it isn't an important fact. I do think it is important that the transatlantic slave trade in its totality be understood, and the differences of scale between the US and the Caribbean states like Haiti and Cuba (that we later made attempts to colonize, let's note very clearly) are significant points in that history. It is true that in both quantitative scale and cruelty, our slave markets paled in comparison to those of Brazil and many parts of the Caribbean, and that is a significant fact even for understanding just US history; we were still part of and frequently party to those other projects of mass enslavement, certainly by economic connection and often direct politics as well. Florida is a especially salient place to bring these facts up, in fact, as they themselves were not "the colonies" until fairly late in the story nor therefore probably considered as part of that 4%. By the time Florida joined the Union, the debate over slavery had reached a boiling point, and their annexation (along with their considerable slave population) was one of many tinderbox moments in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Florida had been a slave-owning colony for nearly a century before any of the British colonies ever received a shipment of human cargo, and at the start of the Civil War, around 45% of its population was enslaved. Unlike many of the other Southern states, its slave population was also rapidly climbing at that point, and was a major reason why they were very quick (third, I think?) to join ranks with the Confederacy despite having nothing like the obvious historical and cultural ties shared between, say, Georgia and Virginia.

To say nothing of the fact that if the role of other colonial states and African nations in slavery are obscured, it leaves a huge window propped open for white nationalist propagandists to pop their head in later and go "hey kids, guess what your teachers didn't tell you about slavery..."

Do you really think the point of that statistic was to give an overview of the global transatlantic slave trade? Whether or not the US had 40%, 4%, 0.4% or 0.04% of the transatlantic slave trade says nothing about the institution of slavery and its effects in the USA.

 

[Politesse]

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Well, in a vacuum, that seems quite suspect. That said, I can't agree with the idea that it isn't an important fact. I do think it is important that the transatlantic slave trade in its totality be understood, and the differences of scale between the US and the Caribbean states like Haiti and Cuba (that we later made attempts to colonize, let's note very clearly) are significant points in that history. It is true that in both quantitative scale and cruelty, our slave markets paled in comparison to those of Brazil and many parts of the Caribbean, and that is a significant fact even for understanding just US history; we were still part of and frequently party to those other projects of mass enslavement, certainly by economic connection and often direct politics as well. Florida is a especially salient place to bring these facts up, in fact, as they themselves were not "the colonies" until fairly late in the story nor therefore probably considered as part of that 4%. By the time Florida joined the Union, the debate over slavery had reached a boiling point, and their annexation (along with their considerable slave population) was one of many tinderbox moments in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Florida had been a slave-owning colony for nearly a century before any of the British colonies ever received a shipment of human cargo, and at the start of the Civil War, around 45% of its population was enslaved. Unlike many of the other Southern states, its slave population was also rapidly climbing at that point, and was a major reason why they were very quick (third, I think?) to join ranks with the Confederacy despite having nothing like the obvious historical and cultural ties shared between, say, Georgia and Virginia.

To say nothing of the fact that if the role of other colonial states and African nations in slavery are obscured, it leaves a huge window propped open for white nationalist propagandists to pop their head in later and go "hey kids, guess what your teachers didn't tell you about slavery..."

Do you really think the point of that statistic was to give an overview of the global transatlantic slave trade? Whether or not the US had 40%, 4%, 0.4% or 0.04% of the transatlantic slave trade says nothing about the institution of slavery and its effects in the USA.

No, probably not. But I've never been of that "if you can't beat'em, join 'em" mindset. Frankly if there are numbers involved at all, it's better than the education I got on slavery until high school. And again, I don't agree that events in the Caribbean and its gargantuan slave operations were irrelevant to those in the US, especially as we started expanding into the Caribbean region and for the most part adding it to our growing conception of "The South".

 

[laughing dog]

What would the point of giving the estimated percentage of enslaved people from Africa?

Well, in a vacuum, that seems quite suspect. That said, I can't agree with the idea that it isn't an important fact. I do think it is important that the transatlantic slave trade in its totality be understood, and the differences of scale between the US and the Caribbean states like Haiti and Cuba (that we later made attempts to colonize, let's note very clearly) are significant points in that history. It is true that in both quantitative scale and cruelty, our slave markets paled in comparison to those of Brazil and many parts of the Caribbean, and that is a significant fact even for understanding just US history; we were still part of and frequently party to those other projects of mass enslavement, certainly by economic connection and often direct politics as well. Florida is a especially salient place to bring these facts up, in fact, as they themselves were not "the colonies" until fairly late in the story nor therefore probably considered as part of that 4%. By the time Florida joined the Union, the debate over slavery had reached a boiling point, and their annexation (along with their considerable slave population) was one of many tinderbox moments in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Florida had been a slave-owning colony for nearly a century before any of the British colonies ever received a shipment of human cargo, and at the start of the Civil War, around 45% of its population was enslaved. Unlike many of the other Southern states, its slave population was also rapidly climbing at that point, and was a major reason why they were very quick (third, I think?) to join ranks with the Confederacy despite having nothing like the obvious historical and cultural ties shared between, say, Georgia and Virginia.

To say nothing of the fact that if the role of other colonial states and African nations in slavery are obscured, it leaves a huge window propped open for white nationalist propagandists to pop their head in later and go "hey kids, guess what your teachers didn't tell you about slavery..."

Do you really think the point of that statistic was to give an overview of the global transatlantic slave trade? Whether or not the US had 40%, 4%, 0.4% or 0.04% of the transatlantic slave trade says nothing about the institution of slavery and its effects in the USA.

No, probably not. But I've never been of that "if you can't beat'em, join 'em" mindset. Frankly if there are numbers involved at all, it's better than the education I got on slavery until high school. And again, I don't agree that events in the Caribbean and its gargantuan slave operations were irrelevant to those in the US, especially as we started expanding into the Caribbean region and for the most part adding it to our growing conception of "The South".

If the point is to educate about the transatlantic slave trade, then it makes pedagogical sense. Just like it makes pedagogical sense to include slavery in the Carribbean. But I seriously doubt that is what is going on in Florida.

 

[marc]

 

[southernhybrid]

And, they wonder why there is an enormous shortage of teachers in Florida....Duh....

 

[Oleg]

View attachment 39948

It is. What’s odd is that our friends on the progressive left can recognize this, but act bewildered when parents object to schools and teachers promoting political ideology / activism in schools. It’s the same thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 39948

It is. What’s odd is that our friends on the progressive left can recognize this, but act bewildered when parents object to schools and teachers promoting political ideology / activism in schools. It’s the same thing.

Please be specific on the political ideology you are speaking of. Examples of widespread promotion of said political ideology would also be a plus.

Because that is what this progressive here is having issue with. Some people are complaining about an issue that simply does not exist... hence the lack of examples ever put forth regarding it.

 

[TomC]

Something I was NOT taught about Thomas Jefferson in school.

The first use of the U.S. military, outside of self defense, was smashing the America's second republic. A slave revolt in Haiti was seriously infringing on the property rights of the French aristocracy. Our navy, under orders from President Jefferson, went there to stop that black freedom nonsense. We forced the population of Haiti to buy themselves from Jefferson's slave owning buddys in France for 15 million dollars.

That's about the same amount our government paid France for the Louisiana Purchase.

Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Florida Swing Voters Aren’t Sold on DeSantis or Rubio

Trump-to-Biden voters don’t like the Republican incumbents in Florida.

www.thebulwark.com

For months, the general consensus has been that in Florida’s two marquee midterm races—for governor and U.S. Senate—the Republican candidates are likely to prevail. But recent polling shows both races tighter than expected for Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio. On August 9 we conducted focus groups with a dozen Trump-to-Biden voters and these people explained why they were open to replacing both incumbents.

Let’s start with the likely contest between DeSantis and former governor Charlie Crist. If the governor’s race in November is indeed DeSantis versus Crist, nine respondents said they would take Crist, two would take DeSantis, and one was undecided. Our swing voters described DeSantis as “power-hungry,” “petty,” “an opportunist,” “egotistical,” “anti-abortion,” and a “bull in a china shop.”

“[I didn’t like] the revenge politics with the Reedy Creek Improvement District,” explained B.J., 43, from Deland. “I’m a big Disney fan. That hit pretty close to home. There was just no point to it. It was just pure revenge politics. Also, I don’t agree with how he handled the Covid pandemic, like restricting local municipalities, not allowing them to enforce mask mandates and things like that. I think that was highly inappropriate.”


For months, the general consensus has been that in Florida’s two marquee midterm races—for governor and U.S. Senate—the Republican candidates are likely to prevail. But recent polling shows both races tighter than expected for Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio. On August 9 we conducted focus groups with a dozen Trump-to-Biden voters and these people explained why they were open to replacing both incumbents.

Let’s start with the likely contest between DeSantis and former governor Charlie Crist. If the governor’s race in November is indeed DeSantis versus Crist, nine respondents said they would take Crist, two would take DeSantis, and one was undecided. Our swing voters described DeSantis as “power-hungry,” “petty,” “an opportunist,” “egotistical,” “anti-abortion,” and a “bull in a china shop.”

“[I didn’t like] the revenge politics with the Reedy Creek Improvement District,” explained B.J., 43, from Deland. “I’m a big Disney fan. That hit pretty close to home. There was just no point to it. It was just pure revenge politics. Also, I don’t agree with how he handled the Covid pandemic, like restricting local municipalities, not allowing them to enforce mask mandates and things like that. I think that was highly inappropriate.”

Lance, 27, from Orlando remarked, “I disagree with DeSantis on quite a few things . . . It’s purely just his stance on things. [I’m troubled that he’s] anti-abortion, primarily, anti-transgender—more the social issues.”

“[DeSantis is] petty. He’s all about keeping government out of business unless the business disagrees with him, and then it becomes personal,” said Thomas, 27, from Coral Gables.

“DeSantis is too much like Trump. . . . I don’t trust him,” commented Kim, 60, from St. Augustine.

Nik, 37, from Miami Shores, added, “If Crist can win in November here in Florida, then that puts DeSantis in a really bad spot in terms of trying to run for president in ’24.”

Much more in the link.

 

[ZiprHead]

The national teacher shortage is growing. In Florida, controversial laws are making it worse.

Advocates say low pay and a hostile climate toward educators, particularly around LGBTQ+ issues and race, are pushing people out of the profession.

19thnews.org

“With the very blatant attacks on education and on marginalized communities, I just couldn’t teach anymore,” said Carson, who is now a community organizer for Equality Florida, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. “I cannot fathom being in a classroom where I cannot support my kids to the fullest of my ability because there are now laws that tell me what I can and cannot do to support my kids; like, that’s heartbreaking.”

Nationally, teachers have resigned in droves during the pandemic. A National Education Association poll released in February found that 55 percent of teachers plan to exit the profession sooner than planned, up from 37 percent last August. Shortages are difficult to track or compare nationally because states, counties and cities may use different methodology to determine their needs, including current openings, teacher polls and information about the number of students getting education degrees.

Florida has more than 9,000 school personnel openings, and roughly half are teacher positions, according to the Florida Education Association. In Virginia, there are as many as 2,500 teaching vacancies. In Illinois, there are over 2,000 such vacancies, and Georgia projects that it will need up to 8,000 teachers over the next few years.

Teacher shortages disproportionately affect students of color, who are overrepresented in under-resourced schools where staffing issues are often more severe and leave students with instructors who are likely to be inexperienced and underqualified.

“These right-wing extremist groups were talking about teachers indoctrinating kids with liberal [agendas] and saying that teachers are groomers and pedophiles if they ever support LGBTQ-anything in the presence of a minor,” Carson said. “I couldn’t take it anymore. I was like, ‘I have to get out of this. This is toxic. This is not the space that I want to be in anymore.’”

The Sunshine State is the epicenter of Moms for Liberty, a conservative parent group co-founded by two former Florida school board members. Their movement for more parental oversight of curricula related to race, gender, sexuality or politics spread across the nation during the pandemic. The group holds such sway in conservative circles that Betsy DeVos spoke at its summit Saturday, garnering headlines for reportedly calling for an end to the Department of Education, the federal agency she led during former President Donald Trump’s administration.

The so-called parents’ rights movement has led to the introduction of book bans, critical race theory bans and curriculum transparency bills in most states. Florida, however, has gone a step farther with the passage of “Don’t Say Gay” and the Stop WOKE Act. While the former prohibits educators from teaching lessons on sexual orientation or gender identity to children in grades K-3 — which Spar denies ever happened — the latter would allow parents to sue if they suspect that children are learning about critical race theory in class. In addition, last year Florida passed a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” law that prohibits government entities from infringing “upon the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of a minor child” without justification.

 

[Bomb#20]

Between 1492 and 1820, about 2.6 million Europeans immigrated to the Americas. At the same time, at least 8.8 million enslaved Africans were brought here.
So no, we weren’t THAT bad, we only owned about three darkies per person.

Yes, we were that bad. But the wee-uns must never know.

Which three did you own?