Florida Education Department Rewrites History

[laughing dog]

But when you say “we” need to confront how “we” allowed the enslavement of people’s does that include the enslaved? Did they allow it, too? Are they part of the “we” in that clause?

Blaming the victim is not a convincing argument.

 

[jab]

Schools, especially public schools, should not be a venue for political indoctrination. From either side.

Florida/deSantis did not start this. Things California's ethnic studies curriculum and the 1619 Project, which seek to push leftist political ideas even in math class, long predate it.

I'm shocked you view the 1619 Project as a leftist political idea. Shocked!

Nobody needs the 1619 project to learn that slavery was an integral & deeply consequential aspect of American history. Its indelible mark is felt even today, manifesting in both conspicuous and subtle forms across the United States.
Irrespective of our discussions concerning its portrayal in schools, slavery constitutes an integral part of American history, and in fact all of our own personal heritages across the entire globe. Surely, you wouldn't categorize that as an exclusively left-wing political notion, would you?

agreed--regrettably, it's agreeing to the obvious

 

[Shadowy Man]

But when you say “we” need to confront how “we” allowed the enslavement of people’s does that include the enslaved? Did they allow it, too? Are they part of the “we” in that clause?

Blaming the victim is not a convincing argument.

I’m not making that argument. I’ll stop here because it’s clear my point was muddled.

 

[Politesse]

But when you say “we” need to confront how “we” allowed the enslavement of people’s does that include the enslaved? Did they allow it, too? Are they part of the “we” in that clause?

Anyone who has ever studied slavery, even cursorily, knows that the answer to that question is "yes". If you don't realize that the same person can both enslave and be enslaved in their lifetime, much of the world's history before the 20th century is going to be very confusing to you, and the history of places like Dahomey, Haiti, or the Choctaw Nation entirely incomprehensible.

We are all, also, inheritors of an ostensibly democratic government that did all these things, and we have a collective responsibility to make amends and do better. If we were to (for instance) institute a very belated system of reparations, it would come out of everyone's paychecks, not just white billionaires, so we would all have to decide whether it is worth the cost to us. It is our government, and we must make informed decisions about what it will do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But when you say “we” need to confront how “we” allowed the enslavement of people’s does that include the enslaved? Did they allow it, too? Are they part of the “we” in that clause?

Anyone who has ever studied slavery, even cursorily, knows that the answer to that question is "yes". If you don't realize that the same person can both enslave and be enslaved in their lifetime, much of the world's history before the 20th century is going to be very confusing to you, and the history of places like Dahomey, Haiti, or the Choctaw Nation entirely incomprehensible.

We are all, also, inheritors of an ostensibly democratic government that did all these things, and we have a collective responsibility to make amends and do better. If we were to (for instance) institute a very belated system of reparations, it would come out of everyone's paychecks, not just white billionaires, so we would all have to decide whether it is worth the cost to us. It is our government, and we must make informed decisions about what it will do.

Neither the slavers nor the slaves are alive, nor can any given $ be associated with slaving. The Constitution forbids punishing someone for the sins of their ancestors. Thus reparations are unconstitutional.

(Now, if you can find an actual slaver I'd say to take every $ they have and give it to their victims. This isn't a white/black issue, though--it's sexual slavery or enslaving illegals.)

 

[ideologyhunter]

There may be real legal precedent for the concept of reparations. The Lakota Sioux were awarded $100 million by Congress in 1980 for the loss of their Black Hills homeland -- which happened back in the 1870s. Thirty years later the government addressed the issue again and committed $1.9 billion to help tribal governments recquire some three million acres of ancestral homelands. In both cases, the living beneficiaries never lived on or owned the land for which they were being compensated.
I'm not saying reparations for slavery would be anything but one complex (and extremely polarizing) process. There could well be a major backlash resulting from it. You can bet Trump would jump into the fray. But I'm not sure it's alien to our laws. BTW, what article in the Constitution actually spells out a ban on "punishing someone for the sins of their ancestors"? Just curious.

 

[Politesse]

. BTW, what article in the Constitution actually spells out a ban on "punishing someone for the sins of their ancestors"?

There most certainly isn't one. Nor are voluntary reparations for historical wrongs "punishments".You are actually confusing things by reference to Sioux Nation v US 1980, as it was the result of a lawsuit, not a law, making the reward compensation rather than reparation. You cannot force someone to make reparation to you, as this would be a contradiction in terms.

The US did however briefly operate a genuine reparations apparatus called the Indian Claims Commission, so you are correct in your general point.

 

[lostone]

I am wary of reparations because once they are paid, the modern day recipients no longer have grounds to complain of present and future discrimination. They have been bought off, so its open season on them again.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I agree & was writing in a purely speculative mode. The legislative will to do anything meaningful on reparations for slavery peaked before the '08-'09 bad times with the economy. And even then it wasn't close to becoming reality.

 

[thebeave]

I am wary of reparations because once they are paid, the modern day recipients no longer have grounds to complain of present and future discrimination. They have been bought off, so its open season on them again.

Yep. I heard Tavis Smiley say this in an interview once, that he is opposed to reparations because once paid, he felt blacks would be told (paraphrasing) to "sit down and shut up...you got your reparations, we're not going to talk about slavery and Jim Crow anymore". He probably had a point there.

 

[Gospel]

The message was critiquing the simplistic view of reparations as a panacea for civil rights issues faced by Black communities, not opposing reparations themselves. It's surprising how challenging it is for some individuals to grasp such nuanced perspectives.

 

[blastula]

It gets better

‘PragerU Kids’ educational videos approved for Florida classrooms

Florida Department of Education officials told News 6 that the lessons can be used to supplement the existing curriculum in Florida schools if district leaders allow it.

www.clickorlando.com

Education materials from PragerU Kids will be allowed in Florida schools, according to the Florida Department of Education on Monday.

 

[Gospel]

Being woke isn't so bad after all!! I knew it!

 

[lostone]

P:rager U is nothing but a propaganda mill. I guess the kids will survive it - we had a heavily religious right wing bias in the Eastern NC public high schools that I attended in the 50s.

 

[Politesse]

I don't place much weight in the opinions of anyone who thinks they are qualified to decide what college degrees are meaningful or not, but also thinks PragerU produces educational videos.