"The Teaching of US History" Topic

George Orwell would love this:

link

link

link

link

link

This 'misguided' attempt at revisionist history is way outside the Pale and conveniently forgets the 630,000 dead of the Civil War.

And the proponents of the 'new' history refer to the same arguments that pro-slavery southerners used before the Civil War.

Those 'arguments' can be found in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom…

Yeah, wow. Here it is….

link

…and conveniently forgets the 630,000 dead of the Civil War.

Can you be more specific?

The site from OSU outlines the causes and estimated number of deaths for each type and each side.
link

630,000 dead is an understatement. Some sources put the total number of combatant deaths as high as 750,000. Add in war related famine, disease or accident related civilian deaths and some sources suggest it is over 1,000,000.

@mikec260 Good God man! Don't let those facts get in the way of irrational, mindless, media driven, blind agenda and hysteria!! 😂🤣

Don't you realize there is a fascist in every closet and under every bed. 😉

Well there are a few who believe that. 😉

Thanks for the actual document….there is something a little strange about it, can't quite put my finger on it. It's the authoritarian approach to history feeling I'm getting, but with the controversy around FLA I may have been influenced by other developments there.

And Stories of Inspiration are limitless. As a teacher, I would not want this proscribed or pushed somehow by the state. This state says it is worried about indoctrination, but that goes both ways.

It does look like they're going to sanitize the ACW to the point where it is a "Gone with the Wind" style of musical.

@ Tort did you see anything in the document that says "do not mention slavery", "do not talk about the African American experience" "Do not talk about the US Civil War"?

I did not. I cut a few things out of document mikec260 kindly gave us. I assume what Mike provided is the current criteria.

Seems like another attempt at a current politics post, with just the tiniest veneer of history to try and make it seem "historical".

IMO.

"The following is in the required instruction statute, s. 1003.42(2)(f), F.S.
The history of the United States, including the period of discovery, early colonies, the War for Independence, the Civil War, the expansion of the United States to its present boundaries, the world wars, and the civil rights movement to the present. American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence."

"The following is in the required instruction statute, s. 1003.42(2)(h), F.S.
The history of African Americans, including:
the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery;
the passage to America;
the enslavement experience;
abolition; and
the history and contributions of Americans of the African diaspora to society."

"Students shall develop an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions."

"Instructional materials shall include the vital contributions of African Americans to build and strengthen American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult circumstances."

It does look like they're going to sanitize the ACW to the point where it is a "Gone with the Wind" style of musical.

Based on something I briefly saw on the news tonight, there are black historians on both sides of this argument.

Based on something I briefly saw on the news tonight, there are black historians on both sides of this argument.

I dont know how it's going to pan out but with regards to brechtel's concerns about the spirit of the teaching, for instance, 35thOVI left this provision out

However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles enumerated in subsection (3) or the state academic standards.

Subsection 3 states:

(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that all persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights. Accordingly, instruction and supporting materials on the topics enumerated in this section must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
(a) No person is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex.
(b) No race is inherently superior to another race.
(c) No person should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.
(d) Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are not racist but fundamental to the right to pursue happiness and be rewarded for industry.
(e) A person, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
(f) A person should not be instructed that he or she must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress for actions, in which he or she played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.

link

There is ample room in this limitation to avoid mentioning that blacks were enslaved by whites, white Americans, Southern whites etc. The language smacks of Jim Crow "Separate but Equal" where on the surface it is crafted to seem neutral but in fact favors a more privileged group over one that has suffered more harm.

And Section 3 is interesting when compared to the currriculum concerning the holocaust

(g)1. The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions, including the policy, definition, and historical and current examples of anti-Semitism, as described in s. 1000.05(8), and the prevention of anti-Semitism. Each school district must annually certify and provide evidence to the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, that the requirements of this paragraph are met. The department shall prepare and offer standards and curriculum for the instruction required by this paragraph and may seek input from the Commissioner of Education's Task Force on Holocaust Education or from any state or nationally recognized Holocaust educational organizations. The department may contract with any state or nationally recognized Holocaust educational organizations to develop training for instructional personnel and grade-appropriate classroom resources to support the developed curriculum.
2. The second week in November shall be designated as "Holocaust Education Week" in this state in recognition that November is the anniversary of Kristallnacht, widely recognized as a precipitating event that led to the Holocaust.

It would seem there is a double standard here with a willingness to point out German racism/genocide against the Jews with specificity but fret over the same with White America and black slavery.

I havent read the whole Florida Education Guide but comparisons like this can be telling.

Reading this is just crazy to me. I'm a high school history teacher in Wisconsin. Our state standards are vague and give us a lot of latitude. We are required by law to address the history of various groups and to recognize slavery, holocaust etc. It is vague so we can approach it appropriately with the population we teach. Seeing this spelled out in the detail is kind of mind boggling.

Naaaaaaw, a White governor and a majority White (and right wing) legislature and board of education attempting to regulate the teaching of Black history by dictating what aspects of the Black experience can and cannot be taught, cannot possibly be racist! Never!

Looks like the NAACP was right about Florida not being safe for Black folks in more ways than just interstate vacation travel.

@Aapasych20 if you are right, then "Black folks" should flock to Illinois and desert Florida. Also make Illinois a prime vacation land for them.

I don't think that's happening so far, but i wish you luck.

Having taught history, among other subjects, in middle school for twenty years, the idea of a restrictive and directive school curriculum is abhhorrent. We certainly didn't have that and how we taught a subject was up to the grade level and the teacher. The curriculum was a guide, not etched in stone.

It is quite clear that the teaching of history in Florida is greatly flawed as well as factually wrong. That isn't history, it's nonsense and based on fear and bigotry.

@Brechtel the school systems rely on the taxpayers to pay for the schools, buses, salaries, pensions, utilities.. need I go on. Teachers work in those school systems. Politicians are elected by those taxpayers. Politicians "should be" answerable to those who elected them. Same with elected school boards. In other words, the taxpayers will should be the bottom line.

If the politician does things those who elected them don't like, they will not elect them again.
Same will be and has been happening with school boards.
Teachers may not like the guidelines, but that is the current will of those who pay their salaries, pensions and keep a roof over their head. Don't like it, leave and move elsewhere. Quit and go into another profession. Simple choices and the same as those of us who worked in the private sector have always had to face.

We in the private sector have always had others telling us what and how we should do our jobs.

"It is quite clear that the teaching of history in Florida is greatly flawed as well as factually wrong. That isn't history, it's nonsense and based on fear and bigotry."

That is strictly stating "your" opinion, and that of some other teachers and the teachers union.

I saw nothing that will change the teaching of the Civil War or slavery, unless the goal is to foster "white guilt" and supposed "white privilege" upon generations that had nothing to do with slavery. Is that what everyone is unhappy about?

"It is unfortunate that in most cases when the sins of the father fall on the son it is because unlike God, people refuse to forgive and forget and heap past wrongs upon innocent generations."

…the school systems rely on the taxpayers to pay for the schools, buses, salaries, pensions, utilities.. need I go on. Teachers work in those school systems. Politicians are elected by those taxpayers. Politicians "should be" answerable to those who elected them. Same with elected school boards. In other words, the taxpayers will should be the bottom line.

Rubbish. Teachers should be allowed intellectual freedom to teach what is outlined in the curriculum, not dictated to by those who believe they can. That's fascism. Would you teach something that an ignorant person dictated to you? If so that is corrupting the students with nonsense you know not to be accurate. And the teaching of history should be based on historical inquiry, not the dictates of people with a political agenda based on racism and bigotry.

If the politician does things those who elected them don't like, they will not elect them again.
Same will be and has been happening with school boards.

Those are not tenured positions.

Teachers may not like the guidelines, but that is the current will of those who pay their salaries, pensions and keep a roof over their head. Don't like it, leave and move elsewhere. Quit and go into another profession. Simple choices and the same as those of us who worked in the private sector have always had to face.

Have you ever taught and followed a curriculum? What you're actually saying is that the teacher is not important to the classroom and has no need for ethics. Teachers have to have certain standards and education in order to earn a teaching certificate. There is no such requirement for an elected official.

And parents should undoudtedly have a say in their children's education. I certainly did. But they should not be able to dictate what a teacher teaches in the classroom, especially if it is inaccurate, and based on misinformation, conspiracy theories, or racial and religious bigotry.

Again, have you ever taught, and if you have did you ever disagree with the curriculum?

The following, taken from the Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, can be used as indicators or examples of the 'thinking' referenced in the OP:

'…there is not a respectable system of civilization known to hisotry whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.'-Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia.

'Instead of an evil,' the institution of slavery was 'a positive good…the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.'-John C Calhoun.

@ Brechtel, bluntly teaching is a job, just like any other job. You choose it. Just like any other job, you can stay or leave if you don't like it or if what you are being told to do offends you. It is real freedom of choice.

Teachers are not gods unto yourselves, nor omnipotent. There are many in the "unwashed" masses as intelligent as you or more intelligent. Those are THEIR children, not yours, not the school systems. Especially so, since THEY pay the costs, pensions and salaries. Be outraged, hysterical, upset and insulted to your heart's content. It is the way things are in those areas now. No one forced you to move there or send your children to those schools.

I see no bigotry in that document.

I'll ask Again, what is it that you want to teach, that, that document "specifically" STOPS you from teaching about the Civil War? "Be specific" and reference specifically the line in that document that stops you from teaching it.

Are you saying we should not read what pro-slavery politicians said about slavery? What happened to "Know your enemy?" How are you going to have an objective discussion about slavery without discussing and refuting the arguments of those opposed to you?

An important note to fair-minded folks with evident anti-oppressive beliefs, if I may.

The apologists of this right wing slant on history are not debating or operating in good faith, but with an agenda to erase uncomfortable bits of history and preserve structures of bigotry and discrimination that benefit them (whether they consciously realise it or not).

This is as true of the Florida board of education as it is of some folks on this thread, and this behavior is sad and gross.

Again what specifically can't you teach, that they are stopping? Be specific. So far all i'm reading is emotional responses.

35th, there were good concepts there, lots of it made sense. But it may be that the indoctrination clause bothered me. I don't want teachers trying to convert kids to ideological tribes, but I do want them to learn critical thinking so they can decide for themselves on the many challenges they will face. I do not want politicians indoctrinating teachers either.

And why is there so much detail in these standards? These are usually broader guidelines. I don't think I have ever seen standards warning teachers what not to do. It's just a little creepy.

I don't like the whole pronoun thing, certain other liberal causes. But I am concerned about a college where a third of the faculty had been driven out as liberals by the newly appointed conservative trustees, who said they arrived as a "landing team" to remake higher education. Is it a war? The governor went to Yale and Harvard, I think.

@Tort I think the main reason I have heard was to stop trying to force "white guilt" on the white students for things that happened over 150 years ago. The people responsible for slavery and the slaves, are long dead. Cell phones are around, people video, plus Covid allowed parents to listen in and they did not like what they saw and heard.

That has no part in teaching CW history.

Things went too far one way, and this is the counter reaction starting to take effect. Pendulums swing.

…Bluntly teaching is a job, just like any other job.

No, it isn't. It is a profession which requires certain education requirements in order to obtain a teaching certificate/licsencing. The requirements are on a state-by-state basis.

And teachers have to recertify every five years (that is the requirement in North Carolina, I don't know the other states' requirements) by taking relevant classes which are established by the state.

And the most important, teachers are influencing the coming generations of students in order to become both educated and good citizens.

And by hamstrining them to teach inaccurate information based on someone's prejudices is ludicrous as well as a disservice to the students.

Once again, have you ever taught? Better yet, what is your basis for your misinformation on the teaching profession?

Traditionally, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and clergy were considered professions, mainly because they require extended education to be able to practice. We have lost this meaning over time.

I am very much against white guilt. Just tell it like it is. Yes, a pendulum. It is swinging back from the right, but care must be taken. I was never told a word in school about the Tulsa massacre or similar events in the 1920s. So now we finally know. But none of us are responsible for the original event.

Brechtel

"No, it isn't. It is a profession which requires certain education requirements in order to obtain a teaching certificate/licsencing. The requirements are on a state-by-state basis.

And teachers have to recertify every five years (that is the requirement in North Carolina, I don't know the other states' requirements) by taking relevant classes which are established by the state."

Many professions require certain education requirements . Some licensing as well. Many have to go back to school constantly to learn additional skills and or languages to perform their professions on a day to day basis. Again, you are not unique or special.

"And the most important, teachers are influencing the coming generations of students in order to become both educated and good citizens."

I know teachers like to believe that. I can't say a teacher influenced me anymore than anyone else. I had horrible teachers, mediocre teachers, average teachers and good teachers. I had teachers who were horrible role models and some who were good role models. But in the great scheme of life, they were no more important than anyone else. They were there to do a job. Some did not perform well at it and tenure kept them at their positions long past when they should have been canned. Some performed their job well and deserved to keep their positions.

No one, based on the document presented, is hamstringing someone's ability to teach about the Civil War or Slavery. Unless of course, the agenda in that teaching is to cast quilt and shame upon a specific group. And that is NOT teaching, that is indoctrination.

Tort

"I am very much against white guilt. Just tell it like it is. Yes, a pendulum. It is swinging back from the right, but care must be taken. I was never told a word in school about the Tulsa massacre or similar events in the 1920s. So now we finally know. But none of us are responsible for the original event."

Agree, but honestly in high school specifics about most things are glossed over do to time constraints. I always hated that teachers glossed over the actual civil war's warfare. We pretty much got "Gettysburg took place in 1863. The Union won. Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address…." No juicy details.

But that's what books were for.

35thOVI,

I have to assume because you have not answered my question regarding teaching, that you never have. That is also evident by your comments about teaching and teachers.

I highly recommend two books by Diane Ravitch:

-Reign of Error.

-The Language Police.

Both are relevant today and deal with, among other things, text book adoption and teacher training. I found both enlightening.

Brechtel I don't answer yours because you don't answer mine.

I'll ask for the third in last time, what is it that you want to teach, that, that document "specifically" STOPS you from teaching about the Civil War? "Be specific" and reference specifically the line in that document that stops you from teaching it.

I'll say again, that document does not stop anyone from teaching a good class on the US Civil War.

"Cast quilt" is an amusing bit of autocorrect!!

Unless it's an Americanism I haven't come across before.

The current situation dictates what is to be taught whether or not it is historically correct. And slavery is part of the Civil War, as well as the cause of it, whether or not anyone admits it.

that document does not stop anyone from teaching a good class on the US Civil War.

Perhaps you can define what 'a good class' on the Civil War actually consists of? Revisionist history (the bad kind) is not good or accurate history (such as the Lost Cause nonsense).

Perhaps the following will help:

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

Brechtel, Again, nothing stops anyone from teaching about slavery and the civil war. It Only stops you from bludgeoning the current students of one racial group for slavery. Fostering the sins of the past on the current generation is wrong and IS NOT teaching. That IS the problem. Too many are confusing agenda with teaching.

Again

"The following is in the required instruction statute, s. 1003.42(2)(h), F.S.
The history of African Americans, including:
the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery;
the passage to America;
the enslavement experience;
abolition; and
the history and contributions of Americans of the African diaspora to society."

Nothing is stopping anyone from talking about slavery, except maybe in their imagination.

If you don't like the current situation in Florida, move down there and vote him out.

After seeing your links, no wonder you are so confused. I suggest you Go out and get some perspectives other than those of a party and administration who hate the current governor of Florida and fear him in the next election.

But I know that won't happen, so you will still claim that blacks are being suppressed by this document. Not true, but we will never change each other's views.

Well, I'VE taught. 50 plus years. And I'd be happy to do so in Florida. Their history standards are perfectly reasonable. This is a made-up issue based on political dislike for the current governor.

BE SPECIFIC! Give examples!! Otherwise admit your prejudice.

Kevin's first link is a CNN story. Sorry, got to do better than THAT! The Florida standards are reasonable.

Brechtel, Again, nothing stops anyone from teaching about slavery and the civil war. It Only stops you from bludgeoning the current students of one racial group for slavery. Fostering the sins of the past on the current generation is wrong and IS NOT teaching. That IS the problem. Too many are confusing agenda with teaching.

Relating the truth is neither bludgeoning nor an "agenda". It's more likely that racists fear reprisals because that's what they would do. The kids can handle this and it's more harmful not to teach students the truth than to continue to lie to them.

In terms of agendas, Florida is a former Confederate State with a history of discrimination. Is it an accident that it is currently worried about anything that might be deemed as hyper-sensitively criticizing whites? It seems like a State that doesn't mind celebrating Confederate History Month, Lee's, Jackson's and Jefferson freaking Davis' birthday worries much about making black children feel uncomfortable.

Thus, what you are saying is that it's alright to intimidate blacks with what you consider to be normal even when others might feel it is an agenda but there is a fear of the reverse?

Again

"The following is in the required instruction statute, s. 1003.42(2)(h), F.S.
The history of African Americans, including:
the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery;
the passage to America;
the enslavement experience;
abolition; and
the history and contributions of Americans of the African diaspora to society."

Nothing is stopping anyone from talking about slavery, except maybe in their imagination.

You use the word "Again" as if youre frustrated and impatient with others not understanding the one part of the rule you appear to favor. However, you ignored that section 3 makes how teachers discuss the Civil War a matter of both control, limitation and review by the State.

This is a per se violation of 1st Amendment principles. It probably occurs to you that the government cannot restrict speech in this manner unless there is a grave harm or it is misinformation. And no, it doesnt matter if the parents are tax payers, they still cant use or direct the government to violate the 1st Amendment. Thus, it is irrelevant who is elected and for what reason, that doesnt give them carte blanche to apply intimidatingly vague guidelines around teaching.

Stopping teachers from teaching about the civil war isnt the standard at stake here. Rather, it is making people afraid to teach the truth because some "agenda" doesnt approve of their "ideological" dream world being rattled.

After seeing your links, no wonder you are so confused.

This is rich. He's confused?

I suggest you Go out and get some perspectives other than those of a party and administration who hate the current governor of Florida and fear him in the next election.

Like we need someone else to give us perspectives about an administration that just said that "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit,"

But I know that won't happen, so you will still claim that blacks are being suppressed by this document.

This is a giveaway but then you've stated as much and worse about your true concerns in other threads.

Not true, but we will never change each other's views.

Irrelevant. We can all use this as a learning experience about how to combat misinformation about American history.

Okay, I guess I'll weigh in here to give what may be a bit of a different perspective.

First of all, I agree that this is from one perspective a bit of a "made up issue." The North Dakota legislature recently passed a bill with very similar language, and from what I can tell it will have almost zero practical impact on how anyone teaches history. The language seems crafted to respond to talking points in various media and to have very little to do with how history is actually taught in K-12 or higher ed. So what's the deal? Well, although slippery slope arguments are almost never very compelling, it is disturbing to us that our legislators (politicians and, regardless of party, not always the sharpest tacks in the box) feel compelled and authorized to weigh in on academic subjects. And it's also true that these laws seem intended to restrict how certain subjects can be taught: in NoDak this law was touted as keeping Critical Race Theory out of the classroom, but as written it does no such thing.

On the other hand, there is also the bit about "no indoctrination," which seems to have been left deliberately vague. I teach history of science, and in my courses evolution is taken to be verified science, but I've had students object that I'm just promoting opinion and "should stick to facts." I've had similar pushback from students who object to my contention that "race," as the word is commonly used in the US, is scientifically almost meaningless, and that our notions of what constitute "race" are largely the products of thoroughly discredited 19th-C racial science. These are not simply "opinions," nor is my endorsing of these views "indoctrination," but I fear that these laws will give students who find their worldviews challenged in the classroom a means to attack course content.

For folks who are not educators, though, it seems as if it's the bit about slaves benefiting from occupational training that is most objectionable in the Florida standards. I don't know if this was really intended to somehow mitigate the evils of slavery or is just simply monumentally stupid, but I'd probably go with Hanlon's Razor.

Peter +1. Teachers will adhere to the truth in most cases, will not cut off discussion or questions, IMO. Unless the governor and his policy people are going to monitor every minute in every classroom, they cannot control the decisions all teachers make everyday in their interactions with students. I cannot imagine anyone using this law for prosecuting a teacher for indoctrination, whether right wing or left. Or maybe I can….

Well, it is a fact that large plantations tried to be self-sufficient and so had slaves trained as, e.g., bricklayers and blacksmiths and coopers, etc.
It is also a fact that after 1865 those skilled freedmen were in direct competition with white craftsmen, who often tried to use legal barriers against them.

But Hans, yes, it is stupid to see facts -- that the slaves who did the work might be taught useful skills -- as somehow defending slavery. It is a silly, foolish, emotional argument, and so of course very powerful politically.

Like we need someone else to give us perspectives about an administration that just said that "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit,"

This is a silly, foolish, emotional, political comment, for reasons described above. It ignores what actually happened.

It is also true that slaves were sometimes paid for their work. When Mary Chesnut was not in residence, the cooks and maids took work in nearby towns in hotels. Slave blacksmiths, etc. might be paid for work for customers not their owner.

This is a complex topic and God forbid we should introduce complexity into political debates (which this thread is).

I've lost the reference, so iirc . . .

Emory U library has the papers of a Confederate who went to war in a cavalry regiment and took with him his slave blacksmith as regimental farrier. Both men were married and the black man regularly sent home messages via the white man's letters, and the two women did the same back. At some point in the war the slave returned home which the white man remained in the army. The slave supported both families at home, charging for his blacksmithing. After the war the two families remained close.

It is very human and therefore very complicated.

Doc mcb: It's also a fact that slaves were abused, raped, and brutalized by their masters, but the Florida standards don't require that this, specifically, be taught. I think what folks find objectionable is that the team of "scholars" who put this document together decided that this very particular aspect of slavery (Occupational training) needed to be highlighted. The net effect is very much akin to the "two sides to each story" fallacy, or DT's memorable "very fine people on both sides" remark. This is not "introducing complexity" but rather appears superficially to be a clumsy attempt to mitigate the horrors of slavery in the antebellum South. But not having access to the thought processes of the "scholars" responsible, I'll accept the possibility that it is simply stupid.

APDC said: Like we need someone else to give us perspectives about an administration that just said that "slaves developed skills" that could be used for "personal benefit,"

doc said: This is a silly, foolish, emotional, political comment, for reasons described above. It ignores what actually happened.

Yes, well we all recognize and give due credit to a seeker of truth when we see one. If we are trading in cold, hard facts, why then cant we also mention that white people enslaved black people?

That is simply nonsense.

The standards explicitly mention slavery and its effects.

link

Hans, or, perhaps, the possibility that it is a ginned up "controversy" motivated by fear that DeSantis might become president. It is all astroturf, all politically motivated, all concocted by people who care nothing for truth.

If I could not teach a good class on the US civil war and slavery, within the minute constraints of the Florida document in question, I would consider myself a very poor teacher.

Now if instead, I wanted to foster "white guilt", "white privilege" and "self hate" upon the current generation of white school children, then I would agree the Florida document IS going to hinder you. But if that is what you are out to "teach", then you should give up teaching as a profession.

Again this thread is another thinly vailed political thread trying to use history as the veneer. This one is basically an anti DeSantis thread.

That is simply nonsense.

The standards explicitly mention slavery and its effects.

8
9-12 African American History Strand
SS.912.AA.1 Examine the causes, courses and consequences of the slave trade in the
colonies from 1609-1776.
SS.912.AA.1.1 Examine the condition of slavery as it existed in Africa, Asia, the Americas
and Europe prior to 1619.
Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes how trading in slaves developed in African lands (e.g., Benin,
Dahomey).
Clarification 2: Instruction includes the practice of the Barbary Pirates in kidnapping Europeans and
selling them into slavery in Muslim countries (i.e., Muslim slave markets in North Africa, West Africa,
Swahili Coast, Horn of Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Indian Ocean slave trade).
Clarification 3: Instruction includes how slavery was utilized in Asian cultures (e.g., Sumerian law
code, Indian caste system).
Clarification 4: Instruction includes the similarities between serfdom and slavery and emergence of the
term "slave" in the experience of Slavs.
Clarification 5: Instruction includes how slavery among indigenous peoples of the Americas was
utilized prior to and after European colonization

The course goes into granular detail about how the slave trade began in Africa, was stumbled upon by Europeans and that there was slavery in Asia. It even mentions that Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by North Africans. It's telling that nowhere does it mention that Europeans enslaved Africans. This is all in a course about African American history.

Sounds like one of those books written by the Daughters of the Confederacy sanitizing slavery to a comic book level and which took a long time to replace. Apparently it is making a comeback. Except this time, everyone is enslaving everyone BUT white people. Its crazee!

Oh the poor white children cant hear about white imposed enslavement of blacks but black children can hear Florida's factual discovery that Africans invented slavery. Yeah, it's a true story.

I also like the way it discusses the struggle against Jim Crow but doesn't mention the facts about how those laws came to be. I suppose every white person in Florida just went to sleep one night and woke up to Jim Crow. They must've been pretty darn stunned which is probably why after three generations of white Floridians struggling but failing to repeal Jim Crow, it finally took SCOTUS to step in and declare them Unconstitutional.

Benchmark Clarifications:
Clarification 1: Instruction includes the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on
individual freedoms (e.g., the Civil Rights Cases, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, lynchings, Columbian
Exposition of 1893)

Those awful Jim Crow laws forced upon Florida's white population. But where could they have come from? Maybe they came from Africa too? Oh well, they're here, guess we cant do anything about it.

Also interesting is the degree of granularity with which they cover the Holocaust, happily throwing the Germans under the bus a dozen or more times for racism. But they never mention Southern racism. They even look to stress that the Nazis were, gasp, socialists, as opposed to the right wing populist, racial slavers they really were. However, the fact loving teaching guidelines for the good state of Florida never once mention the Nazis Heroes were the antebellum south and the Jim Crow laws. The Nazis even give these systems full credit for developing their own Nuremberg Race Laws.

I'm shocked that Florida doesn't mention this connection between the Nazi's and Jim Crow. You'd think with all their obsession over the horrors of German and Nazi racism they'd be determined to get to the bottom of just where those harsh laws could've come from. Maybe it was just Hanlon's Razor in operation again. But, as a lover of facts, perhaps you would alert the Florida School Board to the omission?

What's nonsense is the amount of gaslighting you're willing to do to support a Lost Cause narrative.

Speaking of which, please tell us what Confederate History Month should cover and teach?

BE SPECIFIC! Give examples!! Otherwise admit your prejudice.

No. Debating you is a waste of my time.

Ditto.