You're being reasonable and bringing facts into things again! You keep doing that! (Would that I could point the bulk of my friends in the direction of said facts and have them actually believe them.)
The problem is that once I say anything to try and correct this I am branded as either a fascist bigot myself or someone who has sadly been bamboozled and deceived by fascist bigots. I don’t see a way around it.
I'm gay and looking at 70, so you can imagine what I've been called by the whole fluid spectrum! And Im alive and well and not afraid of facts and true things. Unlike some of people I know, some very influential political fund raisers, who DO NOT want to hear facts and truth. Epistemic bubbles ad infinitum.
Thanks for providing the facts! The woke misinformation on this is a disgrace. The Vice President should be ashamed of herself, as should all those who picked up on the dishonest spin and promoted it.
As an elementary school teacher in Florida, the endless attacks on DeSantis are becoming tiresome. While there are many laws passed that were vague and should have come with more clarification there were some that were short and fairly simple to comprehend if one took the time to do so. Though teachers would chastise their students for using the Cliff Notes instead of reading the book, and would push back against blatant misinterpretations of a text, this is exactly what is happening here. Overdramatic teachers and districts are posting pictures of empty shelves because of "banned books", or making videos of themselves saying "gay", or posting all over social media how they cannot teach "actual history" but they'll do it anyway! Some say that they are afraid to use the word "racist" in their classroom at all. Even when it is pointed out that the law specifically says that one cannot blanket the entire white race as being racist purely based on the color of their skin, and using "racist" about people who literally wrote racist things during slavery and post-Civil War events is not doing that, they prefer to continue wringing their hands.
Florida public education is losing thousands of students to private, home, and charter schools. How can these teacher associations, district personnel, and teachers believe that it is DeSantis's fault when they repeatedly prove that they themselves cannot read or speak without partisanship?
I discovered you through Cathy Young tweets. She is a very honest writer and I've discovered after reading a few of your columns that so are you. That is really rare. So, I've become a paid subscriber.
"Taken as a whole, the Florida social studies curriculum describes a world in which the white male Founders of the United States embraced ideals of liberty and equality—ideals it falsely attributes primarily to Christianity rather than the Enlightenment—and indicates the country’s leaders never faltered from those ideals. Students will, the guidelines say, learn “how the principles contained in foundational documents contributed to the expansion of civil rights and liberties over time” (p. 148) and “analyze how liberty and economic freedom generate broad-based opportunity and prosperity in the United States” (p. 154)."
If one doesn't look carefully, it looks like the page references are the source for the claims in the first sentence, but they aren't. Searching for "Christian" in the Florida guidelines hardly yields evidence for those bombshell claims, either.
Analyze the influences of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and the Judeo-
Christian tradition on America’s constitutional republic
...
Clarification 4: Students will explain how the Judeo-Christian ethical ideas of justice, individual worth, personal responsibility and the rule of law influenced America’s constitutional republic."
Yeah, but even that doesn't support her claims. Also on page 88 is this: "Analyze how Enlightenment ideas, including Montesquieu’s view of separation of powers and John Locke’s theories related to natural law and Locke’s social contract, influenced the Founding." And page 89 drills down further: "Clarification 1: Students will identify and describe the Enlightenment ideas of separation of powers, natural law and social contract. Clarification 2: Students will examine how Enlightenment ideas influenced the Founders’ beliefs about individual liberties and government. Clarification 3: Students will evaluate the influence of Montesquieu’s and Locke’s ideas on the Founding Fathers."
Indeed, if I look elsewhere in the standards for "Enlightenment", its influence on American history looks fairly well-covered.
I feel like this is the Online biggest example of the cliche:
"You Do Not, Under Any Circumstances, "Gotta Hand It To Them" "
That is, I suggest this post is missing the core the debate. It seems to me getting bogged down in a "anti-woke" critique of journalistic telephone and exaggeration, but not engaging the underlying objection (which is not solely click-seeking). The substantive issue is more like:
Resolved: No *K-12 school curriculum* standards should ever have a single sentence - NOT ONE, ANYWHERE, IN ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER - which implies any positive aspect in even the most narrow or restrictive or limited sense, regarding slavery.
Not "One short line ..." Not "A bland, heavily qualified ...". ZERO. NEVER.
"One passage that has gotten a lot of attention is for middle schoolers. It states they should learn that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit." The danger of this narrative is striking. A system that brutalized, raped, and killed human beings while stealing their freedom and denying their humanity is rotten to its core. That enslaved people were able to find resilience and build lives in some form is a testament to their courage and spirit. There is no "other side" to the story of slavery."
Because these aren't bland academic statements. There's been, and still is, a whole industry of slavery-apologism. That's the context which is being applied here.
"There's been, and still is, a whole industry of slavery-apologism. That's the context which is being applied here."
If the rest of the Florida guidelines showed a bent toward slavery-apologism, you might have a point, but that isn't what's happening.
I suspect that what's really happening is that people are looking at DeSantis' paranoid anti-woke demagoguery and reading that into the standards. It's an understandable error, given that he hasn't exactly been silent about supposed "woke" threats in Florida schools, but ultimately, the standards say what they say, not what we fear they would say if DeSantis had his way.
My guess is that DeSantis is more interested in grandstanding about "wokeness" and *looking* like he's doing something about it than he is in the actual boring minutiae of school standards.
Contrariwise to the claim that this fact is being taught in order to show that slavery wasn't so bad, it has also been used to argue that far more than the 20-30% of the households who owned slave benefited from slavery, thus justifying reparations. If this curriculum were being put forward in a progressive state, that's what the extreme right would be saying is the reason for its inclusion.
I've been trying to work out my feelings on this story and, my initial impression was that the wording was sloppy, and thus, the media outrage was probably justifiable. I do respect the opinion espoused here, and it's very convincing.
However, I just found something that has caused me to stand by my initial belief. The folks who wrote the curriculum, Dr's William Allen, Frances Presley Rice (and others) have written a response to this whole thing, but unfortunately, it's riddled with inaccuracies...
Thread linked below, and it is very detailed, so YMMV but I felt it's worth sharing.
TL;DR - the authors of the curriculum released a statement defending their work, but in doing so, made a bunch of mistakes (or perhaps they were done on purpose) by citing examples of folks who either: 1. never existed, 2. never were enslaved, 3. didn't do the trade cited by the authors, 4. didn't actually "benefit" from what they were doing. And, the tweet thread also includes a table in picture format that neatly sums up these issues: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1qD2DJX0AEwWeD?format=jpg&name=large
So, I'm conflicted here. The curriculum seems to be very solid. But, if the authors cannot get the facts straight about these examples they cite in their defense, are they worthy of our trust in their intentions?
That thread is amazing. It’s not a few errors. 90% of their info is inaccurate.
Plus notice how their defense mentions nothing about history boomers thesis. They could have saved time and said “some slaves bettered themselves and moved up in the hierarchy of their enslaved population” or hell just said “some were house n***ers”
Nope, they made it seem like they developed skill that the used when they were free. Why would these slaves ever believe they would someday be free?
Plus their background isn’t in African American history. They didn’t choose “experts” who would know the nuance that history boomer points out
Again, I like this newsletter but I feel you’re giving them more credit than is deserved
In the same manner that the press often exaggerates an issue to create a sensational headline, you are also exaggerating the coverage of this issue. Virtually every article that I’ve read about this topic has cited that same one line, about slaves gaining skills that benefitted them later, that you cited. I’ve not read anything that took this line to the point of, “Florida teaching students that slavery was good.” The point of virtually all of the reporting has been that to offer up even one positive aspect of slavery is to suggest to young students that there is more than one way to view this stain on our history. The so called “skills” that slaves learned while they were being dehumanized by their masters were only “beneficial” because those humans (or their ancestors) had been stolen from their homeland and their cultures where these skills might have been completely useless.
Really great deep dive into this controversy. Thanks for exploring what exactly is the root of the uproar and providing the useful context of the full curriculum.
So, why do you think that people so want to believe the distortion? And why couldn't the media do what you did? It frustrates me when we make complex issues into the outrage of the day.
You're being reasonable and bringing facts into things again! You keep doing that! (Would that I could point the bulk of my friends in the direction of said facts and have them actually believe them.)
I'll try to be less factual next time.
History Boomer Reasonable? Facts? Preposterous! Just joking Boomer;-)
Actually, I’m trying to recruit some of my friends to subscribe
The problem is that once I say anything to try and correct this I am branded as either a fascist bigot myself or someone who has sadly been bamboozled and deceived by fascist bigots. I don’t see a way around it.
Don't be afraid. Correct away.
I'm gay and looking at 70, so you can imagine what I've been called by the whole fluid spectrum! And Im alive and well and not afraid of facts and true things. Unlike some of people I know, some very influential political fund raisers, who DO NOT want to hear facts and truth. Epistemic bubbles ad infinitum.
Thanks for providing the facts! The woke misinformation on this is a disgrace. The Vice President should be ashamed of herself, as should all those who picked up on the dishonest spin and promoted it.
As an elementary school teacher in Florida, the endless attacks on DeSantis are becoming tiresome. While there are many laws passed that were vague and should have come with more clarification there were some that were short and fairly simple to comprehend if one took the time to do so. Though teachers would chastise their students for using the Cliff Notes instead of reading the book, and would push back against blatant misinterpretations of a text, this is exactly what is happening here. Overdramatic teachers and districts are posting pictures of empty shelves because of "banned books", or making videos of themselves saying "gay", or posting all over social media how they cannot teach "actual history" but they'll do it anyway! Some say that they are afraid to use the word "racist" in their classroom at all. Even when it is pointed out that the law specifically says that one cannot blanket the entire white race as being racist purely based on the color of their skin, and using "racist" about people who literally wrote racist things during slavery and post-Civil War events is not doing that, they prefer to continue wringing their hands.
Florida public education is losing thousands of students to private, home, and charter schools. How can these teacher associations, district personnel, and teachers believe that it is DeSantis's fault when they repeatedly prove that they themselves cannot read or speak without partisanship?
Thanks for the first-hand insights!
Nice job... from a guy working the same side of the street.
Social media morons are always looking for something to be angry about. This is the latest example.
great article, sorely needed, I tweeted it out, hope it goes all over twitter
I discovered you through Cathy Young tweets. She is a very honest writer and I've discovered after reading a few of your columns that so are you. That is really rare. So, I've become a paid subscriber.
That's very kind of you! Thank you!
Glad I was able to throw some business your way! ;)
I noticed a bit of slight of hand in Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter. She writes in https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-22-2023:
"Taken as a whole, the Florida social studies curriculum describes a world in which the white male Founders of the United States embraced ideals of liberty and equality—ideals it falsely attributes primarily to Christianity rather than the Enlightenment—and indicates the country’s leaders never faltered from those ideals. Students will, the guidelines say, learn “how the principles contained in foundational documents contributed to the expansion of civil rights and liberties over time” (p. 148) and “analyze how liberty and economic freedom generate broad-based opportunity and prosperity in the United States” (p. 154)."
If one doesn't look carefully, it looks like the page references are the source for the claims in the first sentence, but they aren't. Searching for "Christian" in the Florida guidelines hardly yields evidence for those bombshell claims, either.
I think she's referring to page 88:
"SS.7.CG.1 Demonstrate an understanding of the origins and purposes of government,
law and the American political system.
SS.7.CG.1.1
Analyze the influences of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and the Judeo-
Christian tradition on America’s constitutional republic
...
Clarification 4: Students will explain how the Judeo-Christian ethical ideas of justice, individual worth, personal responsibility and the rule of law influenced America’s constitutional republic."
Yeah, but even that doesn't support her claims. Also on page 88 is this: "Analyze how Enlightenment ideas, including Montesquieu’s view of separation of powers and John Locke’s theories related to natural law and Locke’s social contract, influenced the Founding." And page 89 drills down further: "Clarification 1: Students will identify and describe the Enlightenment ideas of separation of powers, natural law and social contract. Clarification 2: Students will examine how Enlightenment ideas influenced the Founders’ beliefs about individual liberties and government. Clarification 3: Students will evaluate the influence of Montesquieu’s and Locke’s ideas on the Founding Fathers."
Indeed, if I look elsewhere in the standards for "Enlightenment", its influence on American history looks fairly well-covered.
I feel like this is the Online biggest example of the cliche:
"You Do Not, Under Any Circumstances, "Gotta Hand It To Them" "
That is, I suggest this post is missing the core the debate. It seems to me getting bogged down in a "anti-woke" critique of journalistic telephone and exaggeration, but not engaging the underlying objection (which is not solely click-seeking). The substantive issue is more like:
Resolved: No *K-12 school curriculum* standards should ever have a single sentence - NOT ONE, ANYWHERE, IN ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER - which implies any positive aspect in even the most narrow or restrictive or limited sense, regarding slavery.
Not "One short line ..." Not "A bland, heavily qualified ...". ZERO. NEVER.
Dan Rather articulated that here https://steady.substack.com/p/teach-the-truth
"One passage that has gotten a lot of attention is for middle schoolers. It states they should learn that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit." The danger of this narrative is striking. A system that brutalized, raped, and killed human beings while stealing their freedom and denying their humanity is rotten to its core. That enslaved people were able to find resilience and build lives in some form is a testament to their courage and spirit. There is no "other side" to the story of slavery."
Because these aren't bland academic statements. There's been, and still is, a whole industry of slavery-apologism. That's the context which is being applied here.
"There's been, and still is, a whole industry of slavery-apologism. That's the context which is being applied here."
If the rest of the Florida guidelines showed a bent toward slavery-apologism, you might have a point, but that isn't what's happening.
I suspect that what's really happening is that people are looking at DeSantis' paranoid anti-woke demagoguery and reading that into the standards. It's an understandable error, given that he hasn't exactly been silent about supposed "woke" threats in Florida schools, but ultimately, the standards say what they say, not what we fear they would say if DeSantis had his way.
My guess is that DeSantis is more interested in grandstanding about "wokeness" and *looking* like he's doing something about it than he is in the actual boring minutiae of school standards.
Excellent piece, Carl. Thank you.
You probably know this, but one of the "personal benefits" was that hired out slaves sometimes got to keep some of the money they earned for their owners, which some of them used to buy their freedom. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/slave-renting,
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/buying-freedom)
Contrariwise to the claim that this fact is being taught in order to show that slavery wasn't so bad, it has also been used to argue that far more than the 20-30% of the households who owned slave benefited from slavery, thus justifying reparations. If this curriculum were being put forward in a progressive state, that's what the extreme right would be saying is the reason for its inclusion.
I slept on this newsletter and while I appreciate your insight I think you’re giving them a lot more credit than is deserved
If that was they point they were trying to make then why didn’t they spell it out like the others area you referenced?
My gut tells me that because of the vague language in the “anti-woke” laws they’re afraid and are trying to “both sides” all sensitive topics
They had to know the language they used was poorly chosen and this feels more like an afterthought tacked on to keep the political nut-bags happy
Just my two cents for a what it’s worth
I've been trying to work out my feelings on this story and, my initial impression was that the wording was sloppy, and thus, the media outrage was probably justifiable. I do respect the opinion espoused here, and it's very convincing.
However, I just found something that has caused me to stand by my initial belief. The folks who wrote the curriculum, Dr's William Allen, Frances Presley Rice (and others) have written a response to this whole thing, but unfortunately, it's riddled with inaccuracies...
Thread linked below, and it is very detailed, so YMMV but I felt it's worth sharing.
https://twitter.com/etotheipie/status/1682764410224357377?s=20
TL;DR - the authors of the curriculum released a statement defending their work, but in doing so, made a bunch of mistakes (or perhaps they were done on purpose) by citing examples of folks who either: 1. never existed, 2. never were enslaved, 3. didn't do the trade cited by the authors, 4. didn't actually "benefit" from what they were doing. And, the tweet thread also includes a table in picture format that neatly sums up these issues: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1qD2DJX0AEwWeD?format=jpg&name=large
So, I'm conflicted here. The curriculum seems to be very solid. But, if the authors cannot get the facts straight about these examples they cite in their defense, are they worthy of our trust in their intentions?
That thread is amazing. It’s not a few errors. 90% of their info is inaccurate.
Plus notice how their defense mentions nothing about history boomers thesis. They could have saved time and said “some slaves bettered themselves and moved up in the hierarchy of their enslaved population” or hell just said “some were house n***ers”
Nope, they made it seem like they developed skill that the used when they were free. Why would these slaves ever believe they would someday be free?
Plus their background isn’t in African American history. They didn’t choose “experts” who would know the nuance that history boomer points out
Again, I like this newsletter but I feel you’re giving them more credit than is deserved
In the same manner that the press often exaggerates an issue to create a sensational headline, you are also exaggerating the coverage of this issue. Virtually every article that I’ve read about this topic has cited that same one line, about slaves gaining skills that benefitted them later, that you cited. I’ve not read anything that took this line to the point of, “Florida teaching students that slavery was good.” The point of virtually all of the reporting has been that to offer up even one positive aspect of slavery is to suggest to young students that there is more than one way to view this stain on our history. The so called “skills” that slaves learned while they were being dehumanized by their masters were only “beneficial” because those humans (or their ancestors) had been stolen from their homeland and their cultures where these skills might have been completely useless.
Really great deep dive into this controversy. Thanks for exploring what exactly is the root of the uproar and providing the useful context of the full curriculum.
So, why do you think that people so want to believe the distortion? And why couldn't the media do what you did? It frustrates me when we make complex issues into the outrage of the day.