(08-01-2023, 02:41 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-01-2023, 12:19 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: No [BLEEP]. What do you think you're teaching anybody here?

The point was that blacks gained skills they could use to benefit them. When they eventually were able to work for themselves, they utilized those skills and were doing well with them. Not all, but some. They were progressing in every way right up until our broken [BLEEP] welfare system destroyed their family unit. It's a well-documented fact.

Just because a certain group of sociopaths want to manipulate people for votes instead of trying to give them a sense of common purpose and individual capability, doesn't mean anyone else should be forbidden from pointing out the ways blacks were proving resilient and independent. The people who wrote this curriculum used the model of Booker T. Washington's "Up From Slavery," according to one of the black, African American history professors that helped write it. They do not shy away from the horrors of slavery, or the difficulties blacks had to endure. Any attempt to say otherwise is just manipulation.

Here... from NPR. A link, since you can google everything except something that educates you:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/119042795...y-cirricul

The people complaining about it are ignorant and see blacks as victims only as far as I'm concerned, which makes them bigots. Why else should we be forbidden from talking about black accomplishment in the face of great oppression? I guess only the LGBTQ movement can have pride. Blacks can only be victims.

I don't disagree with the bolded. Benefits were possible, but could only accrue after emancipation. But that's not what the curriculum literally says.  The curriculum says benefits were possible without regard to emancipation.   That takes the eye off the ball.  Away from the point of the story.  The point of the story is slavery was morally abhorrent and there was a moral duty to end it.
You are, and perhaps they are, trying to make a different point using a different story about LBJ era programs.  That's historical malpractice though, for a variety of reasons, not least the hundred year time gap, but mostly because it ignores the many disparities that were still present when the great society programs began.

Even if I concede this point (which I don't, because this concept seems foundational for moving into life after slavery), do you think it makes DeSantis a racist? Does it undermine what this team of diverse professors put together? Even if you and I agreed we could change that wording slightly to make it more accurate, do you really think this small quibble is a national issue? Do you think it justifies Kamala's speech in Jacksonville?

---