desantis says some slaves may have been taught to be a blacksmith...a good thing!

[Arlette]

And your point would be....

.

Do you have a problem with plain English?

 

[lennypartiv]

Yet you celebrate the confederate enemies of those Republicans

You liberals erase our history by tearing down statues.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you have a problem with plain English?

Nope, all you did is bolster my point, just wondering if that was your intention.

.

 

[forkup]

Hey dumb ass, they wouldn't have been here, how many of those skills were available in the African bush?

.

Ah ok. So now you are saying slavery was justified because otherwise they wouldn't have had those skills.

As for being a dumbass. I treat people with respect even when they say stuff I vehemently disagree with. You don't. I find your way a pretty dumb way to talk to people.

 

[forkup]

You liberals erase our history by tearing down statues.

A statue is not history. It is a depiction of a person. Those people can have historical significance. In the case of the statues that liberals want to tear down. That historical significance is so negative it is deemed the admiration that those statues signify is undeserved.

I know for instance the historical significance of someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest. Both his service in defense of slavery and his role with the Klu Klux Klan. I don't think he's worthy of acclaim. Do you?

 

[OKTexas]

Ah ok. So now you are saying slavery was justified because otherwise they wouldn't have had those skills.

As for being a dumbass. I treat people with respect even when they say stuff I vehemently disagree with. You don't. I find your way a pretty dumb way to talk to people.

I was simply replying to this:

That is an argument stating that slavery gave them useful skills. The implication being that those skills wouldn't have been available to them without slavery.

The simple fact, if it weren't for slavery, they would have never been brought to this continent. They would have been slaves in Africa or trying to survive in the African bush.

With all the atrocities of slavery, it's a simple fact that most slaves had marketable skills when they were freed. Many kept working for the same plantations as hired hands, while others moved and found work on other farms or took their skills to various cities or learned new skills. Also some served in the military.

So these facts leave you in one of two categories, dumb ass or just plain ignorant. Which is it?

.

 

[forkup]

I was simply replying to this:

The simple fact, if it weren't for slavery, they would have never been brought to this continent. They would have been slaves in Africa or trying to survive in the African bush.

With all the atrocities of slavery, it's a simple fact that most slaves had marketable skills when they were freed. Many kept working for the same plantations as hired hands, while others moved and found work on other farms or took their skills to various cities or learned new skills. Also some served in the military.

So these facts leave you in one of two categories, dumb ass or just plain ignorant. Which is it?

.

If you have read all my posts in this OP you would have noted that I don't contest the basic premise that some slaves learned marketable skills while being a slave. My objections are other things but it's mainly this.

The people this curriculum is aimed at are middle schoolers. They are asked to discuss the implication of what gaining those skills meant for the slaves. We are having that discussion now. It took me 2 posts to Boedeca and one reply from you to get to a point that Boedeca offered another common unrelated apology for slavery. Namely that not all slaves were farmhands. And you directly tied the attainment of those skills to slavery.

I'm an adult interested in history and not at all impressionable. None of this is true for the average middle schooler. I have absolutely no problem having the discussion in a college setting. In fact, history requires looking objectively at historical facts. A good historian follows facts even if they lead to uncomfortable conclusions. But having this discussion among 12 year olds. Asking them to think through all the implications of slavery including those implications that can be perceived beneficial is a very bad idea. Because some inevitable will draw the conclusion that slavery itself wasn't all that bad.

 

[Godboy]

DeSantis says Black people benefited from slavery by learning skills like 'being a blacksmith'

Ron DeSantis defended Florida's new curriculum teaching about the benefits of slavery, saying students will probably learn slaves were blacksmiths.

www.businessinsider.com

Of course, he may have lost his children when they were sold to another plantation master? But at least he was taught a trade that kept him happy...when he wasn't thinking about the children he lost. But, he should be happy that he can now shoe a horse and stoke a bellows to keep the fire going.

No, what he said was, the freed slaves persevered despite their situation, using their knowledge to build their own communities. Your obvious race spin is lame.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Still trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit?

The vast majority were still "beasts of burden."

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Bidenomics

Oh my god someone actually said this shit.

We’re in an absolute hellscape thanks to the demented old piece of shit - the one who has cured cancer, now - and there are idiots who tout his disastrous inflationary insane spending?

Get all the way fucked, dude.

 

[JimH52]

No, what he said was, the freed slaves persevered despite their situation, using their knowledge to build their own communities. Your obvious race spin is lame.

The purpose behind the curriculum change was to begin the process of justiying slavery. Middle Schoolers are going to be taught this? I can hear their conversation with parents now.

"Mom, so slavery wasn't all bad. The slaves learned job skills, right?"

It is the beginning of a process....not the end.

 

[boedicca]

Go get off on your trumpy bear.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection and Flaming TDS ^^^

I'm not the one who obsesses about Trump 24/7, swampy.

 

[boedicca]

They were all "beast of burden" just what "burden" they were required to carry by their masters changed.

This is the problem with this discussion. Especially when conducting it in middle school like it is intended to. You are now trying to argue that slavery didn't cause everybody to become a beast of burden, something that is a defense of the institution of slavery.

As for it being relevant. That is an argument stating that slavery gave them useful skills. The implication being that those skills wouldn't have been available to them without slavery.

I know that this is probably not what you mean to say but it is what you're saying.

There was actually a hierarchy among slaves. House slaves at the top, then skilled trades, and field hands at the bottom. The fields hands generally had the worst lot in life.

Kids are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. The curriculum is not presenting a defense of slavery.

I'll refer to the video in this post #107 so that you can hear one of the curriculum developers own words:

desantis says some slaves may have been taught to be a blacksmith...a good thing!

Did you read the curriculum outline? It traces the change in slaves form being de facto beasts of burden to learning valuable skills. The benefit was to the owners of the slaves, imo. Once slavery was abolished, the skills belonged to the former slaves. This fact doesn't justify slavery or...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[JimH52]

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection and Flaming TDS ^^^

I'm not the one who obsesses about Trump 24/7, swampy.

You just love that man, don't you MAGA?

 

[boedicca]

You just love that man, don't you MAGA?

Oh blah blah blah...sooooo sleepy....zzzzz

Jeebus you are dull.

By the way, your Av is so out of date. Don't you know you're supposed to switch to Climate Chaos Fear Pron instead of the beatification of the Ukrainian Kleptocracy?

 

[OKTexas]

If you have read all my posts in this OP you would have noted that I don't contest the basic premise that some slaves learned marketable skills while being a slave. My objections are other things but it's mainly this.

The people this curriculum is aimed at are middle schoolers. They are asked to discuss the implication of what gaining those skills meant for the slaves. We are having that discussion now. It took me 2 posts to Boedeca and one reply from you to get to a point that Boedeca offered another common unrelated apology for slavery. Namely that not all slaves were farmhands. And you directly tied the attainment of those skills to slavery.

I'm an adult interested in history and not at all impressionable. None of this is true for the average middle schooler. I have absolutely no problem having the discussion in a college setting. In fact, history requires looking objectively at historical facts. A good historian follows facts even if they lead to uncomfortable conclusions. But having this discussion among 12 year olds. Asking them to think through all the implications of slavery including those implications that can be perceived beneficial is a very bad idea. Because some inevitable will draw the conclusion that slavery itself wasn't all that bad.

Yeah, that's the propaganda line, but it's a very minor point in the curriculum if it's taken as a whole. Get back to me when you've taken the time to read it for yourself and looked up the interviews with the black historians and academics that wrote it. They say the curriculum contains historical FACTS.

.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, that's the propaganda line, but it's a very minor point in the curriculum if it's taken as a whole. Get back to me when you've taken the time to read it for yourself and looked up the interviews with the black historians and academics that wrote it. They say the curriculum contains historical FACTS.

.

I have read it. And I have seen at least one interview. Again READ what I wrote before you shoot your mouth off.

And it's most definitely NOT the propaganda line. The propaganda line is that the curriculum is whitewashing slavery. A viewpoint I don't endorse let alone espouse. It's just as dishonest a statement in my view as the statement that I am simply touting a party line.

My argument is purely based on my perception of the average middle schooler. And their inability and uninterest in taking a nuanced view of slavery without some drawing the conclusion that slavery wasn't all that bad. An argument you aren't addressing because your to busy making assumptions about me.

 

[OKTexas]

I have read it. And I have seen at least one interview. Again READ what I wrote before you shoot your mouth off.

And it's most definitely NOT the propaganda line. The propaganda line is that the curriculum is whitewashing slavery. A viewpoint I don't endorse let alone espouse. It's just as dishonest a statement in my view as the statement that I am simply touting a party line.

My argument is purely based on my perception of the average middle schooler. And their inability and uninterest in taking a nuanced view of slavery without some drawing the conclusion that slavery wasn't all that bad. An argument you aren't addressing because your to busy making assumptions about me.

Your assumptions carry zero weight. If you're not a middle schooler, just STFU, dumb ass.

.

 

[forkup]

Your assumptions carry zero weight. If you're not a middle schooler, just STFU, dumb ass.

.

Ah name-calling. The argument of those that have no argument.

 

[OKTexas]

Ah name-calling. The argument of those that have no argument.

Says the repetitive propagandist.

.