If he is open to it, I would love to see Kevin Kruse, history professor at Princeton, on The Glenn Show. He was recently interviewed by Thor Benson from WIRED.
Kruse is partisan; very much on the Democrat side. So no, he's not unbiased. But in my experience, he's intellectually honest. Provocative? Yes. A liar? No.
He said this about Mr. Allen:
"Allen is a partisan player. He’s an academic, but he’s a political scientist. He has no background in history. He has no expertise here, and it shows."
Slightly off topic, but disturbing to my mind. One of my children is a teacher in an "average" high school in the western Chicago suburbs. He says that high school students have to take one year of US history, usually during the 11th or 12th grade. Currently, the regular course covers the years 1900 to the present. The colonial period, Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Reconstruction are all skipped in favor of more recent events. Regular students only learn about the earlier periods in middle school. The exceptions are the few students who take Advanced Placement US History, which covers the earlier periods and continues to the present.
Dr. Wilfred Reilly, a poly sci professor at Kentucky State, an HBCU, responded to the controversy on Twitter by saying that some of the slaves who had learned skilled trades were able to earn and keep money from applying their trade and that some of them were able to use said money to purchase their freedom.
I am not at all a fan of Ron DeSantis, but I thought him challenging VP Harris and any history expert of her choosing to debate him and his expert (whom I believe is one of the people who set the curriculum and happens to be black) was a savvy move and kind of a surprisingly reasonable one for DeSantis.
I wish people were as pissed off at kids not being able to read or do math as they seem to be over the content of AP history courses. Kids need to grow into adults with critical thinking skills, yet much of the debate seems to be over which ideology to uniformly imprint on all of them, rather than how to better develop the skills to sort things out on their own, like adults are supposed to be able to do. We're failing a great many of them.
The proper response is that enslaved people would have been able to keep all their own money if they were free. That is the message to send to young Black people. Cherish your freedom. Your ancestors suffered, you honor them by being strong.
There is a closely guarded secret that has been deliberately buried by mainstream media and historians: After the Civil War (and during the war), millions of freed Black people were funneled into concentration camps in America and killed through forced starvation, and other means.
Many of these locations were called “contraband camps”, and they were hastily built internment camps that were generally in proximity to Union army camps. One gruesome camp, in particular, was located in Natchez, Ms. The Devil’s Punchbowl is a place located in Natchez, where during the Civil War, authorities forced tens of thousands of freed slaves to live in these American death camps.
Researcher Paula Westbrook said, “The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave ’em shovels and said bury ’em where they drop.”
“When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez. The population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight,” Westbrook said. “So they decided to build an encampment for ’em at Devil’s Punchbowl which they walled off and wouldn’t let ’em out,” Don Estes, former director of the Natchez City Cemetery, said.
In Natchez, Mississippi alone, officials estimate that in just one year, over 20,000 free Black people were killed in the concentration camp called The Devil’s Punchbowl-- SPMG Media
The attempts to justify crap history like Prager U while whine about 1619 Project is simply amazing. They really want the Lost Cause fantasy that champions white supremacy. Fortunately there are enough online sites that can help parents teach their children historical truth. Conservatives will be our natural enemies, passing Prager U as accurate.
Edit to add:
The telltale sign is the need to deflect. They utter nonsense like whites did not “invent” slavery as bleated out by docile Negro Candice Owens. No one argues that slavery was invented by whites. Zora Neal Hurston interviewed the last survivor of the Last slave ship that came to the Unites States. He was originally captured by warriors (male and female) from the kingdom of Dahomey. The Dahomey warriors were depicted in a recent film starring Viola Davis. Conservatives have such contempt for us that they feel we are too stupid to know history. They trot out disgusting people like Candace Owens and, until recently, Diamond & Silk.
They tell s to trust words put on paper by a committee put together by a man who tried to build his political career on being anti-Woke. We all know Woke is the new Black. The only way to fight these people is in the courts. They will never stop their assault on us. They are arrogant people who will never compromise.
Stories like the fate of those in contraband camps were intentionally buried. The same thing happened in NYC when they tried to put office buildings of the burial ground of enslaved people. Only community pushback gave recognition to the burial site.
"Uncle Ruckus had a turbulent childhood as he was raised by the abusive Mister Ruckus. His mother had a self-identity crisis, often praising white people. After being kicked out of his home as a teenager, he traveled to Woodcrest, where he works odd jobs. Ruckus embodies many old American working-class stereotypes: he is crude, short-tempered, obese, rule-neglecting, clumsy, and largely ignorant. He is not good at many things and sometimes considered to be good-for-nothing in general. He is also internally racist, repeatedly proclaiming his love for the white race and disdain for the black race, and he even identifies as Caucasian, saying he suffers from "reverse vitiligo".
Despite this, Ruckus maintains a close relationship with Robert Freeman and yearns for social acceptance. Despite the blue-collar routine of his life, he has had several remarkable experiences, including work as a recording artist.
He has an intense hatred of anything about African Americans and goes out of his way to distance himself from black people, especially those of previous generations. Ruckus claims God says the path to forgiveness for being black is to rebuke one's race. He has a mismatched glass eye due to the beatings he received from his father. Ruckus champions the giant traces of Irish ancestry he claims to have, though a DNA test shows he is "102% African with a 2% margin of error”.
Although Ruckus had a terrible father, the main cause for his personality and view of the world is his mother. Though his mother loved him deeply, she was an extremely deluded and damaged woman who, despite a lifetime of abuse and poor decisions, was convinced that her life would have been better if she had been born white. As a result, Ruckus wishes that all black people were still enslaved or never existed at all. He frequently introduces himself as "Uncle Ruckus, no relation," to indicate that he has no familial connection to the people he is addressing (and because his first name is Uncle).
Ruckus praises white supremacist rhetoric and calls Michael Jackson (who suffered from the pigmentational skin-changing disorder vitiligo) a "lucky bastard" as he doesn't look black. Ruckus claims that he has "re-vitiligo", to explain his skin tone. Ruckus applies a homemade topical ointment of "bleach and sulfur" to treat his self-diagnosed condition, stating that he "likes to think it works" and that it has prevented him from "getting any darker these past few years."
According to a flashback, in his early 20s (20 years old in 1959) he protested against Martin Luther King Jr.'s marches during the civil rights movement and would occasionally throw bricks at King. Another flashback scene shows Ruckus serving on a Tennessee jury in 1957 (making him a minimum of 70 years old in 2009, although this flashback is not consistent with the show's continuity) that helped convince a blind black man of killing three white girls. Despite being blind, the African American man supposedly shot the three with a Winchester rifle from about 50 yards away. Ruckus is the only black person on the otherwise all-white jury in a Jim Crow courtroom. During his first encounter with the Freeman family, Ruckus sings "Don't Trust Them New Niggas Over There" in the pilot episode, though he socializes freely with the Freemans thereafter.
Ruckus constantly hurls hateful racist invective at all things black. On being asked if he supports the use of the word "nigga", Ruckus says:
No, I don't think we should use the word, and I'll tell ya why. Because niggas have gotten used to it, that's why. Hell, they like it now. It's like when you growin' crops and you strip the soil of its nutrients and goodness and then you can't grow anything. You gotta rotate your racist slurs. Now I know it's hard 'cause 'nigga' just rolls off the tongue the way sweat rolls off a nigga's forehead, but we cannot let that be a crutch. Especially when there are so many fine substitutes: spade, porch monkey, jiggaboo. I say the next time you gonna call a darkie a nigga, you call that coon a jungle bunny instead."
What is funny is Prager U being a part of the Florida curriculum is glossed over but it would be death to teach the 1619 Project. Can’t have the darkies having any influence. Only white miseducation programs are allowed. We have to give the former Gitmo lawyer’s program a chance. Forget that he supports Moms For Liberty.
Once you realize the game they are playing you are encouraged when they reject you. You are just an angry Black man. Don’t teach Vesey and Turner, read books about white guys who survived gulags and concentration camps.
Florida school district is now restricting how Shakespeare is taught, for fear of violating the Florida anti-woke school curriculum. Teachers are becoming paranoid. Sounds like nazi Germany.
Conservatives are insane. They are overplaying their hand. Hopefully their authoritarianism will bring voters with opposing viewpoints out in droves. Conservatives are convinced they speak for God. They cherry-pick data and openly lie about the intent of legislation.
Republicans yelled at Liberals who wanted to defund the police, yet here they are arguing to abolish the DOJ Zand the FBI to protect a man who wanted to violate the Constitution. There is no pushback from Republican leaders. When presented with defunding the police Biden/Harris yawned and attempted police reform. Police reform was obstructed by the docile Republican Tim Scott. Republicans do not have the moral authority to lead the country. We have to name the authoritarianism approved by the GOP.
Edit to add:
DeSantis removed two elected state’s attorneys. This is happening in Blue counties. The most recently replaced attorney head an 18% decrease in crime in her district. DeSantis only wants toadies in office. Yo will not hear a peep from Republicans.
I'm okay teaching the 1619 project in advanced high school and college classes if it is done along with other approaches, but my impression is that many supporters of the 1619 project want conservative or traditional perspectives suppressed as being "racist" or "White Supremacist". I'm also okay with students being taught something about Nat Turner's insurrection, though it seems to me that it was hopelessly suicidal.
Monty calls PragerU a "far right-wing cult". I'm not an expert on PragerU, but I have read some of Dennis Prager's writings on the Internet and did not find them far right-wing from my perspective. I note that Dennis Prager (founder of PragerU) is Jewish and grew up in New York City, according to Wikipedia.
I have nothing against Jews. I admire Minister Louis Farrakhan for his "balls", but not his anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Historically Black Colleges/Universities helped to rescue Jewish Scholars before and during WWII, and a number were employed at these institutions. However, the relationship between Jews and blacks has changed since then.
Jews, for the most part, have become more wealthier, more powerful, and more conservative. Let a black news pundit talk about the Palestinians being oppressed and killed by Israeli Jews, and she or he is quickly out of a job. Even the Congressional Black Caucus is very intimidated by powerful Jews when they are in the presence of Minister Louis Farrakhan. That's pathetic. But, Law Professor Amy Wax hanging around with white separatist Jered Taylor and inviting him to her classes isn't a major problem. Lol!
I dated a Jewish woman over a decade ago and ran around with Jews in Los Angeles. I don't remember any advocating for PragerU or extreme right-wing policies. There was one Jew I met online that called me a n*gg*r because I made negative comments about Donald Trump. He has 2 black biracial grandkids. Furthermore, one of his liberal Jewish friends tried to cover him.
I recently ordered and received a book from Amazon, called "The Unspoken Alliance (Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa)" written by Sasha Polalow-Suransky. I haven't started reading it yet, but browsing through it raised my eyebrows.
I've traveled to South Africa twice. The white population continues to own most of the land and wealth. Most of the blacks live in dilapidated shacks with some eating rats to survive.
Israel admitted to using a drug to sterilize female Ethiopian Jews to preserve the white Jewish race and culture. Israel has also deported many African refugees via camps.
The current corrupt Jewish prime Minister of Israel is trying to become a dictator by reducing the power of the Israeli Supreme Court.
This fall, I will be traveling through Israel, Suez Canal, Turkey, Egypt, Oman, Dubai, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
We disagree about Prager U. I do not want my children exposed to their bias. If Prager U is allowed in middle school, there is no rationale to black 1619. The solution is to block Prager U from aces to middle schools.
Conservatives know that. They think we are stupid and know nothing about Dennis Prager. They whine about Hannah-Nikole Jones but will praise Dennis Prager. As I said, the only way to address the situation is to vote every Conservative that you can out of office. They will never seek compromise.
Edit to add:
They will sit back and pretend nothing is happening as Conservatives attempt a coup.
Your twitter reference contains about one minute of a Prager U cartoon aimed at 3rd to 5th graders. I have some issues with it, but I don't think the full cartoon (which is 7 and a half minutes long) is so terrible. The views attributed to Douglass sound to me very much like those of Abraham Lincoln as expressed in his Cooper Union speech. Here is the link to the full version: https://www.prageru.com/video/leo-and-laylas-history-adventures-with-frederick-douglass
Thankfully, we live in different worlds. The video is about Frederick Douglass but opens with mention of stating things on f fire. Why?
Next we hear that math class is being used to discuss social issues. This has no revelance when it comes to Frederick Douglass.
Then comes the statement that the United States was the first country to work on abolishing slavery. This is a bald-faced lie.
The argument is that Garrison wants to set things on fire. He burned a copy of the Constitution as a stunt. The children say “We have those types in our time”
The video makes a mockery of Frederick Douglass. This is a political ad. If it is ever brought to a schoolroom, it should be challenged.
I ran this by a distinguished black historian who is a friend. It was a private communication, so I am not stating his name, but he knows his African American history better than almost anybody. While he thought the offending phrase could have been a bit better worded, he basically agreed with Glenn's remarks at the beginning of this post. Beyond that, he thought it was a surprisingly broad section on African American history. Far more than he was taught in the 60s or his children were taught in the 80s. Unlike most commentators in the press, he looked at the rest of the history curriculum as well and was pleased to see that it works to infuse black history into every other part of the curriculum too.
Of course you are right, guidelines are only helpful if they are actually followed carefully, but it still matters that the guidelines themselves are quite good. It matters that some committee in Florida who drew them up (which did not, I am sure, include De Santos), actually came up with some good guidelines for teaching African American history. In Florida! You'd think progressives would be happy about that. At least some teachers will follow them, they are not irrelevant. And it also matters because this focus on one clause has been overblown by the press, causing more fear and confusion than is warranted, simply because it is Big Bad Republican Florida. My friend, a black historian, could find no issue at all, even with the offending phrase. If you haven't, I hope you take the time to look through them yourself, you may be surprised.
I have looked through the guidelines. I posted a Prager U video regarding Frederick Douglass. The video is trash. The words in the guidelines are meaningless given the content that will be presented in some classrooms. The fact that DeSantis supports the guidelines is important given his history.
If you take my favorite meal crafted by my favorite chef and serve it to me on a foul smelling garbage can top, it is garbage. There is no reason to trust the department of education in Florida. I will repeat again, when the department gave examples of the people who benefited from slavery, they demonstrated complete ignorance.
You seem to be knowledgeable about this history and also perhaps the politics. I can understand your cynicism and mistrust of De Santos and the Department of Education in Florida. I haven't really followed it much honestly, I just looked into it because it seemed that the media such as NYT and NPR and MSNBC were inaccurately reporting on this one phrase, blowing it all out of proportion, and NOT reporting on the rest of the document which from all accounts I have seen is surprisingly excellent. THAT'S the piece I am interested in, how the media across the spectrum contribute to confusion and polarization and don't help us actually solve our problems. It's just more us vs. them, endlessly, ad nauseum. I would have preferred they just said, "You can't trust Florida, no matter how good it looks!" Instead, they picked up on one phrase that could possibly be construed by some to imply that slavery had a silver lining or was "good." (I do not think it implies that, but assuming good faith, some people do think so.) Of course, there is painful history and a sensitivity there as I am sure you know, probably more than I do. During and since slavery pundits have tried to argue that slavery was good for the enslaved. That was one of its foundational moral justifications! Anything that even implies that idea is not only truly messed up, but is likely to cause an over-response by some, especially African Americans and others who see things through an "antiracism" lens.
What I hear you saying is that you do not believe it matters what the standards say, you do not trust their proper implementation because of the track record you have witnessed (including the video you shared). We will simply have to see how it plays out to know. I stand by my comments that it is still a good and important thing that the standards were, overall, well written and that it does matter. People in the Florida Department of Education did that, so I think that is meaningful. If the standards are not met, the schools can be challenged, there is a potential pathway to hold them accountable. I hope people do so.
As a life-long liberal, I have cynicism and mistrust of many institutions these days, including ones in liberal states like mine. I am not on any side anymore. It's a mess when none of us trust our institutions, and when it is difficult even to agree on basic tenets of reality.
We agree to disagree. I think Florida will scam the parents and students.
I am a Democrat by default. Republicans make clear that they are no friends to the Black community. Democratic legislators have many faults but they all pale in comparison to a party led by a bigoted conman who tried to stage a coup. I also see a party that is actively suppressing votes in Black communities across the country. I now see them participating in an effort to miseducate our children. Republicans are not worthy of my trust.
The Prager U video slanders Frederick Douglas. Douglass felt that the words of the Constitution made the overall document an anti slavery document. Amendments were needed to achieve that goal. What I find laughable is someone using that sentiment while supporting the disgusting Prager University video. My hope is when the Florida department of education implements its programs the higher ups in the department will show their true colors and a legal case can be made.
There are multiple books about the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln, among them
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass: The Story Behind an American Friendship
The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics
The Hammer and the Anvil: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the End of Slavery in America
The Prager U video is a slap in the face. BTW William Lloyd Garrision supported Lincoln in fact Garrison published a defense of Lincoln in the Liberator. The Prager U video slander’ the full essence of Garrison
Aside from Douglass's several speeches discussing the Constitution, which he did refer to as a "glorious liberty document," even as he recognized the flaws of those who had been interpreting it, I also recommend his long, nuanced and complex oration on Lincoln at the unveiling of the Freedman's Monument in 1876. Douglass went from powerfully criticizing Lincoln to deeply admiring him, and all sides of his views come through in that oration. Plus, his powerful sense of love for what America was becoming and for its potential, even while seeing clearly its failings and backsliding. His anger and his love of country were perfectly fused. Something utterly lacking in the sour, ungrateful, cheap anti-Americanism inspiring today's woke warriors.
Perhaps it is you who should please stop. I note in your response to Elizabeth above here, you basically confirm the point about Douglass and the Constitution made by the Prager U video while continuing to trash it. You also confirm my points about Douglass and Lincoln by listing the books you refer to, while stilll continuing a posture of outraged indignation. About what is getting a bit harder to see.
Lots of very good comments here. But a few from people with very big chips on their shoulders. So big the weight is dragging them down. I haven't noticed that in Glenn's comments sections before. I don't always look in, so maybe it's more common than I thought. If so, it's too bad.
Agreed on all counts. Admittedly, this is a difficult subject, but seems to me that Glenn has covered similarly difficult subjects before. In any case, I also have not previously noticed quite as much sniping. #Shrugs
Dr Cherry points us to the work of an economist who tells us that the diet of the slave exceeded the daily dietary requirements of 1964. We contrast that with the statement by Frederick Douglass that under was his child hood companion. We also look at the condition of the slaves described in many slave narratives. When we look for other sources for diets of enslaved people, we find that the diets were monstrous.
We do not give Conservatives the moral authority to say that we trust their every utterance. Finding flaws in the curriculum proposed by DeSantis is a natural human reaction. Questioning sources provided by a Conservative is also a natural human reaction.
At the risk of talking out of school, I will post BEFORE I read the full article. I contend that this statement... “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” is NOT problematic. That is a fact. (It might be inelegant in its construction. It might insult our sensibilities, given how we *feel* about slavery. Those are beside the point.) Hell, it is a fact the slavers often took slaves from Africa because of their skills. The slaves then applied those skills and could have, in fact, sold them in a market-based system. That does not mean that chattel slavery was a jobs program! That does not mean that chattel slavery was a good thing. That does not mean that the lives of these skilled laborers were improved by them being kidnapped and brought to America. Both can be true, i.e., they could learn things that were applicable outside of the slavery paradigm AND they could be victims of horrible, systematic racism-based brutality. I hope I conveyed the appropriate nuance. I am relatively certain, however, that either way, I will be "reeducated" by other posters. I look forward to it! If I feel differently after reading the piece, I reserve the right to amend my views!
Cool to see you again, man. You have more or less encapsulated my thoughts on this issue with the exception of one MAJOR piece: At what AGE do we (or should we) introduce this kind of nuance and detail into a kid's education?
I wrestle with that.
I think this curriculum is meant for middle school and high school, right? i.e., 11- and 12-year-olds, possibly? Is that a good age to talk about slavery in that way? If so, why not be as clear with respect to sexual assault and family separation practices during slavery? (Apparently the curriculum treats those last two more parenthetically.)
I submit Germany during WWII--The Nazi's:
A lot of technological advancements were born out of this shameful moment in history. Should we hide that fact from kids? I don't think so. But at what age should we insert that discussion? Should we put it in the *guidelines*?
These are not simple questions to me. (We're talking PUBLIC schools.)
As we grow into adulthood, no subject is off-limits in terms of Q&A as far as I am concerned, regardless of how we feel. But obviously, kids are not adults.
Charles, appreciate the kind words! There are a ton of things with which to "wrestle" as we examine this issue. I had not considered the age question, although I agree with your observation regarding the difficulty in properly timing discussions of complex subjects. TBH, I have no clue. I default to the "just offer all the facts and let the listeners sort it out" point of view.
At the obvious risk of breaking (unwritten) Internet and substack rules, I will still reply to my own post. I read the piece. This quote is instructive, "Presenting positive images of individuals effectively responding to inhumane circumstances is uplifting and no way undercuts recognition of those adversities." Exactly the point I attempted to make, albeit delivered amid much more nuanced and elegant, expository, prose. Spoiler Alert: Thrilled to agree with Robert Cherry, I am. Guess I won't have to amend my views after all, despite the fact that I apparently need some rest.
The people who really benefited from enslavement of Black people were white people. Teaching that Blacks benefited is just Lost Cause. Slavery was wrong, internment camps were wrong. Once you include benefits followed by benefits received by people who were never enslaved you lose trust that you can educate children. Florida colleges and universities will face difficulties attracting faculty as a result of having a slipshod public school system.
Please find and read the whole document. It is 216 pages of which I think the first 23 address what to teach about the black experience in America. It reads like a progressive's dream and does not minimize the harm of slavery.
The reason that one passage was lifted out of the document by people is it was the only one that could be weaponized to support the assertion that Florida's standards (and by extension, Republicans) are racist.
Investigate rather than believing what polarizers are telling you. Use your own judgement.
I would provide a link but I'm on my phone and too difficult to hunt it down, but it's not hard to find.
Don't with the narrative, the Progressives aren't interested in alternative thinking. If you doubt, observe how they treat those who leave the plantation.
The reason that people are suspicious is that it comes from Ron DeSantis’ department of education. DeSantis battled AP African-American history and supports book bans. The benefits could be weaponized because it is nonsense. I will point out again that when asked to provide names of those who benefited, the department of education broadcast its ignorance.
DeSantis put Christopher Rufo on a college board. One of the people put on his advisory board for the curriculum gave a sermon thanking God for slavery. Another supposed Black historian said Frederick Douglass learned to read in slavery. His Massa stopped Douglass from learning letters. His Mistress became angry at Douglass because her husband was angry with her. I’m supposed to trust these idiots to enforce an accurate curriculum?
Edit to add:
I read the PDF
Just words on paper when it comes to DeSantis
I’m disgusted by his treatment of Black Republicans
We will see what happens when school starts. When the curriculum is put into action we hopefully learn the facts. I am honest about my distrust of a DeSantis sanctioned education program.
Again, nuance. (Hell, I think I even said, "that does not mean slavery was a good thing.") Slavery was wrong. Agreed. Blacks were not improved by it. Agreed. However, it is still possible to develop skills, despite that mistreatment. The strongest people always find a way to maintain their dignity and leave with something. Viktor Frankl's lessons come to mind. That is all I am trying to say. More globally, I am tired of black people being viewed as never-ending victims, and maybe that is why this issue "hits different" for me. I also realize that teaching nuance in public schools might be an even bigger fool's errand than trying to convey it on substack.
Dealing with forbidden topics is a bad idea? Perhaps the author should have mentioned black slave holders. Perhaps he should have traced the slave trade back to Africa where blacks traded other blacks for profit and revenge.
How is it a bad idea to marvel at the human capacity to rise above rotten circumstances and even thrive? What shallow, demeaning thinking we have to deal with. Worthy of noted Democrat Senator John C. Calhoun. Sad, really.
here is my overall concern , some of the arguments are not about redress and reform but about delegitimizing the american project and enlightenment values and slavery and racism are an excellent cudgel to do it.
I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.
It was no more white supremist than when blacks in Africa held slaves or when Muslims held slaves or when Chinese held slaves or when Slavs were slaves. It has been a regrettable part of the human condition since the beginning. The path forward does not lie through victimhood.
Yes, it was so much better to be castrated, forced to march hundreds of miles to the coasts of East Africa or across the Sahara to be sold as a eunuch to some prince in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages. Or to be one of the black slaves working the salt marshes in what is today southern Iraq during the time of the great Zanj uprising there in the 800s. Put down after 13 years of resistance - but not by a single "white person" I might add.
Really, give it up with the neo-racist lingo of the day "White" this "White" that. It is truly ridiculous.
Lost Cause revisionist nonsense. Slavery in the United States was based on a white superiority ideal that still reverberates today. Chattel slavery was essentially a European creation when considered on a worldwide basis. From an economic standpoint a castrated enslaved Black male would have less monetary value because he could not reproduce free labor. The enslaved would not have to pay an external source for a laborer.
Was the Zanj uprising the "Lost Cause" you had in mind here? Or is that just an uncontrollable tic of yours you have to give out just to get rev'd up? I notice you use the term almost every time. As to those castrated boys, that was often done on the way to the slave markets. A large percentage of the boys to whom it was done died. Yet the eunuchs who survived were still valuable enough to make the trade worth it to someone. I guess "monetary value" was in the eye of the beholder.
I read the article you cite and found much to agree with. I'm old enough to remember the last years of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the early 1960's. In my view, many people (especially blacks) made a tragic mistake when they embraced Black Power and various neo-Marxist ideas beginning in the mid-1960's. Aside from a few leaders, the Black community continues to pay a terrible price for that mistake, along with the nation as a whole.
I just read this post yesterday, and it was "Deja Vue all over again." It contains an immense amount of rational observation. I see it as pretty much a roadmap of how we got from the 60s to where we are now.
If he is open to it, I would love to see Kevin Kruse, history professor at Princeton, on The Glenn Show. He was recently interviewed by Thor Benson from WIRED.
Kruse is partisan; very much on the Democrat side. So no, he's not unbiased. But in my experience, he's intellectually honest. Provocative? Yes. A liar? No.
He said this about Mr. Allen:
"Allen is a partisan player. He’s an academic, but he’s a political scientist. He has no background in history. He has no expertise here, and it shows."
If this is true, we should know about it.
Slightly off topic, but disturbing to my mind. One of my children is a teacher in an "average" high school in the western Chicago suburbs. He says that high school students have to take one year of US history, usually during the 11th or 12th grade. Currently, the regular course covers the years 1900 to the present. The colonial period, Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Reconstruction are all skipped in favor of more recent events. Regular students only learn about the earlier periods in middle school. The exceptions are the few students who take Advanced Placement US History, which covers the earlier periods and continues to the present.
The narrative restricted solely to unending victimization is among the most racist of all.
The story is anecdotal, but the results, I suspect, applied to a lot of people during and post-Slavery.
https://www.tiktok.com/@garrisonhayes/video/7265364474612239659
I didn't *personally* fact-check, but this content creator is generally pretty solid with his arguments.
Just putting it out there.
Dr. Wilfred Reilly, a poly sci professor at Kentucky State, an HBCU, responded to the controversy on Twitter by saying that some of the slaves who had learned skilled trades were able to earn and keep money from applying their trade and that some of them were able to use said money to purchase their freedom.
I am not at all a fan of Ron DeSantis, but I thought him challenging VP Harris and any history expert of her choosing to debate him and his expert (whom I believe is one of the people who set the curriculum and happens to be black) was a savvy move and kind of a surprisingly reasonable one for DeSantis.
I wish people were as pissed off at kids not being able to read or do math as they seem to be over the content of AP history courses. Kids need to grow into adults with critical thinking skills, yet much of the debate seems to be over which ideology to uniformly imprint on all of them, rather than how to better develop the skills to sort things out on their own, like adults are supposed to be able to do. We're failing a great many of them.
The proper response is that enslaved people would have been able to keep all their own money if they were free. That is the message to send to young Black people. Cherish your freedom. Your ancestors suffered, you honor them by being strong.
Google Alabama dock battle
Speaking of Florida, why are some of its high schools removing Shakespeare from the curriculum?
There is a closely guarded secret that has been deliberately buried by mainstream media and historians: After the Civil War (and during the war), millions of freed Black people were funneled into concentration camps in America and killed through forced starvation, and other means.
Many of these locations were called “contraband camps”, and they were hastily built internment camps that were generally in proximity to Union army camps. One gruesome camp, in particular, was located in Natchez, Ms. The Devil’s Punchbowl is a place located in Natchez, where during the Civil War, authorities forced tens of thousands of freed slaves to live in these American death camps.
Researcher Paula Westbrook said, “The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave ’em shovels and said bury ’em where they drop.”
“When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez. The population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight,” Westbrook said. “So they decided to build an encampment for ’em at Devil’s Punchbowl which they walled off and wouldn’t let ’em out,” Don Estes, former director of the Natchez City Cemetery, said.
In Natchez, Mississippi alone, officials estimate that in just one year, over 20,000 free Black people were killed in the concentration camp called The Devil’s Punchbowl-- SPMG Media
The attempts to justify crap history like Prager U while whine about 1619 Project is simply amazing. They really want the Lost Cause fantasy that champions white supremacy. Fortunately there are enough online sites that can help parents teach their children historical truth. Conservatives will be our natural enemies, passing Prager U as accurate.
Edit to add:
The telltale sign is the need to deflect. They utter nonsense like whites did not “invent” slavery as bleated out by docile Negro Candice Owens. No one argues that slavery was invented by whites. Zora Neal Hurston interviewed the last survivor of the Last slave ship that came to the Unites States. He was originally captured by warriors (male and female) from the kingdom of Dahomey. The Dahomey warriors were depicted in a recent film starring Viola Davis. Conservatives have such contempt for us that they feel we are too stupid to know history. They trot out disgusting people like Candace Owens and, until recently, Diamond & Silk.
They tell s to trust words put on paper by a committee put together by a man who tried to build his political career on being anti-Woke. We all know Woke is the new Black. The only way to fight these people is in the courts. They will never stop their assault on us. They are arrogant people who will never compromise.
Stories like the fate of those in contraband camps were intentionally buried. The same thing happened in NYC when they tried to put office buildings of the burial ground of enslaved people. Only community pushback gave recognition to the burial site.
"Uncle Ruckus had a turbulent childhood as he was raised by the abusive Mister Ruckus. His mother had a self-identity crisis, often praising white people. After being kicked out of his home as a teenager, he traveled to Woodcrest, where he works odd jobs. Ruckus embodies many old American working-class stereotypes: he is crude, short-tempered, obese, rule-neglecting, clumsy, and largely ignorant. He is not good at many things and sometimes considered to be good-for-nothing in general. He is also internally racist, repeatedly proclaiming his love for the white race and disdain for the black race, and he even identifies as Caucasian, saying he suffers from "reverse vitiligo".
Despite this, Ruckus maintains a close relationship with Robert Freeman and yearns for social acceptance. Despite the blue-collar routine of his life, he has had several remarkable experiences, including work as a recording artist.
He has an intense hatred of anything about African Americans and goes out of his way to distance himself from black people, especially those of previous generations. Ruckus claims God says the path to forgiveness for being black is to rebuke one's race. He has a mismatched glass eye due to the beatings he received from his father. Ruckus champions the giant traces of Irish ancestry he claims to have, though a DNA test shows he is "102% African with a 2% margin of error”.
Although Ruckus had a terrible father, the main cause for his personality and view of the world is his mother. Though his mother loved him deeply, she was an extremely deluded and damaged woman who, despite a lifetime of abuse and poor decisions, was convinced that her life would have been better if she had been born white. As a result, Ruckus wishes that all black people were still enslaved or never existed at all. He frequently introduces himself as "Uncle Ruckus, no relation," to indicate that he has no familial connection to the people he is addressing (and because his first name is Uncle).
Ruckus praises white supremacist rhetoric and calls Michael Jackson (who suffered from the pigmentational skin-changing disorder vitiligo) a "lucky bastard" as he doesn't look black. Ruckus claims that he has "re-vitiligo", to explain his skin tone. Ruckus applies a homemade topical ointment of "bleach and sulfur" to treat his self-diagnosed condition, stating that he "likes to think it works" and that it has prevented him from "getting any darker these past few years."
According to a flashback, in his early 20s (20 years old in 1959) he protested against Martin Luther King Jr.'s marches during the civil rights movement and would occasionally throw bricks at King. Another flashback scene shows Ruckus serving on a Tennessee jury in 1957 (making him a minimum of 70 years old in 2009, although this flashback is not consistent with the show's continuity) that helped convince a blind black man of killing three white girls. Despite being blind, the African American man supposedly shot the three with a Winchester rifle from about 50 yards away. Ruckus is the only black person on the otherwise all-white jury in a Jim Crow courtroom. During his first encounter with the Freeman family, Ruckus sings "Don't Trust Them New Niggas Over There" in the pilot episode, though he socializes freely with the Freemans thereafter.
Ruckus constantly hurls hateful racist invective at all things black. On being asked if he supports the use of the word "nigga", Ruckus says:
No, I don't think we should use the word, and I'll tell ya why. Because niggas have gotten used to it, that's why. Hell, they like it now. It's like when you growin' crops and you strip the soil of its nutrients and goodness and then you can't grow anything. You gotta rotate your racist slurs. Now I know it's hard 'cause 'nigga' just rolls off the tongue the way sweat rolls off a nigga's forehead, but we cannot let that be a crutch. Especially when there are so many fine substitutes: spade, porch monkey, jiggaboo. I say the next time you gonna call a darkie a nigga, you call that coon a jungle bunny instead."
What is funny is Prager U being a part of the Florida curriculum is glossed over but it would be death to teach the 1619 Project. Can’t have the darkies having any influence. Only white miseducation programs are allowed. We have to give the former Gitmo lawyer’s program a chance. Forget that he supports Moms For Liberty.
Once you realize the game they are playing you are encouraged when they reject you. You are just an angry Black man. Don’t teach Vesey and Turner, read books about white guys who survived gulags and concentration camps.
Florida school district is now restricting how Shakespeare is taught, for fear of violating the Florida anti-woke school curriculum. Teachers are becoming paranoid. Sounds like nazi Germany.
Conservatives are insane. They are overplaying their hand. Hopefully their authoritarianism will bring voters with opposing viewpoints out in droves. Conservatives are convinced they speak for God. They cherry-pick data and openly lie about the intent of legislation.
Republicans yelled at Liberals who wanted to defund the police, yet here they are arguing to abolish the DOJ Zand the FBI to protect a man who wanted to violate the Constitution. There is no pushback from Republican leaders. When presented with defunding the police Biden/Harris yawned and attempted police reform. Police reform was obstructed by the docile Republican Tim Scott. Republicans do not have the moral authority to lead the country. We have to name the authoritarianism approved by the GOP.
Edit to add:
DeSantis removed two elected state’s attorneys. This is happening in Blue counties. The most recently replaced attorney head an 18% decrease in crime in her district. DeSantis only wants toadies in office. Yo will not hear a peep from Republicans.
I'm okay teaching the 1619 project in advanced high school and college classes if it is done along with other approaches, but my impression is that many supporters of the 1619 project want conservative or traditional perspectives suppressed as being "racist" or "White Supremacist". I'm also okay with students being taught something about Nat Turner's insurrection, though it seems to me that it was hopelessly suicidal.
Monty calls PragerU a "far right-wing cult". I'm not an expert on PragerU, but I have read some of Dennis Prager's writings on the Internet and did not find them far right-wing from my perspective. I note that Dennis Prager (founder of PragerU) is Jewish and grew up in New York City, according to Wikipedia.
I have nothing against Jews. I admire Minister Louis Farrakhan for his "balls", but not his anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Historically Black Colleges/Universities helped to rescue Jewish Scholars before and during WWII, and a number were employed at these institutions. However, the relationship between Jews and blacks has changed since then.
Jews, for the most part, have become more wealthier, more powerful, and more conservative. Let a black news pundit talk about the Palestinians being oppressed and killed by Israeli Jews, and she or he is quickly out of a job. Even the Congressional Black Caucus is very intimidated by powerful Jews when they are in the presence of Minister Louis Farrakhan. That's pathetic. But, Law Professor Amy Wax hanging around with white separatist Jered Taylor and inviting him to her classes isn't a major problem. Lol!
I dated a Jewish woman over a decade ago and ran around with Jews in Los Angeles. I don't remember any advocating for PragerU or extreme right-wing policies. There was one Jew I met online that called me a n*gg*r because I made negative comments about Donald Trump. He has 2 black biracial grandkids. Furthermore, one of his liberal Jewish friends tried to cover him.
I recently ordered and received a book from Amazon, called "The Unspoken Alliance (Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa)" written by Sasha Polalow-Suransky. I haven't started reading it yet, but browsing through it raised my eyebrows.
I've traveled to South Africa twice. The white population continues to own most of the land and wealth. Most of the blacks live in dilapidated shacks with some eating rats to survive.
Israel admitted to using a drug to sterilize female Ethiopian Jews to preserve the white Jewish race and culture. Israel has also deported many African refugees via camps.
The current corrupt Jewish prime Minister of Israel is trying to become a dictator by reducing the power of the Israeli Supreme Court.
This fall, I will be traveling through Israel, Suez Canal, Turkey, Egypt, Oman, Dubai, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
We disagree about Prager U. I do not want my children exposed to their bias. If Prager U is allowed in middle school, there is no rationale to black 1619. The solution is to block Prager U from aces to middle schools.
PragerU is a far right-wing cult.
Conservatives know that. They think we are stupid and know nothing about Dennis Prager. They whine about Hannah-Nikole Jones but will praise Dennis Prager. As I said, the only way to address the situation is to vote every Conservative that you can out of office. They will never seek compromise.
Edit to add:
They will sit back and pretend nothing is happening as Conservatives attempt a coup.
Here is the Lost Cause education that Florida students will receive via Prager U
This is their lesson on Frederick Douglass
Conservatives will cheer
https://twitter.com/davidhth/status/1688623282096926720?s=57&t=l8XxLtAy7PR0pMVSwGllUQ
Your twitter reference contains about one minute of a Prager U cartoon aimed at 3rd to 5th graders. I have some issues with it, but I don't think the full cartoon (which is 7 and a half minutes long) is so terrible. The views attributed to Douglass sound to me very much like those of Abraham Lincoln as expressed in his Cooper Union speech. Here is the link to the full version: https://www.prageru.com/video/leo-and-laylas-history-adventures-with-frederick-douglass
Sigh
Thankfully, we live in different worlds. The video is about Frederick Douglass but opens with mention of stating things on f fire. Why?
Next we hear that math class is being used to discuss social issues. This has no revelance when it comes to Frederick Douglass.
Then comes the statement that the United States was the first country to work on abolishing slavery. This is a bald-faced lie.
The argument is that Garrison wants to set things on fire. He burned a copy of the Constitution as a stunt. The children say “We have those types in our time”
The video makes a mockery of Frederick Douglass. This is a political ad. If it is ever brought to a schoolroom, it should be challenged.
Here is the link to the standards, which everyone who has an opinion should read for themselves.
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf
I ran this by a distinguished black historian who is a friend. It was a private communication, so I am not stating his name, but he knows his African American history better than almost anybody. While he thought the offending phrase could have been a bit better worded, he basically agreed with Glenn's remarks at the beginning of this post. Beyond that, he thought it was a surprisingly broad section on African American history. Far more than he was taught in the 60s or his children were taught in the 80s. Unlike most commentators in the press, he looked at the rest of the history curriculum as well and was pleased to see that it works to infuse black history into every other part of the curriculum too.
Here is ow Prager U will teach Frederick Douglass
https://twitter.com/davidhth/status/1688623282096926720?s=57&t=l8XxLtAy7PR0pMVSwGllUQ
The guidelines are simply words
Of course you are right, guidelines are only helpful if they are actually followed carefully, but it still matters that the guidelines themselves are quite good. It matters that some committee in Florida who drew them up (which did not, I am sure, include De Santos), actually came up with some good guidelines for teaching African American history. In Florida! You'd think progressives would be happy about that. At least some teachers will follow them, they are not irrelevant. And it also matters because this focus on one clause has been overblown by the press, causing more fear and confusion than is warranted, simply because it is Big Bad Republican Florida. My friend, a black historian, could find no issue at all, even with the offending phrase. If you haven't, I hope you take the time to look through them yourself, you may be surprised.
I have looked through the guidelines. I posted a Prager U video regarding Frederick Douglass. The video is trash. The words in the guidelines are meaningless given the content that will be presented in some classrooms. The fact that DeSantis supports the guidelines is important given his history.
If you take my favorite meal crafted by my favorite chef and serve it to me on a foul smelling garbage can top, it is garbage. There is no reason to trust the department of education in Florida. I will repeat again, when the department gave examples of the people who benefited from slavery, they demonstrated complete ignorance.
You seem to be knowledgeable about this history and also perhaps the politics. I can understand your cynicism and mistrust of De Santos and the Department of Education in Florida. I haven't really followed it much honestly, I just looked into it because it seemed that the media such as NYT and NPR and MSNBC were inaccurately reporting on this one phrase, blowing it all out of proportion, and NOT reporting on the rest of the document which from all accounts I have seen is surprisingly excellent. THAT'S the piece I am interested in, how the media across the spectrum contribute to confusion and polarization and don't help us actually solve our problems. It's just more us vs. them, endlessly, ad nauseum. I would have preferred they just said, "You can't trust Florida, no matter how good it looks!" Instead, they picked up on one phrase that could possibly be construed by some to imply that slavery had a silver lining or was "good." (I do not think it implies that, but assuming good faith, some people do think so.) Of course, there is painful history and a sensitivity there as I am sure you know, probably more than I do. During and since slavery pundits have tried to argue that slavery was good for the enslaved. That was one of its foundational moral justifications! Anything that even implies that idea is not only truly messed up, but is likely to cause an over-response by some, especially African Americans and others who see things through an "antiracism" lens.
What I hear you saying is that you do not believe it matters what the standards say, you do not trust their proper implementation because of the track record you have witnessed (including the video you shared). We will simply have to see how it plays out to know. I stand by my comments that it is still a good and important thing that the standards were, overall, well written and that it does matter. People in the Florida Department of Education did that, so I think that is meaningful. If the standards are not met, the schools can be challenged, there is a potential pathway to hold them accountable. I hope people do so.
As a life-long liberal, I have cynicism and mistrust of many institutions these days, including ones in liberal states like mine. I am not on any side anymore. It's a mess when none of us trust our institutions, and when it is difficult even to agree on basic tenets of reality.
We agree to disagree. I think Florida will scam the parents and students.
I am a Democrat by default. Republicans make clear that they are no friends to the Black community. Democratic legislators have many faults but they all pale in comparison to a party led by a bigoted conman who tried to stage a coup. I also see a party that is actively suppressing votes in Black communities across the country. I now see them participating in an effort to miseducate our children. Republicans are not worthy of my trust.
The Prager U video slanders Frederick Douglas. Douglass felt that the words of the Constitution made the overall document an anti slavery document. Amendments were needed to achieve that goal. What I find laughable is someone using that sentiment while supporting the disgusting Prager University video. My hope is when the Florida department of education implements its programs the higher ups in the department will show their true colors and a legal case can be made.
There are multiple books about the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln, among them
Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass: The Story Behind an American Friendship
The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics
The Hammer and the Anvil: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the End of Slavery in America
The Prager U video is a slap in the face. BTW William Lloyd Garrision supported Lincoln in fact Garrison published a defense of Lincoln in the Liberator. The Prager U video slander’ the full essence of Garrison
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/defense-of-lincoln/
Aside from Douglass's several speeches discussing the Constitution, which he did refer to as a "glorious liberty document," even as he recognized the flaws of those who had been interpreting it, I also recommend his long, nuanced and complex oration on Lincoln at the unveiling of the Freedman's Monument in 1876. Douglass went from powerfully criticizing Lincoln to deeply admiring him, and all sides of his views come through in that oration. Plus, his powerful sense of love for what America was becoming and for its potential, even while seeing clearly its failings and backsliding. His anger and his love of country were perfectly fused. Something utterly lacking in the sour, ungrateful, cheap anti-Americanism inspiring today's woke warriors.
Please stop. Douglass would compare the current authoritarians to the Confederates.
When DeSantis changes, I may develop respect for him.
Perhaps it is you who should please stop. I note in your response to Elizabeth above here, you basically confirm the point about Douglass and the Constitution made by the Prager U video while continuing to trash it. You also confirm my points about Douglass and Lincoln by listing the books you refer to, while stilll continuing a posture of outraged indignation. About what is getting a bit harder to see.
I am so impressed with the complexity of your response compared to the Hillsdale video.
Lots of very good comments here. But a few from people with very big chips on their shoulders. So big the weight is dragging them down. I haven't noticed that in Glenn's comments sections before. I don't always look in, so maybe it's more common than I thought. If so, it's too bad.
Agreed on all counts. Admittedly, this is a difficult subject, but seems to me that Glenn has covered similarly difficult subjects before. In any case, I also have not previously noticed quite as much sniping. #Shrugs
Dr Cherry points us to the work of an economist who tells us that the diet of the slave exceeded the daily dietary requirements of 1964. We contrast that with the statement by Frederick Douglass that under was his child hood companion. We also look at the condition of the slaves described in many slave narratives. When we look for other sources for diets of enslaved people, we find that the diets were monstrous.
https://www.sciway.net/afam/slavery/food.html#:~:text=We%20know%20today%20that%20active,by%20his%20ration%20of%20corn.
We do not give Conservatives the moral authority to say that we trust their every utterance. Finding flaws in the curriculum proposed by DeSantis is a natural human reaction. Questioning sources provided by a Conservative is also a natural human reaction.
Sorry - it's "Be nice".
Kipp dropping "Work hard. Be kind." is the saddest thing I've read in a long time.
At the risk of talking out of school, I will post BEFORE I read the full article. I contend that this statement... “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” is NOT problematic. That is a fact. (It might be inelegant in its construction. It might insult our sensibilities, given how we *feel* about slavery. Those are beside the point.) Hell, it is a fact the slavers often took slaves from Africa because of their skills. The slaves then applied those skills and could have, in fact, sold them in a market-based system. That does not mean that chattel slavery was a jobs program! That does not mean that chattel slavery was a good thing. That does not mean that the lives of these skilled laborers were improved by them being kidnapped and brought to America. Both can be true, i.e., they could learn things that were applicable outside of the slavery paradigm AND they could be victims of horrible, systematic racism-based brutality. I hope I conveyed the appropriate nuance. I am relatively certain, however, that either way, I will be "reeducated" by other posters. I look forward to it! If I feel differently after reading the piece, I reserve the right to amend my views!
Wilster,
Cool to see you again, man. You have more or less encapsulated my thoughts on this issue with the exception of one MAJOR piece: At what AGE do we (or should we) introduce this kind of nuance and detail into a kid's education?
I wrestle with that.
I think this curriculum is meant for middle school and high school, right? i.e., 11- and 12-year-olds, possibly? Is that a good age to talk about slavery in that way? If so, why not be as clear with respect to sexual assault and family separation practices during slavery? (Apparently the curriculum treats those last two more parenthetically.)
I submit Germany during WWII--The Nazi's:
A lot of technological advancements were born out of this shameful moment in history. Should we hide that fact from kids? I don't think so. But at what age should we insert that discussion? Should we put it in the *guidelines*?
These are not simple questions to me. (We're talking PUBLIC schools.)
As we grow into adulthood, no subject is off-limits in terms of Q&A as far as I am concerned, regardless of how we feel. But obviously, kids are not adults.
Charles, appreciate the kind words! There are a ton of things with which to "wrestle" as we examine this issue. I had not considered the age question, although I agree with your observation regarding the difficulty in properly timing discussions of complex subjects. TBH, I have no clue. I default to the "just offer all the facts and let the listeners sort it out" point of view.
At the obvious risk of breaking (unwritten) Internet and substack rules, I will still reply to my own post. I read the piece. This quote is instructive, "Presenting positive images of individuals effectively responding to inhumane circumstances is uplifting and no way undercuts recognition of those adversities." Exactly the point I attempted to make, albeit delivered amid much more nuanced and elegant, expository, prose. Spoiler Alert: Thrilled to agree with Robert Cherry, I am. Guess I won't have to amend my views after all, despite the fact that I apparently need some rest.
The people who really benefited from enslavement of Black people were white people. Teaching that Blacks benefited is just Lost Cause. Slavery was wrong, internment camps were wrong. Once you include benefits followed by benefits received by people who were never enslaved you lose trust that you can educate children. Florida colleges and universities will face difficulties attracting faculty as a result of having a slipshod public school system.
Please find and read the whole document. It is 216 pages of which I think the first 23 address what to teach about the black experience in America. It reads like a progressive's dream and does not minimize the harm of slavery.
The reason that one passage was lifted out of the document by people is it was the only one that could be weaponized to support the assertion that Florida's standards (and by extension, Republicans) are racist.
Investigate rather than believing what polarizers are telling you. Use your own judgement.
I would provide a link but I'm on my phone and too difficult to hunt it down, but it's not hard to find.
Don't with the narrative, the Progressives aren't interested in alternative thinking. If you doubt, observe how they treat those who leave the plantation.
I can quote Scott, Donalds, and Hurd on the Republican plantation.
Can you name a Black Democrat who has been exiled?
Besides Justice Thomas and a host of others?
Can you translate to English?
The reason that people are suspicious is that it comes from Ron DeSantis’ department of education. DeSantis battled AP African-American history and supports book bans. The benefits could be weaponized because it is nonsense. I will point out again that when asked to provide names of those who benefited, the department of education broadcast its ignorance.
DeSantis put Christopher Rufo on a college board. One of the people put on his advisory board for the curriculum gave a sermon thanking God for slavery. Another supposed Black historian said Frederick Douglass learned to read in slavery. His Massa stopped Douglass from learning letters. His Mistress became angry at Douglass because her husband was angry with her. I’m supposed to trust these idiots to enforce an accurate curriculum?
Edit to add:
I read the PDF
Just words on paper when it comes to DeSantis
I’m disgusted by his treatment of Black Republicans
You are going to believe what you choose, no matter what the facts.
We will see what happens when school starts. When the curriculum is put into action we hopefully learn the facts. I am honest about my distrust of a DeSantis sanctioned education program.
That will be interesting to see what happens when students push back. Wouldn't come as any surprise if they are suspended or expelled.
Again, nuance. (Hell, I think I even said, "that does not mean slavery was a good thing.") Slavery was wrong. Agreed. Blacks were not improved by it. Agreed. However, it is still possible to develop skills, despite that mistreatment. The strongest people always find a way to maintain their dignity and leave with something. Viktor Frankl's lessons come to mind. That is all I am trying to say. More globally, I am tired of black people being viewed as never-ending victims, and maybe that is why this issue "hits different" for me. I also realize that teaching nuance in public schools might be an even bigger fool's errand than trying to convey it on substack.
I don’t care that you are tired.
Thank you for your intelligent commentary and concern.
Obviously, I am not concerned about you.
If you’re tired, get some rest
Dealing with forbidden topics is a bad idea? Perhaps the author should have mentioned black slave holders. Perhaps he should have traced the slave trade back to Africa where blacks traded other blacks for profit and revenge.
How is it a bad idea to marvel at the human capacity to rise above rotten circumstances and even thrive? What shallow, demeaning thinking we have to deal with. Worthy of noted Democrat Senator John C. Calhoun. Sad, really.
here is my overall concern , some of the arguments are not about redress and reform but about delegitimizing the american project and enlightenment values and slavery and racism are an excellent cudgel to do it.
I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.
To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
Blacks were operating in a white supremacy system. As you noted, some Blacks bought family members. Have you read Black Slaveowners by Larry Kroger?
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Black_Slaveowners/v3KNAwAAQBAJ?hl=en
It was no more white supremist than when blacks in Africa held slaves or when Muslims held slaves or when Chinese held slaves or when Slavs were slaves. It has been a regrettable part of the human condition since the beginning. The path forward does not lie through victimhood.
Chattel slavery exploded in the Age of Colonialism. It was a white supremacy thing.
Yes, it was so much better to be castrated, forced to march hundreds of miles to the coasts of East Africa or across the Sahara to be sold as a eunuch to some prince in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages. Or to be one of the black slaves working the salt marshes in what is today southern Iraq during the time of the great Zanj uprising there in the 800s. Put down after 13 years of resistance - but not by a single "white person" I might add.
Really, give it up with the neo-racist lingo of the day "White" this "White" that. It is truly ridiculous.
Lost Cause revisionist nonsense. Slavery in the United States was based on a white superiority ideal that still reverberates today. Chattel slavery was essentially a European creation when considered on a worldwide basis. From an economic standpoint a castrated enslaved Black male would have less monetary value because he could not reproduce free labor. The enslaved would not have to pay an external source for a laborer.
Was the Zanj uprising the "Lost Cause" you had in mind here? Or is that just an uncontrollable tic of yours you have to give out just to get rev'd up? I notice you use the term almost every time. As to those castrated boys, that was often done on the way to the slave markets. A large percentage of the boys to whom it was done died. Yet the eunuchs who survived were still valuable enough to make the trade worth it to someone. I guess "monetary value" was in the eye of the beholder.
Have you read this?
https://youngtorless.substack.com/p/bearing-witness-to-black-sanctity
I read the article you cite and found much to agree with. I'm old enough to remember the last years of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the early 1960's. In my view, many people (especially blacks) made a tragic mistake when they embraced Black Power and various neo-Marxist ideas beginning in the mid-1960's. Aside from a few leaders, the Black community continues to pay a terrible price for that mistake, along with the nation as a whole.
Thanks for the affirmation.
I just read this post yesterday, and it was "Deja Vue all over again." It contains an immense amount of rational observation. I see it as pretty much a roadmap of how we got from the 60s to where we are now.
https://youngtorless.substack.com/p/bearing-witness-to-black-sanctity
I’ll take a look tonight
Quick question
SCOTUS order the white Republican legislators in Alabama to draw a second district for Black voters.
Is the argument being made that Alabama districts should not factor in race