Advocates say new Florida standards require slavery to be taught as 'beneficial'
Advocates say new Florida standards require slavery to be taught as 'beneficial'
The Florida Board of Education approved a new set of standards for teaching African American history in the state.
The Florida Board of Education approved a new set of standards for teaching African American history in the state.
It was beneficial without a doubt - to the inhumane owners of the slaves - to the dehumanized slaves themselves - obviously not so much.
Seriously WTF?! The fascism creep in the US is getting serious.
Was getting serious a few years ago, it's past that now. We're to the point now where we could actually theoretically fall. We're being generally outmaneuvered, as we're mostly being modern and democratic, and they perceive themselves as fighting a war.
In a war, you do what you have to do to win, the normal rules no longer apply. Even human rights are irrelevant if your war can remake a world without them.
I see it as the last hurrah of the past. If they don't stop the world now, fascism might be dead forever in western history. This is the last chance they may ever get to truly create the world that they want to see. Otherwise economic, technological and educational factors will deprive them of even the opportunity eventually.
Make no mistake, the goal for many is some kind of WW3. A significant portion lean towards a doomsday cult. They look to things like global warming and they see the second coming. They are not interested in concerns about disaster whatsoever, if anyone hasn't noticed yet.
It's cyclical, so I don't think this is the last hurrah of fascism.
Additionally, when everyone has a phone in their pocket with access to confirmation bias, it was inevitable that this would be the result. Social media has amplified echo chambers to levels never seen before, and it's made even worse by the fact that those social media sites use algorithms to keep users engaged as much as possible for increased ad exposure. Unfortunately, those algorithms will show you inflammatory content, as that's been shown to grab users' attention the most: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024292118
However, social media may be creating perverse incentives for divisive content because this content is particularly likely to go “viral.” We report evidence that posts about political opponents are substantially more likely to be shared on social media and that this out-group effect is much stronger than other established predictors of social media sharing, such as emotional language. These findings contribute to scholarly debates about the role of social media in political polarization and can inform solutions for creating healthier social media environments.
We have seen this unfold in virtually real time over the last decade or so. The result is an ever more divided and radicalized society that becomes more and more exploitable by populists.
Faschism is to eventually win unless you do something to oppose it. There would always be ones who'd try to recover it for their own benefit. It requires conscious effort, education and empathy to not give in into that set of ideas, like it needs a decision to skip fastfood and go to the gym\walk but for society as a whole. It's unhealthy and causes cancer, but it always somewhere there.
I'm on the wrong side of the world here, but...
-
How can this happen with basic human rights, as a member of the UN.
-
Or isn't there something constitutional that this opposes?
-
Racism is heating up as fast as the planet
I'm pretty sure these people were always racist, they just found out there's a bunch of other people being quietly racist who will back up their shitty decisions and then they became more brazen.
From the people that gave us "we did a favor to the Japanese by nuking them", get ready for... "slavery benefited the slaves."
Not surprised at all.
Let's be perfectly clear: The US was destroying large Japanese cities and their occupants at the same scale as Hiroshima and Nagasaki for some time, just with less efficiency, and much of the Japanese populace was prepared to fight to the death with shovels and sticks.
I'm not saying that the atomic bombs were a good thing; I'm just pointing out that they weren't particularly worse than what the US was already doing, and prepared to continue doing. And that in the moment, a display of such offensive power could be argued to be a quicker way to end the war, and prevent having to do a ground invasion of the home islands. With today's hindsight, we can definitely see clearly the other local and global repercussions of nuclear weapons, which makes the US having used them carry many different connotations.
But that's likely not even the whole reason nuclear bombs were used in 1945. The USSR were only grudingly allied with the US, because they needed help early on in the European theater. Well before the bombs were dropped, the Soviets had ramped up their military strength and were running roughshod over eastern Europe. Germany had already surrendered, and USSR looked towards the east, taking over Manchuria and Korea, with the Korean peninsula split at the 38th parallel at Potsdam, before the Korean War.
The US wanted to use the bomb as a deterrent to the Soviets, and using atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 accomplished that goal, as well as reducing the expense and risk to US military forces already at war, without increasing the effects on the ground very much. Japan's surrender had plenty to do with making the decision on who to surrender to, with the preference being the US and not the USSR. But Japan did not want to surrender unconditionally, they wanted to ensure that the Imperial government could do so while saving face, and probably while not also being imprisoned or killed. It's likely that Japan would have surrendered with or without any atomic bombs, certainly without the second one.
But the US needed to demonstrate to the world, particularly to Stalin, that they could build as many atomic bombs as they wanted, and that came from dropping a second one in quick succession after the first.
The Florida Department of Education says the new standards don’t teach that slavery was beneficial.
However, one of the benchmarks (SS.68.AA.2.3) states students will be taught, “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”
Either this is some very unfortunate phrasing for establishing that people like Phillis Wheatley are required material (and even then it was less ‘thanks to’ and more ‘in spite of’) or something more nefarious is afoot.
Don't think I need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the answer to that question
Sorry, why are we giving florida right wingers the benefit of the doubt? In full context this is obviously nefarious.
Devils advocate: it was beneficial to white slave owners.
You could make that argument. Florida Republicans are teaching children that the slaves benefited personally because they learned skills they could use.
Capitalism works best when it consumes labor for free...
...so, maybe it's time we got a new economic system.
Yeah I live here & had the unfortunate opportunity to hear the Dept of Ed try to spin this in an interview. Their spokesperson said, to paraphrase, that "No, of course not. These standards are evenhanded and show the good and the bad from an objective perspective."
Of who? I am just so sad - my oldest kids made it though during the brief shining period of good education in my county, but I have one with a couple of years left, who is seeing it plunge back into the bullshit 'education' that was what I suffered through. Just butts in seats, indoctrinate don't educate, that might lead to thinking.
Just saw that state off and shove it into the ocean. It'll only get worse.
Well it did technically benefit certain people.