Evaluating Florida's History Teaching Curriculum
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- If you wish to support my work please consider checking out my Patreon
/ themetatron
Slavery has been practiced in various forms throughout much of human history. Here is an overview of slavery in different periods and societies:
Ancient Slavery:
Slavery was common in ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
People were enslaved through conquest, piracy, and debt. Slaves labored in households, agriculture, mining, and crafts.
Slavery was often based on ethnicity, with foreigners more likely to be enslaved. However, people could also sell themselves or their family into slavery.
The curriculum is a crucial component of the education system, as it outlines the knowledge, skills, and values that students are expected to learn at each grade level. Here are some key reasons why having a well-designed and appropriate curriculum is essential:
Providing a structured learning pathway: A clear and logical curriculum ensures that students acquire knowledge and skills in a systematic, age-appropriate manner. It helps to avoid gaps or redundancies in learning.
Ensuring consistency across schools: A standardized curriculum ensures that all students, regardless of their school or location, receive a similar quality of education and are held to the same learning standards.
Preparing students for future challenges: A comprehensive curriculum equips students with the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed in higher education, careers, and adult life. It should cover a broad range of subjects and competencies.
Promoting critical thinking and problem-solving: A well-designed curriculum encourages students to actively engage with the material, ask questions, and develop critical thinking and problem-solving abilities that are essential for success in the modern world.
Reflecting societal values and priorities: Curriculum choices reflect the knowledge, skills, and values that a society deems important. It can promote citizenship, social responsibility, and an appreciation for diversity.
Facilitating assessment and accountability: A clear curriculum provides a framework for assessing student learning and holding schools and educators accountable for student achievement.
However, it's important to note that curriculum design can be complex and controversial. There are ongoing debates about what content should be included, how it should be taught, and how to balance different priorities like standardized testing vs. teacher autonomy, or STEM skills vs. arts and humanities.
Curriculum development should involve input from diverse stakeholders, be based on research and best practices, allow for some local flexibility, and be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure relevance. An overly rigid or narrow curriculum can limit student engagement and learning. The goal should be a curriculum framework that provides clear expectations while still allowing for teacher and student creativity.
#history #debunking #mythbusting
If you wish to support my work please consider checking out my Patreon
www.patreon.com/themetatron
I'd just say God can make good come out of the even worst situations. This includes this video's topic.
It doesn't mean that these things God makes good out of are good in and of themselves.
Ok, now this is an awesome topic! Thank you and once again - sorry that I was do blunt last time.
Hello noble one i have a question do you know the Manga ad Astra scipio to hannibal? Its a Manga about the Second punics wars and IT IS incredible in my opinion i would really Like to hear what you think about that Manga since from i have seen IT IS pretty historically accurate
I live in Florida and remember this. This bill was a long string of bills combating the lefts point of view how education should be done (CRT, discussions on sex, removal of some questionable books, ect.). The left (mainly the far left and those politicians that have adopted it) would twist it to garner emotional outburst from the emotionally ruled in our country. What made this topic even more pretentious is that a college that Harris supports and respects literally has this same message in their historical courses on slavery or courses that touch the subject.
What Harris had a problem with (like most of American politicians) is the other side said it.
personally I'm in the "History should be taught based on the facts that we know from the direct sources". So in this case, yes slaves did learn a skill that they might not have learned if they never were slaves. That doesn't mean slavery was good. You can learn something useful from a bad situation. We as humans do it all the time in day to day life.
Slavery has not and will not ever end. Anyone who claims that we no longer allow it, let alone don’t still promote it, is ignorant. Human slave trading happens everyday and just because factories replaced fields, changes nothing. Worst of all, Harris can be accused of slavery while she was a California District Attorney.
I took “American History with an African American emphasis: 1776-Reconstruction” in college and it wasn’t controversial to recognize that in the Antebellum south, freedmen used the skills they’d developed as Slavs to try and provide for themselves and their families. If you were a cobbler, farmer, or handyman on the plantation, then you had a useful skill that could now make YOU money instead of your owner.
This is now and has been an incredibly uncontroversial thing to acknowledge and my professor, who was the direct descendent of a Buffalo Soldier, almost held it as a point of pride that freedmen didn’t just wait for handouts and used their skills to rise above their trauma and endure against all odds.
It's the same low-key racist undertones of the extreme left.
" Black people thriving despite the greatest adversity? Nah they are only weak victims. Always have been and always will be."
And he should be proud! What wonderful professor he must've been!
I mean, it's really a matter of framing, more than anything else. Yes, doing any kind of work means learning some skill at that work and being able to use those skills later, meaning freedmen had at least a bit of perspective in that regard.
The problem arises when you allow it to be used or interpreted in a way that would excuse slavery in a "It wasn't that bad because at least they learned something useful" kind of way.
There are people who would try to use this fact to argue that African Americans were better off enslaved because of those skills.
except, slaves were never freed unless they ran away to the north.
Notice how you said "make you money instead of your owner". Do you not know how slavery works, they do not actually own anything. Those skills were not positive at all since they were only learned to preserve ones life so that they wouldn't be sold off or killed. If I made you work in my backyard at gunpoint and exclaimed "at least he learned crop rotation/blacksmithing" than I don't think many people would take kindly to that.
The major point is that if a slave was taught a lucrative skill it was to benefit his/her owner and his/her pocket. It was not meant to benefit the slave; the owner fully determined to exploit that slave to the end of her/his life.
Depending on the owner (and some but not most were cruel and stupid) a skilled slave lived a better life: Interesting employment, more freedom and independence, the ability to "hire out" and earn income and perhaps even buy their freedom, high status and value, better treatment.
@@windycityliz7711 Still does not justify the institution of slavery. Everything that happens will be transactional and heavily favoring the owner; he can take the slave and put him back into the fields whenever he wants. The slave has no guarantee of anything. He can't get a legal contract as a slave. He can't be assured his wife or children will not be sold if the owner needs quick cash. Just because the owner may not be the stereotypical mustache-twirling cartoon villain does not excuse him or her of owning another human being and have total, life and death control.
@@coltaine503 Your correct about a human owning another being wrong, so correct as a matter of fact that we can acknowledge that some slaves were created very humanely without in anyway justifying it.
I would like the make the point that slavery still exists today in the form of human trafficking, rather then worrying about arguments no one is making about past slavery, maybe we could push the message of slavery is wrong to fight current slavery.
@@viperstriker4728 👍Absolutely. The past is the past and it is important to know and understand it, but you are correct. Modern day slavery is a very real and awful smear on the present day.
@@coltaine503 Who is trying to justify slavery, at least in North America? You might find that in the open air markets of Northern Africa, or perhaps India or Asia, but not here.
That not all slaves were just farm laborers, but some did blacksmithing, carpentry, or other construction work. Then there was “women’s work”, dressmaking, cooking and such.
If I remember the Florida education standards, that section was written by a Black history professor. That most skilled labor in the South was done by slaves was a fact, which does not excuse slavery.
History should be taught, good, bad and ugly
I feel like postmodern neomarxists should also point out that slavery being morally wrong is a belief derived from Christianity, and they used their colonial power to impose it on Africa and the middle east. Therefore by their logic maybe we shouldn't be so quick to say slavery is evil, maybe we need to stop exporting our evil colonial values?
And what's the matter of this if you didn't get any paycheck for your work
@@ravanpee1325 If I recall correctly, the curriculum section was on early Reconstruction, just after the Civil War. It was about what skills freedmen had.
@@tomhalla426 exactly. It is a simple fact that most freed people continued in the line of work they were slaved to.
I don't understand some of the comments. The topic clearly asks the question if they learned skills and did not say slavery was good! That's a gigantic difference!
Far leftists have selective hearing and eyesight when facts are involved.
The title changed.
@@bigguy7353 Dude, you're wearing your delusions on your sleeve. Facts are an alien concept to you and if you even encountered one in that echo chamber you get your news from you'd want it deported.
@@c0mpu73rguyThe title did change.
Part of the "Lost Cause" mythology surrounding the Civil War is the claim that Africans were better off after being enslaved. If you can only teach kids one academic unit on slavery, it is potentially suspicious that you would go out of your way to point out that some slaves learned skills as that is one of the benefits sited by lost cause mythologizers.
And honestly, calling cotton picking or cane harvesting a skill is stretching it. My first job was harvesting various veggies. It took me all of an hour to learn each task. The only notable aspect of picking is that it was hot and laborious.
From what I understood from articles investigating this controversy, this item in the curriculum was included by African American historians as a way to forestall the potential idea that the freed people were helpless, incompetent, etc.
Metatron is right: the message taught is the real question.
You got only part of the story. It is also supported as a story to try to excuse slavery. Like a lot of stuff, it cuts both ways. Take a look at who is pushing it. You will see that it is generally not historians but rather politicians with something to gain.
@@kensmith5694I don't really get that idea from this. It's a really big stretch to call this "justifying slavery". And I am really doubtful some uncle toms were called to put it in a curriculum. It's clear the intent is to alleviate and improve race relations
That is a strawman. The only people who think that way are the types of scum who already thought slavery was good.
@@A.Froster DeSantis is a white guy. He is pushing the idea.
If you look at those pushing the idea you will find the other parts of the story
Look it up…one of the men who wrote the curriculum was a descendant of slavery and because of what his family went through HE pushed for this curriculum. It’s all political. The curriculum is short and so is the bill…go read it and not just what the news cover.
We should never be afraid to discuss a topic. To cave in to " political correctness" is intellectual cowardice.
Exactly. The best way to move past atrocities and not repeat them is to learn about them, fearlessly, even if it's uncomfortable. This used to be a common principle that both sides agreed on.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 They still agree but the third one does not.
PC is a disease
But it's kind of an irrelevant point - and cherry picking - within the grander narrative. It's like extolling the weight-loss benefits of Aushwitz.
@@cipherstormwolf14 well the 2nd one that enabled the 3rd one bears some responsibility too. There's a reason there's such a prominent rise in left wing extremism and not on the right, because the moderate right stands on principle, and doesn't run cover for the far right because it's politically advantageous.
Who is here before Metatron was dragged through the internet by people who couldn't wait 10 minutes to watch a video
yup
His genius attracted my attention beforehand.
I mean, the OG title was crazy.
@@SDArgo_FoC What was the original title?
@@Yourmomssneakylink “why slavery was good”, I’m paraphrasing. I saw it like 30 secs after it was posted. I don’t know when he changed it to the more nuanced and specific title.
I'm just pointing out that the entire world hasn't realized that slavery is bad. Slavery is still happening now in 2024.
I think they know it's bad, they just don't give a shit. I was just discussing smoking with friends yesterday, they were saying how we didn't know it was bad for you until the 50s or 60s, I'm like bullshit, we always knew inhaling smoke was bad, probably for thousands of years. People just didn't give a shit, and tobacco companies had a lot of lobbying power. People weren't stupid, they noticed that smokers coughed a lot and had bad health. We didn't have to know about cancer treatment and all that to notice all the smokers dropping dead in their 40s and 50s.
Slavery is still sadly very much alive in Africa and The Middle East.
There are actually more slaves in 2024 than in 1800 , which goes to show that slavery is far from over in the 21st century.
@@lionandwolfboy8714and in many cases, their treatment is even worse than in the 1800s. The same people who screech about how terrible it was, as though they're the only ones who think it's bad, are the people who turn a blind eye to modern slavery. Because white people bad, brown people good.
So actual slavery happening now is more important than stuff that ended 170 years ago. Check.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231All smokers aren't heavy, pack a day smokers. No smokers I know constantly cough and have bad health. They certainly weren't and aren't "dropping dead". You believe some myths as well, it appears.
Once, I was commenting on some video on history about devshirme - practice used by Ottomans, where they would kidnap Christian children from conquered Balkan people. I said that was terrifying, to be taken away from your family, raised to become a soldier and possibly fight your own people. And someone replyed that it wasn't that bad, because those children could recive education and have a good life.
Imma bring up jannisarries next time I talk to a lost causer or someone of the like
Slavery transcends race. Before the 13th Amendment, more than 12,000 slaves were owned by around 3,000 Black slave owners. The Mali and Carthage civilizations, two of the most powerful empires in African history, grew powerful through the use and sale of slaves. The Aztecs were notorious for sacrificing tens of thousands of slaves every year. In nearly every single civilization, you can find countless examples of slavery perpetuated by every race.
Almost as if it's a perfectly normal (though no longer useful) thing that humans do.
Also the ex slaves that we sent to Liberia immediately enslaved the locals.
This is true but slavery was different and some forms of it worse. Chattel slavery is particularly disgusting in that it damns your children and grandchildren to the same fate. A lot of historical slavery was something because of your own fate, being on the losing side of a war, having a debt, etc and not just...being a certain skin color or race.
you'll never hear that black people sold their own people into slavery and still exists today in their countries by BLACK people.
In the United States, slavery was heavily based on race and was hereditary with some exceptions. States passed laws that specifically targeted to restrict African American literacy, suffrage, and ownership.
And all of the Articles of Secession of the seceding States include the preservation of the status of Black Americans being subservient to White Americans.
Texas declaration of secession: "She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Yes in context of the world, slavery has been done to lots of different people, but in this context, we're talking about a country that became a economic powerhouse off the back of a race-based chattle slave system.
*🗣️📢 I AM A BLACK MAN* and I haven't listened to the first sentence of the video as yet which will be my next step...outrage before the context wont make sense, but I also always questioned why some people act as if slavery was an experience exclusive to the black race of people alone and only to the ancestors of African Americans.
It’s because they are talking about American history why would you talk about slavery in New Zealand or China when talking about slavery in America
@@Pouncealot2023Because as it currently stands, American history isn't taught for the sake of learning; it's taught as a shaming ritual for white people. Adding global context would blunt that, and the powers that be won't have it.
@@Pouncealot2023white people were slaves in America aswell, what are you on about?
Because they are not as educated as they think they are. They haven't been taught these things so that they can be useful idiots.
@@HPLovesCraftsCat indentured servitude while might be considered slavery isn’t the same as chattel slavery. At the end of their contract the Irish were free but under chattel slavery all their posterity were considered slaves
It seems to me that it speaks well of those forced into slavery, making the best of a horrible situation, demonstrating the best of the Human Condition, rising above their oppression. There's no honor or goodness to be attributed to those who enslaved them or taught them, only admiration for the slaves who learned and trained.
The far-left wants everyone a victim in perpetuity.
Idk if I'd agree with that last part. People seem to have the idea that these were cartoon villians who beat them for every misstep. It's ridiculous. And to say that a man like Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson lacked honor, who was not only a brilliant tactician, but built a church for the slaves, and taught them when he got nothing out of it is just ignorant.
And the same people who act like it's taboo to even discuss this will also try to tell you about all the "good things" brought about by comm you nism. Even though all of those things are either outright lies, or can be done much more effectively with other systems.
@@chase6579 "Stonewall" Jackson was a traitor who fought to keep slavery in the United States. There is nothing cartoonish about the misery slaves went through. It's true slaves were allowed to go to church because the bible justified slavery.
@@chase6579 The point is, none of this excuses treating human beings as property.
Sure, you'll find slave owners whose only ethical failings we know of are their ownership of slaves, but that doesn't mean that they should be lauded for not brutalizing their workforce. They still chose to own workers rather than employ them.
Besides, any slavekeeper who taught their slave valuable skills did so to make the slave a more valuable worker, not to help the slave.
The idea that slaves DIDN'T learn skills they could later use for their own benefit is actually more offensive than the idea that they did.
No it's not...whst would be best if the curriculum was honest and informed the students that slaves were brought here with skills...
that vast majority of those slaves never had a chance to use them to benefit, this was chattel slavery, that is for life from birth till death for generations unless you are freed by your owner! what good is learning to process cotton, tobacco, sugar, etc; if you never are free to use those skills for yourself?
@@Ace-sb4il
what about the ones born in America
Reading these comments are amazing, one would think that before their enslavement the africans spent all their time swinging from tree to tree eating bannanas. It doesn't appear to occur to anyone that they possessed any skills prior to enslavement such as iron smithing,cattle rearing, pottery,wood working etc. Perhaps if some of those commenting would learn something about African cultures they wouldn't come off sounding like idiots.
I was looking for your comment. Exactly, it is so dehumanizing to say the enslaved African have developed skills through their enslavement when they already had those skills. That is the reason why they were mass transported because the skills they had.
@@Mo-maaley I mean I read somewhere Africans had metal working and stuff almost as long as most Europeans, and some Northern Europeans (Germans) actually ended up late to the game on metal tools and weapons.
I'm not from Florida but I am from Texas, and from my experience on how slavery was taught, it depended on the teacher because while all of them condemned the practice, some most definitely tried sugarcoating it by saying stuff like "well slaves were expensive back then so a lot of the times they were treated well" or as you mentioned that they learned skills and therefore it wasn't "so bad." Again no one ever says that slavery was good, but there are some that try to downplay it as much as they can and act like it wasn't a big deal. But again this was just my experience. Not talking for the whole state, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was a big issue all across Texas and the South in general.
Year history textbooks in the South (especially pre civil rights) really downplayed (or avoided) the topic of slavery. I’ve seen a page from a southern textbook from the 50s that showed a southern white couple greeting well dressed slaves from Africa that travelled as passengers on what looked to be a cruise ship.
Well this one is definitely not going to be controversial at all...
Honestly it shouldn't be.
@@williamjenkins4913 Apparently the title was originally 'was slavery actually a good thing?' So yes, i can see it being controversial
@@FIoridaMilkManwhat do you mean ? Originally the title ? Are you part of his editing team ?
@@FIoridaMilkManand know it shouldn’t be . Why are internet people so soft ?
It's not controversial, it's completely pointless, the reddest of herrings for the clickiest of baits
No matter what you think this title is willddd☠️☠️☠️☠️
I thought the same thing!! 😂
I had to double check if I was just imagining it, 😂
it has to be clickbait, this is youtube, we all know the drill
My immediate thought lmao
Sure pissed off a lot of the usual suspects
They could learn skills, like a story on the Dutch Antilles, a man was sent to get carpenter education by his master. He eventually bought himself free and bought 2 slaves (a servant and a maid) himself and started a carpentry business. A story that those enslaved freed at times could become a master themselves.
And forget not the first slave owner in USA was a blck.
Wow, so he was able to become a small business owner and a carpenter!? And all it cost him was the loss of his civil liberties and human rights for years to decades!? What a bargain lol.
@@sevatarlives185 It had a good ROI for him, for he was able to take freedom from others as well. Btw, human rights is just a social construct from XXth century, and have a very bad name thanks to leftism.
@@sevatarlives185 ...... There was no such thing as civil rights back then. What are you talking about? People lived under monarchies or feudal lords and you did what you were told or you got either killed or exiled.
The entire IDEA of civil rights is extremely new. It's LESS than a hundred years old.
And back then... Living was hard! You worked or you died! People had to work all day every day to have food!
And well... Yeah often becoming an indentured servant would become a wast of improvement simply because you had a roof over your head and daily food while most people outside... didn't.
You are applying modern days convenience to a time where they simply do not apply.
No one gave up their civil rights... they didn't even exist in the first place. For anybody of any skin color.
If you're not the king, get bend.
@@sevatarlives185after african people sold him
The point that DeSantos was making was that African American slavery was good for black people - a Jim Crow era belief. This is not a both sides argument thing. We all know that a minority of slaves learned skills (this as well as broodmating are common in slave narratives including “Roots” and “12 yeas a salve”) but the is irrelevant to chattel slavery being evil. The political right in the US was very loud about making white people comfortable and not embarrassed about what their ancestors did. Thus white people are good always and the focus of American Slavery is on skills and when black people push back in all the ways you can predict it is labeled woke and thus means it is evil for these “upity” black folk (they use the N-word in private) to say.
There are anti-slavery whites. Why lump them with pro-slavery ones? Also, blacks were slaves because they were sold by their black owners. The first slave master american is black.
Why do you need slaves?
- To have them do work.
How can they work?
- By teaching them first the knowledge they need to do the work.
That is the facts.
A skilled workforce is massively more valuable than an unskilled one. This should be a no-brainer.
You have to train even a mule, to do nothing but pull a cart.
If you need a human for a work, you gonna need to teach it.
That's one of the foils of slavery, it wants the perks of freedom with captivity.
Most of the work slaves did in the USA wasn't, isn't and wouldn't be considered skilled labour.
It doesnt take a lot of skill to gather crops.
The point of teaching this is to justify slavery, not to make a good historical point. That's my only issue with it.
@@gathenhielm9977 and valstly freer.
@@bipolarminddroppings ok but thats not the point, you just made that up. There were slaves that learned skilled labor, some learned how to read and write which they used to write books. This made them money. Plus unskilled labor also requires you to learn some basic skills, like how to lift things properly (leverage).
slaves were blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, shoemakers, tanners, spinners, and weavers all existed. These are skills.
Ho boi, can't wait to see the percentage of rational to emotional 😅
he is dropping a nuke
Same, getting the popcorn 🍿
Because gaslighting regarding the horrors of Black Chattel slavery and how it actually "benefitted" it's victims is tottally a "rational" take ?
unskilled freedom is better than skilled slavery
That’s what I said so we agree
@@metatronyt--- Tell that to the "free" men who had to watch their babies die from starvation and pneumonia, had to listen to their wives wailing with their blue babies cradled in their arms, or themselves died in gutters after losing limbs in factories or being laid off when their employers replaced them with cheaper immigrant labor.
You two are clueless and brainwashed, you're trapped in an antiWhite narrative morality and libertarian ideology.
You need to discover Jason Kohne (@NoWhiteGuilt), his Go Free Method, and the White Wellbeing community!
#NoWhiteGuilt #GoFreeMethod #EndAntiWhiteismToday #GodBlessAmericaForever #ChristIsKingOfKings #InTheirTerrorAllWereAlike
Yes. Anyone who reads web Dubois up from slavery he explains that ex slaves had all the skills and a lot of slave owners didn’t have any skills from relying on slaves.
*booker t Washington
Yeah, but the problem with your little fantasy is black people still suffered long after and those white slave owners still coasted by.
Makes sense because they didn't do any work😂
@@lemonhead9628 true. And he explains that a lot of slaves took care of their former masters and repaid some of them 😂 crazy times. Slavery of the mind was more powerful than any chains
That was one of the reasons for segregation, because the white mob, and I quote, couldn't allow the black population to integrate into society, steal their jobs or worse, rise to the elite class. The Jews were already enough.
The US, and Europe as a whole, were no different from any other cultures that all at times practiced slavery. When it comes to transcontinental slave trade, the westerners came to it late, engaged on a smaller scale, and stopped early (also shed a lot of their own blood to stop it). And yet, when the topic of slavery comes up, no one wants to talk about the "eastern slave trade" or sub saharan slave trade, which was far greater in scale and duration, and still persists to this day. Thats not history, that's politics.
The idea of inheritance guilt is an asinine idea peddled by ideologues and simpletons, and sold to gullible people.
Why would they? If they're not talking about the system of slavery as it pertained to the rest of the world, then its not wrong to focus on one they're familiar with. When Americans are discussing slavery, it's about how it pertained to the U.S. Not many are proficient in discussing foreign slave trades. Granted, not all systems of slavery were equal in brutality, that part of your comment is agreeable. The current topic of slavery is bad enough, and comments like these do not supplement it
@@binnie2150 You're trying so hard to sound smart. Why don't you say, "pertained" a few more times?
And you're making excuses for people with pathetically narrow views of history. Fail
You actually read the bill? That makes you right wing, lol
Metatron really risking it with that title
Only if you are a 12 year old.. Lmfao.
@@JoshuaBuckley-d7hOr just stupid
Metatron's social media accounts didn't Epstein themselves.
the word slavery isnt nearly as loaded outside the us.
Did the title change or something? What did it say when you saw it?
Oh Lord...you're about to open up a can of worms.
Good. Worms dont belong in cans.
What, the truth?
The worms are the sophists who rewrite history and distort the truth to justify hatred and destruction of successful civilizations.
@@bigguy7353 A lot of people can't handle the truth.
Yeah but at least it'll be an honest discussion based on facts from his side.
Slavery still lives! Human trafficking is modern slavery which the only skill needed was being constantly available for SA.
My 5x great grand father arrived on this side of the Atlantic in the late1790's at the age of 8. He was taught to be a carpenter. He lived long enough to see abolition. So, how did he feel about slavery and the skills he received that allowed his kids to become educated? One went on to become a dentist, the other was a lawyer and one of his descendants became a high ranking government official. Well. As a highly skilled slave, he was an abolitionist. He was part of the protests in 1831 that resulted in the abolition of slavery in 1834. His actions earned him an honored place in front of a firing squad. His master arrived just in the nick of time to liberate him because by law, my grampy was his property and he didn't want his property to be merked....... Something tells me grampy didn't like being a slave....
I am with you 100%, being slave is bad. But aren't we all slaves of a system? Some people just have more options, some have less. Moreover, history is not about opinions on what is good and what is bad but about different processes.
@@VK-sz4it Well, no. Slaves are slaves to the system. The average person living in a modern western country is merely a subscriber to the system. Wanna change the system? Start a political movement. Wanna escape the system? Move to a place with a different one. Might not be easy, but at least your life is not at the mercy of a person who simply paid for the privilege of deciding your fait.
I wholeheartedly recommend moving away from that kind of rhetoric. Chattle slavery can in no way be compared to "being a slave to the system". One's not being recognized as a proper human. The other is going through an edgy phase at 14 and if you make that kind of comparison in the wrong environment, someone may realize their option to divorce your teeth from your jaws.
Bro could have got those skills without slavery though, don't make it sound positive my guy lol.
@@donaldtrumplover2254Agreed.
@@darthplagueis13 Yeah, that is rhetoric of 14 - 21 yolds. At some point you start discovering that standart narrative is very far from truth and you eithger move on with your life or become a looser (or philosopher). Thing is, for normal functioning we need to accept certain, most beneficial narrative (as you presented) and give little it little or no doubt later in life.
Why I mentioned "slave to the system" is because there is no single type of slavery. In some systems they have certain specific freedoms in others - other. I am sure, even nowdays people who are really in charge of our countries don't recognise people like us as proper human.
So, basically the progress is not freedom to do X, but amount of choices we have. I just think that human have some natural rights is bullshit. Everything in this world contradicts that idea, so why not reframe slavery in terms of degrees of freedom? Who is more slave - educated Greek slave in Ancient Rome or some modern guy who is trapped in a situation where he has no options and has to do something despite the fact he wants it or not?
Basically, they reworded the AP curriculum:
From the AP standard;
"EK 2.8.A.4
In addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians and healers in the North and South. Once free, (African) Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others."
Vs:
Florida:
"Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation)."
And benchmark clarification:
"Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."
They say the same thing.
That's such retarded point to make, independently of any political position you may hold.
Even the slaves working in the plantations learned skills. The weapon of choice of most independentist movements in the Caribbean was the humble machete, wield by freed slaves and rebel farmers and efficiently used to beat the ** out of the Spanish and French colonialists using the same skills they developed by mindlessly doing it over and over forced by their so called masters.
Is like saying that forced labor was good for the slaves, since they get to develop strong bodies.
If he manages to stay up, he really can't be canceled.
I want to say something immature about how you phrased that 😅
Who cares what morons think.
@@FireflowerDancer [rim shot sound effect]
I never saw anyone using this to try and justify slavery, in fact almost every person I talked to saw this as praising former slaves for being resilient enough to use the skills they learned in slavery to their own benefit as free people.
It would be like trying to celebrate the accomplishments of those who previously experienced trauma and the response being "SO TRAUMATISING PEOPLE IS GOOD?"
If I'm not mistaken, some slaves came over WITH skills. Some were blacksmiths, some wrre potters, some were horse breeders, and of course some were soldiers. Which especially in the case of the latter, it explains why they became a problem for the colonial administrators as soon as they were able to escape
No. There were no skills among the Igbo and associated tribed that were at the technological level of anywhere in Europe.
@toomanymarys7355 toomanymarys7355 you're assuming that all the African tribes were unskilled. And that's actually false. Its been proven thar certain areas of West Africa were chosen for the slave trade precisely because Europeans could get their hands on skilled labor. And they were not the only ones. In fact the Muslims were already doing this prior.
And again, when slaves escaped and fled into the interior, they used their skills to form communities, such as the Brazilian quilombos, often in alliance with the natives. Which if we think about it, if they didn't have skills in things like metalworking or farming, there is no way they would have survived that long.
@rockoorbe2002 you don't understand the importance of simple manual labor to these people, I guess.
@@toomanymarys7355no you don't know what you're talking about....and there were more than just igbo sent over. It's well documented that African slaves were sought out because of their unique skills
@@JohnDoe-pt7ruyou don't understand history...it doesn't work off of you're assumptions
I don't know the specifics of this story, but based on the recent trends in Florida politics the motivation for this law is most likely for DeSantis to score political points with the right by mandating that schools don't push left-wing propaganda.
In this particular case, some people on the far left think that historical nuance in regards to slavery is evil and that education about slavery should be strictly "White people are evil and the majority of problems in our society stem directly from slavery". So DeSantis makes a law that mandates some specific historical fact that can be construed as running counter to that narrative (one probably already taught by most competent teachers) be taught in schools. The goal is for someone on the Left to overreact and condemn him so that DeSantis can respond with "this is an objectively true historical fact, stop trying to rewrite history".
Some members of the Left believe that right wing politicians are all racist and so are inclined to assume the worst intentions about a law like this. So the bait is chosen to actually be totally neutral (DeSantis isn't actually pro-slavery) but appear racist if seen through tinted lenses (Slaves learning skills is intended to be used to argue that slavery was good for the slaves). Note: In USA, racist and pro-slavery are conflated by many people since American slavery was mostly race-based.
Harris took the bait and here we are.
Its a whole theory of thought that pushes white guilt onto kids. It isn't productive for anyone and by preventing it from being taught, no knowledge is being lost. Cathode Ray Tube(who knows what is filtered) pushes this racist guilt onto people who are not guilty. That was, what I understood to be the main goal of the legislation, was to keep that mind rot out of schools.
Best comment on here. I'm in Florida and you hit the nail on the head.
Except being taught that slavery was a benevolent, 'domesticating' or kind institution is at best intellectually wrong. The same people pushing this are the same one's to try to teach that the Civil War was over state's rights, and not slavery. But I wouldn't expect someone on the internet to actually research the country's history, let alone not take small tidbits of historical information out of context.
@@danield.3408 But it is merely your assumption that this is being used to promote the narrative that slavery was benevolent. It could also be used as evidence that the slaves were intelligent, skillful people that were fully capable of participating in the economy (a major argument against ending slavery in early America was that slaves would not be able to provide for themselves once freed) and so slavery was unnecessary.
Also, if you think the civil war was a one-issue conflict then you are naive or misinformed. Perhaps read some primary sources? Slavery and state sovereignty were both major elements of the conflict as well as Southern nationalism, tariffs, the Electoral College, etc.
@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 Except the curriculum specifically states that the enslaved Africans could use their enslavement for their "personal benefit." These words are REQUIRED to be taught. That slavery _could've_ even been a benefit to the slave is both factually and morally disingenuous. This implies that they would've been better off enslaved than free, which is proven wrong with the emancipation of all the slaves after the Civil War.
Read some primary sources? Like what? The cornerstone speech of the Confederacy? Or maybe the secession documents of nearly every Southern state that dictated that _slavery_ was one of, if not their main reason for seceding? Oh yes, but state sovereignty! To do what, from what, exactly? And, LOL. The electoral college, should the Southerners of 1860 really be complaining when they dominated the Presidency for over half a century, why didn't the North secede then (although there was a real discussion)? Who couldn't forget about tariffs! Please enlighten me on how much tariffs the South paid, please, using a primary source, of course.
This sounds painfully similar to people here in Europe trying to justify or undermine the ravages of our colonizations by saying that “we brought them civilization”. They already had a civilization of their own. Trying to say that ours was a better one is arrogant and we’ll never really know what their civilizations could have become because we polluted or simply destroyed them. To this day, even decades after we finally left them alone, African countries still struggle in some areas to make their own culture prevail over the remnants of European influence.
One of the most absurd “skills” that have been brought to colonized population is in my opinion from the English that taught Indians and Pakistanis to play the dumbest game in history : Cricket. This was very cruel on their part. Well, the joke is on them now because those countries systematically kick their ass in international competitions. 😂
I’d like to say that we French did better, but unfortunately we did the same with pétanque and we too have now to face difficult competition against our former colonies. But at least, pétanque is a fun game that almost everybody understand and appreciates…
When you actually read the curriculum, you realize that all these headlines are kinda BS. A waste of all our time. I hope this video does the subject justice.
Media being full of crap?! No way! That has never happened before!
Disagree. The curriculums in this country are failing all the students in every state. The US educational system is strictly used by politicians and companies to cause a lower class and therefore worker bees for corporations. Teachers have to struggle to teach to the test, and there is a constant lack of important information it fails to provide to the students. Teacher's hands are tied, as they say, when wanting to present correct and verifiable information. Texas is allowed to mandate atrocious false information to it's students, and it is having horrible results, as is Utah. I've read the FL state curriculum, and the point is not what is in it, but how it is stated. Basically, if you read it from beginning to end, it's set up to fail at it's own goals. It calls for not indoctrinating anyone with anything other than the information included in the curriculum, and yet, it seeks to indoctrinate a false narrative and makes no possible way to indoctrinate an intolerance for enslaving people. Which is the only thing that should be the end result of teaching about slavery. Clearly, the politicians and school administrators need to go back to elementary school and retake the content in full.
@@catserver8577 Teaching facts is not a "narrative", but such a claim certainly is.
@@wrongthinker843Yes, the "Slaves learned something" is a Fact, but a strange one to emphasize in School. It is like Teaching the Holocaust and continuing with telling the kids that H build the Autobahn.
@@simulium85 So you want to erase history until people you don't like are painted as cartoonishly evil subhumans who never did anything good?
Everyone saying ‘this title is wild’ no, this title is accurate and the content was precise and worded great.
We are way too weird about the word and subject of slavery
What's wild is what small minds think is "wild".
Right on!🤘
They’re referring to the original title which was “Was Slavery Actually a Good Thing?”
@@erickghoul174 Which makes little difference. Unless you're emotionally incontinent.
@@wrongthinker843 I don’t disagree but context is still important
Some slaves in the American south learned hskills that were complex and in high demand. And even the least skilled lsave had to learn skills. otehrwise the slaves woul have been useless and nothing but a cost to their owner. This is so patently obvious that it is ridiculous to deny this fact. This is all documented in Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman
Raf, I live in Florida. Nobody is okay with slavery, that is not a thing. We are blessed to have DeSantis as a governor, he has done so much for us. All that aside, I could only half listen to what you were saying during this video. I was absolutely mesmerized by the screen on your MKII arcade game. We are the same age, the nostalgia… I have seen it on many of your other videos but it felt very prominent in this one. Was that on purpose?
I feel like a huge reason why some people try to uplift the benefits / downplay the atrocities of slavery is that people don't want to imagine that humans (or their own culture) is capable of such barbarism.
I am from Virginia, if you talk to older Virginians (50+) you will often times hear "slave owners often times treated their slaves well! They were so expensive and valuable that it didn't make sense to use torture or abuse.'
- in a sense I feel like it's a way to say "if I was a slave owner back then, I would have been good to my property, because I'm not a bad person."
Like Metatron said, freedom is always preferable to slavery.
"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
This video title is really risky to say the least😂😂 Fantastic video though, well stated points and viewpoints. As a black man, I will say metatron is not racist at all and is a great TH-camr and teacher of history. Thank you for your great work metatron, keep it going!
8:25 The alternative to being shipped west was to be transported east. This is historically documented. The trade was going on before Europeans arrived, and it is still going on today. I really appreciate your dedication to evidence based accuracy. I hope you mention this.
I'm more concerned about what some pundits and politicians give for allowing modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.
I don't think it should be taken as a positive spin on slavery, to say that we took black hunters perfectly adapted to live in their own environment, to make their own houses and their own tools with their own materials, to send them halfway across the globe and teach them how to cultivate coton and make colonial houses for white masters.
Did they learn skills ? Yes, they learned skills they didn't need to serve people they didn't want to serve.
The answer is yes some slaves did learn skills as they needed said skills to do the jobs the slave master wanted them to do. The real problem is the changes are clear done to allow people to claim slavery not actually that bad that is its basically slavery apologetics 2.0. It's pretty clear to me the goal is to allow people to that slavery taught those "useless blacks" skills and the like otherwise there's no need to do the rewrite in the way it was done.
My grandmother was a high ranking member of her local UDC chapter: The United Daughters of the Confederacy. While she never participated in physical campaigning, her position and wealth helped fund campaigns to lobby book publishers, school boards, state officials, and various orgs around the MidWest to downplay both slavery being a major reason the Civil War happened *and* the horrors of slavery in general. Because of their constant efforts, all the way up until even my 37 year old brother was being taught history, there were textbooks that said the war was fought over state's rights primarily and slaves had extended breaks during the day while actually enjoying their time tilling the fields *and nothing else.* They also gave several college scholarships to students which, among less insane application info, were required to prove they had Condeferate soldiers in their family heritage. A lot of that has gone away and the UDC is mostly ceremonial these days, but it still exists in many names.
So while there may be a bit of pull and tug on what's being portrayed properly, there's opportunity for bad actors to insert false, misleading, and/or understated curriculum. The UDC did it for well over a century.
" there were textbooks that said the war was fought over state's rights primarily"
The majority of the letters of succession from the States did reference that as their primary justification.
It's worth noting that half of the CSA members had only joined the Union within two decades of the war.
The Union they joined had a very robust 10 Amendment and a very limited federal government.
The Constitution States ratified made no reference to an inability to secede once joining the Union.
Prior to the Civil War, the federal government served the States. After the war, those roles were reversed.
The consequences of that reversal has been present ever since.
To suggest slavery didn't play a major role is absurd. By the same token, diminishing the role of state's rights is narrow minded.
@@wisenber Everything was good up until "The Constitution States ratified made no reference to an inability to secede once joining the Union."
You cannot secede if the Constitution is the law of the land, detailed in the Supremacy Clause of Article IV, with ‘anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.’ This clause alone makes it unlawful for a state to secede as they'd be overturning the Constitution for their own.
@@danield.3408 Okay, let's play that game.
Where in the Constitution does it specifically say that Union membership is irrevocable?
It's not there.
@@wisenber Where does it say it isn't irrevocable?
@@danield.3408 That's just it. It doesn't.
But the Civil War made it effectively a one way agreement.
Then again, you just parroted my point.
I imagine most States would never have joined had that been known.
There is yet another side of the story: did the masters learn skills from their slaves? Absolutely yes. The African slaves taught their masters how to farm rice, somebody coming from England had no clue about.
Cant give an honest opinion because youtube keeps deleting my comment...
Yeah, the closer the U.S. gets to the Presidential Election the less comments that will be allowed.
@@mkinkade7103 unless the comment aligns with their agenda
I don't believe the right-wing is as radical as most portray them. I am sure this is Academically sound. If you want a general glimpse of rightwing thought, check out Thomas Sowell
I found this topic kind of funny, like people taken from Africa didn't already had knowledge and skills they brought with them to the Americas that where useful, that some ethnic groups where highly of demand then others cause of those skills (Rice cultivation, Indigo, mining gold, black smiths, etc.).
thank you so much....did they learn skills or were they captured for their skills.....these wyt folks are so amazing @ twisting facts for their gain
"Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat" Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali.
Saying they didn't learn skills is as stupid as saying you don't learn any skills doing a job you hate now.
You do something you learn the skills required to do that job. Regardless of the circumstances that put you there.
it's kind of implying they were unskilled before when they were specialized themselves in trades back home and were only exploited for their labor after they were put into slavery
@@LaggingGames As far as the skills needed in western nations, they WERE unslilled. Their jungle and other preindustrial skills were worthless.
@@sleelofwpg688 West Africa and the Congo coastal river basin as well as a many other places in Africa had agricultural society with metal working, they could be specialized in farming, as warriors, blacksmithing, and all other roles needed in that society. Most slaves taken were not of hunter-gatherer societies but rather these agriculture ones who would be in the slave trade.
@@sleelofwpg688they didn't live in jungles ..and yes they were highly skilled. You people keep displaying your ignorance
I taught history in Texas for 18 years. In 2016 there was a big controversy because the state adopted a geography textbook that referred to enslaved people as “immigrants” and “workers” and absolutely said most enslavers were good to their slaves. They deliberately downplayed and tried to erase the horrors of slavery. Florida politics are similar so while I can’t speak to what they were exactly trying to achieve in Florida, I can say it’s a fair assumption that they were trying to present a narrative to students that slavery wasn’t really all that bad. It’s just a thought. Enslaved individuals did learn skills, there’s no denying that. However they had no agency in what they learned or how they spent their time. I absolutely disagree with erasing the horrors that enslaved people faced in American history. Very good video!
After the Civil War, many former slaves returned to the plantations, now as paid employees, because that was the trade they knew.
Slaves were valuable, especially after the British ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Mistreating them would have been as foolish as mistreating your work animals.
William Ellison Jr was taught to make cotton gins under instruction from his master (who was possibly also his father). He used that skill to buy his freedom, and later the freedom of his wife. When he died in 1863 he was a plantation owner in South Carolina, owning 900 acres and 63 slaves.
It's just about alleviating the actual situation, step by step.
"They learned skills" (slaves) is the same as "they had an orchestra and a theater" (Jewish inmates during WW2). Both are formally true, but what does it tell us about slavery and the Holocaust?
And this is not a radical left-wing position, mitigating historical tragedies is done by all states.
@@freman007you don't know basic history...when they returned after slavery it was called sharecropping...and it was pretty much like slavery...Slave couldn't patent inventions either ..alot of work was stolen
You can give a "positive spin" to things by saying technically correct things.
Things like "WW2 German were bad but they invented great Autobahns" and then go on and on about how Autobahns are great. So while your message is factually correct it's crafted in a way that supports a different subjective message. Yeah those camps were awful but I'm sure some people learned some useful skills or some important life lessons so it's a bit excessive to say it was all bad, right?
the Nazis did not "invent" the Autobahn, planning and construction begann in the Weimarer Republic. It!s Hitler/Nazis and their fanboys claim(ed) this
The stuff about Florida and DeSatan is true. He's literally said on video slavery was good for the slaves. I am American and I can say it. Ok. He said they learned skills that made them better Americans. So? They learned how to ride horses and pick cotton, too. And? Does not justify America's slaver past and the harm it did let alone how Columbus did not discover the new world...the Natives were here already here. He wants to teach a sanitized version of American and Florida. History and you would hate it.
Sorry Prof! I'm on a kindle and mine won't let me use the app to correct miatakes.
Hit the nail on the head: when it comes to topics like this, a teacher needs Context, Context, Context. Without context, we would live in a world of uncombatable propaganda. The fact that slaves learned skills as slaves does not make slavery any better, but neither should the experiences of enslaved laborers be silenced because it makes us uncomfortable.
I had a History Teacher that used to say "Everyone, every single person in the world is a descendant of a slave" in my case my Grand Great grandfather was slaved by Barbary pirates in one of the 1810 (or aroun that time) raids of italy, My grandmother used to tell us that history and that the family Never knew of him ever again except for a rumor that he was slaved in a galley and died 1 year later at 19 or 20 years old, then my family moved to Torino and later to South America. Edit: Tired of the responses, the teacher is from Ecuador, as i am, and he is Black, there is no Liberal Agenda or whatever. All you guys from united states needs to realize that there are ppl that also speaks english that does not live in the US and dont share your ETERNAL VICTIM Agenda.
Its also ignorant to claim modern humans have completely abolished slavery. My bet is after a few centuries people will look back at our society and judge our behaviour and morals as hypocritcal and repulsive as we judge "real" slavery. Imparticular how we treat other animals, but also ourselves. On the other hand the abuse and opression of other is the strongest constant in human history. So I doubt we overcome our opressive nature in the next 500 years. :/
Well see, if our species proved one thing is that we speed up and influence evolution like no other. For better or for worse.
First that is not true. There are free populations of American Indians, East Africans, and East Asians who never saw bondage. Your teacher was wrong. Second Not all slavery systems are equal. Ancient systems were built on vastly different principles than race-based Atlantic space trade. That’s apologetic rhetoric.
@@AStarkofWinterfell24 I agree with you. That is some neoliberal abstract thinking that removes guilt from the perpetrators
@@AStarkofWinterfell24How is it apologetic rhetoric?
@@AStarkofWinterfell24 Some of the ancient slavery was far.. far worse than American "race based" (as if much of the slavery of the past wasnt also race based) slavery.... and some of it wasnt as bad... some of the "slavery" of the ancient past was little more brutal than what we have to go through today in paying 50 percent tax... and then some, such as "galley" slaves was far far more brutal than anything that every happened in the US.
I'm a 46-year-old black male, and I grew up going to mostly white private schools, so I've got some insight.
In the 80s we learned about slavery, and as a aside, they mentioned that some of the slaves were skilled labor. They mentioned it as a way to show they overcame, even in tough situations; I understood this as a nine year-old.
What the left is doing is intentionally "misunderstanding" the context of how this is taught, and using it as a bludgeon to regular peoples heartstrings.
What they are doing is trying to erase anything that doesn't mesh with their oppression narrative.
We literally have the domesticated (less bitter) version of the Pecan tree due to the experimentation of a black slave working to improve his master's pecan orchards. I believe that particular slave was hired out to other pecan orchards to help spread the knowledge of how to reproduce his results.
The vast majority of US slaves performed unskilled labor. There is no sugar coating. That is not to mention the threat of daily rape or murder.
@@cinattra no shit, dummy. It's taught to show resilience and triumph over tragedy.
Like when they teach that slaves weren't taught to read, however, there were extremely intelligent slaves that wrote books. Just because some slaves wrote books, doesn't mean that slavery is good for literacy, that's not the point… Jesus Christ, this is like reasoning with a toddler.
@@cinattra that's a dumb comment. The point that literally every history was making is triumph over tragedy-not that slavery made them good tradesmen; that's an intentional non sequitur.
Here's another one that's in all history books: slaves were kept from learning to read, however, some slaves learn to read and wrote books… that does not mean that slavery was good for literature.
Slaves learned some skills, that does not in any way justify slavery. Trying to in any way imply that learning skills makes slavery less bad is wrong and insane. Simple as that.
If someone kidnaps me and forces me to learn Japanese and woodworking or else I'll get whipped and go without food, and then releases me a few years later, I will probably be fluent in Japanese and have skills in woodworking. Those may even be valuable skills. That doesn't mean that kidnapping me was in any way justified. I probably didn't want to learn Japanese or woodworking, I have other uses for my time that I value more. I did nothing wrong and did not deserve to have my freedom robbed, nor be treated violently if I didn't do something I didn't want to do.
And if I then afterwards end up working in something that involves woodworking and Japanese, that still doesn't justfiy forcing them onto me. The reason I would use those skills is that I have to make a living somehow, especially if I am living in a society where I am not treated as an equal due to my race. I was robbed of several years that I could otherwise have spent on learning a completely different trade, so I will have to do the best of what I did get out of the stolen years.
If it wasn't meant to imply that slaves benefited from slavery than it wouldn't have been made a law. When I was in school in Florida we were taught that black slaves were brought over for durability and for their agriculture skills.
I absolutely agree with you, but I would add two things. First, let’s not Forget that if a slave had not been born in servitude, they would have learned OTHER skills that would be helpfull to them in their freedom. Second, the skills that they developped as a slave did not benefit to them but to their master until they were freed, which most never were.
plus they were possibly enslaved because they had those skills......
There was a previous AP course talking about this same thing. People only had a problem with the curriculum when it was to be in the regular classes too. We should never forget or try to brush over these dark points in history. Overwise we will be doomed to repeat them. The darkness needs to brought into the light to expose it for what it is.
As long as you aren't trying to convince people they are still victims of anything.
Brown fella who lived in SC for a while. I have some really close friends, nearly family, and they come from a poor white family, literally as far back as before the civil war. Something that's commonly known amongst them is that some slaved lived better than the freemen who had fewer jobs due to all the local agricultural work being taken up by unpaid slaves. Not saying slavery was great, but there's two sides to every coin and pretending that slavery couldn't sometimes be preferential to starving seems like something between ignorance to the whole situation or intellectually dishonest. Slavery is an issue, but realistically the battle lines on the topic were drawn between the rich and the poor. Not the white and the black as modern education paints it. Ofc racism existed, but poor whites resented blacks for being job stealing slaves while rich whites treated slaves like slaves. The orgin of the hatred oftentimes wasnt found in the skin color but a real life bias that ended up being attached to skin color.
Which is the same unforseen (? hard to believe) consequence of our modern DEI and positive discrimination. What a world we could have if people would just stop worrying about the colour of each other's ears. We've been getting so close but I do fear modern policies are raising a new generation of race obsessed majority-race members who rightly or wrongly feel the same as those out of work white farm workers
You say "not black and white" and then immediately "forget" about black slave owners.
@@wrongthinker843 OMG AMAZINGLY FAIR POINT!!!! I completely forgot to mention the wealthiest slave owner in SC for awhile was a former black slave haha. Thank you for the ammendment good sir!
Many poor white people migrated to the states just north of the Mason-Dixon Line when that land opened up for that reason. They just could not compete financially in a fixed market. It was called the Upland Migration - and was how Abe Lincoln's family got to Indiana.
@@zekeolopwi6642 Yeah my great great great grand dad was an Indian, who work on the railroad tracks for most of his life putting the tracks down, but one day he lost his job because prisoners work for free to serve time off. So yeah 2 sides of every coin. He spend the rest of his life never did forgave the government for what they did.
Indentured servitude effected many white Europeans who used it to borrow the money to come to the US in exchange for a period of labor. Now, if this system isn't abused, then it is a (fair?) trade. However, this system was frequently abused with requiring these people to pay ridiculous rents, food from the company store at extremely high prices. When this happened, it was the same as slavery. These people died still unable to buy their freedom. Why this topic is never spoken about, is beyond me. Humans have found countless ways to loot the lives of other people. It continues today. I bet that if you go into the right warehouse districts in most American big cities (or small rural areas outside of town), you will find trapped workers who cannot escape. Cartels - Human Trafficking. It's more than just sex trade.
Yup like the Italians that worked in the mines and were paid in notes that was only good at the mine company store that would raise the price daily
@@airxtream2139 - Well, in Sicily, there was straight out slavery of children, who were sold to cover family debts. George Washington Carver wrote about it in his European travel book, and he said it was the worst slavery he'd ever seen.
Indentured Servants who were sent to the colonies under forced immigration (from jails, from streets, or even kidnapped) suffered greatly especially in the early colonial period. Death rates are estimated at between 40 and even 60% depending on the work required, i.e. sugar and tobacco producing colonies.
@@windycityliz7711 Many of the original Irish settlers were forced immigrants (after being exiled by the British) who were then made to pay for the costs of their own kidnapping as indentured servants.
In many places, even the "free" Irish were put to work doing far more dangerous jobs than black slaves were. The black slaves were generally seen as investments (often bought using loans, in the same way a modern farmer would take out a loan for a tractor). The Irish, on the other hand, were a despised lower class whose labor (and often lives) could often be bought relatively cheaply.
The use of slave labor prevented the growth of a Middle Class in the Antebellum South. Eventually, the Slaveocracy would have expanded slavery to the poor and nit just Blacks: see the King Cotton Speech and a book called Cannibals All.
This discussion is honestly ridiculous. Because WHAT IS THE PURPOSE behind pointing out that a slave MAY have learned skills. 1. Can you be certain they did not have the skills BEFORE they were captured. 2. Can u be certain they would not have learned said skill outside of slavery etc. Honestly this reeks of the colonial claim that said colonial power "civilised" the world. 'We taught you how to care for yourself, be grateful!' *wh*ip noise*
So many disingenuous comments on this page asking asinine questions like "if it's the truth what's wrong with pointing it out?"
Ask yourself what is the PURPOSE of pointing it out. The only reason I can FATHOM is to make certain people feel better meanwhile, just hammering home this persistent belief that ANY black person of skill is a DEI hire. And yes, the two concepts are related.
My goodness this would be like saying when you teach the Hol*o* ca*ust make sure you teach that the J*ew^is*h people really built muscle in the work c^a*m*ps.
It's freakin ridiculous and whether you wish to admit it or not it's pschologically diabolical.
I think it's all about the wording. It wasn't slavery that taught these people, it was labour. Because otherwise, the implication is, that there is an incentive to force people into labour. Far right politicians in various parts of the world currently are nourishing the narrative, that people who are not currently working are lazy and need to be forced into contibuting to society. Of course there are people who are unwilling to do so, but we need to adress the root cause of it, instead of eradicating the perceived problem by force and, rather conveniently some might say, create a situation where basically anyone can be potentially forced into labour.
This
That's too reasonable.
@@GothamClive If only reasonable people could be those in charge of running countries
It's now far right extremism to say, "Earn your own living."
Meanwhile, leftists are the same as their antebellum ancestors saying, "yeah, that work you did should go into my pocket, not yours. You work for my family."
That implication is one you assign to it. Funny how it's always "far right" and you never hear far left.
Teaching about slavery should be intricate and sophisticated, not a cartoonish caricature of reality to placate modern sensibilities. The people who helped create this curriculum (many are black people, which I would bet you are not) want people to understand the context that despite slavery, these people managed to survive afterward because of their learned trades and skills.
The West generally has a silly idea of slavery as being a unique thing to the atlantic slave trade, or at the least as if it were the most egregious form. Whenever discussing the Atlantic Slave Trade we should keep the following in mind.
1 - African slaves sold to westerners were already slaves in Africa.
2 - African slaves were "lucky" to be sold to westerners, as the alternatives were to remain under African Slavery or much worse, Arab Slavery, which unfortunately was the fate of most slaves.
3 - These facts do NOT excuse western slavers in the slightest.
4 - Which is why the west, motivated by Christian doctrine were the first to abolish slavery.
5 - And the the west moved to force the abolition of slavery across the world, and were greatly successful, though not entirely.
6 - Slavery was everywhere throughout history and the world. The West took a stand against it. The peoples who fought and gave their lives to free slaves should be honored, not bashed.
That’s on purpose. It’s used to divide.
Far from the first.
The appx. 5-7% of captured Africans taken to North American were the lucky ones, if a kidnapped and enslaved person can be "lucky". Their chances of long term survival increased to over 90%, they were treated as valuable assets and received food, clothing and medical care, they were able to form family units and community which lasted more often than not, and many learned skills and trades. As threadbare as these "advantages" are, they are huge compared to going to the sugar islands or Brazil - one reason for continued trafficking of slaves was the high death rate in those locations.
It’s an American obsession, completely skewed and ignorant of the reality of slavery in general, the only purpose being to cultivate a victim mentality amongst those who were never slaves and a self hatred amongst those who never owned slaves.
西洋はアメリカにおける奴隷制廃止以降も、植民地で奴隷を運用していました。
移動制限や職の制限、財産や土地所有の制限、政府機関への登用制限、司法制度の人種差別運用など。
貴方の国で黒人が人間としての権利を、白人と同等に得たのは何年ですか？
WW2以降も植民地を維持し続けていたのはどの人種でしたか？
南アフリカの支配者が入れ替わったのはいつでしたか？
よく考えてください。
Great book called "The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa" about an african literally taken from his villiage, shipped. traded as a slave, eventually worked as a ship's leutenant. earned his freedom. got enslaved again, earned his freedom again, and just had a fascinating life learning new skills and becomeing a more and more skilled person. he learned to be as talented as any officer on his ship.
You are right about the objective fact of humans being capable of learning even in harsh conditions. I don't know why the left got so up-in-arms about it. Actually, I do know _why_ , it's because someone on the right said it... but my sentiments are the same.
You are also right that if a teacher attempted to teach that "slavery wasn't that bad", or that "it was a net benefit", then that teacher should be fired. And for the same thing that the left accuses the right of doing - teaching propaganda and politically spinning history (which btw is something the left gets caught doing all the time and they just get away with it).
But Florida never attempted to institute such teaching practices. It's not in the bill. Could there be some wacko teacher in Florida trying to teach that slavery was good? Maybe. But they were _already_ going to do that. And it _already_ would have been a fireable offense. It would have had nothing to do with this bill.
This is American problem. They think what everything in the world is about them. They act like slavery existed only in their country and like they defeated it. In fact, slavery still exists in some places! But don't you dare to talk to them about it! It's political and problematic didn't you know?
This video is about Florida, an American state. What's the harm in Americans learning about American slavery? Your country's history should be the first thing you learn it school, no? It doesn't excluded the existence of other forms.
Good Metatron sir, you make this more complicated than it is. Do people benefit from learning skills, regardless of their station in life? Of course they do. Look at it objectively, the Florida educational standards do not say slavery was good or right, or try to justify slavery by saying that they were better off as slaves. It doesn’t say “they benefited BY being a slave,”this is a disingenuous misrepresentation by the media and some politicians. Any honest reading of it says that it was advantageous for people who were slaves to learn skills, some that were very useful to them after they were freed. It speaks of the slaves as more than helpless victims, but as an intelligent and capable people who worked to improve themselves, even while under the dire oppression of slavery.
A teacher that taught slavery was anything less than a tragic moral wrong would be harmful, but such a teacher would not be in line with the Florida educational standards.
I would have liked him to remind everyone that they continue to buy goods produced by slave labor to this day and probably used one of those products to leave their comments. I cannot believe he said “It’s done for”, human trafficking is happening daily and factories just replaced fields.
@@mkinkade7103Not just factories. There is an even darker side.
@@mkinkade7103 I think I heard that there are more slaves in America now then when it was legal. Of course that is a population thing. It is less per capita.
By focusing on how much they learned from being a slave the intention, indeed, is to soften the view of slavery by saying they should be thankful they got something out of it. It is the US South. Home of Neo-Confederate sympathizers and the Lost Cause myth.
First off, I have no idea about the situation in the USA, but one of my 2 possible problems on this was sparked by something in the USA.
1. This argument could be used to force prisoners to learn skills to produce something that is more marketable than something they can already do.
2. it could also be used to force people without a job to learn a new one.
Like the Metatron said, it's true that slaves often learned something by being slaves, but freedom is not just not being owned, but also the freedom to make your own choices. Like what skills and jobs you want to learn to do.
And finally, there is one thing most slaves learned. How to follow orders or else...
In the U.S., prisoners have opportunities to complete their education and learn marketable skills and it is often a condition of parole. Yes, that's pressure. Benefits for the unemployed can often be linked to job training. How is that not better than having prisoners rotate in and out of jail, or having people just living hopelessly on the streets?
@@windycityliz7711 We do have something similar her in Germany, but that wasn't really my point.
The question in general is, how much pressure and who benefits from it.
Generally speaking, what if prisoners were forced into learning a skill that only profits the prison because they produce something that currently sells well, but the skill is not marketable outside prison?
And for the cherry on top, that's because the prisons have cornered the market on said product.
This is not about the US, just a question that came I up from something I heard about US prisons.
Also mind that this isn't about the current situation, but something that could come up in the future anywhere in the world.
@@Dreamfox-df6bg prisons need money for maintenance. The labors are justified by punishment so the force comes from the law. The money is spent to keep decent living condition in prison. If someone is corrupt the maintenance is neglected.
@@lc4n333 1. Like I said, this was about a hypothetical future.
2. I know that is how it is presented in the USA, but it is a question of how you look at things. What is the punishment?
That your freedom is taken away?
Or that you have to work in addition to that?
Not to mention that this work below minimum wage takes jobs away from others. So how is that fair?
It's a philosophical question you can argue about forever.
Just as there are countries where escaping from prison is not a crime and you won't get punished for that. You only get added punishment if you broke laws while trying to escape. Because it's argued that the natural desire to be free should not be punished.
Another question on how you look at it.
Much media attention was given to that awkward phrasing about skills which "could be applied for their personal benefit". I don't think there was any nefarious intent there. The group which put together this curriculum included a couple of black conservatives, and I think they were concerned about the potential impact on the self esteem of African American students being exposed to this history, and wanted to emphasize that a diversity of talents and abilities existed in the slave population. There is a lot in this curriculum about the achievements and heroic actions of African Americans in Florida, from the Black Seminoles and the free black settlement at Fort Mose in Spanish Florida, to the cultural contributions later of authors (such as Zora Neale Hurston and Alice Walker), painters (the Florida Highwaymen) and entertainers (Marian Anderson).
That's all fine, but what's problematic is what seems to have been left out. There especially seems to be very little about Florida's specific role within slavery itself.
Slavery has a complicated history in Florida, given how many times the territory changed hands. It was transferred from Spain to Britain after the Seven Years War in 1763, and British slaveholders then established Indigo plantations along the St. John's river. It was transferred back to Spain after the American Revolutionary War ended in 1783 and was ceded to the U.S. in 1821. Then, after the second Seminole War (1835-1842) drove the Seminole out of central Florida, slave-holding planters moved in, and Florida in 1845 was admitted to the union as a slave state. By 1860, there were over 1000 plantations and over 40% of the population were slaves. And the large majority of these slaves were field hands who endured brutal conditions (which the curriculum calls "agricultural work").
If this important history is included anywhere in the 216 page PDF they released last year, I can't find it. I find the word "plantation" only 5 times, and 2 of those are duplicate references to Caribbean plantations.
Chattel slavery de-stablized and colonized West Africa and did not teach Africans new skills but forced them to use pre-existing skills in abusive and unpaid foreign lands. The 1413 Mecia de Viladestes map of North and West Africa shows West African ports and kingdoms were known to European map-makers (as far back as an even older map in 1339). The Viladestes map shows two African rulers (who didn't live at the same time) meeting in West Africa - one the Berber king Abubakr and the other the Malian king Mansa Musa, the latter being extremely well known for his wealth in gold and commerce even to this day. The West African kingdoms independent of European contact had stratified monarchal governments, commerce, cattle pastorals, agriculture, textile fabrics, ironworks, salt and gold mining, etc. We know this because both Arab and Portuguese explorers and traders wrote this BEFORE the start of European enslavement. The oldest document of the enslavement of Africans is the Dums Diversa of 1452 (less than 50 years after the de Vestes map and more than 100 years after Europe's oldest maps of African ports). The Dums Diversa was the Pope granting the king of Portugal the right to enslave Muslim and traditional African worshipping Africans in perpetuity (lifelong and generational) AND the right to take over their kingdoms/dukedoms, commerce, and resources (ie the start of colonization and land theft). A huge part of European chattel slavery by the time it reached the Caribbean (notice they were selling Africans into Portugal into the Canary Islands before 1492), an important aspect was to separate Africans, stop them from using their languages, cultures, etc. because the memory of those Africans would mean they'd still know their ethnic histories and whatever specialties their ethnic groups were already known for producing long before there was a modern Europe. Hence you have Africans from the rice growing West Africa sent to regions in the West but not teaching that those Africans had cultivated rice long before chattel slavery and that it has been proved Colonial Rice of the US is West African (not Asian) rice. It also divorces other links such as African indigo dying from the history of denim clothing (once called "Negro" cloth) in the US, African cow pastoralism from American and Latin American cattle cultures, etc. Lots of what is African in the Americas is attributed to other people when Africans before chattel slavery influenced Western Europe and during the enslavement influenced the Western hemisphere in areas of agriculture, culinary arts, textiles, and music at a bare minimum. It wasn't exclusive as there was a merger of Native American produce, European produce, and even Asian foods that were "Africanized" in the Americas based on what those enslaved Africans ALREADY using other produce, grains, and livestock. So, yes, there's a problem that enslavement of Africans wasn't a training program when you ignore pre-existing West African civilizations that had monarchies, calvaries, cities, arts, music, culinary arts, etc. It lost to Europe for a few reasons and mostly that had to do with European guns and the fact that they (the first ones) had been studying West African civilizations for a century more than anything else.
Fantastic! I wish everyone's brain worked like yours!
Thanks!🙏🏻
@@metatronyt My brother in christ, I know you are not American so this is an easy thing to miss but please reach out to an American historian for more context on this stuff and the lost cause. There's more here than 'the facts' as presented, there's generations of context and dog whistles. Auten Shei would be a great resource.
There is an old classic quote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwel's novel 1984) This is especially true in our political world of today. I'm not really seeing a lot of "slavery wasn't all that bad" especially from the right (given that the political party of the right was the party that freed the slaves), but the opposite message of critical race theory which suggests that slavery was just one form of oppression against a people that continues equally as bad to this day is being taught by the pollical left.
Thus, the political firestorm when an academic institution came out with a line within a broader set of guidelines. I haven't seen the full set of guidelines so it's hard to determine the full context of the text in question. I don't think we teach history in the United States in a proper manner, and we haven't even back when I was in elementary school in the 1970's. We need to stick to facts, be honest about those facts, and connect those facts to the various other elements of society at the time.
Slavery was a particularly dark stain on our nation's history, and the American version of slavery was in many ways far darker than the standard practice of slavery at the time, even in other parts of the North and South American continents. And while some slaves acquired skills that would help them once slavery was abolished, others were beaten severely for their attempts in secret to learn how to read. Obviously, once slavery ended, literacy could and did advance rapidly, because even those who could not read knew that their children should learn such skills.
My understanding has been that the intention of the bill, which was authored by a black professor, was to highlight the resilience and entrepreneurialship of freed slaves who were able to use the skills they learned as slaves to benefit themselves and those around them as free men and women.
The bill missed its mark. This bill attempts to create a sense of pride from being a slave. Wow.
@@cinattra Incorrect. The emphasis is on their accomplishments once freed.
@@khodexus4963 The emphasis is on the accomplishments of slaves once they were freed. That's a lie 🤥. If there was an emphasis on the accomplishments of US slaves after they were freed then the emphasis would not be on "skills" learned during slavery. The emphasis would be on the towns they founded. The emphasis would be on the former slaves getting elected to public office. Been sitting trying to figure out which "skills" they learned that helped them with those accomplishments? 🤔
@@cinattra Sorry, but you're wrong. Read it again.
@@khodexus4963you sound wrong to me
People here in the US will tell you that you can't teach anything to a slave that they can't teach to a free man. I always say that it's very hard to teach a free man how to escape. Free people did not invent the Underground Railroad and help about 250000 FREE people escape to the North.
Which is my favorite slave story is Frederick Douglas. The man taught himself to read BEFORE he escaped slavery, so he would ALWAYS know what "slavery in print" looked like.
Considering most slaves from Africa were prisoners of inter-tribal war, who would have been killed otherwise, I think it's not a leap to say that they benefited from slavery.
As for why this bill was made, it's most likely trying to curb the left-leaning propaganda that's being taught in schools in the US. One of the big issues in education in this country when it comes to the topic of historic slavery (and specifically historic slavery, as they largely seem to ignore that there is still slavery going on in parts of the world), is that it was perpetrated exclusively by white people on other races, completely leaving out that the trans-Atlantic slave trade started by rich African tribes selling other Africans. A lot of the education in the US about slavery is designed to push a victim-hood narrative while leaving out any inconvenient facts that would undermine the narrative. You just have to look at how early students are taught about the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and how little is taught about the Islamic slave trade even in the higher grades, to know that there is a narrative bias being presented.
Another 'inconvenient fact' is that there were White slaves and Black slave owners, in the Colonies and America.
you are regarded
The thumbnail and title has to be the funniest thing on youtube 😭😭😭
IMO this "controversy" had more to do with DeSantis' upcoming presidential bid then anything else. Around the same time there was alot of blatantly manufactured drama around him. An effective and popular R governor couldn't go unsmeared around that time
Would he allow a curriculum that talked about the benefits to the Jews in Nazi work camps?
@@shafsteryellow Sure, in the literature: fiction section.
@@wrongthinker843 why?
@@shafsteryellow Why not ask the blood and soil ethnostate currently "solutioning" a population?
@@wrongthinker843 you mean the one totally dependent on the US?
I’m a Floridian and I dislike both DeSantis and Harris, but it def feels like DeSantis is doing this to put a positive spin on the history of slavery, possibly in response to critical race theory. I didn’t like the curriculum change because yeah people absolutely learn how to do something when you force them to do it, but making teachers point out specifically that slaves learned skills is like emphasizing a perceived positive that slaves gained from slavery, like that they couldn’t have learned a trade without being enslaved. Imo it also sorta has the extra effect of downplaying the generational wealth disparity caused by years of unpaid labor (that was solidified even further by systematic racism that caused things like banks redlining loans to black people) by insinuating that slavery actually enabled them to get jobs once they were free.
Wall of leftwing propaganda with no sources
Now you have to analyze the actual videos used to teach this. Florida authorized PragerU as an educational source. They’re a conservative Christian channel funded by an oil conglomerate so they’re pretty unbiased👌🏼
I hope that was sarcasm
@@Ace-sb4il Whaat noo, christians and capitalists never have ulterior motives behind what they say and do and lobby and fund… right?
"I'm not American "
That should have been the end of the video...
But Sadly was not.
Thank you for doing this video. I went to school in Florida, and it frustrates me to hear people talk about the teachers there as if they were pushing for slavery. Let me tell you, they are not.
So what is the purpose of telling kids "durr forcing black people to pick cotton for decades made them good at picking cotton!"? What is the goal here?
No one is telling any children that, chicken little. You need to better scrutinize the info that corporations and the far left are feeding you. Or stop drinking the kool-aid.
@@MagcargoManNot what he's claiming.
@@1685Violin Not who I'm talking to.
@@MagcargoMan because it was history and those were guidelines for history class. This wasn't just some random conversations where some brought up slavery out of the blue. In a module about the US recovering from slavery it is pretty important to talk about what the ex slaves were up to.
Their curriculum is accurate. They DID, indeed, learn skills. The far left wants to frame this as saying slavery was beneficial. No such claim is being made by anyone.
Maybe if the south didn't have a well deserved reputation of ghoulfully misrepresenting slavery and the civil war, someone might give them the benefit of the doubt.
Ridiculous take. If I turn your mom into a ....... ......... and keep her as such for 10 years, she'll be really good at eating ..... and taking.....
Would you highlight or bring any attention to that irrelevant fact?
No.
I took it as: enslaved people were able to find ways to benefit IN SPITE of slavery
@@issaikhYou still think the Civil War was started because Lincoln wanted to save black people huh?😂
@@Cimo8 Prime example of the kind of tard they're referring to...
Why is this topic controversial? My homeschool curriculum did a great job at explaining this stuff, outlining the cruelty that pervaded the practice of slavery. It was also very clear that, after slavery was abolished, the labor skills that freed slaves had built were invaluable to them in their new lives. It’s not like the slavers did then a favor, but it was still better than nothing in the end.
It's simple, you will need skills to do any work. The problem is, well being slaves. That's why we have labor unions these days.
Your home school curriculum really sucked then. I guess Africans were over in Africa unskilled sitting around being lazy.
Did you curriculum teach that black Africans came with skills?
@@Ace-sb4il
Exactly I don't know what these people think. Perhaps they presume slaves we're completely and totally ignorant they had to be taught by the recessive community. How could that be possible when the recessive Community had to be taught how to live in the Americas by the black indigenous people of this country?
Okay, this is a topic and time of history I personally have done a lot of study on. I will try and get the facts and history out with as few words as possible, I'm almost positive on this subject I have more knowledge than the mighty Metatron. A short answer, Yes. A long answer, the vast majority of slaves did learn farming and field skills and some home skills. Planting, plowing, Seeding, feeding animals every job on the farm, cooking, cleaning light home maintenance.
However, during slavery in America, Most if not all skilled trades such as the building of homes, Streets, cities, large buildings, roads, Saddle work, leather work, Tool making, etc. was not done with slave labor this was mostly done with the citizens of each town and state. My point most skilled trades or Artisan work like carpentry, Roofing, Brickwork, building horse buggies and carts, Saddles, and Leatherwork, you know skilled trades of the time were not slave labor. There were exceptions my point is the vast majority. So most slaves did learn skills but the vast majority of those skills were farm work of all all types. This had nothing to do with keeping the slaves down or not teaching them Artisan work, it really was all the young men and citizens had to make a living as well. So all that type of work was done by the citizens if you want to say white man so be it. Yes, there were exceptions to this rule but this is a fact for the vast majority. Skilled trades were how the American citizens of the time made a living, did some use slave labor as helpers yes. But this was not the majority of slave labor.
This is why when I hear people claim Black Americans built this country it is just not true, it's factually incorrect. However, (helping) to build the country is correct. First of all the black population is not now or never has been high enough to build this country. but again they sure did help the same will all other immigrants, America is a country of immigrants and built by immigrants mostly white immigrants but immigrants all the same. Read what I said above, I did not claim 100% of slaves I said the majority. However, after the slaves were free they had very good farming skills and home skills, at this time they slowly started to learn and move into the artisan trades. it only took a few decades and before you knew it ex-slaves now Americans were in business, Artisan work of every kind, and took off from there. When the slaves were freed in 1865 most there skills were farm and field and home, by the early 1900s just 30-40 years later one generation, Black Americans were now involved in all skilled trades. My comment is made before watching video. I have no clue what Metatron will say or what Florida teaches but I do know my comment is correct, I spent years researching this time of American history.
As a Southern white man, I was raised hearing statements that justified slavery in social settings. Never at school, thank God. I am only 40, so I can't imagine how common it was in days of yore. My statement is anecdotal, but please believe me when I say I was passively taught in non-classroom settings to look down upon black people. Strangely, growing up in a cosmopolitan Southern seaport, there were NOT particularly similar prejudices against other ethnicities, races, religions, et al. But then the sad legacy of my home city is to have been the location of the second largest sale of enslaved people in U.S. history.
I like you. That's the post. This is a topic even I (as a historian with 2 degrees) won't touch until I return to France and can cover it from a safe distance. 🙂--says a female person of color who keeps getting asked how did I learn to speak English so well (even though I was born on the North American Continent below the Canadian Border in the 20th century).
It is absolutely not justifying slavery.
It absolutely is justifying slavery. It's essentially trying to deflect from the horror of slavery, by engaging in mental gymnastics to find some kind of silver lining to slaves lives.
@@keitht24 What's discussed is how some slaves were able to use the skills they they developed to their own advantage, which is the absolute truth. Saying that isn't justifying slavery.
It is, its trying to soften the impact of Slavery
Great video metatron. Its interesting to see how slaves applied the skills they learned slavery on their life and per se its not a bad inclussion to the curriculum.
The problem its that this change has been made with an "anti woke" law, by people who always downplay slavery and with the intent to be used against people who defend that slavary and racism even to this day have effects on marginalized comunities.
So people have fear that they will focus on the "positives" while downplaying the negatives.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with civility. Very much appreciated
There weren't many skills learned during slavery....Africans already knew how to farm , work metal, and build with stone
The whole point of Europeans & the Portuguese specifically choosing to enslave Africans instead Indians or any another group in addition to Africans ability to withstand all the diseases brought over from Europeans that were wiping out the Natives is because they were already for Hundreds of Years before being enslaved were growing their own fruits, vegetables rice, cotton and practicing Black Smith skills so it's extremely disappointing for you as a former teacher to not know this already, and it just alarmingly speaks to where the education system is headed in this Country!
The issue isn’t whether slaves learned skills. Obviously, slaves would be taught how to perform certain tasks and would become proficient in them. That’s the part of the point of enslavement.
The issue is WHY does the right want to focus on whether black slaves learned skills. It appears the right’s reason for focusing on the topic is to downplay the severity of slavery in the United States by framing slavery as “beneficial.” Slaves learned “valuable” skills they would’ve otherwise never learned, so the enslavement of Africans wasn’t bad, and those people and their descendants should be grateful for what they learned.
That’s the underlying message, and it’s obvious to anyone with a functioning brain. There’s no other reason to bring the topic up, especially since the slaves were FORCED to learn these skills under the threat of pain and death. The right has a long history excusing the enslavement of Africans, so their continued attempt isn’t a surprise, but this is one of their lazier arguments.
weird seeing you here JSG
Thank you, was going to make this exact point.
Damn, your sub numbers still haven't recovered after TheAlmightyLoli 🤣
So tell me, what is your favorite flavor of KoolAid?
THEY WERE NOT FOCUSING ON IT! Sorry for yelling but your point was simply wrong. It was just one small piece of a larger program that got blown out of proportion by the left. Not one person tried to use it to downplay slavery.
Of course the topic had to be brought up. It was part of the Reconstruction era lessons. What former slaves did is a huge part of that.
... controversial take, I know, but one could argue some people learned more useful skills as slaves than what the public school system has taught them by comparison.
Public school is not a high bar these days.
Yea you sound like a fool
I haven't watched yet, but this is a masterful click bait, lmao. And yes, some learned skills; my great great uncle became the premiere horse breeder in Central NC post civil war. His father, my great great great grandfather, was the stable master. Valuable skills indeed.
How is it click bait if you just proved his point
@@Christopherson2006 it's just the idea that it will get lots of people to come watch it for various reasons.
@@Leif3GHP oh, you right
Have you benefited from his experience?
@@panzer00 not personally as far as that particular skillset or anything related to it goes. It's not my direct family line. However, his brother, who is my direct line was able to pass down 400 acres to be split between his children, which I still live on 5 acres of that allotment today. There was a lot of wealth in that first free generation. My family line married into the former slave line that made the wine for the Rockefellers golf resort in Overhills/Anderson Creek, NC. As far as I can tell, the transfer of wealth between generations suffered because of poor cultural issues, (and poor decisions when choosing which child to give the bulk of inheritance to as well). But having access to free land to live on or build a house on helped the two generations before me to rebuild their own wealth.
I haven't studied the topic in more detail, I'm not American, and I don't understand the subtleties of American political debate - although I recognize the general themes.
In general, I think that history should be taught as we have learned to understand it from its sources. In my opinion, slavery should be treated in this respect like other historical topics - in a multifaceted manner. How slaves lived, what they did, what is the triangular trade and so on. I don't really understand what this kind of obviousness (slaves learn the things they do) achieves on a more general level, and that's why the background motives raise questions for me. If it is taught in school that the tasks of the slaves could include fieldwork, household chores, carpentry, blacksmithing, carrying messages, etc., why do we have to separately emphasize that the slaves learned these skills that they practiced? If this kind of self-evident has to be underlined separately to people, I have lost hope in humanity. 😉
But maybe if a few master blacksmiths or experts in other fields emerged from among the slaves, this could be mentioned as a useful detail? I do not know. As I said, I've only gotten to know the subject through this video.
It would be untrue to cherry-pick a specific person and portray them as a typical case. Sure lots of slaves learned skills, but after emancipation and freedom, what were most former slaves doing?
Unfortunately, the answer is that a lot of blacks were reinslaved by so-called legal means and put into work gangs for trivial or sometimes no crimes whatsoever.
Before slavery ended, blacks were seen as loyal and productive, and after slavery these exact same people were seen as sneaky and lazy. This is the south Legacy even today and it gave white southerners the mental rationale to justify why so many blacks were being locked up.
So it’s really not rational to separate the acquisition of skills from how those skills were required and whether those skills were marketable in the so-called slavery world. Most wives were not willing to hire a black owned business but we’re perfectly fine with using a black work gang. so I guess hooray for learning those blacksmithing skills
Knowing this is Metatron, I know he's actually going to look at the actual curriculum and not the propoganda that's blasting the curriculum by misrepresenting its contents.