Erik Haugen on Nostr: npub189nhq…fsatx The article quotes someone as denying that the standards teach ...
npub189nhq0cw33243htm08c53vjvgc5letv7d9sgqtgqsn6fnx6dv8zs0fsatx (npub189n…satx) The article quotes someone as denying that the standards teach that slavery was beneficial. Who's correct?
"Slavery is beneficial" a bizarre claim to make, and a lot of media these days is making bizarre claims like this. Is it true? Would a state or textbook actually teach this in 2023? This is 1920s stuff. It doesn't really pass the smell test, and would be *quite extraordinary* if true. It would be great if we could all be a little more discerning and skeptical about headlines, yes?
I think this is the quote from the standards that the complaints are about: "Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit" (p.6) FWIW: I join in the complaint about this line, to say the least! Some slaves were obviously experts in skilled trades, but come on. But, let's be clear: it doesn't actually say that slavery is, on net, beneficial, and the rest of the standards, I think, quite clearly make the opposite case:
The standards go on to talk about the heroes of abolition (p.7,13), the harsh conditions of slaves particularly in american British colonies (they were especially bad in the colonies compared to the conditions of slaves in the rest of the world! p.10 "overwhelming death rates" etc) How Dred Scott etc impacted free people, also illegal slave trading (p.12) etc, etc, etc.
I don't know I didn't read the whole thing it's like hundreds of pages.
But hopefully these hearings get that line on p.6 fixed.
"Slavery is beneficial" a bizarre claim to make, and a lot of media these days is making bizarre claims like this. Is it true? Would a state or textbook actually teach this in 2023? This is 1920s stuff. It doesn't really pass the smell test, and would be *quite extraordinary* if true. It would be great if we could all be a little more discerning and skeptical about headlines, yes?
I think this is the quote from the standards that the complaints are about: "Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit" (p.6) FWIW: I join in the complaint about this line, to say the least! Some slaves were obviously experts in skilled trades, but come on. But, let's be clear: it doesn't actually say that slavery is, on net, beneficial, and the rest of the standards, I think, quite clearly make the opposite case:
The standards go on to talk about the heroes of abolition (p.7,13), the harsh conditions of slaves particularly in american British colonies (they were especially bad in the colonies compared to the conditions of slaves in the rest of the world! p.10 "overwhelming death rates" etc) How Dred Scott etc impacted free people, also illegal slave trading (p.12) etc, etc, etc.
I don't know I didn't read the whole thing it's like hundreds of pages.
But hopefully these hearings get that line on p.6 fixed.