Governor Desantis Signs The Sanity In Education Bill Into Law

The X-soft-X "teachings" should be allowed when people can legally vote 🚬

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: xuenchen

The full listing for each district is listed at the end of the article here

General note:

The Miami New Times is considered to be documented biased Left Wing outlet and their opinions are seldom fully backed up.

Just say'n 🥥

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks for letting me know. I'll avoid that source in the future. US News and Report does also state 204 books have been banned with some examples. The list in the first link may be accurate.

a reply to: frogs453

don't mind me i'm only talking to myself 😎

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Simple question. Based on your statement and for clarification, you're saying ONLY whites owned slaves and those slaves were only black? No other race owned slaves that we either black or other ethnicity?

Any way we can get this past here in oregon?

a reply to: infolurker

according to biology there is no evidence for race so why is it mentioned here in law
pretty weird if its just a social construct with no biological evidence to back it up

what happened to "follow the science "

i guess they can just cherry pick whenever they feel like "trust the science"

As a resident of Florida I can state that not all of DeSantis' policies are designed for the people, but for his Presidential run. DeSantis screwed the C19 -related Unemployed. Disney is a publicity stunt that has the potential of being overturned. As an attorney (JAG -USN), he is fully aware of that taking place and that he does not have the authority to attack Disney's self -governing status... and for the record, I lean Right but am able to think for myself. There is profound Truth in the statement: "all politicians are the same".

a reply to: Elvicious1

I do not doubt that DeSantis does a lot of what he does for show. However, I see no downside and a lot of upside in this bill. If a politician does good, does it really matter in the short term his/her motivation for doing good?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree the Bill is sound and a seriously needed step in deprogramming our children. Motivation? Wouldn't it be nice to have representation that put the needs of his constituents over their obsession of power? This man has been groomed to be President since he came from the womb. He reminds me of my childhood living next to Charlie Crist. His Mother would not allow him to play with us for fear of his reputation being tarnished...at least that's what she told us...at the age of six. I went to a few military schools and did some time in the USN. My Father was an O-6. I've seen a lot of his type. Like Trump, I had my fingers crossed and do so with DeSantis, as well. Let's hope he's not "too good to be true".

a reply to: Elvicious1

Wouldn't it be nice to have representation that put the needs of his constituents over their obsession of power?

Pipe dream. We had one who, while he was likely loath to let go of his power, he had no need to gain more: Donald J. Trump. And because he wasn't worried about amassing a personal fortune (he already had/has one), he was treated like a lower-class citizen while President. And the obsession with "getting" him still goes on over a year after he left office due to his detractors literally stealing the election.

So having anyone with "good" motivations in any kind of high-level office is simply impossible as long as the country is occupied by the present band of traitors.

I'll settle, given the impossibility of the optimal, for the acceptable... a decent bill that actually helps the people from time to time. Be thankful for small miracles.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Who's saying kids are responsible for slavery? No one is saying that. But let's be fair, it was whites who kept blacks as slaves.

Funny how the fact that Blacks owned slaves and Blacks sold other Blacks into slavery is always left out.

a reply to: JIMC5499

One half of 1% owned any slaves out in 1860. Many had only one, and many purchased family members to keep them out of harms way.

Fine, make sure that .05 get no reparations, but you surely are not implying it was any large number or percentage, or are you trying to imply that? Over 323,000 white people were slave owners in 1860. Compared to something at the most around 10,000 black people. You do know you had to be free to own slaves right? In 1860 there were over 3 million slaves according to the census.

This is why we need accurate history, it's apparently being taught incorrectly.

Link

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Dapaga

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Who's saying kids are responsible for slavery? No one is saying that. But let's be fair, it was whites who kept blacks as slaves.

I certainly can't help how someone might feel about that, but it should still be taught. Since IT HAPPENED AND IS PART OF OUR HISTORY.

But what if we went in the total opposite direction?

What if we didn't teach or speak of it? What if it was completely forgotten about? What if children WEREN'T taught that the African American ones were once considered little more than animals? What if they grew up believing that they were, are, and always have been equal?

Something to think about.

How are you going to accomplish that? Where do you draw the line? Just withhold the history of American slavery from them? What about the genocide of the indigenous people, what about the Holocaust? Should we withhold those histories from students too?

How are sheltered students going to reconcile what they are led to believe in school with their experience out in real world, its current events, movies, TV shows, music and historical books, fiction and non-fiction?

do sex slaves count?

what if i had a cotton gin?, would i be in trouble?

wow,

i just tried to google slaved. and a page came up asking if i was a robot!

is someone watching what i'm writing here?

aren't there things slaved to other things besides people?

isn't my printer slaved to my desk top?

or an alexa slaved to goggle?

how many libs are slaved to their job?

do i need another coffee?

i guess we need a clear definition of slave.

originally posted by: Elvicious1
As a resident of Florida I can state that not all of DeSantis' policies are designed for the people, but for his Presidential run. DeSantis screwed the C19 -related Unemployed. Disney is a publicity stunt that has the potential of being overturned. As an attorney (JAG -USN), he is fully aware of that taking place and that he does not have the authority to attack Disney's self -governing status... and for the record, I lean Right but am able to think for myself. There is profound Truth in the statement: "all politicians are the same".

Can you list the DeSantis policies are NOT designed for the people with details etc?😵

a reply to: frogs453

Yes, we definitely need more accurate history.

In 1860, the average price of a slave was $800. That was the average price; a slave could bring two and a half times that ($2000). That may not seem like a lot today, but $800 in 1860 was the same as over $27,000 today. This was at a time when, in the South especially, poverty was the rule. People had large families so they would have help with the crops; they couldn't afford to even gather their fields otherwise. Many were sharecroppers who spent their entire lives owning nothing.

But somehow they managed to cough up the equivalent of $27k for a slave they then had to feed and house?

And you believe that?

The truth is that in the South, the vast majority of slaveowners were also plantation owners. Only a tiny percentage of the population owned slaves, and only a tiny percentage of those who owned slaves owned more than 1 or 2. Plantation owners, on the other hand, might have dozens or sometimes hundreds of slaves. In the North, it was a bit different; most families had a slave or two. The Emancipation Proclamation did not even affect the North; it only outlawed slavery in the Confederate states. The North outlawed slavery shortly after, state by state, usually with a grandfather clause that allowed present slave owners to keep the slaves they had.

By 1860, most people who owned slaves had clauses in their will that freed their slaves upon their death. Some even freed their slaves just because they realized how wrong slavery was. That's all slaveowners (except for the plantation owners), not just those in the North.

The United States held several different groups as slaves, not just blacks. During the time of the War of Northern Aggression, blacks were the most popular slaves to own. Much of the reason for that was that they were easily identified; even though not all blacks were slaves, most were. It was much easier to spot a poor black man (who was likely a runaway slave) than a poor white man (who probably was not be a slave). But there were Chinese slaves, Irish slaves... a good many of the original settlers were indentured servants, which was a temporary slavery (one which could easily be turned permanent if the owner was predisposed to do so).

Slavers from Africa typically did not "conquer" their slaves... they literally traded for them! With tribal leaders (who were also black). Why fight and chance getting your men all dead and stuff when you can negotiate with a few cheap trinkets? These tribal leaders would often misrepresent the slavers as benefactors, using the same kind of propaganda we use today to get people to follow the narrative blindly. They would throw extravagant parties and bestow honors on those "chosen few" who had been deemed worthy to leave with the slavers, making a future in slavery seem like a good thing to be pursued. There are even reports of fights and physical, grueling contests to see who was "worthy" of leaving with the slavers.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Politifact has it wrong. They have relied on manipulated statistics to lead you into believing that which is not true, just like the tribal chiefs of long ago used a false narrative to convince future slaves that their sacrifice was a great honor.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why do you think the value of a grown strong male slave was of a higher value? Do you really believe they bought every slave they had? You can certainly find the information regarding how important it was to have "breeding" stock. They did not buy every slave they had. I'm sure there may have been the occasional non black slave. From anything I can find, it wasn't the norm. I mean unless you're counting the half,quarter white, etc that were the result of rape. They were still all considered slaves.

Could you provide a link to the costs to feed and clothe? I know from reading the slave narratives. They were usually housed with anywhere from 4-12 together, and most food included the parts of animals that were not consumed by those in the main house, procuring animals on their own like squirrel, and sometimes stealing things such as the corn meant for the pigs according to Booker T Washington. Hunger was a constant.
PDF

I also never claimed everyone owned slaves. I replied to the implication that a lot of slave owners were black. .05 percent. I did state 323,000 slave owners were white in 1860, I did not claim it was a huge percentage.

I understand why you may want to downplay the horrificness of it.

3 million slaves. Half of ATS is whines and is upset about wearing a mask, but wants to downplay families ripped apart, beatings, forced labor, watching your daughter be raped, branding, and all the other atrocities that occurred.

a reply to: frogs453

I have no problem with "accurate history". The problem is that it isn't being taught.

a reply to: frogs453

Why do you think the value of a grown strong male slave was of a higher value? Do you really believe they bought every slave they had? You can certainly find the information regarding how important it was to have "breeding" stock.

Oh, so people who didn't have slaves bred their own slaves? FROM WHAT?

One cannot just breed something one does not own. The point I was making is that very few households in the South owned slaves in the first place because they couldn't afford them. Our culture was built around the elite (plantation owners who did have, breed, and buy slaves) a small "middle class" (who might have a slave to help the woman of the house with household chores), and the majority were dirt poor and unable to buy or breed slaves.

You can stop the nonsense about slaves starving. Would you buy a $27,000 tractor and put watered-down diesel fuel in it? People did not buy slaves for showpieces or because they hated anything... they bought slaves to work. How is someone supposed to work if they are not fed? That's like saying owners of race horses regularly starve their horses. It's literally inane. The owners did eat first, and they ate best, but they did not starve their slaves. As I understand it, most fed their slaves a diet of gruel made from oats and grains produced on the plantations. Tasteless, I'm sure, but not the same as starving slaves.

As for hunger being common, it was. Among everyone except the elite. They didn't have grocery store chains and disposable income. They ate what they grew.

There was one notable person in the South who purposely starved probably thousands of slaves: General William Tecumseh Sherman. When he cut that swath of destruction through the South (the reason that plantation house I mention below is the only one in the area still standing; the rest were burnt to the ground), he would also burn the bridges behind him, specifically to prevent the freed slaves from following him. They were trying to follow because he left nothing to eat... the crops were burnt, the storehouses were burnt, everything edible was burnt. So the slaves this war hero criminal supposedly "freed" were also freed from living as well. It is quite likely that Sherman killed more black slaves in that one military operation than died total from all causes in the previous history of the area!

I would go so far as to say most black families from that era are the descendants of the black slaves who fought alongside the whites in the War of Northern Aggression. Most of the freed slaves who did not fight were starved by the Union army. Hard to procreate when one is dead.

But the history books don't tell you about that. The Internet doesn't tell you about that. It's not what "they" want you to know.

4-12 slaves per galley sounds a little low. Near me there stands a pre-War of Northern Aggression small plantation house. Compared to most houses today, even this small one is massive. In my youth, I used to sneak around the place as did most of the kids; it was said to be haunted (although I never saw any evidence of that) and kids like to hunt ghosts... at least we did.

The old slave galleys under the back porch were still intact, looking like they were just abandoned yesterday. There were iron cuffs hanging on the wall, and piles of rotten hay that once were beds. It looked large enough for maybe 50 slaves.

Those are simply facts. You cannot change them. What was, was. What happened, happened. All you can do is perpetuate the myths to make it easier to do the whole damn thing over again.

As I understand it, slaves in the North were handled somewhat differently. Most families there were not dirt poor and it was actually common for them to have a slave or two. After time, most Northern states did outlaw slavery, at least outlawed the importation of slaves. Some outlawed breeding slaves. But most also grandfathered in the slaves already there. If you owned a slave you could keep them until they died.

I am not "downplaying" anything! Do NOT insinuate that! Slavery was a horrendous abuse of human freedom. But no one is going to change that by lying about the actual conditions. One might... might.... prevent future slavery by being honest about what was going on and why slavery became so popular among the elite.

This is my family history, my family's culture, my family's heritage of which I speak. Iot's not something that came form a book, written by someone who themselves probably didn't understand the economics and social structure of the time. My family never owned slaves (thankfully), but they lived in a society where it was a permissible thing. I have found reference to one related family after they moved to Texas who owned a handful of slaves. I have a handwritten letter they sent back after a plague of some sort. They listed each and every family member, who had died, who was still sick, who was recovering, and who had survived. Then they also listed the slaves and their conditions. Some were actually in the Master bedroom where they could be cared for and nursed back to health. Their nanny, a black household slave, had died and a good part of the letter was telling how it affected the children because they loved the woman so much.

That is handwritten, period-dated evidence that your understanding of how things actually were is hogwash. Wake up; you're wallowing in ignorance.

TheRedneck