There are times when I shake my head at my fellow conservatives… and this is one of them.
In the State of Florida, which I proudly call home, the Social Studies curriculum has been changed by the state legislature, and these changes have been signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis. And whereas I agree with and even applaud most of the revisions, there is one that absolutely sickens me.
Specifically, it is the reference to there having been some ancillary benefits – a silver lining, if you will – to slavery.
The authors of the curriculum included William Allen, a professor emeritus of political science at Michigan State University. Allen is a black man, a fact which conservatives have seized upon to defend the accuracy of the curriculum changes as they pertain to African American history… and to slavery in particular.
For the record, I have no qualms with Mr. Allen’s inclusion on the curriculum committee as his academic credentials speak for themselves. Nor do I have a problem with the vast majority of the committee’s revisions. However, I draw the line at the following sentence: Benchmark Clarifications: Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
Is such a statement historically accurate? Perhaps. Is it educationally necessary to include in a course on African American history? I think not. Most importantly, is it insensitive and hurtful to black Americans, especially those who can trace their lineage back to slavery? Absolutely!
The curriculum itself is comprehensive and strong – covering topics such as black inventors, artists, explorers and civil servants. It also includes sections on African American oral traditions and folktales as well as recognizing blacks who demonstrated heroism and patriotism, and those who made significant contributions on the state level. Well done, committee.
However, where the curriculum goes off course is when it addresses slavery. It does an admirable job detailing “the causes, courses, and consequences of the slave trade,” the abolitionist movement, and even the Underground Railroad. If only it had stopped there before moving onto the aforementioned “developed skills” while using the offensive term “personal benefit.”
Did the Holocaust survivors personally benefit from being incarcerated in concentration camps during World War II? Of course not and yet, some historians will argue – somewhat convincingly – that without the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II, the nation of Israel would never have been created in 1948. However, don’t you see how hurtful and insulting that is to Jews to equate the two?
In the same manner, linking the abomination of slavery to a few life skills acquired by black slaves at the hands of their white masters strikes a raw nerve in minority communities 160 years later… and deservedly so.
Why not simply say that slavery was a crime against humanity and stop there? Why do my fellow conservatives feel the need to add or detract from that simple – and very accurate – statement? And why rip the scab off a national wound that has yet to fully heal?
Republicans who insist on the “silver lining” phrase may win the intellectual battle, but they are almost guaranteed to lose the electoral war in the process. Why? Because most people base their vote on a combination of facts and feelings. And while the GOP continues to wage war on the intellectual battlefield, the Democrats are winning the war of emotions.
Want proof? Since 1932, virtually every presidential election has been won by the candidate who appealed most to voters’ emotions. FDR was seen as caring more about the common man than Herbert Hoover and, as a result, he won the first of his four elections. Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson were perceived as being better able to keep Americans safe (remember LBJ’s “Daisy Girl” ad) in the midst of a Cold War. Jimmy Carter promised to never lie to us, and Bill Clinton told us that he “felt our pain.” And yes, when asked who they would rather have a beer with, the vast majority of voters said Barak Obama… and not the irascible John McCain or the robotic Mitt Romney.
If Republicans want to win future elections, especially at the national level, they would be smart to stop treating them like a contest between two Ivy League debate teams. Recent history has repeatedly proven that the party of feelings beats the party of facts almost every time.
To me, it all comes down to empathy vs. insensitivity. And, in my humble opinion, it is insensitive – and yes, unconscionable – to link slavery with ANY positive outcome.
