Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vows that critical race theory won’t be part of the state’s education curriculum.
“Florida’s civics curriculum will incorporate foundational concepts with the best materials, and it will expressly exclude unsanctioned narratives like critical race theory and other unsubstantiated theories,” DeSantis said Wednesday.
Critical race theory, Heritage Foundation scholars Jonathan Butcher and Mike Gonzalez say, “makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life,” and it “underpins identity politics, which reimagines the U.S. as a nation riven by groups, each with specific claims on victimization.”
“Let me be clear,” DeSantis said, “There is no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory. Teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money.”
Rather than teaching critical race theory, he said, Florida “will invest in actual, solid, true curriculum, and we will be a leader in the development and implementation of a world-class civics education.”
Gonzalez, who has written extensively on critical race theory for The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that critical race theory is teaching children a false version of history.
“Teaching young children that punctuality, love of reading and writing, and hard work are functions of something called ‘white-ism,’ or that treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity, will not help students thrive and be successful,” he said.
Stop whining.
White supremacy has had a 500 year run of death and torture and filth and theft. Enough is enough.
Absolutely,,,and Blacks in Africa have had since the beginning of history a chance to be the height of civilization. How is that working out for you?
Yes, makes you wonder why every other group who came here progressed, including whites subjected to slavery in their own countries.
Whites were not subjected to slavery in any of the western colonial nations.
Actually in that you’re horribly wrong. There was such a thing as Indentured Servitude. Also, Irish (white people) were enslaved. And while you could technically buy your way out of Indentured Servitude, the costs to do so was often prohibitive and your “two year contract” ended up keeping you “enslaved” for the next 10-15 years.
And if you had kids during that time and died? Your KID inherited that whole debt. Which means he was treated just like a slave.
My first ancestor here was Prussian, enslaved by his own government to fight for the British. He received no compensation and little food. When the British left, they left him behind at the mercy of the US. Thankfully our Forefathers were in fact merciful to him.
Sadly, race has been the defining issue for democrats for the last 60 years—especially their attempt to rewrite the racist history of the party. Unfortunately, this is the catalyst for so much of the hate and hysteria we see today. In their attempt to absolve themselves of their sins, they have assigned collective guilt to all America, especially their political opponents.
This template has worked so well, democrats have expanded, creating an entire grievance industry that preys on the vulnerabilities of all so-called “marginalized” people, exploiting the misery of others. They’ve abandoned the middle-class for the victim-class, always appealing to the lowest common denominator as representative of entire groups of people.
What makes this so disgusting and dangerous is that they are destroying any moral authority America has around the world. It has not only fomented hatred from within, it has created contempt from abroad, as other countries look-on in amazement at what is happening in this country. Democrats have made it impossible for America
to “lead,” or hold any nation accountable for their abuses, especially human-rights violations. Biden just discovered this with his meeting with the Chinese, where they are accusing America of being human rights violators because of our “institutionalized racism.” Thank you, Democrats.
Well, if it hadn’t been for colonialization by who knows how they might have turned out.
What we’ve been TRYING to do is RID the world of those four things, but no one seems to want to listen.
Yes and niggers aren’t filthy and ignorant, the most they achieved is building mud huts and killing and stinking up the planet.
That kinda shit isn’t helpful, and only serves to make you look like the ignorant asshole I imagine you to be.. Keep the hateful rhetoric to yourself.
Exactly. There are racists. I’ve never denied that (see my bit below for details). But responses like Fred’s don’t help. He’s an example of the bigotry we all want to see end.
What the LEFT screams about is not “racism”. It’s nothing more than a weaponized word they use to attack people who refuse to obey or support them. Which threatens to dilute the word and weaken its meaning. So that when we see genuine filthy racism crop up, we might not even recognize it.
Betcha a nickel Fred’s a troll…..at least a very liberal white or possibly even African American
In my many, many years of existence, I’ve found that the majority of people who are obsessed with race are racists.
Bingo!…….not to mention dems.
There are bigots of all sorts throughout the world. I think most of us prefer to treat EVERYONE as we ourselves wish to be treated. All this garbage about critical race theory is out there only to inflame the REAL bigots, which are those calling everyone else a racist.
My father was a bigot. Taught me all the nasty words for almost all the races. But, in a way, being exposed to a bigot at a young age was a good thing. He made me ask myself, at a very young age, “what have these people done to be worthy of so much hatred?”
And, the only answer I could find was, “this hatred is nothing but the product of small petty minded people.”
Small groups within a race may deserve scorn, but the entire race? No, they don’t deserve scorn and hatred.
So yes, racism is still very much a real thing. But, its nowhere near as severe as most people make it out to be.
Because if it was, then the large Mexican communities I dealt with in Arizona would have been constantly under attack. They weren’t.
The large Chinese communities I dealt with when I lived in California would have been constantly under attack. They weren’t.
The “multicultural district” near where I live now, which is a mixture of all sorts of races, you guessed it, they’d be constantly under attack. I’ve yet to hear a single news report in YEARS about racist actions taking place in or against anyone in that district.
The fact the LEFT throws the words “racist” and “racism” around like candy, the real worry is “will we recognize real genuine racism when it rears its ugly head sometime in the future?”
IE “the boy who cried wolf.”
Will we recognize it when someone cries “racist!” and means it?
“Boy”?……clearly youre a racist…….no just messing with you and making your point…..i agree with you
I can talk for an hour – without interruption – on the Transatlantic slave trade and 400 years later people like Adam are living in distress. It is so sad. I have nothing but pity for all citizens like Adam. I agree with him–enough is enough, he’s had all he can take, I recommend he remove his chains and go at once to a land where happiness awaits him. I promise not to object. There is not one major sector of the economy that would be severely damaged by his departure. We will all miss him but I expect we will soon recover the loss.
Why is America so tied to the slave trade WHY/ it’s a crock of Shit! Freed by a White American causing the World to change.
Slavery, though abundantly practiced in Africa itself and widespread in the ancient Mediterranean world, had nearly died out in medieval Europe. It was revived by the Portuguese in Prince Henry’s time, beginning with the enslavement of Berbers in 1442.
Portugal populated Cape Verde, Fernando Po (now Bioko), and São Tomé largely with Black slaves and took many to the home country, especially to the regions south of the Tagus River.
New World Black slavery began in 1502, when Gov. Nicolás de Ovando of Hispaniola imported a few evidently Spanish-born Blacks from Spain. Rapid decimation of the Indian population of the Spanish West Indies created a labour shortage, ultimately remedied from Africa.
The great reformer, Las Casas, advocated importation of Blacks to replace the vanishing Indians, and he lived to regret having done so.
The population of the Greater Antilles became largely Black and mulatto; on the mainland, at least in the more populated parts, the Indians, supplemented by a growing mestizo caste that clung more tenaciously to life and seemed more suited to labour, kept African slavery somewhat confined to limited areas.
The Portuguese at first practiced Indian slavery in Brazil and continued to employ it partially until 1755. It was gradually replaced by the African variety, beginning prominently in the 17th century and coinciding with the rapid rise of Brazilian sugar culture.
As the English, French, Dutch, and, to a lesser extent, the Danes colonized the smaller West Indian islands, these became plantation settlements, largely cultivated by Blacks.
Before the latter arrived in great numbers, the bulk of manual labour, especially in the English islands, was performed by poor whites. Some were indentured, or contract, servants; some were redemptioners who agreed to pay ship captains their passage fees within a stated time or be sold to bidders; others were convicts.
Some were kidnapped, with the tacit approval of the English authorities, in keeping with the mercantilism policy that advocated getting rid of the unemployed and vagrants. Black slavery eventually surpassed white servitude in the West Indies.
John Hawkins commanded the first English slave-trading expedition in 1562 and sold his cargo in the Spanish Indies. English slaving, nevertheless, remained minor until the establishment of the English island colonies in the reign of James I (ruled 1603–25).
A Dutch captain sailed the first cargo of Black slaves to Virginia in 1619, the year in which the colony exported 20,000 pounds (9,000 kilograms) of tobacco.
The restored Stuart king, Charles II, gave English slave trade to a monopolistic company, the Royal Adventurers Trading to Africa, in 1663, but the Adventurers accomplished little because of the early outbreak of war with Holland (1665). Its successor, the Royal African Company, was founded in 1672 and held the English monopoly until 1698, when all Englishmen received the right to trade in slaves.
The Royal African Company continued slaving until 1731, when it abandoned slaving in favour of traffic in ivory and gold dust. A new slaving company, the Merchants Trading to Africa (founded 1750), had directors in London, Liverpool, and Bristol, with Bristol furnishing the largest quota of ships, estimated at 237 in 1755. Jamaica offered the greatest single market for slaves and is believed to have received 610,000 between 1700 and 1786.
The slave trade still flourished in 1763, when about 150 ships sailed yearly from British ports to Africa with capacity for nearly 40,000 slaves.
There was no well-organized opposition to the slave trade before 1800, although some individuals and ephemeral societies condemned it.
The Spanish church saw the importation of Blacks as an opportunity for converting them. The English religionist George Fox, founder of Quakerism (founded in the 1650s), accepted the fact that his followers had bought slaves in Barbados, but he urged kind treatment.
The English novelist and political pamphleteer Daniel Defoe later denounced the traffic but seemingly regarded slavery itself as inevitable. The English and Pennsylvania Quakers passed resolutions forbidding their members to engage in the trade, but their wording suggests that some were doing so; in fact, 84 of them were members of the Merchants Trading to Africa.
Those opposing the slave trade often objected on other than humanitarian grounds. Some colonials feared any further growth of the Black percentage of the population. Others, who justified English slave sales to the Spanish colonies because payment was in cash, condemned the same traffic with French islanders, who paid in molasses and thus competed with nearby English sugar planters.
Colonial wars of the first half of the 18th century
From 1689 to 1763 the British and French fought four wars that were mainly European in origin but which determined the colonial situation, in some cases for two centuries. Spain entered all four, first in alliance with England and later in partnership with France, though it played a secondary role.
King William’s War (War of the League of Augsburg)
The war known in Europe as that of the Palatinate, League of Augsburg, or Grand Alliance, and in America as King William’s War, ended indecisively, after eight years, with the Treaty of Rijswijk in 1697. No territorial changes occurred in America, and because the great Mughal emperor Aurangzeb reigned in India, very little of the conflict penetrated there.
Queen Anne’s War (War of the Spanish Succession)
Queen Anne’s War, the American phase of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14), began in 1702. Childless king Charles II of Spain, dying in 1700, willed his entire possessions to Philip, grandson of Louis XIV of France. England, the United Provinces, and Austria intervened, fearing a virtual union between powerful Louis and Spain detrimental to the balance of power, and Queen Anne’s War lasted until terminated by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
England (Great Britain after 1707) gained Gibraltar and Minorca and, in North America, acquired Newfoundland and French Acadia (renamed Nova Scotia). It also received clear title to the northern area being exploited by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Bourbon prince Philip was recognized as king of Spain, but the British secured the important asiento, or right to supply Spanish America with slaves, for 30 years.
King George’s War (War of the Austrian Succession)
There followed a peace almost unbroken until 1739, when, with the asiento about to expire and Spain unwilling to renew it, Great Britain and Spain went to war.
The recent amputation of an English seaman’s ear by a Spanish Caribbean coast guard caused the conflict to be named the War of Jenkins’ Ear. This merged in 1740 with the War of the Austrian Succession (called King George’s War in America), between Frederick II the Great of Prussia and Maria Theresa of Austria over Silesia.
France joined Spain and Prussia against Great Britain and Austria, and the war, which was terminated in 1748 by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, proved indecisive.
New England colonials captured Louisbourg, the fortified French island commanding the St. Lawrence entrance, but France’s progress in India counterbalanced this conquest. With the Mughal Empire now virtually extinct, the British and French East India Companies fought each other, the advantage going to the French under Dupleix, who captured Madras and nearly expelled the British.
The peace treaty restored all conquests; France recovered Louisbourg, and the British regained Madras and with it another chance to become paramount in India.
4% of the African slave trade went to America, 40% went to Brazil. The balance went to the Caribbean Islands.
Africans were not the first choice to meet the demand for cheap labor in the Americas in the 16th and 17th century. However, indentured servants from Europe, as well as American Indians, proved to be ill suited for hard labor in hot climates in large part because they had no immunities to diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, among others. Once it became apparent that Africans fared much better because of their immunity to these dread diseases, they quickly became the default labor currency in the tropics and sub-tropics.
As was true throughout history in virtually all parts of the world, whenever conflicts flared between warring peoples, the conquering party had a discreet set of options in dealing with their vanquished opponents. They could kill them, free them or enslave them (e.g. as laborers for economic benefit). Once it was brought to the attention of African Chieftans that there was a viable market for slave laborers, they took full advantage and the African slave trade proliferated.
By the time the United States was born, slavery had already been institutionalized in the Americas for well over one hundred years. However, at the moment of the country’s infancy, people in the colonies began to rise up in opposition to the practice of slavery. Within the the first two decades of the existence of the United States, eight states had already abolished slavery and there was mounting opposition to the practice across the country. By the 1830s, most Americans were opposed to the practice of slavery. It took a Civil War to finally put an end to it in the 1860s.
There is excellent history of slavery up to the Civil War. What takes place after that, when southern leaders were not allowed to take on governing the South, Democrat Carpetbaggers (term came from the popular form of luggage at the time) came down from the north to implement the post war government. These northern Democrats prevented the passing out of the agreed reparation’s of 40 acres and a mule to the freed slaves. These same Democrats also started the KKK, led the push of Jim Crowe laws and all the indignities up to the fights to maintain segregation into the 1960’s. Then they found a new way to keep people enslaved in a different way, using welfare and making it difficult if not impossible to escape from these conditions of public subsidized housing and support. Add introduction to illegal drugs and they created a damning loop to subjugate these groups and make it appear they were trying to support and help them. This is almost more evil treatment than the original slavery as it still enslaves a population allowing them to deteriorate and make them dependent on you for survival and in their minds the appearance of not being slaves.