I read Florida's African-American History education guidelines.

 I considered an attempt at a pithy title, but I am not pithy.  The same can be said for wit.  I can easily manage snark, but amid so much headache-inducing noise, what I will say by way of long-winded introduction is that I actually read the guidelines from Florida's Department of Education on Social Studies and African-American history.  Most in my position-- professors-- are strangely reluctant to read for themselves.  Granted, they have their own readings, self-assigned, yet one must always remember that we can refrain from the fight and take no position.  Some readings-- science and medicine-- require specialized knowledge which most lack.  Yet if you have the requisite knowledge to read and choose not to do so, then refrain from taking a side.  Or read.  Do not simply take a side because it is your side.  So it often is with Ron DeSantis and any of his culture war-related policies.  In academia, we are told to despise him and everything he does because blah-blah red versus blue, something-ist, something-phobe, while my decision to follow medical advice and data on COVID must mean that I, of all people, am hyper-woke.

So, yes, I read.  Here is the link.  You will note that I am sending you to the actual document at the Florida DoE page, rather than either some Rachel Maddow screed, or a DeSantis hagiography at The Daily Wire, because I actually want to know what the policy is, not what DeSantis fanboys and triggered lefties say.

And if you want to know what the policy says, don't merely read my blatherings.  Read the policy.  Yes, it is a bit long-winded, but if you do it, then no one can bullshit you.  Behold, the power of reading.  It is from your fundament, or something.

Here is my reading, for the zero people who care.  Does the document actually say that slaves learned valuable skills for personal benefit?  Yes.  It does say that.

SS.68.AA.2.3    Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).

Benchmark Clarifications: Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

So that is what the document says.  Selah.  Pause and reflect.

Let us consider, first, that this is rather different from "Don't Say Gay."  What leftists called the "Don't Say Gay" bill did not, in fact, say that.  If you read the text, it said that instruction in kindergarten through third grade could not address sexuality or gender, and at fourth grade and above, it could do so in an age-appropriate way.  "Don't Say Gay" sounds a lot scarier, but it was not what was in the policy.  Simply put, that epithet was a lie.

This time, schools are instructed to teach about the skills slaves learned for their own benefits.

Did you read anything beyond that section?  To hear the political noise, one would think that the document had been written by the reincarnation of Nathan Bedford Forrest in collaboration with Richard Spencer.

Have you heard any outrage about any other lines?  Any other sections?  It is a long document.

You have heard no outrage about anything else because the rest of the document, as you read it, is quite boring, boilerplate, uncontroversial and even woke-approved.  Whatever other instruction you want is there, unless what you demand is full CRT/1619 Project nonsense.  Do you want the Middle Passage, Jim Crow, redlining, African-American contributions to history and culture...?  Whatever you want, it's in there, except for Derrick Bell-isms and Nikole Hannah-Jones-isms.

And then there is SS.68.AA.2.3.

Why is it there, given context?  Is it there to trigger the libs?  If so, it worked, but behold my fish barrel.  I believe you own some fishing implements that might be classified as "overkill."

If SS.68.AA.2.3 were removed, about what would the left rage?  Their inability to decide which syllable to emphasize in DeSantis's name?  (Do you know  how to pronounce my name?  I'm not telling you because I do not care.)

This is a strange document.  Most of it is uncontroversial.  Aside from SS.68.AA.2.3, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?  Is that a proper analogy?  One wonders how much class time or textual material will be devoted to SS.68.AA.2.3, and instead, how much this is there merely to trigger the libs.

Are there good, ole' boys who still cling to this way of thinking?  Remember when the GOP rallied around a good, ole' boy named Cliven Bundy?  I still love this clip.  I know, I need updated references, but mostly, they don't say this shit on camera anymore.  How many still believe it?  That's an interesting question, which is difficult to answer given that no one wants to say it anymore.

Which brings us back to the question, why is SS.68.AA.2.3 there?

I go back to the controversial policy on sexuality and gender, and remind you what it actually said.  No discussion of sexuality or gender identity for K-3, and at an age-appropriate level after that.  The most damning thing one could honestly say about it was that the vagueness of the second part left it open to misinterpretation and litigation, and there were valid debates on that point, but it was not discussed honestly by its critics, so there was no good faith debate on the problems of vagueness in the law.

SS.68.AA.2.3?

I will respond with as much as I think is necessary, and then move on.  The economic value of any skills, post-emancipation, were greatly diminished by the policies put into place by the South to prevent the freed slaves from taking full economic advantage of emancipation.  See?  I think that counts as polite.

With respect to the advantage that slaves could take before emancipation, it was not that they were taught skills, so much as that they were, one might say, "segregated" from the white economy, making a degree of self-sufficiency necessary.

See?  I can be tactful.

I think that is better than telling Ron DeSantis to suck a Shaft.

No, that was better.  That felt right.  That felt like me.  What can I say?  I'm a juvenile man.

Anyway, read these documents.  Sometimes, one side is lying.  Sometimes, the other.  Oftentimes, I want to turn off the internet.

Nina Simone, "You've Got To Learn," from I Put A Spell On You.