Outspoken pro-slavery advocate now. - Ron DeSantis Discussion

[–] JoWilli (21627) 2 years ago

basically you are saying that blacks are too dumb to learn new skills?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

No. I'm saying DeSantis has no problem with the history of slavery as long as it is taught in a manner that says they got what was coming to them.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21627) 2 years ago

so basically you are against history and facts? whats wrong with teaching history?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

I am against DeSantis opinions being depicted as factual history.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21627) 2 years ago

that wasnt his opinion, that was the opinion of the Florida school system...

also repeating something that is factual is not racist.

this is racist...

Joe Biden embraced segregation, claiming it was a matter of 'black pride'

So I learned about roaches, I learned about kids jumping on my lap,” the former vice president told the audience in Delaware. “And I loved kids jumping on my lap.”

Biden: ‘If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’

Biden: If You Don't Vote for Me, 'You Ain't Black'

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

DeSantis is knee deep in school politics as governor. What he says and does can affect it greatly

Yes, Biden sucks. What else is new? You telling me water is wet now?

reply

[–] JoWilli (21627) 2 years ago

Ron or any Governor has no control what information goes in text books.

here is where you can complain about Joe being a racist.
https://moviechat.org/nm0081182/Joe-Biden

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

The state government, including the governor, can have much input into how the state's public schools are run and sometimes who is on the school boards. They can also affect book selection. They can contract for the books they want in schools and edit the books how they see fit if they choose to do so.

The Florida Department of Education answers to the governor.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21627) 2 years ago

the governor does not write the textbooks...how is it racist to learn new skills?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 2 years ago

How did it benefit a slave to learn a new skill?

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1444) 2 years ago

Presumably it made them more valuable to their Master and, maybe, less likely to suffer additional mistreatment... Yay! A win!

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 2 years ago

"Thank you massa for not whipping me no mo'"

reply

[–] coreydude (331) 2 years ago

Should've picked our own cotton

reply

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

And your mother should have swallowed you.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

And your dad should’ve cummed in your ma’s ass.

And he’s right. And he’s implying if they did their own labor, slavery wouldn’t be a thing.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Y0u are LYING, because you know that LYING is the only way to justify your insane hate.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

I'm posting DeSantis' own words. Sounds like you're calling DeSantis a liar.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Dude. YOu're posting shit that clearly doesn't say what you are claiming it says, and insisting that it says something it clearly doesn't say.

That's you LYING.

This? This is you STONEWALLING.

You are a troll boi.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

The link has a video. Did you watch it? Do you understand the spoken word in English? You could stop playing dumb any time.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3563) 2 years ago

Where were the English words where he said he was advocating in favor of people being enslaved?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

He is just talking shit. He will post the same stupid shit that does NOT support what he claims, and pretend it does.

He is just a troll boi.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3563) 2 years ago

I mean all he’s doing though is causing people like me to go watch the video and listen to what the governor actually said and read the words of the educators that designed the middle school program; many of whom were Black. I would have never otherwise done this. So, at least for me this whole thread had the opposite effect from what he was trying to achieve.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

He's not interested in people like you, that might ask questions and investigate. He wants those that are too busy or too lazy to do that.

Keep throwing shit out there into the world, until you creat the ILLUSION of credibility because a lot of voices are saying the same stupid shit. Where there is smoke, there must be fire, right?

As we can see by the way the world is going to shit, it is an effective techinque. All it requires is that those doing it, to be completely soulless troll bois, without a hint of human decency or shame.

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 2 years ago

Obviously it helps when they are freed.
No?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Do you think DeSantis would have freed slaves 200 years ago if he had the chance? Or perhaps he would have said they were learning a valuable skill instead and did not need freedom?

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 2 years ago

Do you really believe this or is it what you want to believe?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

I really believe that DeSantis would prefer to have an underclass that was easy to exploit so that their "betters", like DeSantis, could more easily benefit from their labor.

These are the same kinds of people who are opposed to a minimum wage because paying "those people" more would make their life a bit more expensive.

https://time.com/6266618/ron-desantis-florida-governance-essay/

reply

[–] Ken12602 (503) 2 years ago

And do you know who it would make life more expensive for? Those making minimum wage because they spend most or all of their money on goods and services and they wouldn't end up with more goods and service, they would just cost more.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

That would only be true if the great majority of the labor force found their wages increasing due to an increase in the minimum wage. But about 50% of US workers make minimum wage. This means we can expect some inflation of prices, but an increase in pay normally benefits the person who gets a raise.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

It helped to have a skill to gain freedom. A skill got them out of the fields. A skill made their everyday life easier. It was very beneficial for a slave to learn a skill.

Craftsmen: Slaves that were skilled in a particular craft such as carpentry or as blacksmiths were allowed to undertake jobs after they finished their own work, and keep the money

https://www.american-historama.org/1790-1800-new-nation/buying-freedom-from-slavery.htm

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Only at the whim of their owners. Anyone who attempts to sugar coat slavery is evil.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Isn't learning a trade a benefit for a slave even if it's the whim of their owners? One of the terrible things about slavery is that slaves were kept uneducated. A slave learning to read write is seen as a positive so what's the difference?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Learning a skill as a slave is not the problem. But they were still slaves; learning a skill was more for the benefit of their owner, not the slave. After all, the slave did not own the fruits of their labor.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The slaves did benefit from learned skills. As I also linked, slaves were able to keep some of the money from their skills and could eventually by their freedom. On a basic level, just learning to sew means you can mend your clothing and that of your family. it's not a big deal to point this out.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

The left has run out of real racism to whine about. Now they have to lie about shit, in order to keep their hate alive.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Another part of the outrage is talking about blacks and violence during riots. They do and did. From what I read the riots Tulsa (1921) blacks drew first blood. I think they're ones who want a very selective history taught.

The new curriculum also includes assertions that Black people themselves perpetrated violence during historical racial massacres like the 1906 Atlanta race riot and the 1921 Tulsa massacre.

Upon hearing reports that a mob of hundreds of white men had gathered around the jail where Rowland was being held, a group of 75 black men, some armed, arrived at the jail to protect Rowland.

The most widely reported and corroborated inciting incident occurred as the group of black men left, when an elderly white man approached O. B. Mann, a black man, and demanded that he hand over his pistol. Mann refused, and the old man attempted to disarm him. A gunshot went off, and then, according to the sheriff's reports, "all hell broke loose".[25] The two groups shot at each other until midnight when the group of black men were greatly outnumbered and forced to retreat to Greenwood. At the end of the exchange of gunfire, 12 people were dead, 10 white and 2 black.[12]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/desantis-slavery-white-supremacy

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

What do we normally do to people who want to disarm us? Does it make a difference if the person bearing arms is black or white?

So blacks drawing first blood means what for the rioting and looting in Greenwood the following day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Two groups of angry men and one of those groups of angry men who carried out violence were black. The narrative out there is blacks didn't carry out violence. Warts and all?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Whose narrative are you talking about when you suggest it consists of blacks were not violent?

What do you do when a person tries to disarm you? Resist or fold?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I linked to something in The Guardian today. The narrative around Tulsa when I hear about it is angry racist whites went to the black part of town burning and murdering. That's not the whole story.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Of course not. But was it a legitimate reason for the mass murder and destruction of Greenwood back then?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Interesting. i have never heard that before. THanks.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

The law did not require that a slave be allowed to purchase their freedom. That was solely up to their owner.

It's like you don't really understand what a slave is.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Nothing you said, contradicted anything that Off said. Why are you pretending that it did?

The point stands. The sklls learned could and did benefit some slaves. That you people are upset to discuss that point, is you looking for shit to whine about.

Because you are out of REAL racist to be hate about.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

It seem that you also do not understand what being a slave actually is.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I have no problem understanding the historical FACT that some slaves were able to buy their freedom.

YOU are teh one that seems to have a problem with that.

It seems YOU are the one who does not understand what was happening.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

You act as though slaves were entitled to buy their freedom when they were not.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Sometimes it happened. I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

You seem to be confused by reality.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Can you show me a single case when a slave was entitled (as in by law) to buy their freedom? If a slave owner permitted their slave to buy their freedom, then it was not an entitlement.

Entitled means "Qualified for by right according to law".

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

I know what it means. I note that neither I, nor anyone else said anything about that being "entitled by law", so, again you are just making up shit.

Why are you utterly unable to be honest?

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Then you must be using a different definition of the word entitled than everyone else. What do you think entitled means anyway?

You really think I'm making up the definition for entitled?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

entitlement
noun
en·ti·tle·ment in-ˈtī-tᵊl-mənt en-
Synonyms of entitlement
1a: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
3: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

Funny you calling anyone else dishonest.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Wow. That was breath takingly stupid.

"entitled BY LAW" you drooling moron.

No one said anything about LAWS. We know it happened due to documented history. No one claimed to be informed whether it was required by law or simply an operating practice by slaver owners.

We know that some slaves made side money and eventually were able to buy their freedom. That was the point of discussion. You demanding legal statues is just you being a troll boi coward, afraid to discuss the actual point.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

I said entitled by law. How could you miss it?

I asked you for an example and you ran away to provide another insult instead.

"We know"? If we know, then how is it you can't come up with a single example? Just because a person allowed their slave to buy their freedom, does not mean that the slave was entitled to that action in any way.

Just because a few slaves were able to buy their freedom does not mean slavery was something less evil. If a few slaves were allowed to buy their freedom, then why does that matter at all to anyone other than the lucky few who were able to do so?

It is as if you want to claim that slavery was not all that bad because some slaves were allowed to learn a trade and then bargain for their freedom. Why not just prohibit slavery in the 1789 constitution instead?

But you claim to know things. So show us.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Wow.

No one is saying that slavery is "not all that bad".

You are making absurd claims, and purposefully being vague in your statements or any number of stupid and dishonest tactics to invite correction from people that notice you are talking shit and want to call you on it.

The point seems to be create a fight, so you can pretend that someone is DEFENDING slavery so as to rile up division and hate.

Nearly everythign you said in your previous post was bullshit designed to inflame hate.

You are a troll boi.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Then what is your rationale for talking about how a slave can be permitted to learn a skill and possibly buy their freedom? A skilled slave is a value to the owner and little else seeing as how very few slaves would ever be allowed to buy their freedom.

You make vague claims about slaves buying their freedom. Going to be specific?

You can choose to not be triggered. I think the main reason some people get upset about the issue of slavery is that they identify with the slave owner instead of the slave or the abolitionist.

This puts them on the wrong side of history, the side that should be long dead, but remembered so it is not repeated.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. Rationale? I didn't bring it up. YOu did and used it to talk shit. I defended my side.

2. Why? Are you denying that it happened? How are the specifics relevent to this discussion? This discussion is about you having a hissy fit and attacking your enemies. The details of the historical examples are irrelevant to your shit talk.

3. I think that you are purposefully claiming stupid shit, to create teh illusion that ANYONE is siding with the slavers, because you want to use the old issue of slavery to divide Americans into sides TODAY, and get them to hate each other. Standard marxist deconstructionism. And you can take your "triggered" and shove it up your ass.

4. There is nothing about a lesson or two, mentioning the practice of buying one's freedom, that in any way, puts anyone on the side of the slavers. You are a dishonest and divisive asshole.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Up above you claimed in part;

We know that some slaves made side money and eventually were able to buy their freedom.

So yes, you brought it up.

I want to know why you think slaves being permitted to buy their own freedom was significant at all while it was legal to keep slaves in the USA up until it was largely banned in 1865.

I think you're siding with the slavers. Too bad if you don't agree.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. I mentioned the topic. That is not me bringing it up. YOu are just talking shit. The topic was already brought up by YOU in teh op.

2. Mm, so you are dropping all the shit talk about the details? Good for you. Would have been BETTER for you, if you admitted that all that shit talk, was just shit talk.

3. Why is it significant? I don't know that it is. YOU are the one that found a single reference to it, and to make a major case out of it, and to use it to attack people and call them names, you faggot.

4. Awww, you "think" that I am "siding with the slavers"? Nice shit talk. That is what this is about. So you can say divisive shit, over and over again. Such sophist games are all that the left has these days. On some level, they know that their positions and policies are bad for people, but they still push them. YOu/they are knowingly evil.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Mentioning it and bringing it up are the same. Don't chicken out on me.

What details are you referring to?

You think it was significant that slaves were allowed to buy their freedom. I want to know why. Denying it does you no good.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

1. No, it's not you lying piece of shit.

2. All of them. That you were sort of asking for, for no fucking reason other than to cloud the issue. Like the sophist you are.

3. Denying it does no good, because you are a filthy liar. YOU started this thread, because you seem to think that you need to attack discussion of this historical factoid.

That you want to turn it around, is just you being a fucktard. Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Why is it you can't come up with anything more substantial then insults?

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

Dude. Your entire thread and especially the thread title is NOTHING but you insulting your enemies, based on complete bullshit.

You take a reference to an historical factoid about slavery and insist without ANY evidence that that means EVERYONE who is not denying the historical record, is a "slavery advocate".

I note that despite all of your shit talk, you have never denied that the history mentioned ie slaves learning skills, and sometimes benefitting, took place.

So, like I said, your entire thread boils down to you insulting people, so you can divide them and spread hate.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Nope. Just calling DeSantis a possible advocate of slavery; as well as some of his defenders, like you.

It is up to you to decide whether to united or be divided. I can't make that decision for you.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

You are calling names, based on nothing but you being an asshole.

That is you choosing to be divisive. I can't unite with someone attacking me for no reason.

So go fuck yourself. You lying whore.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

That doesn't negate the fact that there were slaves with skills who used said skills to earn money with which they used to purchase their freedom.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

They could only learn those skills, earn money, and buy freedom at the whim of their owners. I am talking about slaves, not indentured servants.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

That doesn't negate the fact that slaves acquired skills that benefited them.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

He seems to be unable to understand simple words.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

This whole thing is based around the word slave and the word benefit used in the same sentence and they've invented a narrative. Funny though, last week slavery wasn't being taught in Florida at all. Now it is.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Do you really think the slave benefited more than the owner? Why it is even worth mentioning if these skills did not extend to automatic freedom from slavery?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The fact remains it was a benefit for a slave to have a skill rather than not.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

The skill typically benefits the owner and the institution of slavery, which is to the detriment of the individual slave.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Having a skill is a benefit for the slave even if it benefits the slave owner.

reply

[–] Corbell (11001) 2 years ago

No one said anything like that. You made all of that up in your head.

You have having a hissy fit over nothing.

And you knew that. Stop the pretense.

reply

[–] Martoto (5191) 2 years ago

Prior to abolition the slave who learned a skill received less harsh treatment. Were forced to do less arduous work for their owners than those less skilled than them.

After it became illegal not to do so, the skilled work by former slaves received payment.

Wow. Sounds like they should be paying US reparations.

I imagine skilled former slaves were very popular in those states. And it's not like people hired only skilled white folk to do skilled work whenever they could. (unless they could get the former slaves much cheaper)

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Going by the outrage of pointing out how a skill could benefit a slave you could twist anything to make it sound someone or something is pro-slavery. Roots? The book and miniseries at times depicted slaves as happy, laughing, enjoying a wedding, celebrating Christmas, singing, dancing etc. There you go, Roots glamorizes slavery as a positive happy experience. Cancel it.

reply

[–] Martoto (5191) 2 years ago

No. Roots does not attribute any of the slave's happiness, such as it was, to slavery.

But we're supposed to put the skills that master's required from their slaves, which meant they didn't have to pay for those skills from anywhere else, in a preposterously absurd, imaginary "plus" column in order to assauge the sense of guilt or condemnation of those that actually profited from slavery.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5470) 2 years ago

Not really, because why would some slave owner want to pay for a service that they used to get for free?

That skilled slave would now have to wait for almost 100 years for Affirmative Action to use those slavery learned skill sets. 😉

No doubt their skills would also be deemed as unfairly gained and they would be deemed as inferior tradesmen taking the jobs of Whites!🤣

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

https://imgur.com/gallery/WnMhncs

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I thought this was another keelia post. My bad.

reply

[–] Destinata (3564) 2 years ago

You DO know that that section was not written by DeSantis but a Black doctor of history, right? His point was that the Blacks were resilient enough to take even slavery and turn it to their advantage by learning through the pain.

It's like folks saying that sharecroppers were resilient and learned how to take that experience and be able to grow physically, emotionally and economically. Now, I could get all twisted and say, "How dare you! My mother was a sharecropper! Do you know ANYTHING about the experience? It was horrible!" My mother learned she could do anything. Going through the Great Depression taught her that. Becoming a Rosie the Riveter taught her that. Becoming a WAAC (yes, I spelled that right) taught her that. Going through WWII taught her that. No, none of that was fun, but it taught her things, and that, and Black resiliency, was the point of the Florida Black History curriculum.

Mark Twain pointed out that the Chinese out West could make a go of a mine that the White men had given up as played out. Was the lot of the Chinese out West a happy one? He never said that. He was saying they worked harder than the White people who'd given up the mines as worthless.

Context matters.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

I don't care who wrote it. Sugar coating slavery with, they learned a skill, is evil.

Tell me more about the person who wrote that section?

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 2 years ago

OMG he did not sugar coat slavery. They weren't even talking about slavery per se. They were asking him about skills slaves learned that were being taught in the Florida school system and he couldn't even give a full answer. He appropriately directed the person to the Florida school system. How in the world did you come away with DeSantis sugar coating actual slavery????? Wow, just wow!!

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Now you are sugar coating it. Talking about skills learned by slaves is still talking about slavery. You can't even recognize sugar coating slavery when you're doing it.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 2 years ago

I'm sugar coating slavery?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You don't process correctly. If you weren't so funny I would feel sorry for you.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Yes. Your emojis are no substitute for rational debate.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 2 years ago

You can't debate. You're so stuck on accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you as "sugar coating slavery". That's not what DeSantis said, nor is that what I said, or implied. It's true that some slaves learned skills. It's also true that slavery was horrible, everyone already KNOWS slavery was horrible. That, however, was NOT part of what DeSantis was being asked by the reporter (or whoever was questioning him). He was being asked about skills being learned by some slaves and being taught in Florida schools - that's all - no more, no less.

But again, you have your mind set a certain way, you process things a certain way. You don't want to debate, you want to accuse. Edited to change debate to discuss because there's not much to debate. It is what it is.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

Here is Florida’s State Academic Standards – Social Studies, 2023 https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

Most of it looks good. It remains to be seen how it will be used and if the "benefits" of slavery to the slaves is emphasized more than how evil it was.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 2 years ago

"Most of it looks good" is an understatement. They not only delve very deeply into slavery, but into so many aspects of life for blacks for many years, up to and including current day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this curriculum. I'm actually totally shocked at how in depth it is! It is a HUGE part of the Social Studies curriculum.

I didn't see anything that said "benefits" of slavery in any context. And if they were talking about benefits of skills, as I've already said, that's true.

In any case, you're wrong about DeSantis.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 2 years ago

This is probably along the lines of what was being talked about. Maybe it will give you a broader perspective:

https://www2.gwu.edu/~folklife/bighouse/panel19.html

reply

[–] liscarkat (19418) 2 years ago

OP is very stupid, or a liar. Probably both. DeSantis did not, and has never, advocated slavery. He did not say or imply that slavery was okay for any reason. He said some slaves learned skills that they were able to use later in life, after they were no longer slaves. That is a historic fact. It's also a good thing. Those who had skills post-emancipation were better off than those who didn't. At that point in their lives, where or why they learned those skills was irrelevant.

reply

[–] Ranb (11294) 2 years ago

DeSantis is very stupid, or a liar, or both. To say that slaves learned skills without qualifying the statement as slavery still being evil means he is sugar coating that tragic history.

reply

[–] VonFisch (354) 2 years ago

You sound emotionally stunted and your logic is absent.

It's a given that slavery is bad, it doesn't need a qualifier every time you teach something about it after initial definition. It's like saying, oh, by the way, Satan is evil. History also includes black people's lives after slavery. It's good they are teaching how they made it through, including the obstacles. I said this all before to Information Police last weekend.

reply