Florida Schools to Tell Kids Slavery Benefited Black People

[basballguy]

i'm gonna start posting breitbert articles on this forum...some of the sites y'all use are light years worse than Fox News...

This is utter nonsense and it's a shame some of y'all will blindly believe it.

[basballguy]

(07-27-2023, 09:20 PM)Foolishpride Wrote: Has any of those sites had to settle a court case for $780 Million for slinging horseshit?

So until that happens, lying in the press is ok?  

hmmmmm

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-27-2023, 06:44 PM)samhain Wrote: The arguments for the okayness of slavery should beget other re-visits of what we consider egregious cultural acts.

If a dude beats the shit out of his wife every time she cooks a dinner he finds unsatisfactory, it's maybe not so bad if she comes out of it with enhanced cooking skills.

If a parent abuses their children, then the children subsequently become successful to escape the abuse, then obviously the abuse couldn't be that bad, right?

We seriously have the right trotting out completely unintended consequences as justifications for selling humans like livestock.

You say nonwhites owned slaves? No shit? Like other races of people also like free labor when seeking profits? Wow, I never would have imagined.

These findings should beget a real cultural renaissance.

Who has argued for the “okayness” of slavery?

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-27-2023, 09:56 PM)basballguy Wrote: So until that happens, lying in the press is ok?  

hmmmmm

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 09:58 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Who has argued for the “okayness” of slavery?

Sam should have said argued for the "wasn't-all-badness" of slavery. 

I.e., Slaves got health care and job training for free, and liberals make it sound like 

slavery was ALL bad to fit their agenda, namely that slavery was ALL BAD. 

Facts are facts though.

[Dill]

(07-27-2023, 06:44 PM)samhain Wrote: You say nonwhites owned slaves?  No shit?  Like other races of people also like free labor when seeking profits?  Wow, I never would have imagined.  
These findings should beget a real cultural renaissance.

As someone who has been following civil rights debates for over 50 years now, 
I used to be puzzled when "leftists" (as some call them now) would raise some issue about the 
legacy of slavery for political change (e.g., voting restrictions) and rightists would jump in with  
these oblique whattabouts like 

"Whattabout Africans--they sold their own 'people'?" and "northern states had slaves too!" "Some Blacks fought for the South!"

Such comments don't speak to the issue at hand, but do reveal a lot about what causes so much white anxiety about race issues: 

the perception/feeling that they are being attacked as a "race" and blamed for events which occurred before their parents were born, as if
no other race or country ever enslaved people. 

The less one knows about how professional historians work--their ideals of accuracy, letting inquiries go where the facts take them, and the assumption that "moralizing " is unprofessional--and the more one's exposure to history has been limited to the moralizing, celebratory popular and unprofessional sort ("our nation is the best! guided by God, Founders worked against slavery!"), then the more likely some very ordinary historical research is going to look like HATE and ACCUSATION, especially if you are viewing history as the story of races, as historians may not be.

You get out from under that by proving "they" did it too!  Plenty of blame to go around.

As I look over the DeSantis Florida curriculum, I wonder if that may be a reason for going into slavery in other lands while studying American, not world history. And for discussing blacks enslaved by blacks--as if slavery were not so much a legal institution which enabled one ethnicity to dominate another than a lot of individuals making individual choices. No questions about why no blacks owned white slaves. 

As I say, there is a lot more good history in this new curriculum than when I was in school, but I am just wondering how people without an "agenda" will be teaching it--as history or as "plenty of blame to go around"?  

[GMDino]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-work-group-not-agree-controversial-parts-states-new-standards-rcna96490

Quote:Most of Florida work group did not agree with controversial parts of state's new standards for Black history, members say

“Most of us did not want that language,” one work group member said.


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks in Iowa on July 15.Scott Olson / Getty Images file

• [/url]
• [url=https://www.twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Most%20of%20Florida%20work%20group%20did%20not%20agree%20with%20controversial%20parts%20of%20state%27s%20new%20standards%20for%20Black%20history%2C%20members%20say&via=nbcnews&url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-work-group-not-agree-controversial-parts-states-new-standards-rcna96490&original_referer=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-work-group-not-agree-controversial-parts-states-new-standards-rcna96490&cid=article_social_share_twitter]
• SAVE
  Create your free profile or log in to save this article
  

July 28, 2023, 6:27 PM EDT
By Janelle Griffith


A majority of the members of the Florida work group that developed new standards for teaching African American history opposed the sections that have recently drawn criticism, including that middle schoolers be instructed that enslaved people developed “skills” that could be used for their “personal benefit,” three members of the work group said.


The members, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal, told NBC News that the majority did not want to include that change or a requirement that high school students be taught about violence perpetrated “by African Americans” when learning about events like the Ocoee and Tulsa Race massacres.

“Most of us did not want that language,” one member said, adding that two of the 13 members of the group pushed to include those specific items.


The standards created by the work group went on to be unanimously approved on July 19 by the Florida Board of Education, which oversees the Education Department. The standards, which are to be used by students in kindergarten through 12th grade, have been widely criticized as “propaganda” and a “sanitized“ version of history.


Critics, including Vice President Kamala Harris, historians, educators and other politicians have said, among other things, that the new standards attempt to mask the many horrors of slavery, including rape, murder and forced labor, trying to portray it as an apprenticeship.



DeSantis responds to backlash over new public school teaching standards
JULY 28, 202302:08

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=DeSantis%20responds%20to%20backlash%20over%20new%20public%20school%20teaching%20standards&via=nbcnews&url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/desantis-responds-to-backlash-over-new-public-school-teaching-standards-189519429649&original_referer=https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/desantis-responds-to-backlash-over-new-public-school-teaching-standards-189519429649]
“These extremist, so-called leaders should model what we know to be the correct and right approach if we really are invested in the well-being of our children,” Harris said last week in Jacksonville, where she was joined by the president of the NAACP. “They dare to push propaganda to our children. This is the United States of America. We’re not supposed to do that.”


The work group members who spoke to NBC News said that only two members of the work group, William Allen and Frances Presley Rice, advocated for the criticized language. Allen and Presley Rice, both Black Republicans, released a joint statement last week defending the new standards as “comprehensive and rigorous instruction on African American history.”


“The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted,” they wrote. “This is factual and well documented.”


The members said Allen advocated for including that enslaved people benefited from skills that they learned, and Presley Rice pushed to include that students learn about “violence perpetrated against and by African Americans.”


“People were very vocal” and questioned “how there could be a benefit to slavery,” one work group member said about the language.
Allen, the member said, countered the arguments by using Frederick Douglass as an example.


“However, Dr. Allen is focusing on the few slaves who actually did learn something and keeps alluding to Frederick Douglass,” one work group member said. “What he is saying is not accurate for most of the slaves.”


All three members described him in separate interviews as “persuasive” and “knowledgeable” and said the group deferred to him.


Two members said the matter was tabled for a later discussion and did not recall it ever being voted on. One of those members called the language in the final product “problematic” and said the group “could have done a better job” if it had been given more time to work.


Allen did not immediately return a request for comment Friday in response to the members' characterization of events.


Reached by phone, Presley Rice said: “I recommend highly that you get in touch with the communications department at the Department of Education, and all your questions will be answered,” before ending the call.


The Florida Education Department did not respond to a request for comment.


Education Department mum on work group details


The revelations about the group’s inner workings come as the state maintains a lack of transparency around the work group.


The Education Department has not responded to repeated requests to identify the members of the work group nor has it disclosed how they were selected or detailed how they came up with the new language.


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, has defended the new standards while also distancing himself from the creation of the changes, which were made to satisfy legislation he signed into law.


“You should talk to them about it,” he said, referring to the group, at an event last week. “I didn’t do it. I wasn’t involved in it.”
DeSantis said he believed “what they’re doing is, they’re probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, 
being a blacksmith into doing things later in life.”


The names of the 13 work group members were confirmed to NBC News by two members of the group who asked to remain anonymous.


They are William Allen, LaFrance “Joe” Clarke Jr., Allison Elledge, Kathleen Ems, Roberto Fernandez III, Madonna Higgs, Helen Maffett, Jessica Morey, Kay Pape, Frances Presley Rice, Valencia Robinson, Constance Scott and Laura Wynn.



NBC News sought comment from all of the members through various means, leaving messages for some while others could not be reached.


The group is racially and politically diverse. At least 10 of the members of the work group are teachers or other officials in Florida public schools, making Allen and Presley Rice outliers.


Allen, who lives in Maryland, is a professor emeritus of political science at Michigan State University. He was on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under Ronald Reagan. Presley Rice, on her LinkedIn page, describes herself as an "independent consultant, providing advice about the production of African American History documentary production."


Paul Burns, the state’s chancellor of public schools, said at the Board of Education’s July meeting that 40 people responded to an August 2022 memo seeking "qualified individuals for a workgroup to review the standards related to African American History." The board also received nominees to the work group from the Commissioner of Education's African American History Task Force, Burns said.


Thirteen "education stakeholders, including Florida teachers from around the state" were ultimately selected for the work group, he told the board. It is not clear on what criteria the applicants were evaluated.
Task force not consulted on new standards


While most members of the group have kept a low profile, Presley Rice and Allen have spoken out.


“Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history,” they said in a joint statement after criticism began to mount last week. They mentioned blacksmithing, shoemaking, fishing, teaching and tailoring as examples of skills enslaved people developed. “Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.”


In a post on her Facebook page Saturday, Presley Rice said: “It saddens me to observe how falsehoods are being perpetuated now by some people with questionable intent, using cherry-picked language, taken out of context, to undermine the fact-based Academic 
Standards crafted by the Workgroup I was a part of, due to my decades-long quest to have the full, unvarnished history told about African Americans.”


In an interview with NBC News earlier in the week, Allen said the work group “deliberated between February and the end of April to review the curriculum standards and to propose new benchmarks and standards.”


"I think we may have had, over the course of the period from February to April, three or four meetings," he said, adding that each meeting took place over several days at Education Department facilities in Tallahassee.


The individuals who spoke to NBC News said some of the meetings were held over Microsoft Teams and that the entire panel did not attend every meeting. They also did not devise the standards in conjunction with the Commissioner of Education’s African American History Task Force, which was created in 1994 as part of legislation that requires the instruction of history, culture, experiences and contributions of African Americans in the state’s K-12 curriculum.


“Most people think that we work on behalf of the African American History Task Force and that wasn’t the case,” the member said. “It was two separate groups.”


State Sen. Geraldine Thompson, who opposes the new standards, said in an interview with NBC News that she had been involved with the African American History Task Force for decades, but was not aware that there was a work group.


“I don’t know who the people were who worked on this,” she said. “And so, it just kind of engenders an amount of distrust among people in the state who are now given some standards, and they don’t know where they came from, who the people were who developed them. 
And people that you would expect would be involved or at least informed, were not.”


Another task force member, state Rep. Kimberly Daniels, who was recently appointed, said in a statement this week that she had no role in creating the new standards.


Florida's Board of Education was required to change its standards for African American history education, among other things, to comply with House Bill 7, also known as the Stop WOKE Act, that DeSantis signed into law in April 2022. It bars instruction that might make members of one race feel guilty for past actions committed by their race and also bars the notion that meritocracy is racist or that people are privileged or oppressed based on race, gender or national origin. It also prevents the teaching of critical race theory. The law is being challenged in court.


De Santis has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that public school educators have tried to indoctrinate students with a liberal agenda. 
He has made fighting what he describes as a "woke" agenda a part of his brand. He has used "woke" to describe critical race theory, which examines the systemic role of racism in society and which is not taught in K-12 schools, as well as diversity, equity and inclusion. He also blocked the College Board's Advanced Placement African American history course, saying it violates state law and is historically inaccurate. 
The battle over what students are taught is one that is playing out in schools across the country.


De Santis has said Florida's new African American history curriculum "is rooted in whatever is factual."


"They listed everything out," he told reporters last week. "And if you have any questions about it, just ask the Department of Education. 
You can talk about those folks but I mean, these were scholars who put that together. It was not anything that was done politically."
Andrew Spar, the president of the Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union, has pledged to fight the new curriculum standards. 


"Right now we are working to bring people together to get these standards changed or overturned," he told NBC News last week. "We are concerned about the conflict that teachers have — we are required to be honest and ethical in our dealings and we are required to teach the standards. What do we do if the standards are not honest and ethical?"

Janelle Griffith

[Dill]

(07-30-2023, 01:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-work-group-not-agree-controversial-parts-states-new-standards-rcna96490

A majority of the members of the Florida work group that developed new standards for teaching African American history opposed the sections that have recently drawn criticism, including that middle schoolers be instructed that enslaved people developed “skills” that could be used for their “personal benefit,” three members of the work group said.

The members, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal, told NBC News that the majority did not want to include that change or a requirement that high school students be taught about violence perpetrated “by African Americans” when learning about events like the Ocoee and Tulsa Race massacres.

Yow this is terrible. 

As I suspected, people intent on reducing or spreading "blame" are behind the offensive remarks, and possible the inclusion
of the "slavery-everywhere-in-all times-and-places" thrust as well.

When students study the Holocaust, they should learn that some Jews also perpetrated violence against other Jews.

(07-30-2023, 01:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: While most members of the group have kept a low profile, Presley Rice and Allen have spoken out.

“Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history,” they said in a joint statement after criticism began to mount last week. They mentioned blacksmithing, shoemaking, fishing, teaching and tailoring as examples of skills enslaved people developed. “Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.”

In a post on her Facebook page Saturday, Presley Rice said: “It saddens me to observe how falsehoods are being perpetuated now by some people with questionable intent, using cherry-picked language, taken out of context, to undermine the fact-based Academic Standards crafted by the Workgroup I was a part of, due to my decades-long quest to have the full, unvarnished history told about African Americans.”

And this is the spin. 

A "full, unvarnished history" on this principle might include a segment on how slave owners could rape slaves at will, but Black men sometimes raped white women too. We need "ALL the facts." 

Why limit this to U.S. history? No one ever mentions that Jews may have learned some skills in camps that were useful after they survived
their intended extermination. Presenting them as just victims of oppression ignores their strength, courage, and resiliency. 

The majority of this curriculum does seem to me good and "fact-based," it's just that the contested language plants seeds of considerable distortion for teachers who know how to nurture them.

[basballguy]

Did anyone bother to actually read the document or are we just parroting what we read when we seek out our bias?

I think this is the full text of the piece that's causing all this virtue signaling:

Quote: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. 

You have to really stretch this as portraying the lesson as being "slavery is ok"...which is why the articles being posted here are just cherry picking the words they use.  

When i read the entire section on this, it looked (to me) very factually based and touches on, from what i can tell, every facet of slavery.  Isn't that what we want? A full representation of history?

Manufactured outrage....as usual.  

[Dill]

(07-30-2023, 04:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: Did anyone bother to actually read the document or are we just parroting what we read when we seek out our bias?
I think this is the full text of the piece that's causing all this virtue signaling:

You have to really stretch this as portraying the lesson as being "slavery is ok"...which is why the articles being posted here are just cherry picking the words they use.  

When i read the entire section on this, it looked (to me) very factually based and touches on, from what i can tell, every facet of slavery.  Isn't that what we want?  A full representation of history?  
Manufactured outrage....as usual.  

I read as much as I could of the guidelines--some 90+ phased lesson goals. I don't think lesson plans are available yet.

The issue is not whether slavery is "ok" but whether slavery had any redeeming qualities, 
and whether it should be taught as such.

I've already said that, in general, the factual content of this history curriculum is pretty good, better than it was decades ago. 

My fear is that the "cherry picked" parts weren't in the original curriculum, and might have been inserted into sound history to steer it towards appeasing manufactured fears of racial blame--especially if the scholars/teachers who put it together are among the complaining "cherry pickers."  

Those cherry-picked/inserted parts would account for the "everyone is guilty" tack spun as "full representation." 

[Lucidus]

(07-30-2023, 04:25 PM)basballguy Wrote: Did anyone bother to actually read the document or are we just parroting what we read when we seek out our bias?

I think this is the full text of the piece that's causing all this virtue signaling:



You have to really stretch this as portraying the lesson as being "slavery is ok"...which is why the articles being posted here are just cherry picking the words they use.  

When i read the entire section on this, it looked (to me) very factually based and touches on, from what i can tell, every facet of slavery.  Isn't that what we want?  A full representation of history?  

Manufactured outrage....as usual.  

I've read the full 216 page document, and I'm still left with the obvious question when it comes to the addition concerning slaves sometimes gaining skills that could be applied to their personal benefit:

Why did they chose to include this "clarification" in terms of slavery, but not when it came the Holocaust section?

I think the answers to that question are rather obvious, but I'm interested to hear your assessment?

When it comes to the claim itself; it ignores the fact - whether intentionally or not - that most slaves were either deprived of the opportunity to obtain personally beneficial skills, or were robbed of the chance to utilize any skills they may have already possessed prior to enslavement, for their own personal benefit.

It a wholly unnecessary addition, in my opinion, that appears extremely disingenuous, at best.

[Dill]

(07-30-2023, 06:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: When it comes to the claim itself; it ignores the fact - whether intentionally or not - that most slaves were either deprived of the opportunity to obtain personally beneficial skills, or were robbed of the chance to utilize any skills they may have already possessed prior to enslavement, for their personal benefit. The very act of enslavement is the antithesis of personal benefit.

It a wholly unnecessary addition, in my opinion, that appears extremely disingenuous, at best.

Yes. And it appears added after the fact. Hence the educators' complaints.

Also, in the context of the curriculum, it appears that American slavery was less severe than African or Arab,

as no mention of the beneficial skills their slaves learned. 

[basballguy]

(07-30-2023, 06:03 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've read the full 216 page document, and I'm still left with the obvious question when it comes to the addition concerning slaves sometimes gaining skills that could be applied to their personal benefit:

Why did they chose to include this "clarification" in terms of slavery, but not when it came the Holocaust section?

I think the answers to that question are rather obvious, but I'm interested to hear your assessment?

When it comes to the claim itself; it ignores the fact - whether intentionally or not - that most slaves were either deprived of the opportunity to obtain personally beneficial skills, or were robbed of the chance to utilize any skills they may have already possessed prior to enslavement, for their own personal benefit.

It a wholly unnecessary addition, in my opinion, that appears extremely disingenuous, at best.

It seems like you're arguing an entirely different point but let's go with it....what exactly are the parallels between slavery and the Holocaust that would warrant adding this clarification?  Do you not like the clarifications listed under the holocaust?  Is there a huge push for holocaust education and it's not getting the attention it deserves?

[basballguy]

(07-30-2023, 06:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes. And it appears added after the fact. Hence the educators' complaints.

Also, in the context of the curriculum, it appears that American slavery was less severe than African or Arab,

as no mention of the beneficial skills their slaves learned. 

Isn't that the nature of clarifications?  Someone asks a question and then you clarify? 

[Lucidus]

(07-30-2023, 06:42 PM)basballguy Wrote: It seems like you're arguing an entirely different point but let's go with it....what exactly are the parallels between slavery and the Holocaust that would warrant adding this clarification?  Do you not like the clarifications listed under the holocaust?  Is there a huge push for holocaust education and it's not getting the attention it deserves?

Why does the section concerning the persecution of Jewish people not contain a similar clarification -- that some Jews in concentration camps gained skills that could be of personal benefit -- that was added for slavery? 

[basballguy]

(07-30-2023, 06:53 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Why does the section concerning the persecution of Jewish people not contain a similar clarification -- that some Jews in concentration camps gained skills that could be of personal benefit -- that was added for slavery? 

I didn't write the document, i don't know.  I would guess because nobody asked a question that required that clarification to be added to the holocaust section.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer.  

[Lucidus]

(07-30-2023, 06:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: I didn't write the document, i don't know.  I would guess because nobody asked a question that required that clarification to be added to the holocaust section.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer.  

Do you find the addition to be necessary, or would you have opted not to include it? 

[basballguy]

(07-30-2023, 07:06 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Do you find the addition to be necessary, or would you have opted not to include it? 

It's not my document.  I don't know the context under which it was added.    

However, it's a clarification....meaning someone questioned it enough to warrant it being added.  

I'm sure you've done document reviews or have written documents that require review in your line of work just like the rest of us.  This always happens.  

I don't see anything malicious in it.  That is also just my opinion (just like you have one finding it "disingenuous at best")

[Lucidus]

(07-30-2023, 07:14 PM)basballguy Wrote: It's not my document.  I don't know the context under which it was added.    

However, it's a clarification....meaning someone questioned it enough to warrant it being added.  

I'm sure you've done document reviews or have written documents that require review in your line of work just like the rest of us.  This always happens.  

I don't see anything malicious in it.  That is also just my opinion (just like you have one finding it "disingenuous at best")

I think some of the context lends itself to skepticism, as to the intent of the addition:

In previous iterations, the African American History Task Force had been utilized - for the previous two decades - to help shape instruction of African American related historical topics. However, this time, they were not consulted or involved in the process.

Instead, a new 13 member task force was created by Florida's Dept of Education. However, several of the members stated they weren't even aware of who all the members were until after the new standards were announced, which obviously raises questions about the process itself and to what degree agreement was necessary. One member also noted that the process was extremely rushed.

One of the members turned out to be Frances Pressley Rice, a former Army Lt. Colonel and founder of the National Black Republican Association, who's outright vitriol for Democrats, insistence that MLK was a Republican and takes on slavery have led to many controversies prompting backlash - even from her fellow Republicans. 

[Dill]

(07-30-2023, 07:14 PM)basballguy Wrote: It's not my document.  I don't know the context under which it was added.    
However, it's a clarification....meaning someone questioned it enough to warrant it being added.  
I'm sure you've done document reviews or have written documents that require review in your line of work just like the rest of us.  This always happens.  
I don't see anything malicious in it.  That is also just my opinion (just like you have one finding it "disingenuous at best")

Why are you assuming the later insertions into the curriculum were "clarifications"? 

Nothing is "clarified" by adding that slaves may have learned some skills under slavery. 

Nor is anything clarified by adding that some blacks may have killed some whites during a white massacre of blacks.
Why would you do that, unless you were trying to block any lessons that might be learned from recognizing how
racism continued to operate even after the war? 

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are people who feel "blamed" by accurate history of slavery. 

They mitigate this by reminding everyone that "whites" weren't the only ones who had slaves--as if anyone were arguing that.
What you are calling "clarifications" appear to be additions that all go in this direction over the objections of historians.

It's not like committee members were all going over the Tulsa Race Massacre and then some historian said --Oh wait, we forgot to add that one
Black guy killed a white guy in self defense as hundreds were slaughtered and their homes burnt." What would that "clarify"? 

Courses on WWII often cover the Warsaw uprising. The point of teaching that is to show that oppression of others based on racial
distinction is bad. We don't want to do that again. What would be "clarified" if we add that Jews learned fighting skills
in the Ghetto and that, when it came to killing, "both sides" had blood on their hands? Rather, something is BLURRED. 

Some still subscribe to the notion that slavery was not all that bad. The ante-bellum South was a happy, organic society.
They want people to stop harping on all the negatives, the beating, rape, stolen children and stolen labor. The additions
appear sympathetic to this point of view. Hence the outrage--about blurring, not clarification.