David Colburn

There was little chance that approval of new standards for Black history education in Florida would slip by without igniting some sort of protest, given the state’s recent track record when it comes to championing the destruction of “wokeness” from education.
The state’s so-called Anti-WOKE bill all but guaranteed the standards would go under the microscope, with its emphasis that a person should not be instructed to “feel guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” due to their race, color, sex or national origin. Is there any other reasonable way to interpret this than an attempt to absolve any present-day whites from the sins of their ancestors, no matter how heinous and extensive they may have been?
It was certain, with the way modern society has come to scrutinize every word in a statement for some hint of bias that 18 pages of educational standards on “African American” history would hold phrases many would object to with rancor and disdain, and that is indeed the case.
The most visible and objectionable has been the direction that instruction on slavery should include “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit,” as if slavery should be viewed as a job training program for the marketable careers of the day.
“The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented,” said William Allen and Frances Presley Rice, two Black scholars who helped write the Florida standards. “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.”
It’s hard to disagree with the last portion of their statement, but in the estimation of others the standards fall well short of achieving that goal.
“The Florida Board of Education’s attempt to minimize the darkest chapter in our nation’s history is an affront to the intelligence of the American people and an overt attempt to maintain White supremacy,” said a statement from the Congressional Black Caucus.
I’ve personally read through the 18 pages of standards and find much to be encouraged about, but also much to be dissatisfied with.
One area of dissatisfaction I have is with a clearly overt attempt to place American slavery in a context that suggests hey, we weren’t as bad as the other folks out there practicing slavery. It is historically accurate that other cultures also practiced slavery, and that conditions in some areas, such as the Caribbean, were often worse than those found on Southern plantations. But the standards seem to come off as some sort of absolution for America for doing slavery better than others, and if there’s ever a case when two wrongs don’t make a right this is it. But hey, it fits right in with the goal of not making anyone feel guilty or bad about what happened here.
The other glaring shortcoming I see is that the standards focus on teaching about abolitionist movements and the role of Christian Quakers in particular in advocating against slavery, but nowhere do the standards call for students to be instructed in the active role Christianity played in promoting and maintaining the practice of slavery.
“These standards will further cement Florida as a national leader in education, as we continue to provide true and accurate instruction in African American History,” a Florida Department of Education spokesman said.
As with many issues related to American slavery, the role of religion is complex, and indeed the development of abolitionist movements depended in part on a rejection of Biblical justifications of slavery and the growth of Christianity within slave populations. But any true and accurate instruction about slavery should include the role played by Christian ministers, congregations, and denominations in justifying and normalizing it.
Defense of slavery was routinely justified by Biblical passages used to show that God sanctioned slavery, that the descendants of Ham, purported to be Africans, were cursed to be slaves, and that Jesus said nothing about the evils of slavery. To abolish slavery, some ministers argued, would create such disruption that the ills created would be a greater affront to God’s sovereignty and grace than leaving it be. And Christian slaveowners would supposedly treat slaves better than non-Christian slave owners. As historian Larry Morrison has noted, nearly every proslavery pamphlet, article, or speaker made at least some reference to a Biblical sanction of slavery, in an attempt to establish a moral justification for it.
The Florida standards cite Frederick Douglass as an African American voice who should be cited in instruction about the abolitionist movement. So let’s cite Frederick Douglass as Florida suggests:
“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”
I think it’s highly unlikely that Douglass’ quote will make it into the lesson plans approved for use under standards that have been formulated to avoid blame or guilt when it comes to slavery.
Indeed, if there’s a major shortcoming to be found in the standards, I believe it’s how they reflect the underlying premise of the Anti-WOKE Act. The avoidance of guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress is rarely ever the place to start when one wants an accurate, truthful telling of history. Unfortunately, the record of human history is as ugly as it is marvelous, as vulgar as it is refined. To do better for future generations, we need to grapple honestly with the ugliness and attempt to understand it in order to move beyond it. Current societal controversies suggest to me that when it comes to ugly, avoidance is more common than engagement.