I found it fascinating that teaching about slavery can now only be told as one side of a story. Now, it is only acceptable to paint the era of slavery with one large paintbrush and one thick, gloppy paint. Some people expressed outrage that we could now learn that slavery was not only torturous and oppressive but also had some benefits for some who served as slaves. I checked. (I am a nerdy girl, and I am compelled to do this.) As it turns out, some 5% of slaves were literate. That is not many, but what they accomplished with the skills was life- and world-changing! Consider Frederick Douglass. Mrs. Sophia Auld taught Frederick the basics of literacy while teaching her own child. She stopped when Mr. Auld told her to do so, explaining that literacy would unfit Frederick forever to be a slave. This Frederick Douglass went on to free other slaves. To make a living, he wrote books and made speeches. His literacy skills began with lessons from a slave owner and ended with a writing and speaking career that helped Frederick Douglass to amass $5 million dollars in today's dollars. That is not bad for a guy who had only a rudimentary education in literacy and learned more by doing as he helped others. The other puzzling objective to lessons for AP (Advanced Placement) students is the allegation that these smart and often gifted high school students would not be capable of distinguishing fine details in the saga of slavery. Those high schoolers can do it-- if no one has too strongly prejudiced them in any direction. I am not arguing in favor of slavery but rather complaining loudly about a glaring need within the US education system. Is there an embedded effort, or possibly just an unintended effect, to dumb down today's students? Instead of underestimating or mistrusting them, we can trust the AP students to consider multiple ideas simultaneously without having a brain explosion or other catastrophe. (One kernel of truth that might have been misapplied is that in general, younger students might still be learning by rote instead of letting their minds flow with concepts. These students might have difficulty with the amount of time needed to identify and consider the various factors in any historical era. In high school AP courses, the students are well able to work with concepts, having surpassed concrete or rote teaching for their subject matter.) In addition, we can accept that they-- like anyone else who thinks at all about slavery-- might see or weight some aspects of the large picture of slavery differently than we do. We can accept that there are multiple ways of interpreting available information and that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to squelch any of them. All this leads to the point of education: to consider multiple ideas which may converge, diverge, and/or change over time as additional information becomes available. So simple! And yet, so difficult...

When I went to college in the 1970s, the prevailing message was that you were there to learn HOW to think, not WHAT to think. We have done a complete 180 in 50 years.

I don't know why I am even responding to this. Have you considered that literacy would have been way more than 5 % without slavery? I haven't read the source material at issue, and I'm sure at least some is being taken out of context, but I'm pretty sure there is no other side on the issue of forced enslavement, just as there is no other side to serial killing or pedophelia. Yes, I'm sure the perpetrators all have their own justifications, but it doesn't mean they should be taught to our children.

Here is another consideration. The oral tradition was still strong in some places around the world. Some of the persons who became enslaved were well educated via the oral tradition. It was a way of life and learning for many people, for many years. However, in the United States it was necessary to become literate in order to participate more fully in many aspects of life. Literacy was a big deal! Who else appreciates what some old white guy said and how it describes the beautiful use of education by slaves? They said something like, life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent what you do with it. Slavery happened. But just see how beautifully some slaves helped themselves and others, especially after they were freed. Count the increasing numbers of persons of all types in all professions today. Is this increased participation due in part or in whole to the education of early slaves and then freed persons? What could be wrong with acknowledging a tragedy and various ways of dealing with it? Are we really so certain that children are incapable of learning these concepts? Keep in mind that failure to provide a complete education also teaches the kids lessons. Are those the lessons we should provide by default and by example? Just a thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2023 05:05AM by Shop-et-al.