Social Florida Schools will teach slavery brought personal benefit to black people

[kflo]

We don't want porn peddled to our children. Why do the democrats want our children reading these books?

porn?? lol

 

[Seano]

Nowhere did I say that slavery, Jim Crow, or the likes of MLK and Tubman were never taught.
Who said that these things are 100% not talked about? That isn't what is being claimed by anybody.

What has always been taught at school? I don't remember having classes in grade school that did much talking about race, culture, or activism.

...

 

[RoastBeast]

Nowhere did I say that slavery, Jim Crow, or the likes of MLK and Tubman were never taught.
Who said that these things are 100% not talked about? That isn't what is being claimed by anybody.

This conversation is about how things are taught, and a need to go deeper than simply quoting 2 sentences that MLK said in one speech.
Just listing a bunch of things that happened without more context and analysis is a waste.
Just knowing that Jim Crow happened is basic. What were the lasting effects of that? Why was it so difficult to get the Civil Rights Act passed? What were the tactics used to make it happen? What do these events tell us about race and our government historically and in the present? How does it relate to the struggles of other groups seeking civil rights?
History is a collection of stories, and you don't get the full picture from just hearing one person's version of that story. History is useless if all you're doing is remembering names of dead people with little understanding or ability to apply those lessons of history to our present.

Your message literally started with:

What has always been taught at school? I don't remember having classes in grade school that did much talking about race, culture, or activism.

You're attempting to make it seem like they just listed those topics and made kids memorize the words without actually learning about them. That's just simply not true. They taught kids enough about civil rights to get the point across. We all knew who Harriet Tubman was, what she did, what she stood for and how brave she was. We weren't required to just simply memorize her name and that was it.

What you want is for public school to delve incredibly deep into African American civil rights. They've been teaching plenty about it for decades but apparently that's just not quite enough. It sounds like you want them to turn kids into African American history experts and activists when the method they've been using for the past few decades have helped shape those kids into the least racist generations in American history.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

...

Your message literally started with:

What has always been taught at school? I don't remember having classes in grade school that did much talking about race, culture, or activism.

You're attempting to make it seem like they just listed those topics and made kids memorize the words without actually learning about them. That's just simply not true. They taught kids enough about civil rights to get the point across. We all knew who Harriet Tubman was, what she did, what she stood for and how brave she was. We weren't required to just simply memorize her name and that was it.

What you want is for public school to delve incredibly deep into African American civil rights. They've been teaching plenty about it for decades but apparently that's just not quite enough. It sounds like you want them to turn kids into African American history experts and activists when the method they've been using for the past few decades have helped shape those kids into the least racist generations in American history.

I amended my last post. As I said, I thought it would be fairly obvious that I am not making the argument that slavery was never taught in school....because...that would be an absurd argument, and literally no one is making that argument.

I didn't think I needed to explicitly say that because the issue at hand isn't about whether or not this is being taught, it is about how things are taught, and exactly what things are being taught and what things are being omitted.

What you want is for public school to delve incredibly deep into African American civil rights. They've been teaching plenty about it for decades but apparently that's just not quite enough. It sounds like you want them to turn kids into African American history experts and activists when the method they've been using for the past few decades have helped shape those kids into the least racist generations in American history.

It's not African American history. It's American history. Knowing the details of how your fellow American became a full citizen in a country that is supposedly built on freedom and equality seems like a pretty important time period to be knowledgeable on, especially when we're still seeing the effects of it today.
What does "the least racist generation" even mean? The purpose of history lessons isn't to make people less racist or turn them into activists. That that is even where your mind goes is exactly the problem.
Did this thing happen in our history, or not? People are asking for it to be taught, because it happened, and it has had an effect on how this country formed, and how things are today. It's as simple as that.
"the history lessons we had in the past were good enough to make people less racist" isn't an intelligible argument.

 

[RoastBeast]

I amended my last post. As I said, I thought it would be fairly obvious that I am not making the argument that slavery was never taught in school....because...that would be an absurd argument, and literally no one is making that argument.

I didn't think I needed to explicitly say that because the issue at hand isn't about whether or not this is being taught, it is about how things are taught, and exactly what things are being taught and what things are being omitted.



It's not African American history. It's American history. Knowing the details of how your fellow American became a full citizen in a country that is supposedly built on freedom and equality seems like a pretty important time period to be knowledgeable on, especially when we're still seeing the effects of it today.
What does "the least racist generation" even mean? The purpose of history lessons isn't to make people less racist or turn them into activists. That that is even where your mind goes is exactly the problem.
Did this thing happen in our history, or not? People are asking for it to be taught, because it happened, and it has had an effect on how this country formed, and how things are today. It's as simple as that.
"the history lessons we had in the past were good enough to make people less racist" isn't an intelligible argument.

You attempted to make it seem like schools just glossed over this information but they really don't. Or at least didn't when I was in school in the 90s. We dove into civil rights just as much as many other topics in American history. There is only a finite amount of time in history class to teach history lessons. Spending an inordinate amount of time on civil rights means you must omit lessons on other historical topics and vice versa.

You clearly want a deep dive into civil rights for kids in public school so why is that? I would assume it would be to make kids have empathy for others and not grow up racist. If you want them to deep dive into this topic, then you must be thinking that this topic is more important than other topics, otherwise you'd be advocating for a deep dive into the tea party or founding fathers. But you're not. It's specifically this when there are seemingly an infinite amount of topics available to teach.

Me saying that the past way of teaching kids about civil rights made an entire generation less racist is not a problem at all. It means that teaching about bad things that happened in the past is a good way of instilling empathy and ensuring they don't happen in the future. If that's a problem then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Bwagster]

porn?? lol

Yes porn. You want 7 year olds reading that stuff?

 

[kflo]

Yes porn. You want 7 year olds reading that stuff?

are you lost? do you know what thread you're in?

and what porn are 7 year olds required to read in school?

and you guys aren't against porn in school. just gay porn.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

You attempted to make it seem like schools just glossed over this information but they really don't. Or at least didn't when I was in school in the 90s. We dove into civil rights just as much as many other topics in American history. There is only a finite amount of time in history class to teach history lessons. Spending an inordinate amount of time on civil rights means you must omit lessons on other historical topics and vice versa.

You clearly want a deep dive into civil rights for kids in public school so why is that? I would assume it would be to make kids have empathy for others and not grow up racist. If you want them to deep dive into this topic, then you must be thinking that this topic is more important than other topics, otherwise you'd be advocating for a deep dive into the tea party or founding fathers. But you're not. It's specifically this when there are seemingly an infinite amount of topics available to teach.

Me saying that the past way of teaching kids about civil rights made an entire generation less racist is not a problem at all. It means that teaching about bad things that happened in the past is a good way of instilling empathy and ensuring they don't happen in the future. If that's a problem then I don't know what to tell you.

There has been no discussion about how much time, or how many lessons need to be had on this subject. So I'm not sure why you're arguing this as if that's what I am arguing. I said this is about how things are taught, and what we choose to teach, not teach, and emphasize. That doesn't mean make history class 12 hours.

When did I say that I only want a deep dive on civil rights? Any important historical event should get the proper amount of focus and time spent. And the Civil Rights is one of the most important events in American history when it comes to our politics and internal structure; and it continues to have relevance today, which is why we're still talking about race/civil rights right now, and not taxes from a defunct British empire, or what Benjamin Franklin's favorite amendment was.
As this country becomes more and more mixed, it's going to be increasingly more difficult to gloss over how the land of the free was built on slavery, or why we revere men that didn't think of us as full and free men.
The first goal of history is truth and to understand what happened----not to build empathy. Building empathy has nothing to do with this. Have the truth first, and then an actual discussion can be had. People should naturally have empathy after knowing the truth, but that isn't what the goal of history is.

Your statement is a problem in terms of what we're talking about: education and teaching. The point of teaching history isn't to make people "less racist" or to build empathy.
"It was good enough then, so it's good enough now' is nonsensical when it comes to teaching.
This is about are we teaching ALL of the relevant points and giving the proper context and analysis to our history, not just do people know what some famous guy did or said on some day long ago. If teaching methods improve, or lessons are lacking, you update them, you don't just keep doing what you did in the past because things are okay now.

 

[RoastBeast]

There has been no discussion about how much time, or how many lessons need to be had on this subject. So I'm not sure why you're arguing this as if that's what I am arguing. I said this is about how things are taught, and what we choose to teach, not teach, and emphasize. That doesn't mean make history class 12 hours.

When did I say that I only want a deep dive on civil rights? Any important historical event should get the proper amount of focus and time spent. And the Civil Rights is one of the most important events in American history when it comes to our politics and internal structure; and it continues to have relevance today, which is why we're still talking about race/civil rights right now, and not taxes from a defunct British empire, or what Benjamin Franklin's favorite amendment was.
As this country becomes more and more mixed, it's going to be increasingly more difficult to gloss over how the land of the free was built on slavery, or why we revere men that didn't think of us as full and free men.
The first goal of history is truth and to understand what happened----not to build empathy. Building empathy has nothing to do with this. Have the truth first, and then an actual discussion can be had. People should naturally have empathy after knowing the truth, but that isn't what the goal of history is.

Your statement is a problem in terms of what we're talking about: education and teaching. The point of teaching history isn't to make people "less racist" or to build empathy.
"It was good enough then, so it's good enough now' is nonsensical when it comes to teaching.
This is about are we teaching ALL of the relevant points and giving the proper context and analysis to our history, not just do people know what some famous guy did or said on some day long ago. If teaching methods improve, or lessons are lacking, you update them, you don't just keep doing what you did in the past because things are okay now.

Time spent on the topic is very relevant to what we're talking about. You can't deep dive on every topic so you have to find certain topics that you dive into deeper and certain topics that you just get familiarized with. You certainly have a bias toward teaching more in depth about civil rights. You say it's because it has relevance today but if that's the case, why aren't you talking equally about the bill of rights and the constitution, which have even more relevance?

Civil rights is already taught. I certainly went over what I learned about civil rights in school, which was quite a bit. What more do you want? You bring up that we revere men that didn't think of African Americans as full and free men but no one reveres anyone for being a slave owner. They revere them for putting the building blocks in place that made this the greatest country in the world to live in. What good does telling a 5th grade class that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most important figures in American history, but he's also a very bad man for owning slaves? Let them learn more about that when they get older. Majority of adults back then most likely had sex with underage girls as well. Should we bring up that too? Every single horrific detail of the past does not need to be discussed in a classroom full of minors.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Time spent on the topic is very relevant to what we're talking about. You can't deep dive on every topic so you have to find certain topics that you dive into deeper and certain topics that you just get familiarized with. You certainly have a bias toward teaching more in depth about civil rights. You say it's because it has relevance today but if that's the case, why aren't you talking equally about the bill of rights and the constitution, which have even more relevance?

What good does telling a 5th grade class that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most important figures in American history, but he's also a very bad man for owning slaves? Let them learn more about that when they get older. Majority of adults back then most likely had sex with underage girls as well. Should we bring up that too? Every single horrific detail of the past does not need to be discussed in a classroom full of minors.

I didn't say time spent on the topic was irrelevant, just that it wasn't what my point was. In order to talk about how much time should be spent on the subject, you would have to know how much time is currently being spent on it; and then how much time would be needed to properly address what needs addressing. Neither of us knows that. And more importantly, that isn't the point of this discussion. We're talking about history and how it is taught.

And what do you mean you can't deep dive on every topic? Why are you under the impression that we give equal amount of time to every topic ? The Magna Carta , Ghengis Khan's conquest, and the American Civil War don't get equal time in an American classroom because they aren't of equal importance to a student today. The curriculum is going to change as time goes on, and that is natural.
And again, you're working under some assumption that we're going to do 5 hour classes on Civil Rights when we're talking about how things are being taught, and how it intersects with other topics.
I remember the Bill of Rights and the constitution being pretty amply taught when I was in school. And if new understandings and ways to teach those things come up, then they should be implemented.
We have new understandings and perspectives on things like race and gender, so of course that will be reflected in a classroom.

Civil rights is already taught. I certainly went over what I learned about civil rights in school, which was quite a bit. What more do you want? You bring up that we revere men that didn't think of African Americans as full and free men but no one reveres anyone for being a slave owner. They revere them for putting the building blocks in place that made this the greatest country in the world to live in.

Again, this isn't a black/white question of "Is civil rights being taught, or not?". The discussion is about how and what exactly is and isn't being taught.
I didn't say they were revered for being slave owners, but there is a gigantic contradiction in what they preached vs. who they were, and we don't need to revere anyone in a history class. We just need to say what happened.
You're making up scenarios based off of nothing that anyone has actually said. No one is arguing for gratuitous murder and rape porn history lessons for 5th graders. There is always room to improve lessons and how we teach things, and people should always be open to that if the lessons are based on facts and give students a better understanding, and ground work to think more critically.
History class is not the class to teach "we are the best country on Earth".

 

[RoastBeast]

I didn't say time spent on the topic was irrelevant, just that it wasn't what my point was. In order to talk about how much time should be spent on the subject, you would have to know how much time is currently being spent on it; and then how much time would be needed to properly address what needs addressing. Neither of us knows that. And more importantly, that isn't the point of this discussion. We're talking about history and how it is taught.

And what do you mean you can't deep dive on every topic? Why are you under the impression that we give equal amount of time to every topic ? The Magna Carta , Ghengis Khan's conquest, and the American Civil War don't get equal time in an American classroom because they aren't of equal importance to a student today. The curriculum is going to change as time goes on, and that is natural.
And again, you're working under some assumption that we're going to do 5 hour classes on Civil Rights when we're talking about how things are being taught, and how it intersects with other topics.
I remember the Bill of Rights and the constitution being pretty amply taught when I was in school. And if new understandings and ways to teach those things come up, then they should be implemented.
We have new understandings and perspectives on things like race and gender, so of course that will be reflected in a classroom.


Again, this isn't a black/white question of "Is civil rights being taught, or not?". The discussion is about how and what exactly is and isn't being taught.
I didn't say they were revered for being slave owners, but there is a gigantic contradiction in what they preached vs. who they were, and we don't need to revere anyone in a history class. We just need to say what happened.
You're making up scenarios based off of nothing that anyone has actually said. No one is arguing for gratuitous murder and rape porn history lessons for 5th graders. There is always room to improve lessons and how we teach things, and people should always be open to that if the lessons are based on facts and give students a better understanding, and ground work to think more critically.
History class is not the class to teach "we are the best country on Earth".

I disagree with you that we have new understandings on things like race and gender. They are the same as they've always been. Only difference is race is being brought into the spotlight for political reasons and the new topic of gender is just a completely made up thing by the left that can't even stand up to the most basic questions.

If a history class teaches you about Harriet Tubman, what she did, why she did it and why she is celebrated for it today, what else is missing there that needs to be talked about? I don't understand what is missing about the subject that is so important for kids to learn. Most civil rights subjects are taught in the same manner. What exactly needs to be said? A thing happened, you familiarize the kids with it, they learn why it happened and whether it was a good thing or not and then they move on.

You may not be advocating for gratuitous murder and rape history lessons but there was another guy I believe a dozen or so pages back that was and another guy in another thread that was advocating for it as well. Kids don't need to learn every detail about history because there are many details about history that are not age appropriate.

 

[Sinister]

Time spent on the topic is very relevant to what we're talking about. You can't deep dive on every topic so you have to find certain topics that you dive into deeper and certain topics that you just get familiarized with. You certainly have a bias toward teaching more in depth about civil rights. You say it's because it has relevance today but if that's the case, why aren't you talking equally about the bill of rights and the constitution, which have even more relevance?

Civil rights is already taught. I certainly went over what I learned about civil rights in school, which was quite a bit. What more do you want? You bring up that we revere men that didn't think of African Americans as full and free men but no one reveres anyone for being a slave owner. They revere them for putting the building blocks in place that made this the greatest country in the world to live in. What good does telling a 5th grade class that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most important figures in American history, but he's also a very bad man for owning slaves? Let them learn more about that when they get older. Majority of adults back then most likely had sex with underage girls as well. Should we bring up that too? Every single horrific detail of the past does not need to be discussed in a classroom full of minors.

FWIW History is the least retained subject in grade school. There's data backing this. And it's easy to name the big parts...like MLK, Harriet Tubman, "Civil Rights," "Slavery." But do yourself a favor and ask any 5 kids if MLK was a capitalist or socialist. Some might now he was a Republican, ask if they know why. Ask them what Helen Keller's political activism was about and why the Disabilities Act became a big deal. Ask if they know other figures who were abolitionists, like John Brown (who was executed on the Capitol steps if memory serves me). Ask them why they know who MLK was but Malcom they only see in movies, or why theyve never heard of Fred Hampton and Huey Newton...or Nat Turner.

I went to school in the 90's too and didnt learn about most of this until after.

 

[RoastBeast]

FWIW History is the least retained subject in grade school. There's data backing this. And it's easy to name the big parts...like MLK, Harriet Tubman, "Civil Rights," "Slavery." But do yourself a favor and ask any 5 kids if MLK was a capitalist or socialist. Some might now he was a Republican, ask if they know why. Ask them what Helen Keller's political activism was about and why the Disabilities Act became a big deal. Ask if they know other figures who were abolitionists, like John Brown (who was executed on the Capitol steps if memory serves me). Ask them why they know who MLK was but Malcom they only see in movies, or why theyve never heard of Fred Hampton and Huey Newton...or Nat Turner.

I went to school in the 90's too and didnt learn about most of this until after.

Of course it's easy to name the big parts because there's only a finite amount of time to spend talking about the subject in public school. I learned a lot about a lot of shit after I graduated high school and college but that doesn't mean that high school or college did a disservice by not teaching me 30 years of information in a 16 year period.

You have a clear bias toward educating yourself about people who were oppressed in some manner or another. I have a bias toward educating myself about working on cars and houses. That doesn't mean I think that children need to spend a month in public school learning about how swap a manual transmission in place of an auto. What is important to you isn't necessarily important for everyone else to know.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

I disagree with you that we have new understandings on things like race and gender. They are the same as they've always been. Only difference is race is being brought into the spotlight for political reasons and the new topic of gender is just a completely made up thing by the left that can't even stand up to the most basic questions.

If a history class teaches you about Harriet Tubman, what she did, why she did it and why she is celebrated for it today, what else is missing there that needs to be talked about? I don't understand what is missing about the subject that is so important for kids to learn. Most civil rights subjects are taught in the same manner. What exactly needs to be said? A thing happened, you familiarize the kids with it, they learn why it happened and whether it was a good thing or not and then they move on.

You may not be advocating for gratuitous murder and rape history lessons but there was another guy I believe a dozen or so pages back that was and another guy in another thread that was advocating for it as well. Kids don't need to learn every detail about history because there are many details about history that are not age appropriate.

You, and others like you don't, because you don't read or care about these topics. The people that actually study, research, and care about these things do.
To say we, as in academics, don't have new understandings and information on these topics is patently false. There's never been one way to teach history, or one lesson to extract from it. This goes fo any subject.
Anyone can name dates and names, but context and meaning to that history will depend on who is giving the lesson and what information they focus on/ignore. The point is is that information and our understanding of things is always evolving.

Simply knowing who a person is and what they did is basic. Slavery and Civil rights lesson usually focuses on heroes, while not really delving too deep into the horrors that chattel slavery and its aftermath had. There is more focus on looking for the silver lining in slavery instead of talking about all of what happened, and its effects. How many people were familiar with Juneteenth, The Tulsa Massacre, or how slaves lived ? Slavery is often looked at as just some problem that the evil South were part of, when the North was profiting off of it as well. Were MLK and Lincoln these magical, good men that people just instinctively listened to? How about the grassroots movements that built up the Civil Rights power? Why was it even a struggle to pass a bill for equal rights in a country built on all men are equal?
There are plenty of lessons here that directly carry over to what we see today, which is why it is relevant.

I don't think anyone is saying that a 5th grader needs to know the entire history of the slave trade in all its gory details. This isn't a conversation that is purely about grade school kids, because we've been having these same conversations about "critical race theory" for high schoolers as well. Conservatives don't want anything to change, because they're more worried about what they think the left's goals are over the truth.

 

[RoastBeast]

You, and others like you don't, because you don't read or care about these topics. The people that actually study, research, and care about these things do.
To say we, as in academics, don't have new understandings and information on these topics is patently false. There's never been one way to teach history, or one lesson to extract from it. This goes fo any subject.
Anyone can name dates and names, but context and meaning to that history will depend on who is giving the lesson and what information they focus on/ignore. The point is is that information and our understanding of things is always evolving.

Simply knowing who a person is and what they did is basic. Slavery and Civil rights lesson usually focuses on heroes, while not really delving too deep into the horrors that chattel slavery and its aftermath had. There is more focus on looking for the silver lining in slavery instead of talking about all of what happened, and its effects. How many people were familiar with Juneteenth, The Tulsa Massacre, or how slaves lived ? Slavery is often looked at as just some problem that the evil South were part of, when the North was profiting off of it as well. Were MLK and Lincoln these magical, good men that people just instinctively listened to? How about the grassroots movements that built up the Civil Rights power? Why was it even a struggle to pass a bill for equal rights in a country built on all men are equal?
There are plenty of lessons here that directly carry over to what we see today, which is why it is relevant.

I don't think anyone is saying that a 5th grader needs to know the entire history of the slave trade in all its gory details. This isn't a conversation that is purely about grade school kids, because we've been having these same conversations about "critical race theory" for high schoolers as well. Conservatives don't want anything to change, because they're more worried about what they think the left's goals are over the truth.

I have read about them and I do care about them. When I was in school, civil rights took up an adequate amount of time in the classroom and we learned a lot about it. You want to delve deeper into each topic and add a bunch more topics on top of that. That's fine but does the public school system need to be churning out civil rights experts or should it be focusing on making kids successful adults?

The basic argument here is you want a more in depth focus on civil rights and slavery as well as covering many more topics. I think that a basic view of the major components and their effects is fine because there are a ton of other subjects that are more important to getting a student prepared for the real world.

In order to do what you want, then you must drop other subjects or other topics because there is only a finite amount of time to teach kids. If you think that kid's having a much bigger nugget of information in their heads about slavery and civil rights is the best thing for them, then I just have to simply disagree with you because there are much more important things they should be spending their time on after already studying the basics of slavery and civil rights.

 

[Andy Capp]

Its always been taught at school. Always.
What you need to ask is why we suddenly need to change the focus, why instead of teaching a kid history its become more about reinforcing their victim status and nurturing division. This is why some people don't want certain books being available to their kids.


Its 2023, time to start moving on as a society already. I mean serious question,- Are we ever going to allow black people to join our society or are we going to make sure they stay on the plantation by introducing propaganda at an earlier age? Is there ever going to be a time when they're not pawns in the victim Olympics? Will we ever see a black child born in America raised without victim reinforcement coming from all angles? I used to think we were getting close but now I think we'll never get there.

This is hilarious coming from the "everyone is racist" guy. Victim this, victim that, you're projecting.

 

[Andy Capp]

Holy fuck where do these fucking morons come from, anyway? The Florida school system?

I have read about them and I do care about them. When I was in school, civil rights took up an adequate amount of time in the classroom and we learned a lot about it. You want to delve deeper into each topic and add a bunch more topics on top of that. That's fine but does the public school system need to be churning out civil rights experts or should it be focusing on making kids successful adults?

The basic argument here is you want a more in depth focus on civil rights and slavery as well as covering many more topics. I think that a basic view of the major components and their effects is fine because there are a ton of other subjects that are more important to getting a student prepared for the real world.

In order to do what you want, then you must drop other subjects or other topics because there is only a finite amount of time to teach kids. If you think that kid's having a much bigger nugget of information in their heads about slavery and civil rights is the best thing for them, then I just have to simply disagree with you because there are much more important things they should be spending their time on after already studying the basics of slavery and civil rights.

What utter horseshit. The basic argument here is it's shitty and stupid to lie to students and tell them "slaves benefited from slavery".

 

[RoastBeast]

Holy fuck where do these fucking morons come from, anyway? The Florida school system?

What utter horseshit. The basic argument here is it's shitty and stupid to lie to students and tell them "slaves benefited from slavery".

Adults are talking. Take care now.

 

[Seano]

FWIW History is the least retained subject in grade school. There's data backing this. And it's easy to name the big parts...like MLK, Harriet Tubman, "Civil Rights," "Slavery." But do yourself a favor and ask any 5 kids if MLK was a capitalist or socialist. Some might now he was a Republican, ask if they know why. Ask them what Helen Keller's political activism was about and why the Disabilities Act became a big deal. Ask if they know other figures who were abolitionists, like John Brown (who was executed on the Capitol steps if memory serves me). Ask them why they know who MLK was but Malcom they only see in movies, or why theyve never heard of Fred Hampton and Huey Newton...or Nat Turner.

I went to school in the 90's too and didnt learn about most of this until after.

Same is true of any aspect of history taught it school. No aspect of history is gone over with a fine toothed comb. Its touched on. Just like you mention we learned the big names (Tubman, King etc) we learned about George Washington but who else do we know about while Washington was president. How many people could name Lincoln's vice president?
Honestly, and perhaps its because the topic is on my mind, I'd guess I spent more time learning about civil rights than just about anything else in history class.

 

[Andy Capp]

Adults are talking. Take care now.

Meh. Get lost, newb.