DeSantis, Slavery, and the Importance of Historical Framing
In a blatant attempt to whitewash slavery and broader history, Florida’s latest curriculum claims that slavery taught some Black people valuable skills that they could use for their personal benefit. This, along with other misleading claims, is meant to excuse the historical crimes of white America. This story has been widely covered in the news and others are better equipped to address the historical context and personal impact of this DeSantis propaganda campaign. Here, I want to breakdown the defense made by the curriculum’s creators and the broader repercussions of its argument.
Their defense (pictured below) essentially runs as follows: One, people are only objecting to one sentence in the entire document. That sentence reads “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” This, they state, is historically accurate. The defense then goes on to list famous slaves that are supposedly historical examples. It ends with moral grandstanding, accusing critics of trying to reduce slaves to mere victims.
The first thing to establish is that the defense of Florida’s curriculum is not made in good faith. Nearly half of the ‘slaves’ listed were not, in fact, slaves. Many others learned their profession after escaping slavery. (Go here for a more detailed breakdown of the many ridiculous elements of the defense.) It should be interpreted as ridiculously dishonest because it is.
The argument relies on a deliberate misinterpretation of what people find objectionable with the sentence the defense focuses on. The sentence can be broken down into two parts: (1) “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills” and (2) “which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit”. The first part is a mere statement of fact. The second (underlined in the photo) establishes a framing, in this case, making the learning of skills a positive aspect of slavery. This is the most objectionable part. To make this reality clearer, imagine the first part of the sentence “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills” was instead followed by “which they couldn’t use for their own benefit under the brutal conditions of slavery unless they escaped”. Now, slavery is indicted. Framing is everything.
Yet, the following paragraph only focuses on historical fact, drawing extra attention to it with the sentence, “This is factual and well-documented” (underlined in the photo for emphasis). It does so by listing the professions of the slaves, but not, notably, how they benefited from their skills. The framing, the important part of the curriculum, is left entirely untouched by the defense. It could address the benefit too.
Elizabeth Keckley learned to sew while a slave and went on to have a thriving seamstress business in Washington DC, where she was the personal dressmaker and confidante of Mary Todd Lincoln. Of course, Keckley was violently and sexually abused while a slave and only achieved success after buying her freedom. Still, the defense has no trouble being dishonest. That it chooses to not address its framing is almost certainly deliberate.
Why? Because it’s this tactic that allows for the defense’s final act of moral grandstanding (surrounded by the oval-like shape). It accuses critics of simply reducing slaves to victims, writing “Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in…” This implies that critics’ main objection to the curriculum is teaching that some slaves were taught skills. However, the real criticism is the false framing that slaves could use these skills for their own benefit and the way this deflects from the evils of slavery in the United States’ past.
With the right framing, historical fact can be used to say almost anything. Republicans want to deny this reality, to act as if a fact cannot be corrupted by misleading framing. This is illustrated by the top hit in my search when I initially googled ‘Florida slavery.’ The National Review article, doubles down on the tactic calling Kamala Harris a liar for saying that the curriculum teaches that slaves benefited from slavery. It’s argument? The curriculum can’t be bad because it contains the word ‘slave’ 96 times and mentions countless historical events involving slaves and Black people. Context and framing are nonsensically tossed to the wayside. Under this logic, the curriculum covering historical instances of slavery across different cultures is positive. In reality, the mention of other instances of slavery is yet another way the curriculum deflects away from the evil of slavery in the United States’ past.
The United States doesn’t just have one story. History is far too complicated, with far too many moving parts and people, for it to ever be that simple. Different framing can lead to many different narratives. Republicans like DeSantis want to deny this power, to pretend that there is simply the historical record and nothing else. They can then create the definitive historical record, and no one will think to question them. As their defense of Florida’s curriculum shows, nothing proves them more wrong than their own attempts.
