HeartString
-
Posts
928 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by HeartString
-
-
31 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:
Question about the bolded for the non-Americans - I dated a Canadian guy abut 15 years ago and he told me that only Americans were taught that our country was the best. Before he said that to me, I'd never considered before that I'd been taught that. I remember pushing back. Surely every kid in the world learns that their country is the best and their system of government is ideal, right? According to him - no.
Why do our kids start their day with the Pledge of Allegiance? Is that still a thing everywhere in the USA?
I think you're right - the way we do civics and history in the USA is weird. On one hand, "we're the best!" and then the next day, more history about terrible things done in the USA. Obviously we're not the best. We're not better at democracy than everyone else. Why do we feel like we need to teach our kids that our system of government is the best?
Do most American adults actually believe that the USA is better than other countries? IDK. I find that hard to believe but it's not something that I would discuss with most people.
When adults complain about something related to children, it often means that they're uncomfortable with some social change and it's not actually about the specific thing they're complaining about.
In my experience yes, there are definitely adults who think the USA is unquestionably the BEST we have the BEST everything, we do thing the BEST and anyone who disagrees is a damn commie. Recent conversations, with family. If you mention our abysmal educational outcomes, worse health outcome for more money, high infant mortality they just sputter something about Elon Musk or Zuckerburg.
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, SKL said:
As a parent of children of color, I have witnessed young kids misunderstanding the message in school, because little kids don't think the way writers and teachers think. I posted about this when my kids' KG class studied MLK day. When hearing "most people thought black children did not deserve to be educated like/with white kids" and "the laws allowed blacks to be relegated to the back of the bus" etc., young children, who are wired to think "most adults" and "lawmakers" and "the powers that be" are normally right, will register "dark skin => low intelligence, low value, etc. These well-intended lessons are not appropriate for young children. They don't promote equality or self-esteem in young children. Parents have to step in and clean up the mess, and not all parents are going to do that.
It could be handled better. Young kids in school should first be taught about positive aspects of multicultural history. The impressive achievements of people of all colors, and not just in February. So, for kids not already immersed in racial diversity at home, the foundation is laid of people of all races being of equal value, deserving equal respect and equal rights. Upon this well-laid foundation, racial inequities can later be discussed in an age-appropriate way.
And let's be honest - schools teach practically no history in the primary grades anyway.
Hm. I remember being upset about that myself, with a white kid in a mostly white school district. I wasn’t really ready to explain why Abe Lincoln was killed, or Martin Luther King or why “the Jews killed Jesus”(that one came from the after school program) He was 7 and had no context, especially because of the way things were taught with history topics that jumped around and no coherent structure that I could figure out. A lesson on a great African kingdom or a biography of a POC who contributed to science or math would have been better Black History month fodder for that age. Or just plain interwoven. I’d love for school to teach more than just slavery, Booker T. and MLK, like those are the only 2 black individuals worth noting and slavery the only event worth noting.
Which is why I think that CRT or diversity or inclusiveness or whatever is best use as a frame *for teachers* in the early years, not explicitly and poorly taught.
I actually think if the schools got rid of the whole “America’s the best country ever” schtick things would be better and easier. It’s too jarring to teach that we’re the best and that we need to improve. It’s possible to teach that we’re a darn good country that has made mistakes, just like England or France, or any other country. Trying to pretend that we’re the “Best! Ever!” Isn’t helping any of this.
Maybe someone should tell them about 4 year history cycles? Get some world history in there for context.-
4
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:
Unlike a lot of people here, I actually did homeschool, and I absolutely taught history in such a way as to include discussion of racism. It doesn’t have to be done badly to be done. Rather it has to be done truthfully.
I homeschool and feel like I did a decent job at history, but I’m pretty sure the part where I sent the little brother to “discover” and lay claim to the bedroom of my kid that was studying Columbus wouldn’t be allowed. Trying to imperfectly demonstrate the injustice of laying claim to land that already had people on it would not be allowed under the FL law described up thread.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ottakee said:
Yes, an escalation in charges. Depending on if the children were involved in the on line videos/pictures or not, some things might be sent back to local courts for state charges. Then again, if they have enough on him, it likely won't make a difference as the federal charges could hold 50-90+ years of prison time. In my ex husband's case, he got 90 years of federal time so they didn't do the state charges. That saved the victims from having to testify again and in even more detail than they did in federal court.
Thank you!
-
2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:
I'd agree with this.
Curriculum should not be hidden from parents.
100% blame on schools that do this.
Education works best as a three way partnership - students, teachers, parents. Start cutting parents out of the loop, you'll get problems.
Schools have the power to de-escalate 99% of these parent outcries.
I mean, seriously, call a meeting. Lay out all the resources you're going to be using. Have copies of the curriculum to read. Let parents browse the materials. Talk about how those materials will be implemented in the classroom. Have a Q and A where parents can ask clarifying questions. Conclude with the reminder that your doors are always open should parents have further concerns.
If you back your curriculum and teaching staff as pedagogically sound, the above should be zero problem for you.
That might work *if* one particular news network didn’t pick it up as an issue and run with it to juice ratings. You might leave a meeting such as you described feeling ok about the whole thing, but how many hours of “news” do you think it would take to turn that?
It also ignore the fact that there are out and proud racist still around who would NEVER be ok with this, no matter how well thought out. I grew up in the south, these people are real, they aren’t shy and they aren’t as rare as some might think.-
4
-
-
I thought he was only accused of looking at child abuse materials purchased anonymously on the internet, presumably made using children that he never had contact with. If that’s right then this seems like an escalation in charges, is that correct?
-
4 minutes ago, Frances said:
Simply because they were received doesn’t mean they could be used. My state has all mail in voting (although there are options for in person) with manual signature verification. Our last Secretary of State, who unfortunately died in office, was a very conservative Republican. He strongly defended the integrity of the system. A recent twenty year review of the system found very, very little fraud. No system is going to be perfect, but this comes pretty darn close for access and integrity.
The states that do mail only voting also keep better updated voter rolls so there are fewer issues to start with. There’s no real reason to need to do big voter purges if it’s kept up all the time. When you file a death certificate or a change of address form the county should be able to update voter information at the same time.
-
4
-
-
36 minutes ago, Plum said:
I fail to see how this is not another way to ban discussion.
Critical race theorist Ibram X Kendi, a historian at Boston University, argues that there is no such thing as being a ‘non-racist’. In Kendi’s influential opinion, you are either actively antiracist or you are a racist. To him, to question antiracist theory, is to risk being labelled a racist.
That is one man’s opinion. There are people that want homeschooling to be banned too, and yet here we are.
-
55 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:
I guess, from my perspective: taking a good honest look at history is good, not whitewashing things is good, spending time on explicitly-mandated time on this is bad, and spending time dismantling math as a tool of white supremacy is bad 😛 .
See…I agree with that completely.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:
I see that, but at the end of day, the best equalizing measure would be providing everyone with a good education. Burdening schools with these initiatives isn’t the way to make this happen.
I guess it depends on what is meant by “these initiatives” because all kinds of things are being lumped together. In some places it’s simply an effort not to completely whitewash history or recognize the achievements of POC in math or science. I think those are good things. The oppressor wheels and naming your privilege out loud in class, not so good.
-
7
-
-
25 minutes ago, Plum said:30 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:
Sorry! I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m thinking of all of these lessons I’ve seen that ask elementary age kids to use those words which I think is wrong. It’s one thing to talk about it within your family. It’s another thing to have people outside your family talk to your kid about it.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone agree that children should learn they are oppressors. I firmly believe in the idea of privilege and would still be uncomfortable with kids being told they are oppressors. I’m sure there’s a better way to do it. I dont think saying it’s 100% up to parents is good either. I’d like the kids who are getting misogynistic or racist messages at home to see a different view presented somehow.
I also think that CRT as a lense could be applied without this language or the crazy programs.
-
2
-
-
I wonder if benefits would feel better than privilege, since privilege has been weaponized. I benefit in our society from my white skin and middle class income. I benefited from my parents and grandparents choosing to stay married. I’m bestowing that benefit on my children. I benefited from a good education, which was a benefit of my parents education and income.
Not everyone has the same benefits. Some have more, some have less.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:
I get what you all are saying, but I still don't think of being in an intact family as a privilege in the sense that we sometimes need to "check our privilege". It's not something like sex or skin color that nobody else has any control over either. If you (general you) are concerned about what kind of world your kids are growing up in, you do have the power to give them an intact family. You can't change racist people's minds, you can't always get yourself out of poverty, you can't make the whole world safe for women, etc. But you can give them the gift of an intact family. It's a gift consciously chosen by someone's parents, not a randomly bestowed societal privilege, which in my opinion is a huge difference in thinking which can empower the family, as opposed to making them feel helpless because they somehow lost the privilege roll of the dice.
So for you the idea of privilege can only come from things no one has control over? So gender, race, ethnicity can bestow some amount of privilege or not, but not things like generational wealth or lack, an intact home, abusive parents vs. loving parents, parents who value education or don’t. That interesting idea, I’ll have to think about it.
For me it’s all about the same, because they are all choices made by someone who was not me. A small child has no more control over whether or not mom and dad are hard working, stable people who value education or unstable lay abouts who let the TV raise the kids. The parents are making choices, but the small child can’t exactly opt out. The child has no more control over his/her parents than over the color of his skin.
-
6
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding privelege, but my experience, staying together in marriage and deciding to be present/active parents is a choice. My parents could easily have split up when Dad came back from Vietnam. They chose to stick it out. And they chose to emphasize that choice to me and my brother and to let us know that the hard work and sacrifice of staying together was worth it. So while it wasn't a choice that I made myself, it wasn't a random coincidence of fortune/privilege either.
They made a choice that benefited you. You had no say in their marriage, or if they divorced or not. You got the privilege of an intact home because they made decisions you had no control over. No child has control over the home they grow up in.
You and I aren’t weren’t more deserving of an intact home than other kids. We were fortunate to have that. All of the other kids deserved it too, and some of them didn’t get it, through no fault of their own. That’s what people mean by privilege. Benefiting from something you had no control over.-
3
-
-
Under the Home is a nice, free, online option for K-5. It’s all put together for you with links and a schedule. It’s CM based, or at least inspired by CM.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:
You have firefighters administering vaccines?
My 2020 flu shot was done by EMTs. I think they were all hands on deck for awhile with the COVID vax. There was talk in my state of recruiting vets to help administer, but I don’t know if that ever happened.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Pen said:
thank you!
someone I know - where two family members had very different reactions - (eta- both adults so not really right for 12 to 15 thread, but I hope you will answer if you know the answer) raised a different issue which was whether at some sites (USA) where less experienced people are doing the administration and especially with whichever type requires dilution (I can’t recall if it was Pfizer or Moderna) whether the mixing is thoroughly done by all people administering it, could one person may get more of the active ingredients part while spouse perhaps gets more of the diluent?I think bodies just handle things differently. A few years ago (2018?) one of my kids gave my sisters’ kid pneumonia. My kid was pretty sick but not terrible. My sisters kid was almost hospitalized, lost some crazy percentage of his body weight and took 6 weeks to get over it. It was truly scary. Why? 🤷♀️ They are the same age, both healthy kids. It was the last major illness for either of them. Different diet? Different micro biome? No idea.
-
5
-
-
4 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:
I am all for voting rights. The biggest reason that states can pull the crap they are pulling right now is that the SCOTUS overturned the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That said, the idea that high turnout means Democrats will absolutely win (an idea that I have help close to my heart as an active Democrat) was not borne out this last fall. The Democrats had very middling results in the house and senate even in states that very much went for Biden. We can talk districting and voter suppression. We can also talk, and need to talk, about why it was that so many people weren't moved to support down ballot Democrats. Most of the election postmortems that I saw weren't very honest about the deficits in Democratic strategy. I honestly don't think that in the absence of the pandemic, Biden would have won. I don't like that (not one little bit) but I think it's true.
I agree. I do think voting access and gerrymandering and such have a bigger impact on the outcome in the states than on the federal level. Is it WI where Dens got 54% of the vote for state legislature but got 48% of the seats? Here’s a good article about it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/2020-election-again-shows-lopsided-republican-legislative-maps/article_d0c11425-df16-5d0b-a3e8-4954e7897652.amp.html
But even if Dems lose, voting access is important because it’s right.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Condessa said:
Because significant portions of school funding come from local taxation, and again, there’s the generational wealth gap that is a large contributing factor to having disproportionate numbers of minority students in lower income school districts. Also, rates of single motherhood are very strongly correlated with poverty rates. But rather than call the schools racist, why don’t we address the root causes of this disparity?
This could be done by trying to address minority poverty directly, or by changing the school funding system to no longer be linked to local taxes. There would be major uproar, but it could be done. However, this wouldn’t bring about equity of school funding totally, because parents still donate to their children’s schools.
You’ve picked apart every link I provided. You’ve definitely proven that there are no systems in this country that are even inadvertently racist. Boy am I relieved.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Condessa said:
Okay, but is that because of racist policies, or is that because states plan where to position polling stations based on distances voters have to travel as well as on polling stations per capita? And like you said, urban centers with higher population numbers tend to have larger minority populations. That right there might be related to the generational wealth gap that is a long-term effect of racist policies of the past. And perhaps we need to take a long, hard look at what should be done to try to correct those long-term effects trickling down through the generations.
But does it follow that it is racist to position polling stations considering distances required to travel vs. solely on population numbers? I mean, if someone wanted to, they could write an article showing that statistically, counties with larger Republican populations — most of them rural areas — required voters to travel significantly larger distances on average to be able to exercise their voting rights. It would be mathematically accurate and could be painted as discriminatory against certain voters, but we would all recognize it as hogwash. Because placing polling stations solely based on travel times would be just as unreasonable as placing them solely based on population numbers.
Oh I’m sure it has nothing to do with which who lives in those locations, or how they are likely to vote. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. There’s bound to be a perfectly logical explanation for why they could have polling places in certain locations during one voting cycle but not the next. Nothing to see here folks. Just toss it up there on the stack of perfectly reasonable coincidences. Yep…waaay up there. Golly, it’s a big stack. But I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical explanation for that too…
If only 1 party hadn’t admitted that when more people vote they lose, admitting they were trying to make it harder for people to vote.
-
5
-
-
15 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:
Linking this article from the Root.
Why White People Hate Critical Race Theory, Explained
And this is a from the author's Twitter.
That Twitter thread is really good.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Condessa said:
Wow. This is horrendous. We need an investigation, both on the individual level of these appraisers and lenders involved here and on a large scale check on the industry. The link indicates an HUD investigation into the complaint, but that seems insufficient.
I’m 99% sure that absolutely nothing will happen. This is one of a half dozen or more stories exactly like that appraisal story that I’ve heard in the last 3 months or so. Excuses will be made, “but we aren’t racist” magic words will be said and the story will fade.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, pinball said:
But does Texas NOT accept a tribal ID?
According to this…https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#Details. In Texas a handgun Permit is explicitly spelled out as an acceptable document while a tribal ID is not. Make of that what you will.
That CO wanted so badly to keep tribal IDs from being accepted that it had to go to the Supreme Court and then took 2 additional years to settle that is absurd.
ETA: there are many places that take both. But the fact that it’s an issue at all is telling. If this was the ONLY issue that would be one thing, but it’s a tiny bit on a huge stack of issues.
-
3
-
-
17 minutes ago, pinball said:
What state allows NRA cards?
what state allows NRA cards but NOT tribal IDs?
Texas lets you use a state issued hand gun permit
I saw Texas allows voters to use a state issued handgun license as well as several other options
Yes, it’s a gun permit, not NRA card. I’ll correct it. It doesn’t make it much better though.
Why the zombie threads?
in The Chat Board
Posted
Ding ding ding.