Jump to content

Menu

Mom in Va. who lived through Cultural Revolution addresses school board regarding Critical Race Theory


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

This is a very odd outlook. The child has NO say, NO choice at all in what the parents do, whether they stay married, whether they have a healthy marriage, whether or not they are abusers. None. 

My nephews had no control over their father's inability to keep his fly zipped, and the marital fall out of his decisions. None. But they bear all the cost, all the side effects.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Condessa said:

In the county where I used to live, towns of about 1500 or more had a polling place.  Because of geography, these were all clustered on one edge of the county, with smaller towns and communities scattered deep into the mountains up the rivers through the rest of the county.  There were a few small towns that were two hours’ or more drive from polling places, and a tiny town that can only be accessed by a several hours boat ride.

 

Oy! And this is why we have severe problems with "free elections" in this country. If there is "voting fraud", the issue is one of politicians denying the voters a reasonable opportunity to vote, not what a certain group claims is the problem. This stuff is wrong, very very wrong!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Condessa said:

Well, there is good reason to include race in medical records, because some important health issues vary with race.

For example, one of my cancer kid’s blood tests came back wonky the other day, and I couldn’t reach his doctor to find out whether it was far enough outside of the range of normal that we should worry, so I googled it.  Turns out the healthy range for that blood test varies widely by race.

I put medical records in there because it seems like a no-brainer, right?

Dr. David Reich, Professor from Harvard and Mt. Sinai says there's no race gene. Race doesn't exist. Any differences come from lifestyle and circumstance which of course caused a bunch of other scientists to disagree and post a public letter. 

https://scijust.ucsc.edu/2019/05/30/developing-debate-on-race-and-genomics/

I'm a little confused. With covid we saw the differences between race. Was that all purely mistrust of medicine, lack of access, lifestyle and circumstance? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

This is a very odd outlook. The child has NO say, NO choice at all in what the parents do, whether they stay married, whether they have a healthy marriage, whether or not they are abusers. None. 

My nephews had no control over their father's inability to keep his fly zipped, and the marital fall out of his decisions. None. But they bear all the cost, all the side effects.

 

Right. So why should that give them an oppressor/oppressed/privileged label?

Remember the self-esteem fad? Everyone is supposed to feel good about themselves? This is inverse to that. The pendulum of education fads is swinging the other way. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Plum said:

Right. So why should that give them an oppressor/oppressed/privileged label?

Remember the self-esteem fad? Everyone is supposed to feel good about themselves? This is inverse to that. The pendulum of education fads is swinging the other way. 

I don't see why you are conflating "oppressor" a thing that people do, with "privileged," which is completely outside the person's control.  An intact family of origin gives children a leg up at the beginning of their lives that will have effects in many areas.  Labeling that as privilege is just recognizing that fact.  Is it the word that you have an issue with, or the recognition itself? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Danae said:

I don't see why you are conflating "oppressor" a thing that people do, with "privileged," which is completely outside the person's control.  An intact family of origin gives children a leg up at the beginning of their lives that will have effects in many areas.  Labeling that as privilege is just recognizing that fact.  Is it the word that you have an issue with, or the recognition itself? 

Thank you! You said it better than so could which is why I did not respond to Plum. The poor oppressor wording was her attempt to put words into my mouth. I never said anything like it or even hinted at it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Danae said:

I don't see why you are conflating "oppressor" a thing that people do, with "privileged," which is completely outside the person's control.  An intact family of origin gives children a leg up at the beginning of their lives that will have effects in many areas.  Labeling that as privilege is just recognizing that fact.  Is it the word that you have an issue with, or the recognition itself? 

Those words are all a part of the same intersectionality/anti-racist/anti-bias/CRT/ethics/multicultural/history/civics lessons so they should be all be on the table.

Both. This is not just about one circumstance (intact home) it’s about labeling every identity, every major aspect of a child’s life using those words. 

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

Thank you! You said it better than so could which is why I did not respond to Plum. The poor oppressor wording was her attempt to put words into my mouth. I never said anything like it or even hinted at it. 

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HeartString said:

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 do t think saying it’s 100% up to parents is good either.  I’d like the kids who are getting misogynistic or races 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.

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.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 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.

You don’t get a good education by banning any and all discussion of things that may cause discomfort.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😛 . 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HeartString said:

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 do t think saying it’s 100% up to parents is good either.  I’d like the kids who are getting misogynistic or races 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.

If all parents agree that children shouldn't learn they are oppressors, why is it a part of the lessons?

Like reading a book and then discussing the characters and letting the kids internalize the message?

What else might they apply those words to? Who knows? Schools are nutty when it comes to random rules that make no sense. What if one teacher labels certain religions are oppressors? What if another teacher labels people from a certain political party are oppressors? 

2 minutes ago, HeartString said:

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.

ITA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That's one of the things that's going on. I don't think everyone is talking about the same thing in this thread. 

Yes. We have some people expressing displeasure and no solutions, expressing no knowledge of systemic biases in American governance and life and others saying yep, there are some problems, let’s fix them. Instead, what we’re getting is blanket bans on culturally responsive teaching of any kind. In 15 states, students will be lied to about the history of the nation because it might cause discomfort. It’s easy to focus on specific incidents and miss the forest here.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes. We have some people expressing displeasure and no solutions, expressing no knowledge of systemic biases in American governance and life and others saying yep, there are some problems, let’s fix them. Instead, what we’re getting is blanket bans on culturally responsive teaching of any kind. In 15 states, students will be lied to about the history of the nation because it might cause discomfort. It’s easy to focus on specific incidents and miss the forest here.  

Right. The blanket bans are ridiculous. I'm not arguing there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You don’t get a good education by banning any and all discussion of things that may cause discomfort.

I think education reformers really failed here. Creating a framework leaves it up to districts to write the curriculum. We've seen how that goes with Common Core. Curriculum that has a political agenda, is not evidence-based, and extremely haphazard and shoddy. 

They also fell victim to some of their own tactics, weaponizing words, cancel culture, and polarization. It's a political topic. It's based in history, civics and government. K-12 education is involved. There is no escaping politicization. Which means they better have a solid plan in place if they even want a shot at getting it into red states. 

Five Signs Your Reform Has Become Another Education Fad

Edited by Plum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they’re creating is a permanent underclass of ignorant people. It’s not gonna help matters as far as respectful national dialogue to have even more people who don’t actually know anything. It’s know nothingism and it’s gonna bite us all in the butt. Meh, I’m not gonna worry about it much anymore. My peeps will be fine. At the university level, at a minimum, it’s unlikely to pass constitutional muster. It has made me take a second look at DDs college list tho.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.

It’s not written into law now is it? Have we missed where that happened?

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think there will be some serious unintended consequences from these laws tho. The way the laws are written, the state may even be challenged on the existence of Columbus Day and Lee-Jackson day. Teaching about these holidays and individuals would cause discomfort. Can you even discuss the civil war without making children feel bad that their ancestors enslaved/were enslaved by others? Maybe but brace yourself for complaints and efforts to excise that whole shameful time period from history courses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not written into law now is it? Have we missed where that happened?

You don't see how someone who is a Critical Race Theorist and teaches CRT at Boston U could have any influence on the CRT framework in K-12? It says right in the quote that he has an influential opinion. His book has already been linked in this thread. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

You don't see how someone who is a Critical Race Theorist and teaches CRT at Boston U could have any influence on the CRT framework in K-12? It says right in the quote that he has an influential opinion. His book has already been linked in this thread. 

Of course he can have influence, so can you, so can I, that’s how ideas work in a democracy. Neither your ideas/influence nor mine, nor his, carry the force of law.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Of course he can have influence, so can you, so can I, that’s how ideas work in a democracy. Neither your ideas/influence nor mine, nor his carry the force of law.

I can have influence. He does have influence. The groups that are creating the curriculum for the schools aren't going to listen to me. They didn't listen to the CA Jewish Caucus and tens of thousands of Californians. They would listen to him. 

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I do think there will be some serious unintended consequences from these laws tho

I agree. Ubiquity is working against CRT. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Plum said:

I can have influence. He does have influence. The groups that are creating the curriculum for the schools aren't going to listen to me. They didn't listen to the CA Jewish Caucus and tens of thousands of Californians. They would listen to him. 

I agree. Ubiquity is working against CRT. 

Do you support these legislative bans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re de facto barriers to exercising Constitutional right to vote

10 hours ago, Condessa said:

In the county where I used to live, towns of about 1500 or more had a polling place.  Because of geography, these were all clustered on one edge of the county, with smaller towns and communities scattered deep into the mountains up the rivers through the rest of the county.  There were a few small towns that were two hours’ or more drive from polling places, and a tiny town that can only be accessed by a several hours boat ride.

This is a great example of de facto barriers to voting; and a compelling rationale for voting by mail.  For all voters, obviously; but it serves a particularly crucial role for eligible voters who face limitations in their geography (your example), mobility (seniors, people without a car, caretakers of someone at home needing 24/7 care), or time (long & inflexible hours, long commutes). 

Some of these constraints could be met with extended days of early voting, but others  -- including your example -- cannot (and many states including mine do not have *any* days of early voting. We're working on it but because of how our Constitution micromanages certain types of legislative measures, it will be 4 years before we have even a shot at getting there.)

 

 

re language of "privilege" v "blessings"

10 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. 

There is scope for differences in how people parse the difference between the two terms.  As you note yourself, while your stable and financially secure home resulted from particular choices and sacrifices your parents made... those choices weren't made by you (any more than the choices made by markedly less stable / loving / steady parents are made by their less-fortunate children).  That it was you, and not some other kid, lucky enough to be born into your parents' union and stability IS a random coincidence; your good fortune in the birth lottery is just as random and "unearned" by you as the more difficult circumstances of kids who don't fare as well in the birth lottery is "unearned" by them.

That said, I wholly agree that

8 hours ago, SKL said:

There's no question that the word "privilege" has been weaponized.

I see two separate aspects to this weaponization. 

The first piece, to my mind, is the old, legacy connotations of the word -- when I was growing up, the term "underprivileged" was commonly used to refer to disadvantages of wealth and income (which had an obvious overlap with race, but also encompassed coal miners' daughters and declining industrial towns and agricultural workers etc).... while its opposite, "privileged," also principally connoted trappings of wealth and income -- private schools and colleges, expensive vacations, second homes etc. 

And starting ~10 years ago, analysts really did start to use the term differently, to describe an arguably related but not-the-same thing.  And whenever language morphs, it takes time for the new usage to settle. If you've always associated the word "privilege" with the likes of Daisy Buchanan... and your own circumstances are a zillion miles away from hers (as virtually all IRL people's are!!!) ... it's hard to re-orient when the term starts being used a different way.

The second part -- the part that I would see as actual "weaponization" beyond ordinary bumpiness with evolving language usage -- is  not so much around the term as the actual content of the new usage: that there are sufficiently substantive differences in Shopping While Black , or Driving While Black , or Hailing a Taxi While Black, or Walking While Black , or Passing Through Security While Serving as a Black Senator , or any number of other ordinary daily life activities in which the lived experience of black people is measurably different than those same activities, white.

This observation, itself, disorients many of us white people. And for some of us, it triggers / tweaks defensiveness / angers.  It is likely that it *particularly* sets off those of us who have held to the Colorblind Doctrine, that we already live in a post-racial society where race makes no difference and everyone is solely judged by the content of their character, just the individuals. 

But -- as the very evidence some of us really really don't want to gather, or collate, or look at, demonstrates -- we have not yet arrived in that happy place.

And so I see the weaponization of the term "privilege" -- the outraged Fox squawking about the WORD, fused to a refusal to look at or listen to the SUBSTANCE of what black people -- who really are the subject matter experts in the lived experience of walking around black in America -- report... as one and the same phenomenon, as the discussion we're having right now, here, today, about "CRT." Which is similarly being whipped and weaponized in very similar ways:

6c80de46-d947-4d3c-82db-a290a571acf8.png.60a0217e84ac245983bd1cfa209ea5ad.png

 

So while I understand the struggle in adapting to how a term that once had a meaning largely associated with wealth/income is now being used to refer to a broader range of (similarly "unearned") divergences in life experiences...

at the end of the day...

3 hours ago, Harpymom said:

This is what is being parsed, now, today. This is what the term refers to, in today's context.

The meaning has evolved.  Dwelling over-long on what the term once meant, is a choice.  Railing against that evolution in its usage is a choice.

And, First Amendment, if that's the arena where folks really want to dig in and cling fast to, what does "privilege" even mean... carry on.

But the real issues -- the ethical issues, the political stability issues, the issues framing our future as a nation -- are around the SUBSTANCE of privilege, not the language.

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Frances said:

I was also very confused by the post and actually went back and reread both articles.

In general I’m not sure either the right or the left is great about adhering to basic principles, likely at least in part due to the diversity within each group. But one could also argue some conservatives aren’t sticking to the free speech principles they tout when criticizing removal of college speakers and banning individuals who repeatedly lie or incite hate/violence from some social media platforms. Now some want to implement very broad, very vague bans on teachers and curriculum.

The big difference I see here is this, the speakers on college campuses and the posts on social media are optional. You can choose to attend or follow those events/posts. Teachers and curriculums are not optional.

Those students, professors and outsiders that show up at these on campus events to protest speakers in an effort (usually successfully) to shut down free speech have the option to just not attend the event. Students in classrooms that are presented with a curriculum can not opt out. As we have seen in some of these cases the curriculum is being hidden from parents. That in particular raises red flags for me.

Edited by Fritz
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.


Not being from an “intact family” has huge societal stigma in many cases. 
 

There is a great deal of “privilege” for people from intact families — some merely in unconscious positive attitudes, some in opportunities and invitations, some in actually having two parents in the home especially if the parental marriage is basically functional. 
 

If you are in an intact family, do you socialize frequently with non intact families? You may, but many people do not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Do you support these legislative bans?

That's not a simple question. On their face, no. The reasoning, yes. We need time to figure this out. It's reactionary which always means pushed too far in the opposite direction.   

Like I said, education reformers have failed here. If they want something like this in public and charter schools, they need to come up with something that can at the very least been seen by parents. Right now it's a mystery. The only reason parents have an inkling this is happening in schools is because they are witnessing it for themselves in virtual school or their kids are coming home and talking to their parents. They know what they don't like when they see it. 

I do think it will even out over time. It will get challenged. Regular approved history will likely stay the same. If there is a clear picture of what will be taught, it's a lot easier to discuss and legislate. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Do you support these legislative bans?

Quoting myself because, as is often the case, disingenuousness undergirds much of the opposition and it’s readily apparent here too. It’s not about ensuring children aren’t told that they’re oppressors or oppressed, it’s about making sure they aren’t told anything about how our country developed, an effort to erase any/all unpleasantness. If it were otherwise, there would be proposals and efforts to work together to develop something that is better. Those proposals/efforts don’t exist.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, but you didn’t get to choose being brought up in an intact marriage. I can choose not to get divorced but I couldn’t make my mom not get divorced, you know?

Also, you can choose to stay married but your spouse could choose to get divorced and there's nothing you could do about it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re de facto barriers to exercising Constitutional right to vote

This is a great example of de facto barriers to voting; and a compelling rationale for voting by mail.  For all voters, obviously; but it serves a particularly crucial role for eligible voters who face limitations in their geography (your example), mobility (seniors, people without a car, caretakers of someone at home needing 24/7 care), or time (long & inflexible hours, long commutes). 

Some of these constraints could be met with extended days of early voting, but others  -- including your example -- cannot (and many states including mine do not have *any* days of early voting. We're working on it but because of how our Constitution micromanages certain types of legislative measures, it will be 4 years before we have even a shot at getting there.)

100% agreement.  I think the arguments against mail-in voting are ridiculous.  Clearly, if we can find a way to pay taxes securely by mail, we can also find a way to make voting by mail secure against fraud.  

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 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.

I'm not sure I follow. How does that ban discussion? 

"Risk being labelled a racist" is an odd way to phrase that. That's not what Kendi meant. That seems to imply that it's a false accusation of racism. 

I don't see what's so terrible about Kendi's ideas. Racism, like anything, can be on a spectrum. I've got racist assumptions even though I'm not member of the KKK. 

TBH, I'm immediately suspicious of any white adult who claims to not be racist. They grew up in the same culture as me. How could they have avoided picking up the same biases? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

100% agreement.  I think the arguments against mail-in voting are ridiculous.  Clearly, if we can find a way to pay taxes securely by mail, we can also find a way to make voting by mail secure against fraud.  

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

L took a CRT class a couple of years back-an honors college sociology course on Race, Class and Gender. Yes, it did involve the students becoming aware of where they had areas of relative and lesser privilege, but not in the sense of "L, you're a middle class, intellectually gifted, White, homeschooled kid from an intact, college educated family, therefore you should feel bad because you're not Black and coming from an academically weak high school like J. J, you're male, so you should feel bad because you're not a Latinx Lesbian like T, and T, you're so much better off than M, who is transgender, Biracial and poor."

 

Rather, it was a chance for all of the above to share what parts of their stories they were comfortable sharing, learn how it fit into the historic framework, and most importantly, find ways to support and understand each other. Many of the students taking it were history majors, most planning to teach and those planning to go into social work.  

 

L considers it the single most valuable DE class taken, because it made so much in other classes make sense. 

 

I don't think that it would be a good thing to do with elementary kids,but I definitely don't think it is a case of "making kids feel bad for being an oppressor". If it had been, my kid was probably the most privileged. What it did do was make everyone aware of the different influences that different people deal with. It added a valuable context that every student was missing part of. 

Edited by Dmmetler
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Plum said:

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

That doesn’t really address the other purpose(s) of voting by mail though.  I mean, my polling place uses the same parking lot as the post office.  It might solve a specific date issue for some people.  Timing, perhaps not. My post office hours are a lot shorter than polling hours.  My PO even closes for lunch, lol.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm not sure I follow. How does that ban discussion? 

"Risk being labelled a racist" is an odd way to phrase that. That's not what Kendi meant. That seems to imply that it's a false accusation of racism. 

I don't see what's so terrible about Kendi's ideas. Racism, like anything, can be on a spectrum. I've got racist assumptions even though I'm not member of the KKK. 

TBH, I'm immediately suspicious of any white adult who claims to not be racist. They grew up in the same culture as me. How could they have avoided picking up the same biases? 

 

Culture in this country varies wildly. The south is nothing like the NE is nothing like the west coast is nothing like the mid-west is nothing like TX. 😉 I grew up in an area that is 50% Hispanic. I lived in Santa Ana for a time as an adult. I also lived in the bay area for a couple of years. Talk about varied culture. All within CA. I am as much a product of where I lived as who I knew. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pen said:


Not being from an “intact family” has huge societal stigma in many cases. 
 

There is a great deal of “privilege” for people from intact families — some merely in unconscious positive attitudes, some in opportunities and invitations, some in actually having two parents in the home especially if the parental marriage is basically functional. 
 

If you are in an intact family, do you socialize frequently with non intact families? You may, but many people do not. 

This is especially true due to evangelical Christian influence with its "God hates divorce" preaching, and the fundamentalist view "God visits the sins of the fathers on the children for generations" preaching. Combined, it has fromed  a lethal combo that has created serious social stigma. So again, the price of this stigma falls on the heads of those who had exactly zero choice in the matter, not unlike any other privilege/advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it’s just semantics and not really important, but the part of me that loves precise language really dislikes this use of the term “privilege”.  I understand what is meant by it and why it is used, but in my mind, a child receiving support from its parents, not being abused, basic medical care, sufficient food, receiving a decent basic education, etc. in this country is a right, not a privilege.  The child who doesn’t receive these things, whose deadbeat dad walks out on them, or is abused or neglected, whose caregivers are too drugged out to notice they’re hungry or to take them in for the free food assistance or free medical care offered for vulnerable kids—these kids, my foster girls, they weren’t just lacking a privilege.  They were robbed of something that was theirs by right.  

Most (but not all) of the “privileges” we’ve been discussing seem to fall under this category.  (Like the unfair, discriminatory lending practices—those people weren’t just disallowed something extra.  They were robbed of what should have been theirs by right.) Some others, such as generational wealth or a family history of higher education, do actually seem to fall under the category of privileges that some are able to obtain on behalf of their children.
 

I know it’s not really relevant to the underlying message, but I just wish a different term had been settled upon for this purpose.  For most of these, it feels much more accurate to say something like “injustices” or “disadvantages” for those who lack them, than “privileges” for those who don’t.

Edited by Condessa
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I know it’s not really relevant to the underlying message, but I just wish a different term had been settled upon for this purpose.  For most of these, it feels much more accurate to say something like “injustices” or “disadvantages” for those who lack them, than “privileges” for those who don’t.

But sometimes "privilege" just means something like "white skin," and you wouldn't really want to describe a lack of this as an injustice or a disadvantage. 

I personally don't think there was any way to describe this concept to not make people bristle. People get defensive and angry when you imply they don't deserve their good fortune. Thus it is now, thus it always has been. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plum said:

It would be a nightmare of a line and exclude people with transportation problems, but you could get your ballot at the post office. There could be other official places to pick it up. Show ID to prove you live at that address and get your mail-in ballot. Or make it an opt-in like absentee ballots. 

My sister received 4 mail-in ballots from the family that lived in her house before her. That doesn't work. 

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.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread moves so fast that by the time I get a chance to read new replies I just end up liking a bunch of them. I'm going to stop reading for now and reply to a few.

20 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

 

Singapore Math was a disaster for my math-challenged daughter. It would also be a

 

18 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Repetitively pounding on some basics day after day did help. 

The problem is that some students, particularly in the elementary years - esp if they have LDs or challenges, get completely lost because they are still literal thinkers. My son sailed through 6 years of SM. LOVED it. My daughter understood / learned *nothing* from it. Couldn't understand it at all, found it very frustrating. Tried it twice - once in first, once in 4th...didn't work at all either time.

 

I thought Singapore Math would help my kid with ADHD because of the repetitiveness. People with ADHD have trouble with working memory so I hoped the constant repeating of the basics would help with that. He hated it and it became a battle every day to get him to do math, even with me sitting next to him the entire time. Fortunately homeschooling allows you to throw a method aside and try something different. We eventually settled on Right Start. He'll always have trouble with working memory but RS was a better fit for him with his particular challenges (plus it kept his hands busy, allowing his mind to focus more).

 

16 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

15 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I absolutely don’t support banning CRT from schools.  I think that critics should be focusing on improvements and alternatives that address racism and cross cultural education they can support vs. legislative bans.  If they can’t articulate a plan for what they want to be taught and instead can only say what they don’t want taught, it’s fair to say they have ulterior motives.  

The WaPo article was behind a paywall but I read the first link. Just last week as this thread was going strong, the Florida State Board of Education banned any type of CRT from public schools. You can bet there are ulterior motives there. Sigh.

 

15 hours ago, Plum said:

Russell Brand always surprises me. 

Not me. He gets dismissed because of his brash ways and his shock comedy and his brief marriage to Katy Perry. He is however, quite intelligent and thoughtful. If people would actually listen to him more they'd realize that. I get the side-eye even from my very progressive friends for defending him but I wish more people would listen to what he has to say.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 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.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/10/19/new-legislative-fiscal-office-review-of-oregon-vote-by-mail-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare/

We have 100% mail in voting here, a GOP Secretary of State and no issues with fraud.  I have no clue why they don’t just go to mail in everywhere.  Standing in line to vote sounds like a stupid joke to someone who has always enjoyed a mail-in ballot. I vote at my kitchen table.  I have always voted by mail.  It’s great. Everyone should join us- you’ll never have to worry about who allowed to do what and when near a polling place ever again.  The idea of standing in line to vote long enough that I need a sandwich and hydration makes me angry TBH.  It’s 2021.  Polling lines are only a problem if we accept the absurdity that there’s no secure way to vote except cueing up to vote in a high school gymnasium or church basement.  Again, the year is 2021.  We can do better.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...