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

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

My parents moved from Oklahoma to Portland, OR about 7 years ago and it's pushing my mother to the right. My parents are loyal Democrats and never voted for a Republican in their lives. My mother keeps up with the local news, reads the local paper, etc. and she gets so fed up with Portland. 

I have lived in or adjacent to Seattle for 36 years excepting a  year in Kentucky, part of a year in Orlando and then a little time in another part of the state for a bit of college.  If I were someone with shallowly held beliefs, I think I would be penning shrill “how I left the left” essays right about now.  But I am authentically committed to mostly very liberal positions so whatever is going on, while very frustrating, isn’t enough to entirely unroot myself.  I don’t like how I see people dehumanize anyone who disagrees with them.  This isn’t exclusive to the left (hello, QAnon et al!) but it’s not a non-factor on the left like a lot of my friends like to believe.  I also have lived outside of the city limits for the last 8 years *and I doubt I will ever move back* if for no other reason than I never want to have to sit through another endorsement meeting for Seattle City Council or even have to cast a ballot for Seattle mayor.  (It also doesn’t help that right now laws that were put into place to protect poor and homeless people are making it impossible for me to protect my dad from a shameless grifter who keeps swindling most of his social security check- classic case of unintended consequences of well intentioned but badly implemented policies.)

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that there are problems in the Left, especially the online Left. I often see what appears to be kind of immature reflexive response. Liberals are certainly capable of falling for fake news and conspiracy theories. I think that part of the reason for this are not many outlets for expressing leftism offline. There is no leftist party in the USA. There are very few unions. Unions and left-wing parties are the normal path for leftists in other countries. 

There's also the problem that most progressives/leftists/whatever you call them are really only interested in left-wing social issues, not socialism. That's understandable given that most of were raised to see socialism as anathema. 

Where are the leftist intellectuals? There are intellectuals on the left and left-wing magazines but they seem to be very niche. They used to be left-wing intellectuals and books that magazines that everyone read. 

So I think we're left with an unfocused left-wing. It's often reactionary. It's very fractured. There are many new 'converts' to the left after the Trump years and the George Floyd killing. They are like many new converts, overly enthusiastic, ignorant, and driven by emotions and feelings. 

I think this makes it almost impossible to discuss things like CRT on the left. It's complicated and how do you discuss complicated things on Twitter or TikTok? 

The criticisms of things like CRT from the right-wing are often dishonest and cynical so the left-wing responds to the weak argument and no one ever addresses anything more serious. 

For example, we seem to be unable in the USA to discuss transgenderism. There's a so much about what's going on that makes people uncomfortable. But when you see how the issue is used in such a cynical way by some of the right, it makes it difficult to discuss it which would require allowing for different opinions. 

CRT is another good example. I actually don't have an opinion yet about CRT but I know there are people using fear mongering tactics to advance an agenda. The anti-CRT bills are absurd, especially coming from people who advocate for local control over education. 

Nm thought better of it. 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Condessa]

Question for those who are very familiar with what CRT actually is:

With all the uncertainty back and forth here about what CRT entails, I was searching for a source with specifics and found this article with specific information on an educator training course on white supremacy.  It seems to fit with what the general public thinks of as CRT.  Is this what is meant by CRT? (as applied to education as it is now by both supporters and opponents of it, vs. its original narrower definition regarding the law). If this is not CRT, can you explain the distinction?
 

https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/richard-carranza-held-doe-white-supremacy-culture-training/

[Momto6inIN]

10 hours ago, TechWife said:

I’ve circled back to this piece from the American Bar Association a few times. It’s been helpful to me as I attempt to wrap my brain around this idea that has become so controversial.

"While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:

• Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
• CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

 

TechWife, this is not directed at you, although if you have an answer, please speak up 😊

I found this link helpful, but I have a question about these 2 aspects of CRT that to me seem to be in conflict. How can race be a social construct that's not real, but colorblindness be a bad thing? If race isn't real, shouldn't we be colorblind?

I apologize if I'm being ignorant, but I'm trying to understand.

[Danae]

8 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

TechWife, this is not directed at you, although if you have an answer, please speak up 😊

I found this link helpful, but I have a question about these 2 aspects of CRT that to me seem to be in conflict. How can race be a social construct that's not real, but colorblindness be a bad thing? If race isn't real, shouldn't we be colorblind?

I apologize if I'm being ignorant, but I'm trying to understand.

Something being a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real.  Marriage is a social construct, but it would be ridiculous to say that we don’t “see” marriage.

[pinball]

1 hour ago, Condessa said:

Question for those who are very familiar with what CRT actually is:

With all the uncertainty back and forth here about what CRT entails, I was searching for a source with specifics and found this article with specific information on an educator training course on white supremacy.  It seems to fit with what the general public thinks of as CRT.  Is this what is meant by CRT? (as applied to education as it is now by both supporters and opponents of it, vs. its original narrower definition regarding the law). If this is not CRT, can you explain the distinction?
 

https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/richard-carranza-held-doe-white-supremacy-culture-training/

Critical race theory posits that all social institutions, formal and informal, are racist, in the sense that they are created to favor one race, the race with the most power. The dominant more powerful race sets up and controls society, to favor them. The dominant race is privileged bc that is the way society is set up.

Also, as in one of the above replies, is the idea that CRT is fluid and evolving. So what is CRT today, might evolve, change, develop into something else tomorrow.

*What the general public thinks CRT is* paraphrasing what you said...it’s funny bc the academics who have developed the theory can say...”oh, that’s not it. It’s evolved. It’s fluid.” So when there is pushback from the public about how people are responding to how CRT is presented to them, the answer can be: “that’s not CRT” or “your pushback is bc you are favored and received privilege as the dominant race”

 

[TechWife]

34 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

TechWife, this is not directed at you, although if you have an answer, please speak up 😊

I found this link helpful, but I have a question about these 2 aspects of CRT that to me seem to be in conflict. How can race be a social construct that's not real, but colorblindness be a bad thing? If race isn't real, shouldn't we be colorblind?

I apologize if I'm being ignorant, but I'm trying to understand.

This one puzzled me for a bit, too! The meritocracy and color blindness go together. If I understand correctly, CRT sees the narrative that in the US, we are a meritocracy and everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in any scenario  regardless of the color of their skin as a false narrative. This is because our history has shown this to be false and because there are past and present barriers to success that are present for black and brown people that aren’t present or have a disproportionate impact. One example that I learned about recently is that houses in a predominantly black or brown neighborhood appraise and sell for lower amounts than a comparable house in a predominantly white neighborhood in the same city. This impacts not only physical mobility, but also the ability to build personal and generational wealth as houses are the largest investment that the majority of people will make in our country. This practice is neither colorblind nor based on merit. Another example is in the criminal justice system where white people receive shorter sentences and lower fines for the same criminal convictions with the same characteristics than people of color receive. This is neither color blind nor based on the merits of the case at hand. In addition to impacting wealth, this has a destabilizing effect on families and the wider community and  psychosocial  consequences as well.

I’ve been reading  about the history of race in the US over the past five years or so and I still feel like I’m in kindergarten with the subject. The history is both deep and wide and has so very many implications. 

[HeartString]

20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

This one puzzled me for a bit, too! The meritocracy and color blindness go together. If I understand correctly, CRT sees the narrative that in the US, we are a meritocracy and everyone has equal opportunity to succeed in any scenario  regardless of the color of their skin as a false narrative. This is because our history has shown this to be false and because there are past and present barriers to success that are present for black and brown people that aren’t present or have a disproportionate impact. One example that I learned about recently is that houses in a predominantly black or brown neighborhood appraise and sell for lower amounts than a comparable house in a predominantly white neighborhood in the same city. This impacts not only physical mobility, but also the ability to build personal and generational wealth as houses are the largest investment that the majority of people will make in our country. This practice is neither colorblind nor based on merit. Another example is in the criminal justice system where white people receive shorter sentences and lower fines for the same criminal convictions with the same characteristics than people of color receive. This is neither color blind nor based on the merits of the case at hand. In addition to impacting wealth, this has a destabilizing effect on families and the wider community and  psychosocial  consequences as well.

I’ve been reading  about the history of race in the US over the past five years or so and I still feel like I’m in kindergarten with the subject. The history is both deep and wide and has so very many implications. 

This is very much how I understand it. It’s not necessarily about individual people being racist but about the structural road blocks put up for black and brown people that most white peoples are just blissfully unaware of.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by HeartString

[Melissa Louise]

Someone wanted a specific example. 

This popped up tonight.

https://www.fairforall.org/profiles-in-courage/dwight-englewood-whistleblower/

A lot of info (elite school, I believe, mostly white?)

Humanist teacher resigns over CRT-style initiatives dominating the curriculum/impacting on students. 

No idea about who she is/don't vouch for her particularly/no I can't guarantee she isn't an evil Conservative plant. She is white. 

On a quick browse, I find myself unbothered by some things, more bothered by others. The site is somewhat  overwrought. 

Reading the DEI details for this school,. two things struck me. Firstly, the massive amount of resources going into this - made me wonder what's being neglected, because in education as elsewhere, resources are finite. 

Secondly, affinity groups. I do wonder about white-only groups, and how they may inadvertently promote a white racialized identity. I wouldn't particularly want to be in a white affinity group, and I wouldn't want to group white staff or students in that way.

 

[ktgrok]

20 hours ago, HeartString said:

What Fox News says is “critical race theory” is not at all what I learned about in my sociology classes (sociology major).  We learned that race is a social construct.  It comes from the study of law and the way “racism is built into and reproduced through institutions that organize every day life, particularly the law”.  Seems a rather sensible thing to study and an odd thing to be mad about today, since it’s been around since the 70s.  It’s not even specifically about people being racist, it’s more about ways that systems are set up in a way that negatively impacts POC, often inadvertently but sometime purposefully.   That just plain doesn’t feel controversial.  

Right. It should not be controversial to say that institutions can have racist impacts, and that some of those were not bugs, but features, at least at the time of their creation. 

I mean, if we can acknowledge that jim crow laws were racist, we are admitting that laws can have racial bias. 

19 hours ago, Laurie said:

My understanding is that you have to begin by first understanding what is meant by Critical Theory.  

I found a course description from a Philosophy department about Marx and Critical Theory.  https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/courses/1314S/PHIL/PHIL-366-1314S

I think this is why crt in the classroom is concerning to conservative parents...because marxism is at the core.  

 

No. Marxism is not at the core of critical race theory anymore than marxism is at the core of critical text theory. 

15 hours ago, Plum said:

 

 

i think the bolded at the end is the most important thing I’ve read so far. We’re trusting educators and administrators to be able to teach this without making one side a victim and one side an oppressor. I think that’s asking too much. I do not believe they can possibly have a firm grasp of what and how to teach a concept like this in K-12. 

What is the alternative? To not acknowledge racial bias in our courts, banking systems, etc? Pretend they don't exist? Do we skip over Jim Crow laws because that would be teaching about racist laws, which would be part of critical race theory? Do we not explain how redlining influenced generational wealth differences between different races? Do we not teach segregation even, because that would again be an institutional form of racism? Or is it okay to teach that institutions and legal systems can be racist, but only up to a certain point in history - and only if we make sure not let on that the effects are still felt today?

I mean, if we don't teach these things....how do we teach at all?

15 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

A specific criticism re poor quality pedagogy which claims to be based on CRT ( again, a valid set of academic theories re race/law):

That some programs taught in schools under a CRT umbrella 'label some identities as inherently problematic, and assign perjorative moral values to said identities.'

There is a middle path here - defend, absolutely, the rights of scholars to develop theory around the intersection of race and power AND defend the right of all child-students to be seen, taught and valued as individuals, regardless of race or other characteristics. 

 

Does anyone have actual links to actual programs that actually do the bolded? 

15 hours ago, Scarlett said:

So it is as I first thought.....all of this screaming about CRT taking away rights and making children hate themselves for being white has nothing to do with what CRT actually is.

 

Truth

14 hours ago, Fritz said:

The factual history of our country about slavery, Tulsa, segregation, Jim Crow, etc.. .yes absolutely should be taught. This was taught when I was in school. 

 

What makes teaching about laws with racial bias in the distant past okay, but teaching about ones that are more recent not okay? And are we not to discuss how those laws impact our current population?

 

11 hours ago, Condessa said:

From the above linked local news article on the law suit:

“Under the ambassador program, schools select a handful of students who meet with principals and other school leaders to discuss [incidents of racist behavior in their school communities], while the reporting system urges students to anonymously report observations using a form online.”

So...okay...schools are encouraging racism to be reported and discussed? Isn't that good?

11 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I watched the video. 

First, oppression was not even mentioned other than as a title on one of the Powerpoints. The exercise was about privileges. No one was labeled an oppressor. 

One of the questions the students had to answer was whether they experienced oppression. But again, no one was labeled an oppressor. No privilege was connected with oppression. 

It sounded like the parent who was taping the video was offended from the beginning. She made a few comments during the video. 

This is a little clunky and looks a little silly to me but it does not demonize any student or group. 

Exactly.

 

10 hours ago, Plum said:

Actually, my post downthread is a better example. This took up a lot of space. I kept the link in case you are interested in another K-2 lesson plan. 

Connection to anti-bias education
Challenge the Text places an anti-bias lens on the literacy experience. Students generate and respond to critical questions, raising issues related to power within the social contexts of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This method gives voice to marginalized perspectives and alternative readings of dominant texts, embedding critical literacy practices into the Perspectives curriculum. 

https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/teaching-strategies/responding-to-the-readaloud-text/challenge-the-text

 

Sounds like good reading skills that people need even more with current multitude of "news" sources. 

10 hours ago, Plum said:

 
Why?
As noted in the Common Core, critical literacy means more than identifying words, enjoying illustrations and following story lines. Children need to be critical consumers of  media and able to identify stereotypes or biased representations of groups. Cracking the Code provides practice identifying both overt and covert messages.
 
How?
Select a central text and a variety of print and television advertisements. Ideally, select ads for products with which your students will be familiar and those that illustrate the strategy well.

<insert a lot of Common Core + CRT type questions>

Connection to anti-bias education
Discussions about bias and stereotype are critical to anti-bias education. Cracking the Code helps students critically examine representation in texts and encourages them to assess the messages being transmitted in those representations.

https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/teaching-strategies/responding-to-the-readaloud-text/cracking-the-code

 

 

Again, how is this a bad thing?

8 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

My parents moved from Oklahoma to Portland, OR about 7 years ago and it's pushing my mother to the right. My parents are loyal Democrats and never voted for a Republican in their lives. My mother keeps up with the local news, reads the local paper, etc. and she gets so fed up with Portland. 

To b fair, I'm pretty bleeding heart left and would be annoyed by Portland. But hipsters ruined everything, lol. 

5 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree that there are problems in the Left, especially the online Left. I often see what appears to be kind of immature reflexive response. Liberals are certainly capable of falling for fake news and conspiracy theories. I think that part of the reason for this are not many outlets for expressing leftism offline. There is no leftist party in the USA. There are very few unions. Unions and left-wing parties are the normal path for leftists in other countries. 

There's also the problem that most progressives/leftists/whatever you call them are really only interested in left-wing social issues, not socialism. That's understandable given that most of were raised to see socialism as anathema. 

Where are the leftist intellectuals? There are intellectuals on the left and left-wing magazines but they seem to be very niche. They used to be left-wing intellectuals and books that magazines that everyone read. 

So I think we're left with an unfocused left-wing. It's often reactionary. It's very fractured. There are many new 'converts' to the left after the Trump years and the George Floyd killing. They are like many new converts, overly enthusiastic, ignorant, and driven by emotions and feelings. 

I think this makes it almost impossible to discuss things like CRT on the left. It's complicated and how do you discuss complicated things on Twitter or TikTok? 

The criticisms of things like CRT from the right-wing are often dishonest and cynical so the left-wing responds to the weak argument and no one ever addresses anything more serious. 

For example, we seem to be unable in the USA to discuss transgenderism. There's a so much about what's going on that makes people uncomfortable. But when you see how the issue is used in such a cynical way by some of the right, it makes it difficult to discuss it which would require allowing for different opinions. 

CRT is another good example. I actually don't have an opinion yet about CRT but I know there are people using fear mongering tactics to advance an agenda. The anti-CRT bills are absurd, especially coming from people who advocate for local control over education. 

Very interesting! And yes, as a progressive it is hard to find decent media sources. Especially as a progressive Christian. 

1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

TechWife, this is not directed at you, although if you have an answer, please speak up 😊

I found this link helpful, but I have a question about these 2 aspects of CRT that to me seem to be in conflict. How can race be a social construct that's not real, but colorblindness be a bad thing? If race isn't real, shouldn't we be colorblind?

I apologize if I'm being ignorant, but I'm trying to understand.

If someone has experienced limited opportunities due to the social construct of race, it is silly to ignore those and pretend they don't exist out of an idea of color blindness. 

An analogy is if you were to pretend not to see disability.....and therefore didn't install ramps in a public space, because you don't see wheelchairs, just people. Treating people in a wheelchair the same as everyone else sounds noble until they are stuck at the bottom of the stairs. You have to acknowledge their lack of access before you can address it. 

11 minutes ago, HeartString said:

This is very much how I understand it. It’s it necessarily about individual people being racist but about the structural road blocks put up for black and brown people that most white peoples are just blissfully unaware of.  

yes. 

[ktgrok]

FYI heard on the news that my state has banned CRT from classrooms....what the heck that means in actuality is that anything mentioning racism can likely be objected to and banned. 

Once again, glad I homeschool. 

[Melissa Louise]

34 minutes ago, Plum said:

 

half of the kids in that district are proficient in math and reading and they should focus on that.

 

Well, the above is what I was wondering, really re resources. Getting half your student cohort up to speed on literacy and numeracy is a massive task. Much time/effort needed. If the time/effort is going to DEI initiatives in a very comprehensive way, is it also going to core academic  skills? Maybe yes ( in well- resources places), maybe no in others. 

Literacy is such a key to good life outcomes, I'd probably just invest everything in that. 

[Melissa Louise]

I think it's a bit - silly? - to posit two choices - either pro banning CRT style trainings and for colorblindness OR waving the banner for all things CRT in schools because of racism. 

I'm not pro banning, not pro colorblind, believe racism is a persistent social ill that needs to be remedied in a multitude of ways, is just as happy teaching Shakespeare through a Marxist lens as teaching Harjo through literary analysis, and still have qualms about the way in which some school districts appear to be going about CRT-style education.

It's a bit like if I decided my school was henceforth going to deliver the curriculum through the lens of radical feminism. Parents might have a basic sympathy with the goal of sex equality, but they might be very unhappy when I emphasis the victimhood of girls and the...non-victimhood... of boys during English Lit. They may have some questions when Math class emphasizes the hetero patriarchal basis of study. 

And frankly, they'd have a point. Like CRT, radical feminism is just one theoretical lens for looking at the world, and a school should really be broadening a students exposure to.many different ways of thinking, not just presenting a dominant strand. 

In the end, it's a philosophical difference about the role of school. Is school a place primarily concerned with consciousness raising? I'd argue private schools certainly have the right to market themselves that way. Public schools really need to be welcoming to a wide range of student, staff and parent perspectives. 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[ktgrok]

16 minutes ago, Plum said:

What I’ve seen is CRT is supposed to be a lens to teach history, not the lens. I’m not against teaching history and where we came from. As some educators that fully understand  CRT have said, what the school districts and states are doing is a bastardization of CRT. Talking about past racism and current racism is history. It’s uncomfortable but necessary to know our past.

However, to force students to point to each other and themselves as victims and oppressors, as privileged and marginalized is not history, it’s social engineering: Any act that influences a person to take an action that may or may not be in their best interest.

The examples I gave were just that, examples. Upthread someone asked if it was being taught in ps and what the lesson plans would look like. Obviously as a K-2 lesson plan it can look benign. I didn’t look at the approved books they use for the lessons so there is that. 

So, if a teacher teaches that institutional racism made it harder for black veterans to secure a college education than for white veterans, that's history, and is okay. But if the teacher points out a current situation, where people of one color are favored, that is not okay? Because if it is okay to say that, for instance, people of color are treated less favorably in the court system, and the person has eyes and can see what color they are, that could be called making them feel like a victim. But...if you don't teach it, is that promoting ignorance? 

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, Plum said:

I think you are missing the part where they actually do have to confess their identities to their classmates and their position in the “Wheel of Power and Privilege.” I’d say it’s better to teach history and let students draw their own conclusions. 
 

I stand by my first post and initial thought. 
“I will go out on a limb and say when ps picks up something they go way overboard to the point of losing the original intent. <Insert latest education reform or fad here>“

In a particular classroom that was done. But all aspects of CRT, including that institutional racism exists or has ever existed, are being banned. My entire state has done so. 

[Pam in CT]

re suitability/feasibility of critical theory (applied to literature or economics or role of race in our history or any other content area) in K-12 settings

14 hours ago, Danae said:

I would not expect to see actual Critical Race Theory taught in most K-12 settings for the same reason we don’t teach Bayesian analysis or quantum mechanics in k-12.  The kids don’t have the prerequisites.  Which means attempts are going to end up teaching the vocabulary of CRT which people will proceed to misuse.

I feel the same way about most critical thinking curriculum, including that popular with homeschoolers.  They teach the jargon of critical thinking without actually requiring anyone to think critically.

This.  WTM itself outlines a pedagogical/developmental sequence: first master reading/writing, then amass a knowledge of historical EVENTS; only then *begin* to develop reasoning tools to parse the implication of those EVENTS through a process of reasoning and evaluation.

Suggesting that middle/high school students should, indeed, learn about events like (forex) the Tulsa Race Massacre... even though some parents might be more comfortable eliding over some of the uglier events of our true history. But the idea that most middle school kids can actually use analytical methods that hang on both a broad body of history they do not yet have, and also the application of reasoning tools that take years to develop.

Otherwise it's just feelz and inanity:

13 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Anybody who will, with an apparently straight face, assert that people have to "choose" between being "victims" or "victors" has utterly lost the plot.

 

re weaponization of "CRT" as a label

12 hours ago, HeartString said:

So people are mad about this odd race stuff and are calling it critical race theory so it sounds fancy, with no regard to what critical race theory actually is or whether or not this racial teaching fits in with it?

ETA:this makes conversation almost impossible because we’re meaning several different things at the same time and everyone is talking past each other. 

 

11 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

No, CRT is a theoretical framework.  The name CRT comes from the people who have advanced it in academic and activist circles, not from people who are mad about it.  Some things probably get folded into that umbrella but it’s not a fancy name applied only by its detractors.  

I see this push-pull a bit differently. Yes, critical theory (generally) and critical race theory specifically really are theoretical frameworks with longstanding and deep analytical roots.

Also: yes, over the last few years, and particularly since the 1619 Project was published, the term has become a coalescing rally call for opponents, a catchall term which is slapped onto any incident that is overly zealous or over-the-top or otherwise irritating, then instrumentalizing backlash against this strawman for outrage/mobilization/fundraising to the point where (as Sykes pointed out) former Heritage Foundation fellow/Fox regular/Trump whisperer Christopher Rufo crowed

The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediate think "CRT."

Well, all right then. 

 

 

re distinction between "race is a social construct" vs "colorblindness"

2 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

TechWife, this is not directed at you, although if you have an answer, please speak up 😊

I found this link helpful, but I have a question about these 2 aspects of CRT that to me seem to be in conflict. How can race be a social construct that's not real, but colorblindness be a bad thing? If race isn't real, shouldn't we be colorblind?

I apologize if I'm being ignorant, but I'm trying to understand.

Other pp have already spoken to this, but here is a specific example that helped me see the distinction here.  In the interval following Reconstruction, many states enacted legislation governing voter registration that included two provisions:

1. Proof of payment of a poll tax; and
2. Waiver of that poll tax for registrants whose grandfathers were eligible to vote

These provisions were, like all legislation, "constructed."  And on their face, both of provisions are also "colorblind." Race doesn't appear in the literal words of either provision. Yet in combination, the two provisions created a structure in which folks whose grandfathers were eligible -- white men -- could waive the tax; whereas folks whose grandfathers were ineligible -- black men -- faced a significant barrier  *  to registering to vote.

And crucially, once that structure was in place, all the actors within the structure simply carried on within it, independent of whether or not they "saw color," or whether or not there was individual "malice" in their individual "hearts."  Someone shows up whose (white) grandfather was eligible -- good to go, no tax owed!!  Someone (dares to) show up whose (enslaved) grandfather was ineligible -- that'll be $$$$$, do you have that? No? Sorry, rules are rules.

Insistence on "colorblindness" to evaluate the provisions renders their effect invisible. If all we look for are WORDS that specify race, and we refuse to look at the EFFECTS of the two provisions in tandem, as a structure that perpetuates over time... we render it invisible.

There are many other examples, but the easiest ones to see are often those at a distance. (Redlining, whose legacy effects on generational wealth continue to the present.)

 

 

 

( *    There were other barriers as well, in white robes wielding guns and razors and ropes, but for the purpose at hand we'll stick to legislative text.)

[Condessa]

23 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

So, if a teacher teaches that institutional racism made it harder for black veterans to secure a college education than for white veterans, that's history, and is okay. But if the teacher points out a current situation, where people of one color are favored, that is not okay? Because if it is okay to say that, for instance, people of color are treated less favorably in the court system, and the person has eyes and can see what color they are, that could be called making them feel like a victim. But...if you don't teach it, is that promoting ignorance? 

In my experience, the big problem is that sometimes these things are taught where blanket statements about issues today are made without showing any evidence to back it up, and anyone asking about evidence is indicated as the problem by the instructor.  
 

My dh had an employee diversity training week with this experience.  Maybe this was just a really inept instructor, and that was why she was unprepared with reasons to back up her statements.  But there is a distinction between teaching established fact and teaching a common but not universally accepted theory without backing it up, and implying anyone who questions your statements is a racist.

A basic tenet of CRT seems to be that systemic racism pervades all aspects of our society today, whether it is apparent or not.  And asking for proof of this beyond disproportionate outcomes (because correlation does not indicate causation) is a good way to get verbally jumped on.

[Melissa Louise]

Here's a non CRT way in which the school I work in is NOT colorblind. 

We have a number of indigenous students. They face particular historical and current disadvantages. As well as classroom social studies incorporating indigenous stories, people and histories, these students regularly attend Time On Country with other indigenous kids in the district. There they engage in education with Indigenous mentors and leaders. Education is both cultural and academic, but recognizes and attempts to heal some very valid feelings of disengagement with school. Their needs are seen as distinct, as stemming from a history of racial violence and dispossession. 

Country time has been shown to improve family engagement at school. 

It's still recognising and dealing with a root problem - settlement has had this outcome for these families - and culturally accepted remedies are being provided at the level of school budget and administration. Increased family engagement tends to increase academic and social success - helping to ameliorate some of the disadvantage they may otherwise experience. 

Now, should the (minority) of white students at school also be getting hauled up in class to understand their privilege? I can't say that I see the utility. One of the white boys is neglected; another has significant family difficulties. More than one is adjusting to life with a life- changing illness. A few have a very white Anglo m/c family background - they are the kids most likely to already know about indigenous history.

Most students are from immigrant backgrounds. A few are refugees.

A CRT framing doesn't meet anyone's needs. 

Can I see it arriving, top down, from head office? Well, every UK and US educational fad eventually does. 

Is it ever going to a grass roots push from staff or families  because this is what the student body needs more than anything? No. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

 

It's still recognising and dealing with a root problem - settlement has had this outcome for these families - and culturally accepted remedies are being provided at the level of school budget and administration. Increased family engagement tends to increase academic and social success - helping to ameliorate some of the disadvantage they may otherwise experience. 

Now, should the (minority) of white students at school also be getting hauled up in class to understand their privilege? I can't say that I see the utility. One of the white boys is neglected; another has significant family difficulties. More than one is adjusting to life with a life- changing illness. A few have a very white Anglo m/c family background - they are the kids most likely to already know about indigenous history.

Most students are from immigrant backgrounds. A few are refugees.

A CRT framing doesn't meet anyone's needs. 

Can I see it arriving, top down, from head office? Well, every UK and US educational fad eventually does. 

Is it ever going to a grass roots push from staff or families  because this is what the student body needs more than anything? No. 

So, why are those kids who are white students told the indigenous students go to that program? Are they told it is to help ameliorate some of the disadvantage they may otherwise experience? If so, that's teaching CRT, right?

[SKL]

Teaching diverse kids about "privilege" sounds so benign, but what they are really saying is that white kids have the privilege to not get unfairly beat up or shot by a white cop, whereas black kids don't have that privilege.  In other words, white cops have it in for black kids.  It's already all over the media, so now let's make it mandatory for kids in schools to learn and repeat this in order to meet academic requirements.  That's sure to improve community race relations.

Other versions:

• White bankers have it in for black families.
• White teachers don't want to see black kids succeed.
• White doctors don't care about black people's health.
• etc.

As a fairly intelligent and mature adult, of course I understand the differences between structural racial impacts and "white people having it in for black people."  But when I was a school kid?  The average school kid?  The range of school kids?  Let's be honest with ourselves.

With the money they are spending on these programs, they could fix some of those structural problems now rather than hope that our questionably educated kids grow up and fix them.

Edited June 11, 2021 by SKL

[pinball]

*I’m so sure* some will correct me, LOL

but I do have to question how posters are saying there is no connection between CRT and Marxism.

Marxism led to critical theory which led to CRT?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

“Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.”

[Spy Car]

Suddenly aiming to decrease domination and increase freedom is recast as "Marxism."

Oh brother! 👌

Bill

[Penelope]

3 minutes ago, pinball said:

*I’m so sure* some will correct me, LOL

but I do have to question how posters are saying there is no connection between CRT and Marxism.

Marxism led to critical theory which led to CRT?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

“Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.”

Yes, I think there is a connection from what I have read over the past couple of years, which I’m too tired to think about right now and find links. 
I think Marxist gets conflated with “communist” and there is some confusion there. I think clear parallels with Marxism can be seen in CRT ideology which seems at its core to depend on a lens of oppressors vs. oppressed. 

[Sneezyone]

Racism led to slavery led to black codes/Jim Crow led to mass incarceration and redlining led to massive wealth inequality so... BAN WEALTH INEQUALITY! Makes perfect sense...no? This is stoopid.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, pinball said:

a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.”

How can increasing freedom be something the "Land of the Free!" is against?

[HeartString]

NM.   Suffice it to say:  Pretty much every contemporary social theory was influenced in some way by Marx.  He was *influential* that’s what it means.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by HeartString

[Laurie]

 

27 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Suddenly aiming to decrease domination and increase freedom is recast as "Marxism."

Oh brother! 👌

Bill

Black Lives Matter and Marxism:

https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/

"Overthrowing capitalism cannot end all aspects of racism overnight, but it can do away with the exploitation that lays the basis for class society’s divide-and-rule approach. There is no other road. Black liberation can only be won through the socialist transformation of society."

Edited June 11, 2021 by Laurie

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

 should graduation standards remain held high but provide an equal opportunity for all students to reach their potential? Which sounds more like "Land of the Free"? 

This is not currently possible. to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. 

[Sneezyone]

This is so crazy to me. I am a BLM supporter. OBV. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Marxist. I don’t support nationalizing resources and state control of the means of production (socialism).

Folks are up and arms that their precious might be discomfited by challenging ideas/nuance and can’t be bothered to give a damn about the kids who have to learn to deal with those realities day in and day out without any help beyond their families and communities. It’s probably comfy to be unaware of the hoops others have to jump through to make you happy, secure in your status. I wouldn’t know.

Is analysis of history’s impact on modern life well done everywhere, no, because we have a population of teachers who are as ill-informed as anyone here, however well-meaning. We have people in this thread positing that our laws have no racially biased elements in them. That’s (kindly) ignorance of the highest order, an indication of just how woefully pathetic the education adults in this country received, and how much work still needs to be done. 

Is it wrong to make the attempt to lift the covers, no. Initial attempts may/will be clumsy. It’s STILL, IMO, worth the effort so people aren’t silently smacking their coworkers upside the head 50 years from now.

If your panties are twisted about this, imagine how hard other parents have worked to disabuse their children of the racist messages routinely delivered to their children for at least a hundred years, to undo the damage schools have done? TAKE A NUMBER, GET IN LINE.

If you’re basing your assessment of schools wrestling with these issues on Seattle White people who LOVE to speak for (not to) minorities or Loudin County (that loves to pretend it’s normal and middle class), or Tulsa (that clearly can’t distinguish shit from shinola where right/wrong is concerned), ok. But step back and look at the bigger picture. What are you saying? Reporting abuse, assault, bias, in schools is wrong? Children should be discouraged from doing that? Children can’t handle seeing that they may, in fact, benefit from unearned privilege? No, YOUR children can’t handle it. Mine have been confronted with both their privileges/advantages and their disadvantages from the beginning, not as an excuse but as a lens.

The military has a series of anonymous reporting systems both for sexual violence and racism/bias/abuse/command climate. The degree to which they’re effective is related to the degree to which they’re promoted and trusted and seen to be working/making a difference. Should those be banned b/c someone’s feelings are bruised? These people are fresh out of high school too. Are their psyches so fragile? And, if so, what does that say about their preparation for life? WHO prepared them?

On the one hand, people are upset that schools are wading into these waters b/c that’s the family’s job. On the other hand, leaving it only to families has been a complete disaster. Majority parents have been silent. They have said NOTHING and look where we are. Wealthy kids/adults are aligning with white supremacist groups. People believing lie upon lie, misrepresentation upon misrepresentation, who are threatening the lives of election administrators and other citizens.
 

I’m sorry, I’ve said this before, but I don’t trust majority people to get this at all, let alone get it right. Their kids might actually learn to acknowledge their legacy and birthright, to accept the same foundational bits of info., and acknowledge that things need to change (with some intention and support) but who wants anything to change when they’re perfectly happy/comfy? The whole thing makes me want to give up.
 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

14 minutes ago, Plum said:

If we are looking to change things for the better is it not better to focus on ensuring everyone has a quality education? Wouldn't that elevate us all? 

There's quite a few successful inner city schools that ensure their students reach their full potential. It can be done. 

And they don't do that by ignoring the obstacles facing their students. My sister is a principal, to say that all her students have an equal opportunity to succeed is false. Some come to school hungry. Some are sick and dealing with chronic illness. MANY are homeless. Many deal with alcoholic or drug addicted parents. Race plays into how likely a student falls into one of those categories. 

Providing extra resources for them, such as food, housing, extra tutoring, etc helps even things out. And college admissions officers can take into account that their grades may not reflect their true abilities. 

[catz]

39 minutes ago, Laurie said:

 

Black Lives Matter and Marxism:

https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/

"Overthrowing capitalism cannot end all aspects of racism overnight, but it can do away with the exploitation that lays the basis for class society’s divide-and-rule approach. There is no other road. Black liberation can only be won through the socialist transformation of society."

You are cherry picking something written and posted by a particular political group not BLM. This is one person's opinion and view with the backing of this particular organization.  Which is not BLM.  Not sure what you think you've proven with this link.  

[Condessa]

29 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Wealthy kids/adults are aligning with white supremacist groups. 

Are they aligning with white supremacy in large numbers?  I was under the impression that white supremacy had been on a gradual decline since the civil rights era, but was receiving a lot more attention now because of certain public figures and because of social movements that cast a light on it, but I’d appreciate more information if I need correcting.

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Are they aligning with white supremacy in large numbers?  I was under the impression that white supremacy had been on a gradual decline since the civil rights era, but was receiving a lot more attention now because of certain public figures and because of social movements that cast a light on it, but I’d appreciate more information if I need correcting.

White supremacist movements are absolutely NOT in decline. Their prominence is cyclical and they are on an upswing as they were in the 90s. I think people assume the absence of violence is peace but the tension has been building for the last 10-15 years. The FBI reports that the greatest domestic terror threat comes from this sector. I will see if I can find the FBI links again. Again, it’s not that I think attempts to address the challenges can’t be clunky but that the effort is necessary, not sufficient.

These are the links to the two most recent: https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-january-27-2021

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/05/14/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-advisory-system-ntas-bulletin

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

White supremacist movements are absolutely NOT in decline. Their prominence is cyclical and they are on an upswing as they were in the 90s. I think people assume the absence of violence is peace but the tension has been building for the last 10-15 years. The FBI reports that the greatest domestic terror threat comes from this sector. I will see if I can find the FBI links again. Again, it’s not that I think attempts to address the challenges can’t be clunky but that the effort is necessary, nor sufficient.

Thank you.

[Catwoman]

3 minutes ago, Plum said:

Example:

A 3rd grade MATH class at R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School in Cupertino, CA asked it's students to rank themselves according to their power and privilege. (there is that wheel again) Here is a slide from the lesson. Those example paragraphs are just depressing either way and have nothing to do with MATH. 

 

Aside from the fact that this is a bizarre assignment for a MATH class, it also seems to be at a ridiculously high expectation level for a third grader. 

[Sneezyone]

Cupertino. Also, what? A VERY expensive enclave. It’s the 12th most expensive in the nation. They may, indeed, have higher writing expectations than one would find on average.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

I found a recording of another parent from Loudoun County addressing their school board:

“In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  Now I have a dream that we will implement love, not hate, or supporting another Jim Crow’s agenda. CRT is not a ‘nice dialogue,’ it was a tactic that was used by Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan on slaveries many years ago to dumb down my ancestors so we could not think for ourselves. CRT is racist; it is abusive; it discriminates against one’s color.”

 

 “Let me educate you: An honest dialogue does not oppress. An honest dialogue does not implement hatred and injustice; it’s to communicate without deceiving people. Today we don’t need your agreement. We want action and a backbone for what we ask for today: to ban CRT.”

“We don’t want your political advertisement to divide our children or belittle them. Think twice before you indoctrinate such racist theories. You cannot tell me what is or is not racist. Look at me. I had to come down here today to tell you to your face that we are coming together and we are strong. This will not be the last greet-and-meet. Respectfully.”

[Fritz]

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

White supremacist movements are absolutely NOT in decline. Their prominence is cyclical and they are on an upswing as they were in the 90s. I think people assume the absence of violence is peace but the tension has been building for the last 10-15 years. The FBI reports that the greatest domestic terror threat comes from this sector. I will see if I can find the FBI links again. Again, it’s not that I think attempts to address the challenges can’t be clunky but that the effort is necessary, not sufficient.

These are the links to the two most recent: https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-january-27-2021

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/05/14/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-advisory-system-ntas-bulletin

 

I do not see any mention of an increase in white supremacy in either of the above links.

[LucyStoner]

Teaching about systemic racism in history and current events doesn’t require that one adopt the framework of CRT.  I also haven’t seen anything in my district that I would yank my kids out of, just that I would want to contextualize with them.  

My parents were Socialist activists.  I come from a long line of people who have fought hard for labor and worker’s rights.  I’m not afraid of socialism or using the term loosely (though I don’t personally agree that central planning has shown to be a fantastic way to allocate resources and I’ve studied enough economic theory to be a in favor of adequately regulated free markets).  Pretending that Marxist thought isn’t part of critical theories, as affluent liberals seem apt to do these days, is silly and a bit disingenuous.  

When BLM finally had a groundswell of support against police brutality last year almost the first things I thought after “it’s about time” were:  

1. the moment may be lost to (largely white) activists trying to use it for their own unrelated aims.  That is exactly what I saw play out locally for sure. 

2. this is going to get corporatized, which will focus on individual efforts rather than systemic change.  

No one living in the communities most impacted by racism is well served by either of the above.  I would rather my kids learn about the history of movements being coopted and watered down and effective cross-class and cross-race communication skills than clunky sessions in random classes.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I found a recording of another parent from Loudoun County addressing their school board:

“In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  Now I have a dream that we will implement love, not hate, or supporting another Jim Crow’s agenda. CRT is not a ‘nice dialogue,’ it was a tactic that was used by Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan on slaveries many years ago to dumb down my ancestors so we could not think for ourselves. CRT is racist; it is abusive; it discriminates against one’s color.”

 

 “Let me educate you: An honest dialogue does not oppress. An honest dialogue does not implement hatred and injustice; it’s to communicate without deceiving people. Today we don’t need your agreement. We want action and a backbone for what we ask for today: to ban CRT.”

“We don’t want your political advertisement to divide our children or belittle them. Think twice before you indoctrinate such racist theories. You cannot tell me what is or is not racist. Look at me. I had to come down here today to tell you to your face that we are coming together and we are strong. This will not be the last greet-and-meet. Respectfully.”

Respectfully, this is bullshit. No one can accurately define CRT right now because it’s being used as a catch all term for any/all discussions of race and class in schools. Banning that essentially guarantees ignorance and perpetuation of the status quo. This is the same parent people would  put on TV and mock for their ignorance and speech in other contexts.

 

8 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

No one living in the communities most impacted by racism is well served by either of the above.  I would rather my kids learn about the history of movements being coopted and watered down and effective cross-class and cross-race communication skills than clunky sessions in random classes.  

I agree but that’s not what’s happening. The effort is clearly being made by people who want to prevent any/all discussion of ALL of it, not the co-opting/scapegoating, and not the underlying facts and certainly not what we should *do* about any of it. IMO, it’s a whitewash job, and an effective one at that.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

9 minutes ago, Fritz said:

I do not see any mention of an increase in white supremacy in either of the above links.

Not specifically, but the first link has this mention of racial tension (emphasis mine):

• “Throughout 2020, Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, non-violent protest activity.  DVEs motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted and on occasion carried out attacks against government facilities. 
• Long-standing racial and ethnic tension—including opposition to immigration—has driven DVE attacks, including a 2019 shooting in El Paso, Texas that killed 23 people.
• DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.
• DHS remains concerned that Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs) inspired by foreign terrorist groups, who committed three attacks targeting government officials in 2020, remain a threat.
• Threats of violence against critical infrastructure, including the electric, telecommunications and healthcare sectors, increased in 2020 with violent extremists citing misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 for their actions.  
• DHS, as well as other Federal agencies and law enforcement partners will continue to take precautions to protect people and infrastructure across the United States.
• DHS remains committed to preventing violence and threats meant to intimidate or coerce specific populations on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, identity or political views.
• DHS encourages state, local, tribal, and territorial homeland security partners to continue prioritizing physical security measures, particularly around government facilities, to protect people and critical infrastructure.”

The second link refers to “threats posed by domestic terrorists, individuals, and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or influenced by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences” and “ongoing threats to the United States, including those posed by domestic terrorism, grievance-based violence, and those inspired or influenced by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences” and references the first link.

[scholastica]

18 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

When we were better than this as a nation? When women couldn't vote? When African Americans were kept from the polls? When the Jim Crow laws were in place? When women needed their husband's approval to get a credit card? 

Yes, people are polarized and there are many reasons for that. One reason is that people are becoming more aware or inequities and trying to work through them. That will be uncomfortable. It actually should be uncomfortable. A discussion about race should be uncomfortable. If it's not uncomfortable then you're not doing it right. 

Polarization is to be expected when one side is opposed to racism and another side is opposed to removing any of its privileges. 

I meant better in terms of the vitriol and polarization in politics today, most of which is being driven and fed by social media. There used to be a sizable middle ground of moderates who were the bridge between the extremes. Now there are two extremes who yell at each other, call names and get nowhere. 

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Teaching about systemic racism in history and current events doesn’t require that one adopt the framework of CRT.  I also haven’t seen anything in my district that I would yank my kids out of, just that I would want to contextualize with them. 

No, it doesn’t, but that’s kinda my point. Certain segments of the population LIVE  for these semantic arguments that lack substance. I grew up with these discussions and concepts at family gatherings and never even heard of CRT until recently. Balancing what we had working for us/against us and discussing that openly, as a family, was normal. It didn’t have a name. It just was. I don’t have much patience for the higher-edification/jingoistic co-opting of an analysis and way of strategizing that underlies many black successes through the years. It’s a con job, an effort to take something that has been part of helping people make sense of and navigate the body politic and make it dirty, nasty, and hateful. It’s a perversion. It’s not unexpected, just frustrating.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

This article references tracking of active hate groups by the SPLC, which shows a decline from a high point in 2018.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/01/hate-groups-including-white-nationalists-declined-2020-splc-says/4341422001/

[Condessa]

Found this in the Department of Homeland Security’s most recent Homeland Threat Assessment:

”Among DVEs (Domestic Violent Extremists), racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland. Spikes in other DVE threats probably will depend on political or social issues that often mobilize other ideological actors to violence, such as immigration, environmental, and police-related policy issues.”

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf
page 18

Edited June 11, 2021 by Condessa

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

This article references tracking of active hate groups by the SPLC, which shows a decline from a high point in 2018.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/01/hate-groups-including-white-nationalists-declined-2020-splc-says/4341422001/

That’s GROUPS not incidents. It doesn’t take a group to bring down a federal building. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968498.amp

[LucyStoner]

28 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I agree but that’s not what’s happening. The effort is clearly being made by people who want to prevent any/all discussion of ALL of it, not the co-opting/scapegoating, and not the underlying facts. IMO, it’s a whitewash job, and an effective one at that.

ITA

It’s an incredibly effective way to pour gasoline on the culture war fires so it’s being used to pretty effectively avoid any actual changes from taking place.  Keep people yelling about renaming Lincoln High School and suddenly, there’s no time or energy to address the school to prison pipeline that disproportionately impacts black males.  

This year, I expressed to a teacher friend of mine that I was concerned about my nephew losing so much ground educationally due to online school that he might not graduate from high school.  High school diplomas aren’t actually a thing that can be taken for granted in my family (I got the first one in 1998 and that number will rise to 4 once my son graduates).  My very nice and well meaning very lefty friend who has been fired up to talk about race and equity all this year had literally no ability to hear any criticism about the challenges he was facing in prolonged online school and suggested that a better path for my nephew might be job corps.  My nephew was all of 14 at the time and while I have no problems helping him consider various post graduation education and technical training, dude needs to graduate from high school.  He wants to graduate from high school and statistically he will do faaaar better in life if he does.  Moreover, I seriously doubt that if my friend’s daughter were struggling with school that much the suggestion that she drop out at 14 would fly with my friend and her husband.  I don’t think she’d make the same suggestion about my sons either.  My niece, whose talents lay in math and who is interested in being a math teacher, approached her college advisor (local community college) asking for extra support in a calculus class.  My niece took algebra in 8th grade and pre-calc in high school.  The very well meaning counselor decided the solution was to put my niece into a remedial class that she absolutely doesn’t need.  Easy A.  She actually said “why are you taking calculus?”  Sometimes people’s anti-racism looks pretty gosh darn racist.  Low expectations and just assuming that she needs to basically redo a class she took 5 years ago is not the way to work towards racial equity.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

ITA

It’s an incredibly effective way to pour gasoline on the culture war fires so it’s being used to pretty effectively avoid any actual changes from taking place.  Keep people yelling about renaming Lincoln High School and suddenly, there’s no time or energy to address the school to prison pipeline that disproportionately impacts black males.  

This year, I expressed to a teacher friend of mine that I was concerned about my nephew losing so much ground educationally due to online school that he might not graduate from high school.  High school diplomas aren’t actually a thing that can be taken for granted in my family (I got the first one in 1998 and that number will rise to 4 once my son graduates).  My very nice and well meaning very lefty friend who has been fired up to talk about race and equity all this year had literally no ability to hear any criticism about the challenges he was facing in prolonged online school and suggested that a better path for my nephew might be job corps.  My nephew was all 14 at the time and while I have no problems helping him consider various post graduation education and technical training, dude needs to graduate from high school.  He wants to graduate from high school and statistically he will do faaaar better in life if he does.  Moreover, I seriously doubt that if my friend’s daughter were struggling with school that much the suggestion that she drop out at 14 would fly with my friend and her husband.  I don’t think she’d make the same suggestion about my sons either.  My niece, whose talents lay in math and who is interested in being a math teacher, approached her college advisor (local community college) asking for extra support in a calculus class.  My niece took algebra in 8th grade and pre-calc in high school.  The very well meaning counselor decided the solution was to put my niece into a remedial class that she absolutely doesn’t need.  Easy A.  She actually said “why are you taking calculus?”  Sometimes people’s anti-racism looks pretty gosh darn racist.  Low expectations and just assuming that she needs to basically redo a class she took 5 years ago is not the way to work towards racial equity.  

THIS. ALL OF THIS. It’s why I’m skeptical of the schools’ ability to do it successfully and disdainful of parental complaints about the effort but willing to, at least, TRY. I seriously don’t want to be helping my grandkids read these folk for filth but I will if I have to.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Condessa]

This is from that same page on the Homeland Security link above:

 

[LucyStoner]

The Seattle Police have marched in Pride for years.  My brother told me they are being excluded this year.  My brother (queer disabled single dad) doesn’t know that he wants to go to the pride at all now because he doesn’t like the political message and while he definitely understands the issue of disproportionate policing he feels it sends a crap message to LGBT cops.  Also, since off duty cops are almost assuredly going to be hired for security, it’s hypocritical.  The culture wars emphasize division.  It’s not helpful.