Jump to content

Menu

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


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Plum said:

I consider myself a moderate. Registered Non-Partisan and voted None of the Above because I didn't like either option. I probably seem R to some of you. I get Social Libertarian every time I take that stupid political compass test. Being in the middle is likely why I'm never happy with any policy and come off as a contrarian. I really can go L or R but not extreme L or R. 

I think for myself. I read and come to my own conclusion. I don't have cable and watch multiple channels on the same topic to get different sides which means I devote a lot of time to few topics. I can't take it all in. 

 

Yeah, moderates exist, not just people who don’t know enough to take a side.  There are actual moderate, well thought-out positions to hold that fall between the right or left.  For example, on immigration, the position of ‘make it a whole lot easier for people to come here legally, offer a one-time path to citizenship for people already here, and then crack down hard on further illegal immigration’ falls between the popular opposing viewpoints.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

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.  

 

That's too bad. I come from a family of cops, so tend to be a bit more compassionate re how difficult the job of policing can be (no excuse for excessive force, obviously), and as a Jew tend to have a more pro-Israel perspective re its defense (no excuse for Palestinian human rights violations either), so I kinda have to keep my head down right now with a lot of my uber liberal friends for precisely these reasons.  

I hope our cops are not excluded in San Diego.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, moderates exist, not just people who don’t know enough to take a side.  There are actual moderate, well thought-out positions to hold that fall between the right or left.  For example, on immigration, the position of ‘make it a whole lot easier for people to come here legally, offer a one-time path to citizenship for people already here, and then crack down hard on further illegal immigration’ falls between the popular opposing viewpoints.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes, to all this but on the other hand, schools should not be named for Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis. I know you wrote Lincoln and I know there people who advocate for removing his name as well. But I think we can start small an all agree that Robert E Lee needs to be go. The only way that those names were removed from schools and the statues from public parks is because of yelling. 

And yes anti-racism can look pretty racist at times but remember when the Bush administration talked about the "bigotry of low expectations?" It sounds good and it's even true but what was the outcome of their education initiatives? Not so good. That was part of the back to basics charter school movement. I know that urban school districts are usually underachieving and that there is probably too much power in the hands of the public school teacher unions (relevant to discussions about school closures during COVID). So in theory establishing alternatives sounds like a solution. But is the average student in those underachieving school district better or worse off? Probably worse because money was diverted to the charter schools and some of the charter schools were terrible. 

Bush’s speechwriter was basically rephrasing  things black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Glenn Loury put forth a long time ago.  I’m not a big Sowell fan (he’s an elderly economist who was really big on Chicago school economics/is pretty far right) but I like a lot of Glenn Loury’s stuff (also an economist).  No Child Left Behind was awful- classic example of a poorly implemented solution that spent a lot of money on things that don’t help (testing) and not much money that actually helped improve things.  

Teachers unions (and honestly, public service unions in general) are something that it’s hard for people on the left to criticize without getting vilified as anti-teacher or anti-worker. That said, thoughtful people on the left and the right can probably see more nuance in this than “Unions are perfect” and “Unions are evil”.  

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

5 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

That's too bad. I come from a family of cops, so tend to be a bit more compassionate re how difficult the job of policing can be (no excuse for excessive force, obviously), and as a Jew tend to have a more pro-Israel perspective re its defense (no excuse for Palestinian human rights violations either), so I kinda have to keep my head down right now with a lot of my uber liberal friends for precisely these reasons.  

I hope our cops are not excluded in San Diego.

I’m wondering what a friend I know who is an LGBT police detective is thinking about this.  It’s just dumb and if anything is something thin blue line old guard types can point to and  say “seeeeeeee we told you they are out to get us!”

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

social-identity-slidedeck-p7-normal.gif?

 

So, the only thing shocking or upsetting about that is that it is developmentally inappropriae for 3rd grade, lol. That's too much abstract thinking and way too much writing. 

Keep it concrete in those grades. (Also, not sure this is technically CRT since it isn't particularly about race?)

7 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, moderates exist, not just people who don’t know enough to take a side.  There are actual moderate, well thought-out positions to hold that fall between the right or left.  For example, on immigration, the position of ‘make it a whole lot easier for people to come here legally, offer a one-time path to citizenship for people already here, and then crack down hard on further illegal immigration’ falls between the popular opposing viewpoints.

I'd say that's a liberal position, actually. I'm liberal - quite liberal - and that is exactly what I want. 

Unfortunately, right wing sources create strawman theories about what liberals want, to demonize them. Turns out, most left wing democrats don't want a one world order or whatever it is we are accused up. Even those of us who have voted for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. We just want a much more realistic and fair way to get here, and acknowledge the current system isn't that way. And that humans - no matter where they are born - deserve decency and respect. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

So, the only thing shocking or upsetting about that is that it is developmentally inappropriae for 3rd grade, lol. That's too much abstract thinking and way too much writing. 

Keep it concrete in those grades. (Also, not sure this is technically CRT since it isn't particularly about race?)

I'd say that's a liberal position, actually. I'm liberal - quite liberal - and that is exactly what I want. 

Unfortunately, right wing sources create strawman theories about what liberals want, to demonize them. Turns out, most left wing democrats don't want a one world order or whatever it is we are accused up. Even those of us who have voted for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. We just want a much more realistic and fair way to get here, and acknowledge the current system isn't that way. And that humans - no matter where they are born - deserve decency and respect. 

Yeah, my extremely liberal family member called me a racist for expressing this position, and asserted that basically anything right of open borders was just an excuse for anti-latino racism.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Some schools do that as early as first.  I think it’s weird, and I’m surprised every time I hear it.  

For things like math I think it can be very good, since so many elementary school teachers lack the necessary math sense and ability to teach math effectively. I think lots of larger elementary schools use teams of teachers for each grade, so every child benefits from the most skilled teacher for a particular subject and has other teachers invested in them, while still having a primary teacher.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I agree. The populist far-right and populist far-left are not very far apart in their mentality.

I don't find that applying critical thinking brings me into alignment with either variation of populist extremism.

Bill

Well, I didn’t say alignment. That’s different than conceding a particular point. 
 

I think @sneezyone also has a point about how the spectrum is defined. Maybe I don’t know enough about the most extreme of the fringe ends to call it a circle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like, to take the general average temperature of posters on this thread,

1 There is a lot of uncertainty/confusion over what CRT actually entails.

2 Many seem to agree that certain (mis?)applications occurring in schools that are being labeled under the umbrella of CRT are a bad idea.

3 Many are worried that reactions against these (mis)applications resulting in banning of CRT in schools is (either mistakenly or by design) throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and will prevent kids from learning vital information about racism today.

 

So what is the hive’s solution?  Is there a way to address the concerns of those upset about these bad applications that seem to be popping up around the country, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

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

4 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, my extremely liberal family member called me a racist for expressing this position, and asserted that basically anything right of open borders was just an excuse for anti-latino racism.

#notallliberals. (Are hashtags still a thing?). 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Well, I didn’t say alignment. That’s different than conceding a particular point. 
 

 

What points do you concede to the populist far-left or populist far-right based on critical thinking that are not otherwise widely shared by those who are not on the extremes?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Bush’s speechwriter was basically rephrasing  things black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Glenn Loury put forth for a long time ago.  I’m not a big Sowell fan (he’s an elderly economist who was really big on Chicago school economics/is pretty far right) but I like a lot of Glenn Loury’s stuff (also an economist).  No Child Left Behind was awful- classic example of a poorly implemented solution that spent a lot of money on things that don’t help (testing) and not much money that actually helped improve things.  

Teachers unions (and honestly, public service unions in general) are something that it’s hard for people on the left to criticize without getting vilified as anti-teacher or anti-worker. That said, thoughtful people on the left and the right can probably see more nuance in this than “Unions are perfect” and “Unions are evil”.  

As someone who is represented by a union and has lots of neighbors and friends who are teachers, I would say the majority of those on both the right and the left I know here are pretty critical of their own unions. While I certainly appreciate the benefits we receive due to the union (although management gets the same plus some without paying dues), I’m troubled by much of how they operate.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

#notallliberals. (Are hashtags still a thing?). 

The problem is that people on the far-left (who are not "liberals") have been tagged as "very liberal" or "uber-liberals" or other such variations, when that's not an accurate description. 

Being a liberal actually means something. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

For things like math I think it can be very good, since so many elementary school teachers lack the necessary math sense and ability to teach math effectively. I think lots of larger elementary schools use teams of teachers for each grade, so every child benefits from the most skilled teacher for a particular subject and has other teachers invested in them, while still having a primary teacher.

I didn’t mean weird as in bad, just as in not my experience, feels odd to me. It’s probably a good idea, I’m just surprised every time I’m reminded it’s a thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, moderates exist, not just people who don’t know enough to take a side.  There are actual moderate, well thought-out positions to hold that fall between the right or left.  For example, on immigration, the position of ‘make it a whole lot easier for people to come here legally, offer a one-time path to citizenship for people already here, and then crack down hard on further illegal immigration’ falls between the popular opposing viewpoints.

But those are sides and they're not necessarily contradictory. They are each different issues. The first being how to make it easier for people to legally immigrate here. The second being how to address people who came here illegally in the past. The third being problems related to illegal immigration. 

People can hold opinions throughout the spectrum on different issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Condessa said:

It seems like, to take the general average temperature of posters on this thread,

1 There is a lot of uncertainty/confusion over what CRT actually entails.

2 Many seem to agree that certain (mis?)applications occurring in schools that are being labeled under the umbrella of CRT are a bad idea.

3 Many are worried that reactions against these (mis)applications resulting in banning of CRT in schools is (either mistakenly or by design) throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and will prevent kids from learning vital information about racism today.

 

So what is the hive’s solution?  Is there a way to address the concerns of those upset about these bad applications that seem to be popping up around the country, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I might be too pessimistic, but I don’t think so due to the local control of schools. I mean we know what research proven best practices are for sex education, but many school districts purposely choose not to follow them. It’s the same for almost everything in education. I mean there are elementary schools where young kids barely get recess. So even if someone figured out the best way to do it, many schools would not adopt it and some would likely even do the exact opposite on purpose.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

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?

Of course not.  They're not told anything. None of their business. Same as if a kid goes to diabetes camp or whatever. Children can share with friends if they wish, but they retain privacy in the classroom. We don't explain in detail why Ted is late every Friday either, or why Alice goes upstairs for a lesson on Tuesdays. 

If a child's absence is noted, we go with least possible information.  Because privacy of the student is a thing!

'Miss, where's Michelle?'

'Michele's not at school today.'

We don't use her absence as a teaching opportunity for the other kids.That would be not optimal.

'Well, Ibrahim, Michele is on a special healing camp, because her family is indigenous. That means when white people like James and Charlotte came to this country, her ancestors suffered from genocide, discrimination and child removal at their hands. James, as a white male student, with the most privilege here, could you share some ways in which you will use that privilege to ally with Michelle on her return from her special camp?"

Ugh.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Yeah, my extremely liberal family member called me a racist for expressing this position, and asserted that basically anything right of open borders was just an excuse for anti-latino racism.

It can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism. I don't know the dynamics of your discussion with your family member but "anything to the right of open borders" (that's pretty broad) can be a front for racism, e.g. "I'm not a racist but I don't think we should admit more people of non-European background into the USA," or "I'm not a racist but we have to protect Western Civilization by preventing the immigration of more people from Latin America into the USA." There are plenty of people who claim to not be racist but want to make it more difficult for non-white people to come to the USA because they don't want the non-white population to increase. That's racism. 

And the uncomfortable reality for most of us in the USA is that there is a racist element to our opinions on immigration. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

social-identity-slidedeck-p7-normal.gif?

 

I have a hard time believing  that this is a third grade assignment. The example isn’t even written on a third grade level, much less the questions. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Condessa said:

It seems like, to take the general average temperature of posters on this thread,

1 There is a lot of uncertainty/confusion over what CRT actually entails.

2 Many seem to agree that certain (mis?)applications occurring in schools that are being labeled under the umbrella of CRT are a bad idea.

3 Many are worried that reactions against these (mis)applications resulting in banning of CRT in schools is (either mistakenly or by design) throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and will prevent kids from learning vital information about racism today.

 

So what is the hive’s solution?  Is there a way to address the concerns of those upset about these bad applications that seem to be popping up around the country, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I think shoddy professional development is a real problem. People with zero experience of CRT at a tertiary level setting up a DEI business educating staff in a CRT-style approach. People without a background in child development setting up shop. 

Generally, schools wanting to be seen to do something, without pausing to assess the quality of what they do. 

So, more oversight of DEI provision? 

If I ran a school district, I'd want to meet with the training provider and ask the same questions I'd ask any provider - what specific outcomes are you offering? How will we know we've met those outcomes? What is the evidence base that would make me choose your program over others? How is your training compatible with other PL we offer?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I have a hard time believing  that this is a third grade assignment. The example isn’t even written on a third grade level, much less the questions. 

Unfortunately I don’t have a hard time believing much of what is done in some elementary schools is not age appropriate. And not just assignments and lessons, but things like very little recess, lots of seat time, and no talking at lunch.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I have a hard time believing  that this is a third grade assignment. The example isn’t even written on a third grade level, much less the questions. 

@ktgrok

1 hour ago, Plum said:

Maybe it was math hour? IDK It said math class. This is a high performing elementary so it's possible. 

R. I. Meyerholz Elementary School serves 764 students in grades Kindergarten-5.
R. I. Meyerholz Elementary School placed in the top 5% of all schools in California for overall test scores (math proficiency is top 1%, and reading proficiency is top 5%) for the 2017-18 school year.
The percentage of students achieving proficiency in math is 92% (which is higher than the California state average of 39%) for the 2017-18 school year. The percentage of students achieving proficiency in reading/language arts is 86% (which is higher than the California state average of 50%) for the 2017-18 school year.
The student:teacher ratio of 25:1 is higher than the California state level of 23:1.
Minority enrollment is 93% of the student body (majority Asian), which is higher than the California state average of 77% (majority Hispanic and Asian).

They used this book. .

Some of the articles mirror the sentiment from the OP since the school is a high majority Asian. 

Quote

This of course enraged Asian-American parents. One parent explained this new type of “critical race theory” was reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. “[It divides society between] the oppressor and the oppressed, and since these identities are inborn characteristics people cannot change, the only way to change it is via violent revolution,” the parent said. “Growing up in China, I had learned it many times. The outcome is the family will be ripped apart; husband hates wife, children hate parents. I think it is already happening here."

The lesson caused an immediate uproar among Meyerholz Elementary parents. “We were shocked,” said one parent, who agreed to speak with me on condition of anonymity. “They were basically teaching racism to my eight-year-old.” This parent, who is Asian-American, rallied a group of a half dozen families to protest the school’s intersectionality curriculum. The group met with the school principal and demanded an end to the racially divisive instruction. After a tense meeting, the administration agreed to suspend the program. (When reached for comment, Jenn Lashier, the principal of Meyerholz Elementary, said that the training was not part of the “formal curricula, but the process of daily learning facilitated by a certified teacher.”).

https://www.asian-dawn.com/2021/01/15/asians-are-part-of-a-dominant-culture-and-needs-to-be-called-out/

social-identity-slidedeck-p5-normal.gif?

Edited by Plum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to mention that there are obviously different opinions about CRT expressed here in this thread. 

Also, the opinions fall across the spectrum but don't fit into hard left or right. 

Pointing this out because some posters have claimed that this forum is an echo chamber and that people who disagree are harassed and that this is a "liberal" forum. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand about my own side of politics is that we don't appear to remember that authoritarianism and leftist politics have historically been very cosy.

Why would we not want to guard against current authoritarianism? Why would we not at least listen to those with lived experience of living under authoritarianism? 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I want to mention that there are obviously different opinions about CRT expressed here in this thread. 

Also, the opinions fall across the spectrum but don't fit into hard left or right. 

Pointing this out because some posters have claimed that this forum is an echo chamber and that people who disagree are harassed and that this is a "liberal" forum. 

 

It's not a liberal forum. That's quite funny. I'd quite like it if it was. 

I do think posters play the man and not the ball on many threads," and that partisan politics is nearly always at play. It's not specific to one side of politics. 

*Yep, mea culpa. Me too. Because it's hard for all of us to use our best conversation skills. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of authoritarianism is not and has never come from the left in the USA, no matter how much people try to draw that parallel. The current threat, as happened in the 60s, of authoritarianism came/comes from the right wing. That’s not supposition, it’s based on our federal government’s analysis of threats. As is often the case, individuals attempting to make this comparison do not acknowledge the extent to which right wing violence (of both a political and religious nature) has already created the world we now see as normal. We do not have a history of left wing authoritarianism because this country has always been fundamentally more individualistic and conservative than our global peer nations.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I've posted a bunch of examples that have been dismissed.

I see a fundamental disagreement with defining the role of school. I don't think it is the school system's place to teach ideology, morals, character. I see that as the parent's role.

If the parent is sending their kid to school hungry, unclothed, with bruises or obvious signs of abuse and neglect, then of course the school should step in and notify the authorities because really it's the county or state's job to ensure the child is not being abused or neglected and to get them in to programs if they can. 

Teaching that one race is better or worse than another is in fact racist. Forcing a child to hang all of their family "baggage" onto their shoulders year after school year is detrimental to their whole being. I don't see how anyone can not see that. A child born into "privilege" didn't ask for any of it and the same goes the other way. Those example paragraphs didn't take into account where their family came from, their work ethic, their values...it only labeled and sorted them out as if they were something that could be weighed and measured. 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Plum said:

So far I've posted a bunch of examples that have been dismissed.

I see a fundamental disagreement with defining the role of school. I don't think it is the school system's place to teach ideology, morals, character. I see that as the parent's role.

If the parent is sending their kid to school hungry, unclothed, with bruises or obvious signs of abuse and neglect, then of course the school should step in and notify the authorities because really it's the county or state's job to ensure the child is not being abused or neglected and to get them in to programs if they can. 

Teaching that one race is better or worse than another is in fact racist. Forcing a child to hang all of their family "baggage" onto their shoulders year after school year is detrimental to their whole being. I don't see how anyone can not see that. A child born into "privilege" didn't ask for any of it and the same goes the other way. Those example paragraphs didn't take into account where their family came from, their work ethic, their values...it only labeled and sorted them out as if they were something that could be weighed and measured. 

You have provided ZERO evidence of the bolded actually happening. What is the point of arguing about something for which there is no support, only conjecture?

I do agree with you about the fundamental disagreement about the role of schools. I just find it disingenuous. We have, historically and as a nation, used schools to mold nonconformists of all kinds, indigenous, immigrant, descendants of slaves into models of civic virtue as defined by...well, you already know. That was, precisely, the purpose of schools. To civilize and educate the unwashed masses. The idea that civic virtue is now defined differently may be upsetting but it’s hardly a departure from precedent.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's not a liberal forum. That's quite funny. I'd quite like it if it was. 

I do think posters play the man and not the ball on many threads," and that partisan politics is nearly always at play. It's not specific to one side of politics. 

*Yep, mea culpa. Me too. Because it's hard for all of us to use our best conversation skills. 

 

 

I think that it's gotten the reputation for being liberal because some of the people who left were conservatives. But I agree that it's not liberal. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Plum said:

So far I've posted a bunch of examples that have been dismissed.

I see a fundamental disagreement with defining the role of school. I don't think it is the school system's place to teach ideology, morals, character. I see that as the parent's role.

If the parent is sending their kid to school hungry, unclothed, with bruises or obvious signs of abuse and neglect, then of course the school should step in and notify the authorities because really it's the county or state's job to ensure the child is not being abused or neglected and to get them in to programs if they can. 

Teaching that one race is better or worse than another is in fact racist. Forcing a child to hang all of their family "baggage" onto their shoulders year after school year is detrimental to their whole being. I don't see how anyone can not see that. A child born into "privilege" didn't ask for any of it and the same goes the other way. Those example paragraphs didn't take into account where their family came from, their work ethic, their values...it only labeled and sorted them out as if they were something that could be weighed and measured. 

This and the fact that many, maybe even most of the school systems aren't able to get all ( or even a majority) of the children on grade level in the basics. IMO, it is much more important for their futures to focus getting a solid foundation in the basics than establishing who is oppressed/oppressor etc..

Edited by Fritz
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

I’m wondering what a friend I know who is an LGBT police detective is thinking about this.  It’s just dumb and if anything is something thin blue line old guard types can point to and  say “seeeeeeee we told you they are out to get us!”

I have several queer LEO friends who honestly claim that the LGBTQ activists do not stand for them and who do not want to take part in Pride activities this year.

this makes me sad, as these are wonderful people who should be proud of who they are—all facets of it.

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You have provided ZERO evidence of the bolded actually happening. What is the point of arguing about something for which there is no support, only conjecture?

I am genuinely stunned and saddened.

I started out yesterday with an open mind, read up on the history, discovered my own school district had a lawsuit about this, and have posted a bunch of examples mostly from the lowest grades because I found that to be more important than the high school level. I said early on that it would be fine as a high school elective. I took peer counseling in high school and was prepared for that level of self-reflection and confidentiality. I said racism should be covered in history class, just not every class and especially not at the elementary level. Core subjects that should be the focus at that level. 

I have really tried to discover the real truth here. Every time I post something or answer a question I get that's not CRT or I don't see the problem. In some cases I was only reporting what I found, but in others it's obvious there is a theme here. 

Or maybe I'm just talking to myself and you all think it's NBD and I'm clutching my pearls over this. It's only fitting I posted this on the first page. Like why do I bother?

Quote

 

Confession:

I will say this board can be super intimidating. I often feel like I am heading into battle because I don’t always fall into the same line of thinking other people here do.  I often start to post something and think better of it. Half the time I don’t think I get my point across as clearly as I would like. I am often under a time constraint and hit post before I am ready. I can understand preparing for an onslaught of posts that don’t address what I really want to talk about and instead focus on one thing I said for pages. And I’ve been on this forum for ages. 

Maybe instead of pages harping on about how she presented it, can we just talk about it? I’d really like to know what all of you think it’s about vs how it’s represented. Are schools taking it too far? Not far enough? 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Plum said:

I am genuinely stunned and saddened.

I started out yesterday with an open mind, read up on the history, discovered my own school district had a lawsuit about this, and have posted a bunch of examples mostly from the lowest grades because I found that to be more important than the high school level. I said early on that it would be fine as a high school elective. I took peer counseling in high school and was prepared for that level of self-reflection and confidentiality. I said racism should be covered in history class, just not every class and especially not at the elementary level. Core subjects that should be the focus at that level. 

I have really tried to discover the real truth here. Every time I post something or answer a question I get that's not CRT or I don't see the problem. In some cases I was only reporting what I found, but in others it's obvious there is a theme here. 

Or maybe I'm just talking to myself and you all think it's NBD and I'm clutching my pearls over this. It's only fitting I posted this on the first page. Like why do I bother?

 

No, I literally do not see how anything you posted says teachers are teaching that one race is superior to another. That’s your interpretation. I didn’t draw the same conclusion from it. In my own life, I have explained to my kids that they are privileged in many ways, not SUPERIOR, but ADVANTAGED, by their travel opportunities, intact parental relationship, and relative household wealth. They are disadvantaged in other ways— adultified (my word), sexualized, criminalized, underestimated and discounted. Intersectionality allows them to find themselves in multiple places on that ‘wheel’, none of them dispositive, all relevant.

I do not know how these issues are being addressed nationwide but I don’t find the activities of outlying communities (on either end of the spectrum) especially compelling. My kids have had NONE of these experiences described here. NONE. Neither has anyone here pointed to a similar instance of their own. It is, basically, uncharted territory, preying on people’s fears and anxieties.

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

Yascha Mounk shared this on his twitter feed last year and I find it sobering- in both main American parties Americans who feel violence is justified for political goals has risen from around 10% to basically 1/3.  I will be interested to see where that number is as of now and 2022.  

 

  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that it's damaging to teach young children that they don't have a decent chance because of racism - whether you're talking about racist people or racist structures or both.

We already have a hard time keeping children of color in school and encouraging them to do their best.  Well, they've been hearing "can't" their whole lives.  So now some genius thinks we need to do more of that.

Interesting that many of the loudest voices against this are parents of color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Yascha Mounk shared this on his twitter feed last year and I find it sobering- in both main American parties Americans who feel violence is justified for political goals has risen from around 10% to basically 1/3.  I will be interested to see where that number is as of now and 2022.  

 

Why isn't a political goal worthy of violence? Politics decide who lives and who dies. What could be more important than that? 

I don't advocate for political violence but the system is designed for my benefit. I've not had to engage in violence to protect my rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I do agree that it's damaging to teach young children that they don't have a decent chance because of racism - whether you're talking about racist people or racist structures or both.

We already have a hard time keeping children of color in school and encouraging them to do their best.  Well, they've been hearing "can't" their whole lives.  So now some genius thinks we need to do more of that.

Interesting that many of the loudest voices against this are parents of color.

Why do you think the bolded? 

The voices of some parents of color have been amplified. We know why that is. But that does not mean that they represent the majority of either parents of color or voices against CRT. 

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

34 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Yascha Mounk shared this on his twitter feed last year and I find it sobering- in both main American parties Americans who feel violence is justified for political goals has risen from around 10% to basically 1/3.  I will be interested to see where that number is as of now and 2022.  

 

How is ‘violence’ being defined here? How does it track with actual crimes? The FBIs own data shows a marked, ridiculous difference in lethality based on ideology. Is that because of the means/methods used or targets sought? This chart goes back only a few years and conveniently leaves out multiple periods of significant political/targeted social violence that would yield a very different picture.

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

6 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Why isn't a political goal worthy of violence? Politics decide who lives and who dies. What could be more important than that? 

I don't advocate for political violence but the system is designed for my benefit. I've not had to engage in violence to protect my rights. 

This is something a lot of my friends have said this year.  Friends who have never held a gun or been punched in the face seem to be talking about violence as an inevitability.  I think it's hogwash and a reflection of the fact that they have little clue what violence actually looks and feels like and how it impacts the lives of people who are just trying to survive. 

Who suffers the most when political violence is a widely used tactic?  Who should have to lose their life or watch their children die?  Americans enjoying comparatively stable and safe lives can talk about wanting a revolution all we want but it's not the only way to bring about serious change and should we ever get to that point, it's not without a cost. 

Americans who don't have any idea what it's like to live in an unsafe neighborhood much less an unstable country can throw around stupid slogans like "defund the police" because when push comes to shove, it's not them that will pay for massive cuts to policing.  The things people suggest are inherent in defund (social workers, mental health services, social service agencies) are as systemically racist as any other institution we can find.  I grew up in a mixed and very poor family.  Almost everyone I knew growing up as well as most of the communities I have worked with as an adult would rather see a cop than a cps worker on their doorstep.  When we ask people living closest to the issues of disproportionate policing what they want, it's not defund- it's more and better and more oversight and accountability to end shitty practices.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

This something a lot of my friends have said this year.  Friends who have never held a gun or been punched in the face seem to be talking about violence as an inevitability.  I think it's hogwash and a reflection of the fact that they have little clue what violence actually looks and feels like and how it impacts the lives of people who are just trying to survive. 

Who suffers the most when political violence is a widely used tactic?  Who should have to lose their life or watch their children die?  Americans enjoying comparatively stable and safe lives can talk about wanting a revolution all we want but it's not the only way to bring about serious change and should we ever get to that point, it's not without a cost. 

Americans who don't have any idea what it's like to live in an unsafe neighborhood can throw around stupid slogans like "defund the police" because when push comes to shove, it's not them that will pay for massive cuts to policing.  The things people suggest are inherent in defund (social workers, mental health services, social service agencies) are as systemically racist as any other institution we can find.  I grew up in a mixed and very poor family.  Almost everyone I knew growing up as well as most of the communities I have worked with as an adult would rather see a cop than a cps worker on their doorstep.  When we ask people living closest to the issues of disproportionate policing what they want, it's not defund- it's more and better and more oversight and accountability to end shitty practices.  

ITA. I largely think that rhetoric and those sentiments on the US left are hollow. It’s why I don’t understand the rush to legitimize and compare the two sides. They’re not, nor have they ever been, similarly violent.

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

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Of course not.  They're not told anything. None of their business. Same as if a kid goes to diabetes camp or whatever. Children can share with friends if they wish, but they retain privacy in the classroom. We don't explain in detail why Ted is late every Friday either, or why Alice goes upstairs for a lesson on Tuesdays. 

If a child's absence is noted, we go with least possible information.  Because privacy of the student is a thing!

'Miss, where's Michelle?'

'Michele's not at school today.'

We don't use her absence as a teaching opportunity for the other kids.That would be not optimal.

'Well, Ibrahim, Michele is on a special healing camp, because her family is indigenous. That means when white people like James and Charlotte came to this country, her ancestors suffered from genocide, discrimination and child removal at their hands. James, as a white male student, with the most privilege here, could you share some ways in which you will use that privilege to ally with Michelle on her return from her special camp?"

Ugh.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Plum said:

 

Teaching that one race is better or worse than another is in fact racist. 

Nothing anyone has posted has shown that to be what is being taught. At all. 

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

I do agree that it's damaging to teach young children that they don't have a decent chance because of racism - whether you're talking about racist people or racist structures or both.

 

Also, not what it is about. I mean, do we lie and say hey, it's fine, there are zero impacts from racist policies in this country, both current and past? Hide that from people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

It can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism. I don't know the dynamics of your discussion with your family member but "anything to the right of open borders" (that's pretty broad) can be a front for racism, e.g. "I'm not a racist but I don't think we should admit more people of non-European background into the USA," or "I'm not a racist but we have to protect Western Civilization by preventing the immigration of more people from Latin America into the USA." There are plenty of people who claim to not be racist but want to make it more difficult for non-white people to come to the USA because they don't want the non-white population to increase. That's racism. 

And the uncomfortable reality for most of us in the USA is that there is a racist element to our opinions on immigration. 

This was the same conversation in which she claimed that the word “Hispanic” is a racist dogwhistle, and said that my husband and children’s experiences as Hispanic Americans didn’t “count”, I think with the implication that their skin color isn’t dark enough to be “really” Hispanic.  (She used the word Latinx, but I use my husband’s family’s preferred term.  I honestly think that she temporarily forgot that my family is Hispanic, and didn’t want to admit it in the moment). 

Yes, if someone wants to limit all immigration from Latin America for the reason of limiting nonwhite immigration, of course that is racist.  But to imply that anyone who wants any limits on immigration is just trying to hide their racism is both offensive and ridiculous.  There is no reason to assume bad intent where there is no indication of such just because someone disagrees with your view.


ETA:  And there’s no racist position that says to let way more people in from Latin America legally.  The anti-Latin racist immigration positions want to keep most people from there out, not let them in a different way.

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

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

The problem is that people on the far-left (who are not "liberals") have been tagged as "very liberal" or "uber-liberals" or other such variations, when that's not an accurate description. 

Being a liberal actually means something. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

Bill

Maybe I should have said very left, instead of very liberal.  I’ll try to be more accurate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But those are sides and they're not necessarily contradictory. They are each different issues. The first being how to make it easier for people to legally immigrate here. The second being how to address people who came here illegally in the past. The third being problems related to illegal immigration. 

People can hold opinions throughout the spectrum on different issues. 

Yes.  They can hold moderate opinions.  My point was that moderates can have well thought-out positions, not just know too little to hold a position as stated earlier in the thread.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

ITA. I largely think that rhetoric and those sentiments on the US left are hollow. It’s why I don’t understand the rush to legitimize and compare the two sides. They’re not, nor have they ever been, similarly violent.

I don't think they are the same, that said, I also don't know how different the most extreme ends of the political spectrum are from each other.  It's interesting to me that the measure is more or less the same between parties.  

You are right that it is largely empty rhetoric but it does give me pause.  My older son remarked that it was a form of American exceptionalism for Americans to believe that America is somehow, when compared to the rest of the world, uniquely bad or in a singular category of awful.  The same thing but flipped as those who think America is uniquely good.  A friend commented to me that our most lefty of friends who love to talk about REVOLUTION had to be extraordinarily privileged if they think that what average, everyday people in the states are experiencing (even average people living at the margins or furthest out on that intersectionality wheel) is actually bad enough for them to be willing to see their kids die in a civil war. 

Violence is a symptom, not a cure.  

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I don't think they are the same, that said, I also don't know how different the most extreme ends of the political spectrum are from each other.  It's interesting to me that the measure is more or less the same between parties.  

You are right that it is largely empty rhetoric but it does give me pause.  My older son remarked that it was a form of American exceptionalism for Americans to believe that America is somehow, when compared to the rest of the world, uniquely bad or in a singular category of awful.  The same thing but flipped as those who think America is uniquely good.  A friend commented to me that our most lefty of friends who love to talk about REVOLUTION had to be extraordinarily privileged if they think that what average, everyday people in the states are experiencing is actually bad enough for them to be willing to see their kids die in a civil war.  

Violence is a symptom, not a cure.  

It is. I largely see the rise of ‘rhetoric’ surrounding leftist violence more as a symptom of political inaction tho, not intent, at least not yet, but the potential is there. I’ve said this before but I think we’re at a point where a tyranny of the minority is going to cause explosive and unpredictable reactions. We’ve been unable to do/confront big things for too long and that inertia isn’t sustainable. It’s not inevitable but it’s possible. That said, there’s no historical precedent for it either. It’s just my gut feeling.

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

17 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

This something a lot of my friends have said this year.  Friends who have never held a gun or been punched in the face seem to be talking about violence as an inevitability.  I think it's hogwash and a reflection of the fact that they have little clue what violence actually looks and feels like and how it impacts the lives of people who are just trying to survive. 

Who suffers the most when political violence is a widely used tactic?  Who should have to lose their life or watch their children die?  Americans enjoying comparatively stable and safe lives can talk about wanting a revolution all we want but it's not the only way to bring about serious change and should we ever get to that point, it's not without a cost. 

Americans who don't have any idea what it's like to live in an unsafe neighborhood much less an unstable country can throw around stupid slogans like "defund the police" because when push comes to shove, it's not them that will pay for massive cuts to policing.  The things people suggest are inherent in defund (social workers, mental health services, social service agencies) are as systemically racist as any other institution we can find.  I grew up in a mixed and very poor family.  Almost everyone I knew growing up as well as most of the communities I have worked with as an adult would rather see a cop than a cps worker on their doorstep.  When we ask people living closest to the issues of disproportionate policing what they want, it's not defund- it's more and better and more oversight and accountability to end shitty practices.  

But that survey does not mean that they advocate for a revolution. They responded that they feel justified in using violence to achieve a political goal. The "yes" bucket included people who responded "a little" violence is justified. That doesn't mean a revolution. What is meant by violence? Could it include destruction of property? Does it mean protecting yourself against a violent attack? 

There is no way that 1/3rd of Americans, on both the right and the left, advocate for a revolution. 

I push back against the idea that politics does not matter and everyone should be civil. That's only possible when people don't have anything at risk. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Maybe I should have said very left, instead of very liberal.  I’ll try to be more accurate.

It isn't just you. The whole political dialogue has gone that way.

Politicians on the left who have never self-described as "liberals" are now commonly referred to as "liberal" or even "very liberal" (as if being more leftist/socialist makes one more liberal instead of less liberal).

Sometimes feel like Don Quixote when it comes to this nomenclature issue. But it isn't a small thing IMO.

Bill

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Condessa said:

This was the same conversation in which she claimed that the word “Hispanic” is a racist dogwhistle, and said that my husband and children’s experiences as Hispanic Americans didn’t “count”, I think with the implication that their skin color isn’t dark enough to be “really” Hispanic.  (She used the word Latinx, but I use my husband’s family’s preferred term.  I honestly think that she temporarily forgot that my family is Hispanic, and didn’t want to admit it in the moment). 

Yes, if someone wants to limit all immigration from Latin America for the reason of limiting nonwhite immigration, of course that is racist.  But to imply that anyone who wants any limits on immigration is just trying to hide their racism is both offensive and ridiculous.  There is no reason to assume bad intent where there is no indication of such just because someone someone disagrees with your view.


ETA:  And there’s no racist position that says to let way more people in from Latin America legally.  The anti-Latin racist immigration positions want to keep most people from there out, not let them in a different way.

RE the bolded - yes this could actually be racist. I've heard people advocate for more immigration from Latin America because they are Christian. These people prefer Latin American immigrants to Muslim or Hindu immigrants. That is racist. 

Also, it could be racist if there was a preference for Latin American immigrants of European descent. 

 

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...