Jump to content

Menu

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


Fritz
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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 4
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 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 18
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 16
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

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

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.

Agreed. 

The fact that advocating for non-violence, something that used to be pretty radical, has become increasingly seen as being milquetoast moderate fence sitting at best if not flat out racist is exactly what I am finding problematic about the shift I have perceived from my admittedly very lefty city.  Violence is also used as justification for backlash- we can see that from looking at the points when non-violent street protests are discredited because of outbreaks of rioting or looting.  

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

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

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. 

 

It is part of toxic populism when extremists justify violence as a legitimate path to achieving their political goals in a liberal society where there alternatives to violence.

The far-right and far-left are unfortunately too much alike in their illiberalism.

Bill 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

The fact that advocating for non-violence, something that used to be pretty radical, has become increasingly seen as being milquetoast moderate fence sitting at best if not flat out racist is exactly what I am finding problematic about the shift I have perceived from my admittedly very lefty city.  

Seattle is a whole other animal. As you know, my family and formative years were spent in the PNW and I can’t hang with their brand of liberalism. We’ve lived in WA, HI, CA, IL, AR, RI, VA, and Bahrain and have found ourselves positioned differently everywhere. By far, the most challenging space for me was WA (as an adult). I wanted to strangle every well meaning person who helpfully presumed something totally off base. It was all I could do not to rattle off my local ‘pedigree’. My daughter calls it my ‘Inner Karen’. 🤣

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

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

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.

How do we expect people to react when they realize that their causes can't be addressed through the political system? I'm not going to hand-wring about violence being a possibility. It would be terrible. But what other option do people have? Political decisions about access to healthcare is literally life and death decisions. There are places where there isn't enough water for the people living there and it's only going to get worse. Decisions about how to respond to disasters that result from climate change have life and death consequences. These are the result of political decisions. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

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. 

But this was not the position on immigration that my post described, that you responded to with “It can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism. . .”

The position was “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”.  This is, word for word, what you said “can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism”.  Not ‘make it a whole lot easier for certain people to come here legally while instituting policies to keep undesirables out.’

 

It’s this tendency of some on the left, like my relative, to insinuate racist motives without reason, that I believe feeds the growing willingness of some in the population  to listen to racists.  Because when they hear them called racist, they are thinking, “But are they really?  Some people call everyone who disagrees with them racist, whether it’s true or not.” 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How do we expect people to react when they realize that their causes can't be addressed through the political system? I'm not going to hand-wring about violence being a possibility. It would be terrible. But what other option do people have? Political decisions about access to healthcare is literally life and death decisions. There are places where there isn't enough water for the people living there and it's only going to get worse. Decisions about how to respond to disasters that result from climate change have life and death consequences. These are the result of political decisions. 

 

 

 

🤷🏽‍♀️ I don’t know. I really don’t know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the time I was a small child inequality has always bothered me.  On both ends….both upsetting to me that some people had so much less than me t others had so much more.  
 

So all of this topic still upsets me. It is so political though,  and honestly I hate to tell y’all this but there is not a solution humans are going to be able to implement. I have lived my life, and taught by my mother, to better myself within the system I live and not try to change a broken system.  
 

So to that end, I really don’t belong in this discussion, but I would like to know if you guys WANT public school system teaching ethics and morals to your kids.  That is not where I learned mine, and I did not send my son to public school….and it feels like it has gotten worse instead of better.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

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. 

 

I didn't say that 1/3 were advocating for a revolution.  My concern is a willingness to rationalize violence.  When just a few years ago the same number was under 10% for at least some degree tolerance for political violence, something is shifting. It didn't really shock me to see these numbers because of what I have seen and heard with my own eyes.  

Valuing non-violence is not one and the same with saying nothing matters save for civility.  Non-violent civil disobedience is not a theoretical concept for me.  I grew up at political protests and organizing meetings. I have my ear pretty close to the ground on a swath of the left- I am definitely not forming my opinions of where the left has been and seems to be going based on conservative created propaganda or buying into scare tactics.  The illiberal tendencies I am seeing aren't imaginary.  

Politics matter deeply to me.  My life, down to my access to food housing as a child, has been shaped by very identifiable political policies.  If you are pushing back against "the idea that politics does not matter and everyone should be civil", you aren't getting that from my words or actions.  

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

10 minutes ago, Condessa said:

But this was not the position on immigration that my post described, that you responded to with “It can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism. . .”

The position was “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”.  This is, word for word, what you said “can be an excuse for anti-Latino racism”.  Not ‘make it a whole lot easier for certain people to come here legally while instituting policies to keep undesirables out.’

 

It’s this tendency of some on the left, like my relative, to insinuate racist motives without reason, that I believe feeds the growing willingness of some in the population  to listen to racists.  Because when they hear them called racist, they are thinking, “But are they really?  Some people call everyone who disagrees with them racist, whether it’s true or not.” 

I don’t think we can blame outliers for our respective willingness/unwillingness to adopt their view of the world. That’s lazy. Why should they get to set the narrative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Seattle is a whole other animal. As you know, my family and formative years were spent in the PNW and I can’t hang with their brand of liberalism. We’ve lived in WA, HI, CA, IL, AR, RI, VA, and Bahrain and have found ourselves positioned differently everywhere. By far, the most challenging space for me was WA (as an adult). I wanted to strangle every well meaning person who helpfully presumed something totally off base. It was all I could do not to rattle off my local ‘pedigree’. My daughter calls it my ‘Inner Karen’. 🤣

Oh, for sure.  We are somewhat place bound  (besides my son's support systems, I feel a tremendous obligation to family members I can't just pack up and move with us) but most days I would love to be out of here.  That said, I think a lot of what we see in, say, Seattle or SF filters out to other places.  Stupid Seattle ideas are spreading, LOL.  ETA:  I understand wanting to strangle the well meaning here.  I have to be committed to non-violence or else I would be in prison for strangling too many people.  

 

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

2 hours 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?

Well, she did provide many examples of curriculum, books, and parents and students telling how it was taught in their actual classrooms.  Such as the Nevada mom talking about her teenaged biracial son who was being denied graduation for having failed the class in which he refused to publicly identify his oppressor/oppressed heritage.

I suppose you could argue that oppressor/oppressed doesn’t mean bad/good, but one of those definitely means something we all think is bad.
 

Here’s a few examples of Plum giving evidence of specific programs and family reports on how it was implemented:

On 6/10/2021 at 3:20 PM, Plum said:

Ok after doing some homework here’s what I found. 
 

80% of the country has never heard of CRT-USA Today

CRT grew from Critical Legal Studies (CLS), which argued that the law was not objective or apolitical. CLS was a significant departure from earlier conceptions of the law (and other fields of scholarship) as objective, neutral, principled, and dissociated from social or political considerations. Like proponents of CLS, critical race theorists recognized that the law could be complicit in maintaining an unjust social order. Where critical race theorists departed from CLS was in the recognition of how race and racial inequality were reproduced through the law. Further, CRT scholars did not share the approach of destabilizing social injustice by destabilizing the law. Many CRT scholars had witnessed how the law could be used to help secure and protect civil rights. Therefore, critical race theorists recognized that, while the law could be used to deepen racial inequality, it also held potential as a tool for emancipation and for securing racial equality. American Bar Association Civil Rights 

There are five major components or tenets of CRT: (1) the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational; (2) the idea of an interest convergence; (3) the social construction of race; (4) the idea of storytelling and counter-storytelling; and (5) the notion that whites have actually been recipients of civil rights legislation.
 

1)The idea of color-blindness (something Gen X will recognize) and meritocracy are inherently racist 

2)Change only happens when there’s something in it for whites

4) This dichotomy—storytelling and counter-storytelling—is predicated upon the belief that schools are neutral spaces that treat everyone justly; however, close examination refutes this: simply evaluating graduation rates accomplishes this. School curricula continue to be structured around mainstream white, middle-class values. There continues to be a widening of the racial achievement gap (the separation of students of color’s achievement and the achievement of Anglo-Americans). Whose needs do these values and curricula serve? It is not students of color?

5) affirmative action best serves whites

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506735.pdf
 

Examples in the news…is this or is this not CRT?

The Madison School District has made numerous changes to learning in the district, all in the name of CRT and equity. In high school, the lowest score you will receive on an assignment is a 50, even if you have earned a lower score than 50 or if you fail to turn in the assignment altogether. Most recently, a high school student that fails will no longer receive an F, but instead will receive a “No Pass” which will not count towards their cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA). The District is also debating right now the end to honors classes, which allow children advanced in a subject matter to dive deeper into that subject, because of the “disparities in the demographics of standalone honors” classes.

 

 

In October, Seattle Public Schools unveiled a “framework” to inject “math ethnic studies” into all K-12 math classes, teaching “how math has been and continues to be used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.”

Students will be asked to “identify the inherent inequities of the standardized testing system used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color” and “explain how math dictates economic oppression.”

 

In the nation’s largest school system, a panel appointed by the mayor proposed in August to eliminate the city’s gifted and talented schools and programs in the service of racial integration garnered front-page New York Times coverage.

The proposal would end the practice of gifted and talented schools screening students by exams and grades—and even block considering students’ attendance records at their previous schools.

It also said it was unfair that students who were not fluent in English were “underrepresented” in the most rigorous academic programs.
 

Critical race theorists, analysts and educators say the discipline does not attack individual students for their privileges, but rather, it makes them aware of how different systems in the U.S. discriminate against others.

"If a kid is being taught that they're an oppressor, that means that the person who's doing the teaching is not explaining the difference between people and systems," Bolgatz said. "Racism is a system. ... People are prejudiced, and we can work on our own individual prejudice, but we have to also work on the systems that discriminate writ large." ABC

———

thats all I can post for now for fear of losing it

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. 

 

On 6/10/2021 at 5:30 PM, Plum said:

Oh snap! That’s my school district! It’s a charter school here.  Wow. ☹️
 

The lawsuit centers around Sociology of Change, a yearlong mandatory class for seniors at Democracy Prep. The Clarks allege that assignments in the course required students to reveal their race, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities and then determine if privilege or oppression is attached to those identities. The class, which was conducted virtually due to the ongoing pandemic, also included breakout discussions which the plaintiffs say students could opt out of but still created a “psychologically abusive dilemma” and a “hostile educational environment.”

“William Clark was compelled to participate in public professions of his racial, religious, sexual, and gender identities, and would be labeled as an “oppressor” on these bases,” reads the court filing.

O’Brien calls it “coercive.”

“It serves no apparent pedagogical purpose,” he says.

William Clark is described in the lawsuit as having “green eyes and blondish hair” and “generally regarded as white by his peers.” William’s mother, Gabrielle, is Black and his deceased father was white, according to court documents.

Kathryn Bass, the Democracy Prep Sociology of Change teacher, is white, according to a classroom slide included in court documents.

Democracy Prep’s student body is 63.8 percent Black, 30.2 percent Hispanic and 2.2 percent white, according to the state’s K-12 data portal.
 

 

At immediate stake is William Clark’s graduation.

The Clarks accuse Democracy Prep of refusing to accommodate the student’s “conscientious objection” to the course material by changing his grade or allowing him to take an alternative course. The plaintiffs are asking for the court to enjoin the school from denying William a high school diploma and accommodate him with “an alternative non-discriminatory, non-confessional class.”

They also want the court to declare that requiring students to reveal racial, sexual, gender and religious identities in a public-school classroom and in graded assignments is unconstitutional.

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/01/21/las-vegas-charter-school-sued-for-curriculum-covering-race-identity/

 

22 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

 

 

22 hours ago, Plum said:

Found another K-2 using their approved texts and examples. This is still looking like the next Common Core to me. A framework that is widely misunderstood, poorly implemented, and getting lots of parents mad. The problem is this isn't just standards. It's an ideology that schools are pushing onto students. Schools might have all the best intentions here, but it looks like this could end really badly. 

Cracking the Code
RESPONDING TO THE READ-ALOUD TEXT
GRADE LEVEL K-2

What?
During Cracking the Code, students examine texts for bias related to race, gender, class, religion, age and sexual orientation, among other identity categories.
When?

During and after reading
 
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

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Plum said:

@ktgrok

They used this book. .

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

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

 

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

29 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How do we expect people to react when they realize that their causes can't be addressed through the political system? I'm not going to hand-wring about violence being a possibility. It would be terrible. But what other option do people have? Political decisions about access to healthcare is literally life and death decisions. There are places where there isn't enough water for the people living there and it's only going to get worse. Decisions about how to respond to disasters that result from climate change have life and death consequences. These are the result of political decisions. 

 

 

 

Peoples' causes can be addressed through the political process in a liberal society.

Those who tell people that's not true and that violence is a legitimate means to power are populist demagogues. Empowering such people is a huge mistake. It is the path to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Populism is the biggest threat of our age (worldwide). 

Bill

 

Edited by Spy Car
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Well, she did provide many examples of curriculum, books, and parents and students telling how it was taught in their actual classrooms.  Such as the Nevada mom talking about her teenaged biracial son who was being denied graduation for having failed the class in which he refused to publicly identify his oppressor/oppressed heritage.

I suppose you could argue that oppressor/oppressed doesn’t mean bad/good, but one of those definitely means something we all think is bad.
 

Here’s a few examples of Plum giving evidence of specific programs and family reports on how it was implemented:

 

 

 

 

 

These are links to someone’s thesis (a literature review) and parental/observer opinions. There’s no independent research there, no classroom observation, no quote from a teacher about oppression, nada.

If you ask my kids to identify which aspects of their lives afford them privilege they’d have zero problems identifying them. Like, it’s a non-issue. It’s not something to be upset or feel guilty about. It’s part of them.

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

1 hour 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?

I’ve really appreciated your input here.

This board is not especially left-leaning as a whole, but there are some left-leaning posters here who really jump on certain viewpoints, and hold posts on opposing ideas and topics to a much higher standard of evidence.  It makes it feel like a more polarized place, because of the vocality of one side.

Don’t give up.  We all stand to benefit when our ideas are challenged by a variety of well thought-out perspectives and a willingness to ask questions.

Edited by Condessa
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Here’s a few examples of Plum giving evidence of specific programs and family reports on how it was implemented:

 

But none of these are from the actual school in the original post.  Not one post has said, what, exactly, this school district is doing that is supposed to cause us such outrage. Scatterings of programs from all over the country are mentioned, but they are irrelevant to the original rant.  WTM forums aren't exactly a hotbed of public school apologism, I don't there there's any pro public school bias here, but there needs to be something tangible other than "other people are upset".

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

4 minutes ago, PaxEtLux said:

But none of these are from the actual school in the original post.  Not one post has said, what, exactly, this school district is doing that is supposed to cause us such outrage. Scatterings of programs from all over the country are mentioned, but they are irrelevant to the original rant.  WTM forums aren't exactly a hotbed of public school apologism, I don't there there's any pro public school bias here, but there needs to be something tangible other than "other people are upset".

This response wasn’t about the original post.  It was in response to this post:

2 hours 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. 

(Bolding Sneezyone’s to emphasize what her response was to.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

These are links to someone’s thesis (a literature review) and parental/observer opinions. There’s no independent research there, no classroom observation, no quote from a teacher about oppression, nada.

If you ask my kids to identify which aspects of their lives afford them privilege they’d have zero problems identifying them. Like, it’s a non-issue. It’s not something to be upset or feel guilty about. It’s part of them.

There was the teacher from Dwight-Englewood school.  I’m sorry, I don’t have time to find the post now.  I have to go.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Peoples' causes can be addressed through the political process in a liberal society.

Those who tell people that's not true and that violence is a legitimate means to power are populist demagogues. Empowering such people is a huge mistake. It is the path to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Populism is the biggest threat of our age (worldwide). 

Bill

 

So what do you plan to tell people in 2024 when the GOP takes the Senate (with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates) and the House (again, with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates)? And then the Senate refuses to certify the election of the Democratic presidential candidate and the Supreme Court (with the majority of justices appointed by presidential candidates who earned less 50% of the votes) refuses to get involved? 

Will you tell people that their causes can be addressed through the political process? 

How is the scenario that I just described (completely legal, BTW) not also a path to authoritarianism and totalitarianism? 

Do you think that congress and president (elected by a minority of voters) will advance the causes of the majority who voted for the other political party? 

Are the people warning of this possibility populist demagogues? 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

So what do you plan to tell people in 2024 when the GOP takes the Senate (with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates) and the House (again, with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates)? And then the Senate refuses to certify the election of the Democratic presidential candidate and the Supreme Court (with the majority of justices appointed by presidential candidates who earned less 50% of the votes) refuses to get involved? 

Will you tell people that their causes can be addressed through the political process? 

How is the scenario that I just described (completely legal, BTW) not also a path to authoritarianism and totalitarianism? 

Do you think that congress and president (elected by a minority of voters) will advance the causes of the majority who voted for the other political party? 

Are the people warning of this possibility populist demagogues? 

This is so totally where I'm at.

And adding. I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR CONGRESS despite being a citizen. It's just nigh on impossible to have a sense that the system is fair when you live as someone literally disenfranchised.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

So what do you plan to tell people in 2024 when the GOP takes the Senate (with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates) and the House (again, with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates)? And then the Senate refuses to certify the election of the Democratic presidential candidate and the Supreme Court (with the majority of justices appointed by presidential candidates who earned less 50% of the votes) refuses to get involved? 

Will you tell people that their causes can be addressed through the political process? 

How is the scenario that I just described (completely legal, BTW) not also a path to authoritarianism and totalitarianism? 

Do you think that congress and president (elected by a minority of voters) will advance the causes of the majority who voted for the other political party? 

Are the people warning of this possibility populist demagogues? 

This is a hard scenario to acknowledge, wrap my head around but certainly possible. I'm not sure it's related to the current outrage over the as yet undefined "CRT" tho.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

This is a hard scenario to acknowledge, wrap my head around but certainly possible. I'm not sure it's related to the current outrage over the as yet undefined "CRT" tho.

I think it's all a piece. The scenario that Ordinary Shoes is describing is honestly pretty likely. The GOP absolutely will take the Senate and it absolutely will be with a lot fewer votes than the Dem candidates receive. They are very likely to take the House as well. The presidency I'm less sure about because it's a little harder to gerrymander, but given how many still believe the Big Lie, I think it's not crazy to believe that this could easily happen. These things are just all in motion. And part of why they're in motion is that a certain sort of core conservative believes that things like CRT (among many others like decreasing police funding and increasing taxes on the wealthy and so forth...) are so deeply anti-democratic, anti-American, and dangerous to our liberties that it's necessary to prevent them by seizing power through any means the system will let them. The greater ethical responsibility is not to "play fair" but to prevent the people who would support such evil policies from gaining power.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

So what do you plan to tell people in 2024 when the GOP takes the Senate (with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates) and the House (again, with less than 50% of the votes cast for Republican candidates)? And then the Senate refuses to certify the election of the Democratic presidential candidate and the Supreme Court (with the majority of justices appointed by presidential candidates who earned less 50% of the votes) refuses to get involved? 

Will you tell people that their causes can be addressed through the political process? 

How is the scenario that I just described (completely legal, BTW) not also a path to authoritarianism and totalitarianism? 

Do you think that congress and president (elected by a minority of voters) will advance the causes of the majority who voted for the other political party? 

Are the people warning of this possibility populist demagogues? 

I'd tell them to get out and vote and to organize/mobilize to make positive change. And not to turn to violence.

And certainly not to embrace to populist demagogues as "saviors." Because populist demagoguery is a very bad path. Never turns out well.

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

From the time I was a small child inequality has always bothered me.  On both ends….both upsetting to me that some people had so much less than me t others had so much more.  
 

So all of this topic still upsets me. It is so political though,  and honestly I hate to tell y’all this but there is not a solution humans are going to be able to implement. I have lived my life, and taught by my mother, to better myself within the system I live and not try to change a broken system.  
 

So to that end, I really don’t belong in this discussion, but I would like to know if you guys WANT public school system teaching ethics and morals to your kids.  That is not where I learned mine, and I did not send my son to public school….and it feels like it has gotten worse instead of better.  

We have explicit ethics teaching here. It's for the kids in public school who don't want the explicit religious instruction! 

You can't not incorporate some ethics into education. Everytime you explain to a Kindy kid that at school, we don't hit others when we're angry and why, we are issuing ethical advice - here just a Golden Rule variation. How would you feel if Daniel hit you? Some of our SEL covers issues of exclusion and bullying on the basis of skin colour, among other things. Education here still promotes multiculturalism. 

CRT isn't ethics. It's a particular academic lens through which to analyse racial inequality. 

You can have an ethical curriculum that teaches an accurate and full national and state history, that doesn't use CRT. 

You can have an unethical CRT framing. 

You can have a CRT framing that is not historically sound.

You can have an ethical CRT framework that is historically sound. 

People will object to students feeling compelled to adopt a specific academic framework to consider their own identities. They just will. That's very different to objecting to learning about (idk what it would be for you guys - Tulsa?)

I've taught my own kids about local massacres. Zero objection to covering this content. Took niece to an exhibition that was particularly open about settler violence recently. I didn't need to introduce her to the power wheel first. I don't have an investment in that she learns she is complicit by virtue of her race.  She's 9. She has no complicity. She was ready for the content. It made her mad and also feel empathy. Some of her classmates are not ready for the same content. None of them need to encouraged to view themselves or others in primarily racial, gender or other 'identities'. 

In the end, complaints don't come out of nowhere. Is it possible it's all a Republican set up job? I guess. Is it likely? Why wouldn't one want to be curious about why a survivor of communism is getting triggered? Or why a biracial boy felt demeaned or punished? Or why a humanist teacher is resigning? 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, incitement to violence from any direction is a hard no from me. Saw the errors of my way on that one.

Violence doesn't become noble in the right hands. It occasionally becomes necessary ( self defence) but it remains ethically murky, unpredictable, and damaging to the most vulnerable. 

What's that saying about democracy? It's the worst form of government. Except for all the others. 

 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farrar said:

I think it's all a piece. The scenario that Ordinary Shoes is describing is honestly pretty likely. The GOP absolutely will take the Senate and it absolutely will be with a lot fewer votes than the Dem candidates receive. They are very likely to take the House as well. The presidency I'm less sure about because it's a little harder to gerrymander, but given how many still believe the Big Lie, I think it's not crazy to believe that this could easily happen. These things are just all in motion. And part of why they're in motion is that a certain sort of core conservative believes that things like CRT (among many others like decreasing police funding and increasing taxes on the wealthy and so forth...) are so deeply anti-democratic, anti-American, and dangerous to our liberties that it's necessary to prevent them by seizing power through any means the system will let them. The greater ethical responsibility is not to "play fair" but to prevent the people who would support such evil policies from gaining power.

The presidency is less likely than the rest of it. But even if a democratic president is elected his/her power will be limited by a Republican congress. Look at what's happening in states with Democratic governors. 

And I don't think this is because of core conservatives believing in the "evils" of CRT. It's much more likely based on ordinary moderate people becoming concerned about CRT and the illiberalism of the Left. 

57 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I'd tell them to get out and vote and to organize/mobilize to make positive change. And not to turn to violence.

And certainly not to embrace to populist demagogues as "saviors." Because populist demagoguery is a very bad path. Never turns out well.

Bill

Yeah, but what if they can't vote because their name is stricken from the voter rolls or they don't have an ID or whatever? 

And even if they do get out and vote, what difference will it make if their votes are gerrymandered away? The majority of votes already go to Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates but the Democrats do not always control congress. 

My and my DH's ballots are being "audited" by a bunch of crazy people looking for bamboo fibers. That doesn't make me feel very confident in the democratic process. Our county went for Biden but there's been relentless attacks on the integrity of the vote since November. 

So would you tell an African American man in 1900 to "get out and vote" and organize to end Jim Crow? That might get him killed. 

And there was more to the Civil Rights movement than non-violence. 

Quote

In 1899, after a black man named Henry Denegale was accused of raping a white woman in Darien, Georgia, armed black men surrounded the jail where he was held to prevent lynch mobs from taking him. Instead of being hanged from a tree or burned at the stake, Denegale was tried and acquitted. Though blacks tended to consider Georgia the most lethal of all the Southern states, the coastal area, where Darien was located, “had the fewest lynchings of any place in the state.”

 

How 'Crazy Negroes' With Guns Helped Kill Jim Crow

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...