CRT (now rebranded as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion DEI) and DOJ involvement in school board meetings

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No, I'm sorry but you do NOT to claim that you are "with Martin Luther King, Jr. on race." Please, don't go there. 

 

Why not? I am absolutely going there. I believe in individual equal rights and ultimate goal of color blind society. How dare you tell me who I can align with?

[Melissa Louise]

20 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

I have never voted Republican in my life. And I am not a liberal? I am not center to the right on race. I am with Martin Luther King Jr. on race, not the new woke. 
 

And no, woke isn’t BS. It is an ideology, a sort of an extreme wing of the left. Most of democrats (and I can count my Republican friends on one hand. Pretty much all are Democrats) are aligned with me and think the current extremes will self correct to the middle.  

It's a cultural lens that comes from post-structuralism. 

Imo it doesn't map very well onto left wing politics, because it's heavily individualistic. Ironically, the further economically left you go, the less likely you are to hear things presented through that lens. 

I'd align with an Adolph Reed pov. I'm sure that can be spun as anti- progrsd somehow. I think the slur is 'class essentialist'.

Imo, anyone on the left, including the so called progressive wing, need to be very aware of leftist history, which has a tendency towards authoritarianism. And stay far away from it in all arenas, including the cultural.

I think humanistic multiculturalism did a good job for a long time of keeping us on the right side of history, and I'm doubtful about the wisdom of ditching it. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Roadrunner]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

Like the kids say...

Tell me that you've never read MLK without telling me that you've read MLK. 

Keep your insults to yourself please. 
 

[SanDiegoMom]

32 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

Roadroader wasn't a liberal anyway. She was already right of center about race so why are we pretending that she wasn't and that THIS was the final thing to push her over the edge? 

Madteaparty also isn't the progressive she claims to be. I remember her COVID posts. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Uh, I know political parties have changed over time. 

And you can't accuse me of looking for purity. If you paid more attention to what I wrote you would see that I never wrote that anyone was not liberal. I never cast anyone out of any party or movement. 

 

 

[Roadrunner]

2 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Um....not an insult. 

BTW, you should actually read MLK. 

 

Hmmmmm, never mind. You aren’t the only one who reads. Maybe you should reread. 

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Keep your insults to yourself please. 
 

I find the ignore button very useful. 

Purity spirals, OTOH, not so much. 

 

[Roadrunner]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I find the ignore button very useful. 

Purity spirals, OTOH, not so much. 

 

Very true. And I bet I am the only one with a kid with actual African heritage. But how dare I have an opinion. Not that I need that to be able to speak my mind. 

[madteaparty]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No, doesn't prove what you claim. I wrote "Madteaparty also isn't the progressive she claims to be." 

I don't think she's as far left as anyone can go. But I didn't write that she wasn't a liberal. 

 

You seriously have no idea whom you’re responding to. Not with me, and not with roadrunner. Like I said, you’re doing a brilliant job, keep at it. 

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Very true. And I bet I am the only one with a kid with actual African heritage. But how dare I have an opinion. Not that I need that to be able to speak my mind. 

I've found that being part of a mixed race family sometimes brings more vitriol, not less. 

I agree that White Ally TM  'splaining is pretty painful at this point. 

[Danae]

10 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Very true. And I bet I am the only one with a kid with actual African heritage. But how dare I have an opinion. Not that I need that to be able to speak my mind. 

I am quite sure you would lose that bet.

[Roadrunner]

1 minute ago, Danae said:

I am quite sure you would lose that bet.

Well among the two conversing. Not on the board of course. 

[madteaparty]

9 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

We're all anonymous so of course I don't know everything about you or Roadrunner. 

The "I'm with MLK on race" thing is bad. 

[…]And I'm doing a "brilliant" job of showing how intolerant the left is? 

I must not be doing a "brilliant" job because I haven't called you any names. I haven't "cancelled" you. 

I guess I need to work harder on being more intolerant. 

By definition, you can’t “cancel” me. 
but otherwise, give yourself some credit. 

[Melissa Louise]

OS you are not cancelling anyone, but you are exhibiting the type of Puritanism - where there can be no disagreement re how best to reach shared goals - that is driving long time leftists to consider themselves politically homeless. 

You need to consider that you're not the only one who would quite like more justice in this world, and that maybe some people disagree in good faith on how to get there. 

I mean this with all setting aside of animus - this policing of others as unenlightened according to your values doesn't help. It doesn't help the people you want to help, and I recognise you are driven by an urge to do the right thing. 

It's just factual that some of us are left wing through and through. We just disagree with you on what we consider a regressive shift in our own parties.

You can call us bigots or fragile or whatever, and it might make you feel like you're helping, but it's not.

Material support is generally a better way to go. Money and time. I'm not going to list either I engage in, because you'll call it a lie from a right winger, lol, but it really is a good way for comfortable white allies to help. 

Going local is good too. Your local party branch or community org.*

This social media stuff is toxic - to us, to the political brand, to solidarity. 

Let's just go and do stuff, and talk less, maybe. 

*I'm not suggesting you don't...if you do, that's actually an effective way of being an ally. Yay! 

 

[KSera]

7 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also for the record, I'm fairly moderate about trans issues. My sister posted "F-word terfs" on her Facebook stories yesterday. I rolled my eyes but I self-censored (fear of the woke mob?) and didn't comment. 

This is an issue where people have legitimate fears beyond that people will disagree with them or they will be called names. People quite easily lose their jobs for expressing concerns on this one. 
 

I find this whole thread has become even more depressing of late on all sides. 
 

[Melissa Louise]

It's depressing because identity style stuff does what it's intended to do and breaks down solidarity between people who would otherwise be working in the same general direction. 

So instead of groups working together on things like housing or health or wage growth and security, it's just people calling people WHO VOTE THE SAME WAY! bigots and racists. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-failure-of-occupy-is-almost-complete

[Sneezyone]

Meanwhile, my friend in Scottsdale is posting on FB about the AP Lit teachers and principal at her kid’s high school being suspended this week b/c they assigned “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed”. That’s CRT in America. Never seen her comment on the issue before now but she’s hopping mad about the loss of instructional time.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

This is an issue where people have legitimate fears beyond that people will disagree with them or they will be called names. People quite easily lose their jobs for expressing concerns on this one. 
 

I find this whole thread has become even more depressing of late on all sides. 
 

What’s actually happening/has happened is distressing enough. My friend isn’t politically active at all. I seriously think she thought my posts on the subject were overwrought …until the crazy affected her local schools. Now 200+ students are without an English teacher until the suspension is over, oh, and NOW friend is talking about attending school board meetings. 🤦🏽‍♀️ Why don’t people ever believe fat meat’s greasy?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's depressing because identity style stuff does what it's intended to do and breaks down solidarity between people who would otherwise be working in the same general direction. 

So instead of groups working together on things like housing or health or wage growth and security, it's just people calling people WHO VOTE THE SAME WAY! bigots and racists. 

 

This is a distraction but you keep saying these things that betray a deep understanding of how politics have worked in the US. Wedge issues are wedge issues because they drive a wedge between communities of interest. Easy enough, right? Duh, I know. Race has been used by white peoples as a wedge issue FOREVER in the US and not talking about that doesn’t make it untrue or less potent a force. Social security…awesome economic advance to prevent senior poverty… only it deliberately excluded domestic workers who were majority black. GI BILL, awesome!! Only the program would only lend in non-redlined neighborhoods and non-white vets didn’t have access to non-redlined communities. Funny how that worked. What you’ve described as *the* solution is Clinton-era politics which hastened our mass incarceration crisis by creating disparities in sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine and establishing mandatory minimums.  I could go on with example after example but you get the idea. Nowhere on earth has Marxist thought yielded greater equity for religious and ethnic minorities. It’s a pipe dream, not anything resembling a pragmatic solution to the problems that ail us. You keep saying these things like working class/economic foci are a universal win divorced from wedge issues (or can be or have been). None of that is true, has ever been true, in practice. Where is the proof of concept? And while this utopian ideal is being pursued, who is being harmed in the process? Or does that matter? And how does it correct the systemic discrepancies in both our laws and our law enforcement?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

9 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

This is a distraction but you keep saying these things that betray a deep understanding of how politics have worked in the US. Wedge issues are wedge issues because they drive a wedge between communities of interest. Easy enough, right? Duh, I know. Race has been used by white peoples as a wedge issue FOREVER in the US and not talking about that doesn’t make it untrue or less potent a force. Social security…awesome economic advance to prevent senior poverty… only it deliberately excluded domestic workers who were majority black. GI BILL, awesome!! Only the program would only lend in non-redlined neighborhoods and non-white vets didn’t have access to non-redlined communities. Funny how that worked. What you’ve described as *the* solution is Clinton-era politics which hastened our mass incarceration crisis by creating disparities in sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine and establishing mandatory minimums.  I could go on with example after example but you get the idea. Nowhere on earth has Marxist thought yielded greater equity for religious and ethnic minorities. It’s a pipe dream, not anything resembling a pragmatic solution to the problems that ail us. You keep saying these things like working class/economic foci are a universal win divorced from wedge issues (or can be or have been). None of that is true, has ever been true, in practice. Where is the proof of concept? And while this utopian ideal is being pursued, who is being harmed in the process? Or does that matter? And how does it correct the systemic discrepancies in both our laws and our law enforcement?

Not to mention how repeatedly and, well, systematically efforts to organize labor in the US were stymied by intentional measures on the part of both owners, and existing union members, to use race both to break strikes when they occurred and to limit access to unionized jobs to whites.  Or how Reconstruction was possible because wealthy big-plantation owners succeeded in convincing poor whites that they'd do better aligning with the owners than with the newly freed blacks whose material circumstances were similar.

Race *is* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  It always *has been* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  That wedge has been, and continues to be, *extremely well recognized* both by activists for racial justice AND wages/labor conditions alike; and also by ivory tower academics studying both racial justice AND material inequality.

That wedge is the problem statement, not a blinding insight that gets us past the problem.

 

That wedge has been intentionally instrumentalized since the Civil War in ways that, well, lenses like actual Critical Race Theory shine lights through and defract.

[Sneezyone]

32 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Not to mention how repeatedly and, well, systematically efforts to organize labor in the US were stymied by intentional measures on the part of both owners, and existing union members, to use race both to break strikes when they occurred and to limit access to unionized jobs to whites.  Or how Reconstruction was possible because wealthy big-plantation owners succeeded in convincing poor whites that they'd do better aligning with the owners than with the newly freed blacks whose material circumstances were similar.

Race *is* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  It always *has been* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  That wedge has been, and continues to be, *extremely well recognized* both by activists for racial justice AND wages/labor conditions alike; and also by ivory tower academics studying both racial justice AND material inequality.

That wedge is the problem statement, not a blinding insight that gets us past the problem.

 

That wedge has been intentionally instrumentalized since the Civil War in ways that, well, lenses like actual Critical Race Theory shine lights through and defract.

Thank you! Sheesh. Notably, Bernie Sanders was unable to secure the Democratic Party's nomination for POTUS precisely because he a) wasn't a Democrat and b) avoided engaging with these issues. Core party voters were unconvinced that his rising tide lifting all boats would result in more equitable distribution of water (to strain the metaphor) or do anything to correct for past/present inequities in water quality. LOL.

ETA: Which is not to say that local volunteerism and activism isn't a wonderful way to spend one's time. I enjoy those activities too and feel that being present in the community helps humanize folks. It's not a substitute for policy though and it doesn't materially change the ways systems work to perpetuate disparities.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

re Bernie Sanders, party, class and race

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Thank you! Sheesh. Notably, Bernie Sanders was unable to secure the Democratic Party's nomination for POTUS precisely because he a) wasn't a Democrat and b) avoided engaging with these issues. Core party voters were unconvinced that his rising tide lifting all boats would result in more equitable distribution of water (to strain the metaphor) or do anything to correct for past/present inequities in water quality. LOL....

There are a whole lot of ways to deconstruct why Sanders was unable to secure the nomination; and I agree that at least two of the reasons were his far greater resonance with young educated whites than with blacks of any age or socioeconomics.  For which there were, in turn, reasons.  He may go down in American history as the last example of a self-identifying "progressive" who insisted right to the end on the Colorblind Doctrine, I don't even notice race I only see the person.  Turns out that line lands better with whites than POC, go figure.

(There were plenty other reasons, many of which have been well and good beaten until well and good dead.)

[rdj2027]

...GI BILL, awesome!! Only the program would only lend in non-redlined neighborhoods and non-white vets didn’t have access to non-redlined communities. 

I think you are confusing the GI Bill with VA loans.  The GI Bill pays for education expenses and is not a loan but a defined benefit.

[Pawz4me]

23 minutes ago, rdj2027 said:

...GI BILL, awesome!! Only the program would only lend in non-redlined neighborhoods and non-white vets didn’t have access to non-redlined communities. 

I think you are confusing the GI Bill with VA loans.  The GI Bill pays for education expenses and is not a loan but a defined benefit.

I *think* the reference is to the GI bill as it existed after World War II. This is maybe not the best source on the subject, but it was the first one I found quickly:

Quote

The GI Bill gave World War II servicemen and servicewoman many options and benefits. Those who wished to continue their education in college or vocation school could do so tuition-free up to $500 while also receiving a cost of living stipend.

As a result, almost 49 percent of college admissions in 1947 were veterans. The GI Bill opened the door of higher education to the working class in a way never done before.

The bill provided a $20 weekly unemployment benefit for up to one year for veterans looking for work. Job counseling was also available.

The government guaranteed loans for veterans who borrowed money to purchase a home, business or farm. These loans enabled hordes of people to abandon city life and move to mass-produced, “cookie cutter” homes in suburbia. This exodus from major cities would help shape America’s socioeconomic and political landscape for years to come.

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re Bernie Sanders, party, class and race

There are a whole lot of ways to deconstruct why Sanders was unable to secure the nomination; and I agree that at least two of the reasons were his far greater resonance with young educated whites than with blacks of any age or socioeconomics.  For which there were, in turn, reasons.  He may go down in American history as the last example of a self-identifying "progressive" who insisted right to the end on the Colorblind Doctrine, I don't even notice race I only see the person.  Turns out that line lands better with whites than POC, go figure.

(There were plenty other reasons, many of which have been well and good beaten until well and good dead.)

4 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

Not to mention how repeatedly and, well, systematically efforts to organize labor in the US were stymied by intentional measures on the part of both owners, and existing union members, to use race both to break strikes when they occurred and to limit access to unionized jobs to whites.  Or how Reconstruction was possible because wealthy big-plantation owners succeeded in convincing poor whites that they'd do better aligning with the owners than with the newly freed blacks whose material circumstances were similar.

Race *is* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  It always *has been* a wedge issue that cuts across common socioeconomic interests.  That wedge has been, and continues to be, *extremely well recognized* both by activists for racial justice AND wages/labor conditions alike; and also by ivory tower academics studying both racial justice AND material inequality.

That wedge is the problem statement, not a blinding insight that gets us past the problem.

 

That wedge has been intentionally instrumentalized since the Civil War in ways that, well, lenses like actual Critical Race Theory shine lights through and defract.

 

Ok.

You know, if the US wasn't so darn culturally imperialist, I'd watch the whole 'lets re-essentialize race to the nth degree' experiment with interest. I mean, I don't see how it's going to work, but ok. I get the impulse to 'diffract'. 

But you export these ideas. Because you are The Global Power, culturally at least.

I don't want essentializing of race anywhere near us, because it's an experiment I don't want to see run on the children I care for. 

It's fun to play with theory. But you'd better be darn sure your praxis isnt killing more than it cures. 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[rdj2027]

Thanks Pawz, I misread it.  Yes, going back to the original bill makes sense.

[Pam in CT]

re please don't export your racial essentialism to the rest of us

13 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Ok.

You know, if the US wasn't so darn culturally imperialist, I'd watch the whole 'lets re-essentialize race to the nth degree' experiment with interest. I mean, I don't see how it's going to work, but ok. I get the impulse to 'diffract'. 

But you export these ideas. Because you are The Global Power, culturally at least.

I don't want essentializing of race anywhere near us, because it's an experiment I don't want to see run on the children I care for. 

It's fun to play with theory. But you'd better be darn sure your praxis isnt killing more than it cures. 

 

100% agree re export risk, and you're 100% right to resist and/or fear it.  And if race *hasn't* cut a throughline throughout your nation's history, shaping your form of governance, economy, where the transport lines developed, educational institutions, who owned property where, who accrued generational wealth because of those structures...  count your blessings. 

For your sake: I hope our toxins don't destroy your society as they very nearly did ours once before and look now, 150+ years later, do be ginning up for a reprise.

 

(And for the record I agree with the "material" lens you hold out as, theoretically, more helpful.

The praxis is, while inequality has for some time been worse here than any other OECD country and has widened *significantly* since 2017, as a society we have stalwartly resisted solidarity on class basis. Resulting in, since the 1880s efforts here to unionize and raise wages through other policy measures have been, and continue to be, widely reviled by the very population segments who would benefit from better wages and conditions.

There are multiple reasons for American resistance to solidarity by class.  Race, however, is the reason that functions on both sides -- wielded as a tool to divide and destroy any halting efforts at collective action by the haves, and also used within collective groups to keep the benefits of collective action to some and not others.  That is a historical / empirical / material observation, not a theoretical one; and neither is it new.) 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, rdj2027 said:

...GI BILL, awesome!! Only the program would only lend in non-redlined neighborhoods and non-white vets didn’t have access to non-redlined communities. 

I think you are confusing the GI Bill with VA loans.  The GI Bill pays for education expenses and is not a loan but a defined benefit.

No, I meant what I said. GI Bill legislation included eligibility for VA loans and college money.

[Melissa Louise]

10 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re please don't export your racial essentialism to the rest of us

100% agree re export risk, and you're 100% right to resist and/or fear it.  And if race *hasn't* cut a throughline throughout your nation's history, shaping your form of governance, economy, where the transport lines developed, educational institutions, who owned property where, who accrued generational wealth because of those structures...  count your blessings. 

For your sake: I hope our toxins don't destroy your society as they very nearly did ours once before and look now, 150+ years later, do be ginning up for a reprise.

 

(And for the record I agree with the "material" lens you hold out as, theoretically, more helpful.

The praxis is, while inequality has for some time been worse here than any other OECD country and has widened *significantly* since 2017, as a society we have stalwartly resisted solidarity on class basis. Resulting in, since the 1880s efforts here to unionize and raise wages through other policy measures have been, and continue to be, widely reviled by the very population segments who would benefit from better wages and conditions.

There are multiple reasons for American resistance to solidarity by class.  Race, however, is the reason that functions on both sides -- wielded as a tool to divide and destroy any halting efforts at collective action by the haves, and also used within collective groups to keep the benefits of collective action to some and not others.  That is a historical / empirical / material observation, not a theoretical one; and neither is it new.) 

Of course racism exists here. It's nation founded on genocide. A CRT-style lens is one helpful way of looking at that, especially at a theoretical level.

What I don't want to see in my classrooms are ways of confronting a racist history and a racist present that have as much depth as a Star Wars movie, but with the potential to get.more white kids identifying with 'whiteness'!

It's a form of radicalisation into identification  with one's whiteness that I can't help but see as very dangerous.

Americans (and everyone else in the world) don't want to deal with class for the same reasons they don't want to deal with climate - because it will affect their own standard of living. 

Anyone who has the slightest involvement with issues like housing knows it's a class issue, that intersects with race and ability.  Please tell me how a privilege walk in 8th grade does anything to solve people's immediate, life threatening housing issues. 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

A privilege walk does just about as much good as banning books. One can be corrected through human interaction and discussion. The other prohibits any dialogue at all. These aren’t equal events with similar outcomes. What Pam described so well is that radicalization into whiteness is already part of/baked into American life. The only people who routinely have been blind to it are …white. That’s not a new phenomenon. What people are fighting against with anti-CRT laws is ever having to become aware of what’s been baked into the cake.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

re radicalization by race identity

17 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Of course racism exists here. It's nation founded on genocide. A CRT-style lens is one helpful way of looking at that, especially at a theoretical level.

What I don't want to see in my classrooms are ways of confronting a racist history and a racist present that have as much depth as a Star Wars movie, but with the potential to get.more white kids identifying with 'whiteness'!

It's a form of radicalisation into identification  with one's whiteness that I can't help but see as very dangerous.

Americans (and everyone else in the world) don't want to deal with class for the same reasons they don't want to deal with climate - because it will affect their own standard of living. 

Anyone who has the slightest involvement with issues like housing knows it's a class issue, that intersects with race and ability.  Please tell me how a privilege walk in 8th grade does anything to solve people's immediate, life threatening housing issues.

I agree with this too.

What I want is for our factual history to be taught in developmentally appropriate sequence: elementary students learn about Ruby Bridges, middle school students learn about Tulsa Massacre, and high school students to learn about redlining.  For Faith Ringgold's children's books / Roll of Thunder / Beloved to be among the literature lists at those same respective age cohorts.

That is now precluded by the content bans in 15+ states.  Enacted by legislative action, which is, obviously, a structure.  Another structure, in the same vein as prior structures detailing public policies about who sat where on public transport or who used which water fountain or who was allowed to use the municipal swimming pool.

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re radicalization by race identity

I agree with this too.

What I want is for our factual history to be taught in developmentally appropriate sequence: elementary students learn about Ruby Bridges, middle school students learn about Tulsa Massacre, and high school students to learn about redlining.  For Faith Ringgold's children's books / Roll of Thunder / Beloved to be among the literature lists at those same respective age cohorts.

That is now precluded by the content bans in 15+ states.  Enacted by legislative action, which is, obviously, a structure.  Another structure, in the same vein as prior structures detailing public policies about who sat where on public transport or who used which water fountain or who was allowed to use the municipal swimming pool.

 

Yes, I know. 

You keep talking to me like I'm a fool, lol. I don't need convincing that systemic racism ( like systemic classism) is real. 

I've said about a million times the bans are wrong. I'm 100% against them. 

And if you think I'm against factual history, well that's just funny. 

[Pam in CT]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, I know. 

You keep talking to me like I'm a fool, lol. I don't need convincing that systemic racism ( like systemic classism) is real. 

I've said about a million times the bans are wrong. I'm 100% against them. 

And if you think I'm against factual history, well that's just funny. 

I don't, at all, think you're a fool. 

I've said, maybe only two or three times, that I think mandatory role-playing assigned by race, and various other "clumsy" examples of bad teaching over which many pearls were clutched here and in the other thread, are wrong. I'm 100% against them.

And if you think I'm against class solidarity as an engine to nudge society toward a more perfect union, that's... funny too.

So, very glad we're in rough agreement on the big principles.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

I don't, at all, think you're a fool. 

I've said, maybe only two or three times, that I think mandatory role-playing assigned by race, and various other "clumsy" examples of bad teaching over which many pearls were clutched here and in the other thread, are wrong. I'm 100% against them.

And if you think I'm against class solidarity as an engine to nudge society toward a more perfect union, that's... funny too.

So, very glad we're in rough agreement on the big principles.

We are in agreement on the big principles, but this isn't about big principles. It's about teaching practices with the potential to radicalize white students into a greater identification with whiteness, among other things.

I'm sorry, but that's not pearl clutching. 

[Sneezyone]

Uh, OP has started umpty million threads about CRT and can only cite a handful of anecdotes, which we all have, while conveniently running away from any form of problem solving other than bans. Material reality is that hundreds of thousands of kids are being denied access to real history because of anti-CRT anecdotes. There is no similar National legislative push to mandate privilege walks. 

[Pam in CT]

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

We are in agreement on the big principles, but this isn't about big principles. It's about teaching practices with the potential to radicalize white students into a greater identification with whiteness, among other things.

I'm sorry, but that's not pearl clutching. 

That horse long left the barn.

 

Ten months ago this country came within a hair's breadth of a coup overturning the peaceful transfer of power because because already-radiicalized vigilantes carrying this flag sought to overturn by force electoral results they did not like.

At this moment, our nation awaits the jury verdict for three white vigilantes who decided because reasons to effect a "citizens' arrest" of a black man they believed because reasons had committed a crime. So they chased him down and they shot him.  Structures then embedded in state law made such "citizens arrests" legal.

That is where we are, already.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

That horse long left the barn.

 

Ten months ago this country came within a hair's breadth of a coup overturning the peaceful transfer of power because because already-radiicalized vigilantes carrying this flag sought to overturn by force electoral results they did not like.

At this moment, our nation awaits the jury verdict for three white vigilantes who decided because reasons to effect a "citizens' arrest" of a black man they believed because reasons had committed a crime. So they chased him down and they shot him.  Structures then embedded in state law made such "citizens arrests" legal.

That is where we are, already.

So do you want to risk more of it? 

We, thankfully, aren't quite there, though it's being explicitly exported under the guise of vaccination concern. 

If the dial is at ten, do you really want to turn it up to 100? 

What's the end goal here? 

[Pam in CT]

re if white radicalization is already at a 10, what's the end goal?

8 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

So do you want to risk more of it? 

We, thankfully, aren't quite there, though it's being explicitly exported under the guise of vaccination concern. 

If the dial is at ten, do you really want to turn it up to 100? 

What's the end goal here? 

The end goal of whom? 

Tucker Carlson really, literally is openly hawking Replacement Theory.  There is no parallel person with parallel scale platform who *advocating* clumsy privilege walks in eighth grade classrooms, or promoting *actual* CRT as suitable for grade schoolers. 

And after 25+ pages over two threads, no one here on these boards has defended such dopey-ness either.

 

But your concern about the globalist export of white nationalist extremism is certainly founded; as is your observation that it comes fused to misinformation about vaccination.

 

[Melissa Louise]

15 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re if white radicalization is already at a 10, what's the end goal?

The end goal of whom? 

Tucker Carlson really, literally is openly hawking Replacement Theory.  There is no parallel person with parallel scale platform who *advocating* clumsy privilege walks in eighth grade classrooms, or promoting *actual* CRT as suitable for grade schoolers. 

And after 25+ pages over two threads, no one here on these boards has defended such dopey-ness either.

 

But your concern about the globalist export of white nationalist extremism is certainly founded; as is your observation that it comes fused to misinformation about vaccination.

 

The end goal of proponents of teaching bastardized CRT. 

If it ends up amplifying race essentialism, is that part of the end goal? To what purpose? 

Or is it that there's no imagining an amplification? 

[Pam in CT]

re end goals of whom?

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

The end goal of proponents of teaching bastardized CRT. 

If it ends up amplifying race essentialism, is that part of the end goal? To what purpose? 

Or is it that there's no imagining an amplification? 

I... don't know any such proponents.  I don't know the names of any such proponents, actually advocating CRT, bastardized or no, for grade schoolers.

25+ pages in, I haven't seen evidence of such "proponents" on this or the other thread either.  Just a handful of anecdotes of bad teaching and a whole.lot.of  Very Outraged backlash. Which has been Very Amplified by Rufo and Carlson and etc. and Very Weaponized in the gubernatorial races Virginia and NJ , and throughout local Board of Ed races across the nation.

Though strangely the brouhaha does seem to have largely died down since Election Day. 

Kinda like those caravans.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Pam in CT said:

re end goals of whom?

I... don't know any such proponents.  I don't know the names of any such proponents, actually advocating CRT, bastardized or no, for grade schoolers.

25+ pages in, I haven't seen evidence of such "proponents" on this or the other thread either.  Just a handful of anecdotes of bad teaching and a whole.lot.of  Very Outraged backlash. Which has been Very Amplified by Rufo and Carlson and etc. and Very Weaponized in the gubernatorial races Virginia and NJ , and throughout local Board of Ed races across the nation.

Though strangely the brouhaha does seem to have largely died down since Election Day. 

Kinda like those caravans.

Hmm. 

[Sneezyone]

I’m just gonna put this out there…

I, personally, have ZERO issues with addressing class-based inequality. I am all for helping people who have less than me regardless of color or ethnicity. What I do not support, and will never support, is class-based policies that do not take into account, for example, the fact that many first gen. college students, particularly those at HBCUs have disproportionately high loan burdens b/c their families lack capital. The reasons for that also relate to family financial resources and knowledge capital. They’re not separate issues.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Sneezyone