goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on June 23, 2021, 01:42:00 PM
-
https://twitter.com/dave_brown24/status/1407745748909838343
-
Gaetz is such a turd. I really hope he gets nailed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Why would being woke be offensive?
-
Why would being woke be offensive?
Maybe some people use "woke" as an insult and he doesn't want those people insulting his officers :dunno:
-
:frown:
https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1408224029270491139
-
I’d like to report a murder:
https://twitter.com/WUTangKids/status/1408056385150111746?s=20
-
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1408257847339716608
:sdeek:
-
May as well be tilting at windmills.
-
I know it probably (definitely?) isn't possible, but I would love to have a real discussion about CRT in this thread. I've been researching it for a while and there are aspects I still don't understand but I've learned a lot.
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality. I understand that discrimination based upon physical differences is socially constructed/learned, but how does that mean that race itself is socially constructed? One thing I read said that anthropologists can determine what race an individual was through skeletal remains with almost 100% accuracy. Doesn't that undercut race itself as a social construct? Differences in biology based on race doesn't mean one is superior to another although OBVIOUSLY that claim has been made in the past to justify discrimination. The genetic difference between fat people and skinny people is an extremely small fraction of the genetic whole and yet many times fat people are treated differently based on weight. So according to CRT would obesity be a social construct? I don't know.
There seem to be things I disagree with about CRT and things I agree with. I'm not offended by it and I don't think it will cause the downfall of humanity but I also don't think it should be taught as objective fact or a science.
As with everything else in this stupid idiotic and super dumb political world everything gets sensationalized into life and death sound bites for clicks. So if anyone wants to have a rational discussion/debate about CRT please come.
Some of you may be thinking, 'but _33 you always make fun of us for discussing political things on message boards and call us dumb idiots and talk about how none of it matters you dumb idiot'. WELL I'M TRYING TO LEARN STUFF ABOUT STUFF OK SO GET OFF MY BACK.
Please come.
-
I know it probably (definitely?) isn't possible, but I would love to have a real discussion about CRT in this thread. I've been researching it for a while and there are aspects I still don't understand but I've learned a lot.
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality. I understand that discrimination based upon physical differences is socially constructed/learned, but how does that mean that race itself is socially constructed? One thing I read said that anthropologists can determine what race an individual was through skeletal remains with almost 100% accuracy. Doesn't that undercut race itself as a social construct? Differences in biology based on race doesn't mean one is superior to another although OBVIOUSLY that claim has been made in the past to justify discrimination. The genetic difference between fat people and skinny people is an extremely small fraction of the genetic whole and yet many times fat people are treated differently based on weight. So according to CRT would obesity be a social construct? I don't know.
There seem to be things I disagree with about CRT and things I agree with. I'm not offended by it and I don't think it will cause the downfall of humanity but I also don't think it should be taught as objective fact or a science.
As with everything else in this stupid idiotic and super dumb political world everything gets sensationalized into life and death sound bites for clicks. So if anyone wants to have a rational discussion/debate about CRT please come.
Some of you may be thinking, 'but _33 you always make fun of us for discussing political things on message boards and call us dumb idiots and talk about how none of it matters you dumb idiot'. WELL I'M TRYING TO LEARN STUFF ABOUT STUFF OK SO GET OFF MY BACK.
Please come.
What resources have you been using? Books or on the web?
-
I know it probably (definitely?) isn't possible, but I would love to have a real discussion about CRT in this thread. I've been researching it for a while and there are aspects I still don't understand but I've learned a lot.
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality. I understand that discrimination based upon physical differences is socially constructed/learned, but how does that mean that race itself is socially constructed? One thing I read said that anthropologists can determine what race an individual was through skeletal remains with almost 100% accuracy. Doesn't that undercut race itself as a social construct? Differences in biology based on race doesn't mean one is superior to another although OBVIOUSLY that claim has been made in the past to justify discrimination. The genetic difference between fat people and skinny people is an extremely small fraction of the genetic whole and yet many times fat people are treated differently based on weight. So according to CRT would obesity be a social construct? I don't know.
There seem to be things I disagree with about CRT and things I agree with. I'm not offended by it and I don't think it will cause the downfall of humanity but I also don't think it should be taught as objective fact or a science.
As with everything else in this stupid idiotic and super dumb political world everything gets sensationalized into life and death sound bites for clicks. So if anyone wants to have a rational discussion/debate about CRT please come.
Some of you may be thinking, 'but _33 you always make fun of us for discussing political things on message boards and call us dumb idiots and talk about how none of it matters you dumb idiot'. WELL I'M TRYING TO LEARN STUFF ABOUT STUFF OK SO GET OFF MY BACK.
Please come.
What resources have you been using? Books or on the web?
web
-
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality.
Because race is just a pigment variation why do we exclusively group people based on only this biological difference? Wouldn't you find it silly that instead of grouping people by race we did so by height? Like height, pigment varies within people and isn't static even with individuals. Eye color is static, why don't we group people that way? Race allows people to hang on to monolithic thoughts about large groups of people. Could you imagine someone saying, what's it like growing up with brown eyes in rural Kansas? Sounds silly as eff, right?
-
May as well be tilting at windmills.
except a crap ton of trumpers believe this insane crap.
-
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality.
Because race is just a pigment variation why do we exclusively group people based on only this biological difference? Wouldn't you find it silly that instead of grouping people by race we did so by height? Like height, pigment varies within people and isn't static even with individuals. Eye color is static, why don't we group people that way? Race allows people to hang on to monolithic thoughts about large groups of people. Could you imagine someone saying, what's it like growing up with brown eyes in rural Kansas? Sounds silly as eff, right?
Well, like I said, I agree that grouping/discriminating against people based on race is socially constructed. But height and eye color are biological realities as well. Even if we did group blue eyed people together and make generalizations about them their blue eyes would still be a biological reality even if the socially constructed group and generalizations we assigned to them were socially constructed.
Is that what CRT is arguing? Like, they're not arguing that skin pigmentation is socially constructed, so does it simply mean that the generalizations based on race are socially constructed? They don't say that though, most of the literature I've read says that race itself is socially constructed. Maybe I'm making it too complicated.
-
I still can't get past one of the major tenets which is that race is socially constructed rather than a biological reality.
Because race is just a pigment variation why do we exclusively group people based on only this biological difference? Wouldn't you find it silly that instead of grouping people by race we did so by height? Like height, pigment varies within people and isn't static even with individuals. Eye color is static, why don't we group people that way? Race allows people to hang on to monolithic thoughts about large groups of people. Could you imagine someone saying, what's it like growing up with brown eyes in rural Kansas? Sounds silly as eff, right?
Well, like I said, I agree that grouping/discriminating against people based on race is socially constructed. But height and eye color are biological realities as well. Even if we did group blue eyed people together and make generalizations about them their blue eyes would still be a biological reality even if the socially constructed group and generalizations we assigned to them were socially constructed.
Is that what CRT is arguing? Like, they're not arguing that skin pigmentation is socially constructed, so does it simply mean that the generalizations based on race are socially constructed? They don't say that though, most of the literature I've read says that race itself is socially constructed. Maybe I'm making it too complicated.
drop some links of your literature
-
These are the last 2 things I read:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05
Also I searched "Critical Race Theory" on wikipedia lol
-
This is what white evangelicals are enraged about
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/Teaching-Tolerance-Magazine-66-Spring-2021.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think like most things, “critical race theory” means different things to different people. In most cases there is no attempt to define terms or actually understand anything anytime the term is brought up is just a proxy battle for grievances.
I think this discussion is off to a good start and a big part of that is a fundamental curiosity about defining terms and then proceeding.
Good job everyone.
-
I think like most things, “critical race theory” means different things to different people. In most cases there is no attempt to define terms or actually understand anything anytime the term is brought up is just a proxy battle for grievances.
I think this discussion is off to a good start and a big part of that is a fundamental curiosity about defining terms and then proceeding.
Good job everyone.
That may be but CRT does have “tenets” or claims about racism in America.
People just don’t accept it. Maga has taken the term to rally white evangelicals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think like most things, “critical race theory” means different things to different people. In most cases there is no attempt to define terms or actually understand anything anytime the term is brought up is just a proxy battle for grievances.
I think this discussion is off to a good start and a big part of that is a fundamental curiosity about defining terms and then proceeding.
Good job everyone.
That may be but CRT does have “tenets” or claims about racism in America.
People just don’t accept it. Maga has taken the term to rally white evangelicals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not super involved in this but I think saying CRT has “tenets” is the same as saying “feminism” has “tenets”. I think it is just a framework and there are people that that say all kinds of different things by claiming to use that theoretical frame.
-
One tenet: race is a social construct. Rejects the historical 5 races. There’s only human race.
Another. Racism is embedded in society and our systems legal/financial/education etc
Rejects that there are a few bad apples that are really racist and that’s it.
Non POC need to recognize that POC live a different experience in America.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cire, I know, I'm trying to understand it. So we are all one human race with genetically insignificant differences. (skin pigmentation, hair color, etc.) Our genetic differences aren't enough to classify as a different race. Is that the position. So really it's a problem with the definition of the word 'race'.
-
I think so.
Based on the genetics being the same
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Like should say people of European descent instead of Caucasian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
That's exactly what I was about to say. It doesn't really change anything. So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'? Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?
-
I think it’s just meant as a way to have discourse moving on.
I don’t think it’s meant anything more than a new way to have dialogue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
yeah that seems fairly significant when trying to understand how we got here.
-
I think it also goes to “I don’t see race” I”I don’t see color “
Because if that’s what you think, you are admitting that the differences exist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
Of course. I guess I was just confused by the verbiage. 'Race is not biological but instead a social construct' is confusing because there ARE biological differences even if they are insignificant to determine behavior or abilities. Like, that's been the argument against racism forever. The fact that you're discriminating against someone solely based on the color of their skin is wrong.
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
I think this is why a lot of this is confusing. Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.
So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"?
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
Of course. I guess I was just confused by the verbiage. 'Race is not biological but instead a social construct' is confusing because there ARE biological differences even if they are insignificant to determine behavior or abilities. Like, that's been the argument against racism forever. The fact that you're discriminating against someone solely based on the color of their skin is wrong.
You personally may think discrimination is wrong, but if you are someone who believes that human populations are significantly different enough from each other to require biological classification below the species level you can then justify laws and actions that are discriminatory as necessary and just reactions to the "real word". This is the basis behind so-called race realism.
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
I think this is why a lot of this is confusing. Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.
So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"?
No its more than that. It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.
This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
That's exactly what I was about to say. It doesn't really change anything. So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'? Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?
Yes, race and racism were created in the past in order to justify exploitation of POC.
Inequities today are a result of that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
I think this is why a lot of this is confusing. Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.
So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"?
No its more than that. It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.
This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.
Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.
If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined? Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"?
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
I think this is why a lot of this is confusing. Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.
So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"?
No its more than that. It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.
This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.
Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.
If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined? Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"?
Cats and birds are different
Black and white are not
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.
I think this is why a lot of this is confusing. Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.
So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"?
No its more than that. It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.
This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.
Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.
If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined? Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"?
Cats and birds are different
Black and white are not
Chingon referenced the possibility of actual identifiable biological differences between populations which is what I was asking about.
-
I’m not going to speak for chings but I think he’s saying that we don’t define race by eye color or hair color but we do with skin color which is why it’s made up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Biological concepts to read:
Phenotype vs genotype
Clinal variation
-
Biological concepts to read:
Phenotype vs genotype
Clinal variation
This is where I get lost. I'll take your word for it. :dunno:
-
OK, so I understand those things. Now what is the point of CRT establishing race as a social construct as a core tenet? Is it simply to say that there is no biological basis for discrimination?
-
Because it’s inherently racist to define people by skin color so stop rough ridin' doing it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Because it’s inherently racist to define people by skin color so stop rough ridin' doing it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Before we get the inevitable "yeah but" it's only racist to do so because of how white people have done so historically. Even colorism within black and Latin communities are rooted in the principle of passing.
-
I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists. If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black. If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.
-
I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists. If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black. If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.
That I can comprehend. TY, Chings.
-
I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line. Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?
That's exactly what I was about to say. It doesn't really change anything. So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'? Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?
Yes, race and racism were created in the past in order to justify exploitation of POC.
Inequities today are a result of that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with both statements, as I do with most statements made by proponents of CRT. I still don't understand wtf CRT is, though. As far as I can tell, it seems like a loose bundle of factual statements centered around recognizing the realities of how we got to the present moment in time as it relates to race. I still don't understand the theory part, despite everyone's help ITT.
-
Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean never fully/adequately/satisfactorily addressed? That checks out. I guess my point is, where do we go from here? Those of us honestly acknowledging and discussing reality are on board, but are we to change the hearts and minds of those who are conditioned otherwise? I can't even convince my parents to get vaccinated, and I don't really try because it would merely drive a wedge in our relationships.
-
CRT proponents would argue that we should be active social justice warriors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists. If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black. If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.
Makes more sense. Still slightly over my head but I'm tracking better now.
-
Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.
In the limited research I've done it's actually quite a bit more than just this, although systemic racism is certainly a part of it. Again, although I disagree with CRT in some areas I can find areas I agree with as well.
I think there is a lack of evidence for many of the claims, at least in the reading I have done. A lot of absolute statements with nothing to back it up except the writings of the founders of CRT.
-
Just agreeing that historical racism has led to current inequality is a step.
I know plenty of people who would absolutely disagree with that assertion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
leaving aside the social construct part, i feel qualified to offer some background on the biological basis of "race" in humans.
to start with, "race" is in current general use, but it is also an antiquated term that was commonly employed in biology up until maybe 50-70 years ago or so. it more or less overlaps with "subspecies" but was less precisely defined and used. nonetheless, the generally understood meaning was plain. a race was a sub-specific grouping of animals based on geography. at least in the latter time-periods that race was in use, and certainly ever since race went out of style as a biological term, it would also imply that the group was monophyletic, meaning that all members of the group shared a common ancestor at a more recent time than any of them shared an ancestor with any organism not a member of the group.
at the most basic level, the statement that human races do not have a biological basis in reality is stating that the common divisions of humanity called races do not describe monophyletic groups.
-
It’s pretty wild that, from where ksufans started, we have so many people on here that are smart AF.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
leaving aside the social construct part, i feel qualified to offer some background on the biological basis of "race" in humans.
to start with, "race" is in current general use, but it is also an antiquated term that was commonly employed in biology up until maybe 50-70 years ago or so. it more or less overlaps with "subspecies" but was less precisely defined and used. nonetheless, the generally understood meaning was plain. a race was a sub-specific grouping of animals based on geography. at least in the latter time-periods that race was in use, and certainly ever since race went out of style as a biological term, it would also imply that the group was monophyletic, meaning that all members of the group shared a common ancestor at a more recent time than any of them shared an ancestor with any organism not a member of the group.
at the most basic level, the statement that human races do not have a biological basis in reality is stating that the common divisions of humanity called races do not describe monophyletic groups.
Thanks sys, after I looked up 'monophyletic' your explanation helped my understanding quite a bit.
-
My only contribution is being kinda surprised that in my osteology class you could classify bones as having caucasoid, mongoloid, or negroid qualities. Basically those are the only “races” we ever talked about, with mongoloid including both Asian and Native/South American.
-
pretty interesting on the theme of human diversity.
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1408982546180972547
-
I thought it was well established that we are all part Neanderthal now? Wouldn’t that make his chart wrong?
-
I thought it was well established that we are all part Neanderthal now? Wouldn’t that make his chart wrong?
yes it is, except for some smallish populations in africa. no, the chart is somewhat simplified. it doesn't show every (or any, actually) hybrid introgression or lineage that reticulated back into another lineage.
-
https://twitter.com/glynnwashington/status/1408454477040930817
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
-
He’s speaking to the back lash against the idea.
CRT has core tenets
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
Why are you choosing to 1. politicize crt and 2. proceed to both sides it? There is absolutely and unquestionably one political party that has made this a political issue.
If you don't believe in critical race theory, just say you don't, no need to hide behind "politics."
-
https://twitter.com/glynnwashington/status/1408454477040930817
This is very true and everyone should read Redlined but one thing that Nikole Hannah-Jones and some others have done which I think is a real disservice to the left is being overly dismissive of the New Deal as racist. A lot of bullshit got thrown about this toward FDR recently (and by extension Bernie) and it is self-defeating.
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
-
Not that it’s going to hell with the masses, buy I think it would be a more productive convo to think of racism as tribalism. It keeps the basics and takes the scientific difference argument out.
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.
-
It’s not for understanding history it’s a call to action for today
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.
-
Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.
Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.
-
Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.
Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.
That’s fair
-
Just drop the label but teach the same crap. Problem solved.
Naw, we can't keep doing this when it comes to race. CRT goes back to the 70's, that term wasn't a problem until fear-mongering, race-baiting republican politicians bastardized the term. You all have to stop telling us how we need to talk about race to get you all to listen and engage. Can't use CRT, can't talk about slavery, can't say black lives matter. How can these conversations happen when we can't even get approval to use the most academically neutral terms.
If it makes you uncomfortable, that’s the problem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My issue with this thread and by extension the entire conversation is the academic tone of it all. It's a ridiculous and completely counterproductive way to talk about and deal with race and racism. As someone who has seen plenty of racism, I don't know how talking about anthropology is going to fix anything.
Treat racism where it is and how it is. Focusing on academic studies won't do anything to address how black people feel about Asians and the perception they are preferred by powerful white people and always have been. Or what to do about dark skinned, practicing Muslims being the "new ni***r."
When I was passed over for a job that I definitely deserved when I lived in Garden City, that didn't have anything to do with "cultural competency."
We know what racism is, we know why it happens, all of this other stuff are just ways to soft sell racism and make people more comfortable, because if they're more comfortable they're more likely to be introspective. To that I say bullshit. Racism is a sledge hammer, it's a pipe bomb in a day care. You don't handle that with a velvet hammer or with diplomacy, time for that has long passed, it's not working.
-
I honestly was just trying to figure out what CRT was because I had read some stuff about it and was confused. I didn't understand some parts of what I was reading about CRT and after reading I was also confused as to why it was so polarizing. I HATE how divided everyone is on a lot of issues but especially this one. And I HATE how easily scumbag politicians use this issue dishonestly to pander to their base. I've often in the past dismissed things pretty quickly that I THINK I disagree with but I'd like to try to do better on that.
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.
The word "theory" actually would indicate that there should be a very black and white explanation.
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.
The word "theory" actually would indicate that there should be a very black and white explanation.
the.o.ry
a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
: abstract thought : SPECULATION
-
We know what racism is, we know why it happens, all of this other stuff are just ways to soft sell racism and make people more comfortable, because if they're more comfortable they're more likely to be introspective. To that I say bullshit. Racism is a sledge hammer, it's a pipe bomb in a day care. You don't handle that with a velvet hammer or with diplomacy, time for that has long passed, it's not working.
I think there are a lot of bubble dwellers who don’t necessarily know what racism is. I mean, I know they have the general macro part down, but not the actual detail. There are a bunch of ppl in our country that haven’t had to acknowledge the detail because their bubble doesn’t require them to. Many of these ppl are being targeted by the Tucker Carlsons of the right and being made to think that being white inherently means your racist and that minorities want to enslave you and therefore they become emotional towards the topic.
I get what you are saying about taking the charge out of it, and I admit I can’t know how that feels, but imagine it feels unbelievably unfair and that it makes the discussion fall infinitely short of what it feels like it should be, but if we don’t take emotion out of it, aren’t we just going to all be yelling at each other? Don’t we need to diffuse that and discuss cold facts to get actual long standing progress? I ask as someone who wants that progress.
-
IMO they should call it something like “un-whitewashed history” or just “history”
When Pluto got kicked out of the solar system it’s not like they called it “dwarf planetary theory” or something. It was just “oops, guess we were looking at it wrong, update the textbooks plz”
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.
The word "theory" actually would indicate that there should be a very black and white explanation.
the.o.ry
a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
: abstract thought : SPECULATION
The fact that it's being taught in schools would lend itself to definition c, no?
-
Isn't CRT born from the minds of some of the biggest White Euro lunatics in world history?
-
Isn't CRT born from the minds of some of the biggest White Euro lunatics in world history?
If your starting to be concerned where theories originate from, we have a lot of talking to do about the last 5 or 6 years.
-
Isn't CRT born from the minds of some of the biggest White Euro lunatics in world history?
If your starting to be concerned where theories originate from, we have a lot of talking to do about the last 5 or 6 years.
Concerned?
Your post is a total nothing burger. Hey, hey, if you question us, you have to question every theory . . . ever. :lol: :lol:
As a sidenote: Nothing can top the New Stassi tactics of #blueanon CRT supporters have undertaken against people, specifically parents that dare question anything relative to their children's education and the implementation of CRT.
Erich Mielke, Herman Goring, Lavrentiy Beria, Heinrich Muller, Heinrich Himmler and company are in awe of these tactics.
Particularly Mielke whose Stasi used Zersetzung or 'erosion' to attack enemies of the state who couldn't be executed or disappeared without major international outcry.
-
What part of CRT do you disagree with dax?
-
What part of CRT do you disagree with dax?
Did I voice personal disagreement in this thread? If so, where?
As of right now the only thing I disagree is the legions of Karen-Helicopter Parents in your movement going all New Stasi on those who dare question anything.
I'm also :lol: :lol: at the fact that the core precepts of CRT evolved from a bunch of Germanic white academic Marxists.
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
-
The 1619 project is separate from CRT, correct?
-
Why not let teachers select the curriculum they are going to cover?
-
The 1619 project is separate from CRT, correct?
Yes
-
https://twitter.com/SeanCasten/status/1408795498530627584
That really long thread barely talks about CRT at all. I'm actually disappointed and starting to agree with Kat Kid that it just means different things to different people. There is no agreed upon definition. Just another partisan issue that politicians can use to pander to their base, whether pro-CRT or anti-CRT.
That wasn’t exactly my point. My point is that some people are purposefully misinterpreting, but I also don’t think there is a universally agreed upon set of “facts” or something because it is just a theoretical framework for looking at history.
Wanting a black and white explanation of something with the word theory sitting right in the title seems like an intentional elevation of expectations.
The word "theory" actually would indicate that there should be a very black and white explanation.
the.o.ry
a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
: abstract thought : SPECULATION
The fact that it's being taught in schools would lend itself to definition c, no?
It's not really being taught in schools tho. Nevertheless, we teach all kinds of theories in schools that are heavily disagreed upon concepts like big bang.
-
IMO they should call it something like “un-whitewashed history” or just “history”
When Pluto got kicked out of the solar system it’s not like they called it “dwarf planetary theory” or something. It was just “oops, guess we were looking at it wrong, update the textbooks plz”
So we're still going to do the thing where we're still telling black people what to call things?
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
I find it interesting (and telling) that you are hyperventilating about some imagined liberal force canceling opposition to CRT while there states are literally banning it from schools.
But you do you dax.
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
I find it interesting (and telling) that you are hyperventilating about some imagined liberal force canceling opposition to CRT while there states are literally banning it from schools.
But you do you dax.
I don't find it the least bit fascinating that as usual, you chose to not answer any questions. It's BAU
The force that you speak of is not imagined in the least, only a complete dimwit doesn't understand what's going in places like Lowndes County. That said, I expect nothing less from a proud member of the New Stasi aka ProgFascist.7. Circle the wagons, deflect and deny. :thumbsup:
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
There was a series of school board meeting here in Manhattan where a bunch of people read the Bible and yelled about Marxism, although mileage may vary that seems to be a bit more representative than what you are claiming.
-
IMO they should call it something like “un-whitewashed history” or just “history”
When Pluto got kicked out of the solar system it’s not like they called it “dwarf planetary theory” or something. It was just “oops, guess we were looking at it wrong, update the textbooks plz”
So we're still going to do the thing where we're still telling black people what to call things?
Are you talking about calling Pluto a planet? Or are you telling me CRT is a term promulgated by the black community?
-
crt (referred to as such) came up at tailboard today. mentioned in passing after a recounting of a paper published in some journal described as stating that white people are racist because they carry some unknown parasite that makes them racist).
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
There was a series of school board meeting here in Manhattan where a bunch of people read the Bible and yelled about Marxism, although mileage may vary that seems to be a bit more representative than what you are claiming.
That's fantastic KK, but I'm not talking about the bible or school board meetings per se. I'm leaning more towards the proclivity of ProgFascists to make lists. Lots of lists being made of anyone who isn't down with the CRT struggle.
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
There was a series of school board meeting here in Manhattan where a bunch of people read the Bible and yelled about Marxism, although mileage may vary that seems to be a bit more representative than what you are claiming.
That's fantastic KK, but I'm not talking about the bible or school board meetings per se. I'm leaning more towards the proclivity of ProgFascists to make lists. Lots of lists being made of anyone who isn't down with the CRT struggle.
It is now becoming an issue in every school board race which is probably not great for furthering any understanding of what it is for most people not posting on gE.
-
Dax what are your thoughts on states banning the teaching of CRT?
My thoughts are that we live in a constitutional Republic and states have powers.
StarSeed aka ProgFascist.7, please walk myself and the rest of us through why you support CRT in Public Education. Please be specific.
Also, please join me in strongly condemning the Stasi tactics of CRT supporter parents. Please affirm below your total condemnation of these types of things.
There was a series of school board meeting here in Manhattan where a bunch of people read the Bible and yelled about Marxism, although mileage may vary that seems to be a bit more representative than what you are claiming.
That's fantastic KK, but I'm not talking about the bible or school board meetings per se. I'm leaning more towards the proclivity of ProgFascists to make lists. Lots of lists being made of anyone who isn't down with the CRT struggle.
It is now becoming an issue in every school board race which is probably not great for furthering any understanding of what it is for most people not posting on gE.
The origins of critical race theory, founded in critical theory are a worthy and appropriate discussion.
Anyone who says otherwise is either blissfully unaware or purposely trying to avoid the discussion.
-
IMO they should call it something like “un-whitewashed history” or just “history”
When Pluto got kicked out of the solar system it’s not like they called it “dwarf planetary theory” or something. It was just “oops, guess we were looking at it wrong, update the textbooks plz”
So we're still going to do the thing where we're still telling black people what to call things?
Are you talking about calling Pluto a planet? Or are you telling me CRT is a term promulgated by the black community?
I'm completely disinterested in getting cute with you or anyone else with regard to this topic.
-
https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1410256191075274758?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools
Who says that?
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
They are, but now that is all being called critical race theory and a lot of school boards are banning it.
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
I think that in some districts they still teach that the Civil War was about states rights. When the Texas legislature is done this session, huge swathes of the country may have their textbooks reflecting some pretty wild notions about US history because Texas and California effectively control the textbook market for everyone else.
-
I'm old as eff and don't really remember the specifics of what was taught in school but I'm pretty sure we never really focused on the lasting impact of racism and Jim Crow even if we were taught that it happened.
I think that's a pretty important subject to hit on.
-
I'm old as eff and don't really remember the specifics of what was taught in school but I'm pretty sure we never really focused on the lasting impact of racism and Jim Crow even if we were taught that it happened.
I think that's a pretty important subject to hit on.
yeah, same
-
There’s lots and lots of textbooks that completely whitewash slavery, civil war etc.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/02/what-kids-are-really-learning-about-slavery/552098/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
being from ks I recall about 30% of history class being president/general eisenhower dick sucking
-
For HS History iirc we focused on early US history alot and really didn't cover anything after WWI in depth. Definitely included a lot of the shitty things done to native populations and to slaves and how ever so slowly our democracy became more inclusive. But I'm going off of my memory of 1 class in particular, basically more recent history was covered briefly at lower levels iirc or also in Civics class.
We didn't cover much of Europe at all outside of WWII. It's weird to me that your school covered WWI and not WWII.
-
Mid '90's NE KS. We covered slavery quite a bit. It was noted to be the reason for the Civil War. We discussed slavery conditions, slave boats, auction block sales, families sold away from each other, the Underground Railroad, etc. We discussed Jim Crow, but only to touch on separate but equal as an intro to MLK and the Civil Rights movement.
We discussed the history of it. We touched on the racism of it during Jim Crow and Civil Rights, but not during pre CW time. We also didn't really dive in to the racism part. It was treated as a given.
The examination of our systems as a structure that continues to disadvantage minorities never came up. Thinking of that topic, I kinda think of it as I do the WWI and WWII mentions ITT in that it sounds so rough ridin' big, you probably can't do much with it in a high school class unless it's the entire class. That said, it should be introduced, IMO, as part of the Civil Rights discussion. I mean, when I was young, I had no idea what statistical differences some of our systems hold for minorities vs white. Racism just felt like a person to person thing. Like, some kids are racist, and that's stupid. I don't think the avg kid is mentally applying that forward in to our government, systems, and social infrastructures. It would be a good thing to get your average highschooler some of that info at a minimum.
-
I don't think my school did a very good job of demonstrating just how recent the 1960s were to teenagers in 2000. I always had it in my mind that this stuff was awful, but in the distant past. Never put it together that a whole lot of people were still alive that actually went through it.
-
Isn't the rub vs CRT the assertion that the US and Western systems themselves were and are inherently designed and used to keep certain types of people down, and thusly must be significantly altered or replaced?
Couldn't this same theory be applied to basically any system of laws, government, or societal structuring throughout history?
-
That sounds like whaddabouting
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Mid '90's NE KS. We covered slavery quite a bit. It was noted to be the reason for the Civil War. We discussed slavery conditions, slave boats, auction block sales, families sold away from each other, the Underground Railroad, etc. We discussed Jim Crow, but only to touch on separate but equal as an intro to MLK and the Civil Rights movement.
We discussed the history of it. We touched on the racism of it during Jim Crow and Civil Rights, but not during pre CW time. We also didn't really dive in to the racism part. It was treated as a given.
The examination of our systems as a structure that continues to disadvantage minorities never came up. Thinking of that topic, I kinda think of it as I do the WWI and WWII mentions ITT in that it sounds so rough ridin' big, you probably can't do much with it in a high school class unless it's the entire class. That said, it should be introduced, IMO, as part of the Civil Rights discussion. I mean, when I was young, I had no idea what statistical differences some of our systems hold for minorities vs white. Racism just felt like a person to person thing. Like, some kids are racist, and that's stupid. I don't think the avg kid is mentally applying that forward in to our government, systems, and social infrastructures. It would be a good thing to get your average highschooler some of that info at a minimum.
Similar. I remember we definitely covered the supreme court cases.
-
Isn't the rub vs CRT the assertion that the US and Western systems themselves were and are inherently designed and used to keep certain types of people down, and thusly must be significantly altered or replaced?
Couldn't this same theory be applied to basically any system of laws, government, or societal structuring throughout history?
Sure. And also sure enough, every system of laws, government, or societal structuring throughout history was eventually replaced by something better.
-
That’s why I don’t think it needs to be presented as a novel thing. Anyone who spends like a little bit of time actually thinking about it should be able to tell that the same system oppressing minorities during the civil rights movement had significant influence over a lot of the history books about the civil rights movement.
My history class practically ended at the civil rights movement as if everything after was like “the present age.”
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools
Who says that?
Republicans
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
Yeah, most of the slavery I was taught about in school was the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, civil war, Lincoln, etc. Some focus on the cotton fields and plantations, but mostly about escaping or singing and things that minimized the horror.
-
ksu cat history prof Chuck Sanders didn’t leave much out iirc
-
Most slavery education is taught to make white people the saviors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Question I had… probably Google-able, but may spark conversation. Did average Jeb white guy own slaves in say, 1820, or was it just rich landowners? Like did 5% of white guys own slaves? 30%? 90%?
I honestly have no idea the answer to this, which speaks to my education on slavery at a top flight Kansas public school.
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Joe confederate did not own a slave but would absolutely fight and die for Jeb confederate right to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The economic value of slaves in antebellum America was unthinkable today.
There’s nothing that compares today
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This is really worth a watch. First 15 minutes
https://www.pbs.org/video/underground-railroad-william-still-story-underground-railroad-william-still-story/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keep in mind they’re like mostly related, so if you calculated it based on family ownership it’s not surprising at all.
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because you don't want to think the embarrassing tentacles of slavery reached that deep into the country?
30% doesn't seem high to me at all, there were a much higher percentage of citizens who were land owners and there wasn't as wide of a variance of wealth distribution.
-
Supposedly, at the time of the Civil War, there was something like 6 million ppl in the south that were free and something like 4million slaves.
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because you don't want to think the embarrassing tentacles of slavery reached that deep into the country?
30% doesn't seem high to me at all, there were a much higher percentage of citizens who were land owners and there wasn't as wide of a variance of wealth distribution.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210702/c22add9f07587fb41f9ce633e82e9a28.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
Yeah, most of the slavery I was taught about in school was the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, civil war, Lincoln, etc. Some focus on the cotton fields and plantations, but mostly about escaping or singing and things that minimized the horror.
What's sad is there is a lot of history in Kansas that could be discussed in schools. At K-State I heard a speaker talk about how one route ran through Topeka and it was very interesting. I learned from my parents about a house in a nearby town that was a stop. I don't know how that could have been overlooked in the schools from where I was growing up. It's likely the teachers I had didn't know about it given how little it's discussed.
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
Yeah, most of the slavery I was taught about in school was the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, civil war, Lincoln, etc. Some focus on the cotton fields and plantations, but mostly about escaping or singing and things that minimized the horror.
What's sad is there is a lot of history in Kansas that could be discussed in schools. At K-State I heard a speaker talk about how one route ran through Topeka and it was very interesting. I learned from my parents about a house in a nearby town that was a stop. I don't know how that could have been overlooked in the schools from where I was growing up. It's likely the teachers I had didn't know about it given how little it's discussed.
They definitely spoke a lot about Kansas in my experience
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
Yeah, most of the slavery I was taught about in school was the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, civil war, Lincoln, etc. Some focus on the cotton fields and plantations, but mostly about escaping or singing and things that minimized the horror.
What's sad is there is a lot of history in Kansas that could be discussed in schools. At K-State I heard a speaker talk about how one route ran through Topeka and it was very interesting. I learned from my parents about a house in a nearby town that was a stop. I don't know how that could have been overlooked in the schools from where I was growing up. It's likely the teachers I had didn't know about it given how little it's discussed.
I think my point is that focusing curriculum on the Underground Railroad portion of slavery is a great way way to focus on sympathetic whites and free blacks rather than the horrific reality. I mean, it’s cool there was a stop in Kansas, but…
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
Yeah, most of the slavery I was taught about in school was the Underground Railroad and Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, civil war, Lincoln, etc. Some focus on the cotton fields and plantations, but mostly about escaping or singing and things that minimized the horror.
What's sad is there is a lot of history in Kansas that could be discussed in schools. At K-State I heard a speaker talk about how one route ran through Topeka and it was very interesting. I learned from my parents about a house in a nearby town that was a stop. I don't know how that could have been overlooked in the schools from where I was growing up. It's likely the teachers I had didn't know about it given how little it's discussed.
I think my point is that focusing curriculum on the Underground Railroad portion of slavery is a great way way to focus on sympathetic whites and free blacks rather than the horrific reality. I mean, it’s cool there was a stop in Kansas, but…
I guess I was upset that our focus was strictly on the war aspect. There was a mention of slaves, Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas, but they were glossed over for the most part. I wish more time had been devoted to other things than just the war. Having some of that history right in your backyard seems like a way to make the connection for students.
-
Supposedly, at the time of the Civil War, there was something like 6 million ppl in the south that were free and something like 4million slaves.
South Carolina slave population was 1.5x white population in 1860. Primarily driven by the rice trade. Learned that on tour of Ft Sumter and Charleston.
Tom
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
I feel like I had a pretty fair grasp on what it was - at least by high school. I can see 8man’s point about kids only being taught certain elements (I.e. the heroic stories of the resistance and ultimate end) of it though.
To the extent anyone is saying DO NOT TEACH ABOUT THE HORRORS OF [slavery/Reconstruction/Jim Crow] I think we can all agree that that is absurd.
That’s part of where my confusion lies, because a lot of what is being discussed as CRT ITT is stuff I was taught 15 years ago in high school, and the curriculum didn’t seem like it was controversial.
-
CRT is being made into a boogeyman that the right is using to cancel the things they don’t want kids to learn about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
CRT is being made into a boogeyman that the right is using to cancel the things they don’t want kids to learn about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
duh. It is the caravan
-
CRT is being made into a boogeyman that the right is using to cancel the things they don’t want kids to learn about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct, and it's been well-documented, including in this very thread. It's out in the open. Raise the specter of something most white conservatives have never heard of, and then pack all manner of race-based discussions into the bag and set it on fire.
-
CRT is being made into a boogeyman that the right is using to cancel the things they don’t want kids to learn about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct, and it's been well-documented, including in this very thread. It's out in the open. Raise the specter of something most white conservatives have never heard of, and then pack all manner of race-based discussions into the bag and set it on fire.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371541044592996352
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because you don't want to think the embarrassing tentacles of slavery reached that deep into the country?
30% doesn't seem high to me at all, there were a much higher percentage of citizens who were land owners and there wasn't as wide of a variance of wealth distribution.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210702/c22add9f07587fb41f9ce633e82e9a28.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is unreadable, homie.
-
When people say you can’t teach about slavery in schools - is that a thing? I went to catholic schools growing up, so i imagine our courses weren’t exactly aligned with the prevailing state curriculum in some respects, but we definitely learned about slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, civil rights movement, etc.
Are public schools not touching those topics?
You were not taught about slavery, you were made aware of its existence.
I feel like I had a pretty fair grasp on what it was - at least by high school. I can see 8man’s point about kids only being taught certain elements (I.e. the heroic stories of the resistance and ultimate end) of it though.
To the extent anyone is saying DO NOT TEACH ABOUT THE HORRORS OF [slavery/Reconstruction/Jim Crow] I think we can all agree that that is absurd.
That’s part of where my confusion lies, because a lot of what is being discussed as CRT ITT is stuff I was taught 15 years ago in high school, and the curriculum didn’t seem like it was controversial.
Part of that is due to how superficial the complaints are, they aren't specific and lack focus. The 1619 Project and CRT have been targeted by conservatives for the sake of culture wars and creating bogeymen to make people scared and uncomfortable, a fundraising ploy as old as time. These arguments aren't anything different than "don't blame us for slavery," something I've heard as long as I can remember. I think for common folks, it's uncomfortable to talk about slavery, and most white people don't have to deal with black people on a day to day basis, so why talk about slavery.
For us, the point of 1619 and to an extent CRT, how we've been taught about slavery is woefully inadequate. Most slavery education ends with the emancipation proclamation and that's very inadequate. The fact that most of you people are just now leaning of Juneteenth is evidence of this. I was largely educated in Kansas but I was born in and my entire extended family are from Oklahoma. I learned about Juneteenth at the Ralph Ellison Library when I was 8 years old in 1984.
-
The fact that most of you people are just now leaning of Juneteenth is evidence of this.
this isn't accurate is it? like i don't recall when i first heard about juneteenth, but i'm reasonably confident that i accurately recall juneteenth celebrations in long's park in like the 90s or so. so probably at least 25-30 years ago.
-
The fact that most of you people are just now leaning of Juneteenth is evidence of this.
this isn't accurate is it? like i don't recall when i first heard about juneteenth, but i'm reasonably confident that i accurately recall juneteenth celebrations in long's park in like the 90s or so. so probably at least 25-30 years ago.
I had learned of it before, but not until I came across the Juneteenth Celebration in Manhattan City Park when I was in graduate school.
-
we can pin down the date from whenever it moved from long's park to city park as the year it went big time.
-
I admit to just learning about Juneteenth recently
-
Topeka's was in holiday park and I was aware of it, but it's only the last few years that I learned what it represented.
-
I've been aware of Junteenth for 30 years or so, but never really paid any attention to it or understood exactly the history of it until just recently.
(x-post to shame yourself thread maybe?)
-
Google says 30%+ of the confederacy which is shockingly high to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems high
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because you don't want to think the embarrassing tentacles of slavery reached that deep into the country?
30% doesn't seem high to me at all, there were a much higher percentage of citizens who were land owners and there wasn't as wide of a variance of wealth distribution.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210702/c22add9f07587fb41f9ce633e82e9a28.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is unreadable, homie.
https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The fact that most of you people are just now leaning of Juneteenth is evidence of this.
this isn't accurate is it? like i don't recall when i first heard about juneteenth, but i'm reasonably confident that i accurately recall juneteenth celebrations in long's park in like the 90s or so. so probably at least 25-30 years ago.
I was speaking in general sys, not to individuals. Even so the point was when you learned about slavery in school I'm 100% certain that it was presented as if slavery ended with the emancipation proclamation. I don't recall any discussion with regard to black people and slavery when we talked about reconstruction, do you? Gilded Age, Industrial Revolution? Any of that, more?
-
We watched the start of "Roots" in school and that stuck with me more than any lesson about slavery.
The aforementioned Charles Sanders really helped me learn about Reconstruction and I was well into my thirties before I really heard of redlining (reading "Family Properties" recommended by Kat Kid I think)
-
I learned about the Tulsa Massacre by watching The Watchmen. Seems like it would have been an important thing they would have taught us in school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I learned about the Tulsa Massacre by watching The Watchmen. Seems like it would have been an important thing they would have taught us in school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Same
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
when you learned about slavery in school I'm 100% certain that it was presented as if slavery ended with the emancipation proclamation. I don't recall any discussion with regard to black people and slavery when we talked about reconstruction, do you? Gilded Age, Industrial Revolution? Any of that, more?
i was raised in mhk, so i got a very pro-union, redemption of america thanks to john brown and kansas type spin on the civil war. but you're right, it was all very chapterized. as i recall it, black people showed around 1840, evidencing an unfortunate problem that was soon solved and by 1870 or so we were back to railroads, political cartoons and minor wars. black people maybe made a cameo here or there in unfortunate excesses or historic firsts until 1950 or so when the supreme court, mlk and the kennedys finally solved racism.
-
I learned about the Tulsa Massacre by watching The Watchmen. Seems like it would have been an important thing they would have taught us in school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I lived in the Tulsa metro for 10 years and frequently walked the streets where it happened before I knew about the race riots/massacre. There was a “this is where the black businesses were” plaque and a mural or two, but it always seemed like standard historical stuff like every city has with “this used to be that” & the word riot was never used. 4 or 5 years ago was when the race riot verbiage really started getting used here when they started looking for mass graves again. They just stated calling it a massacre within the past year.
-
when you learned about slavery in school I'm 100% certain that it was presented as if slavery ended with the emancipation proclamation. I don't recall any discussion with regard to black people and slavery when we talked about reconstruction, do you? Gilded Age, Industrial Revolution? Any of that, more?
i was raised in mhk, so i got a very pro-union, redemption of america thanks to john brown and kansas type spin on the civil war. but you're right, it was all very chapterized. as i recall it, black people showed around 1840, evidencing an unfortunate problem that was soon solved and by 1870 or so we were back to railroads, political cartoons and minor wars. black people maybe made a cameo here or there in unfortunate excesses or historic firsts until 1950 or so when the supreme court, mlk and the kennedys finally solved racism.
Yeah that all sounds about right. I've always assumed we're around the same age. History in the state of Kansas for elementary and middle schoolers was/is? standard based primarily around the Kansas History curriculum. Traveling around the county I was always really proud that Kansas History was as prominent in the curriculum that it was. That isn't a thing in the 5 other states I've lived in.
-
The “parents in favor of in person learning” for Olathe are VERY upset that the superintendent is attending this.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210707/314a719280fec6cb7c5f35c0e505f97c.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How is "equitable curriculum" defined and who defines it?
-
lmao dax
-
Seems like a pretty simple question SD.
So :lol: at you
-
Seems like a pretty simple question SD.
So :lol: at you
Finding that crap out is literally the point of the forum dax
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Seems like a pretty simple question SD.
So :lol: at you
Finding that crap out is literally the point of the forum dax
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL, oh SD I’ve attended copious amounts of conferences with educators and somebody’s will walk in there with it already defined. They’ll round table the eff out of it and convince themselves they’ve helped define what has already been defined for them.
-
They need to get a geography/English teacher in there.
-
I bet antifa is involved
-
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1412566208763895810
-
The tapouts are accelerating aka Everyday with the ProgFascists/Fake Centrists of gE
Deflectometer: 2000%
-
A lot of the CRT hubbub seems to be about books that are taught in some children's curricula. I looked up one of them, which was apparently taught to kindergarteners in Illinois. "Not My Idea - A Book About Whiteness." Some of the stuff in there seems pretty intense to be taught to 6 year olds. Below is an interesting interview between an Atlantic writer, who challenges and critiques the author's POV a bit, and the author:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/anastasia-higginbotham-not-my-idea-children-police-killings/619087/
-
A lot of the CRT hubbub seems to be about books that are taught in some children's curricula. I looked up one of them, which was apparently taught to kindergarteners in Illinois. "Not My Idea - A Book About Whiteness." Some of the stuff in there seems pretty intense to be taught to 6 year olds. Below is an interesting interview between an Atlantic writer, who challenges and critiques the author's POV a bit, and the author:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/anastasia-higginbotham-not-my-idea-children-police-killings/619087/
How many Illinois kindergartners were read that book?
-
A lot of the CRT hubbub seems to be about books that are taught in some children's curricula. I looked up one of them, which was apparently taught to kindergarteners in Illinois. "Not My Idea - A Book About Whiteness." Some of the stuff in there seems pretty intense to be taught to 6 year olds. Below is an interesting interview between an Atlantic writer, who challenges and critiques the author's POV a bit, and the author:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/anastasia-higginbotham-not-my-idea-children-police-killings/619087/
How many Illinois kindergartners were read that book?
I don't know. Apparently it was used in the Evanston/Skokie school district, at least per a lawsuit filed by a teacher. But that book (and books like it) seems like the boogeyman anti-CRT people are losing their crap over.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/5fqytm.jpg)
-
Lololololol
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/5fqytm.jpg)
My gawd you’ve turned into a massive dork
-
when you learned about slavery in school I'm 100% certain that it was presented as if slavery ended with the emancipation proclamation. I don't recall any discussion with regard to black people and slavery when we talked about reconstruction, do you? Gilded Age, Industrial Revolution? Any of that, more?
i was raised in mhk, so i got a very pro-union, redemption of america thanks to john brown and kansas type spin on the civil war. but you're right, it was all very chapterized. as i recall it, black people showed around 1840, evidencing an unfortunate problem that was soon solved and by 1870 or so we were back to railroads, political cartoons and minor wars. black people maybe made a cameo here or there in unfortunate excesses or historic firsts until 1950 or so when the supreme court, mlk and the kennedys finally solved racism.
I taught high school US History for 11 years and I tried my best to present history in a way where my students could see that it did not occur in a vacuum. That it's not just a series of unrelated events or separate chapters in a book. The real problem is that to cover everything the Standards require there is only really time for a birds eye view going from each major historical event to the next. So what I TRIED to do was to show how those seemingly unrelated chapters were actually very much tied together. For example when discussing the ratification of the constitution spending a lot of time on the Compromises to show how that set the stage for the Civil War and pitted north and south against each other even from the beginning of our country. Or the failure of reconstruction leading to the Great Migration which eventually led to the Civil Rights Movement. Plus I gave essay tests to make sure they understood the nuances of the subject instead of dates/names/etc. even though they SUCKED to grade. Basically what I'm saying is that I was a great teacher.
-
Kansas state standards don’t have any content written in.
They are incredibly vague
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For social studies
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There is some suggested content but you're right they are very vague. My districts always had district wide curriculum tied to the standards that we had to follow. And my last 4 years of teaching was in Missouri. You should see Missouri's standards, I still don't understand what they were.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210708/1b489be9bd06909009aec840d1a75d0b.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Teaching both would be correct.
Framing as to what extent was brown v board successful?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think I agree.
It’s getting hard to remember that long ago, but I distinctly remember learning in my history class that the Emancipation Proclamation freed practically no slaves and that schools didn’t become desegregated until a long time after Brown v. BOE (pretty sure everyone learned about the national guard being called into Alabama). I think most classes were already given that context.
I take the comic to suggest a more nuanced approach, which is rather than view history through the sensational milestones (which we already agree aren’t the true pivotal moments), we should examine how the intent of such laws has actually played out over time. The problem is figuring out just how to do that without overgeneralizing given it’s a HS (or grade school?) class.
-
The left panel is riffed from Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With" depiction of Ruby Bridges in New Orleans in 1960.
https://aarongalleries.com/product/the-problem-we-all-live-with-ruby-bridges/
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/ruby-bridges
-
Heard a stat on the news today:
Black wealth during the Civil War accounted for 0.5% of the nation’s wealth
Now, black wealth accounts for 1.5% of the nation’s wealth.
From what I have been reading a large component of CRT is our systems intentionally or unintentionally working against minorities over time. I mean, the black communities’ wealth has only increased 1% of National wealth over 160 years and from slavery to no slavery. That’s rough ridin' insane. If that isn’t a perfect stat to represent the failure of our systems, I can’t think of one.
-
Heard a stat on the news today:
Black wealth during the Civil War accounted for 0.5% of the nation’s wealth
Now, black wealth accounts for 1.5% of the nation’s wealth.
From what I have been reading a large component of CRT is our systems intentionally or unintentionally working against minorities over time. I mean, the black communities’ wealth has only increased 1% of National wealth over 160 years and from slavery to no slavery. That’s rough ridin' insane. If that isn’t a perfect stat to represent the failure of our systems, I can’t think of one.
Do you have the other stats so I can put this in context? Seems incomplete. For example, an enterprising lede writer could say, "Black wealth has TRIPLED relative to the rest of the population ...." I'm not familiar with this particular metric.
-
Unfortunately I don’t. I will go back and see where they got that and what else there is.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210708/1b489be9bd06909009aec840d1a75d0b.jpg)
I wouldn't consider that 'teaching CRT'. That's just teaching history. I don't know of any high school history teachers who would teach that Brown V. Board happened and then magically schools immediately integrated successfully.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210708/1b489be9bd06909009aec840d1a75d0b.jpg)
I wouldn't consider that 'teaching CRT'. That's just teaching history. I don't know of any high school history teachers who would teach that Brown V. Board happened and then magically schools immediately integrated successfully.
This is what I was getting at in trying to communicate my confusion about CRT. It seems, to me, like just teaching actual history from an honest viewpoint. I don't understand the controversy. The "Whiteness" and "Anti-racism" stuff and the like are obviously just arbitrage/subterfuge.
-
rough ridin' awful
https://twitter.com/GovRicketts/status/1413253892494725120
-
First, those prefatory clauses are lol, such as "Whereas America is the best country in the world ... " and " ... important American ideals."
Second, the NU BoR might be "opposed" to CRT, but thanks to the First Amendment, there is something called Academic Freedom in (public) post-secondary education. Thus, this can be nothing more than a highly postured furrowed brow to professors. Teach away.
-
The obvious solution to stuff like that is to convince the Republican delegates to define CRT in the same boogey man terms people like Tucker Carlson use. Then all you get is a ban on teaching kids that the whites should be systematically exterminated.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210708/1b489be9bd06909009aec840d1a75d0b.jpg)
I wouldn't consider that 'teaching CRT'. That's just teaching history. I don't know of any high school history teachers who would teach that Brown V. Board happened and then magically schools immediately integrated successfully.
This is what I was getting at in trying to communicate my confusion about CRT. It seems, to me, like just teaching actual history from an honest viewpoint. I don't understand the controversy. The "Whiteness" and "Anti-racism" stuff and the like are obviously just arbitrage/subterfuge.
Detractors say that this teaching makes kids hate America and hate themselves for being white.
Anti racism is a real movement though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210708/1b489be9bd06909009aec840d1a75d0b.jpg)
I wouldn't consider that 'teaching CRT'. That's just teaching history. I don't know of any high school history teachers who would teach that Brown V. Board happened and then magically schools immediately integrated successfully.
This is what I was getting at in trying to communicate my confusion about CRT. It seems, to me, like just teaching actual history from an honest viewpoint. I don't understand the controversy. The "Whiteness" and "Anti-racism" stuff and the like are obviously just arbitrage/subterfuge.
Detractors say that this teaching makes kids hate America and hate themselves for being white.
Anti racism is a real movement though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am familiar with the stupid strawman arguments, including the grouping together of anti-racism with CRT in order to discredit both. Folks, do not let your hearts be troubled.
-
What kind of watered down bullshit have they been teaching you too cool for schoolers?
We got the full Monty on slavery, Jim Crowe and the like.
-
As a current event?
-
As a current event?
Let's first recognize that your movement now states that anyone who disagrees with your ideology is a racist, and then we can work our way from there.
-
Kind of weird to respond to a joke about being old with "oh yeah? Well I'm racist too!" but also hilariously on brand
-
Kind of weird to respond to a joke about being old with "oh yeah? Well I'm racist too!" but also hilariously on brand
You responding stupidly to everything is also very on brand.
Join me in recognizing and fully acknowledging that your movement classifies anything less than 100% agreement with your dogma as racist. Respond below with your agreement to this fact.
-
What kind of watered down bullshit have they been teaching you too cool for schoolers?
We got the full Monty on slavery, Jim Crowe and the like.
Yeah, it is taught so well that the proponents of the teaching confuse a black minstrel performer with an Australian actor who played Gladiator.
-
What kind of watered down bullshit have they been teaching you too cool for schoolers?
We got the full Monty on slavery, Jim Crowe and the like.
Yeah, it is taught so well that the proponents of the teaching confuse a black minstrel performer with an Australian actor who played Gladiator.
I suppose when you have nothing, work with the Type-O
-
What kind of watered down bullshit have they been teaching you too cool for schoolers?
We got the full Monty on slavery, Jim Crowe and the like.
Yeah, it is taught so well that the proponents of the teaching confuse a black minstrel performer with an Australian actor who played Gladiator.
I suppose when you have nothing, work with the Type-O
Pretty hilarious typo (no need for capitalization or the hyphen, too is an actual word) when you're claiming about how good your education on the subject is. Also typos and misspellings aren't the same thing. You generally don't add letter(s) at the end of a word when making a typo. :dunno:
-
If you’re concerned that people will call your beliefs racist. You might be a racist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What kind of watered down bullshit have they been teaching you too cool for schoolers?
We got the full Monty on slavery, Jim Crowe and the like.
Yeah, it is taught so well that the proponents of the teaching confuse a black minstrel performer with an Australian actor who played Gladiator.
I suppose when you have nothing, work with the Type-O
Pretty hilarious typo (no need for capitalization or the hyphen, too is an actual word) when you're claiming about how good your education on the subject is. Also typos and misspellings aren't the same thing. You generally don't add letter(s) at the end of a word when making a typo. :dunno:
If adding an additional letter to a last name by mistake is the platform that you need to stand on in order to feel better about yourself or somehow convince yourself that you've 'won' then by all means bask in the glory.
-
If you’re concerned that people will call your beliefs racist. You might be a racist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you're deploying mechanisms that the Nazi's and the Stalinist's used to squelch dissent then you just might be a Nazi/Stalinist/Fascist and at the core of these methods as they're being deployed now . . . a racist.
-
AH the old I’m not racist YOU’RE the racist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
AH the old I’m not racist YOU’RE the racist
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's unfortunate that you don't understand these things. The Stasi eventually perfected it: Zersetzung
A particular figure in history rallied his country around the concept that they were the victims. How appropriate relative to your dogma today.
-
Dax, we all know your stance on this stuff before you talk. No need to show your ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
He's faced
-
Dax, we all know your stance on this stuff before you talking. No need to show your ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know your stance SD, no need to continually have a meltdown whenever someone/something rejects your idiotic politically motivated dogma disguised as social justice.
Oh, and once again CRT is derivative of CT. CT was birthed in the Frankfurt School by avowed Marxists.
-
Dax, we all know your stance on this stuff before you talking. No need to show your ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know your stance SD, no need to continually have a meltdown whenever someone/something rejects your idiotic politically motivated dogma disguised as social justice.
Oh, and once again CRT is derivative of CT. CT was birthed in the Frankfurt School by avowed Marxists.
We don’t want your Yankees bringing your learnin down here. Our blacks are happy! Listen to them sing!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dax, we all know your stance on this stuff before you talking. No need to show your ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We all know your stance SD, no need to continually have a meltdown whenever someone/something rejects your idiotic politically motivated dogma disguised as social justice.
Oh, and once again CRT is derivative of CT. CT was birthed in the Frankfurt School by avowed Marxists.
We don’t want your Yankees bringing your learnin down here. Our blacks are happy! Listen to them sing!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a ProgRacist mind come very ProgRacist thoughts aka BAU for cire
aka Tales from the CrackerBelt
-
more on human diversity (free article).
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1414099029500256259
-
rough ridin' awful
https://twitter.com/GovRicketts/status/1413253892494725120
I wonder how long until the professors walk out or revolt.
-
Whenever I hear that Maoists are taking over the schools I get a little excited then it’s just like an MLK day slide deck.
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1440680086018019346
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1440680086018019346
https://twitter.com/DropMikeWilson/status/1427815790984630274
-
A particular figure in history rallied his country around the concept that they were the victims. How appropriate relative to your dogma today.
…Trump? :dunno:
-
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1487138285705117704?s=20&t=JhwaCMUnsWoXxtix8xkUvA
-
Removing a book from a required reading list isn't really in the same ballpark as banning a book, though.
-
Yeah 9th grade me would be partying my ass off every time a classic book got removed from the reading list.
-
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1487138285705117704?s=20&t=JhwaCMUnsWoXxtix8xkUvA
Jesus Christ.
-
I really don't understand why a school board would have any say at all as to what goes on a required reading list.
-
Sounds like you don’t know much about school boards.
-
Guys, white fragility was just made up by a bunch of cultural marxists
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1488196118022213635?s=20&t=3OpFEcBLZUUeZC1KiZTFaw
-
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
-
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
:confused:
-
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
:confused:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/travel/opinion/2019/07/09/books-teach-to-kill-a-mockingbird-racism
-
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
:confused:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/travel/opinion/2019/07/09/books-teach-to-kill-a-mockingbird-racism
Either you were being sarcastic or you need to read that article again.
-
It's a real thing.
google white savior in literature/film
-
“When I read this book in high school, I was guided to think that Atticus is the savior,” noted another teacher the next day. Someone else offered that this was perhaps a result of “our misreading of the text itself, and our need to lionize” our heroes. “Our” in this case refers mainly to White readers, like me. And I completely understood where those teachers were coming from. When author Malcom Gladwell published a critique of Atticus’ limited liberalism in The New Yorker in 2009, I sent him a self-righteous rebuttal, 2,500 words long and with no fewer than 19 pieces of textual evidence. Gladwell, to his credit, did not respond. “You want to believe in the Gregory Peck version of him,” a facilitator explained at one point during our workshop, but as you’re reading you will realize “he’s a man of his time.” Specifically, a White man of his time and far from revolutionary. In Chapter 15 of Mockingbird, Atticus assures his son that the local Ku Klux Klan was “a political organization more than anything,” one that “couldn’t find anybody to scare” and would “never come back.” In Chapter 27, when asked whether he’s a radical, Atticus replies, “I’m about as radical as Cotton Tom Heflin.” I looked it up: Heflin was an Alabama politician and White supremacist. But “I don’t want to hate Atticus,” said yet another teacher. Someone suggested that Atticus can be both admirable in certain ways and reprehensible in others. “It makes people we admire more accessible when we recognize their humanity.”
I don't know a lot about it but blue valley took it out of the required text list a year or so ago and the MAGA's were livid. a friend that is a librarian said that woke libs don't like the portrayal of Atticus Finch as a sort of hero because he's really a racist
I'm not saying I agree, but it's a real thing that exists with that book
-
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
:confused:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/travel/opinion/2019/07/09/books-teach-to-kill-a-mockingbird-racism
I was thinking of Catcher in the Rye. :lol: Shame Yourself crosspost.
-
Maybe people have more of a problem with the film portrayal irl but there's enough with the book that people have stopped wanting to use it.
-
It's a real thing.
google white savior in literature/film
lol, I'm perfectly aware what white savior complex is, believe me. The exception I'm taking is I don't think the author of that column is saying TKAM is an example of white savior complex, it's set in 1930s Alabama, there wasn't an abundance of black public defenders. I believe she's saying how the book is taught and presented in 2022 feeds into a white savior complex .
The Woke's don't like To Kill a Mocking Bird because it's about white people being saviors or something.
This is not the point of the column you posted. I think she's saying that if you're going to use that book to teach you need to dig deeper than Harper Lee did, she wrote that book 60 years ago, times have changed and what we teach needs to change to reflect the times.
-
I just posted the column because it’s a discussion of the issue that folks have with the book. Some hadn’t heard of that issue. It was news to me when I heard that blue valley took it off required reading lists.
The book was taught to me pretty much exactly what the article says to avoid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I just posted the column because it’s a discussion of the issue that folks have with the book. Some hadn’t heard of that issue. It was news to me when I heard that blue valley took it off required reading lists.
The book was taught to me pretty much exactly what the article says to avoid
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, the book is great, but we're in different times now. The real relevance of this discussion now is that for a lot of the book banning crowd a book like TKAM is a great book because it's comfortable. Three books that are in the crosshairs now reflect a new reality and it isn't as comfortable for a lot of people because it goes beyond "racism is bad" and here is a well intended white man to drive that point home.
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-marxist-who-antagonizes-liberals-and-the-left/amp
I thought this was interesting, may read his book.
-
I have no idea why anyone would want to teach.
https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/education/2022/04/07/greenfield-missouri-teacher-kim-morrison-accused-teaching-critical-race-theory-crt-loses-job/7264924001/
-
In 10 years, all the chud states will have koch schools in the suburbs and public schools in the inner cities.
-
https://twitter.com/kendallybrown/status/1545177692831907840
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
Those seminars seem pretty cringey but it's ridiculous and tragic that backlash against them leads to Tulsa schools not being able to teach about the Tulsa race riots.