|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Nov 18, 2021 3:26:00 GMT
pixiechick I shared *my* thoughts. How about you state what *your* objections specifically are? What exact parts are you having trouble with? What parts of my post do you take issue with children learning? At what point do you feel that educators cross the line? How about we just have a conversation? Because really the facts are humbling for me as a white person. And critical thinking is always in play. It just naturally leads to one conclusion, IMO. So why don't you tell me from that statement full of quotes which you stand behind and why? Quit trying to argue for the anti-CRT movement. Why don't we simply have a conversation and see if we can have a meeting of the minds? I did share my thoughts. I also backed them up with why I feel that way. I'll try again. I think the hostile culture of "this is the only conclusion you can reach" is dangerous. Why do I think that? Because the people that are pushing that idea are basing "this is the only conclusion you can reach" on a twisted version of what the opposing side ACTUALLY said/think. They state what the opposing side said in such a twisted from all reality way, that no one on the planet would think is anything but evil or at least wrong. And yet, the way they state what was said, in NO WAY conveys what the opposing side has actually SAID in reality. It's dishonest, because it's a way to insist that you are right when you may not actually be. But by doing so, the type of person that would do that, thinks it's a way to push their opinion and thinks they're coming from a from the moral high ground, because they start to believe their own "propaganda". How to recognize it? It's backed up by, some form of "if you disagree, it's only because you're a racist." All of that teaches silence. It teaches not to think, just conform. I think it's wrong to tell the teachers "you'd fire all the white ones if you could". Why do I think that? Because that actually IS racist. We're supposed to hire based on ability, not skin color. I think teaching children that white people are all racist even if they don't mean to be is wrong. Teaching them that you're a victim or a privileged oppressor depending on your skin color, is wrong. Why do I think that? Because if you're not teaching children (and adults at this point in time) that "The individual that can do something that the world wants done, will, in the end, make his way.", then you're doing it wrong. And yes that's true no matter the color of your skin, gender, or what neighborhood you live in. It's a universal truth. Is it easy? No, but we all have some sort of advantages and we all have some sort of disadvantages compared to others. All of us. And the 17 points have absolutely no thought process attached to them. They are just meaningless words floating in the stratosphere. I know I'm not the link queen, but when I share it is with my own thoughts, ideas, and experience. Just once I would like to see someone on that team put forth their own ideas, experience, and thoughts. What is the specific problem? What is troubling you so badly about this you have to come to a message board and argue about it? What is it? Because I can honestly say I have no problem with kids being taught these concepts appropriate to grade level. I say that as a parent. And I would stand in front of my school board and say the same. Luckily I live in a very diverse community that embraces these things so I don't have to. So what is exactly the problem? What points of CRT do you specifically object to? What don't you want taught? Not any of this was aimed at you specifically. But I just don't get the opposition. I don't get what they are objecting to. You might not realize this, because it isn't your experience, but this board has become a culture where conservatives "have to prove" everything they think and say. If we don't, our opinions and/or facts are dismissed. It's absolutely idiotic though, because even those times when we do back it up with indisputable facts, it's all dismissed anyway, and almost always, for some moronic reason. I think teaching children that white people are all racist even if they don't mean to be is wrong. Teaching them that you're a victim or a privileged oppressor depending on your skin color, is wrong. Why do I think that? Because if you're not teaching children (and adults at this point in time) that "The individual that can do something that the world wants done, will, in the end, make his way.", then you're doing it wrong. And yes that's true no matter the color of your skin, gender, or what neighborhood you live in. It's a universal truth. Is it easy? No, but we all have some sort of advantages and we all have some sort of disadvantages compared to others. All of us. No one is saying that all white people are racist. And I don't understand the difference between teaching about Nazi Germany and teaching about the Confederate States and slavery. If we can teach students about the horrors of Nazi Germany and the wrongs that THOSE people in THOSE times committed, then why can't we do the same thing for teaching about slavery in our country? THOSE people in THOSE times did these atrocious things. I do find it funny as a Virginia resident that I haven't heard CRT mentioned since the election. Funny how it just all went away since Youngkin won. Nothing has been done yet bc he isn't the governor yet. But all the talk just went away... Hard to get rid of something that isn't happening. Kind of like deciding to make it illegal for men to have an abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 3:42:37 GMT
If we can teach students about the horrors of Nazi Germany and the wrongs that THOSE people in THOSE times committed, then why can't we do the same thing for teaching about slavery in our country? THOSE people in THOSE times did these atrocious things. NO ONE is saying not to do that. That isn't even a debate any one is having. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzycheermom on Nov 18, 2021 3:51:09 GMT
If we can teach students about the horrors of Nazi Germany and the wrongs that THOSE people in THOSE times committed, then why can't we do the same thing for teaching about slavery in our country? THOSE people in THOSE times did these atrocious things. NO ONE is saying not to do that. That isn't even a debate any one is having. Sorry but I see MANY people that are not wanting the TRUE story of slavery and the confederacy taught. They are saying if we teach the truth that is CRT. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 4:00:04 GMT
NO ONE is saying not to do that. That isn't even a debate any one is having. Sorry but I see MANY people that are not wanting the TRUE story of slavery and the confederacy taught. They are saying if we teach the truth that is CRT. Link to one person saying we can't teach about slavery so I can see what you are seeing. If we can teach students about the horrors of Nazi Germany and the wrongs that THOSE people in THOSE times committed, then why can't we do the same thing for teaching about slavery in our country? THOSE people in THOSE times did these atrocious things. This is what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 4:46:24 GMT
No one is saying teachers can't teach about slavery. The Republicans are trying to control how it is taught. They don't want their white children to feel guilty. They don't want teachers to talk about systematic racism or white privilege. How do you teach about slavery without teaching about the context?
|
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 8:07:57 GMT
The problem in NH is how do you define divisive concepts? The Republican and Democratic definitions are very different. I showed very clearly how divisive concepts are defined: -with the letter from the teacher who had to resign because of the divisive concept for teaching that's ordered by the school -the parent sharing with the school board the attempted divide created among their own biracial family members that his child had experienced from his teacher AND the child was ridiculed by the principal for objecting to it. Very divisive. -the student who, among other issues, shared about the government teacher that sought to dehumanize anyone who didn't have the correct political views. Very divisive among the students. -the video of the OTHER teacher who had to resign because of the divisive way of teaching her school required & the sending out of forms to teachers to tell on other teachers that don't follow the conformity of thought - even in their private life- is very fucking divisive. All of that teaches children silence. It teaches children, don't question, wait until you get a consensus before you voice an answer, opinion or thought. It teaches not to think on your own, just conform. It's a very divisive culture if you dare to stand up for yourself and stand up for very appropriate diversity of thought. It isn't a difference in defining divisive concepts. Those define divisive concepts precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Nov 18, 2021 11:51:35 GMT
I don't believe that teaching kids about white privilege and systemic racism is divisive. In fact I think it does the exact opposite, it gives them a sense of empathy and a cognizance of how they react in situations with people of color. It is very easy to say, hey, we should all be colorblind. And while I would appreciate that kind of society because I am a pollyanna type, that is not the society we live in. Therefore we do have to be hypervigilant about the way we, as white people, interact with people of color. The only way we can overcome our inherent bias is to recognize that we, in fact, do have an inherent bias. Oprah wrote a book with Dr. Bruce Perry called What Happened to You? Dr Perry is an expert researcher in child development and trauma. In the book he states that racism is perpetuated because of lack of exposure. If a child has contact with a variety of faces in the first six months of life, they are far less likely to be racist. And it must be meaningful contact. When babies are exposed to multicolored people with calm, gentle, loving interactions their brains form in a different way. Those that don't, have a natural instinct to fear the unknown that carries with them throughout their lives. The person has a natural instinct based on the first 6 months of life. This was the most interesting take on racism that I have ever read and it made total sense to me. In other words, we have knee jerk reactions to the unknown. And we have to work to overcome those biases that are based in our brain via child development in order to overcome them. I'm just going to admit that in my first six months of life I was not exposed to meaningful interactions with people of color. I was surrounded by white people. My dad is racist. I spent the majority of my life in a small town that was so white, we only had one black kid and he was adopted by white parents. There were no Asians, Hispanics, Middle Eastern people, etc. To say that doesn't shape a person's brain is an understatement. There were no multicultural books presented to me as a child. There was no discussion of racism. It wasn't until I got to college that I had any real exposure to other cultures. And that is too late, IMO. My brain was already fully formed and I have to work twice, maybe three times as hard to overcome my natural bias. It is an ongoing thing for me. Wouldn't the world be a better place if children could have micro-educations and micro-introductions to systemic racism throughout their formative years where their brain is developing rather than wait until they are adults with more confirmed biases? Isn't that a good thing? Anyway, I had a lot of disadvantages in my life. I was the first person in my family to go to college. But I was never held down because of the color of my skin. And it is ridiculous to think that with the statistics we have related to persons of color that their skin color isn't affecting their rate of success in this world. I get that I have factors which affected my rate of success too but it was never because of my skin color. And that's where we have to recognize that our bias is in fact keeping people down instead of lifting them up. I appreciate you answering pixiechick. I disagree with your position. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 12:12:14 GMT
The problem in NH is how do you define divisive concepts? The Republican and Democratic definitions are very different. I showed very clearly how divisive concepts are defined: -with the letter from the teacher who had to resign because of the divisive concept for teaching that's ordered by the school -the parent sharing with the school board the attempted divide created among their own biracial family members that his child had experienced from his teacher AND the child was ridiculed by the principal for objecting to it. Very divisive. -the student who, among other issues, shared about the government teacher that sought to dehumanize anyone who didn't have the correct political views. Very divisive among the students. -the video of the OTHER teacher who had to resign because of the divisive way of teaching her school required & the sending out of forms to teachers to tell on other teachers that don't follow the conformity of thought - even in their private life- is very fucking divisive. All of that teaches children silence. It teaches children, don't question, wait until you get a consensus before you voice an answer, opinion or thought. It teaches not to think on your own, just conform. It's a very divisive culture if you dare to stand up for yourself and stand up for very appropriate diversity of thought. It isn't a difference in defining divisive concepts. Those define divisive concepts precisely. It doesn't matter how you define them. In terms of the NH bill and others like it, it matters how the Republican state legislature defines them. I pointed out the problems with their definition. Also, you keep ignoring the multiple ways by many posters who have pointed out that your examples are not evidence of how children are taught across the country. There is an undercurrent of racism in our country. Sometimes it’s very overt. It’s not surprising that racist parents would object to teaching about systematic racism and white privilege. I’m not going to trust statements by parents and even teachers who might be biased by their own racism. No one is looking at your examples as any kind of “evidence”. The flaws have been pointed out ad nauseum , but you keep ignoring that. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 12:17:31 GMT
If we can teach students about the horrors of Nazi Germany and the wrongs that THOSE people in THOSE times committed, then why can't we do the same thing for teaching about slavery in our country? THOSE people in THOSE times did these atrocious things. NO ONE is saying not to do that. That isn't even a debate any one is having. I don’t think you’re listening to the anti CRT or looking at any of the articles linked. Republicans are very much saying that. They don’t want the horrors of slavery taught. They don’t want their white children to feel guilty. There are bills and proposed bills that prevent teachers from talking about White privilege and systematic racism. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 20:49:41 GMT
I don't believe that teaching kids about white privilege and systemic racism is divisive. It is if you're doing it in a way that IS divisive. That's what I and parents across the country are saying. It is very easy to say, hey, we should all be colorblind. I don't think anyone should be "colorblind". What I think is people should be judged by the content of their character vs. making a generalized judgement on who they are based on what skin color they have. And that is something that I believe applies to everyone, no matter what your skin color. Therefore we do have to be hypervigilant about the way we, as white people, interact with people of color. I don't agree. I think we should just be interacting with people and relate to each other as a human, not a skin color. When babies are exposed to multicolored people with calm, gentle, loving interactions their brains form in a different way. Those that don't, have a natural instinct to fear the unknown that carries with them throughout their lives. The person has a natural instinct based on the first 6 months of life. While I don't think it can cause racism, I do think this it's a very interesting and logical point. Anyway, I had a lot of disadvantages in my life. I was the first person in my family to go to college. But I was never held down because of the color of my skin. And it is ridiculous to think that with the statistics we have related to persons of color that their skin color isn't affecting their rate of success in this world. I get that I have factors which affected my rate of success too but it was never because of my skin color. Sticking to the idea that we ALL have some sort of disadvantage compared to others and not diverging into "racism is bad" which we all already agree with... why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage? And that's where we have to recognize that our bias is in fact keeping people down instead of lifting them up. I appreciate you answering pixiechick. I disagree with your position. I agree, we do have to lift each other up. I appreciate the conversation with you, it's easy (even when we disagree) when I don't have to deal with personal attacks or outright dismissal without conversation. Thank you for that. |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 18, 2021 21:22:47 GMT
Sticking to the idea that we ALL have some sort of disadvantage compared to others and not diverging into "racism is bad" which we all already agree with... why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage? Pixiechick there have been many articles that have been supported with research on this subject. Color of a person's skin and Hollywood came to my mind first. Here is an excerpt from an article when searching on color and Hollywood: Throughout most of the history of American film and television, stories of people of color were more often than not told through the lens of a white creator. Many have sounded the alarm for years that by doing things this way, the nuance and culture of those being portrayed is lost or. variety.com/2021/tv/features/producers-of-color-fighting-for-hollywood-seat-1235063212/How many people were not able to be a producer because of their skin color? Pew Research on Hispanics with darker skin are more likely to experience discrimination than those with lighter skin. About two-thirds of Hispanics with darker skin colors (64%) report they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly regularly or from time to time, compared with half of those with a lighter skin tone. These differences in experiences with discrimination hold even after controlling for characteristics such as gender, age, education and whether they were born in the U.S. or abroad. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/02/hispanics-with-darker-skin-are-more-likely-to-experience-discrimination-than-those-with-lighter-skin/Research Article A comparison of skin tone discrimination among African American men: 1995 and 2003 First, results suggest that skin tone matters in contexts outside of their racial group. As predicted, light-skinned men consistently perceived the best treatment from Whites, while dark-skinned men consistently perceived the worst treatment, supporting the first hypothesis. Second, results indicate that skin tone matters within the racial group. In the in-group appraisals, it was hypothesized that medium-skinned men would report the least discrimination; this was supported in both datasets. The in-group appraisal finding has important implications for African American men who primarily reside in intra-racial settings, such as low SES neighborhoods. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365794/Even in other parts of the world skin color is a thing: Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/world/asia/india-skin-color-unilever.htmlThis is why I feel it is still a thing and holding people back. I even hear students putting each other down based on how dark their skin is in the halls of the school I teach at. The school I teach at is over 80% Hispanic. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 21:40:08 GMT
Anyway, I had a lot of disadvantages in my life. I was the first person in my family to go to college. But I was never held down because of the color of my skin. And it is ridiculous to think that with the statistics we have related to persons of color that their skin color isn't affecting their rate of success in this world. I get that I have factors which affected my rate of success too but it was never because of my skin color. Sticking to the idea that we ALL have some sort of disadvantage compared to others and not diverging into "racism is bad" which we all already agree with... why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage? Because the color of your skin is a disadvantage that you're born with. It's a disadvantage that affects you every single day of your life. And its not something you can overcome like poverty, a single parent etc. I posted this before but seriously, please look at this. It's worth your time. graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/No, not all of us have disadvantages. There are many middle class and wealthy whites, especially men that do not have disadvantages. At least recognize their privilege. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 21:42:16 GMT
Sticking to the idea that we ALL have some sort of disadvantage compared to others and not diverging into "racism is bad" which we all already agree with... why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage? Pixiechick there have been many articles that have been supported with research on this subject. Color of a person's skin and Hollywood came to my mind first. Here is an excerpt from an article when searching on color and Hollywood: Throughout most of the history of American film and television, stories of people of color were more often than not told through the lens of a white creator. Many have sounded the alarm for years that by doing things this way, the nuance and culture of those being portrayed is lost or. variety.com/2021/tv/features/producers-of-color-fighting-for-hollywood-seat-1235063212/How many people were not able to be a producer because of their skin color? Pew Research on Hispanics with darker skin are more likely to experience discrimination than those with lighter skin. About two-thirds of Hispanics with darker skin colors (64%) report they have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly regularly or from time to time, compared with half of those with a lighter skin tone. These differences in experiences with discrimination hold even after controlling for characteristics such as gender, age, education and whether they were born in the U.S. or abroad. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/02/hispanics-with-darker-skin-are-more-likely-to-experience-discrimination-than-those-with-lighter-skin/Research Article A comparison of skin tone discrimination among African American men: 1995 and 2003 First, results suggest that skin tone matters in contexts outside of their racial group. As predicted, light-skinned men consistently perceived the best treatment from Whites, while dark-skinned men consistently perceived the worst treatment, supporting the first hypothesis. Second, results indicate that skin tone matters within the racial group. In the in-group appraisals, it was hypothesized that medium-skinned men would report the least discrimination; this was supported in both datasets. The in-group appraisal finding has important implications for African American men who primarily reside in intra-racial settings, such as low SES neighborhoods. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365794/Even in other parts of the world skin color is a thing: Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/world/asia/india-skin-color-unilever.htmlThis is why I feel it is still a thing and holding people back. I even hear students putting each other down based on how dark their skin is in the halls of the school I teach at. The school I teach at is over 80% Hispanic. Of course it's still a thing. The question that you quoted was "why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage?" |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 21:43:10 GMT
It is very easy to say, hey, we should all be colorblind. I don't think anyone should be "colorblind". What I think is people should be judged by the content of their character vs. making a generalized judgement on who they are based on what skin color they have. And that is something that I believe applies to everyone, no matter what your skin color. I don't agree. I think we should just be interacting with people and relate to each other as a human, not a skin color. That's a lovely idea in an ideal world. But, America today does not look like that for blacks and people of color. Every day they are judged by the color of their skin. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 21:47:12 GMT
I showed very clearly how divisive concepts are defined: -with the letter from the teacher who had to resign because of the divisive concept for teaching that's ordered by the school -the parent sharing with the school board the attempted divide created among their own biracial family members that his child had experienced from his teacher AND the child was ridiculed by the principal for objecting to it. Very divisive. -the student who, among other issues, shared about the government teacher that sought to dehumanize anyone who didn't have the correct political views. Very divisive among the students. -the video of the OTHER teacher who had to resign because of the divisive way of teaching her school required & the sending out of forms to teachers to tell on other teachers that don't follow the conformity of thought - even in their private life- is very fucking divisive. All of that teaches children silence. It teaches children, don't question, wait until you get a consensus before you voice an answer, opinion or thought. It teaches not to think on your own, just conform. It's a very divisive culture if you dare to stand up for yourself and stand up for very appropriate diversity of thought. It isn't a difference in defining divisive concepts. Those define divisive concepts precisely. It doesn't matter how you define them. In terms of the NH bill and others like it, it matters how the Republican state legislature defines them. I pointed out the problems with their definition. Also, you keep ignoring the multiple ways by many posters who have pointed out that your examples are not evidence of how children are taught across the country. There is an undercurrent of racism in our country. Sometimes it’s very overt. It’s not surprising that racist parents would object to teaching about systematic racism and white privilege. I’m not going to trust statements by parents and even teachers who might be biased by their own racism. No one is looking at your examples as any kind of “evidence”. The flaws have been pointed out ad nauseum , but you keep ignoring that. THE PROBLEM in NH IS how do you define divisive concepts? It doesn't matter how you define them. You literally contradicted your own self. For what purpose? To avoid admitting that that you were wrong to say there is a difference in how it's defined based on party? This is you, moving the goal posts, again. It makes it impossible to have a real and honest conversation with you. I'd like to, but you're making it not a possibility when you keep doing that. I don’t think you’re listening to the anti CRT or looking at any of the articles linked. Republicans are very much saying that. They don’t want the horrors of slavery taught. They don’t want their white children to feel guilty. There are bills and proposed bills that prevent teachers from talking about White privilege and systematic racism. That's why I asked someone to point out any ACTUAL republican saying that. And all you did was link articles that are spouting twisted versions of what left leaning journalist want to PRETEND Republicans are saying. Those are not the same thing AT ALL. Not even close. The articles you linked and quoted in NO WAY conveys what Republicans have actually SAID in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 21:50:02 GMT
Sticking to the idea that we ALL have some sort of disadvantage compared to others and not diverging into "racism is bad" which we all already agree with... why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage?Because the color of your skin is a disadvantage that you're born with. It's a disadvantage that affects you every single day of your life. And its not something you can overcome like poverty, a single parent etc. I posted this before but seriously, please look at this. It's worth your time. graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/No, not all of us have disadvantages. There are many middle class and wealthy whites, especially men that do not have disadvantages. At least recognize their privilege. Just because someone has an advantage that someone else doesn't have, doesn't mean they don't also have disadvantages. Maybe even big disadvantages. Read the question you quoted. Can you logically answer it? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 21:54:54 GMT
When babies are exposed to multicolored people with calm, gentle, loving interactions their brains form in a different way. Those that don't, have a natural instinct to fear the unknown that carries with them throughout their lives. The person has a natural instinct based on the first 6 months of life. While I don't think it can cause racism, I do think this it's a very interesting and logical point. I don't think she was trying to say that it causes racism, just that it's a contributing factor. I agree 100%. I live in NH where there is very little diversity, it's 97% white. One family that we know, both doctors from the Philippines moved in part, because of the racism they and their kids faced every single day. Another doctor in family practice, also from the Philippines, pulled her kids from school to homeschool because they were being bullied and heard racist taunts at school. Other kids told them they should go back to their country, covid or Kung-flu as they referred to it, was their fault and other hateful things. Where do you think elementary school age kids heard that? Can you even imagine? Their mom has worked really hard over the last 20 months taking care of people. She's stressed out, burned out and now on top of that, also has to homeschool her kids because of the racial slurs and insults. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 21:56:40 GMT
Because the color of your skin is a disadvantage that you're born with. It's a disadvantage that affects you every single day of your life. And its not something you can overcome like poverty, a single parent etc. I posted this before but seriously, please look at this. It's worth your time. graphics.reuters.com/GLOBAL-RACE/USA/nmopajawjva/No, not all of us have disadvantages. There are many middle class and wealthy whites, especially men that do not have disadvantages. At least recognize their privilege. Just because someone has an advantage that someone else doesn't have, doesn't mean they don't also have disadvantages. Maybe even big disadvantages. Read the question you quoted. Can you logically answer it? Because the color of your skin is a disadvantage that you're born with and can't overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 22:03:46 GMT
I don’t think you’re listening to the anti CRT or looking at any of the articles linked. Republicans are very much saying that. They don’t want the horrors of slavery taught. They don’t want their white children to feel guilty. There are bills and proposed bills that prevent teachers from talking about White privilege and systematic racism. That's why I asked someone to point out any ACTUAL republican saying that. And all you did was link articles that are spouting twisted versions of what left leaning journalist want to PRETEND Republicans are saying. Those are not the same thing AT ALL. Not even close. The articles you linked and quoted in NO WAY conveys what Republicans have actually SAID in reality. I'm going to try one more time, then I'm done. I posted this in the Kyle Rittenhouse thread, but it seems unlikely that you read it. Many of the Republican bills or proposed bills specifically ban teaching about systematic racism. This isn't made up, its not left leaning journalists talking about it. They are actual bills written by Republican state legislatures.www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000537206/teachers-laws-banning-critical-race-theory-are-leading-to-self-censorshipIn Texas, a bill that has passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature would impose restrictions similar to Oklahoma's, including banning public universities from requiring students to take diversity training. It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/Eight states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina) have passed legislation. The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions. apnews.com/article/business-wisconsin-education-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-dc73ee7fd8962ea52f56eae2319055d5 MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin public schools would be prohibited from teaching students and training employees about concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias under a Republican bill the state Assembly passed Tuesday on a party line vote. www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/14/gop-lawmakers-intensify-effort-to-ban-critical-race-theory-in-schoolsThe resulting Tennessee bill, which was signed into law last month by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, bars schools from broaching a wide range of topics such as the existence of systemic racism, privilege, oppression and any criticism of meritocracy. It also grants the commissioner of education undefined discretion to withhold state funds from schools found to be in violation of the law. “Instead of broadening our worldview, this legislation narrows it,” Jenny Miller, an elementary school librarian in Camden, Tennessee, told Chalkbeat. “How will this come across to teachers of color or those that are contemplating entering the profession?” |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 22:07:01 GMT
THE PROBLEM in NH IS how do you define divisive concepts? It doesn't matter how you define them. You literally contradicted your own self. For what purpose? To avoid admitting that that you were wrong to say there is a difference in how it's defined based on party? This is you, moving the goal posts, again. It makes it impossible to have a real and honest conversation with you. I'd like to, but you're making it not a possibility when you keep doing that. No, I didn't contradict myself or move goal posts. The point that I was trying to make is that my definition of divisive is probably different from yours. But, neither of our opinions matter. In the context of the NH divisive concepts bill, what matters is how the Republican state legislature defines them. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 22:15:50 GMT
That's why I asked someone to point out any ACTUAL republican saying that. And all you did was link articles that are spouting twisted versions of what left leaning journalist want to PRETEND Republicans are saying. Those are not the same thing AT ALL. Not even close. The articles you linked and quoted in NO WAY conveys what Republicans have actually SAID in reality. I'm going to try one more time, then I'm done. I posted this in the Kyle Rittenhouse thread, but it seems unlikely that you read it. Many of the Republican bills or proposed bills specifically ban teaching about systematic racism. This isn't made up, its not left leaning journalists talking about it. They are actual bills written by Republican state legislatures.www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000537206/teachers-laws-banning-critical-race-theory-are-leading-to-self-censorshipIn Texas, a bill that has passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature would impose restrictions similar to Oklahoma's, including banning public universities from requiring students to take diversity training. It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/Eight states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina) have passed legislation. The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions. apnews.com/article/business-wisconsin-education-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-dc73ee7fd8962ea52f56eae2319055d5 MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin public schools would be prohibited from teaching students and training employees about concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias under a Republican bill the state Assembly passed Tuesday on a party line vote. www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/14/gop-lawmakers-intensify-effort-to-ban-critical-race-theory-in-schoolsThe resulting Tennessee bill, which was signed into law last month by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, bars schools from broaching a wide range of topics such as the existence of systemic racism, privilege, oppression and any criticism of meritocracy. It also grants the commissioner of education undefined discretion to withhold state funds from schools found to be in violation of the law. “Instead of broadening our worldview, this legislation narrows it,” Jenny Miller, an elementary school librarian in Camden, Tennessee, told Chalkbeat. “How will this come across to teachers of color or those that are contemplating entering the profession?” I'LL try one more time... You have only quoted a summation of the bills by people that want to dismiss them as bad. What are the ACTUAL words IN THE BILLS or WORDS FROM REPUBLICANS that you disagree with? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 22:17:57 GMT
Quoting myself to show my entire post. You only quoted part of what I wrote. Heres my entire post on divisive concepts. The problem in NH is how do you define divisive concepts? The Republican and Democratic definitions are very different. Republicans are trying to ban teachers from talking about fundamental racism or sexism. Prior to the 19th ammendment, our country was fundamentally sexist. Slavery was fundamentally racist. Other problems are how the bill will be enforced. For fear of losing their jobs, teachers will adjust how they teach slavery, civil rights etc. Also problematic is a state legislature overreaching and controlling curriculum without any qualifications.
www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2021/07/10/new-hampshire-education-divisive-concepts-ban-nh-law-affects-schools/7915398002/
“(The budget) comes across draconian because if a teacher violates it, they can be hauled in front of the state board and lose their license over a law that is confusing to say the least,” said Oyster River Superintendent James Morse, a former member of Republican Gov. Chris Sununu's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Morse was among 10 members who recently resigned from the council in protest over the "divisive concepts."
“It’s a fundamental affront to academic freedom in teaching in terms of teachers making decisions on how they apply the curriculum set by the school board,” he continued.
Morse said the budget language is “an intrusion into local education matters,” where school boards set their districts' curriculums, such as teaching American history and including “racist elements” that plague the nation's past and present.
“What educators are trying to do is be honest in education, but because our profession has been politicized to this point, it’s concerning to say the least,” Tuttle said. “History always has different views, but the historical facts don’t change. (Teaching history) now runs the risk of losing the critical thinking piece if we are unable to teach history in its truest form.”
Bissonnette, of ACLU-NH, said educators and other public employees will be inclined to “self-censor” and not engage on topics of race, “out of fear of being the subject of a complaint.”
“This is the real danger of the bill and it may very well be the point of it – namely, to cause people to censor themselves in having important conversations on race,” Bissonnette said.
The notion of divisive concepts was introduced by New Hampshire House Republicans in House Bill 544, which defined as divisive assertions that New Hampshire or the United States were "fundamentally racist or sexist" or that "by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others."
www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/op-ed/the-chilling-effects-of-nhs-new-divisive-concepts-law/article_298c80c8-de4e-557e-a2ea-555ed5c09044.html
Well, sadly, if I were asked to counsel a teacher who wished to avoid potential liability under the new law, my advice would be to avoid discussing affirmative action. For if, say, a teacher asked a student to articulate an argument in favor of affirmative action, that teacher would run the risk of being charged with violating the provision of the new statute, which says that “no pupil in any public school shall be instructed to express support for [the idea] that an individual should be discriminated against partly because of his or her race.” And affirmative action, in the racial context, involves differential treatment of otherwise similarly situated individuals on account of their race.
www.aclu-nh.org/en/news/faq-what-divisive-concepts-language-nh-budget
Governor Sununu recently said that this language would strengthen the state's anti-discrimination laws. But the opposite is true: this language minimizes discrimination that communities of color face in New Hampshire. Our state should be fostering conversations to address these very real, systemic issues -- not halting them entirely.
Originally, this language was nearly identical to an executive order issued by former president Donald Trump. Though the language itself has been amended, the goal is the same: to silence conversations on systemic racism, implicit bias, sexism, and more. A number of states across the country are battling similar pieces of legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 22:19:50 GMT
You literally contradicted your own self. For what purpose? To avoid admitting that that you were wrong to say there is a difference in how it's defined based on party? This is you, moving the goal posts, again. It makes it impossible to have a real and honest conversation with you. I'd like to, but you're making it not a possibility when you keep doing that. No, I didn't contradict myself or move goal posts. The point that I was trying to make is that my definition of divisive is probably different from yours. But, neither of our opinions matter. In the context of the NH divisive concepts bill, what matters is how the Republican state legislature defines them. Yes you very verifiably did. Own YOUR VERY WORDS. And I showed you how Republicans define them. And those definitions are how anyone on the planet defines them. Even you. Despite your need to dismiss them. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 22:22:55 GMT
I'm going to try one more time, then I'm done. I posted this in the Kyle Rittenhouse thread, but it seems unlikely that you read it. Many of the Republican bills or proposed bills specifically ban teaching about systematic racism. This isn't made up, its not left leaning journalists talking about it. They are actual bills written by Republican state legislatures.www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000537206/teachers-laws-banning-critical-race-theory-are-leading-to-self-censorshipIn Texas, a bill that has passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature would impose restrictions similar to Oklahoma's, including banning public universities from requiring students to take diversity training. It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/Eight states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina) have passed legislation. The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions. apnews.com/article/business-wisconsin-education-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-dc73ee7fd8962ea52f56eae2319055d5 MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin public schools would be prohibited from teaching students and training employees about concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias under a Republican bill the state Assembly passed Tuesday on a party line vote. www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/14/gop-lawmakers-intensify-effort-to-ban-critical-race-theory-in-schoolsThe resulting Tennessee bill, which was signed into law last month by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, bars schools from broaching a wide range of topics such as the existence of systemic racism, privilege, oppression and any criticism of meritocracy. It also grants the commissioner of education undefined discretion to withhold state funds from schools found to be in violation of the law. “Instead of broadening our worldview, this legislation narrows it,” Jenny Miller, an elementary school librarian in Camden, Tennessee, told Chalkbeat. “How will this come across to teachers of color or those that are contemplating entering the profession?” I'LL try one more time... You have only quoted a summation of the bills by people that want to dismiss them as bad. What are the ACTUAL words IN THE BILLS or WORDS FROM REPUBLICANS that you disagree with? No point in having a conversation if you're going to dismiss articles by more neutral, credible sources like NPR and AP. Here are the words to the NH bill. As I said before, a big part of the problem is how these bills will be implemented. Teachers in fear of their jobs or fines will adjust what they teach and stay away from racial issues. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.html |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 22:25:27 GMT
I'LL try one more time... You have only quoted a summation of the bills by people that want to dismiss them as bad. What are the ACTUAL words IN THE BILLS or WORDS FROM REPUBLICANS that you disagree with? No point in having a conversation if you're going to dismiss articles by more neutral, credible sources like NPR and AP. Here are the words to the NH bill. As I said before, a big part of the problem is how these bills will be implemented. Teachers in fear of their jobs or fines will adjust what they teach and stay away from racial issues. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.htmlThe question is and has repeatedly been: What are the ACTUAL words in the bills that YOU disagree with? If you disagree with them so much, why can you not answer the question? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 22:30:30 GMT
I posted a link to the actual bill. Here's a link to the Tennessee one. I'm not a legal scholar, I don't have the expertise or experience to comment on the actual words in the bill. I trust sources like NPR and AP to have experts read them and weigh in on them. If you want to read them, go for it. I'm not going to pretend to be a legal scholar. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.htmleta - OK, the NH one was written in simpler terms than what I expected. Here's what I object to www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.htmlII. “Divisive concept” means the concept that:
(a) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(b) The state of New Hampshire or the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
V. “The state of New Hampshire” means all agencies and political subdivisions of the state of New Hampshire, including counties, cities, towns, school districts, and the state university system.
I. Requirements for the state of New Hampshire:
(a) The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II. NH and the US were fundamentally racist during slavery. How do you teach about slavery without conveying that? Here's a letter written by our school superintendent who resigned from the governor 's advisory board because of the divisive concepts law. His email essentially says we're going to continue teaching the way that we always have, regardless of the bill. Dear Oyster River Community Members, I hope you are finding the first few weeks of summer wonderfully refreshing. I’m writing today because I’ve been asked whether the vote for the NH State Budget that includes the so called ‘divisive concepts’ bill will end the district’s efforts regarding diversity, equity and inclusion. The short answer is no, it will not. Our work has always been about acceptance and support of our communities of color, indigenous peoples, gender, sexuality and the various religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs people hold. Our work is about the study of history, for it is through our historical experiences we learn how to be better human beings. Our work is the recognition that to accept our fellow humans, we must understand them, build bridges between them, and accept them. As a school system Oyster River has a long-standing commitment to meeting the needs of all learners. The stated mission of our district is "Working Together to Engage Every Learner." The Oyster River School District has no ‘canned curriculum’, no ‘critical race theory’ embedded in our work. Our teachers have always been free to incorporate Board Policy through the lens of acceptance of all, using history as our guide to a better understanding of how we can grow and improve as a people. Academic freedom and the freedom of speech are crucial to a healthy public education system. Our work related to diversity, equity and inclusion will follow ORCSD School Board Policy and our commitment to non-discrimination in all that we do. My Best to All of You, Sincerely, Dr. Jim Morse Superintendent, Oyster River |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 22:38:20 GMT
I posted a link to the actual bill. Here's a link to the Tennessee one. I'm not a legal scholar, I don't have the expertise or experience to comment on the actual words in the bill. I trust sources like NPR and AP to have experts read them and weigh in on them. If you want to read them, go for it. I'm not going to pretend to be a legal scholar. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.htmlThank you, that answers my question. You are relying on a summation of the bills by people that want to paint them as bad in order to dismiss the people that object to what is going on in schools as nothing but racist terrorists because they don't agree with teaching our history in such a divisive way. |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 18, 2021 23:02:45 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] Of course it's still a thing. The question that you quoted was "why do you think that skin color is causing people to not be able to succeed SO MUCH MORE than any other disadvantage?" [/article] ]Because it is a thing that has happened throughout time and in different parts of the world. Since the days of slavery, skin color has been used as a tool of separation and preferential treatment within the black community. The residue of the "house" versus "field Negro" divide has long remained with us, even as we celebrated black pride in the '70s and hip-hop culture in the '80s. House slaves were usually products of a relationship between a master and a female slave, so they tended to have lighter skin. The boss's offspring would more than likely receive the special favor of doing work inside the house out of the hot sun. They'd eat better, often get taught to read and write, and enjoyed many of the liberties of nonslaves. Slaves with darker skin were usually stuck toiling in the fields. The anger over that old distinction has never quite gone away in African-American culture. Why? Come on now, that is like saying why are people racist. What exactly are you looking for here? A dissertation? |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 18, 2021 23:20:25 GMT
[tr][td class="content"][article] You have only quoted a summation of the bills by people that want to dismiss them as bad. What are the ACTUAL words IN THE BILLS or WORDS FROM REPUBLICANS that you disagree with? Lines 9 through 13 in the Texas H.B.ANo.A3979 states: capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB03979I.pdfTeachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective; Who determines a teacher tried to the best of their ability to discuss topics like this event that happened: Chanting ‘blood and soil!’ white nationalists with torches march on University of Virginia www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-white-virginia-rally-20170811-story.htmlWhat if the racist crappy parent feels their child's history teacher is breaking the law??? Should that teacher find information for "both" sides? Who determines this? The courts? The School Board? The History Department? The Principal? So what do you think Pixie? Should a teacher respect their view and find material to defend their side?
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 23:23:58 GMT
I posted a link to the actual bill. Here's a link to the Tennessee one. I'm not a legal scholar, I don't have the expertise or experience to comment on the actual words in the bill. I trust sources like NPR and AP to have experts read them and weigh in on them. If you want to read them, go for it. I'm not going to pretend to be a legal scholar. www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2021/HB0544.htmlThank you, that answers my question. You are relying on a summation of the bills by people that want to paint them as bad in order to dismiss the people that object to what is going on in schools as nothing but racist terrorists because they don't agree with teaching our history in such a divisive way. And you're just trying to dismiss actual evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative. Also moving goal posts again. You asked for evidence, I provided that. But neutral sources like AP and NPR are not good enough. I provided the actual bills and objections to the wording. Still not good enough. With that, I'm done because this is clearly a lost cause. I'm not relying on a summation. I read the NH bill myself and object to the wording. Our school superintendent, parents and teachers that I've talked to all object to the law with good reason. NPR and AP are not trying to paint the NH State Legislature or others as bad. History is not being taught in a divisive way in my school. In the words of my superintendent, here's how we are teaching Our work has always been about acceptance and support of our communities of color, indigenous peoples, gender, sexuality and the various religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs people hold.
Our work is about the study of history, for it is through our historical experiences we learn how to be better human beings.
Our work is the recognition that to accept our fellow humans, we must understand them, build bridges between them, and accept them.
As a school system Oyster River has a long-standing commitment to meeting the needs of all learners. The stated mission of our district is "Working Together to Engage Every Learner." The Oyster River School District has no ‘canned curriculum’, no ‘critical race theory’ embedded in our work. Our teachers have always been free to incorporate Board Policy through the lens of acceptance of all, using history as our guide to a better understanding of how we can grow and improve as a people.
Academic freedom and the freedom of speech are crucial to a healthy public education system. Our work related to diversity, equity and inclusion will follow ORCSD School Board Policy and our commitment to non-discrimination in all that we do. |
|
