|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 23:26:26 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? You keep giving dissertations about slavery and preferential treatment within the black community, but you have yet to answer the question as to why skin color is so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life. Even the other ones that you are born with. And yes, @zingermack, I saw your post that you deleted. You keep doing that, I thought deleting posts was a no no here. |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 18, 2021 23:30:07 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? Are you saying that all disadvantages are equal? What is a little disadvantage? What is a big disadvantage? Do you decide the difference on what is a big disadvantage vs a little one? That is sure what it sounds like here. Me having divorced parents is nothing like experiencing racism or discrimination based on someone's skin color. Do you feel differently on that? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 23:31:20 GMT
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? You keep giving dissertations about slavery and preferential treatment within the black community, but you have yet to answer the question as to why skin color is so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life. Even the other ones that you are born with. And yes, @zingermack , I saw your post that you deleted. You keep doing that, I thought deleting posts was a no no here. Asked and answered. Because skin color is something that you can't change. Because skin color is something that you can't overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 23:34:02 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 repeating this in case you missed it the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 18, 2021 23:41:44 GMT
And you're just trying to dismiss actual evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative. No, I'm not dismissing actual evidence, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. A summation of the bills by people that want to paint them as bad is by no definition "actual evidence". 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. I'm not relying on a summation. This is not rational. It's really becoming impossible to have a conversation with you when you keep doing this. I'm not relying on a summation. I read the bill myself and object to the wording. That's why I keep asking you, which wording in the bill do you object to? Why can't you answer that in your own words? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 18, 2021 23:48:08 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? Just restating what I wrote. Initially, I didn't feel qualified to comment on the exact wording of the bill. I looked at the NH bill more closely and changed my mind. I stated my objections to the actual wording. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 0:25:50 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? Just restating what I wrote. Initially, I didn't feel qualified to comment on the exact wording of the bill. I looked at the NH bill more closely and changed my mind. I stated my objections to the actual wording. These are not talking about the time during slavery, they're talking about teaching children that this is true NOW. I'm pretty sure you don't want children taught that one race or sex IS currently inherently superior to another race or sex" This is something you disagree with? These are not about during the time of slavery, they are about teaching divisive concepts about the time we are currently living in. Explain how teaching these about the time we currently live in is NOT divisive. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 1:31:08 GMT
That's your interpretation of the law. I'm telling you how people who live here, work here and teach here and are directly impacted by the law are interpreting it. I provided the definition of the state for reference so you could see who the laws apply to. The rest of it I didn't object to. The first link is to a local paper, a trusted news source. 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.htmlWell, 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. |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 19, 2021 1:34:13 GMT
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? You keep giving dissertations about slavery and preferential treatment within the black community, but you have yet to answer the question as to why skin color is so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life. Even the other ones that you are born with. And yes, @zingermack, I saw your post that you deleted. You keep doing that, I thought deleting posts was a no no here. What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 1:50:12 GMT
That's your interpretation of the law. I'm telling you how people who live here, work here and teach here and are directly impacted by the law are interpreting it. I provided the definition of the state for reference so you could see who the laws apply to. The rest of it I didn't object to. No. Just no. That isn't my interpretation of the law, that IS the law. These in particular are recent manifestations: The laws are not referring to teaching about slavery times, they are talking about the WAY it is being taught. If people are telling you that the law is saying that teachers can't teach about slavery, all you have to do is look at the law and see for yourself that is NOT what it's saying. Think for yourself. Stop relying on others to do your thinking for you because they are being dishonest. Just look at the law. It's verifiably NOT what they are telling you and you are relaying here. It's okay to admit when you make a mistake, you won't cease to exist, you won't explode, no one is going to destroy you for it. It says a lot for your character when you do. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 1:59:46 GMT
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm telling you how the law is being implemented and the effects of it here in schools. Teachers are afraid for their jobs and/ or potential fines to discuss issues around race. Here's an op-ed in a very conservative NH newspaper www.unionleader.com/opinion/op-eds/john-greabe-divisive-concepts-law-and-the-big-chill/article_d5d016c1-109a-517d-b410-036f958e2fa4.htmlMUCH CRITICAL commentary concerning the so-called “divisive concepts” provisions in this year’s budget legislation has focused on their restrictions on speech. These restrictions, among other things, forbid public K-12 teachers from instructing that some persons are “inherently superior or inferior to [others]”, “inherently racist or sexist,” “should be discriminated against,” or “should not attempt to treat others equally” because of their “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.” Criticism of these speech restrictions is deserved. They fly in the face of, as the Supreme Court has described it, our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.” (NY Times v. Sullivan, 1964). For example, the question whether affirmative action should be constitutional is likely to return to the Supreme Court next term in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. The case involves whether Harvard is unlawfully discriminating against Asian-American applicants in its admissions processes. What a wonderful issue to explore and debate in a high school civics class, right? Sadly, if I were asked to counsel a teacher who wished to avoid trouble under the new law, I would advise against 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 a provision of the new statute stating 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.” Now, to be clear, I don’t believe that it would be a statutory violation for a teacher to ask a student to present such an argument. But my view on how the statute should be construed would not affect my advice. For the statute could be read to bar such an assignment. In 1st Amendment parlance, vague statutes that might cause speakers to refrain from lawful speech are said to have “chilling effects.” But the chilling effects likely to be caused by the vagueness of the new law’s speech restrictions, as just described, pale in comparison to those that likely will be caused by its remedial provisions. The new law’s remedial provisions are sweeping. They invite “any person aggrieved” by a perceived violation of the statute to sue the violator’s school or school district. They also ominously raise the prospect of ending an offending teacher’s career by stating that “[v]iolation of [the divisive concepts law] by an educator shall be considered a violation of the educator code of conduct that justifies disciplinary sanction by the state board of education.”
The law ordinarily seeks to shield from lawsuits and liability public servants who are called upon to exercise discretion and judgment unless they act in a patently unreasonable manner. Police officers, for example, cannot be sued or held liable for merely violating the Constitution; they can be sued and held liable only if they have acted in such disregard of clearly established constitutional law that they are either plainly incompetent or knowing law-violators. The law confers this qualified immunity to avoid chilling police officers from performing their challenging duties. The divisive concepts law flouts this tradition. It puts targets on the backs of teachers and declares open season. The clear message to teachers is “discuss discrimination in its various forms at your professional peril.”Consider the following scenario. A civics teacher observes, correctly, that the death penalty is imposed in this country in a racially discriminatory manner. A student in the class misunderstands the teacher to have said that White jurors in capital cases tend to vote in ways that disadvantage African Americans because they are inherently racist. A parent of this student subsequently asks whether her teacher has ever suggested that White persons are inherently racist. The student answers yes and recounts her misunderstanding of what the teacher said. The aggrieved parent then sues and files a complaint with the State Board of Education. Serious harm would be caused by actions such as this, regardless of outcome. The school and school district would be forced to expend scarce resources defending against the claims. And the teacher would bear the additional psychic and practical burdens of being charged with unethical conduct. The divisive concepts law’s remedial provisions will likely chill risk-averse school districts, schools, and teachers from exploring crucial topics such as the legacy of slavery, contemporary racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination, notwithstanding assurances that the discussion of such topics remains permissible.New Hampshire’s divisive concepts law should be repealed. John Greabe is a law school professor, a former high school teacher and the director of the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership and Public Service at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. He lives in Hopkinton. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 2:01:23 GMT
You keep giving dissertations about slavery and preferential treatment within the black community, but you have yet to answer the question as to why skin color is so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life. Even the other ones that you are born with. And yes, @zingermack , I saw your post that you deleted. You keep doing that, I thought deleting posts was a no no here. What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 2:05:27 GMT
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm telling you how the law is being implemented and the effects of it here in schools. Teachers are afraid for their jobs and/ or potential fines to discuss issues around race. Thank you for telling me who you are. If teachers are afraid for their jobs because they won't be allowed to be divisive anymore, good. If they're afraid for their jobs because they are misinterpreting what it says and refuse to comprehend what they're actually reading, also good, because we don't need teachers that alarmingly incompetent. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 19, 2021 2:07:20 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? Convenient that you’re choosing to ignore the systemic racism that goes on today, and what republicans are doing to further it. You are whitewashing. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 2:14:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 2:31:49 GMT
Regardless of your interpretation of the law, here are specific examples of the consequences of the law. Exactly how are these positive changes? Despite what you may think, the way that these 2 teachers were teaching was not divisive. But now, they have to censor what and how they teach or risk losing their jobs. newhampshirebulletin.com/2021/11/18/uproar-over-form-to-report-teachers-puts-states-commission-for-human-rights-in-the-spotlight/For one teacher, the law has already prompted subtle changes in her teaching style.
When students of Jocelyn Merrill’s ninth-grade English class in Nashua read “To Kill A Mockingbird,” they grapple with its larger themes – the American justice system and 20th-century racial prejudice.
But moving forward, Merrill is going to be more careful with how she presents the book. In the past, she’s used the story to talk about the newer concept of systemic racism, and the notion that racism can seep into institutions and exists beyond one person making explicitly hateful statements. The new law has changed that.
“If you’re discussing who has more power within a society, that’s where it sounds like you have to be really careful with what you say,” she said.
This year, Merrill plans to retreat to a more rudimentary definition of racism, defining it only when it comes to distinct acts by bigoted individuals.abcnews.go.com/US/teachers-hampshire-face-legal-threats-teaching-called-divisive/story?id=81213142Teachers in New Hampshire face new legal threats for teaching so-called 'divisive concepts' on race: 'It's psychological warfare'
The law is meant to ban "divisive concepts," but restricts how educators teach.
Valerie Wolfson, who teaches eighth-grade social studies at Oyster River Middle School in Durham, New Hampshire, said the nature and vague wording of the law is problematic.
"The current language is very much focused on a false premise that somehow teachers are actively discriminating against students or teaching that one group is inferior or superior to another. The language is incredibly nebulous," Wolfson told ABC News' "Start Here" podcast. "The law does not spell out anything about what I can and can't teach."
Wolfson pointed to how she has to teach her students about the founding of America. She uses three different perspectives: the Indigenous perspective, European perspective and African perspective.
"[The perspectives] are going to be very different," said Wolfson. "We began our school year understanding the complexity and depth and level of sophistication of Indigenous Nations pre-European contact. Many of my students said they have never learned this much information about Indigenous groups until now."
She said that under typical circumstances, if a parent is concerned about the curriculum or they way it's being taught, they reach out to the teacher and the teacher's administrator to have a discussion.
"Under the new law, families can bypass all of those steps and go right to the state," said Wolfson, who explained that people fill out an online form found on the state's website to report teachers.
"What if I make a mistake? What if I'm very tired that day and I don't frame things in a way that's going to ensure everyone feels OK?" added Wolfson.
Wolfson said that the new law makes an already difficult job more challenging. She also noted that opinions often do matter when helping students understand complex topics like slavery.
"The idea that teachers must be neutral beings with no moral compass is actually quite troubling," she said.
While she said she won't avoid teaching the tough topics, she said she will have to be cautious moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 2:53:57 GMT
What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? Because skin color is not something that you can change. After centuries of systematic racism, people of color face challenges from the day they are born. They're starting life already behind with the challenges of implicit bias, income inequality, health disparities, and potentially social or environmental disadvantages. And it's not a competition. People with mental or physical disabilities face challenges, too. But that doesn't change the fact that systematic racism is a major problem in our country. www.zerotothree.org/resources/3502-new-report-confirms-babies-of-color-face-severe-inequities-even-before-birthAccording to a new report released today by early childhood nonprofit ZERO TO THREE, where a baby is born in America can have major implications for the rest of their life. But the data also confirm what many have long known – that Black and Brown babies start at a major disadvantage no matter what state in the U.S. they are born.
But our babies deserve more than what we’re giving them - they deserve the same opportunities as any other child,” |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 19, 2021 3:02:56 GMT
What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? It’s not the skin color that’s a problem; it’s the negative characteristics that were assigned to the color over centuries. It’s not an issue of melanin; it’s an issue of beliefs and the resulting attitudes of those beliefs that shaped societies and institutions, and became ingrained over time. That’s how racism became a structural problem and why its adverse effects became cumulative. That’s why the word “systemic” is often attached to the word “racism.” When a problem is structural whereby laws, policies, education, housing, wealth opportunities, justice, employment, etc are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs and attitudes, then the disadvantages that are the natural outcomes of that problem become much harder to overcome by the marginalized. I think that’s what people here are trying to convey to you. You are seeing only skin color when skin color is not the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by sideways on Nov 19, 2021 3:45:46 GMT
What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? Because of systemic, generational racism. If you can’t understand how that permeates into every aspect of life and how growth from that, from generation to generation, is impeded if not impossible, then I don’t know what to tell you. Beyond saying that, I don’t have the energy or desire to explain it to your morally-stunted self. And I know you won’t ponder it any further. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 4:46:40 GMT
Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? It’s not the skin color that’s a problem; it’s the negative characteristics that were assigned to the color over centuries. It’s not an issue of melanin; it’s an issue of beliefs and the resulting attitudes of those beliefs that shaped societies and institutions, and became ingrained over time. That’s how racism became a structural problem and why its adverse effects became cumulative. That’s why the word “systemic” is often attached to the word “racism.” When a problem is structural whereby laws, policies, education, housing, wealth opportunities, justice, employment, etc are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs and attitudes, then the disadvantages that are the natural outcomes of that problem become much harder to overcome by the marginalized. I think that’s what people here are trying to convey to you. You are seeing only skin color when skin color is not the problem. It’s not the skin color that’s a problem; it’s the negative characteristics that were assigned to the color over centuries. I'm well aware that it's the negative characteristics assigned to the skin color, "skin color" is quicker to say though and I assumed that conveyed the whole issue of the negative characteristics assigned. This thread of the conversation started because I said "The individual that can do something that the world wants done, will, in the end, make his way." And yes that's true no matter the color of your skin, gender, or what neighborhood you live in. It's a universal truth. When a problem is structural whereby laws, policies, education, housing, wealth opportunities, justice, employment, etc are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs and attitudes, We don't have laws that are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. We used to a long time ago, but we as a country have moved so far beyond that. I'm not aware of what policies you're speaking of that are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. No one is denied education because they're a person of color. They are often actually favored for acceptance. There are laws against housing discrimination so nothing structured that intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. Wealth opportunities are available to everyone. Not everyone knows how to tap into them, including white people, but they're available. There are a lot of people of color that are making more than a lot of white people will ever see. There are reasonable debates on justice, but a lot of what I see argued is so often not based on facts. There are laws protecting employment discrimination. More recently we sometimes see the employment discrimination going in the other direction. In so many places people of color are favored over white people. So, again nothing structured that's intentionally fashioned to support those negative beliefs. I don't think that these things are intentionally fashioned to support those negative beliefs and attitudes anymore. That doesn't mean I don't think racism exists, but it's no longer built into the laws, employment, education, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 19, 2021 5:17:48 GMT
This thread of the conversation started because I said "The individual that can do something that the world wants done, will, in the end, make his way." And yes that's true no matter the color of your skin, gender, or what neighborhood you live in. It's a universal truth. When a problem is structural whereby laws, policies, education, housing, wealth opportunities, justice, employment, etc are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs and attitudes, We don't have laws that are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. We used to a long time ago, but we as a country have moved so far beyond that. I'm not aware of what policies you're speaking of that are intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. No one is denied education because they're a person of color. They are often actually favored for acceptance. There are laws against housing discrimination so nothing structured that intentionally fashioned to support those beliefs. Wealth opportunities are available to everyone. Not everyone knows how to tap into them, including white people, but they're available. There are a lot of people of color that are making more than a lot of white people will ever see. There are reasonable debates on justice, but a lot of what I see argued is so often not based on facts. There are laws protecting employment discrimination. More recently we sometimes see the employment discrimination going in the other direction. In so many places people of color are favored over white people. So, again nothing structured that's intentionally fashioned to support those negative beliefs. I don't think that these things are intentionally fashioned to support those negative beliefs and attitudes anymore. That doesn't mean I don't think racism exists, but it's no longer built into the laws, employment, education, etc. There are so many falsehoods with your statements, I don't know where to start. Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps might be your truth. It is not a universal truth. And we absolutely do have laws structured to discriminate. Just one example - Voter suppression laws passed by Republican state legislatures in the past year target and discriminate against minority communities. No, wealth opportunities are not available to everyone. Inherited wealth and home ownership have been denied to families of color for generations and will continue to have impacts for years to come. K-12 education is mostly funded by property taxes. There are huge racial disparities in education, regardless of any anti-discrimination laws. There are also major environmental disparities for people of color. Despite anti-discrimination in housing, there are disparities in living situations for people of color. There are anti-discrimination laws in health care, too but people of color face health disparities from higher infant mortality to lower life expectancy. Regardless of your opinion, the justice system is unjust for people of color. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 6:04:06 GMT
There are so many falsehoods with your statements, I don't know where to start. How ironic. Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps might be your truth. It is not a universal truth. Now deal with the actual words I said: "The individual that can do something that the world wants done, will, in the end, make his way." quoted from Booker T. Washington. Until then, you're not having an honest conversation. Again. What is it with people that have to change the actual words I said, in order to argue against words I didn't say. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 7:57:37 GMT
Therefore we do have to be hypervigilant about the way we, as white people, interact with people of color. I addressed this earlier, but I recently read an article about Robin DiAngelo's latest book and this highlight from the article caught my attention in relation to this: *Socially anxious and prejudiced white women like the author of White Fragility & other speakers that make big bucks teaching that you can't talk to minorities without using elaborate codes and rules. It's absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 19, 2021 11:35:11 GMT
That's your interpretation of the law. I'm telling you how people who live here, work here and teach here and are directly impacted by the law are interpreting it. I provided the definition of the state for reference so you could see who the laws apply to. The rest of it I didn't object to. No. Just no. That isn't my interpretation of the law, that IS the law. These in particular are recent manifestations: The laws are not referring to teaching about slavery times, they are talking about the WAY it is being taught. If people are telling you that the law is saying that teachers can't teach about slavery, all you have to do is look at the law and see for yourself that is NOT what it's saying. Think for yourself. Stop relying on others to do your thinking for you because they are being dishonest. Just look at the law. It's verifiably NOT what they are telling you and you are relaying here. It's okay to admit when you make a mistake, you won't cease to exist, you won't explode, no one is going to destroy you for it. It says a lot for your character when you do. She’s not wrong. The law is written to be a trap for teachers. It only takes one student say “I felt anguish when we learned about slavery because I’m white and the white owners were cruel to the black slaves” and away we go. It’s only takes one parent who reads a writing prompt asking students to reflect on the modern legacy of slavery in our society for someone to end up on “administrative leave.” Note that it doesn’t matter if the teacher is found “guilty” of breaking the law. The ensuing legal tangle and threats/scorn from parents based on an accusation will cause many to simply leave the profession. Parents groups are working toward this end right now. In New Hampshire, they’re putting a bounty on teacher’s heads, risking the careers and safety of teachers by encouraging accusations based on how someone feels when learning about troubling times in our history. thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/581722-moms-group-puts-500-bounty-on-teachers-who-teach?fbclid=IwAR1_QdorFMSlFH_RFNb-XMiGPC4AjAwdhURxzLVNiTPOzi_7WdO3lxPLaqMI’m sure you realize that the law as written is open to wide interpretation, and a teacher broaching any sensitive racial issue in a real world context is in danger. BTW, making historical concepts relevant to students by putting them in a modern context is a hallmark of good teaching. Why is it important that we learn about slavery or the Holocaust? We all know the answer is because both of these things have ugly legacies that persist today in real people today, but in saying so, we teachers are in danger of being targeted by fringe groups like the one in the story above. These laws give them power to destroy teachers’ lives. Additionally, teachers now have to carefully monitor student discussion to make sure nothing is said that could be construed to break any facets of the law, lest the teacher be blamed for allowing such comments to stand. I’m sure that’s not what you hoped for when you wanted to stop silencing people in schools. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 19, 2021 12:25:30 GMT
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? Are you saying that all disadvantages are equal? What is a little disadvantage? What is a big disadvantage? Do you decide the difference on what is a big disadvantage vs a little one? That is sure what it sounds like here. Me having divorced parents is nothing like experiencing racism or discrimination based on someone's skin color. Do you feel differently on that? I’d not bother. She is clearly saying that people of color are not being discriminated against because of race—that it has to be something else. She’s clearly and purposefully ignoring the systemic racism that has continued to happen today. It is that “pull yourself up by the bootstraps-stop whining about your color” bullshit mantra that republicans are pushing. She gaslighting. She’s attempting to do it subtly, but it’s there. It’s dangerous rhetoric she’s spewing. |
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 19, 2021 14:01:07 GMT
Wealth opportunities are available to everyone. Not everyone knows how to tap into them, including white people, but they're available. There are a lot of people of color that are making more than a lot of white people will ever see. Where do you get your information? What is a lot? What is the percentage of people of color vs the percentage of white people? www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minoritiesYou act like racism has never occurred in our country. There are still people alive today who couldn't drink out of certain water fountains due to their race. Do you not think that this didn't help shape our country today? Maybe this will help you understand. I doubt it though. Understanding Associations between Race, Socioeconomic Status and Health: Patterns and Prospects Research indicates that there are at least four reasons why race still matters for health after SES is considered. Firstly, in addition to being influenced by current SES, health is also affected by exposure to adversity throughout the life-course. Early life adversity, such as poverty, abuse, and traumatic stress, vary by race and SES, and has been shown to influence multiple indicators of physical and mental health later in life, including cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function (Shonkoff, Boyce et al. 2009 Secondly, race matters to health disparities due to the non-equivalence of SES indicators across racial groups. Compared to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics receive less income at the same education levels, have markedly less wealth at equivalent income levels, and have less purchasing power due higher costs of goods and services in the residential environments where they are disproportionately located ( Williams, Mohammed et al. 2010). Thirdly, arguably the most critical distinctive social exposure experienced by racial minorities is the added burden of racism. Discrimination across both institutional and interpersonal levels remains pervasive in contemporary societies (Pager and Shepherd 2008). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817358/ |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 19, 2021 16:23:57 GMT
How did that work in Tulsa? Juneteenth?
|
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Nov 19, 2021 17:03:30 GMT
What disadvantage? Please elaborate as you are being vague. Give some examples here. Being deaf, being blind, having no legs, missing feet, missing hands, arms, having mental disabilities... Why is skin color so much more of a disadvantage to success than any other disadvantage in life? Thank you for letting me know which disadvantages you are comparing skin color too. Here is some research for you on the topic. www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/disability-race-poverty-in-america.pdfMaybe this will help you in the answers you are seeking. FYI Skin color isn't more of a disadvantage but it is still a disadvantage. So where are you going with this? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 19:24:40 GMT
No. Just no. That isn't my interpretation of the law, that IS the law. These in particular are recent manifestations: The laws are not referring to teaching about slavery times, they are talking about the WAY it is being taught. If people are telling you that the law is saying that teachers can't teach about slavery, all you have to do is look at the law and see for yourself that is NOT what it's saying. Think for yourself. Stop relying on others to do your thinking for you because they are being dishonest. Just look at the law. It's verifiably NOT what they are telling you and you are relaying here. It's okay to admit when you make a mistake, you won't cease to exist, you won't explode, no one is going to destroy you for it. It says a lot for your character when you do. She’s not wrong. The law is written to be a trap for teachers. It only takes one student say “I felt anguish when we learned about slavery because I’m white and the white owners were cruel to the black slaves” and away we go. It’s only takes one parent who reads a writing prompt asking students to reflect on the modern legacy of slavery in our society for someone to end up on “administrative leave.” Note that it doesn’t matter if the teacher is found “guilty” of breaking the law. The ensuing legal tangle and threats/scorn from parents based on an accusation will cause many to simply leave the profession. Parents groups are working toward this end right now. In New Hampshire, they’re putting a bounty on teacher’s heads, risking the careers and safety of teachers by encouraging accusations based on how someone feels when learning about troubling times in our history. thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/581722-moms-group-puts-500-bounty-on-teachers-who-teach?fbclid=IwAR1_QdorFMSlFH_RFNb-XMiGPC4AjAwdhURxzLVNiTPOzi_7WdO3lxPLaqMI’m sure you realize that the law as written is open to wide interpretation, and a teacher broaching any sensitive racial issue in a real world context is in danger. BTW, making historical concepts relevant to students by putting them in a modern context is a hallmark of good teaching. Why is it important that we learn about slavery or the Holocaust? We all know the answer is because both of these things have ugly legacies that persist today in real people today, but in saying so, we teachers are in danger of being targeted by fringe groups like the one in the story above. These laws give them power to destroy teachers’ lives. Additionally, teachers now have to carefully monitor student discussion to make sure nothing is said that could be construed to break any facets of the law, lest the teacher be blamed for allowing such comments to stand. I’m sure that’s not what you hoped for when you wanted to stop silencing people in schools. She’s not wrong. The law is written to be a trap for teachers. It only takes one student say “I felt anguish when we learned about slavery because I’m white and the white owners were cruel to the black slaves” and away we go. It’s only takes one parent who reads a writing prompt asking students to reflect on the modern legacy of slavery in our society for someone to end up on “administrative leave.” Note that it doesn’t matter if the teacher is found “guilty” of breaking the law. Yes, she is wrong and I showed that. The law is not written in a way that would allow that. If you still insist that it is, please point to the exact wording that you think allows that to happen, I want to see what you're seeing. BTW, making historical concepts relevant to students by putting them in a modern context is a hallmark of good teaching. No one has an issue with that, as long as teachers and administrators aren't teaching in a way that divides the races in how they interact with each other going forward -as seems to be the case in too many schools. Additionally, teachers now have to carefully monitor student discussion to make sure nothing is said that could be construed to break any facets of the law, lest the teacher be blamed for allowing such comments to stand. Good. As they should. And if it's that difficult for them to not break that law, then they should ask themselves why their inclinations are to so closely teach in such a divisive way that they worry that won't be able to not be divisive. I’m sure that’s not what you hoped for when you wanted to stop silencing people in schools. Silencing divisive teaching is okay with me. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 19, 2021 19:27:48 GMT
Wealth opportunities are available to everyone. Not everyone knows how to tap into them, including white people, but they're available. There are a lot of people of color that are making more than a lot of white people will ever see. Where do you get your information? What is a lot? What is the percentage of people of color vs the percentage of white people? www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minoritiesYou act like racism has never occurred in our country. There are still people alive today who couldn't drink out of certain water fountains due to their race. Do you not think that this didn't help shape our country today? Maybe this will help you understand. I doubt it though. Understanding Associations between Race, Socioeconomic Status and Health: Patterns and Prospects Research indicates that there are at least four reasons why race still matters for health after SES is considered. Firstly, in addition to being influenced by current SES, health is also affected by exposure to adversity throughout the life-course. Early life adversity, such as poverty, abuse, and traumatic stress, vary by race and SES, and has been shown to influence multiple indicators of physical and mental health later in life, including cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function (Shonkoff, Boyce et al. 2009 Secondly, race matters to health disparities due to the non-equivalence of SES indicators across racial groups. Compared to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics receive less income at the same education levels, have markedly less wealth at equivalent income levels, and have less purchasing power due higher costs of goods and services in the residential environments where they are disproportionately located ( Williams, Mohammed et al. 2010). Thirdly, arguably the most critical distinctive social exposure experienced by racial minorities is the added burden of racism. Discrimination across both institutional and interpersonal levels remains pervasive in contemporary societies (Pager and Shepherd 2008). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817358/Where do you get your information? What is a lot? From the world around me. What is the percentage of people of color vs the percentage of white people? Irrelevant in seeing people of color showing AND SAYING that being a person of color isn't going to stop you from succeeding. Saying that it isn't a valid reason to give up and be a victim. You act like racism has never occurred in our country. My actual words do not support this statement. |
|
