Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 139

Thread: GOP 'protecting' our schools

  1. Top | #51
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,017
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marc View Post
    ok, forget redlining and apartheid. I'd like to see how a teacher is supposed to handle women getting the right to vote in 1920 after a 150 year of being denied the right by... um... non-women..?.
    Teach that in the past, women as a whole were denied the right to vote, based on several assumptions that we no longer hold to be true. Men of the time held that women were not sufficiently educated to have a view of their own, and that the view of the "man of the house" was sufficient to reflect the views of all adults in that house.

    In the early 1900s, women began speaking out and voicing their view that they were independent actors in their own right, with their own views and desires, and that they should be able to act politically on their own conscience. Although there was opposition, many men in the early 1900s supported the suffragettes in their efforts. Over time, as women entered the workplace in larger numbers and began partaking in all parts of out society, both men and women have benefitted.

    As a result of these activities, we as a society have acknowledged that women are not inferior to men, and that both men and women have valuable contributions to our society. By working together, rather than against each other, we've been able to make significant progress.

    So basically, the idea is to promote comforting fictions, that laud those in positions of social privilege as though they are somehow responsible for the fruits of two centuries of grassroots activism by a severely oppressed class?
    Poli, I'm a pretty serious feminist. None of what I said is a comforting fiction. It's softened a bit, but there is absolutely no good justification for teaching history in a way that makes current boys in school feel like THEY have done something wrong or are evil because of something outside of their control.

    What progress women and people of color have accomplished has not been accomplished through deriding and demeaning those in power. That approach is entirely antithetical to progress. It has been through collaboration and through winning allies that progress has been made.

    Teaching in a way that leaves little boys with the message that they are bad because they are male is bad teaching. Teaching in a way that leaves white children feeling like they are bad because they are white is bad teaching. It absolutely should NOT be the message given to children in school.

    And the perversion of CRT that is being applied in schools is doing exactly that - it is indoctrinating white children and male children to feel that they themselves are inescapably evil and bad due to traits they have no control over.

    I learned about the civil war, about slavery, about the reconstruction and the jim crow era. I learned about suffragettes and the right for women's equality. I even, shockingly, learned that these fights are still being fought today, and that there is still racism and sexism in the world. I learned these things in elementary school, middle school, high school, and at university.

    And I learned them in ways that did NOT lay blame for the sins of our fathers at the feet of the children in those classes.

  2. Top | #52
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,017
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marc View Post
    ok, forget redlining and apartheid. I'd like to see how a teacher is supposed to handle women getting the right to vote in 1920 after a 150 year of being denied the right by... um... non-women..?.
    Teach that in the past, women as a whole were denied the right to vote, based on several assumptions that we no longer hold to be true. Men of the time held that women were not sufficiently educated to have a view of their own, and that the view of the "man of the house" was sufficient to reflect the views of all adults in that house.

    In the early 1900s, women began speaking out and voicing their view that they were independent actors in their own right, with their own views and desires, and that they should be able to act politically on their own conscience. Although there was opposition, many men in the early 1900s supported the suffragettes in their efforts. Over time, as women entered the workplace in larger numbers and began partaking in all parts of out society, both men and women have benefitted.

    As a result of these activities, we as a society have acknowledged that women are not inferior to men, and that both men and women have valuable contributions to our society. By working together, rather than against each other, we've been able to make significant progress.
    That's washing out the fact that the suffrage movement did not happen without violence. "Opposition" was violent and while many defected to the cause of suffrage, a great many also defected the other way, and still do.

    "Women and men" working together for suffrage. Blacks and whites working together to ensure that black lives matter as much as all other lives. The north coming together and shutting down the slavery of the white supremacist south. Usually these things involved some threat of violence or protest. The last especially so.
    Sure. And how does that violence of the past require making children today feel guilty and feel like they are evil and bad as a result of their race or their sex?

  3. Top | #53
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,017
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post

    You simply aren't correct about that. Race is indeed very important within critical race theory, hence the name, but the kind of "race" you mean, an inherent quality of a human being that you can perceive by looking at the pigmentation of their skin, is definitively rejected by all formulations of CRT. Race, in CRT, is exclusively and definitively a social construct. Real, but optional; real only in the sense that people make it real by beleiving that it is and acting accordingly.

    The idea that "everything" is defined by race in CRT is also a very silly thing for you to claim, as I am certain you've heard of intersectionality theory, itself the intellectual offspring of CRT and included in most theoretical descriptions of race these days. Intersectionality theory, at its core, asserts that race cannot be understood in isolation, but only as one component of a more complex social system in which other hierarchical signals of status interact with and are modified by concepts of race.
    I think you two are arguing the academic hypothesis of critical race theory versus the practical application of it.

    Same thing happened with a lot of other academic theories. They're great when it's all hypothetical and in the ivory tower, not so great when they start to get implemented by laypeople. Same thing happened with the concept of privilege. It's a powerful way to understanding group dynamics - in an abstract way. But when everyday people start getting lectured by other everyday people who don't actually understand the concept... it very quickly becomes a pile of finger pointing and blaming that accomplishes nothing except to generate animosity.

    Take your academic concept of CRT... and then read White Fragility. How well has diAngelo actually interpreted the theory? And how has her interpretation been applied in the real world? And what is a normal average person who is NOT an academic going to perceive the message to be?

    Short version of this is that Critical Theory is utter bollocks as soon as it leaves the lab.
    It is true that no scientific theory quite survives translation into a social context, and scientific theories are not infallible to begin with. But I do not think it is reasonable to have a conversation about CRT that does not involve, you know, actual critical race theory. Nor do I trust social conservatives to give unbiased accounts of how CRT is applied in their lives.

    Just because you meet someone on the street that insists the theory of evolution is about monkeys giving birth to humans, does not mean that these hypothetical monkey mommas are now the "real" theory of evolution. I would be quite upset if someone were teaching an inaccurate version of biological evolution in a classroom, but promulgating a law requiring the teaching of creationism in the classroom as per this new bill doesn't solve that problem. On the contrary, it makes the situation demonstrably worse.
    Teaching creationism in school is dumb.

    Teaching CRT to children, as taught by people who do not actually understand it, is at least as dumb.

  4. Top | #54
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,481
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,188
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post

    ...where "critical race theory" is code for "white neo-conservative racism neurosis".
    And there it is. White = bad.
    No. White supremacist ideology = problem.
    It is quite revealing how Trausti casually conflates "white" with "white neo-conservative racism neurosis".
    As a person who is white, I resent that a little. But at least it's an honest reflection of what's in his mind.

  5. Top | #55
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post


    So basically, the idea is to promote comforting fictions, that laud those in positions of social privilege as though they are somehow responsible for the fruits of two centuries of grassroots activism by a severely oppressed class?
    Poli, I'm a pretty serious feminist. None of what I said is a comforting fiction. It's softened a bit, but there is absolutely no good justification for teaching history in a way that makes current boys in school feel like THEY have done something wrong or are evil because of something outside of their control.

    What progress women and people of color have accomplished has not been accomplished through deriding and demeaning those in power. That approach is entirely antithetical to progress. It has been through collaboration and through winning allies that progress has been made.

    Teaching in a way that leaves little boys with the message that they are bad because they are male is bad teaching. Teaching in a way that leaves white children feeling like they are bad because they are white is bad teaching. It absolutely should NOT be the message given to children in school.

    And the perversion of CRT that is being applied in schools is doing exactly that - it is indoctrinating white children and male children to feel that they themselves are inescapably evil and bad due to traits they have no control over.

    I learned about the civil war, about slavery, about the reconstruction and the jim crow era. I learned about suffragettes and the right for women's equality. I even, shockingly, learned that these fights are still being fought today, and that there is still racism and sexism in the world. I learned these things in elementary school, middle school, high school, and at university.

    And I learned them in ways that did NOT lay blame for the sins of our fathers at the feet of the children in those classes.
    Jesus Christ, conservatives are obsessed with "blame"...

    Reality really doesn't care about your feelings, you know. If uncensored history instruction makes people feel "sad", that's not going to be fixed by censoring it; the anxiety inherently attached to being raised in positions of privilege is going to follow them their whole lives whether they understand the roots of it or not. I certainly do not agree that "boys should feel bad for being boys" or "whites should feel bad for being whites", but no reputable curriculum of record would require such a thing. Children deserve to have factual histories taught to them, not propaganda designed to soothe some of their feelings at the expense of others. I don't think this is even really about the children ; this is about angry parents. Kids themselves have accepted CRT and the like more or less in stride, according to such data as are available; the current younger generation are far less racist and sexist in their general social attitudes than any previous American generation. It's their Millenial parents and Boomer grandparents who are shitting a brick over all this, not them.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  6. Top | #56
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,017
    Rep Power
    29
    You know I'm not conservative, right?

  7. Top | #57
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,409
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    128,161
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    https://turnto10.com/news/local/bill...n-rhode-island

    The bill calls for an outright ban on so-called divisive concepts, defined as anything that implies the state or country is fundamentally racist or sexist or blames a specific race for a societal issue.
    Why would anyone oppose this?
    So we can't teach about slavery?

  8. Top | #58
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,409
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    128,161
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    And avalanches of empirical data, which is really more the point where scientists are concerned.
    What empirical data? Seriously, what empirical data supports this tripe?

    The third one on there is a joke these days.

  9. Top | #59
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,011
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    You know I'm not conservative, right?
    Nope.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  10. Top | #60
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,504
    Rep Power
    17
    Funny thing about that bill in FL. When a student records a teacher, say, citing bible passages, the student was reprimanded (of course, he recorded the conversation with the principle as well).

    I don't think that one will work out the way they want it to. The ACLU might be very busy going over all those recordings.

    reference case...there are several others.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •