Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take, OP; it sounds like "dad" doesn't understand what critical race theory is about. {"Letter From Parent")
All that he knows is that he didn't teach his daughter to discriminate and doesn't need to spend $54,000 a year for Brearly to teach their version of non-discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
I don't see a problem with the Dept. of Education's proposals. Providing alternative viewpoints to events in history, and to the building of this nation, will not make history "evil". It will make history much more nuanced, as it should be. This will teach students to look at the world from multiple perspectives, which is a valuable skill increasing in relevance in our globalized world.
I didn't say that it makes history evil. It means that they are teaching that the U.S. is an evil country. I wonder what tribal politics are like in Rwanda and Burundi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBGUSA
My response to a follow-up message from the Dean of Arts and Sciences said, in summary “Remember, Mr. Floyd was killed by four Minneapolis police officers, not by Cornell University.”
As I type that paragraph, I'm having a sense of deja vu. Didn't you have a very similar topic on this or another subform (Education, perhaps?) earlier this year? I know we've explained these things to you before.
I'm not sure where but I don't think the answer is to ghettoize the U.S. The answer is inclusion and integration, and if necessary intensive therapy for the children of the underclass. I'm going to quote from myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
What's needed is utopian; a program that compensates, on an individualized basis, for these students' lack of any structured home life. See, for example, Makia Bryant’s foster parent’s mom says her foster parent’s daughters included discussions about tidying up in her deadly debate, about the recent death of a 16 year old girl trying to plunge a knife into another girl she was having an argument with. If these people are to be habilitated (note I didn't use the word rehabilitated) there must be some intense program. The trouble is, even if this were tried on a pilot basis, it would run aground based on political sensibilities. But this is the only way. Also, steps must be taken to prevent procreation by teens. Again, the same likely criticisms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
This statement shows you don't understand the Cornell President's vow.
I did understand it. And I am far more anguished about children caught in the cross-fire of gang wars than about "George Floyd, and before him, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and others whose deaths are less well publicized." When a city becomes a free-fire zone there are people a lot more innocent being killed and wounded than Ahmaud Arbery,who was apparently casing a construction site.
What makes you think that only White people live in safe communities? I live in a good community that is multi-racial. I'm also a minority member, although I'm not Black.
Nobody wants to live in an unsafe neighborhood -- why do you automatically assume that unsafe neighborhoods are composed solely of minorities? And why should people of any race move to somewhere unsafe in order to prove anything to you?
There are an awful lot of White folks who contribute to making neighborhoods unsafe, in case you weren't aware of that. Only just this past week we had one such White guy arrested who had been going around Long Island for several months shooting his gun at businesses and homes of Jews. Thank G-d he was caught before he killed someone. His name is Christopher Keller. Google him.
He sounds crazy. Not sure what this has to do with the topic, though.
Most hate crimes against Jews in New York City and surrounding areas are perpetrated by blacks. Most hate crimes against Asians are also done by blacks. The majority of shootings are by black males. The statistics are pretty clear, unfortunately.
In my opinion, this is happening in part because of a permissive, apologetic stance by the white power structure. When the elite of our society... such as Cornell and some prestigious private school in NYC and the Biden Administration... are saying that the problem is a thing called systemic racism that causes discrimination against black people, it basically forgives bad behavior among the black community.
This is nothing new; liberal sociologists were saying this kind of thing back in the 1970s. I remember reading a book about crime in America in which the writer stated that crimes committed by black criminals "are not their fault. It is our fault." This topsy-turvy thinking has now permeated all of academia and much of government. Law and order have been replaced by "spank me for the sins of my ancestors".
And, just as in the old days, these elite have no idea what they're talking about. When the violence comes to their door, and no police willing to protect them, they will perhaps sing a different tune. Things will have to get worse before they get better.
And that is what I mean by my suggestion they go live there.
Race and racism goes all the way back to 1619. Furthermore, when the union was formed, how did those great Founding Fathers handle blacks/racism in the Constitution?
There is no such thing as a colorblind society. Do you really believe that when a black person walks through a neighborhood and a white woman at her front window calls the police that she did not see race? Do you really think that police who profile Blacks when driving expensive cars that it isn't about race? Ever heard of white flight?
It has been documented that white women benefit disproportionately from Affirmative Action policies.
The passing of the Civil Rights Act was a legality. People in the dominant caste have circumvented laws in many ways including redlining in housing.
Finally, racism is not the problem of the person who experiences it.
An egalitarian society, with equal rights and treatment for all, is a work in progress. It didn't just magically spring out of the CRA in 1964.
But there has been pretty steady progress toward equal treatment. We should give ourselves a little credit. The hysteria from the Left is unjustified and seems more like bored people searching for a cause, than sincere desire to right past wrongs and all that.
One of the many issues I have with the whole "anti-racism" craze that's sweeping the land is that it is as shallow and poorly thought-out as, say, a tweet from some brain-dead celebrity. There's no critical thinking involved; just regurgitation of talking points and increasingly harsh social penalties for failing to toe the line. Let's take the Department of Education quote as an example.
Quote:
Background: The Department recognizes that COVID–19—with its disproportionate impact on communities of color—and the ongoing national reckoning with systemic racism have highlighted the urgency of improving racial equity throughout our society, including in our education system.
Many times I've seen this notion that COVID-19 has disproportionately affected "communities of color" stated as if it's gospel. But why doesn't anyone ask, WHY has this happened? Is it because people of color (POC) are somehow more susceptible to the virus? Is it because Systemic Racism is holding them down? Or maybe, just maybe, might it be due to actions or inactions by certain POC themselves? In the early days of the pandemic, I clearly recall video footage taken in my area that showed deserted streets and buildings as people heeded the call to isolate and socially distance. But in the poor black section of town, this same footage showed groups of people hanging out closely together, masks worn below the nose (if at all). More recently, there has been handwringing about black people being vaccinated at a lower rate than white people in my state, with the clear implication that Systemic Racism is somehow to blame. But several of the mass vaccination sites are easily accessible to "communities of color." Is it possible, just maybe, that the individual actions or inactions of some POC have resulted in a disparate impact on their communities? Who knows, because that question is never asked, because it would be racist. Or so it is said.
Or, what about this other part of the DOE's message?
Quote:
Under this priority, the applicants propose projects that incorporate teaching and learning practices that reflect the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students create inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe learning environments. In its application, an applicant addressing this priority must describe how its proposed project incorporates teaching and learning practices that—
(a) Take into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history;
(b) Incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives and perspectives on the experience of individuals with disabilities;
Sounds nice, I guess, but what is the practical application? I think of my single favorite historical event, that being the Battle of Midway in World War II. Every single American participant in combat actions during this battle was a white male. No women, no minorities, just white men fighting and dying and winning the battle. How is this fact to be taught under these guidelines? And why does it matter? History is the study of what actually happened in the past; not what we wish might have happened.
Sounds nice, I guess, but what is the practical application? I think of my single favorite historical event, that being the Battle of Midway in World War II. Every single American participant in combat actions during this battle was a white male. No women, no minorities, just white men fighting and dying and winning the battle. How is this fact to be taught under these guidelines? And why does it matter? History is the study of what actually happened in the past; not what we wish might have happened.
Excellent post!
Your mention of the War brought to mind the changes which began in 1949, when President Truman issued an order to the military to remove racial segregation.
There was resistance among the general officers at first, until some major battles in Korea where they observed the black Marines comported themselves with professionalism and fought well. The generals then concluded that the blacks should be integrated. Thus, in the 1950s, the U.S. military became the first major institution to get rid of segregation.
What's more, the military, particularly the U.S. Army, served as a career path for black youth who otherwise had few options. For several generations of black men, the Army was the single most effective institution for instilling literacy and professional skills. It was a way out of poverty. The Army showed that when you apply the same rules equally, strictly but fairly, most people will rise to the occasion.
It's sadly ironic that today's leftists, whilst proclaiming great love for the blacks, are also anti-military. Obama even put a woman on the Supreme Court who had banned ROTC from campus when she was dean of a law school. I've always felt that should have disqualified her from the job, but no one asked me.
In my opinion, the way out of the racism preoccupation is for the leadership to proclaim, we are all equal, we must all be treated equally, the police should not abuse minorities but they should nonetheless enforce the law strictly.
Stop telling a particular group of people that society owes them a debt for past injustice, and stop demanding that another group pay that debt. None of us were around back then, and a good many of us who were, happened to fight for the Union and against slavery; hundreds of thousands of us gave our lives for that cause. Debt paid in full.
Nearly every group that's come to the U.S. was fleeing dire oppression and poverty; nearly every group faced nasty discrimination with no recourse when they got here. The Irish were conquered and colonized by the British for 800 years, and then they came to the New World mainly to escape starvation during the Potato Famine. Do they owe some kind of debt to the descendants of slaves? Do the Poles and Russians? Do the Jews? Ridiculous.
We're all equal here. That's what made this country great. It's a work in progress, but at our best, we're still better than almost any other place on the globe.
Sounds nice, I guess, but what is the practical application? I think of my single favorite historical event, that being the Battle of Midway in World War II. Every single American participant in combat actions during this battle was a white male. No women, no minorities, just white men fighting and dying and winning the battle. How is this fact to be taught under these guidelines? And why does it matter? History is the study of what actually happened in the past; not what we wish might have happened.
Is it news to you that the U.S. Navy was segregated? I'm trying to figure out what sort of point you are trying to make here. Minorities also fought for the U.S. during WW II.
If you were unaware of segregation being the reason for "just white men fighting and dying and winning" that particular battle, then perhaps this is one of the things that needs to be taught.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 04-25-2021 at 08:13 PM..
Is it news to you that the U.S. Navy was segregated? I'm trying to figure out what sort of point you are trying to make here. Minorities also fought for the U.S. during WW II.
If you were unaware of segregation being the reason for "just white men fighting and dying and winning" that particular battle, then perhaps this is one of the things that needs to be taught.
My parents both served in the Navy during the World War II years.
They told me many stories about how black sailors were relegated to a handful of very menial and sometimes dirty jobs. One would be in the engine room. Another would be serving as mess stewards in the galley. The last they mentioned was serving in a gun turret in a battleship or destroyer. Other jobs were barred to them.
The military at that time actually had segregated blood for medical procedures. Whites were not supposed to get black blood. I don't know if blacks were supposed to not get white blood. However, its an example of how insane segregation can get.
With respect to the title of this topic: I suppose there can be such a thing as "too much anti-racism". I think people can get too sensitive about language and we can be too "politically correct". However, I think we are far--too far in 2021--from eliminating racism in our society. I guess that concerns me more than "too much anti-racism".
Is it news to you that the U.S. Navy was segregated? I'm trying to figure out what sort of point you are trying to make here. Minorities also fought for the U.S. during WW II.
If you were unaware of segregation being the reason for "just white men fighting and dying and winning" that particular battle, then perhaps this is one of the things that needs to be taught.
I'm aware of both of these facts, thank you. And both of these facts are worthy of being taught. The fact that black men did not contribute to the victory at Midway is not a reflection on black men; it is a reflection on the segregation policies of the day.
But my original question remains: how can we teach about the Battle of Midway in a racially-appropriate way, as the DOE seems to be calling for? As opposed to, just teaching about the battle without having to worry about anyone's racially sensitive feathers being ruffled.
EDIT to add, if anyone thinks that no one is race-obsessed enough to examine World War II through the lens of race, check out this review of the 2019 film Midway:
I'm aware of both of these facts, thank you. And both of these facts are worthy of being taught. The fact that black men did not contribute to the victory at Midway is not a reflection on black men; it is a reflection on the segregation policies of the day.
But my original question remains: how can we teach about the Battle of Midway in a racially-appropriate way, as the DOE seems to be calling for? As opposed to, just teaching about the battle without having to worry about anyone's racially sensitive feathers being ruffled.
EDIT to add, if anyone thinks that no one is race-obsessed enough to examine World War II through the lens of race, check out this review of the 2019 film Midway:
I think that it may be up to historians such as yourself to come up with the answer to the question of how to teach about these events in history. I also think that the issue of race cannot be separated from history. I believe that we can learn from mistakes of the past, and I do think that racial segregation in the military was one of those mistakes.
I'm aware of both of these facts, thank you. And both of these facts are worthy of being taught. The fact that black men did not contribute to the victory at Midway is not a reflection on black men; it is a reflection on the segregation policies of the day.
But my original question remains: how can we teach about the Battle of Midway in a racially-appropriate way, as the DOE seems to be calling for? As opposed to, just teaching about the battle without having to worry about anyone's racially sensitive feathers being ruffled.
EDIT to add, if anyone thinks that no one is race-obsessed enough to examine World War II through the lens of race, check out this review of the 2019 film Midway:
As you likely know, the name for the next Ford-class carrier has been chosen: "U.S.S. Doris Miller". For those not familiar, please Google it, his (an African American sailor in WWII) is a very interesting story. One of the reasons I support this "unusual" naming convention, is that it not only honors Miller, it also honors every other lower-level sailor in WWII who went above-and-beyond and served their country with honor, their numbers are enormous, and Miller is a fine example. This could be used as a springboard to advance the subject of blacks in the military in WWII.
I'm amazed by your statement that there were no blacks at Midway, with such a huge force present. My guess is that even if true, that particular action was supported by black sailors and civilians in significant numbers, from the N.A.D. in Nebraska (if it was active yet), to the ammunition ships that fed munitions to the warships themselves, to the absolutely huge logistics operations that allowed our Navy to leave port, and maybe even to the (Pearl Harbor?) codebreakers who were at the heart of it. Not sure if you watch the YouTube channel of "Naval Historiographer" Drachinifel, I'm hooked on his work and need to send some support his way for the hundreds of hours of his work I've tried to absorb during the pandemic.
Last edited by Curly Q. Bobalink; 04-25-2021 at 11:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
