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.
What would you tell a student who asked: "How come there were no Black people fighting in the Battle of the Midway?" What would you tell a student who asked: "How come there were no Black veterans living in Levittown, New York after the war? Didn't our government subsidize the building of these low-cost homes in order to assist veterans returning from WW II?"
Sorry, but I do think that the issue of race and how it affected events is relevant, as well as unavoidable in any honest discussion of American history.
I don't agree with those who believe that America is "evil" because of these things in our country's past. The only "evil" is in shutting our eyes and avoiding the uncomfortable discussions.
And such discussions truly are uncomfortable. It is painful for me, as a Jew, to acknowledge that William Levitt, the builder of Levittown, was Jewish and he not only discriminated against Black people but also Jewish veterans returning from the war were barred from purchasing homes in Levittown. And, again, our government was complicit in this by subsidizing Levitt's building project.
Only by acknowledging these past mistakes can we acquire a full and honest grasp of our history, as well as learn from history in order to do better for the future.
Excellent post! I am originally from Long Island and Levittown is a perfect example of systemic racism. ALL GIs who fought fascism in WWII should have been given equal access under the GI Bill to purchase a home in Levittown. Instead, they were steered towards places far from employment, good schools, NYC, where many were from and worked. The homes built for them were of inferior quality and in undesirable parts of LI that have not increased in value. Places like Gordon Heights, Wyandanch and Brentwood.
Obviously I agree. Communities of color need to play a far larger role in their own salvation. When I was vaxxed at Jacob Javits Convention Center there were people of color there but not proportional to the population of New York City. Why? As far as education goes they should be leading the way pointing out liberal hypocrisy in closing the schools and doing nothing to prevent a lost two years of education. Not myself, a Cornell-educated professional.
As was pointed out by Rachel and Curly below, blacks were segregated out of much of the Army and yet they fought valiantly for a country that belittled them. That indeed did appeal to the country's conscience, which in turn spawned Jackie Robinson's integration of baseball, Harry Truman's very brave integration of the Army and Armed Forces Housing despite his personal bigotry, and at the Supreme Court level Sweatt v. Painter and Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. By the way the facts of Sweatt are shocking. He was under the force of earlier decisions admitted to University of Texas Law School and given a "separate but equal" education. He was placed alone in a classroom and lectured to by the same professors as taught the white students. If there ever was marginalization this was the occasion. And it was wrong, wrong, wrong.
My rant against anti-racism stops on this issue. I believe strongly that the history of segregation must be taught. I feel even more strongly that the positive achievements of African Americans need to be given a far higher place in curricula. But it's the achievements, not the race, that should be emphasized. Joseph Pulitzer's achievements are well known, as is the prize that his foundation gives. Where is it rehashed that he arrived as a penniless immigrant from Hungary? Or as much as I disagree with Henry Kissinger he has made a big footprint in history. Is his marginalization by Aryan society repeated each time his name comes up? In other words black achievements need to be sought out and added, in chronological order to the existing curriculum. And not isolated for a special segment or course.
exactly to all of this.
"Black History" should be interwoven into American History, every year it's taught. What good would 1 or more separate classes in Black History during K-12 education do? When we discuss WWII, we should say "Black men were still segregated, and here's who served in combat."
We should teach that slavery was common worldwide, and when it generally ended (or ended by country, etc). We should teach things like the 3/5 Compromise, because very quickly in any "Constitutional Studies" or "History of the Constitution" coursework, it's going to appear.
We should teach that importation of slaves ended, when slaves were and weren't freed in Northern states, and how many slaves there were in 1865. The difference between "freedom" in 1865 and real justice/pursuit of happiness. Everything the US government did way beyond "Jim Crow laws" that weren't limited to the South.
It's appalling to not only find out what was done by the Feds and (almost) every state that disallowed Black participation in things like home mortgages, and we should teach what redlining was.
I have no belief in reparations for slavery. Nor for "gentrification". But I do believe that "compensation" can and should be provided for Government actions from ~ 1930 - 1965.
The difference between the situation you described above, i.e. the Civil Rights movement, and reaching out to get black people into better jobs and integrated neighborhoods, is far different than the current efforts to cancel previous accomplishments of white people. These efforts take aim precisely at the identity of the achievers as white. What is being talked about is tearing up a system that has been good to many people. For example, demolishing honors math programs help no one and hurts the people who the country needs to get ahead.See https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruc...pi/index.shtml and CD thread Virginia eliminating accellerated math until 11th and 12th..... Other examples concerning the Brearly School in New York City are discussed in the OP.
I have a personal experience with this though race was not an issue. From Fourth Grade through Fifth Grade the students were tracked by ability. The higher-ability students were in, for example, Class 4-0. 4-1 was intermediate ability and 4-2 for the lower ability students. At least one student, Gary S., started in 4-2 and then progressed to 4-1 and then 4-0. Barry C., who moved in from a nearby town, moved from 4-1 to 4-0. I think there were others. When tracking was eliminated in Sixth Grade, from what I remember (this is hazy because we are talking Academic 1968-9) all hell broke loose. I was disciplined for getting upset that a student put chewing gum in my hair. My parents were told that his parents were going through a divorce and we needed to "understand." Let's just say that when we were merged into the rest of the town in high school (we were one-fifth of the students and were kept together K-8) we were behind both academically and in terms of maturity. I think tracking was 50-60% of the problem.
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.
I agree 100% with this reply to my previous post. Ideally, we need to get to the root of the matter on an individualized basis. I realize that's impossible to do.
I could not agree more on not eliminating such things as accelerated learning just to try to make everyone equal and I am of the age when we still had tracking, thank goodness. My mother worked in the school system and she said things really changed when they tried to make the learning experience equal for all. For one thing, when the kids of all abilities were mixed in together, there were slower kids who held everyone else back and things had to be "dumbed down" for them and there were kids who had no idea of how to behave in class and spoiled it for everyone else. I am talking about kids regardless of color.
But I do also remember in school that for kids who had trouble learning to read, there was remedial reading. It's probably impossible to intervene in the home but if only it could be possible to intervene more in school. After school programs with decent mentors for the deprived kids, aides who would work one on one with kids who came from "bad" homes, more activities led by good role models, good pre-school, summer camps. The schools are the ones who see the kids almost as much as the parents do so that's about the only place they could learn right from wrong. I guess it would take a genius to figure out how to make it work though.
Yelling "Black lives matter" and cancelling out the achievements of white people only serves to further divide us. This has gone too far and we need to move onward and upward--together.
I agree 100% with this reply to my previous post. Ideally, we need to get to the root of the matter on an individualized basis. I realize that's impossible to do.
I could not agree more on not eliminating such things as accelerated learning just to try to make everyone equal and I am of the age when we still had tracking, thank goodness. My mother worked in the school system and she said things really changed when they tried to make the learning experience equal for all. For one thing, when the kids of all abilities were mixed in together, there were slower kids who held everyone else back and things had to be "dumbed down" for them and there were kids who had no idea of how to behave in class and spoiled it for everyone else. I am talking about kids regardless of color.
But I do also remember in school that for kids who had trouble learning to read, there was remedial reading. It's probably impossible to intervene in the home but if only it could be possible to intervene more in school. After school programs with decent mentors for the deprived kids, aides who would work one on one with kids who came from "bad" homes, more activities led by good role models, good pre-school, summer camps. The schools are the ones who see the kids almost as much as the parents do so that's about the only place they could learn right from wrong. I guess it would take a genius to figure out how to make it work though.
Yelling "Black lives matter" and cancelling out the achievements of white people only serves to further divide us. This has gone too far and we need to move onward and upward--together.
1: What's wrong with yelling "Black lives Matter"?
2: Can you provide some examples of "cancelling out the achievements of white people"?
Too much anti-racism? That's certainly an odd comment. Are you saying that a certain amount of racism is acceptable?
People have had it with the racism that has always existed in this country. We don't want it any more. Not a drop. Not a dram. NONE.
I think you're asking for a little too much. While I agree that in a perfect world, we would live in a "colorblind" society, where Dr. King's famous quote about content of character being prioritized over color of skin would be happily embraced by everyone in the country. But the modern Left wants no part of what Dr. King wanted, their answer to past racial discrimination is MORE racial discrimination, except with the roles reversed, and to be honest, I'm not ready to sign up for that.
No, the MOST important thing is that the Government itself make no law that puts people at a disadvantage with respect to their race, ethnicity, religion, etc.. And to my knowledge, the last holdouts on this front were eliminated with the 1964 Civil Rights act, which outlawed things like using race as a reason to not sell your home or rent to a person. Personally, I'm a little mixed on "redlining", if an insurance company, through actuarial analysis alone, deems certain neighborhoods to represent higher risk for things like auto theft, etc., then their charging higher rates in those areas is simply good business sense, and I wouldn't want to own stock in a company that thought otherwise. Likewise, if a grocery chain decides it can't make money by owning unprofitable stores, then it shouldn't be mandated to open them.
That being said, we still live in the U.S.A., and have the freedom of association, speech, and especially, thought. We can choose to like or dislike, date or not date, enter into a contract or not, for whatever reason we choose, including taking a person's race into account. We without doubt have a fundamental right to be as racist as we want in our hearts - but we do have limits on our actions - we have to act according to the law with respect to hiring, housing, etc.. But again, the modern Left is extremely unhappy with the current setup, and would like nothing better to send us to what would amount to "re-education camps". EVERYTHING that is wrong in the world is now ascribed to "racist' motives, and it's wearing very thin at the moment. And to be honest, it's having the opposite effect on me, it's making me no longer want to deal with people of other races because it's simply too much risk and inconvenience now. Did you happen to see the video of the black activist who was so aggressive over a reservations error (charging racism where there was none), with a Holiday Inn clerk, such that the kid literally had a mental breakdown? And then, he posts it on his YouTube channel as a "victory". Lovely man, just lovely.
Yeah, I will go out of my way to avoid dealing with people whose sole purpose is to provoke and video me for being "racist", and I simply no longer go in black neighborhoods because of it - and who suffers because of that? In my last job before retirement, I went WAY out of my way to make sure a new employee (an older black guy) was successful. I don't regret it, because he was a great guy and I still consider him a good friend. But put into the same circumstance today, I might be more inclined to just let him sink or swim on his own, doing the bare minimum with respect to training, offering help, etc.. Is THAT what the Left wants? Because they're going to get it if they keep this crap up.
So yeah, "Anti-Racism" can definitely be overdone. And they are idiots for doing so.
Like Curly said, what is happening is many people are publicly putting on the boy scout badge of "not a racist" but quietly they are actually increasing distance and self segregating away, decreasing interactions and further reinforcing the systematic problems already there. If people keep playing the black card, the rest of the population will publicly quietly nod, then privately choose not to hire them, go to church with them, or hang out.
Confrontation is clearly not a conflict management to the hostile left; what people are doing instead is Avoidance, because there's no repercussions from that. It's ironic because the end effect is a more systematically racist America, but what do you expect when you force everyone out of the conversation, demand special treatment, and shove ideology down peoples throat?
Instead of 'Make America Great Again' it's like the new mantra became 'Make Race Critical Again'. The name says it all, critical race theory. Why is it critical?? The whole concept of race is moronic, using peoples skin colors to put them in buckets that don't exist (like somehow a Basque person and an Egyptian are both "white") and ignoring ethnicity / language which are much more impactful groupings.
Most black people want more police protection, not less. It's the vocal minority including out-of-area professional agitators, including white members of Antifa and other groups.
I disagree. Otherwise you would hear more from these others. Or the politicians that represent them.
Looks more like they are playing both sides. But yes. Sooner or later they will not be able to ignore the thousands more that have been killed. By the huge increase in crime with the BLM demand for less policing.
And even if most of these are killed by other blacks. No one seems to care. White's cant say anything or it is racist. Blacks will not because they dont look as much like a victim.
I can see what the hullabaloo is. That the criticism only is only allowed from one side of the fence. Which is no different than what Stalin did.
Yes, teach it all. I'm all about truth. And discuss it. But to cast blame for things that happened hundreds of years ago and label any descendants of the actors bad people and you're just spewing hatred and encouraging animosity in the present. And that's what we have coming down from the leaders who are supposed to be setting an example of how to make change without violence.
Worse yet, to label a whole country bad because bad things happened there is irrational and really unhealthy for citizens' self-esteem.
We absolutely cannot judge ourselves or others based on the past. That's happening now. And in the process we have just reversed the roles of the persecuted. Tit-for-tat. That satisfies some people but it still doesn't create a society that all can thrive in.
But nowhere is it said, that the curriculum in schools would label the US "bad", or would label descendants of slaveholders or anyone else "bad people", or that anything would spew hatred. It's about identifying areas where the system is stacked against entire groups, raising public awareness of the hidden bias that underpins overt or covert policy and practice, and reforming those areas.
Envisioning this process as "hate spewing" and "tit for tat" is fear-mongering, and I can't help wondering if there's a good measure of projection involved on the part of some people, who themselves may have spewed hate behind closed doors.
But nowhere is it said, that the curriculum in schools would label the US "bad", or would label descendants of slaveholders or anyone else "bad people", or that anything would spew hatred. It's about identifying areas where the system is stacked against entire groups, raising public awareness of the hidden bias that underpins overt or covert policy and practice, and reforming those areas.
Envisioning this process as "hate spewing" and "tit for tat" is fear-mongering, and I can't help wondering if there's a good measure of projection involved on the part of some people, who themselves may have spewed hate behind closed doors.
So, are saying that any person who disagrees with the notion that the system is stacked against entire groups is secretly harboring hate behind closed doors?
I have been hearing this argument more and more that if you don't agree that systemic racism exists and is widespread, then you are automatically racist.
So, are saying that any person who disagrees with the notion that the system is stacked against entire groups is secretly harboring hate behind closed doors?
I have been hearing this argument more and more that if you don't agree that systemic racism exists and is widespread, then you are automatically racist.
It's not a notion; it's historical fact. Many of the people who disagree aren't aware of those aspects of history. That's the whole point. It's about education; this is why the DOE is setting guidelines.
To have not studied certain details of history isn't a crime. You seem oddly blame-oriented.
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.
