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.
The problem is that history classes in schools and colleges typically fall into the fallacy of trying to teach history as a morality play in order to confirm/justify or condemn/disparage views and ideas of the current time. In other words, it's always a narrative. CRT is just the latest in a long line of such narratives.
The question you have to ask yourself is what the goal of such narratives is and whether those goals are actually beneficial for people. I don't see the benefit in CRT for anyone really as it's a fundamentally divisive approach that leads us all down the path of conflict.
So, we just ignore the fact that Blacks were sold as slaves, suffered under Jim Crow, and are still subject to discrimination? All in the name of not upsetting white folks?
CRT is not indoctrination. It's an effort to explain why, 150 years after abolition, and 50+ years after the civil rights movement, Blacks in America are still less well off, still discriminated against, etc, etc, etc. CRT is also a collegiate or graduate level field of study, it' snot taught in primary schools, middle schools, or high schools.
This is asking us to accept, uncritically, a certain set of beliefs. We can start of with your statement "less well off" then the time of abolition (Emancipation Act of 1863 when millions were still in slavery? seriously?).
Sounds like indoctrination to me.
It's not just blacks. It's native Americans too, and other non anglos. I never learned until a few years ago (and 60 now) that Native American children were ripped from their homes and forced into institutionalized schooling and forced to not speak their language or grow their hair or wear their dress or practice their customs...for many decades.
Growing up a white upper middle class kid in a very white area, any history except how great we were to have thrown off the Brits with the tea party was glossed over. It's my belief that American history, whether on the radio, the newspaper, the evening news, has up until very recently only had one narrative--that we're the greatest country on earth that can do no wrong.
It's not just blacks. It's native Americans too, and other non anglos. I never learned until a few years ago (and 60 now) that Native American children were ripped from their homes and forced into institutionalized schooling and forced to not speak their language or grow their hair or wear their dress or practice their customs...for many decades.
Growing up a white upper middle class kid in a very white area, any history except how great we were to have thrown off the Brits with the tea party was glossed over. It's my belief that American history, whether on the radio, the newspaper, the evening news, has up until very recently only had one narrative--that we're the greatest country on earth that can do no wrong.
It's an effort to explain why, 150 years after abolition, and 50+ years after the civil rights movement, Blacks in America are still less well off, still discriminated against, etc, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
This is asking us to accept, uncritically, a certain set of beliefs. We can start of with your statement "less well off"...
He means less well off than whites in general. What about those things WRM20 listed do you consider to be unfounded "beliefs"?
Just a caution. Please make sure we are discussing History in this forum. This is not the place to discuss Current Events. (We have a forum for that.) The link in the Opening Post is about current events.
These two links describe what Critical Race Theory is and where it is taught. (Hint: Think law school or post graduate school.)
He means less well off than whites in general. What about those things WRM20 listed do you consider to be unfounded "beliefs"?
I think I was very clear in my response - the unfounded belief that one today is worse off now then when under slavery. However you might have missed that I asked WRM20 to clarify that statement as I agree I may have misinterpreted. Maybe you didn't get past the first sentence of my thread, easy to understand as it was a longwinded post of 4 sentences.
I think I will bow out of this discussion going forward and will not comment further. I see a "moderator lock" coming this way soon. Once we get people from other forums start coming in, things start going downhill.
I think I was very clear in my response - the unfounded belief that one today is worse off now then when under slavery. However you might have missed that I asked WRM20 to clarify that statement as I agree I may have misinterpreted. Maybe you didn't get past the first sentence of my thread, easy to understand as it was a longwinded post of 4 sentences.
I think I will bow out of this discussion going forward and will not comment further. I see a "moderator lock" coming this way soon. Once we get people from other forums start coming in, things start going downhill.
I meant to add "than whites and other groups" after less well off.
There is no denying the facts. The US has been very successful, yes, but not all groups have had the same level of participation in that success. It's OK to point out where the US was successful, but history classes are incomplete if they do not show the warts along with the beauty.
So, we just ignore the fact that Blacks were sold as slaves, suffered under Jim Crow, and are still subject to discrimination? All in the name of not upsetting white folks?
Two of those items are historic facts that have been taught in history classes long before CRT ever came about.
The third one is a political claim which you can discuss in a townhall meeting, a cable news show, a political debate on a political message board but it is not the subject of a history class.
In fact, your post perfectly summarizes the issue at hand - the attempt to use a history class as a platform to advance a particular political view.
There is already a thread here sort of related to this topic ("1619 project").
The problem isn't that history only teaches the good, it's that the schools have limited time to fit into it curriculum of reading, writing, and 'rithmatic. So students get a summary, and I think it sufficiently covers both the good and the bad as opposed to teachings and textbooks of the 60s and earlier. We can either devote more time to history (at the sacrifice of other courses), or the students can be encouraged to learn on there own.
You want education to be unbiased. CRT is not history education, it's indoctrination, and that is what many parents are objecting to.
Your good point about the limits of time may be one reason that CRT has been the province of college, not elementary school or high school.
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.
