Should Critical Race Theory be taught in our schools? (treason, dollars, politician)
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.
In the context of how they used it in the document ,all racial slurs are microaggressions. Yall are turning a debate about right and wrong into a debate about terminology.
There are 2 real questions here.
1. Is it ok to use racial slurs, yes or no ?
2. Should students be punished for using those terms, regardless of if they are on campus or not, yes or no ?
Racial slurs are not microaggressions, they are overt hate speech, and already disallowed. Racial slurs and microagressions have nothing to do with one another.
I do not see how the school can do anything about what is done off campus.
The 'history of history', so to speak, necessarily involves critical inquiry into the ways in which history is taught, both past & present. What is taught, & what is not.
When the inquiries break out of the confines of academia, they often have nowhere to go but to enter the realm of political & cultural discourse, debate, & deeper inquiry.
Let's face it, an honest attempt to teach the history of race in America is bound to create unavoidable discomfort.
Is there any other way?
Is there any other way to teach a history of race in America that is without controversy?
Should that be the focus in teaching history? Heaven forbid it is controversial.
After all, the 'history of history' teaches it is not the rebels, the iconoclasts, the curious, or the dissidents who endanger a democratic society but rather the accepting, the unthinking, the unquestioning, the docile, the obedient, the silent, & the indifferent.
The KKK and their terrorism is taught. I see no reason why the Red Summer could not be, it was terrorism by white supremacists.
Same for the Tulsa Massacre that everyone is up in arms about, I knew about it before Biden went to commemorate it, it isn't the fault of the public school system that many people did not.
They cannot teach 400 years of black history in America before we all reach 18. We can agree all day on particular incidents.
Emmit Till - sparked a civil rights movement of epic proportions, that should be taught.
Rodney King and those riots.
The time they dropped a bomb on a city block in Philadelphia.
The Central Park 5.
We could go on and on but at the end of it all, sitting down and designing curriculum, we're going to have time constraints to teach it all and NA history and women's suffrage and, and and.
They can't learn it all before 18! I don't know how to more plainly state that.
I have no idea what this talk of controversy and discomfort is about. No one said that must be free of controversy and discomfort.
It was difficult to learn about and it will always be.
Should Critical Race Theory be taught to our children?
The only thing critical about it is that it's racist. No, of course it shouldn't be taught. Stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic (and variants thereof).
Schools are supposed to teach you to think, not teach you WHAT to think.
CRT is a method used by a movement to emotionally manipulate the masses into feeling enough discontent and anger, that they will revolt against the state and society. This discontent is slightly tempered by a little hope of some unspecified better future.
The “history lessons” themselves are not the point, the emotional response to the lesson is the point.
I think the point is that CRT teaches children not only history, but that America is ruled by white supremacy AT THE CURRENT TIME.
Hello, it was crafted in the 1970's. It's 2021.
NO ONE is trying to erase history, whitewash history, any of this nonsense.
Talk of that is a distraction. It's a ploy to argue with opponents of CRT, 'Oh so you want to whitewash history', no it's about present tense.
Black children are not going to be sat down and told they are the victims of white people and the system is rigged against them.
White children are not going to be told they have white privilege and that mommy and daddy participate in racism whether they know it or not.
Anyone remember the UCSD protest and upheaval and Ronald Reagan giving McGill an ultimatum. That was over Marcuse, the Marcuse that was the inspiration for so much turmoil in the 60’s and what is responsible for the asymmetrical political climate we find ourselves in today:
Quote:
During that long, violent spring of 1968, leftist student leaders around the world began to quote Marcuse and claim his ideas as inspiration to their movements. By June worldwide media had dubbed Marcuse the “Father of the New Left” and “Angel of the Apocalypse.” Ramparts magazine noted, “When the improbable student rebellions of West Berlin, Morningside Heights, and the Sorbonne broke out this spring, all agreed that Herbert Marcuse was the Marx of the children of the new bourgeoisie.”
During the early summer of 1968, California Governor Ronald Reagan sent letters to trustees and regents of all of the state’s colleges and universities deploring the “climate of violence” created by the campuses. “A sick campus community in California in many ways is responsible for a sick community around those campuses,” he wrote.
This picture I have so briefly sketched seems to corroborate one of the central theses of Marxian theory, which apparently was refuted by the actual developments in the twentieth century up to now; namely, the thesis that a totally socialist society is possible only on a world wide scale, and that such a revolution would start in the most highly developed industrial country. In other words, the capitalist chain must be broken, not at its weakest but at its strongest link. Whyis this so? I think we can see the answer today very clearly. Just consider for one momentwhat a radical change in the imperialist métropole would do on a global scale. It would mean the collapse of the lackey regimes in the Third World and not only in the Third World. It would remove a major obstacle to the development of the European revolutions; it would allow an independent development of the Chinese and Cuban revolutions; and perhaps it would mean a political upheaval in the Soviet Union itself. Moreover, this new quantitative scope of the potential revolution also suggests a qualitative difference between it and preceding revolutions. This revolution, the first to be based on the achievements of industrial society, could assume a total character from the beginning. The abolition of man's subordination to the instruments of his labor and the productive and progressive reduction of alienated labor would in turn make for an economic, political, and cultural revolution, all three in one, and, by virtue of this scope, far outdo the preceding revolutions. It would for the first time in history make the construction of integral socialism possible from the beginning, and not postpone it indefinitely to a second phase which may never arrive.
The only thing critical about it is that it's racist. No, of course it shouldn't be taught. Stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic (and variants thereof).
Schools are supposed to teach you to think, not teach you WHAT to think.
But it hasn't been taught nor is it planned. This is the new republican campaign against something that doesn't exist.
There is the real CRT, which is niche law school level curricula, and isn't even taught at all law schools. K-12 students cannot understand that if they tried.
Then there is how race issues have invaded pop culture ever since the Floyd murder. There is some CRT-influenced stuff in the "anti-racism" pop literature, most notably "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo and "How To Be an Anti-Racist" by Ibram Kendi. Also the 1619 project, which drives conservatives OFF THE WALL, has a little CRT in it. That is not CRT though, it is a journalistic publication designed for a general audience. Some of these things are of use or intended to be of use in some middle school, high school social studies. Well now they banned using the 1619 Project in some state but the students can google that very easily found op-ed online.
Also the white privilege concept, which I note drives some of our resident commenters off the wall. That is technically not CRT; privilege theory originally came from the realm of literature, interestingly enough.
Technically none of that is CRT proper, but a little influenced by it in the footnotes maybe. It's so much theater to ban it from K-12. It'd be like banning advanced music theory from high school marching band classes.
I find all of it pretty funny. Schools did not succeed in banning Lolita or Catcher in the Rye in the sixties. Anyone who wanted to read them, found them easily, and that was pre-internet. With the internet it's even easier.
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.
