Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for learning history accurately. I was an FCPS grad in the 70s and we barely talked about slavery. The civil war was about states rights. Not okay with that.

Yes, me too.

No offense pp’s, but that was literally 50 years ago. Do you think anyone in the 1970s was talking about what they learned in school in the 1920s as if it were relevant?

[Anonymous]

Let me ask a simple question - why teaching historic facts discussing systematic racism in the classroom is being mixed up with CRT? And, it is being done by both parties ….Republicans are using CRT as the boggy man and Dems don’t really know how to articulate so they are mixing it up with all sorts of irrelevant things to advance certain agenda….why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me ask a simple question - why teaching historic facts discussing systematic racism in the classroom is being mixed up with CRT? And, it is being done by both parties ….Republicans are using CRT as the boggy man and Dems don’t really know how to articulate so they are mixing it up with all sorts of irrelevant things to advance certain agenda….why?

thanks for putting it in words

[Anonymous]

People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

Racism is divisive. Examining it is not the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you think crt is and why is it so scary to you that people learn about it? I am fine with college students learning and discussing anything.

Right, college students should be open to any theory and any teaching. No nonsense of safe space, cancelling speeches, harasing speakers, etc. All provocative teaching and speeches are allowed. Learn and be tolerate with any opinions. Then make your own judgment. College students must not be snowflakes.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. We have a lot to overcome. Textbooks used in a great many school districts today still present that the civil war was about states rights without mentioning that it was states rights allowing the right to own other people. A lot of textbooks get into the 50 or so times blacks were killed and chased out from their homes and communities of which Tulsa was just one? Stop teaching fake history to kids. Start teaching that things connect in history - good and bad.

[Anonymous]

still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

of course you were taught zero about it because it's complete crock.
And I can accept "interesting," but how is it "helpful"? That's a sincere question. Doesn't it just make CRT advocates look foolish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

The actual statement was “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies”

The reason the fact checker disagreed was that these two statements were correct but did not like that statement

One reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (remove word critical)

Colonies were diverse in their view in slavery, One critical reason some colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (showing not all colonies thought it a critical reason only some)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

The actual statement was “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies”

The fact checker disagreed was that statement and wanted it edited to one of these two statements…

One reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (remove word critical)

Colonies were diverse in their view in slavery, One critical reason some colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (showing not all colonies thought it a critical reason only some)

Trying to fix typos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are now saying that CRT will only be taught in college.. why do college kids have to learn about CRT?
Are you okay with it? I have opinion I just want to know what other people think.

What do you mean “now saying” and who is “they?”

It has never been taught in schools. It probably should be but it isn’t now.

Show me where in the SOLs or Common Core that this is taught now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

The actual statement was “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies”

The fact checker disagreed was that statement and wanted it edited to one of these two statements…

One reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (remove word critical)

Colonies were diverse in their view in slavery, One critical reason some colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (showing not all colonies thought it a critical reason only some)

Trying to fix typos

Was the fact checker aware of the existence of Jamaica? Perhaps Barbados? It wasn’t until long after the revolution that the British decided to abolish slavery or even began to seriously debate the issue

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain what is being asked ? -

1. Teach kids about the true history of the US, power imbalance, systematic racism, or
2. Teach kids to evaluate everything about the US trough the lens of race and why the scales need to be tipped against the white majority and in favor of the minorities?
3. Neither
4. Both