Is this CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

You may be right, but in standard grammar, the male includes the female, so your explanation doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

This country wouldn't even exist without colonialism, without slave labor, without the annilhation of cultures . If you think that doesn't belong in a classroom, what does according to you?

The Indian Wars- not about racism?
Mexican Wars? You mean when we took it?
Do you know the history of the Louisiana Purchase? Why it happened? Who lived in that territory?

So, yes, race plays a role in even your examples?
You need to go back to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

This country wouldn't even exist without colonialism, without slave labor, without the annilhation of cultures . If you think that doesn't belong in a classroom, what does according to you?

The Indian Wars- not about racism?
Mexican Wars? You mean when we took it?
Do you know the history of the Louisiana Purchase? Why it happened? Who lived in that territory?

So, yes, race plays a role in even your examples?
You need to go back to school.

This guy can start here

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/158-resources-understanding-systemic-racism-america-180975029/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

This country wouldn't even exist without colonialism, without slave labor, without the annilhation of cultures . If you think that doesn't belong in a classroom, what does according to you?

The Indian Wars- not about racism?
Mexican Wars? You mean when we took it?
Do you know the history of the Louisiana Purchase? Why it happened? Who lived in that territory?

So, yes, race plays a role in even your examples?
You need to go back to school.

Honey, I might need to go back to school.

But you need to START school. It's quite obvious where you stand -- third grade in a DC school where MLK is presented as Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

This country wouldn't even exist without colonialism, without slave labor, without the annilhation of cultures . If you think that doesn't belong in a classroom, what does according to you?

The Indian Wars- not about racism?
Mexican Wars? You mean when we took it?
Do you know the history of the Louisiana Purchase? Why it happened? Who lived in that territory?

So, yes, race plays a role in even your examples?
You need to go back to school.

This guy can start here

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/158-resources-understanding-systemic-racism-america-180975029/

Anti Hispanic and anti Asian sentiment started even earlier, funny fools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

This country wouldn't even exist without colonialism, without slave labor, without the annilhation of cultures . If you think that doesn't belong in a classroom, what does according to you?

The Indian Wars- not about racism?
Mexican Wars? You mean when we took it?
Do you know the history of the Louisiana Purchase? Why it happened? Who lived in that territory?

So, yes, race plays a role in even your examples?
You need to go back to school.

Honey, I might need to go back to school.

But you need to START school. It's quite obvious where you stand -- third grade in a DC school where MLK is presented as Jesus?

I think that's a fair comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many crazies.

Hey, move to Haiti and Liberia, and please report back on black utopia!

Feel free to give up your US passports before you leave, to show how brave you are.

You are racist and you don't understand anything. Why do you think Haiti has problems?

Exactly.

Oppress people for centuries and then act like it's their fault they are struggling? PP is an ignorant racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

You may be right, but in standard grammar, the male includes the female, so your explanation doesn't work.

Except we know they meant "men" because women didn't have equal rights. Still don't today...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

Duh

The previous PP is just being dense on purpose. It’s their only card to play

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

Sigh.

No, it’s not.
The “entire US history” is not about race. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

How did social change happen then if there were no agents of social change?
Do you know what 3rd graders ask when learning about the South? Every single child, and I've been teaching for 35 years.

Why did people do that?

Do you know what 7th graders ask when learning about the Holocaust or South Africa?

Why did people go along with it? Who stopped it?

Gawd. What schools have you been teaching at for 35 years? Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

How did social change happen then if there were no agents of social change?
Do you know what 3rd graders ask when learning about the South? Every single child, and I've been teaching for 35 years.

Why did people do that?

Do you know what 7th graders ask when learning about the Holocaust or South Africa?

Why did people go along with it? Who stopped it?

That’s because you teach things out of context and it in chrono order. You do it thematically and through a modern day Revisionalist lens and cherry pick what to focus on - evil white people, XYZ victims.

South Africa and Haiti are now failed states. I’m sure you blame that on some historic external factor too instead of the crime and corruption the last few decades. I’ll add Iran to that too in case you cleverly cover the Iranian revolution as a success story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

This reminds me of when my 2nd grade daughter came home after being told all week how females didn’t have rights, and couldn’t do this or that, etc.

Did she come home angry and ready to fight all the men she saw??

No, she came home utterly utterly confused. Not age appropriate and not handled well by the teacher nor school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technically no, but it’s what people are referring to when they talk about CRT in k-12 education.

A lot of parents don’t think public schools should teach students to be “agents of social change”. They expect their kids to be taught skills like math and reading, and facts like science and social studies. Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.

This is where it gets hairy. A lot of what's being taught in social studies is not facts but someone's interpretation of facts, especially in k-12.

+1

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.

Our entire US history is about race. Race and class. And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right?
*Men
*All men liberty
*Rights
*Life

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race).

Ok, Let's go over it again:
Men- not all men. And no women
All men liberty- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land.
Rights- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous men, not women. Were there religious rights? No.
Life-What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No.

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race.

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

Men- the gender of only man, not women, who are given rights, by God, not black men or black women, not women, not indigenous men or women. That's the white male interpretation of religion. It's not[i] about sex, it's not about religion, and it's about who white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth.
because they have decided what God wants.
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to be taught in schools.

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

Yep, all home-brewed semantics out of context and verbiage of the times. Harping over and over. Never listening or processing or responding to the question. Just her canned response. Maybe if she says it enough times and louder and louder people will fall for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many crazies.

Hey, move to Haiti and Liberia, and please report back on black utopia!

Feel free to give up your US passports before you leave, to show how brave you are.

So glad Obama didn’t that Friday night executive order to send US military to the Arab rising in Libya. To also help europe with their oil supply. Total success all the way around.