Loudoun County School Board meeting descends into absolute chaos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

YES

Because is the truth

OMG

Think of how differently white Americans would look at all these things if we didn't think of ourselves as entitled to be here, starting with these origin stories

THAT IS THE POINT

do white americans not already know that native populations were militarily subjugated and/or tricked out of their land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

Why do you think they teach the stories the way they do? Its to reinforce white supremacy! It's all about building a narrative about white people came here and took the land that wasn't doing anything and made it into something wonderful: AMERICA! And we made it Christian, and productive, and it was our manifest destiny, and blah blah blah.

We start indoctrinating children when they are young with these stories and it is hard to undo all that teaching when they are older. That is the root of the problem. That is why schools need to examine all the stuff they teach, and how they teach it, and why, and maybe start over. Maybe tell early US History from the point of view of the people who were already here, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

YES

Because is the truth

OMG

Think of how differently white Americans would look at all these things if we didn't think of ourselves as entitled to be here, starting with these origin stories

THAT IS THE POINT

Well, then you will see why even those who support your original point argument for older students are resistant to the curriculum being referred to as CRT (which I realize is being used as a catchphrase). You can begin to teach young children ideas about tolerance, racism, acceptance, etc., but the concepts that you mention aren't appropriate for young children. They don't even learn history in that much detail at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole page is why people are upset.

People commit crimes due to systemic poverty due to systemic racism? You know that white poverty numbers exceed black poverty numbers right?

Is it because whites make up 60% of the population? And black population is only 13%—?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

Why do you think they teach the stories the way they do? Its to reinforce white supremacy! It's all about building a narrative about white people came here and took the land that wasn't doing anything and made it into something wonderful: AMERICA! And we made it Christian, and productive, and it was our manifest destiny, and blah blah blah.

We start indoctrinating children when they are young with these stories and it is hard to undo all that teaching when they are older. That is the root of the problem. That is why schools need to examine all the stuff they teach, and how they teach it, and why, and maybe start over. Maybe tell early US History from the point of view of the people who were already here, for example.

I'm in favor of that. There's always more than one side to the story. The narrative from the PP about isn't objective either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

Why do you think they teach the stories the way they do? Its to reinforce white supremacy! It's all about building a narrative about white people came here and took the land that wasn't doing anything and made it into something wonderful: AMERICA! And we made it Christian, and productive, and it was our manifest destiny, and blah blah blah.

We start indoctrinating children when they are young with these stories and it is hard to undo all that teaching when they are older. That is the root of the problem. That is why schools need to examine all the stuff they teach, and how they teach it, and why, and maybe start over. Maybe tell early US History from the point of view of the people who were already here, for example.

Schools have been doing that for 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

YES

Because is the truth

OMG

Think of how differently white Americans would look at all these things if we didn't think of ourselves as entitled to be here, starting with these origin stories

THAT IS THE POINT

do white americans not already know that native populations were militarily subjugated and/or tricked out of their land?

Those ideas are OK with lots of white americans, they reinforce white supremacy....the natives lost, whites won.

This is why it needs to be reframed as the US was founded on white supremacy. The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they? Because the sovereignty of those countries was respected--the Pilgrims wouldn't just show up and demand to live there. Why did they come to North America? Because of the perception that the people already here didn't matter, that they weren't true owners of the land, that Europeans could just come here and settle. They fundamentally did not count the right of the people here to make decisions about their own land, because the people here were not white/European. (They did the same thing all over Africa.)

We say they came here for religious freedom but that is only half the story. They came here to take over land owned by non-white people in order to practice their religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

YES

Because is the truth

OMG

Think of how differently white Americans would look at all these things if we didn't think of ourselves as entitled to be here, starting with these origin stories

THAT IS THE POINT

do white americans not already know that native populations were militarily subjugated and/or tricked out of their land?

Those ideas are OK with lots of white americans, they reinforce white supremacy....the natives lost, whites won.

This is why it needs to be reframed as the US was founded on white supremacy. The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they? Because the sovereignty of those countries was respected--the Pilgrims wouldn't just show up and demand to live there. Why did they come to North America? Because of the perception that the people already here didn't matter, that they weren't true owners of the land, that Europeans could just come here and settle. They fundamentally did not count the right of the people here to make decisions about their own land, because the people here were not white/European. (They did the same thing all over Africa.)

We say they came here for religious freedom but that is only half the story. They came here to take over land owned by non-white people in order to practice their religion.

Interesting. Had they surveyed all of North America to determine the population of native people whose rights they intended to disregard? You are implying an intentionality that is questionable. It's one way to view our history, but by no means an absolute fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. We were able to see classes this past year. We could watch our kids' virtual classes and what was taught. And yes, there were some trial classes where the teaching was that White people are oppressors and colonizers.

Teachers may not intend to divide the students against each other. But that's the effect.

I’m very curious about the context for this. Care to share?

What they saw was probably just a run of the mill history class that covered factual evidence about how white people (especially rich white males) have, in fact, used their systemic power to oppress others in order to preserve their own positional wealth and privilege. It’s not a secret that this happened and any child reading a thorough American history book will see the pattern for themselves.

Personally, I find it insulting that instead of wanting our children to have a thorough understanding of our history (good bad and otherwise), some people are willing to literally demand censorship. Our kids are not dumb. They also have access to the internet. They’re going to figure it out at some point regardless of what they learn in school.

It’s the framing of history almost exclusively through a racial lens biased against Whites that is unacceptable, unless accompanied by information also pointing out how other societies have also protected the interests of those in other dominant racial and ethnic groups. Critical pedagogy as being implemented now is largely about demonizing White and “White-adjacent” groups for the not-so-subtle purpose of stripping Whites and Asians of power and financial resources. That’s not history; it’s politics.

My child's AAP history book had a photo of a British person being carried on a chair by several "natives." This was a class she took maybe 10 years ago, while in a LCPS high school. She showed me the photo, and we both laughed at the absurdity of the white person. We're white. I don't have a problem with teaching history the way it is. I would, however, have a problem with an anti-white slant. Why on earth would any self respecting white person allow their race to be villified? I would ask the same question regarding any other race. Would AAs allow themselves to be trashed in a modern history book? Hehe, right, that's going to happen. Would South Asians allow themselves to be trashed in a modern history book? Hehe, right, that's going to happen.

What I'm saying is the history books already state actual colonial history. The hate towards any one racial group is unacceptable. Why must one group always be singled out and demonized? The entertainment industry always seems to pick one racial or ethnic group to demonize, for example. All racial groups have abused power at one point or another in history. I don't like the video clips I've been seeing coming out of Israel from the recent past. If it weren't for YouTube, we wouldn't know about some of that stuff. Humans can be brutal towards each other. That's what they should be teaching.

LOL! So you are/were ok with your kid seeing pics of exalted and revered white people, but presenting them in a realistic light, which might be the bad light is not ok? Right!

What a weird take. I, a white person, do not feel personally attacked when learning about atrocities committed by people who happen to share my skin color.

[Anonymous]

I truly hope it's only one crazy poster on this thread. I really don't know what white supremacy history lessons you learned in school, but that wasn't at all what I learned. You're upset about something that isn't even happening. We spent a year on American Indian history, we learned about the Tulsa race riots, we learned about slavery and segregation.

"The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they?" The pilgrims went to Holland first actually!!! Sheesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

Do you think that young children should be taught that starting in K?

Why do you think they teach the stories the way they do? Its to reinforce white supremacy! It's all about building a narrative about white people came here and took the land that wasn't doing anything and made it into something wonderful: AMERICA! And we made it Christian, and productive, and it was our manifest destiny, and blah blah blah.

We start indoctrinating children when they are young with these stories and it is hard to undo all that teaching when they are older. That is the root of the problem. That is why schools need to examine all the stuff they teach, and how they teach it, and why, and maybe start over. Maybe tell early US History from the point of view of the people who were already here, for example.

Schools have been doing that for 40 years.

Virginia standards of learning for elementary schools:

Colonization and Conflict: 1607 through the American Revolution
VS.3 The student will demonstrate an understanding of the first permanent English settlement in America by
a) explaining the reasons for English colonization;
b) describing the economic and geographic influences on the decision to settle at Jamestown;
c) describing the importance of the charters of the Virginia Company of London in establishing the Jamestown settlement;
d) identifying the importance of the General Assembly (1619) as the first representative legislative body in English America;
e) identifying the impact of the arrival of Africans and English women to the Jamestown settlement;
f) describing the hardships faced by settlers at Jamestown and the changes that took place to ensure survival; and
g) describing the interactions between the English settlers and the native peoples, including the role of the Powhatan in the survival of the settlers.

VS.4 The student will demonstrate an understanding of life in the Virginia colony by
a) explaining the importance of agriculture and its influence on the institution of slavery;
b) describing how the culture of colonial Virginia reflected the origins of American Indians, European (English, Scots-Irish, German) immigrants, and Africans;
c) explaining the reasons for the relocation of Virginia’s capital from Jamestown to Williamsburg;
d) describing how money, barter, and credit were used; and
e) describing everyday life in colonial Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly hope it's only one crazy poster on this thread. I really don't know what white supremacy history lessons you learned in school, but that wasn't at all what I learned. You're upset about something that isn't even happening. We spent a year on American Indian history, we learned about the Tulsa race riots, we learned about slavery and segregation.

"The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they?" The pilgrims went to Holland first actually!!! Sheesh

Yeah, that's my point. Why did the English then send them to America which, like the people in Holland, was populated by people with their own religious beliefs and way of living which would not mesh well with the Puritans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly hope it's only one crazy poster on this thread. I really don't know what white supremacy history lessons you learned in school, but that wasn't at all what I learned. You're upset about something that isn't even happening. We spent a year on American Indian history, we learned about the Tulsa race riots, we learned about slavery and segregation.

"The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they?" The pilgrims went to Holland first actually!!! Sheesh

Yeah, that's my point. Why did the English then send them to America which, like the people in Holland, was populated by people with their own religious beliefs and way of living which would not mesh well with the Puritans?

The answer was that America was sparsely populated. And the Natives had different ideas of land use than Europeans did. The puritans intended to live next to the Natives. You're trying to put this intense racist slant on history that wasn't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird, acting as if schools haven't been presenting accurate takes on US history for decades. Virtually all mainstream historians appropriately lean left.

Please. Do you think kids in elementary school now are taught that the Pilgrims' arrival in Massachusetts was a group of armed colonizers who invaded a populated area, immediately took possession of a piece of land, hunted and fished in competition with the native population, infected the locals with contagious diseases so that 90 percent of them died within a few years, forced assimilation on any natives they could capture, and warred with the remaining survivors for the next 150 years, with increasing reinforcements from the English Army, until they were able to take over the rest of their land as far as 300 miles inland?

The diseases came before the Pilgrims. In fact, Squanto's people, the Patuxet, had been wiped out. So, when he returned from Europe, he had to live with the Pokanokets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly hope it's only one crazy poster on this thread. I really don't know what white supremacy history lessons you learned in school, but that wasn't at all what I learned. You're upset about something that isn't even happening. We spent a year on American Indian history, we learned about the Tulsa race riots, we learned about slavery and segregation.

"The Pilgrims could have gone to Germany, or Sweden, or France--other places with land and people. Why didn't they?" The pilgrims went to Holland first actually!!! Sheesh

Yeah, that's my point. Why did the English then send them to America which, like the people in Holland, was populated by people with their own religious beliefs and way of living which would not mesh well with the Puritans?

The answer was that America was sparsely populated. And the Natives had different ideas of land use than Europeans did. The puritans intended to live next to the Natives. You're trying to put this intense racist slant on history that wasn't there.

See, this is why we do need more discussion, and different framing, and a new way of teaching and thinking about these things. It doesn't matter that it was "sparsely populated" or if they had "different ideas of land use"-- it was populated by sovereign people with the same dignity and natural rights to their land as the Europeans, even if they didn't have standing armies and written land records. Implying that "different ideas" means that Europeans could just move in and take over is literally the definition of white supremacy--that European ideas of land use have superior standing to the values of the non-white people who were already here and were not asked and did not grant permission.

And the Puritans may have "intended" that but it was short-lived--they began fighting in earnest with the local tribes in 1622, fought constantly while bringing more people over from England and expanding their land use, and had major wars with them until the 1700s when they finally, basically, subjugated/enslaved/killed them all.