Loudoun County School Board meeting descends into absolute chaos

[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?

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.

The diseases came from Europeans

[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.

You don't think that European colonization of the Americas* was racist? Historians pretty uniformly will say that "God, gold, and glory" are the three motivations -- the first being to civilize the savages.

*Or Africa, or or Australia, or India, or southeast Asia, or.....

[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?

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.

The diseases came from Europeans

NP yes... from the Spanish. But that's the reason that the land the pilgrims found was sparsely populated. Your version of history is all jumbled up and frankly incorrect.

You're also attributing "white supremacy" ideas to the pilgrims, but persons of an race who landed would have had the same ideas. You think this wasn't happening in Asia or Africa too? You think American Indians weren't fighting each other for land and territory before the Europeans arrived?

[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?

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.

The diseases came from Europeans

True. But PP said that they came from the Pilgrims which isn't accurate. I guess you can say "white people are white people, so it doesn't matter which white people brought the diseases." But that would be a problematic sentiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%—?

Seriously, that ^PP needs to learn basic statistics.

% poverty by race:



People who commit crimes largely are those who live in poverty.
More black Americans live in poverty as a % of their population than white
More black Americans live in poverty due to systemic racist policies. Lynchings, bombings, etc.., ie what happened in Tulsa and the black owned businesses and neighborhoods, destroyed whatever advancements the black community made, despite the racist policies that was still very much prevalent in this country.

The % of Asian Americans in this country is small because they were largely shut out due to racist immigration policies starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until the 1960s when the immigration policy changed that more Asians started to immigrate here.

CRT would teach you all this.

[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?

Children should not be taught this in K because it is, in fact, not true. The Separatists of Plymouth Colony actually had relatively complex relationships with the native tribes, which had their own web of alliances and rivalries, but overall the relationships were OK, and not characterized by a quest for immediate, violent domination. If a separatist stole something from an Indian village, for instance, the Colony's leadership paid recompense. The Separatists sought to maintain peaceful relations in the early years, especially with the Wampanoag tribe led by Chief Massasoit.

The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony, who came later and settled in nearby Massachusetts Bay Colony, were harsher in their relationships with the native tribes, but still did not arrive with the mindset of conquest seen in places like Mexico or even Virginia. The involvement of the "English Army" in the 17th Century was minimal, as most wars were waged by local militias led by a few professional soldiers and one or two men of high status who carried military commissions but were otherwise civilians.

It was only with King Philip's War more than 50 years after the arrival of the Separatists that the occasionally friendly, occasionally tense relationships broke into a vicious all-out war that drove most of the remaining Indian bands out of southern New England. And it happened with essentially no help from England.

Still terrible, to be sure. But more complicated. And not a single narrative of bad people doing bad things from the moment they arrived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%—?

Seriously, that ^PP needs to learn basic statistics.

% poverty by race:



People who commit crimes largely are those who live in poverty.
More black Americans live in poverty as a % of their population than white
More black Americans live in poverty due to systemic racist policies. Lynchings, bombings, etc.., ie what happened in Tulsa and the black owned businesses and neighborhoods, destroyed whatever advancements the black community made, despite the racist policies that was still very much prevalent in this country.

The % of Asian Americans in this country is small because they were largely shut out due to racist immigration policies starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until the 1960s when the immigration policy changed that more Asians started to immigrate here.

CRT would teach you all this.

You do realize that the number of white people living in poverty is double the number of black people, right?

[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?

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.

The diseases came from Europeans

NP yes... from the Spanish. But that's the reason that the land the pilgrims found was sparsely populated. Your version of history is all jumbled up and frankly incorrect.

You're also attributing "white supremacy" ideas to the pilgrims, but persons of an race who landed would have had the same ideas. You think this wasn't happening in Asia or Africa too? You think American Indians weren't fighting each other for land and territory before the Europeans arrived?

You left out "Whatabout..." but anyhow

As noted earlier, north America was pretty sparsely populated, so not really, no. Most fighting among north American tribes appears to have happened after Europeans arrived and been a result of competition for the fur trade and diminishing access to hunting grounds/food. To the extent they did, its neither here not there. Sovereign tribes dealt with other sovereign tribes. Europeans for the most part did not treat the Americas as someone else's land, they believed it was theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't think that European colonization of the Americas* was racist? Historians pretty uniformly will say that "God, gold, and glory" are the three motivations -- the first being to civilize the savages.

*Or Africa, or or Australia, or India, or southeast Asia, or.....

I'm not arguing that there wasn't a racist component, but you also can't overlook that the British were basically colonizing Ireland right before they settled at Jamestown. In fact some Jamestown colonists were former soldiers who fought in the war with Ireland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't think that European colonization of the Americas* was racist? Historians pretty uniformly will say that "God, gold, and glory" are the three motivations -- the first being to civilize the savages.

*Or Africa, or or Australia, or India, or southeast Asia, or.....

I'm not arguing that there wasn't a racist component, but you also can't overlook that the British were basically colonizing Ireland right before they settled at Jamestown. In fact some Jamestown colonists were former soldiers who fought in the war with Ireland.

colonizing the non-English speaking clans (tribes) in Ireland....i think you are supporting the point that the British are racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%—?

Seriously, that ^PP needs to learn basic statistics.

% poverty by race:



People who commit crimes largely are those who live in poverty.
More black Americans live in poverty as a % of their population than white
More black Americans live in poverty due to systemic racist policies. Lynchings, bombings, etc.., ie what happened in Tulsa and the black owned businesses and neighborhoods, destroyed whatever advancements the black community made, despite the racist policies that was still very much prevalent in this country.

The % of Asian Americans in this country is small because they were largely shut out due to racist immigration policies starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until the 1960s when the immigration policy changed that more Asians started to immigrate here.

CRT would teach you all this.

You do realize that the number of white people living in poverty is double the number of black people, right?

Yes, we also realize that you don't know how statistics works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%—?

Seriously, that ^PP needs to learn basic statistics.

% poverty by race:



People who commit crimes largely are those who live in poverty.
More black Americans live in poverty as a % of their population than white
More black Americans live in poverty due to systemic racist policies. Lynchings, bombings, etc.., ie what happened in Tulsa and the black owned businesses and neighborhoods, destroyed whatever advancements the black community made, despite the racist policies that was still very much prevalent in this country.

The % of Asian Americans in this country is small because they were largely shut out due to racist immigration policies starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until the 1960s when the immigration policy changed that more Asians started to immigrate here.

CRT would teach you all this.

You do realize that the number of white people living in poverty is double the number of black people, right?

Yes, we also realize that you don't know how statistics works.

What is statistically incorrect about saying that the number of white people in the US living in poverty is double the number of Black people living in poverty? Numbers, not percentage of population?

[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?

Well it isn’t taught in school

[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?

I grew up in NY and the above is exactly the history I learned....

[Anonymous]

Grist for the mill. Loudon appears to be doing well by its Af-Am student populations, but Hispanics and other English-learners are being left behind.

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/loudoun-county-school-board-ignorant-or-dismissive-about-the-performance-of-their-school-district/#more-75138