Loudoun County School Board meeting descends into absolute chaos

[Anonymous]

Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

[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?

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.

SMH at all the excuses people are making....the Puritans weren't violent, they didn't have bad intentions....

What would do if 75 south American refugees who were unable to live in their country moved into a park in your town, just peacefully set up camp and started taking things from the stores? And if you said "you're breaking the law," their response was "this town is sparsely populated, you have plenty of food here, and we have our own laws and economic system that allow us to live this way and our king told us this is where we should live?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

? Do you not realize the statistical significance here, and how systemic racism in our history plays into that.

Cearly, CRT needed to be taught when you were in school.

You also completely ignored the reason why the numbers look as they do. Hint: it has to do with this country's racist past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

? what is CRT then?

[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?

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.

SMH at all the excuses people are making....the Puritans weren't violent, they didn't have bad intentions....

What would do if 75 south American refugees who were unable to live in their country moved into a park in your town, just peacefully set up camp and started taking things from the stores? And if you said "you're breaking the law," their response was "this town is sparsely populated, you have plenty of food here, and we have our own laws and economic system that allow us to live this way and our king told us this is where we should live?"

If you can't tell that there's a difference of degree between Hernando Cortes and William Bradford, your mind has been broken. I'm sorry. Both were wrong, but one is clearly more heinous than the other. And if you claim that the difference doesn't matter then you have abandoned the requirement that history be accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Some of this is how recent the Hispanic immigrants are. My DD's Kindergarten class had multiple students who had just immigrated, didn't know any English and had never been in daycare or preschool before. All of which is quite a hurdle for teachers to overcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

? what is CRT then?

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED 200 TIMES MF’ER! Damn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

? what is CRT then?

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED 200 TIMES MF’ER! Damn

Where was it answer 200x? I ask because people seem to have different opinions on what is CRT. My question was to the ^PP, so unless you are that ^PP, WHY DON'T YOU F* OFF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Some of this is how recent the Hispanic immigrants are. My DD's Kindergarten class had multiple students who had just immigrated, didn't know any English and had never been in daycare or preschool before. All of which is quite a hurdle for teachers to overcome.

It’s not “doing well” by Black students either. They and Hispanic students are discriminated against in admissions to AOS, have higher rates of discipline than white students, and are tracked into regular level courses instead of honors+ the way white and Asian students are. Also “baconsrebellion.com” is not a valid source here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

? what is CRT then?

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED 200 TIMES MF’ER! Damn

Where was it answer 200x? I ask because people seem to have different opinions on what is CRT. My question was to the ^PP, so unless you are that ^PP, WHY DON'T YOU F* OFF.

Nope. Every thread this comes up it gets defined. It has a real definition. People have given it over and over. If you can’t at a minimum go google, you don’t have the range for this convo.

[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?

236M whites live in poverty
10m Blacks
systemic racism is what prisions are all full of black people.

Also, all those social programs we hate to give urban black people go to rual white people...and way more of them.

[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?

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.

SMH at all the excuses people are making....the Puritans weren't violent, they didn't have bad intentions....

What would do if 75 south American refugees who were unable to live in their country moved into a park in your town, just peacefully set up camp and started taking things from the stores? And if you said "you're breaking the law," their response was "this town is sparsely populated, you have plenty of food here, and we have our own laws and economic system that allow us to live this way and our king told us this is where we should live?"

If you can't tell that there's a difference of degree between Hernando Cortes and William Bradford, your mind has been broken. I'm sorry. Both were wrong, but one is clearly more heinous than the other. And if you claim that the difference doesn't matter then you have abandoned the requirement that history be accurate.

That is literally the point of the discussion. Americans are always telling themselves we're not as bad as those other guys, we didn't have bad intentions, we didn't do THIS bad thing, the natives had their own problems, etc. etc. They nitpick over historical details in order to avoid addressing the point. They say its not harmful to tell kids a sanitized story as if the only alternative is to tell them a horror story....when another alternative is to tell NO story until they are old enough for the real one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

You are correct, which is why there is distrust on both sides. You can say that CRT isn't being taught in schools, yet many many people, including leaders are calling teaching different historical narratives CRT. They are asking for CRT to be taught in elementary school. They are also calling anti-racist teachings CRT (Kendi and D'Angelo), which although they are related to CRT, are not really CRT. Both CRT proponents and opponents are misusing the term.

CRT was never supposed to be about telling individual people they are racists or white supremacists, but instead a lens to examine raced based outcomes so that racist laws and institutions can be identified and fixed.

[Anonymous]

Guess what color the slave traders in Africa were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah so anyway none of the last 2 pages falls under “CRT.” You’re just questioning which historical narrative to tell.

? what is CRT then?

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED 200 TIMES MF’ER! Damn

Where was it answer 200x? I ask because people seem to have different opinions on what is CRT. My question was to the ^PP, so unless you are that ^PP, WHY DON'T YOU F* OFF.

Nope. Every thread this comes up it gets defined. It has a real definition. People have given it over and over. If you can’t at a minimum go google, you don’t have the range for this convo.

Then tell me where it was defined in the last page of this thread?

^^PP stated that none of what was written in the last 2 pages falls under CRT. So, I'd like to understand what that ^PPs definition is of CRT.

The people who are arguing against CRT probably don't even have a consensus of what it is.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/22/texas-critical-race-theory-explained/

What is so horrible about CRT? If you read the links, it's not about blame placing but about finding ways to overcome structural racism.

People who are against CRT either don't know what it's about OR are fine with the status quo and the continued structural racism we have in this country.