Loudoun County School Board meeting descends into absolute chaos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is equally true for most of the people arguing for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is equally true for most of the people arguing for it.

probably, but at least they aren't the ones who are belligerent at these BOE meetings.

[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?

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.

I'm the PP and you'll note I contrasted the Separatists with both Cortes and the initial colonists of Virginia. So the idea that I'm trying to make out the British colonists as somehow morally superior falls flat. My point is that European settlement looked different at different times and places, and varied in its degree of brutality. I made that point in response to a poster who painted the arrival of the pilgrim Separatists as the immediate kickoff of 150 years of savage extermination backed up by the English Army, which is a ridiculous flattening of the the historical narrative that attempts to import other regions' colonial experiences into the New England context. I happen to adhere to the position that if a thing isn't true then it shouldn't be taught. By all means, when teaching kindergarteners about Thanksgiving (which I'm kind of on the fence about anyway given how much the story has been embellished), teachers should be clear that it was one event, the Pilgrims didn't really have a right to be there, but nonetheless they were, and that whatever peaceful relations they had with the natives clearly didn't last. Kids shouldn't be dressing up, and we shouldn't be holding up the story of the first thanksgiving as some exemplar of cross-cultural peace and cooperation since obviously it was the exception rather than the rule (if it happened at all).

The post I was responding to makes it sound like the moment the pilgrim Separatists stepped off the boat the only things that happened were disease, violent death, and subjugation. That's false, and what's more, it flattens and homogenizes the experiences of the native peoples! Most of the diseases had already been brought by fisherman and slave traders from Europe; that's why Squanto's entire tribe had died out while he was in captivity. When the Separatists arrived, they had to fit themselves into a complicated balance-of-power system between the Wampanoag and other tribes like the Narragansett. One of the reasons for Massasoit's continued pursuit of friendly relations with the Separatists was because he hoped to use them as a bulwark against his rivals. The natives were not purely victims of events, but agents who could make choices. Those choices don't make them blameworthy for what happens later, but I think it's a more positive portrayal of indigenous peoples and their inherent diversity and capabilities than the kind of homogenous "europeans arrive and kill all the natives" story that the previous poster wants to embrace.

Lots of people seem to want to emphasize that story for what it says about Europeans (and their descendants), but the result is that it reduces native peoples to a cudgel to be used in contemporary political debates.

[Anonymous]

Before we can get to CRT, we need an effective reading curriculum and trained teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before we can get to CRT, we need an effective reading curriculum and trained teachers.

You’re trying to be snarky but it raises an interesting point: the same people screaming that teachers are drilling kids with CRT also claim teachers have done nothing all year. So which is it?

[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?

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.

NP. So tell the story in nonsentimental form: a bunch of white folks hit some land populated by native inhabitants. Viciousness, war, racism, and disease ensued. The natives lost the wars, the white folk stole their land and enslaved Africans along the way. Racism, brutality, civil war, enduring racism. Later, quietly racist whites flee to the suburbs to avoid Blacks. Fast forward to now, where whites continue to avoid living near Blacks while talking of “great schools”, “lovely, leafy neighborhoods,” “top colleges” and school curricula.

[Anonymous]

We need to remember that parents against CRT, meaning parents against teaching proper effects of racism and slavery in VA are children of parents who actively opposed racial equality and the civil rights movement. Much of this in 1960, and prior and after, clearly. These are the kid of those parents.. plus one Asian American on dcum! They grew up listening to racism and stereotypes about African Americans. They grew up indoctrinated that they are better and watched their parents beat African Americans. They likely knew stories of white teens and young people chasing black kids to beat them or worse.
They know what they are protesting, they are protesting the tiniest possibility that they might lose some tiny percentage of white power. They are yelling "power, power..." fully aware of what they want.
They are not some delusional people who want to understand Black people, no sir. They want to keep them in the shadows and continue to believe in their white superiority.

[Anonymous]

Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

That is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

That is insane.

The Governor correctly signed into law a bill mandating reparations (scholarships, investments in community) by various state institutions, including the leading UVA and W&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

That is insane.

The Governor correctly signed into law a bill mandating reparations (scholarships, investments in community) by various state institutions, including the leading UVA and W&M.

Ok, sure, but the history of white Virginians opposing any racial equality is centuries old, and some might think it is better now, but it is not, they are openly opposing the teaching something that would help their kids understand why and how racial discrimination is so deep in their state and how to overcome it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

That is insane.

The Governor correctly signed into law a bill mandating reparations (scholarships, investments in community) by various state institutions, including the leading UVA and W&M.

That’s good, but that’s not reparations.

[Anonymous]

The parents of children in Loudon County have to recognize that professional educators know a whole lot more than they do in how to teach children. Even though many educators are ideologically opposed to capitalism and individual freedom, and other white supremacist thinkings, the entire governmental system is infected with white racism. so it will take years, decades even, to deprogram these kids. Hopefully, as whites become more of a minority, we can shed more of the institutional racism, in our schools, our laws, the courts, law enforcement, the legislative branch, the stock market, prisons, the firearms industry, banking, zoning, where are highways are built, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in 1968, all Virginia public colleges admitted black students. Think about that, in 1968! There is no way to move forward but to force white people in Virginia to confront their own racism.

That is insane.

The Governor correctly signed into law a bill mandating reparations (scholarships, investments in community) by various state institutions, including the leading UVA and W&M.

That’s good, but that’s not reparations.

Every news story and press release referee to it as reparations. NOT in any pejorative way. It’s a start. California will lead the way with individual payments soon enough and other states and the feds will follow suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents of children in Loudon County have to recognize that professional educators know a whole lot more than they do in how to teach children. Even though many educators are ideologically opposed to capitalism and individual freedom, and other white supremacist thinkings, the entire governmental system is infected with white racism. so it will take years, decades even, to deprogram these kids. Hopefully, as whites become more of a minority, we can shed more of the institutional racism, in our schools, our laws, the courts, law enforcement, the legislative branch, the stock market, prisons, the firearms industry, banking, zoning, where are highways are built, etc.

Educators are opposed to individual freedom?