Is this CRT?

[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.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

That's no longer the goal for large segments of the population and the taboos against saying so have been removed. That's what all this "CRT" talk of OP"s is about.

[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.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

Sure they do. A black employer refusing to hire a white applicant is illegal discrimination under American law. An Asian apartment owner refusing to rent to a white person is illegal discrimination under American law. Those things might not happen as often as the reverse, but they're still discrimination.

You woke progressives don't get to change the meaning of words just to suit your ideology.

[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.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

That's no longer the goal for large segments of the population and the taboos against saying so have been removed. That's what all this "CRT" talk of OP"s is about.

Yes, “very fine” white supremacists have been emboldened over the last several years. They feel like they can say all of it out loud now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

Sure they do. A black employer refusing to hire a white applicant is illegal discrimination under American law. An Asian apartment owner refusing to rent to a white person is illegal discrimination under American law. Those things might not happen as often as the reverse, but they're still discrimination.

You woke progressives don't get to change the meaning of words just to suit your ideology.

Take your lame strawman arguments and sit TF down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?

Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horace Mann, while too Christian for my taste, envisioned the common, or public school, as a way to teach literacy AND citizenship.

The public school was founded upon the idea of teaching common ideals and propagating education, democracy, and morals.

That has always been the mission of the public school. It is just that some people don't like that the common ideals and morals have changed over time (becoming more humanist than simply religious), so now they are yelping that they just want the three Rs taught.

Disingenuous and/or misinformed over what our public school systems was born as.

The point you're missing is that at least half of Americans don't agree with you as to what constitutes "common ideals and morals." If you haven't noticed, our society has become increasingly polarized. People live in their own bubbles, and they're shocked when they experience pushback from the other side of the ideological spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

Sure they do. A black employer refusing to hire a white applicant is illegal discrimination under American law. An Asian apartment owner refusing to rent to a white person is illegal discrimination under American law. Those things might not happen as often as the reverse, but they're still discrimination.

You woke progressives don't get to change the meaning of words just to suit your ideology.

Take your lame strawman arguments and sit TF down.

No, I'm not going to stop posting just because you don't like what I have to say, and can't counter it.

And, do you even know what a strawman argument is? Because what I posted was no such thing.

[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.

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.

It's always been that way. Just go through any social studies lesson in your head and pull out all everything other than verifiable facts and you aren't left with much.

PP. I agree, that's why I pointed out that "I just want my kids to learn facts" argument doesn't quite work fir social studies.

[Anonymous]

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.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?

Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.

The thing about the US is that poor white people living in West Virginia have a lot more in common with poor non-white people than they do with white people living in Arlington or Bethesda. But, progressives start bleating on about how someone living in a trailer in Appalachia has "white privilege", and working class and poor white people look at them (justifiably) like they're a bunch of morons.

It's kind of funny- the people in power in the US have used race to divide lower-income people for decades, which has prevented the creation of strong unions or anything akin to a European-style labor party in the US. Now, progressives seem determined to continue the practice. And they don't even understand how they're hurting their own cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horace Mann, while too Christian for my taste, envisioned the common, or public school, as a way to teach literacy AND citizenship.

The public school was founded upon the idea of teaching common ideals and propagating education, democracy, and morals.

That has always been the mission of the public school. It is just that some people don't like that the common ideals and morals have changed over time (becoming more humanist than simply religious), so now they are yelping that they just want the three Rs taught.

Disingenuous and/or misinformed over what our public school systems was born as.

The point you're missing is that at least half of Americans don't agree with you as to what constitutes "common ideals and morals." If you haven't noticed, our society has become increasingly polarized. People live in their own bubbles, and they're shocked when they experience pushback from the other side of the ideological spectrum.

The point YOU are missing is that it's not even close to "half" much less more than half.

People who feel the way you do are certainly out there. We know this -- we see every day how you hate America and are trying to subvert its democracy, including with violence. However, you are a part of a fringe minority. You're certainly not part of "more than half" of Americans.

[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.

Schools have always had the responsibility of creating good citizens.

The question is, do good citizens support and [/b]improve society[b] or are good citizens change agents who, as another poster put it, dismantle the patriarchy?

I know what my answer is. And some posters have stated or implied their answer.

“Improving society” is tearing down racism.

When will we know when this has been achieved?

Where there is more equality in outcomes.

I.e. in incomes, wealth, health, rates of incarceration, etc.

I understand everyone freaks out over the “equality of outcomes” phrasing in a school context but in the broader context, so long as average white income is x% higher average black income, women earn 70 cents on the dollar as men, life expectancies and incarceration rates are wildly divergent … when those thing are more equalized, we have achieved equity.

Some of those statistics are problems that need to be fixed but others aren't. I work 70% hours as DH, I shouldn't be paid the same as he is. Also, are you including incarceration rates between men and women or only between races?

You're being disingenuous. I only wonder if you are doing it deliberately. There are dozens of other apples-to-apples comparisons -- homeownership rates, home VALUES -- whites have more of both due to historic redlining and other racist policies. And so on and so forth. Prattling on about "but I don't work as many hours as my husband so why should I earn as much as him waaa waaa" is a red herring. Keep on topic or sit down and listen to the adults discuss. Thanks.

The progressive approach to fixing inequality seems to revolve around taking things away from the people who have more and giving it to those who have less, rather than figuring out how to raise the tide to lift all boats.

Not surprisingly, it's not a message that resonates with a lot of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not CRT but the term “intersectionality” is a buzzword for woke pablum.

I’m pretty liberal, but my eyes automatically roll when I hear that word.

It’s jargon but it just means everyone has their own experiences with discrimination and consideration should be given to things that affect marginalized people. It rubs some white people the wrong way because they have never experienced discrimination and can’t relate. They also probably consider themselves to be good people and can’t separate that from acknowledging the system is set up to benefit them, which is why they can’t relate to the discrimination marginalized people experience.

Contradict much?

No. White people don’t experience discrimination.

You think “rednecks” and “traitor trash” don’t experience discrimination? How about Jewish people? Mormons?

Then you wonder why people are wary of progressives. Many progressives can’t see beyond their own worldview.

The thing about the US is that poor white people living in West Virginia have a lot more in common with poor non-white people than they do with white people living in Arlington or Bethesda. But, progressives start bleating on about how someone living in a trailer in Appalachia has "white privilege", and working class and poor white people look at them (justifiably) like they're a bunch of morons.

It's kind of funny- the people in power in the US have used race to divide lower-income people for decades, which has prevented the creation of strong unions or anything akin to a European-style labor party in the US. Now, progressives seem determined to continue the practice. And they don't even understand how they're hurting their own cause.

Now do household income distributed by race in West Virginia. And report back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horace Mann, while too Christian for my taste, envisioned the common, or public school, as a way to teach literacy AND citizenship.

The public school was founded upon the idea of teaching common ideals and propagating education, democracy, and morals.

That has always been the mission of the public school. It is just that some people don't like that the common ideals and morals have changed over time (becoming more humanist than simply religious), so now they are yelping that they just want the three Rs taught.

Disingenuous and/or misinformed over what our public school systems was born as.

The point you're missing is that at least half of Americans don't agree with you as to what constitutes "common ideals and morals." If you haven't noticed, our society has become increasingly polarized. People live in their own bubbles, and they're shocked when they experience pushback from the other side of the ideological spectrum.

The point YOU are missing is that it's not even close to "half" much less more than half.

People who feel the way you do are certainly out there. We know this -- we see every day how you hate America and are trying to subvert its democracy, including with violence. However, you are a part of a fringe minority. You're certainly not part of "more than half" of Americans.

If you think the majority of Americans are okay with a CRT-based approach to American history and social studies in schools, you're painfully parochial and stuck in your own bubble in Takoma Park.

If you haven't noticed, there's been a very strong pushback over the last few years against allowing your ideology in schools.