This Whole Ethnic Studies Ban in Arizona...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'll not call you an idiot again, but you are nothing short of breathtaking in your logic.... I visited Estonia in the 1970's...and imagine things were not that different in Lithuania though I was not able to visit until 1995. UM. Whatever.
"Russification"

http://www.oxuscom.com/lang-policy.htm

"Perhaps the primary area in which this encroachment of Russian upon the social functions of the non-Russian languages can be seen is the school system, the main vehicle for promoting facility in the Russian language among non-Russians. "At the request of the people," Russian was instituted as a compulsory subject for all non-Russian students in the USSR in 1938. Up until the early 1970's, there were two basic educational options available in Central Asia, as in the rest of the USSR. Parents could send their children either to native-language schools (where the language of instruction was the mother tongue, but Russian was taught as a subject) or to Russian-language schools (where all subjects were taught in Russian). Although they were free to choose either, it was generally understood that the latter option was the only logical choice for those who desired to see their children advance in the Soviet system. Certainly, it was preferable for any who intended to work in the area of science and technology."

Coerced choice. Charming. It's almost funny to see you wax poetic for the halcyon days of the Soviet Union though. Hilarious. Difference between language policy in USSR and USA being that immigrants choose to come here, whereas the Russians chose to invade and impose upon their neighbors. And for the record, I would not expect a Lithuania who CHOSE to move to Russia today to be terribly successful without learning Russian. Fair is fair.

Um, ah, well, I, ah, hate to tell you this. But, the paper you are quoting from is named "Soviet Language Policy in Central Asia". Are you sure that you know the location of Lithuania? You may want to consult a map. But, if you happen to be watching Jeopardy and the answer is "The Baltics", a good question might be "Where is Lithuania located?".

The policies that are mentioned likely were in place in Central Asia. But, in 1938 when that policy was supposedly instituted, Lithuania was not part of the Soviet Union. During Soviet rule, Vilnius University was a center for the Lithuanian language. Lithuanian was used for official purposes in Lithuania. Of course, Russian was the official language of the Soviet Union and without knowing Russian, Lithuanians would be unlikely to succeed in the larger Soviet environment. But, your original charge was that "Lithuanians were denied their language". That is obviously not true.

I can see your argument taking a fairly common path:

1) make statement;
2) statement is refuted;
3) make statement that is irrelevant to the initial discussion, plus accuse me of doing something that I didn't do (wax poetic for the Soviet Union);
4) irrelevancy of second statement is pointed out;
5) change subject completely in effort to distract from your repeated inability to make rational argument (this should be coming in your next post).

If you standby your initial claim that the Soviets denied Lithuanians their language, then you might want to support that argument. Quoting texts about Central Asia are not going to help much. If you now concede that you were mistaken, then simply saying so rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks would be a good course of action.

[Anonymous]

Needless to say, the general response of the nationalities to these measures was not favorable, especially in the Baltic republics, the non-Russian Slavic republics (the Ukraine and Belorussia), and Georgia, where various protests and demonstrations occurred and many national scholars spoke out against the new policies. Since this opposition, Moscow has backed off somewhat, but there is no indication that the overall goal of Russification has been abandoned."

From paper quoted above. If you do even the most negligible web search on Russification and USSR language policy you will see multiple examples cited beyond Central Asia--though wasn't it you trying to extrapolate from Estonia to Lithuania? Go get some rest.

[Anonymous]

By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

The US system does not give any options. You either do your public school in English or English
Minorities better shut up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To clarify the discussion, here is what the actual bill says:

A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

This one I do not understand
Can someone whose mother grew up in a Lithuanian ghetto in America explain this to me?
Is that not a way to say world history should not be studied. Only where it insersects with American history? Is that the only time it matters??
And why remain ignorant on Africas history? Do you think there is no history worth while looking into?
Sounds like the mindset back in the 50's was that America is the world. And so all studies where centered around it.
So now when Americans travel, or when Europeans visit this country, they think the locals are dumb.

[Anonymous]

I think the below is more what they had in mind...rather than getting rid of say world history--and believe me, my mom who got so much opportunity here to meet many minds, see the world, learn about others, and live in freedom would be cheering the outlawing of this condescending, wrong-minded pablum. You are only hurting the great, eager children of AZ by defending this sort of indefensible curriculum. What's sad is that it's come to needing laws like this. If you want to teach your kids this stuff, it's called 'family dinner' or a self-subsidized schooling. I can think of many college courses I took that seemed to dish up the same line of thought. And luckily there were responsible professors who understood the moral responsibility to present multiple points of view and encourage critical thinking. But why you think immigrants seek this crap for their kids in free K12 public ed, I have no idea.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/blogs/story/Irvin-commentary-Tucson-class-teaching-racism/LRdqGuawnUyVGJLsXfcnsA.cspx

"While the bill doesn't mention it, the law targets, among other ethnic studies, "La Raza." That's the Spanish word for race, and its curriculum has been causing controversy for years because of its Marxist roots and its teaching of racial separatism, oppression and the belief that white people are to blame for the misfortunes of Latinos.

A couple of years ago, John A. Ward, a history teacher, blew the whistle on La Raza's curriculum by penning an op-ed piece in The Tucson Citizen. According to Ward, the curriculum as based on the notion that "Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites."

Although assigned to teach the course, Ward said he was quickly informed that he would only be the "teacher of record," because staff members from La Raza would actually be assigned to run the curriculum.

Ward said students were taught that community police officers were an extension of "white power" in an effort to "keep minorities in their ghettos." Ward watched as students were taught the southwestern U.S. was seized from indigenous peoples because of "Yankee greed," and that the real name of the area was "Aztlan," an area rightfully belonging to Aztecs and indigenous Mexicans.

According to Ward, students were even told there weren't as many Hispanics in advanced placement courses at Tucson Magnet High School because their "white teachers" didn't believe they were capable, and "didn't want them to get ahead."

La Raza students have even been encouraged to demonstrate wearing military garb, as if plotting revolution.

When Ward raised concerns with school officials, he was labeled a "racist," and a "vendido," the Spanish term for sellout. Ward is Hispanic.

A year earlier, Superintendent Horne had requested materials from the La Raza program, and was essentially told to butt out. Eventually, however, he received texts with titles like "Occupied America", and "The Pedagogy of Oppression."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

The US system does not give any options. You either do your public school in English or English
Minorities better shut up

Riiight, That's why I'm paying tax dollars for Oyster School.

[Anonymous]

Which I have no problem with. But if you knew any history of post 50's language policy/education in America you would know that America has never in fact decreed an 'official language', we teach second languages (should teach more), there are many different formulations across the country of bilingual schools, and the big debate is whether Bilingual Immersion versus ESL provides the best opportunities to immigrant children within one generation. The best opportunity for children is what motivates the researchers, scholars and educators debating this and eventually afffects education policy. There aren't easy answers. But there have certainly been a variety of fair minded attempts to bridge from English. Those attempts are totally different from the condescending hate-teach outlawed by the AZ laws.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Needless to say, the general response of the nationalities to these measures was not favorable, especially in the Baltic republics, the non-Russian Slavic republics (the Ukraine and Belorussia), and Georgia, where various protests and demonstrations occurred and many national scholars spoke out against the new policies. Since this opposition, Moscow has backed off somewhat, but there is no indication that the overall goal of Russification has been abandoned."

From paper quoted above. If you do even the most negligible web search on Russification and USSR language policy you will see multiple examples cited beyond Central Asia--though wasn't it you trying to extrapolate from Estonia to Lithuania? Go get some rest.

As expected. You said Lithuanians were denied their language. Now, you show evidence that planned Russification was met with protests and Moscow backed off. You are making my argument. The Lithuanians were not denied their language. Can we at least agree on this? Or, should I ask, "can you agree with yourself about this?" since you are now arguing both sides.

Again, you may want to refer to a map if you don't understand why Estonia is relevant to a discussion about Lithuania while Central Asia is not.

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

In my original message on this topic, I wrote "Indeed, Russian language was not even a compulsory class for school children until the late 1970s." Obviously, this is the same time period to which you refer. So, again, you are agreeing with me. If you bothered to read, you would see that I visited Estonia in 1982, which is not the "70's". But, even after the push for Russification, the Baltic languages and culture were alive and well. I have never compared the language policies of the USA and USSR.

The statement you made and to which I objected is "Lithuanians were denied their language". That is not true. No amount of obfuscating on your part is going to change that fact. Feel free to go out and find further research that supports my points if that's what makes you happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you for real? It is hard to have any cultural studies with this law? It seems pretty specific about the narrow scope of what is outlawed, which most of you have said is not being done anyway - so what's the problem. I'm fine with cultral studies and I'm fine with this law. I don't see the contradiction since the pedagogy the law bans is repugnant .

Are you reading? The law does not simply ban pedagogy. It bans any course primarily targeted toward one ethnic group. And opening admission to non-latinos is not sufficient since it is currently true. That and that alone is sufficient to kill the latino studies program. If you fell for the part about outlawing courses that advocate overthrowing the government, you are a sucker and the superintendent, who is running for Attorney General, got you good.

Why I am a sucker? I am reading the law, not reading into the law--like you.

No. You are either not reading the law, or you are illiterate. The law can ban a course for the sole reason that it primarily targets a single ethnic group. Therefore the law can easily ban classes for reasons other than pedagogy. This is the fundamental problem with the law. Do you agree, or are you simply unable to read?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needless to say, the general response of the nationalities to these measures was not favorable, especially in the Baltic republics, the non-Russian Slavic republics (the Ukraine and Belorussia), and Georgia, where various protests and demonstrations occurred and many national scholars spoke out against the new policies. Since this opposition, Moscow has backed off somewhat, but there is no indication that the overall goal of Russification has been abandoned."

From paper quoted above. If you do even the most negligible web search on Russification and USSR language policy you will see multiple examples cited beyond Central Asia--though wasn't it you trying to extrapolate from Estonia to Lithuania? Go get some rest.

As expected. You said Lithuanians were denied their language. Now, you show evidence that planned Russification was met with protests and Moscow backed off. You are making my argument. The Lithuanians were not denied their language. Can we at least agree on this? Or, should I ask, "can you agree with yourself about this?" since you are now arguing both sides.

Again, you may want to refer to a map if you don't understand why Estonia is relevant to a discussion about Lithuania while Central Asia is not.

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

In my original message on this topic, I wrote "Indeed, Russian language was not even a compulsory class for school children until the late 1970s." Obviously, this is the same time period to which you refer. So, again, you are agreeing with me. If you bothered to read, you would see that I visited Estonia in 1982, which is not the "70's". But, even after the push for Russification, the Baltic languages and culture were alive and well. I have never compared the language policies of the USA and USSR.

The statement you made and to which I objected is "Lithuanians were denied their language". That is not true. No amount of obfuscating on your part is going to change that fact. Feel free to go out and find further research that supports my points if that's what makes you happy.

Totalitarianism = coerced choice. 'Choices' that are not really choices. Read Animal Farm. Perhaps my point on language coercion in Lithuania, and the Soviet Union, is far too subtle for you. Stick to your bliss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you for real? It is hard to have any cultural studies with this law? It seems pretty specific about the narrow scope of what is outlawed, which most of you have said is not being done anyway - so what's the problem. I'm fine with cultral studies and I'm fine with this law. I don't see the contradiction since the pedagogy the law bans is repugnant .

Are you reading? The law does not simply ban pedagogy. It bans any course primarily targeted toward one ethnic group. And opening admission to non-latinos is not sufficient since it is currently true. That and that alone is sufficient to kill the latino studies program. If you fell for the part about outlawing courses that advocate overthrowing the government, you are a sucker and the superintendent, who is running for Attorney General, got you good.

Why I am a sucker? I am reading the law, not reading into the law--like you.

No. You are either not reading the law, or you are illiterate. The law can ban a course for the sole reason that it primarily targets a single ethnic group. Therefore the law can easily ban classes for reasons other than pedagogy. This is the fundamental problem with the law. Do you agree, or are you simply unable to read?

Can you please give me an example of what a course in public school that targets an ethnic group would look like? Since you seem so horrified by the idea of banning one. Aside: Dolores Huerta was at the state dinner last night. Funny how she keeps popping up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Needless to say, the general response of the nationalities to these measures was not favorable, especially in the Baltic republics, the non-Russian Slavic republics (the Ukraine and Belorussia), and Georgia, where various protests and demonstrations occurred and many national scholars spoke out against the new policies. Since this opposition, Moscow has backed off somewhat, but there is no indication that the overall goal of Russification has been abandoned."

From paper quoted above. If you do even the most negligible web search on Russification and USSR language policy you will see multiple examples cited beyond Central Asia--though wasn't it you trying to extrapolate from Estonia to Lithuania? Go get some rest.

As expected. You said Lithuanians were denied their language. Now, you show evidence that planned Russification was met with protests and Moscow backed off. You are making my argument. The Lithuanians were not denied their language. Can we at least agree on this? Or, should I ask, "can you agree with yourself about this?" since you are now arguing both sides.

Again, you may want to refer to a map if you don't understand why Estonia is relevant to a discussion about Lithuania while Central Asia is not.

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the above period of increased oppression refers to the 70's--the same time period of your blissful visit to Estonia. The USSR language policy was enlightened and the current USA policy is oppressive? Ugh. You are indulging in a pretty gross mind experiment.

In my original message on this topic, I wrote "Indeed, Russian language was not even a compulsory class for school children until the late 1970s." Obviously, this is the same time period to which you refer. So, again, you are agreeing with me. If you bothered to read, you would see that I visited Estonia in 1982, which is not the "70's". But, even after the push for Russification, the Baltic languages and culture were alive and well. I have never compared the language policies of the USA and USSR.

The statement you made and to which I objected is "Lithuanians were denied their language". That is not true. No amount of obfuscating on your part is going to change that fact. Feel free to go out and find further research that supports my points if that's what makes you happy.

Totalitarianism = coerced choice. 'Choices' that are not really choices. Read Animal Farm. Perhaps my point on language coercion in Lithuania, and the Soviet Union, is far too subtle for you. Stick to your bliss.

And it's absolutely priceless that you equate Baltic resistance to a humane USSR language policy. They also politically resisted in the late 80's. Is that to the credit of the USSR?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And it's absolutely priceless that you equate Baltic resistance to a humane USSR language policy. They also politically resisted in the late 80's. Is that to the credit of the USSR?

Ah, just as I predicted many messages ago when I outlined the general pattern of arguments such as yours. Remember the fifth step that I outlined:

5) change subject completely in effort to distract from your repeated inability to make rational argument (this should be coming in your next post).

I never equated Baltic resistance to a humane USSR language policy. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Your statement that the Lithuanians were denied their language was wrong. You can try to refocus attention on things that I did not say, but your statement is still wrong. The Soviets did not use "coerced choice". They attempted to impose the Russian language, but backed down in the face of resistance. I make no claims whether or not their policy was humane. I am only pointing out that you are wrong. Regardless of the Soviet's desires, they failed to suppress the use of the Lithuanian language. Therefore, the Lithuanians were not denied their language. Is that too subtle for you?

[Anonymous]

Not too subtle, too idiotic. Denial of jobs opps, denial of higher education opps, denial of cultural expression opps in a variety of forums, denial of political opps, when choosing to use ones heritage language in a variety of forums= language suppression. And let's remember, the ussr came to lithunia - not the other way around.