FCPS paying for Critical Race Theory curriculum. To be implemented in a year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

Yeah it's like, I'm not going to stop watching great movies just because the producer or director raped somebody. Look at Morgan Freeman - he pedophiled his own niece and apparently sexually harasses young women frequently. I'm still going to acknowledge he was excellent in Shawshank Redemption and other films

That is your choice. I would make a different one. But if you expected to take my tax dollars to keep Roman Polanskis name on something, I would object to that as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

Yeah it's like, I'm not going to stop watching great movies just because the producer or director raped somebody. Look at Morgan Freeman - he pedophiled his own niece and apparently sexually harasses young women frequently. I'm still going to acknowledge he was excellent in Shawshank Redemption and other films

That is your choice. I would make a different one. But if you expected to take my tax dollars to keep Roman Polanskis name on something, I would object to that as well.

Well I think acknowledging in history class that he did some amazing things and putting his name on buildings are different things, so I do agree with you there. I wouldn't want the Harry Weinstein School of Arts at my state university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

Yes, you said he's been receiving criticism since the scholarship re Sally Hemings changed. But only now are we renaming schools with Jefferson's name. You're saying it's all the same. I'm saying it's not.

[Anonymous]

lotta ppl itt rushing in to defend a slaver rapist they never met before

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

Yes, you said he's been receiving criticism since the scholarship re Sally Hemings changed. But only now are we renaming schools with Jefferson's name. You're saying it's all the same. I'm saying it's not.

And before this we started renaming things from the Confederacy. And in 2021 Mississippi finally changed their state flag. The country evolves— slowly— but it does evolve. Addressing Jefferson more honestly is one of those changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 49 other states and tons of other countries that will let you in. Go find your people and stop living off the fruits of the white supremacists you hate.

No, white supremacists are the ones living off the fruits of others and you are only trying to confuse us otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

Yes, you said he's been receiving criticism since the scholarship re Sally Hemings changed. But only now are we renaming schools with Jefferson's name. You're saying it's all the same. I'm saying it's not.

And before this we started renaming things from the Confederacy. And in 2021 Mississippi finally changed their state flag. The country evolves— slowly— but it does evolve. Addressing Jefferson more honestly is one of those changes.

Or the pendulum has swung too far and we're going too far. Jefferson wasn't Lee. Jefferson isn't an enemy of the Union. He was instrumental in forming the Union, the country.

Renaming Lee Highway makes sense. Renaming schools named for Jefferson doesn't. IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

Yes, you said he's been receiving criticism since the scholarship re Sally Hemings changed. But only now are we renaming schools with Jefferson's name. You're saying it's all the same. I'm saying it's not.

And before this we started renaming things from the Confederacy. And in 2021 Mississippi finally changed their state flag. The country evolves— slowly— but it does evolve. Addressing Jefferson more honestly is one of those changes.

Or the pendulum has swung too far and we're going too far. Jefferson wasn't Lee. Jefferson isn't an enemy of the Union. He was instrumental in forming the Union, the country.

Renaming Lee Highway makes sense. Renaming schools named for Jefferson doesn't. IMO

What made the Union any better than the Confederacy? The schools are teaching that the war was fought because the Union was anti slavery and the Confederacy was pro slavery. They were fighting over control of the industries. The Union was getting their busts kicked and made a deal to free the slaves, if they helped win the war for the Union.
There were White Supremacists on both sides and if the Union didn’t need the slaves help in the war, blacks May still be slaves in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proclaiming Jefferson as an unworthy terrible person who deserves vilification isn't speaking unpopular truth to power. It's just being ridiculous and wrong.

Did I say that? Read carefully. I am pretty sure I called him a slave owner and a rapist who did not deserve to have taxpayers who he would have victimized keep his name on buildings. Not having your name on a building is not being victimized, it is just, and this is important....not having your name on a building.

He's a Founding Father. It seems that you don't know why he is. Sorry.

He was a founding father. He was also a slave owner and a rapist. Both are true and one does not cancel out the other. Being a founding father does not entitle someone to indefinite, uncritical veneration or indefinite support from a changing taxpayer electorate.

I mean, yeah, he pretty much does. It's ignorant to say otherwise.

If it did, then why is he receiving so much criticism?

From wokesters? They're bored, and half-nuts, like everyone else, after last year.

He was receiving criticism in my (Northern) political science and history classes since middle school. This is nothing new in much of the country, it will just take time for VA to catch up.

Renaming schools? Taking down statues? Removing pictures? Nope. They haven't been doing that since you were a kid.

Again please read more carefully. Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism and not taught as a reverential figure since I was a middle school student, which is when much of the Hemings material came into the public discourse over the objections of some of his (white) descendants.

Yes, you said he's been receiving criticism since the scholarship re Sally Hemings changed. But only now are we renaming schools with Jefferson's name. You're saying it's all the same. I'm saying it's not.

And before this we started renaming things from the Confederacy. And in 2021 Mississippi finally changed their state flag. The country evolves— slowly— but it does evolve. Addressing Jefferson more honestly is one of those changes.

Or the pendulum has swung too far and we're going too far. Jefferson wasn't Lee. Jefferson isn't an enemy of the Union. He was instrumental in forming the Union, the country.

Renaming Lee Highway makes sense. Renaming schools named for Jefferson doesn't. IMO

What made the Union any better than the Confederacy? The schools are teaching that the war was fought because the Union was anti slavery and the Confederacy was pro slavery. They were fighting over control of the industries. The Union was getting their busts kicked and made a deal to free the slaves, if they helped win the war for the Union.
There were White Supremacists on both sides and if the Union didn’t need the slaves help in the war, blacks May still be slaves in this country.

Wow. This is like the "anti-racist" retelling of states' rights.

IOW, wrong.