Reply to Is this CRT?

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Is this CRT?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 [b]facts like[/b] science and [b]social studies. [/b] Creating social change agents seems outside of that mission.  [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

+1[/quote]

Parents want social studies to be as uncontroversial as possible until maybe high school. Facts like George Washington was our first president isn’t very controversial. Explaining how the three branches of government work isn’t very controversial.

A lot of people feel heavier topics like race discussions should wait until high school. People don’t want to see it in elementary school. Elementary schools shouldn’t be a battleground.[/quote]
Our entire US history is about race. Race and class.  And no it is not an interpretation. The only battleground has to do with those who  can't understand that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It kind of starts there, right? 
*Men
*All men liberty 
*Rights
*Life

[/quote]

That is absolutely an interpretation. One I would venture most Americans disagree with (that our county’s ENTIRE history is about race). [/quote]

Ok, Let's go over it again:
 [b]Men[/b]- not all men. And no women 
[b]All men liberty[/b]- Some men did not have liberty. In fact, black men and women did not have liberty. Indigenous people had no liberty, or land. 
[b]Rights[/b]- White land owning men. Not black men, not Indigenous  men, not women. Were there religious rights? No. 
[b]Life-[/b]What about black men? Were they guaranteed their lives? No. [/quote]

In your own answer you talk about sex, religion, & wealth. While maintaining that the “entire” history is about race. [/quote]

[i]Let's go over it again. Listen up. [/i]

[b]Men[/b]- the gender of only [b]man[/b], not women,  who are given [b]rights[/b], by God, not [b]black men[/b] or [b]black women[/b], not [b]women[/b],  not [b]indigenous men or women. [/b]That's the white male interpretation of [b]religion[/b]. It's [b]not[/b][i] about [b]sex[/b], it's not about [b]religion[/b], and it's about who [b]white Christian men decide who has rights and wealth. 
[/b] because they have decided what God wants. 
Because you don't understand this is why this needs to  be taught in schools. [/quote]

You may be right, but in standard grammar, the male includes the female, so your explanation doesn't work.[/quote]

Except we know they meant "men" because women didn't have equal rights. Still don't today... 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics