Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. Am I the only person that thinks this club would be an utter waste of time? It feels like one of those classes called “current events”, which provide no meaningful instruction. That kind of extracurricular seems to lead to a degree in gender/ethnic studies with a fast track for a barista job at Starbucks. I realize everyone is different, but personally I would dissuade my child to participate in such a club. Why not doing some more meaningful and useful like volunteering, an internship, a sport, band, high school newspaper, or a club that adds some academic benefit like robotics, debate etc.

Of all possible activities, doing a club about CRT seems like one of the worst choices.

Oh total waste of time. Maybe they should do chess instead. Memorizing ways to move people around on some squares would be a much better use of time than discussing thing like how banks charged Black people higher interest rates and the way that has impacted their ability to build wealth.

Not to get into the politics of it, but you are bringing an example from half a century ago. Suit yourself, for sure you’d be wrecking that student’s ability to build future wealth with an ethnic studies degree and $200k in student loans. Another $200k for a Master degree and she’s really screwed for the rest of her life.

We are so hyper-individualistic in this country that we cannot even begin to process how the “example from half century ago” could have ramifications on the life of your white child and her black best friend. The inability to build family wealth using the most common wealth building strategies for middle class and working white families over the last 50+ years that colored people were deliberately excluded from is exactly the privilege being discussed. Insurmountable? No. Reason for the white child to feel guilt? Heck no. Relevant to every black family? No. Helping understand why there are systemic issues that need to be tackled? Yes. And all Americans should be a part of that solution regardless of their race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. Am I the only person that thinks this club would be an utter waste of time? It feels like one of those classes called “current events”, which provide no meaningful instruction. That kind of extracurricular seems to lead to a degree in gender/ethnic studies with a fast track for a barista job at Starbucks. I realize everyone is different, but personally I would dissuade my child to participate in such a club. Why not doing some more meaningful and useful like volunteering, an internship, a sport, band, high school newspaper, or a club that adds some academic benefit like robotics, debate etc.

Of all possible activities, doing a club about CRT seems like one of the worst choices.

Oh total waste of time. Maybe they should do chess instead. Memorizing ways to move people around on some squares would be a much better use of time than discussing thing like how banks charged Black people higher interest rates and the way that has impacted their ability to build wealth.

Not to get into the politics of it, but you are bringing an example from half a century ago. Suit yourself, for sure you’d be wrecking that student’s ability to build future wealth with an ethnic studies degree and $200k in student loans. Another $200k for a Master degree and she’s really screwed for the rest of her life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

+1000!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Privilege isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but when you talk about someone's privileged status, it's usually done with some amount of disdain. And one of the things the anti-CRT crowd (whether they're using proper definitions or not) bristle at is the idea that the homeless white meth addict from an impoverished, abusive family enjoys privilege because he's white whereas the black queer studies professor from a middle class home lacks this privilege because she's not white. And, I know that we're also supposed to understand the idea of intersectionality where all of these variables play against the other. But "white privilege" comes from the same communication geniuses that gave us "defund the police," so message about being mad at white people comes across a lot stronger than anything to do with the intersecting variables. And then these objections are minimized as just being about a trivial desire to hang on to a more sanitized version of history.

I agree to a point. I'm black and believe that "white privilege" is a real "thing" in the sense that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL being white relieves you of having to deal with whole host burdens that otherwise similarly situated white folks just don't have to deal with or (perhaps more importantly) devote mental space to. So, yes, it's a thing and has material consequences. I'm not sure there is room for legitimate debate on the narrow point, but of course, folks are entitled to their good faith views that may differ.

THAT BEING SAID, it's rare that all things are equal, and I'm totally aware that, in terms of SES, I'm thankfully far ahead of the average white American, and in that sense, more privileged than the average white American in absolute terms. So I can see why some folks call bunk on white privilege because "what about all those black folks better off than those poor white folks in W. Virginia?!?" I don't think that's the right comparator at all...ridiculous even, but I can understand the thought process of some on this score and understand why the "privilege" nomenclature should be retired.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a white ally group? It is one thing to discuss. Your daughter and friends should translate that into action. How can they help remedy 400 years of oppression?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Privilege isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but when you talk about someone's privileged status, it's usually done with some amount of disdain. And one of the things the anti-CRT crowd (whether they're using proper definitions or not) bristle at is the idea that the homeless white meth addict from an impoverished, abusive family enjoys privilege because he's white whereas the black queer studies professor from a middle class home lacks this privilege because she's not white. And, I know that we're also supposed to understand the idea of intersectionality where all of these variables play against the other. But "white privilege" comes from the same communication geniuses that gave us "defund the police," so message about being mad at white people comes across a lot stronger than anything to do with the intersecting variables. And then these objections are minimized as just being about a trivial desire to hang on to a more sanitized version of history.

I agree to a point. I'm black and believe that "white privilege" is a real "thing" in the sense that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL being white relieves you of having to deal with whole host burdens that otherwise similarly situated white folks just don't have to deal with or (perhaps more importantly) devote mental space to. So, yes, it's a thing and has material consequences. I'm not sure there is room for legitimate debate on the narrow point, but of course, folks are entitled to their good faith views that may differ.

THAT BEING SAID, it's rare that all things are equal, and I'm totally aware that, in terms of SES, I'm thankfully far ahead of the average white American, and in that sense, more privileged than the average white American in absolute terms. So I can see why some folks call bunk on white privilege because "what about all those black folks better off than those poor white folks in W. Virginia?!?" I don't think that's the right comparator at all...ridiculous even, but I can understand the thought process of some on this score and understand why the "privilege" nomenclature should be retired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Privilege isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but when you talk about someone's privileged status, it's usually done with some amount of disdain. And one of the things the anti-CRT crowd (whether they're using proper definitions or not) bristle at is the idea that the homeless white meth addict from an impoverished, abusive family enjoys privilege because he's white whereas the black queer studies professor from a middle class home lacks this privilege because she's not white. And, I know that we're also supposed to understand the idea of intersectionality where all of these variables play against the other. But "white privilege" comes from the same communication geniuses that gave us "defund the police," so message about being mad at white people comes across a lot stronger than anything to do with the intersecting variables. And then these objections are minimized as just being about a trivial desire to hang on to a more sanitized version of history.

I agree to a point. I'm black and believe that "white privilege" is a real "thing" in the sense that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL being white relieves you of having to deal with whole host burdens that otherwise similarly situated white folks just don't have to deal with or (perhaps more importantly) devote mental space to. So, yes, it's a thing and has material consequences. I'm not sure there is room for legitimate debate on the narrow point, but of course, folks are entitled to their good faith views that may differ.

THAT BEING SAID, it's rare that all things are equal, and I'm totally aware that, in terms of SES, I'm thankfully far ahead of the average white American, and in that sense, more privileged than the average white American in absolute terms. So I can see why some folks call bunk on white privilege because "what about all those black folks better off than those poor white folks in W. Virginia?!?" I don't think that's the right comparator at all...ridiculous even, but I can understand the thought process of some on this score and understand why the "privilege" nomenclature should be retired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Privilege isn't inherently bad, I suppose, but when you talk about someone's privileged status, it's usually done with some amount of disdain. And one of the things the anti-CRT crowd (whether they're using proper definitions or not) bristle at is the idea that the homeless white meth addict from an impoverished, abusive family enjoys privilege because he's white whereas the black queer studies professor from a middle class home lacks this privilege because she's not white. And, I know that we're also supposed to understand the idea of intersectionality where all of these variables play against the other. But "white privilege" comes from the same communication geniuses that gave us "defund the police," so message about being mad at white people comes across a lot stronger than anything to do with the intersecting variables. And then these objections are minimized as just being about a trivial desire to hang on to a more sanitized version of history.

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up that we are accused of teaching it in schools because most of my teacher colleagues don't know what it is.

And from their self-Googling, they think that it's teaching white kids that they are inherently bad because they are born white.

That's not CRT at all.

Older white people are just mad because they're learning that what they learned in history in school was a white-washed version.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is proving one thing for sure: just how pointless these conversations are.

Next, let’s make a CRT club so middle schoolers can have these conversations as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.