Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many crazies.

Hey, move to Haiti and Liberia, and please report back on black utopia!

Feel free to give up your US passports before you leave, to show how brave you are.

You are racist and you don't understand anything. Why do you think Haiti has problems?

The very White Clintons dropping billions of dollars with no accountabiity, ensuring corruption and mayhem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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

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

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

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

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

This is about as stupid as someone saying the single only most important fact of our history is the Mexican War, or the Louisiana Purchase, or the Gold Rush, or the Indian Wars, or the anti-Chinese Acts.

Hint: Enough with race and racism.

Anonymous wrote:So many crazies.

Hey, move to Haiti and Liberia, and please report back on black utopia!

Feel free to give up your US passports before you leave, to show how brave you are.

You are racist and you don't understand anything. Why do you think Haiti has problems?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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

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

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

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

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

I am not wrong. At all. Your problem is
that you don't think race enters into our history, but our history has race issues weaved within the entire scope and sequence. One cannot teach history without teaching how we got here. What do you think history is about? I can't imagine

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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yes, DeSantis and Abbott are “teaching” kids that human trafficking brown people is ok. And Republicans in Congress are “teaching” kids that storming the Capitol is ok.

You're so cute. Deporter-in-Chief Obama showed all you want about human trafficking and putting brown kids in jail, and it is Dems teaching it's ok to vandalize hundreds of cities at will.

Obama legally deporting undocumented immigrants is not comparable to the political stunts by Abbott & DeSantis - who had no problem exploiting vulnerable people.

Ds didn’t condone looting. Should we go back and review the R votes on Jan 6th?

You're right. Obama deporting NINE MILLION IMMIGRANTS is not comparable to those stunts by Abbott & DeSantis. It's a million times worse, especially because he LIED to them and their families.

And you're also right that Ds did not merely condone looting. They gave looters space to destroy, they glorified them, heck they even released them from prison after committing violence.

Not comparable at all.

They should just show this instead of that lame writing.

Bunch of words strung together that will not be applied in real teaching.
It should be worded your grandparents are racist, as are your parents; they don't know it and refuse to understand why they are racist. They are still extremely racist; being unaware that you are racist does not mean you are not racist, just that you are a horrible person.
Teachers should show examples of racism, inequality, and subjugation of certain groups all the time.
And it should add: Just BCS the reality of what your family is and has been is too hard to accept is not an excuse to continue discrimination and act like a racist.

So many crazies.

Hey, move to Haiti and Liberia, and please report back on black utopia!

Feel free to give up your US passports before you leave, to show how brave you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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

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

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

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

DP. Are you still arguing about this? You were shown to be wrong.

You are also showing us why this conversation is so difficult - some people think that everything can be and should be about race, whether it actually is or not.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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

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

Let's go over it again. Listen up.

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

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

Really? Are you educated beyond the 3rd grade? The entire history of the US, indeed, is about white male colonialism, enslavement of black people, and the taking of land, and rights, of others. Yes, it absolutely is. Did you understand Manifest Destiny? What on earth do you think US history is about? Freedom from English rule?

DP. Sorry, I also disagree with you that race is the entire history of the US. I disagree that children should be taught that, in 3rd grade or 12th grade or college.

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.

Curious, how does one teach Social Studies without discussing social change? The terms are identical.

DP. There's a difference between teaching about social change and teaching students to do (be agents of) social change.

There's also a difference between teaching about social change and "teaching" to hate others based on race or how violence is ok.

Yes, DeSantis and Abbott are “teaching” kids that human trafficking brown people is ok. And Republicans in Congress are “teaching” kids that storming the Capitol is ok.

You're so cute. Deporter-in-Chief Obama showed all you want about human trafficking and putting brown kids in jail, and it is Dems teaching it's ok to vandalize hundreds of cities at will.

Obama legally deporting undocumented immigrants is not comparable to the political stunts by Abbott & DeSantis - who had no problem exploiting vulnerable people.

Ds didn’t condone looting. Should we go back and review the R votes on Jan 6th?

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

Really? Are you educated beyond the 3rd grade? The entire history of the US, indeed, is about white male colonialism, enslavement of black people, and the taking of land, and rights, of others. Yes, it absolutely is. Did you understand Manifest Destiny? What on earth do you think US history is about? Freedom from English rule?

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.

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.

+1

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.

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

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

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