Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how much ignorance about the AP course there is on this thread.

Yes. Suddenly everyone is an African American Studies scholar.

I can't believe how much ignorance about the AP course there is on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Students have been reading James Baldwin in upper level HS courses for decades. While literature and, specifically, his books, are only a small part of African American history and culture, a class discussion or paper that does not recognize that he was Black, male, gay, and often writing about urban and religious aspects of culture would be missing quite a lot. It would be unfortunate if all of these aspects of his identity and their influence on his worldview and writing could not be explored as topics of academic interest.

This is just one example. I chose Baldwin as an author whose work has been considered classic for many decades.

And he’s exactly the kind of Black author DeSantis and the rest of the racists want to banish. Too thinky. Too much smart.

Ooh, now tell us about Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele. Are they too "thinky" for you?
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Students have been reading James Baldwin in upper level HS courses for decades. While literature and, specifically, his books, are only a small part of African American history and culture, a class discussion or paper that does not recognize that he was Black, male, gay, and often writing about urban and religious aspects of culture would be missing quite a lot. It would be unfortunate if all of these aspects of his identity and their influence on his worldview and writing could not be explored as topics of academic interest.

This is just one example. I chose Baldwin as an author whose work has been considered classic for many decades.

And he’s exactly the kind of Black author DeSantis and the rest of the racists want to banish. Too thinky. Too much smart.

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Students have been reading James Baldwin in upper level HS courses for decades. While literature and, specifically, his books, are only a small part of African American history and culture, a class discussion or paper that does not recognize that he was Black, male, gay, and often writing about urban and religious aspects of culture would be missing quite a lot. It would be unfortunate if all of these aspects of his identity and their influence on his worldview and writing could not be explored as topics of academic interest.

This is just one example. I chose Baldwin as an author whose work has been considered classic for many decades.

What queer theory are they learning? A couple of my graduate level sociology classes in graduate school had queer theory. I can’t imagine any of it being accessible to high school students!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

Whose “goal” is it? And who is working to achieve it? This is right up there with “all deliberate speed” and “40 acres and a mule”. So you’re astounded that supposed goals that haven’t been achieved despite decades if not centuries of struggling for “Liberty and justice for all” should be maintained indefinitely? That’s beyond pathetic, and probably self-serving. NP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the authors banned are pretty much basic, foundational authors for thinking about black experience in the US.

Shows how powerful they are that so many are scared by their writings.

Seriously, how many awards has Ta-Nahisi Coates won?

He's dumb and a poor writer. There are a million better authors for an AA course.

You didn’t answer the question. Poor writers who are dumb don’t win awards.

???

Of course they win awards, by fellow dumb poor writers.

What they do not win is a Nobel Prize or a SCOTUS appointment or global recognition.

Heck, I hope Clarence Thomas made it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

+ 1000000

There are many people alive with strong memories of segregation. Wasn’t ended all that long ago.

Yes, and segregation should be (and is) a huge part of an AA Studies class. "Queer studies," not so much.

Back into the closet you go!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

You sound like the whites who only want to quote MLK’s “content of their character” and never his take on poverty, his Poor People’s Campaign, or his chiding of white moderates.

I am a white person who proudly honors MLK for his fight against racial discrimination, but not for all of his opinions.

Similarly, I honor Thomas Jefferson for his help in creating a nation dedicated to religious freedom and freedom of the press and of speech. I don't honor him for all his opinions -- and in particular not for his justification for enslaving 600 people during his lifetime.

Now I do think that, for example, MLK's arguments against the Vietnam war were -- and remain -- very cogent. But this is not why I honor him on MLK day. I honor him for making the words in the Declaration "all men are created equal" have real meaning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the authors banned are pretty much basic, foundational authors for thinking about black experience in the US.

Shows how powerful they are that so many are scared by their writings.

Seriously, how many awards has Ta-Nahisi Coates won?

He's dumb and a poor writer. There are a million better authors for an AA course.

You didn’t answer the question. Poor writers who are dumb don’t win awards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

Are you black? Regardless, you're extremely pedantic.

I thought you didn’t see color, so why are you asking?

Because for someone who's not black, you seem to be taking it upon yourself to speak for black people.

News for you pal. Black history is also white’s history. Slavery is white history as much as it is black history. Segregation is white history as well as black history.

No one is disputing that. You seem to just want to argue. Not interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

+ 1000000

There are many people alive with strong memories of segregation. Wasn’t ended all that long ago.

Yes, and segregation should be (and is) a huge part of an AA Studies class. "Queer studies," not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it concerning that LGBT issues get folded in with racial issues as a disguise.
The Respect for Marriage seemed to do just that. There was a very tiny threat to the concept of interracial marriage. However, the LGBT community grabbed it and packaged it along with gay marriage to get the agenda going.
In this case, somehow, understanding African American culture also involves understanding gay issues.

Because of course there are no black gays.

DP. Of course there are black gays. And white gays, Hispanic gays, Asian gays, etc. What is your point?

In a course on black studies you can discuss the experience of black gays. And black women. And black children. And black professionals. And black actors. And black people with disabilities. And black farm laborers. And black athletes. And black Muslims.

See, it’s a course on black studies. Have you never taken a “studies” course before? The topics are wide ranging and inclusive.

Are you black? Regardless, you're extremely pedantic.

I thought you didn’t see color, so why are you asking?

Because for someone who's not black, you seem to be taking it upon yourself to speak for black people.

News for you pal. Black history is also white’s history. Slavery is white history as much as it is black history. Segregation is white history as well as black history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well done Florida!!

You are probably the same person who would scream about Campus Free Expression. All of those subjects are discussed in the Black community. The class is about the discussion, not indocrination.

The controversial-and-now-optional subjects are not Black issues, they are progressive issues. It's a bit insulting to tack them onto an AA Studies class, tbh.

THIS. You summed up the issue perfectly. Take a bow.

Wtf. Are you denying Black experience in America has been marked by “progressive issues”??? I mean my god. What were the abolitionist movement and the civil rights era if not progressive? They are the very definition of progressivism.

You people clearly slept in whatever history/political science/American study classes you took.

What was "progressive" in 1860 is completely different from what is considered progressive in 2023. Treating people the same regardless of skin color was progressive in 1860, but now is considered reactionary.

Amazingly accurate. It astounds me that "treating people the same regardless of skin color" is no longer the goal, but instead looked at as shockingly unPC and "racist." Really pathetic.

No one treated people the same in 1860 or 1960 or today. People are not the same, not born today as blank slates with no history or legacy. You racists are so full of hypocritical shit with your one misinterpreted MLK quote.

+ 1000000

There are many people alive with strong memories of segregation. Wasn’t ended all that long ago.