New critical race theory laws have teachers scared, confused and self-censoring

I can't disagree about any of that.
Do you have a Time Machine to go back in time to 'correct' all that we view as 'wrong' now?

How much time should we spend on lamenting over the Past?
I don't see Asians spending a lot of time crying in their Noodles about Past Injustices.
I don't see Gays regurgitating the Past Injustices.
I don't see Women rehashing their Past Station in Life.

Jews bring up WW2. A rather Current Event. I can understand how that is fresh in the mind of those affected.

We can talk about it forever, because if we do not we are likely going to repeat the same mistake.

Now if you are pretending that because the past was bad that means folks that look like the people who did bad in the past should be considered "bad" now, we may have a good conversation.
 
It is still a social value and needs to be taught by someone other than the gasbag we hire to teach them to read. There is nothing, and I really mean nothing, at all that makes any teacher more expert at teaching about these things or, clearly it is indicated by what they have tried to teach, that gives them the ability to be able to understand what is age appropriate. Believe me. I have read the books they use to teach these folks to become teachers, it simply does not prepare them to teach this stuff at all.

Simply social values need to be taught by the parents. Just as me teaching them about heterosexuality. Heterosexuality "isn't about sex" either....

The reality is: If you would get upset if Pat Robertson was teaching your kid about social mores and where to find them, then folks on the other side have an equal ability to get upset over your values being taught. It isn't whether it is about "sex" or not, it is whether it is even close to something somebody who has a degree in early childhood education (I've read those textbooks, my wife recently got that degree they do NOT prepare teachers for this) to appropriately teach children.

Let them teach them reading, writing, maths, science... save the social mores for the folks at home, that's where folks that have that responsibility reside and can decide on what is age appropriate for their own children.

The problem is that parents have different social values. Should we allow bullies to harm other students or teach them not to do that? Should we allow students to treat others differently if they don't follow the social norms? So clearly the parents teaching them "social values" don't work in real world.
 
I can't disagree about any of that.
Do you have a Time Machine to go back in time to 'correct' all that we view as 'wrong' now?

How much time should we spend on lamenting over the Past?
I don't see Asians spending a lot of time crying in their Noodles about Past Injustices.
I don't see Gays regurgitating the Past Injustices.
I don't see Women rehashing their Past Station in Life.

Jews bring up WW2. A rather Current Event. I can understand how that is fresh in the mind of those affected.

Teaching is not lamenting. Racism was inherent in American slavery. Should history of the Civil War be taught as if it was all about "state's rights", forgetting that slavery was the right at issue,
and then that slavery was morally justified on the thesis that Negroes are naturally inferior to whites and were, in fact, benefited under their "care and guidance", as the delusion was sold?
 
A Utah student group was called “Black and Proud.” The principal had it renamed. A New Hampshire history teacher used to discuss current events in a unit about race and economics. No more. And Florida school officials canceled a lecture for teachers on the history of the civil rights movement while they considered whether it would violate state rules.

In 13 states, new laws or directives govern how race can be taught in schools, in some cases creating reporting systems for complaints. The result, teachers and principals say, is a climate of fear around how to comply with rules they often do not understand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/02/14/critical-race-theory-teachers-fear-laws/

No surprise the right wing is an enemy of free speech.


Are these Teachers Graduate Law Professors ?

Are the Students Lawyers?

[FONT=&quot]¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/FONT]
 
Teaching is not lamenting. Racism was inherent in American slavery. Should history of the Civil War be taught as if it was all about "state's rights", forgetting that slavery was the one and only right at issue,
and then that slavery was morally justified on the thesis that Negroes are naturally inferior to whites and were, in fact, benefited under their "care and guidance", as the delusion was sold?

Jack thinks it is impossible to be racist unless you say, I hate Blacks solely because of the skin color.
 
We can talk about it forever, because if we do not we are likely going to repeat the same mistake.

Now if you are pretending that because the past was bad that means folks that look like the people who did bad in the past should be considered "bad" now, we may have a good conversation.

I don't think we are going to legalize Slavery, Killing Gays, Keeping Women in the Kitchen, or Concentration Camps for Jews. I don't think ANY of that will be repeated going Forward.

I support more about the 'Future' being discussed rather than the 'Past'. (I think we are still discussing CRT, right?)
 
Teaching is not lamenting. Racism was inherent in American slavery. Should history of the Civil War be taught as if it was all about "state's rights", forgetting that slavery was the right at issue,
and then that slavery was morally justified on the thesis that Negroes are naturally inferior to whites and were, in fact, benefited under their "care and guidance", as the delusion was sold?

I have no problem with History being taught.
 
We can talk about it forever, because if we do not we are likely going to repeat the same mistake.

Now if you are pretending that because the past was bad that means folks that look like the people who did bad in the past should be considered "bad" now, we may have a good conversation.


I remember a 1977 Mini-Series broadcasted Nationally on Network TV ... ROOTS [FONT=helvetica neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Was White Muffy and Buffy Traumatized for Life?

Did Black Parents Cry that it was all a LIE?

Of course not, but we went on to have Marshmallow Children who can't handle the Truth of American History.
[/FONT]:palm:
 
No need to apologize, maybe you were Out Sick :rolleyes:

I think CRT is college material, but it has been 'weaponized' to create an illusion it's being taught in Kindergarten.
It's become 'political'. A*Bumper Sticker' issue'. Like 'Defund the Police'.
 
FLwZ3yxX0AIjrDr
 
Irrelevant to my post which was a response to the post ""Why did Africans sell their own people into Slavery?" I said nothing about when or where slavery started.

You said it was about 'Money'. Yeah. That's what it was ... Money.

"The Royal African Company was an English mercantile company set up in 1660 by the royal Stuart family and City of London merchants to trade along the west coast of Africa. It was led by the Duke of York, who was the brother of Charles II and later took the throne as James II. Wikipedia"

"What did the Royal African Company do?
It shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other company in the history of the Atlantic slave trade. It was established after Charles II gained the English throne in the Restoration of 1660."
 
You said it was about 'Money'. Yeah. That's what it was ... Money.

"The Royal African Company was an English mercantile company set up in 1660 by the royal Stuart family and City of London merchants to trade along the west coast of Africa. It was led by the Duke of York, who was the brother of Charles II and later took the throne as James II. Wikipedia"

"What did the Royal African Company do?
It shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other company in the history of the Atlantic slave trade. It was established after Charles II gained the English throne in the Restoration of 1660."

And it just gave all those slaves away for free? Or, were you agreeing it was for money?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that parents have different social values. Should we allow bullies to harm other students or teach them not to do that? Should we allow students to treat others differently if they don't follow the social norms? So clearly the parents teaching them "social values" don't work in real world.

You do not have the right to tell them their religious values are to take second fiddle to yours. Even if, like me, you don't believe in their religion. Simple as that. Make rules against bullying, but stop trying to teach morality, yours is not better than theirs, even if you really believe it is. When the government is teaching your children they are still limited by the constitution even when it is inconvenient to your political agenda, especially when you rename your political agenda as "social values" (or even if I do).
 
You do not have the right to tell them their religious values are to take second fiddle to yours. Simple as that. Make rules against bullying, but stop trying to teach morality, yours is not better than theirs, even if you really belive it is.

So in other words do not admit those kids if they will not behave? Good idea. They'll have to pay for private education or homeschooling.

BTW, we weren't talking about religious values. We were talking about societal values. How we treat each others.
 
So in other words do not admit those kids if they will not behave? Good idea. They'll have to pay for private education or homeschooling.

BTW, we weren't talking about religious values. We were talking about societal values. How we treat each others.

Like we have always done you admit the kids until they misbehave. Your "social values" are simply the same thing as religious values. We don't get to claim moral.superiority because we agree, regardless if we claim a different name for values than religion.

Just as folks in red country cannot teach religious values you can't just dismiss those values and teach yours simply because you believe differently than they do. Their social values are tied to their beliefs just as yours are.
 
Like we have always done you admit the kids until they misbehave. Your "social values" are simply the same thing as religious values. We don't get to claim moral.superiority because we agree, regardless if we claim a different name for values than religion.

Just as folks in red country cannot teach religious values you can't just dismiss those values and teach yours simply because you believe differently than they do. Their social values are tied to their beliefs just as yours are.

It is not about teaching them your societal values. It's about teaching them that everyone is equal. "All men are created equal." Remember? Are you saying the teachers shouldn't teach students the Founding Fathers religious and societal values? :dunno:
 
Back
Top