Florida Bans CRT in Schools - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15178051
And the last zillion posts, discussing the teaching of CRT, proves without a doubt, my assertion that any attempt to teach this nonsense is beyond the skill of the overwhelming number of teachers, is likely to trigger any number of black students and will get the whole shit show sued for miles.

The Florida legislation got this one right for a change. This THEORY is incomplete and far to dangerous to teach.

I am staggered at the callousness of the left here. They are perfectly willing to traumatize young black people. Full stop. These young folks can clearly see the results of racism and are personally its victim. Taking away more of what little hope many of them have is not an act of kindness nor should it be an educational goal. If in the appropriate setting, in a college or university, taught by a carefully prepared professor students are led through this theory that is quite another thing.

I have people who wish to volunteer at the homeless outreach clinic with which I am associated who I have to discourage from doing that. Our world is very real. Fucking real. They will see things they cannot un-see. They could be traumatized for life. If they have any tendency to anxiety about what they might see, they have to stay home. There are some aspects of what we see and do that I deliberately conceal from most visitors as an act of kindness.

Teaching young black kids that the whole world is out to get them is horrible, cruel and just wrong.

Free speech means you can say pretty much anything. Wisdom means that you know enough to not say pretty much everything.
Last edited by Drlee on 24 Jun 2021 06:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15178052
Drlee wrote:And the last zillion posts, discussing the teaching of CRT, proves without a doubt, my assertion that any attempt to teach this nonsense is beyond the skill of the overwhelming number of teachers, is likely to trigger any number of black students and will get the who shit show sued for miles.

The Florida legislation got this one right for a change. This THEORY is incomplete and far to dangerous to teach.


Maybe I have too much faith on teenagers, but discussion is part of a free society.
#15178062
Unthinking Majority wrote: History should be taught objectively and apolitically, because narratives are political by nature.


This is impossible. The study of history is literally the study of narratives. History is neither objective nor apolitical, by definition. :eh:
#15178063
colliric wrote:It fosters a racist attitude against the hiring of Caucasians and the treatment of Caucasians with respect.

CRT proponents have proven themselves to be generally racist against white people time and time again.

Several recent examples in my country of CRT believing primary school teachers forcing the young caucasian Boys(as well as boys of other races for the other thing mentioned) to stand up and "apologize for your sex and your race".


I think this needs to be quoted for page 10.
#15178089
Maybe I have too much faith on teenagers, but discussion is part of a free society.


So your contention is that just because we can discuss something with children that we ought to?

What about my point about telling young black children that the whole system is designed to be stacked against them? Tell me how Homer Wilson, White, High School Civics teacher and basketball coach, is going to do this without damaging the young black children in his class?
#15178095
late wrote:Just stop.


So you don't have a response. I know that some people believe the law is optional, but I've been here for long enough to tell that's clearly not.

Drlee wrote:So your contention is that just because we can discuss something with children that we ought to?

What about my point about telling young black children that the whole system is designed to be stacked against them? Tell me how Homer Wilson, White, High School Civics teacher and basketball coach, is going to do this without damaging the young black children in his class?


So they shouldn't even discuss if that's really true? By "leaving it up for debate", I mean students should be able to debate if those claims are in fact true or not among other things.

You are sounding like those who want safe spaces here, @Drlee. Students have every right to debate controversial topics in school, and CRT is definitely among the most controversial topics right now. Just banning discussion does a disservice to them and just postpones the inevitable (that they'll be exposed to these ideas at some point... And FWIW chances are that they already have, as systemic racism is something that gets discussed on the big TV channels too).
#15178107
wat0n wrote:The South didn't fight the independence war only or even mainly because of slavery.


Since I did not make either of these two arguments, this will be ignored.

The fact that news of the Somerset ruling didn't quite cause a ruckus should already help falsify Hannah-Jones' claims (she's the one who brought that case up)


Did you mean the proclamation by Dunmore? That would make more sense since it happened much closer in time and in Virginia.

And that definitely caused a ruckus.

And 1834 is still 58 years after the Declaration of Independence.


Yes, and how many years before the abolition of slavery in the USA?
#15178113
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I did not make either of these two arguments, this will be ignored.


Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed that one of the primary causes of the American Revolution was that slave-owning interests thought the British were set out to abolish slavery circa 1776, and you claimed she's correct.

It seems that now that you're reading about the pushback by historians, you are repudiating the claim instead of just admitting Hannah-Jones was wrong. By the way, even she eventually pulled back as far as this claim is concerned and realized her mistake.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Did you mean the proclamation by Dunmore? That would make more sense since it happened much closer in time and in Virginia.

And that definitely caused a ruckus.


She mentioned Somerset, not Dunmore's proclamation. In any event, even Dunmore's proclamation did not cause as much of a ruckus as to be a primary reason for the American Revolution as Sean Wilentz explains in his article, so she's still wrong.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and how many years before the abolition of slavery in the USA?


31, so...? Are you saying American revolutionaries in the mid-1770s had a crystal ball about the state of the world by 1834?
#15178128
wat0n wrote:Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed that one of the primary causes of the American Revolution was that slave-owning interests thought the British were set out to abolish slavery circa 1776, and you claimed she's correct.

It seems that now that you're reading about the pushback by historians, you are repudiating the claim instead of just admitting Hannah-Jones was wrong. By the way, even she eventually pulled back as far as this claim is concerned and realized her mistake.


No, you have misunderstood my argument.

Again, my argument is that the claim that US slavers were worried is true. They were. This was an important reason for some of the revolutionaries, but not all. This is because some revolutionaries did not own slaves. So this means it was an important factor for some revolutionaries some of the time.

This is why it is inaccurate to claim it was an important reason, and just stop there. Just like it is inaccurate to say that it was hot an important reason and just stop there.

She mentioned Somerset, not Dunmore's proclamation. In any event, even Dunmore's proclamation did not cause as much of a ruckus as to be a primary reason for the American Revolution as Sean Wilentz explains in his article, so she's still wrong.


Or this Wilentz person is. Virginia was neutral until then and then after said proclamation, the southern states were all gung ho.

31, so...? Are you saying American revolutionaries in the mid-1770s had a crystal ball about the state of the world by 1834?


They were correct in thinking that continued British rule would have ended slavery far sooner.
#15178149
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you have misunderstood my argument.

Again, my argument is that the claim that US slavers were worried is true. They were. This was an important reason for some of the revolutionaries, but not all. This is because some revolutionaries did not own slaves. So this means it was an important factor for some revolutionaries some of the time.

This is why it is inaccurate to claim it was an important reason, and just stop there. Just like it is inaccurate to say that it was hot an important reason and just stop there.


That's not what Nikole Hannah-Jones said, and by extension what the 1619 Project was or is pushing for. Are you saying then that you don't agree with her claims?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Or this Wilentz person is. Virginia was neutral until then and then after said proclamation, the southern states were all gung ho.


Not quite, as he explains in his article. This is a post-hoc fallacy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They were correct in thinking that continued British rule would have ended slavery far sooner.


They couldn't have known so in 1776, furthermore as Wilentz and other historians have shown it doesn't seem this was a concern either.

@late oh please, this whole thread is about a topic that involves children and politics. And CRT seems to have its own political aims here as well.
#15178154
wat0n wrote:That's not what Nikole Hannah-Jones said, and by extension what the 1619 Project was or is pushing for. Are you saying then that you don't agree with her claims?


My point is that it her claim should not be taught because it is inaccurate, then it should also be wrong to teach that slavery was not an important reason since that is also inaccurate.

Not quite, as he explains in his article. This is a post-hoc fallacy.


How is it a post hoc fallacy?

They couldn't have known so in 1776, furthermore as Wilentz and other historians have shown it doesn't seem this was a concern either.


They had a reasonable and logical fear based on laws, prevailing social norms, the effects of the Industrial revolution and a host of other reasons.

@late oh please, this whole thread is about a topic that involves children and politics. And CRT seems to have its own political aims here as well.


How can CRT have its aims on kids since it is not being taught in elementary or secondary schools in Florida?
#15178159
Pants-of-dog wrote:My point is that it her claim should not be taught because it is inaccurate, then it should also be wrong to teach that slavery was not an important reason since that is also inaccurate.


You could teach it was important for some interests in the southern colonies, and base that on the promises of freeing slaves the British made. Even historians don't seem to dispute this, by the way.

But it's simply not accurate to teach that it was a primary cause.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it a post hoc fallacy?


Just because Virginia and other southern states joined the revolution after the proclamation, it does not mean they did so because of it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They had a reasonable and logical fear based on laws, prevailing social norms, the effects of the Industrial revolution and a host of other reasons.


How were they to know what would happen during the Industrial Revolution by 1776? :eh:

How do you explain Wilentz' claim that the press at the time covered Somerset in a fairly neutral, even indifferent, way?

Pants-of-dog wrote:How can CRT have its aims on kids since it is not being taught in elementary or secondary schools in Florida?


Its proponents aiming to have it taught in schools, at all levels, across the US. I don't think saying so is or should be controversial.

You can even read children's books that touch on some of these topics, geared towards the corresponding age group of course, too. I'd even say it's a fairly lucrative business at that.

Want an example? My girlfriend loves these things so she had me buy her this book:

Image
#15178183
wat0n wrote:You could teach it was important for some interests in the southern colonies, and base that on the promises of freeing slaves the British made. Even historians don't seem to dispute this, by the way.

But it's simply not accurate to teach that it was a primary cause.


It is very possible that it was a primary reason for many revolutionaries.

Just because Virginia and other southern states joined the revolution after the proclamation, it does not mean they did so because of it.


If that were the only factor, you would be correct.

However, the British were openly emancipating slaves who fought for the loyalists, while the revolutionaries had discussed it behind closed doors. This means that the people in charge of the southern states knew that this was a definite possibility and they also knew this would cause economic problems for the southern states.

How were they to know what would happen during the Industrial Revolution by 1776? :eh:


No one said they knew. I said they worried.

How do you explain Wilentz' claim that the press at the time covered Somerset in a fairly neutral, even indifferent, way?


How is this relevant to my claim?

Its proponents aiming to have it taught in schools, at all levels, across the US. I don't think saying so is or should be controversial.

You can even read children's books that touch on some of these topics, geared towards the corresponding age group of course, too. I'd even say it's a fairly lucrative business at that.

Want an example? My girlfriend loves these things so she had me buy her this book:

Image


I see.

You are confusing CRT with any discussion whatsoever on racism.

Yes, we are discussing racism with kids. This is not a plot by CRT to influence children.
#15178187
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is very possible that it was a primary reason for many revolutionaries.


Possible, but not proven. Furthermore, how many is "many"?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If that were the only factor, you would be correct.

However, the British were openly emancipating slaves who fought for the loyalists, while the revolutionaries had discussed it behind closed doors. This means that the people in charge of the southern states knew that this was a definite possibility and they also knew this would cause economic problems for the southern states.


But they did so, IIRC, once the war began - the earliest such promise (the aforementioned proclamation by Dunmore) was issued several months after Lexington.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No one said they knew. I said they worried.


Do you have any primary sources about this?

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is this relevant to my claim?


Wouldn't you infer widespread concern from contemporary press?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

You are confusing CRT with any discussion whatsoever on racism.

Yes, we are discussing racism with kids. This is not a plot by CRT to influence children.


No, not at all. I'm saying CRT has its own agenda here.

Not that they have no right to, by the way.
#15178190
wat0n wrote:Possible, but not proven. Furthermore, how many is "many"?


Very little can be proven. Historical facts cannot be proven, but they can be supported with evidence, which has been done.

But they did so, IIRC, once the war began - the earliest such promise (the aforementioned proclamation by Dunmore) was issued several months after Lexington.


Who are “they”?

What promise are you referring to?

What Lexington event are you referring to?

How does this relate to the claim?

Do you have any primary sources about this?


About what?

Wouldn't you infer widespread concern from contemporary press?


How is this relevant to my claim?

No, not at all. I'm saying CRT has its own agenda here.

Not that they have no right to, by the way.


CRT is a legal theory and not an agent of action. It can have no agency or agenda.
#15178201
Pants-of-dog wrote:Very little can be proven. Historical facts cannot be proven, but they can be supported with evidence, which has been done.


Fair, so where's your evidence? How many is many?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Who are “they”?


The British.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What promise are you referring to?


Liberation of Black slaves.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What Lexington event are you referring to?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_o ... nd_Concord

Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this relate to the claim?


A lot, actually, since the Revolutionary War had already begin by the time Dunmore's proclamation was issued. Indeed, VA militias were on the move at the time already, IIRC.

Pants-of-dog wrote:About what?


The concern among British subjects in the thirteen colonies regarding the Industrial Revolution, circa 1776.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How is this relevant to my claim?


A lot, too, since it would show such concern was in fact widespread and publicly discussed.

Pants-of-dog wrote:CRT is a legal theory and not an agent of action. It can have no agency or agenda.


But its proponents can.
#15178206
wat0n wrote:Fair, so where's your evidence? How many is many?

The British.

Liberation of Black slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_o ... nd_Concord

The concern among British subjects in the thirteen colonies regarding the Industrial Revolution, circa 1776.

A lot, too, since it would show such concern was in fact widespread and publicly discussed.

But its proponents can.


Please use complete sentences, and quote the relevant text that supports your claim.

A lot, actually, since the Revolutionary War had already begin by the time Dunmore's proclamation was issued. Indeed, VA militias were on the move at the time already, IIRC.


Please provide evidence for this claim.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 16

Corporate investors are snapping up “houses with […]

For the last paper I wrote in English, I cited […]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Your response is so fucking stupid I am going t[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

@Politics_Observer Well at least you didn't call[…]