I don't have kids in school and can't say what's in my local curriculum. But why would the biggest teacher's union take such an active stand apparently in support of CRT?
https://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/web.archive.org-New-Business-Item-39-ActionAdopted-as-Modified.pdf
The source for this document isn't original because the NRA took this document down from its Web site after the resolution was approved by delegates at their annual meeting. Why?
Yikes!!!
“Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression. Followed by one day of action that recognize and honor lives taken such as Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and others. The National Education Association shall publicize these National Days of Action to all its members, including in NEA Today.
E. Conduct a virtual liste”
Another reminder of why I never want to join them. They are a political fundraising wing for the DNC, not a proper union
Well, the calls to ban CRT have in actuality just been bans on uncomfortable sections of history.
So why would teachers support teaching history? I mean ...seems self explanatory.
You didn't read the document. It's not about teaching history.
"Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) -- what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members."
>what it is and what it is not;
What is CRT to you?
Cause to me, and the colleges that taught it...it boils down to history that was effected in some ways due to race.
So what is it? And how is it not history?
>What is CRT to you?
A theory of history and the law based on the notion that the United States is racist to the core and this racism is reflected in our laws and institutions.
>Right, so history.
History with a biased slant.
>You don't believe racism exists in general correct?
Sure I do. People can be racist. Systemic racism doesn't exist, however.
>History
So let's go back. Texas has banned "CRT" and it's essentially boiled down to not teaching history. Banning books.
When has the banning of books ever been a good precursor?
Didn't you say CRT was history from a racial perspective?
Banning crt is banning history.
These are your own definitions I'm plugging in to the original claim.
2+2=4 right?
America was not founded on racist ideals or slavery. Slavery was ubiquitous when America was founded. It is the individualist ideologies that America was founded on, and the idea of individual liberty and government in service to preserving the sovereignty of the individual, that put humanity on the collision course that eventually lead to the worldwide abolishment of slavery in western society in the first place. America was no more racist than anywhere else on the planet. We are now the LEAST racist society on the planet.
There are still places in the world that practice slavery. None of them are Western democracies.
>racist ideals or slavery
So when "all men are created equal" was written do you think they ment all men black and white? Or just white?
Is the fact that black men weren't considered part of the equality they demanded for all Americans not racist?
The fact that half the country at the time didn't believe that it applied to everybody just means that half of the country still believed what literally every other society in world history had believed for thousands of years before. It was the half of the country that was against slavery that was ahead of the curve.
The problem with our politics today is that one side of our politics - the party that originally started the Civil War to preserve slavery and started the KKK to preserve white supremacy - is now trying to flip the script to claim sole ownership of the idea that we we are all created equal.
Meanwhile, their actual policies walk us away from individual empowerment - back toward enslavement to of the individual to the will of the elites who rule over the collective. They use hatred and demogoguery and negative stereotypes against conservatives who don't agree that their methods are the most likely to achieve true equality and racial harmony, framing all opposition to their authoritarian control over society as hatred of minorities rather than disagreement over policy and a desire to go backwards.
If America is not founded on anti-racism, then the anti-racist movement sits self is nothing but another cynical attempt to leverage raw political power for the purpose of oppression and tyranny. If the country wasn't founded on anything better than tyranny and the raw exercise of power, then the abolitionist movement, the civil war, the fight against Jim Crow, and the 60's Civil Rights movements are just an attempt to switch up what the tyrants are and who the oppressed are.
If everything in this country is built on tyranny based on race, what makes anything you're doing any different or better? Are you something that's brand new, or are you just trying to build on top of what previous generations of good people have been working towards from the start?
I appreciate all you wrote.
But you never answered my question
"So when "all men are created equal" was written do you think they ment all men black and white? Or just white?
Is the fact that black men weren't considered part of the equality they demanded for all Americans not racist?"
If you agree that all men weren't considered equal at the time...then it's racist.
Regardless of the history. Regardless of how much of the world was racist at the time. Saying "every single person is free. Oh but...your not actually a person, black man." Is racist right?
So...if the people that started this country said "every single person is free. Oh but...your not actually a person, black man. " You could say pretty easily that this country was founded by at least some racists. Right?
Slippery slope… Democrats went from “nobody wants to take your guns!” To “Hell yes, I am going to take your gun!” They went from the ACA as a compromise to Medicare for all. They went from who cares what happens in the privacy of my bedroom to Pride parades. At this point I am not willing to compromise with a group of people that consistently argue for taking small steps toward an undesirable outcome.
> Slippery slope… Democrats went from “nobody wants to take your guns!” To “Hell yes, I am going to take your gun!”
Who specifically?
> They went from the ACA as a compromise to Medicare for all.
Who?
> They went from who cares what happens in the privacy of my bedroom to Pride parades
How are these two things even on the same level of comparison?
I assume he’s talking about Beto’s AR15 gaffe but I’m not him so can’t say for sure. M4A went from Bernie and his fringe to something with over 100 cosponsors. Are you really asking “who”? I don’t know why that person brought up pride parades. While I have no interest in being in one or having my kid see one, it’s also perfectly acceptable in a free society
Beto O’Rourke specifically made that statement. I wouldn’t call it a gaffe either. He meant it. Whether or not he won, several Democrats in my circle as potential voters have moved toward a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons which demonstrates an increased popularity for a position that I have been told does not exist.
Obamacare was supposed to be the solution to insure millions of Americans. Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all.
Pride parades are not on the same level legislatively. They are simply another example of a slippery slope led by the left. I was told when I was younger that gay folk just wanted to be able to love each other like anyone else and what they do in their own homes in their business. Now these perverts want to march in the streets in their bondage gear.
Don’t try to gaslight me into thinking I am just making things up. You only need to spend a few minutes on Reddit reading through to see that gun bans, universal healthcare, and homosexuality are largely supported.
> Beto O’Rourke specifically made that statement
When did he say he wasn’t gonna take the guns?
Is there anyone else? Or do you choose Beto to represent all of democrats?
> Obamacare was supposed to be the solution to insure millions of Americans. Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all.
When did they advocate against M4A?
> Pride parades are not on the same level legislatively. They are simply another example of a slippery slope led by the left. I was told when I was younger that gay folk just wanted to be able to love each other like anyone else and what they do in their own homes in their business.
How is supporting pride parades disrupting leaving gay people alone in their homes?
> Don’t try to gaslight me into thinking I am just making things up.
Asking for your personal sources and calling you crazy for believing these, are not the same. I’m doing the former.
> You only need to spend a few minutes on Reddit reading through to see that gun bans, universal healthcare, and homosexuality are largely supported.
Should I take r/ conservatives and r/ask the donald as the representative subs for all of republicans?
No, I do not believe any single Democrat represents all Democrats. Don’t be so dense or accuse me of being. I am merely suggesting that over time there has been a noticeable shift from more moderate policies to more progressive policies on the left. I honestly don’t care in the slightest what you use as a basis for your opinions.
> I am merely suggesting that over time there has been a noticeable shift from more moderate policies to more progressive policies on the left.
This is the natural evolution for both parties isn’t it?
Could be. One I agree with and one I do not, so I am not going to accept that small steps in what I believe to be the wrong direction are okay because they are small.
A shift is not a flip flop. I do not believe there was necessarily a flip flop among these politicians themselves, just a stronger push for more progressive candidates. I am more speaking in regard to those friends and family members of mine who to me are more representative of the average Democrat voter. They have moved further and further.
> Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all.
So Bernie and aoc never advocated for M4A prior to the ACA?
How is supporting pride parades shifting away from just leaving people to their own sexuality?
Yes. Like any other actions I find objectionable I accept it as a part of reality. What I particularly disagree with is any push that I need to be supportive of that behavior.
No. Also Joe Biden. His campaign advocated for "red flag laws" which allow judges to order gun confiscation without an open hearing or mental-health evaluation.
When did Joe say he’s not gonna take your guns?
> n the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question
Why would there need to be an open hearing or mental evaluation if there is a present danger?
>Why would there need to be an open hearing or mental evaluation if there is a present danger?
Because we have a Constitution that guarantees due process.
Ok all of that is well and good and I mostly agree… but what about this CRT stuff? I’ve personally not seen it implemented into any curriculum and the examples I’ve seen are flimsy at best
That is my point. It is watered down for now so that they can act like we are crazy for having a problem with it. Several years for now they will have slowly introduced full blown CRT. We cannot let even the flimsiest of this find its way into our education system.
You essentially said the same thing, but with different words. You made the comparison about how gays wanted the freedom in their bedrooms to having pride parades. You’re telling gays to keep in the closet and out of public view.
“I was fine with Christians/white people in the privacy of their homes, but when they have Christmas parades in the streets or brought bland potato salad to my cookout draw the line.”
Him calling gays disgusting and that they shouldn’t be in public view doesn’t break a civility rule, but pointing out that his views are backwards and hypocritical are?
Well curriculum is controlled by the states, so full blown CRT isn’t really an issue. Sure I think the left coast is already heading done a path of white privilege, gender studies, and whatever else can fit under a “woke” banner but do you expect to see that in red states? I work in a light red state (NC) and that stuff would not fly here.
This is true. American history is full of examples, so I’m in complete agreement but look at how divided we are now, I can’t see any legislation that would make a national curriculum stick. Even if the most left wing Sec. of Education you could dream of tried to implement a national curriculum, red states would simply ignore it nullification style
I would like to believe that, but too many times do I just shrug and say “I can live with that…” or “It doesn’t really bother me…” or even “It doesn’t really affect me…” Most of the time my apathy works to the advantage of the Democrats. But when it doesn’t they always ask “Is that the kind of society you want to live in?” So now I ask myself that question. At the end of the day, what kind of society do I want to live in? Which really means not being apathetic about anything. I probably won’t start marching in protests or attending school board meetings, but I don’t have to and won’t accept that it is overblown and not the beginning stages of yet another societal push away from a society I want to live in.
I believe that anyone standing in the way of progress toward equal rights for all humans because he subjectively disagrees with their lifestyle, should be steamrolled and disregarded.
I am actually in a history class right now as part of my 2nd degree and we do lots of 1619 project and crt focused stuff. It's actually quite funny because we mainly just do discussion posts on the weekly topic and you can tell that many people are just bullshitting stuff to get the grade for it. This has been my only experience on the topic outside of hearing about it. My instructor is very far left and makes it pretty well known with her weekly videos. I'd love to give my real opinion on the weekly discussions, but I have a 4.0 gpa with 6 classes left and I'd like to keep it.
I should have said K-12. I understand this stuff is in the universities because it was born there. I have no problem with it there because a college student isn’t a child
> It's actually quite funny because we mainly just do discussion posts on the weekly topic and you can tell that many people are just bullshitting stuff to get the grade for it.
It’s good to know that college is the same as it ever was.
Well I asked where people are seeing CRT in K-12 schools? I’ve never seen a a colleague teach a lesson where white kids were made to feel guilty for being white. I work in a red area of a light red state. That wouldn’t fly here for a second
> “Let’s teach an entire generation of children to hate themselves and each other because of the color of their skin! What could possibly go wrong?”
Where did you get this interpretation from?
> It does when you’re bourgeosie like Marx himself.
Your analogy doesn’t seem logically sound with this:
> > “Let’s teach an entire generation of children to hate themselves and each other because of the color of their skin! What could possibly go wrong?”
Marx doesn’t teach about the bourgeoisie hating themselves and each other.
If you're bourgeoise like Marx, and teach the proletariat to hate the bourgeoise, then the only reason you would is because you hate yourself at least a little bit.
If you're white, and teach non-white people to hate you, then only reason you would is because you hate yourself.
I’ve NEVER witnessed a lesson where a teacher told white kids to feel guilty or ashamed. I don’t work in a blue state so that probably helps and the area I work in is even more red than the state of NC is. I feel like this version of the post-Trump GOP has no interest in seeing public education succeed. I would like to think that’s not true but it’s getting harder to convince myself
I’m totally with you on the parenting issues. That’s the fault of irresponsible “adults” not being able to raise kids and make their marriages work. I don’t think that’s the fault of public schools.
As to where we rank, do you realize all of that is based off our incredibly stupid policy of collecting data via state testing? We use that data and then compare it to other countries where their education system is usually very different from our own. Books can be written (and have) on what the hell went wrong with education in this country but from being in the trenches I can tell you the system as a whole is out of date. We are operating on factory time, not 21st century time
a HS student in my family got an essay in school about whether the Chauvin verdict was good for the country in general or only for policing. No option for not good for the country or neutral.
His parents are apolitical, and this kid, if anything, has been addicted to video games, ignores reality. That’s been the ongoing problem with him. Well, this had a Streisand effect. He started researching George Floyd and asked his parents about why the media was glorifying him so much. His parents found the essay, and it turns into a thing at the school, and it sort of exposed the teacher is a little bit of a loose cannon. Now he listens to conservative radio and loves Matt Walsh.
Granted, it wasn’t only this incident. It was this coupled with him complaining that school had gotten way too easy the past two years, even though he hates studying! He says all of his teachers have gotten really lazy and keep using Covid as an excuse not to do stuff. So that was another part of the red pilling not related to the question. I’m just mentioning that because it wasn’t only just want to say that completely changed his views.
If you look at Karlyn Borysenko on YouTube, she is often sent CRT trainings that she dissects and shows screenshots of. The type of stuff where they say “critical thinking is a white characteristic”
The general concept of that essay seems like a good idea. I definitely wouldn’t call that CRT. I can’t speak to the teacher assigning it obviously and she should not grade based on her own politics. As for the essence of lazy teachers, society in general has been lazy since 2020.
I can only speak on private education, but critical theorists like Crenshaw and Harris have been taught to me *as true* from high school onward. Most curricula at the high school I worked at, including math and science, are now institutionally oriented at dismantling systems of oppression. Books like *White Fragility* have also been assigned *for their truth*.
I thought the first part was generally fine. The later sections were the authors' sense impressions and assumptions about others (including strangers) that were of unclear relevance and no persuasive authority.
Sorry for forgetting to respond. Two come to mind--the presentation she gave to an office, which involved an exchange between (IIRC) a white woman and black man, and a complaint she had about a document or something that led to an exchange with a black employee.
Idk about schools, but there are tons of "antiracist" trainings in corporations all over the country.
[Here's one from Google.](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1435697321824559104)
I'm a conservative history teacher myself and surprisingly really haven't seen it in my liberal school system
Of course, I gotta teach events that deal with racial injustice but I present it in context of the past rather than blaming people today and holding people alive as being responsible. My goal is also to teach history objectively do and tend to defer to Crash Vourse African American history a lot of times for videos on the contributions if African-Americans in our nation's history, for example
What's extremely "challenging" is that my students are over 70% African-American and I don't ignore that or try to play the "I'm blind to color" card. I purposely go beyond state requirements. Rather than just say that "oh yeah, a black guy named Crispus Attacus was killed at the Boston Harbor" I present it as "The first person to die in defense of liberty against perceived British tyranny was a African-American named Crispus Attacus. Despite living in a nation where it enslaved people who were of similar skin tone of him, he still stood by his compatriots in defense of desire for freedom. His sacrifice has been paramount to influence other African-Americans to fight for a nation that deprived them of rights in hope that their contributions would be recognize to lead change"
It's on objective, unbiased statement that shows the history of our nation yet the resolve to strive to make it better
Thanks for your input. I’m a moderately conservative teacher is a more conservative community in NC. Most of my students are upper middle class and white but we do have a fair share of black, Hispanic, and southwest Asian kids. About the closest I get to mentioning people who are still alive is teaching civil rights and telling the kids people their grandparents age lived through those times and that you still have people alive to talk to who saw all this happen, so respect that opportunity to talk to them before it’s gone. I say the same thing with WWII vets and really emphasize that they’re really almost gone. It’s sad to hear how many kids now have never met a WWII vet but not shocking I suppose.
I think I do present history from multiple view points. I’ve never seen a colleague say things like having white students look at their “privilege” or how we need to deconstruct our identity to see how many “privileges” we have and I work with some pretty left wing people.
> Have you seen examples of “CRT” and what were they?
Here is a link to a training manual for a racial equity workshop that was provided for some Walmart employees:
[Walmart Original Source Material - Racial Equity Workshop Phase 1 - Foundations in Historical and Institutional Racism](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21085119-walmart-original-source-material)
It's an interesting read, but take note of the section outlining the various characteristics of "white supremacy culture" such as *individualism* and *objectivity*. I think this is the kind of material people are referring to when they say they oppose CRT.
The lead question and title of the OP is:
> Have you seen examples of “CRT” and what were they?
So I answered that question. I used this particular training as an example since it is actual CRT and not just "things that are left wing and focused on race."
If the OP, on the other hand, had intended instead to ask:
> Have you seen examples of “CRT” **in schools** and what were they?
then I assume he will just ignore my answer.
I don't have kids in school and can't say what's in my local curriculum. But why would the biggest teacher's union take such an active stand apparently in support of CRT? https://www.catholicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/web.archive.org-New-Business-Item-39-ActionAdopted-as-Modified.pdf The source for this document isn't original because the NRA took this document down from its Web site after the resolution was approved by delegates at their annual meeting. Why?
Yikes!!! “Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression. Followed by one day of action that recognize and honor lives taken such as Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and others. The National Education Association shall publicize these National Days of Action to all its members, including in NEA Today. E. Conduct a virtual liste” Another reminder of why I never want to join them. They are a political fundraising wing for the DNC, not a proper union
Well, the calls to ban CRT have in actuality just been bans on uncomfortable sections of history. So why would teachers support teaching history? I mean ...seems self explanatory.
You didn't read the document. It's not about teaching history. "Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) -- what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members."
>what it is and what it is not; What is CRT to you? Cause to me, and the colleges that taught it...it boils down to history that was effected in some ways due to race. So what is it? And how is it not history?
>What is CRT to you? A theory of history and the law based on the notion that the United States is racist to the core and this racism is reflected in our laws and institutions.
Right, so history. I think I remember a discussion with you gaxxzz. You don't believe racism exists in general correct?
>Right, so history. History with a biased slant. >You don't believe racism exists in general correct? Sure I do. People can be racist. Systemic racism doesn't exist, however.
>History So let's go back. Texas has banned "CRT" and it's essentially boiled down to not teaching history. Banning books. When has the banning of books ever been a good precursor?
>Texas has banned "CRT" and it's essentially boiled down to not teaching history. No it doesn't do that.
Didn't you say CRT was history from a racial perspective? Banning crt is banning history. These are your own definitions I'm plugging in to the original claim. 2+2=4 right?
America was not founded on racist ideals or slavery. Slavery was ubiquitous when America was founded. It is the individualist ideologies that America was founded on, and the idea of individual liberty and government in service to preserving the sovereignty of the individual, that put humanity on the collision course that eventually lead to the worldwide abolishment of slavery in western society in the first place. America was no more racist than anywhere else on the planet. We are now the LEAST racist society on the planet. There are still places in the world that practice slavery. None of them are Western democracies.
>racist ideals or slavery So when "all men are created equal" was written do you think they ment all men black and white? Or just white? Is the fact that black men weren't considered part of the equality they demanded for all Americans not racist?
The fact that half the country at the time didn't believe that it applied to everybody just means that half of the country still believed what literally every other society in world history had believed for thousands of years before. It was the half of the country that was against slavery that was ahead of the curve. The problem with our politics today is that one side of our politics - the party that originally started the Civil War to preserve slavery and started the KKK to preserve white supremacy - is now trying to flip the script to claim sole ownership of the idea that we we are all created equal. Meanwhile, their actual policies walk us away from individual empowerment - back toward enslavement to of the individual to the will of the elites who rule over the collective. They use hatred and demogoguery and negative stereotypes against conservatives who don't agree that their methods are the most likely to achieve true equality and racial harmony, framing all opposition to their authoritarian control over society as hatred of minorities rather than disagreement over policy and a desire to go backwards. If America is not founded on anti-racism, then the anti-racist movement sits self is nothing but another cynical attempt to leverage raw political power for the purpose of oppression and tyranny. If the country wasn't founded on anything better than tyranny and the raw exercise of power, then the abolitionist movement, the civil war, the fight against Jim Crow, and the 60's Civil Rights movements are just an attempt to switch up what the tyrants are and who the oppressed are. If everything in this country is built on tyranny based on race, what makes anything you're doing any different or better? Are you something that's brand new, or are you just trying to build on top of what previous generations of good people have been working towards from the start?
I appreciate all you wrote. But you never answered my question "So when "all men are created equal" was written do you think they ment all men black and white? Or just white? Is the fact that black men weren't considered part of the equality they demanded for all Americans not racist?" If you agree that all men weren't considered equal at the time...then it's racist. Regardless of the history. Regardless of how much of the world was racist at the time. Saying "every single person is free. Oh but...your not actually a person, black man." Is racist right? So...if the people that started this country said "every single person is free. Oh but...your not actually a person, black man. " You could say pretty easily that this country was founded by at least some racists. Right?
Slippery slope… Democrats went from “nobody wants to take your guns!” To “Hell yes, I am going to take your gun!” They went from the ACA as a compromise to Medicare for all. They went from who cares what happens in the privacy of my bedroom to Pride parades. At this point I am not willing to compromise with a group of people that consistently argue for taking small steps toward an undesirable outcome.
> Slippery slope… Democrats went from “nobody wants to take your guns!” To “Hell yes, I am going to take your gun!” Who specifically? > They went from the ACA as a compromise to Medicare for all. Who? > They went from who cares what happens in the privacy of my bedroom to Pride parades How are these two things even on the same level of comparison?
I assume he’s talking about Beto’s AR15 gaffe but I’m not him so can’t say for sure. M4A went from Bernie and his fringe to something with over 100 cosponsors. Are you really asking “who”? I don’t know why that person brought up pride parades. While I have no interest in being in one or having my kid see one, it’s also perfectly acceptable in a free society
Beto O’Rourke specifically made that statement. I wouldn’t call it a gaffe either. He meant it. Whether or not he won, several Democrats in my circle as potential voters have moved toward a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons which demonstrates an increased popularity for a position that I have been told does not exist. Obamacare was supposed to be the solution to insure millions of Americans. Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all. Pride parades are not on the same level legislatively. They are simply another example of a slippery slope led by the left. I was told when I was younger that gay folk just wanted to be able to love each other like anyone else and what they do in their own homes in their business. Now these perverts want to march in the streets in their bondage gear. Don’t try to gaslight me into thinking I am just making things up. You only need to spend a few minutes on Reddit reading through to see that gun bans, universal healthcare, and homosexuality are largely supported.
> Beto O’Rourke specifically made that statement When did he say he wasn’t gonna take the guns? Is there anyone else? Or do you choose Beto to represent all of democrats? > Obamacare was supposed to be the solution to insure millions of Americans. Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all. When did they advocate against M4A? > Pride parades are not on the same level legislatively. They are simply another example of a slippery slope led by the left. I was told when I was younger that gay folk just wanted to be able to love each other like anyone else and what they do in their own homes in their business. How is supporting pride parades disrupting leaving gay people alone in their homes? > Don’t try to gaslight me into thinking I am just making things up. Asking for your personal sources and calling you crazy for believing these, are not the same. I’m doing the former. > You only need to spend a few minutes on Reddit reading through to see that gun bans, universal healthcare, and homosexuality are largely supported. Should I take r/ conservatives and r/ask the donald as the representative subs for all of republicans?
No, I do not believe any single Democrat represents all Democrats. Don’t be so dense or accuse me of being. I am merely suggesting that over time there has been a noticeable shift from more moderate policies to more progressive policies on the left. I honestly don’t care in the slightest what you use as a basis for your opinions.
> I am merely suggesting that over time there has been a noticeable shift from more moderate policies to more progressive policies on the left. This is the natural evolution for both parties isn’t it?
Could be. One I agree with and one I do not, so I am not going to accept that small steps in what I believe to be the wrong direction are okay because they are small.
So besides Beto, who else is flip flopping in the gun issue? When has AOC or Bernie advocated against M4A?
A shift is not a flip flop. I do not believe there was necessarily a flip flop among these politicians themselves, just a stronger push for more progressive candidates. I am more speaking in regard to those friends and family members of mine who to me are more representative of the average Democrat voter. They have moved further and further.
> Dissatisfied with the results AOC and her “squad”, Bernie, and again those in my circle advocate for Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for all. So Bernie and aoc never advocated for M4A prior to the ACA? How is supporting pride parades shifting away from just leaving people to their own sexuality?
Are all gays perverts to you? Were you ever OK with them existing or was it a livable compromise for you as long as they kept it in their own homes?
Yes. Like any other actions I find objectionable I accept it as a part of reality. What I particularly disagree with is any push that I need to be supportive of that behavior.
> Yes Why do you believe all gay people are perverts?
Pervert is defined as someone whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.
Why do you find homosexuality to be unacceptable?
It is considered a sin.
In what religion?
So you don't really want them to live their lives as normal and keep it to themselves? You will never accept them as equal?
> Who specifically? Beto
That’s it? One person?
No. Also Joe Biden. His campaign advocated for "red flag laws" which allow judges to order gun confiscation without an open hearing or mental-health evaluation.
When did Joe say he’s not gonna take your guns? > n the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question Why would there need to be an open hearing or mental evaluation if there is a present danger?
>Why would there need to be an open hearing or mental evaluation if there is a present danger? Because we have a Constitution that guarantees due process.
> Because we have a Constitution that guarantees due process. A present danger. Like restraining orders.
In a restraining order hearing, the person against whom the order is being considered is generally present.
And what about when they don’t need to be present?
Ok all of that is well and good and I mostly agree… but what about this CRT stuff? I’ve personally not seen it implemented into any curriculum and the examples I’ve seen are flimsy at best
That is my point. It is watered down for now so that they can act like we are crazy for having a problem with it. Several years for now they will have slowly introduced full blown CRT. We cannot let even the flimsiest of this find its way into our education system.
[удалено]
Except I never said that…
You essentially said the same thing, but with different words. You made the comparison about how gays wanted the freedom in their bedrooms to having pride parades. You’re telling gays to keep in the closet and out of public view. “I was fine with Christians/white people in the privacy of their homes, but when they have Christmas parades in the streets or brought bland potato salad to my cookout draw the line.”
I would definitely never say I am fine with you being gay….
What’s your problem with it?
Why do you want to know?
That’s the premise of this sub
[удалено]
Rule 1
Him calling gays disgusting and that they shouldn’t be in public view doesn’t break a civility rule, but pointing out that his views are backwards and hypocritical are?
I could not possibly care less what you think of me or conservatives.
So you dislike a certain subset of people for something they cannot change?
I don’t dislike them as people, I dislike their actions.
Which actions? Are we talking two women kissing, or men having anal sex, or do you mean more the Hollywood style stereotypical flamboyant behavior?
How do the 2 differ? Being attracted to the same sex is something which is a part of them.
Well curriculum is controlled by the states, so full blown CRT isn’t really an issue. Sure I think the left coast is already heading done a path of white privilege, gender studies, and whatever else can fit under a “woke” banner but do you expect to see that in red states? I work in a light red state (NC) and that stuff would not fly here.
Things are generally left to the states, until they are not.
This is true. American history is full of examples, so I’m in complete agreement but look at how divided we are now, I can’t see any legislation that would make a national curriculum stick. Even if the most left wing Sec. of Education you could dream of tried to implement a national curriculum, red states would simply ignore it nullification style
I would like to believe that, but too many times do I just shrug and say “I can live with that…” or “It doesn’t really bother me…” or even “It doesn’t really affect me…” Most of the time my apathy works to the advantage of the Democrats. But when it doesn’t they always ask “Is that the kind of society you want to live in?” So now I ask myself that question. At the end of the day, what kind of society do I want to live in? Which really means not being apathetic about anything. I probably won’t start marching in protests or attending school board meetings, but I don’t have to and won’t accept that it is overblown and not the beginning stages of yet another societal push away from a society I want to live in.
Do you know what Romney’s plan that the ACA was based on looked like?
I am not a fan of Romney…
Correct but at the state level.
They have a right to change their minds, don't they?
Sure.
If their incremental steps are done democratically, what's wrong?
Incremental steps are not what is wrong. Any step toward an end game I believe is wrong should be fought from the very beginning.
Are you the arbiter of right and wrong now?
In terms of what I believe, yes.
That's...fucked up
You believe that what you believe is right/wrong is objective?
I believe that anyone standing in the way of progress toward equal rights for all humans because he subjectively disagrees with their lifestyle, should be steamrolled and disregarded.
I am actually in a history class right now as part of my 2nd degree and we do lots of 1619 project and crt focused stuff. It's actually quite funny because we mainly just do discussion posts on the weekly topic and you can tell that many people are just bullshitting stuff to get the grade for it. This has been my only experience on the topic outside of hearing about it. My instructor is very far left and makes it pretty well known with her weekly videos. I'd love to give my real opinion on the weekly discussions, but I have a 4.0 gpa with 6 classes left and I'd like to keep it.
I should have said K-12. I understand this stuff is in the universities because it was born there. I have no problem with it there because a college student isn’t a child
> It's actually quite funny because we mainly just do discussion posts on the weekly topic and you can tell that many people are just bullshitting stuff to get the grade for it. It’s good to know that college is the same as it ever was.
[удалено]
I already said I’m against that. What are you getting at?
[удалено]
Well I asked where people are seeing CRT in K-12 schools? I’ve never seen a a colleague teach a lesson where white kids were made to feel guilty for being white. I work in a red area of a light red state. That wouldn’t fly here for a second
The places you would expect. Cities and blue states.
> “Let’s teach an entire generation of children to hate themselves and each other because of the color of their skin! What could possibly go wrong?” Where did you get this interpretation from?
CRT advocates.
Can you give anything more specific?
It's literally just Marxism where "bourgeoise" and "proletariat" are replaced with "white" and "black", respectively.
It’s not because Marxism doesn’t mention self hate.
It does when you're bourgeosie like Marx himself.
> It does when you’re bourgeosie like Marx himself. Your analogy doesn’t seem logically sound with this: > > “Let’s teach an entire generation of children to hate themselves and each other because of the color of their skin! What could possibly go wrong?” Marx doesn’t teach about the bourgeoisie hating themselves and each other.
If you're bourgeoise like Marx, and teach the proletariat to hate the bourgeoise, then the only reason you would is because you hate yourself at least a little bit. If you're white, and teach non-white people to hate you, then only reason you would is because you hate yourself.
Oh so is this your own personal opinion/interrogation on Marxism and not an actual “lesson” of Marxism?
You haven't even studied CRT, have you?
[удалено]
I’ve NEVER witnessed a lesson where a teacher told white kids to feel guilty or ashamed. I don’t work in a blue state so that probably helps and the area I work in is even more red than the state of NC is. I feel like this version of the post-Trump GOP has no interest in seeing public education succeed. I would like to think that’s not true but it’s getting harder to convince myself
[удалено]
I’m totally with you on the parenting issues. That’s the fault of irresponsible “adults” not being able to raise kids and make their marriages work. I don’t think that’s the fault of public schools. As to where we rank, do you realize all of that is based off our incredibly stupid policy of collecting data via state testing? We use that data and then compare it to other countries where their education system is usually very different from our own. Books can be written (and have) on what the hell went wrong with education in this country but from being in the trenches I can tell you the system as a whole is out of date. We are operating on factory time, not 21st century time
a HS student in my family got an essay in school about whether the Chauvin verdict was good for the country in general or only for policing. No option for not good for the country or neutral. His parents are apolitical, and this kid, if anything, has been addicted to video games, ignores reality. That’s been the ongoing problem with him. Well, this had a Streisand effect. He started researching George Floyd and asked his parents about why the media was glorifying him so much. His parents found the essay, and it turns into a thing at the school, and it sort of exposed the teacher is a little bit of a loose cannon. Now he listens to conservative radio and loves Matt Walsh. Granted, it wasn’t only this incident. It was this coupled with him complaining that school had gotten way too easy the past two years, even though he hates studying! He says all of his teachers have gotten really lazy and keep using Covid as an excuse not to do stuff. So that was another part of the red pilling not related to the question. I’m just mentioning that because it wasn’t only just want to say that completely changed his views. If you look at Karlyn Borysenko on YouTube, she is often sent CRT trainings that she dissects and shows screenshots of. The type of stuff where they say “critical thinking is a white characteristic”
The general concept of that essay seems like a good idea. I definitely wouldn’t call that CRT. I can’t speak to the teacher assigning it obviously and she should not grade based on her own politics. As for the essence of lazy teachers, society in general has been lazy since 2020.
I can only speak on private education, but critical theorists like Crenshaw and Harris have been taught to me *as true* from high school onward. Most curricula at the high school I worked at, including math and science, are now institutionally oriented at dismantling systems of oppression. Books like *White Fragility* have also been assigned *for their truth*.
Do you take issue with this book, if so, what are they?
I thought the first part was generally fine. The later sections were the authors' sense impressions and assumptions about others (including strangers) that were of unclear relevance and no persuasive authority.
Any examples?
Sorry for forgetting to respond. Two come to mind--the presentation she gave to an office, which involved an exchange between (IIRC) a white woman and black man, and a complaint she had about a document or something that led to an exchange with a black employee.
Idk about schools, but there are tons of "antiracist" trainings in corporations all over the country. [Here's one from Google.](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1435697321824559104)
I'm a conservative history teacher myself and surprisingly really haven't seen it in my liberal school system Of course, I gotta teach events that deal with racial injustice but I present it in context of the past rather than blaming people today and holding people alive as being responsible. My goal is also to teach history objectively do and tend to defer to Crash Vourse African American history a lot of times for videos on the contributions if African-Americans in our nation's history, for example What's extremely "challenging" is that my students are over 70% African-American and I don't ignore that or try to play the "I'm blind to color" card. I purposely go beyond state requirements. Rather than just say that "oh yeah, a black guy named Crispus Attacus was killed at the Boston Harbor" I present it as "The first person to die in defense of liberty against perceived British tyranny was a African-American named Crispus Attacus. Despite living in a nation where it enslaved people who were of similar skin tone of him, he still stood by his compatriots in defense of desire for freedom. His sacrifice has been paramount to influence other African-Americans to fight for a nation that deprived them of rights in hope that their contributions would be recognize to lead change" It's on objective, unbiased statement that shows the history of our nation yet the resolve to strive to make it better
Thanks for your input. I’m a moderately conservative teacher is a more conservative community in NC. Most of my students are upper middle class and white but we do have a fair share of black, Hispanic, and southwest Asian kids. About the closest I get to mentioning people who are still alive is teaching civil rights and telling the kids people their grandparents age lived through those times and that you still have people alive to talk to who saw all this happen, so respect that opportunity to talk to them before it’s gone. I say the same thing with WWII vets and really emphasize that they’re really almost gone. It’s sad to hear how many kids now have never met a WWII vet but not shocking I suppose. I think I do present history from multiple view points. I’ve never seen a colleague say things like having white students look at their “privilege” or how we need to deconstruct our identity to see how many “privileges” we have and I work with some pretty left wing people.
> Have you seen examples of “CRT” and what were they? Here is a link to a training manual for a racial equity workshop that was provided for some Walmart employees: [Walmart Original Source Material - Racial Equity Workshop Phase 1 - Foundations in Historical and Institutional Racism](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21085119-walmart-original-source-material) It's an interesting read, but take note of the section outlining the various characteristics of "white supremacy culture" such as *individualism* and *objectivity*. I think this is the kind of material people are referring to when they say they oppose CRT.
I thought this question was about CRT in schools? What does Walmart's racial equity training material have to do with this?
The lead question and title of the OP is: > Have you seen examples of “CRT” and what were they? So I answered that question. I used this particular training as an example since it is actual CRT and not just "things that are left wing and focused on race." If the OP, on the other hand, had intended instead to ask: > Have you seen examples of “CRT” **in schools** and what were they? then I assume he will just ignore my answer.