Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Aaron747 wrote:I have seen this narrative discussed elsewhere. Some in culture warrior circles argue that if young people learn facts about dark chapters in US history, they will feel conflicted and not achieve true feelings of patriotism or American exceptionalism. This view assumes all young people are incapable of balancing their own worldviews and recognizing the union is imperfect.
Aaron747 wrote:This view assumes all young people are incapable of balancing their own worldviews and recognizing the union is imperfect.
lugie wrote:Aaron747 wrote:I have seen this narrative discussed elsewhere. Some in culture warrior circles argue that if young people learn facts about dark chapters in US history, they will feel conflicted and not achieve true feelings of patriotism or American exceptionalism. This view assumes all young people are incapable of balancing their own worldviews and recognizing the union is imperfect.
It also assumes that not being red-white-n-blue bleeding, bald eagle screeching unconditional America-f-yeah hyperpatriots is an intrinsically bad thing.
You can like your country without thinking everything it does and has ever done is 100% right and justified, or you can just be indifferent about your passport and national origin (which, full disclosure, is roughly where I would place myself regarding my home country of Germany), or you can live your whole life in a country while also disagreeing with everything it stands for and was built on.
All those things work and in a Western Democracy all those people have the same worth as citizens.
THAT is the exceptionalism that should set us apart from other countries and types of regimes.
If you leave this area and move toward forced patriotism, you automatically get yourself on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
lugie wrote:If you leave this area and move toward forced patriotism, you automatically get yourself on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
petertenthije wrote:It would explain why some immediately go defensive when someone is critical towards the USA. You know, the “you’re just a freedom hating anti American” crowd.
MaverickM11 wrote:Republicans out here trying to cancel history:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politi ... 168296.php
"Republicans in the Texas House voted Tuesday to limit how racism and the history of American slavery is taught in Texas classrooms, a controversial measure that Democrats have denounced as whitewashing a central chapter of the country’s founding."
"Under the amendment, teachers would be required to describe racism and slavery as antithetical to the country’s founding principles, though the founding documents referenced slavery and didn’t treat Black people equally to white Americans."
casinterest wrote:This bill will not pass constitutional tests, and as such, those that advanced it do not believe in the USA's founding documents. Starting with the first Amendment to the Bill of rights.
It is probably a play for the lower intelligence mark followers of fascist regimes .
phatfarmlines wrote:casinterest wrote:This bill will not pass constitutional tests, and as such, those that advanced it do not believe in the USA's founding documents. Starting with the first Amendment to the Bill of rights.
It is probably a play for the lower intelligence mark followers of fascist regimes .
But will the Biden admin challenge this? I feel the Biden admin is a bit shy when it comes to challenging, than say Trump who sent everything to the Supreme Court, but we're early in the presidency so Biden has opportunity to change my mind.
I agree with your second point.
lugie wrote:If you leave this area and move toward forced patriotism, you automatically get yourself on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
LCDFlight wrote:Democrats have done their share of city burnings and mass school closings in the past year. They are not angels.
Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.
Newark727 wrote:LCDFlight wrote:Democrats have done their share of city burnings and mass school closings in the past year. They are not angels.
Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.
Nobody said anything about "moralizing to kids about social justice" except you. Do you actually have a point to make in defense of this Texas law here, or are you just throwing talking points at the wall to see if any of them stick?
LCDFlight wrote:Democrats have done their share of city burnings and mass school closings in the past year. They are not angels.
Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.
LCDFlight wrote:Yes, my point is that alt-left "critical race theory" is approximately as bad, and as unconstitutional, as the Jim Crow racial segregation it claims to oppose. They're not that different. They are both filth, and both illegal IMO.
Newark727 wrote:LCDFlight wrote:Yes, my point is that alt-left "critical race theory" is approximately as bad, and as unconstitutional, as the Jim Crow racial segregation it claims to oppose. They're not that different. They are both filth, and both illegal IMO.
Nonsense. "Critical race theory" is a buzzword that hit Fox News for the first time in the last year. Jim Crow was a comprehensive political and economic program to create second class citizens, implemented in large parts of the country, that lasted for decades. We're still dealing with the effects of it long after the laws themselves are no longer on the books. Critical race theory has made some dumb Twitter takes. Jim Crow was implemented with lynchings and literal armed coups in state houses. The comparison is utterly facile and makes you look like a fool.
Newark727 wrote:Fair correction. But I don't get the sense that most of the people talking about it right now really care about that. To the commentators on the right it's just another set of scary words that are supposed to signal to people "dangerous ideas are being implanted in your children! White people are being cancelled!"
CometII wrote:The USA is in the midst of a complete breakdown of the fabric of trust in the institutions that hold polities together. Conservatives have their perceived reasons to argue that the institutions are out to radicalize the population into an ideology imbued with Marxist, anti-White, anti-American beliefs. On the other hand, Liberals perceived reasons are that the institutions are racist from their foundations, the statutes and codes stacked for the wealthy, the basic laws outdated and repressive. Another way to see it: conservatives have become iconoclasts towards the existing governance / government (thus the near to open subversion to government we are seeing), and as a result cling even more dearly to culture and values as a way to fight against the tyranny they see. Conversely liberals have made the existing culture and values the object of iconoclast behavior (thus the near open subversion to the existing societal standards on all fronts, from race, to income, to body standards, to the definitions of sex and gender, to statues), and as a result cling to even more dearly to government as a vehicle to transform and tear down the old society.
A breakdown in trust of the most basic institutions (presidency, elected leaders, education system, police, and probably soon the military too), makes a polity inviable.
Both are irreconcilable to the core, and the only solution is a population division and posterior political division (i.e. break up of the country). The alternative is a German Reformation style civil war, where not so much armies but rather citizens fought citizens. Anyone who thinks these divisions can be healed in a few years is not objective. Both sides are the results of very long-term processes at work and coming to a head.
Aaron747 wrote:All true - masterful post. The question that remains: is there a plurality of American adults with the maturity to admit cultural incompatibility has reached this point? Or will they just continue to laugh things off as arguments between 'political' people so long as the economy functions and they get their pound of flesh?
LCDFlight wrote:I also believe the "race or class" struggle is being overblown (furiously and desperately) by the media.
Instead, it is an *ideological power struggle* being formented by two sides in the media. Capitalism versus Collectivism. Those two extremes (both dominated by the wealthy) pretend this is about race... Or perhaps class. Any convenient narrative that they believe will work.
IMO, this is actually just a war between different factions of Yale/Harvard or Stanford graduates. It is neither a race struggle nor an authentic class struggle. It is just about greedy 1% classmates who have unresolved psychological needs and issues.
MaverickM11 wrote:Republicans out here trying to cancel history:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politi ... 168296.php
"Republicans in the Texas House voted Tuesday to limit how racism and the history of American slavery is taught in Texas classrooms, a controversial measure that Democrats have denounced as whitewashing a central chapter of the country’s founding."
"Under the amendment, teachers would be required to describe racism and slavery as antithetical to the country’s founding principles, though the founding documents referenced slavery and didn’t treat Black people equally to white Americans."
Aaron747 wrote:The question that remains: is there a plurality of American adults with the maturity to admit cultural incompatibility has reached this point? Or will they just continue to laugh things off as arguments between 'political' people so long as the economy functions and they get their pound of flesh?
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:The question that remains: is there a plurality of American adults with the maturity to admit cultural incompatibility has reached this point? Or will they just continue to laugh things off as arguments between 'political' people so long as the economy functions and they get their pound of flesh?
You mean like in the opening post?
LCDFlight wrote:Democrats have done their share of city burnings...
Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:The question that remains: is there a plurality of American adults with the maturity to admit cultural incompatibility has reached this point? Or will they just continue to laugh things off as arguments between 'political' people so long as the economy functions and they get their pound of flesh?
You mean like in the opening post?
Arguably the strongest cultural divide is urban/rural, so that's an open question. People living and working in central HOU are likely to have more in common with people in DEN or PHX than folks in AMA.
ltbewr wrote:One of the factors of Republicans objections to the 1619 Project is the fear of of its lessons encouraging Repatriations to Black Americans for enslavement and that an overwhelming number of White voters refuse to have money taken and a transfer of wealth from them to go to Black persons. This also plays on the idea that most White voters believe that as they or their ancestors didn't own slaves, why should they pay generations later. One current example of that is the objections by Republicans and White voters to special allocations of Pandemic relief funds to Black owned family farms and ranches to make sure they get some share of those funds as they should and to make up for generations of racist access to Federal farm loans, treatment by Federal and State agricultural agencies.
Aesma wrote:ltbewr I think you mean reparations. Plenty racist whites would be all for repatriation of Blacks back to Africa !
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:You mean like in the opening post?
Arguably the strongest cultural divide is urban/rural, so that's an open question. People living and working in central HOU are likely to have more in common with people in DEN or PHX than folks in AMA.
With so many people working from home now people are leaving cities the size of HOU in large numbers (not HOU per se because TX is well run) and to smaller towns like AMA, so that divide is shrinking. I actually don't like the new trend because I like the differences and get along with almost everyone irl anyways.
afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:Republicans out here trying to cancel history:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politi ... 168296.php
"Republicans in the Texas House voted Tuesday to limit how racism and the history of American slavery is taught in Texas classrooms, a controversial measure that Democrats have denounced as whitewashing a central chapter of the country’s founding."
"Under the amendment, teachers would be required to describe racism and slavery as antithetical to the country’s founding principles, though the founding documents referenced slavery and didn’t treat Black people equally to white Americans."
Because they are and they were never mentioned as founding principles.
LCDFlight wrote:Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.
LCDFlight wrote:Newark727 wrote:LCDFlight wrote:Democrats have done their share of city burnings and mass school closings in the past year. They are not angels.
Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.
Nobody said anything about "moralizing to kids about social justice" except you. Do you actually have a point to make in defense of this Texas law here, or are you just throwing talking points at the wall to see if any of them stick?
Yes, my point is that alt-left "critical race theory" is approximately as bad, and as unconstitutional, as the Jim Crow racial segregation it claims to oppose. They're not that different. They are both filth, and both illegal IMO.
LCDFlight wrote:Instead, it is an *ideological power struggle* being formented by two sides in the media. Capitalism versus Collectivism. Those two extremes (both dominated by the wealthy) pretend this is about race... Or perhaps class. Any convenient narrative that they believe will work.
IMO, this is actually just a war between different factions of Yale/Harvard or Stanford graduates. It is neither a race struggle nor an authentic class struggle. It is just about greedy 1% classmates who have unresolved psychological needs and issues.
MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:Because they are and they were never mentioned as founding principles.
So you haven't read the constitution either.
Aaron747 wrote:Some pretty sharp comments from WaPo's Karen Attiah, born and raised in TX:
Here’s how state Rep. Steven Toth (R), lead author of the bill, put it: “We have to talk about all the evils of our past without blaming white children simply because of the color of their skin.” The bill would bar any requirement that teachers participate in training “that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or blame on the basis of race.” No course, it says, should entertain the concept that an individual could be “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
Crucially, this isn’t just about the suppression of history, either, but suppression of the present. The bill says no teacher can be compelled to discuss “current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs” — and any teacher who takes up such an issue would have to explore it through “contending perspectives.” In other words, both sides — or no discussion at all — of police shootings of Black people, or Republican lawmakers trying to make it harder for Texans to have their voices heard at the ballot box.
Next month marks the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre, in which a thriving Black community was destroyed by a White mob. Will Texas students learn anything about this history — which remains so alive today in the fact that the survivors and descendants of the victims continue to be denied justice and reparations? How on earth can this event begin to be understood without talking about inherent racism? Are there “contending perspectives” on a massacre?...
...H.B. 3979 would also actively discourage schools from incentivizing students to participate in social or public policy advocacy, particularly from “efforts to persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct communication.” And that, to me, is the most depressing provision of all — the way its backers want to prevent students from becoming civically engaged to make their state and country a better place. It goes against the very idea of democratic education, which is to help children become adults who will do their part to help build a more just society. It’s like passing a law against hope.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... bill-3979/
afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:Because they are and they were never mentioned as founding principles.
So you haven't read the constitution either.
Principles are not the same as actions. People act against their principles all the time. People are hypocrites and the founding fathers were no exception.
Aaron747 wrote:Next month marks the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre, in which a thriving Black community was destroyed by a White mob. Will Texas students learn anything about this history — which remains so alive today in the fact that the survivors and descendants of the victims continue to be denied justice and reparations? How on earth can this event begin to be understood without talking about inherent racism? Are there “contending perspectives” on a massacre?...
Aaron747 wrote:...H.B. 3979 would also actively discourage schools from incentivizing students to participate in social or public policy advocacy, particularly from “efforts to persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct communication.” And that, to me, is the most depressing provision of all — the way its backers want to prevent students from becoming civically engaged to make their state and country a better place. It goes against the very idea of democratic education, which is to help children become adults who will do their part to help build a more just society. It’s like passing a law against hope.[/i]
MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:So you haven't read the constitution either.
Principles are not the same as actions. People act against their principles all the time. People are hypocrites and the founding fathers were no exception.
Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel.Aaron747 wrote:Next month marks the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre, in which a thriving Black community was destroyed by a White mob. Will Texas students learn anything about this history — which remains so alive today in the fact that the survivors and descendants of the victims continue to be denied justice and reparations? How on earth can this event begin to be understood without talking about inherent racism? Are there “contending perspectives” on a massacre?...
We're a hop skip and a jump from both sides-ing WWII.Aaron747 wrote:...H.B. 3979 would also actively discourage schools from incentivizing students to participate in social or public policy advocacy, particularly from “efforts to persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct communication.” And that, to me, is the most depressing provision of all — the way its backers want to prevent students from becoming civically engaged to make their state and country a better place. It goes against the very idea of democratic education, which is to help children become adults who will do their part to help build a more just society. It’s like passing a law against hope.[/i]
Fresh on the heels of the GOP's tantrum over corporations voicing concerns, in addition to the money they shovel into politics. "Just shut up and hand over the money".
MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:So you haven't read the constitution either.
Principles are not the same as actions. People act against their principles all the time. People are hypocrites and the founding fathers were no exception.
Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:
Principles are not the same as actions. People act against their principles all the time. People are hypocrites and the founding fathers were no exception.
Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:
Principles are not the same as actions. People act against their principles all the time. People are hypocrites and the founding fathers were no exception.
Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
Tell us again how many years passed between ratification of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment/CRA of 1866? Ah, nevermind, I forgot that blacks and women had full rights and value as people from the start.
MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
Right after you show us where slavery is prohibited. Total red herring. Again, your fantasy of what you think the founders' principles were is completely undermined with what was actually put on paper, and into practice. But that would require reading a history book occasionally, which we've learned is verboten by conservatives.
Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:Ummm....so we're just gonna go with the fantasy of what you think their principles were rather than what they actually put to paper? That's....novel. Does BLM get that luxury?
Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
Tell us again how many years passed between ratification of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment/CRA of 1866? Ah, nevermind, I forgot that blacks and women had full rights and value as people from the start.
afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:Show us in the Constitution where they write about the principles of slavery.
Right after you show us where slavery is prohibited. Total red herring. Again, your fantasy of what you think the founders' principles were is completely undermined with what was actually put on paper, and into practice. But that would require reading a history book occasionally, which we've learned is verboten by conservatives.
I can't, because the word slave and slavery is nowhere to be found in the original document.
MaverickM11 wrote:afcjets wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:Right after you show us where slavery is prohibited. Total red herring. Again, your fantasy of what you think the founders' principles were is completely undermined with what was actually put on paper, and into practice. But that would require reading a history book occasionally, which we've learned is verboten by conservatives.
I can't, because the word slave and slavery is nowhere to be found in the original document.
What do you think the Three Fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and importation of persons clause refer to? Tiddlywinks? The level of willful ignorance you're displaying here is near flat earth levels.
MaverickM11 wrote:What do you think the Three Fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and importation of persons clause refer to? Tiddlywinks? The level of willful ignorance you're displaying here is near flat earth levels.
FGITD wrote:I look forward to the day when people collectively realize that trying to shoehorn a document from the late 1700s and apply it to life in 2020+ probably isn’t the greatest idea