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."

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 .

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:

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.

Aaron747 wrote:

This view assumes all young people are incapable of balancing their own worldviews and recognizing the union is imperfect.

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.

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.

Could not agree more. I recognize my personal benefits and good luck at having been born and raised somewhere like the US, that does not mean I have to place it on a pedestal for everything. If you love a place, you want it to be the best it can be - not be satisfied with touting boasts and half truths that don't measure up. Fake patriotism is nothing more than self deception.

Texas GOP (ok...GOP in general) going more and more crazy, I guess...

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.

And the same people is going to go "Russia bad! China bad!" while at the same time, they whitewash events, aka something the like of Russia and China loves.

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."

An outcome of the whole "1776 project" vs "1619 project" and Biden cancelling the "1776 project" initiatives. The GOP is going to find pockets to try to override Biden for their initiatives as the midterms approaches.

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.

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.

This isn't really up to the Biden Administration at this point. State level lawsuits that are filed in Federal Court should handle the issue.

In general, I see a lot of "Biden needs to do this but won't" coming from all over. I think the biggest reason is we just came out of a domestic terror attack by Republican supporters and they refuse to talk about it. They still believe it was just a peaceful band of visitors. And some of those people are in positions of power in the government. I think Biden and Democrats are choosing their battles.

Republicans have lost touch with reality. Cancelling discussions of slavery is just another example.

lugie wrote:

If you leave this area and move toward forced patriotism, you automatically get yourself on a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

It's not a bug; it's a feature.

Calling the election a fraud, raiding the capital, changing education...Where have we seen this before?

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:

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?

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:

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.

A couple of quibbles here from the center: Harvard is a private institution - equity activists are mostly concerned with whether the government is treating people equally or not. SJWs do go further, but they aren’t the only ones fighting to end inequities.

As for the first sentence, that’s the emotionally charged invective I have been calling out for a year: not a single city was burned down. A block? Many businesses and buildings? Yes. Whole cities? No. Disingenuous hyperbole. School closings were done to protect employees and parents - the community at large, basically. Not to curtail dissemination of historical facts. 100% illogical to compare.

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:

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.

To be fair, CRT has existed in some form since the 1970s. At least in the west and southwest, it grew out of La Raza studies department reactions to UFW activism and then expanded from there. But that’s also an example of how conservatives don’t really understand what it is or why it has been debated within academia for so long.

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!"

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!"

Yes, variations on that theme. It's just the basic idea that some people are so insecure they can't accept people saying their country is imperfect out loud. Many of the things mentioned in contemporary CRT are not factually inaccurate, but as an academic platform it fails because they use a historian's approach to social/legal analysis (individual and community stories) instead of a strictly legal approach - what does the data and historical record show in terms of gaps in application of the law?

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.

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.

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?

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?

I would argue it is like this: many of the activist citizens (those involved directly in some form or another in the cultural struggle), brook no recognition of a legitimate alternative viewpoint, much less a tolerable agreement to disagree, because they have decided (or been conditioned to conclude, through the divided and propagandist modern sources of information), that any idea or set of values that challenge or differ from their own are not correct at best (and why acknowledge a faulty viewpoint, right?), or are reduced to an existential threat to their way of life at worst, which as a result must obviously be directly combated against. The congress is a direct reflection of Activist America, be it 20% or 30% of the population, that has been reduced to the condition described above. That explains why Washington DC is in fact more radicalized ideologically left and right than say the governorships are, and why the wheels of lawmaking have by all objective measures ground to a halt (with the rare instances of post-election periods where the new majority shoehorns some highly desired piece of legislation before political capital is lost, with this process repeating bi-annually).

The other 70% is the oblivious America you mentioned, the ones that as long as the economy has some traction (even if it kept running on literal financial crack cocaine), and have their Netflix, Youtube, and reality shows / sports, will continue with their state of denial, with token references to the disfunction in Washington DC merely as trifle remarks for soirées, or as a fleeting thought upon accidentally stumbling on a political headline while turning on their phones.

So neither are laughing it off exactly, it is perhaps worse: Activists busily plotting their next move against the "enemy". The other 70% are deep in the sandbox. I offer no ways out of this mess because it really just takes a change in mentality and that won't happen. The blissfully benighted 70% are too busy trying to make ends meet, or genuinely don't hold interest. The other 30% at this point have their honor and personal legacy much too deep within the " ideological silos" they have chosen, for any moderation to be possible. Not when personal dignity is perceived to be at stake to be able to yield even one step.

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.

As entertaining as this narrative is, it's mostly demonstrably false. For starters, the 'liberal' side of the media is also notably capitalist - the NYT company's net profit was $140m in 2019, and that was considered a bad year. Their majority owner is a Mexican billionaire, not someone from the US 1%. WaPo as you know is currently owned by the chief capitalist of the US - Jeff Bezos. He grew up middle class and while he did go to Princeton, got in as a National Merit Scholar, not on any 1%ers legacy list.

Over on the right, there are a few Ivy or little Ivy league characters in the midst, like Tucker Carlson, who fit your description. But the big players who made that side of the media what it is don't fit at all. Roger Ailes was born in a factory town in Ohio, and built up Fox after being the brains behind MSNBC. The current CEO of Fox News is also not from a 1% background. Chris Ruddy, the founder of Newsmax, was a cop's kid, went to a midrange Catholic university, and worked his way up in journalism before starting Newsmax as a side venture.

You can claim there is no actual class struggle, but Fed chart after Fed chart on family earnings and wages adjusted for inflation just don't agree with that take. Of course you can have an opinion on US macroeconomics, but like the take on media, you can't change the facts.

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.

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?

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.

LCDFlight wrote:

Democrats have done their share of city burnings...

Alleged Democratic lay people.

Here we're talking about GOP elected officials.

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.

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.

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.

Do you think people will consequently vote more conservative once they've moved ?

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.

Not this white voter. I am all for a payout but the left would hate my idea more than the right. I would structure it exactly like a settlement offer, but a forced one and in a one time payment. The payout would be an estimate of unpaid wages for what slaves were forced to do adjusted for inflation. In the case of mixed races, a DNA test would determine proration. And if you're ancestors were not slaves you wouldn't get anything. For example Obama wouldn't get one cent, but Michelle and/ or his daughters would. The payout would mean an end to affirmative action, racial quotas, and the like.

ltbewr I think you mean reparations. Plenty racist whites would be all for repatriation of Blacks back to Africa !

Aesma wrote:

ltbewr I think you mean reparations. Plenty racist whites would be all for repatriation of Blacks back to Africa !

Good catch, I obviously did.

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.

The divide is not shrinking--it's only getting bigger in just about every metric, including vaccines now thanks to GOP leadership.

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.

So you haven't read the constitution either

LCDFlight wrote:

Moralizing to kids about social justice while we celebrate clear, proud racial quotas at Harvard. Super impressive.

Only conservatives could make "moral" and "social justice" into bad words in support of their white supremacy, while they "moralize" about family values while banging the poolboy. *Insert lil Marco bible quote here*

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.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what critical race theory is? It's like a Harry Potter spell where just saying "critical race theory" turns conservatives into incoherent balls of white rage saying things like "it's just like Jim Crow". Really? How many people have critical race theory killed? How many millions of people have been marginalized and lives destroyed by critical race theory? This is like leading conservative thinker MTG saying wearing masks is basically like the Holocaust.

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.

Hogwash. It's always been about civil rights, and no matter who is pushing for civil rights whether blacks, women, LGBT--you name it--the response has always been accusations of communism. Every. Single. Time.

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.

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/

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/

As I stated below, these bills are Anti-American, and Anti Constitution. They are trying to stifle free speech and discussion in a learning environment.

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.

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?

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.

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".

They have proven by now culture warring is their fundraising huckleberry, so pretty much.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They should be grateful for the founding PRINCIPLES

Took 100+ years to divine the true founding principles on the second amendment though

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.

I can't, because the word slave and slavery is nowhere to be found in the original document.

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.

I don't think many of these Trumpsters can grasp that the US has a history of racism and practices that actually reinforce critical race theory.

The one critique I have of critical race theory is that it ignores or obfuscates what you posted above for women. However that doesn't mean it shouldn't be added as a theory, since there are a lot pf puzzle pieces that actually fit.

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.

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.

The 3/5s clause was to give slave states less power, not more. As for the fugitive slave clause

"Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes that throughout the Constitution there was the intent to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law, not federal law. On this instance, Fehrenbacher concludes:

Most revealing in this respect was a last-minute change in the fugitive-clause whereby the phrase "legally held to service or labor in one state" was changed to read "held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof." The revision made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution itself legally sanctioned slavery."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause

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

Fortunately many Americans still disagree with you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776.