CRT opposition based on political expediency not actual factual history

[jc456]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If it isn't teaching history, then what is it doing in the classroom, and why is it being taught to children too young to critique it and would not be allowed to do so even if they were?

it's called brainwashed.

 

[jc456]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

you will think like me or we will teach your children to hate your ass. Take the vaccine or we'll come to your door. Wow, not to Nazi you demofks!!!

 

[westwall]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If it isn't teaching history, then what is it doing in the classroom, and why is it being taught to children too young to critique it and would not be allowed to do so even if they were?

The 1618 project teaches history. CRT is not a history course. Here endth the lesson.

The 1619 project teaches revisionist history, just like neo nazis do.

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

At the heart of CRT is the 1619 project's false assertion that a primary reason the southern colonialists secceeded from england was to protect slavery.

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

www.politico.com

One might debate Hannah-Jones' intent for intentionally making this falsity a primary leg for her thesis, but I won't. Still, the problem is CRT goes too far. Currently they are asserting that any school district with a lower % of blacks than the the general population in an area (who defines what area lol) is a direct result of race discrimination. That might surprise black parents who moved to find the best public school they can afford.

So, while the history most of us learned about the founding of America unquestionably downplays the roles of blacks, native americans, and hugely people of mexican descent in the SE, CRT is itself a movement with a political and not a historical agenda. And the debate it has created has simply been a godsend to those who want to perpetuate our unfair and false views of the contributions of non-white races.

No, that is NOT what is “at the heart of CRT”. May I suggest you go back to the Internet and research what CRT is and is not.

My introduction to CRT was back in the sentencing for selling coke compared to crack. From the columbia site (I wasn't columbia or harvard material, btw. LOL)

Critical race theory was a movement that initially started at Harvard under Professor Derrick Bell in the 1980s. It evolved in reaction to critical legal studies, which came about in the 70s and dissected the idea that law was just and neutral. Over time, the movement grew among legal scholars, mostly of color, at law schools across the country, including at UCLA, where Crenshaw lectured on critical race theory, civil rights, and constitutional law, and later at Columbia, where she was appointed a full professor in 1995, alongside Williams, a former student, research assistant, and lifelong mentee of Bell’s, and who is now professor of law emerita.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN THE NEWS​

Catch up on what Crenshaw and Thomas have been saying in the media.
Although the scholarship differs in emphasis and discipline, it is united by an interest in understanding and rectifying the ways in which a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color in America has had an impact on the relationship between social structure and professed ideals such as “the rule of law” and “equal protection.”

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is Everyone Talking About It?

Columbia Law School professors explain this method of research for legal scholars and how it’s being misunderstood.

news.columbia.edu

I'm against punishing someone when we have some inherent bias. And we absolutely punished sellers of crack more severely. Blacks are also more likely to receive harsher sentences for murder, but I'm not sure that is so much influenced by historical "structure." And imo the same is true for SOME - not all - complaints that blacks are stopped more often than whites it traffic stops and street walkups.

But when people want to lower standards just to increase the participation of one race or another, then I'm against that. What I referred to is setting admission standards for a science and tech school to increase racial diversity

Asian American students have a target on their backs thanks to critical race theory

Elite Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has long had a reputation for rigor and merit. But that race-blind reputation is ending.

www.usatoday.com

I'm not against public school institutions setting aside a number of "slots" to achieve geographical diversity (Univ of Texas). Or when evaluating student scores and admissions, applicants get "extra credit" if they've come for a school where kids typically have econ hardship and lower test scores, and I'm especially OK with giving kids who've had to work to support themselves and families extra credit.

But simply saying "too many whites or asians" is imo discrimination itself.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If it isn't teaching history, then what is it doing in the classroom, and why is it being taught to children too young to critique it and would not be allowed to do so even if they were?

The 1618 project teaches history. CRT is not a history course. Here endth the lesson.

Yet you support indoctrinating children with it.

Also, I need no lessons, child.

 

[jc456]

The 1619 project teaches revisionist history, just like neo nazis do.

that's an understatement.

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

What I attempted to post (poorly btw) was that it seems to me the criticisms of parents and those somehow involved in public education mix and match 1619 and CRT.

 

[jc456]

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

but slave owners were black in Africa selling the blacks. Why do you avoid that truth? Inconvenient huh?

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TNHarley]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

 

[jc456]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

someone needs to educate the demoks that they are the kkk. it's truly a shame they don't know their own history.

 

[bendog]

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

but slave owners were black in Africa selling the blacks. Why do you avoid that truth? Inconvenient huh?

The immorality in Africa at the time is irrelevant to what America did.

We did keep slavery as an institution after the rest of the "civilized world" did not. The South has the whole Lost Cause bs that is nothing but an attempt to say slavery was overall a good thing. It was not and nothing about slavery is good.

But even ignoring that, the history of America that was adopted didn't even ask how codifying slavery in the Constitution affected how the US evolved. Equal Protection was never applied outside the South during Reconstruction until 1965, and some of us argue that even then the North demanded separate and UNEQUAL treatment for their housing and education discrimination.

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

Yet the very reverse has come to be the norm across the land.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

And they need to have certain themes introduced when they actually have the cognitive ability to deal with moral ambiguity rather than many years before they are capable.

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

Yet the very reverse has come to be the norm across the land.

No it hasn't. What you see in media is "man bites dog." I worry that schools won't be allowed to correct the facts of what we teach to show things like how Mexican Americans had their land stolen or how places like LA, Chi and NYC institutionalized racism in economic opportunity but made sure whites had access to all immoral activity "across the tracks."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

Yet the very reverse has come to be the norm across the land.

No it hasn't. What you see in media is "man bites dog." I worry that schools won't be allowed to correct the facts of what we teach to show things like how Mexican Americans had their land stolen or how places like LA, Chi and NYC institutionalized racism in economic opportunity but made sure whites had access to all immoral activity "across the tracks."

Bull shit.

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

Yet the very reverse has come to be the norm across the land.

No it hasn't. What you see in media is "man bites dog." I worry that schools won't be allowed to correct the facts of what we teach to show things like how Mexican Americans had their land stolen or how places like LA, Chi and NYC institutionalized racism in economic opportunity but made sure whites had access to all immoral activity "across the tracks."

Bull shit.

bullshit

 

[bendog]

I want to discuss an issue that came up in a different thread. I think it is worth a thread of its own.

On the current events board, there is a thread about a book in which it is claimed that trump praised Hitler as having done good things.

I was a bit shocked to read many board members agreeing with this and it got me thinking about the teaching,or proposed teaching, of CRT in American schools.

I have no wish to go into the boring detail of CRT but my understanding is that it is a revisionist view of American history that shows a darker view of America than most people grew up with.

It has caused a great deal of upset amongst people who are actually quite happy with their history just the way it is. But that is a political stance and not one that takes account of actual history. And that seems to be the same attitude that I see when it comes to judging Hitler.

It means that CRT will not be judged through any historical or academic perspective. It will be judged purely on its perceived political stance and its possible impact on the youngsters who are taught it.

There is a fear that kids will grow to hate their country and for that reason the truth must be suppressed. But this is covered up in ignorant bluster because to admit that would be admitting that the US should come clean on its history.

Surely honesty is the best policy ? There isnt a country on earth that has not got some episodes that they would rather not discuss. I know all about that. People who can find the good in Hitler should not dictate the education of the kids.


Teachers' union president says CRT is NOT being taught in schools

It's fun asking them what part of CRT they object to and to link it for us to show what's bad about it.

I think its hilarious how you goons try to act like other people dont know, when you yourselves dont know shit about it. The media says its good, and you repeat it.
You cultists fool no one.

All Bodecia know about the entire world is what team she is on.

Why should she ever strain her tiny little brain by thinking when others are doing it for her and telling her what to say?

I dunno. I don't have any problem with someone asking me what I don't like about CRT or 1619. I'm not totally clear on the difference between the two, btw.

Obviously.
CRT is not teaching history. CRT seeks to examine and address inequality and racism in our system. That’s it.

While some of the history of the 1619 project is flawed, there is nothing wrong with the idea and the premise…that American history started before 1776 and that African Americans contributed more blood, sweat and tears than our whitewashed (pun intended) history portrayed.

If you are suggesting that the CRT program includes NOTHING MORE than a factual
rendition of USA history------you are deluded.

No, that isn’t what I was implying. Actually I wasn’t implying anything. I was stating a fact that CRT is not a history course. I was pointing out that CRT and the 1618 project have nothing to do with each other.

So why is Political indoctrination being forced into the schools?

Political indoctrination has been in public schools since the 1890s. Schools expanded to facilitate getting children of immigrants in on the notions of meritocracy and capitalism.
The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vocational schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.[91] New teaching strategies were developed, such as the shifting the focus of secondary education towards speaking and writing, as outlined by the Hosic Report in 1917.[92]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]​

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.[93] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.[94] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

There is no debate that we have not taught what blacks contributed in colonial times or to the revolution. Or of native americans and people of mexican descent in the SE. And we did that to teach the social structure of the United States.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What we need/needed/will need is no indoctrination. Children dont need your opinion. They need facts and basic skills.

Every PTA wants to control indoctrination. "Capitalism and democracy good, communism bad"

Yet the very reverse has come to be the norm across the land.

No it hasn't. What you see in media is "man bites dog." I worry that schools won't be allowed to correct the facts of what we teach to show things like how Mexican Americans had their land stolen or how places like LA, Chi and NYC institutionalized racism in economic opportunity but made sure whites had access to all immoral activity "across the tracks."

Thanks for proving the point, decius.

 

[jc456]

The immorality in Africa at the time is irrelevant to what America did.

so you think their lives in Africa would have flourished? Dude, save me your bullshit. Facts are what they are. Demofks purchased and enslaved them here. Took lessons from the Africans. Blacks, and there were black slave owners here as well. yet, you omitted it.