Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[Bomb#20]

There isn't evidence of their intent within the wording you are referencing. ...

I do see an article in The Daily Oklahoman, 30 Apr 2021, page A1, that describes the bill as such "The Oklahoma House on Thursday passed legislation to prohibit public schools and universities from teaching critical race theory..." and based on my reading of the bill, I'd say that is the purpose of the bill, at least in general.

Bingo.

So, it does appear that they are trying to stifle discussion of teachers (perhaps sometimes imagined) to teach about modern* racism.

No, it appears they are trying to stifle teachers telling children that white people are racists and oppressors and thus a morally inferior race.

 

[Mumbles]

There isn't evidence of their intent within the wording you are referencing. ...

I do see an article in The Daily Oklahoman, 30 Apr 2021, page A1, that describes the bill as such "The Oklahoma House on Thursday passed legislation to prohibit public schools and universities from teaching critical race theory..." and based on my reading of the bill, I'd say that is the purpose of the bill, at least in general.

Bingo.

So, it does appear that they are trying to stifle discussion of teachers (perhaps sometimes imagined) to teach about modern* racism.

No, it appears they are trying to stifle teachers telling children that white people are racists and oppressors and thus a morally inferior race.

Well, since CRT explicitly rejects the idea of an "inferior race", you'll have to quote that specific part of the law.

Oh, and the fact that many of these state laws are phrased stupidly is *exactly* the point.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, since CRT explicitly rejects the idea of an "inferior race", you'll have to quote that specific part of the law.

The Texas law says:
(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

 

[Mumbles]

Well, since CRT explicitly rejects the idea of an "inferior race", you'll have to quote that specific part of the law.

The Texas law says:
(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

Yes, we went over that, and why it's such a badly written piece of legislation. Nothing to do with CRT, regardless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There isn't evidence of their intent within the wording you are referencing. ...

I do see an article in The Daily Oklahoman, 30 Apr 2021, page A1, that describes the bill as such "The Oklahoma House on Thursday passed legislation to prohibit public schools and universities from teaching critical race theory..." and based on my reading of the bill, I'd say that is the purpose of the bill, at least in general.

Bingo.

So, it does appear that they are trying to stifle discussion of teachers (perhaps sometimes imagined) to teach about modern* racism.

No, it appears they are trying to stifle teachers telling children that white people are racists and oppressors and thus a morally inferior race.

More like America has had many moral failings. Repeatedly. We were taught that slavery ended in 1865... then 100 years later something about Jim Crow being done away with. I took AP US History and didn't learn about the white massacres, like I learned about the massacres of Native Americans. Red lining, mortgage covenants, restrictions from voting, the Southern Strategy... there was a lot of bad done between 1865 and the 1980s, but it seems some people only want to talk about Civil War, MLK Jr, and then just say it is a black cultural problem as to why blacks still are dealing with poverty issues.

Some of the ills of today's society come directly from the intentional immoral actions during the 20th century and there appears to be a desperate ploy by some to keep telling kids, all of these troubles just date to the 19th century.

 

[ZiprHead]

Juneteenth is a federal holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.

This is the Oklahoma bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

Explain to me how this bill prevents the teaching of the fact listed above.



This is false. The Texas bill does not make this prohibition on historical events. The relevant part of the bill reads:

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall,to the best of their ability,strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

Is freeing the slaves a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy?

No, but you need to explain how that is relevant to the teaching of history which is not about current events.

You are correct - no bill explicitly prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. One wonders why anyone who routinely extrapolates some alleged incident into the "strange death of" cannot seem to extrapolate from "It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." into a chilling effect on teaching a particular perspective.

Gotta protect the little right-wing snowflakes. That's the important part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Conversations around race in the United States are contentious and rapidly evolving. Our education system should promote all viewpoints and encourage discussion of diverse ideas and not be driven by the political leanings of an educator or outside organizations who promote advocacy for one viewpoint.

This is listed under "Author's Statement of Intent". One can't help but wonder, what events occurred that required legislation in the first place. Were children being inundated by teachers telling them that cops deserved violence against them? Was the talk so one sided, the children were going home and demanding reparations for blacks? Were indoctrinated students burning cars in retribution for crimes of the white race?

Because, if this wasn't happening, this legislation was a message, not a solution. Continuing on the intent statement.

S.B. 2202 promotes the adoption of a curriculum that promotes the understanding of the moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the country, the processes of governance at the local, state, and federal levels, and the founding documents of our nation. However, it discourages the teaching of current controversial issues of public policy or social affairs unless the teacher promotes all diverse viewpoints on the issue.

Yeah, and this is the crux... we find our "but" in the form of a "however", like the "I'm not a racist, but... *insert racist statement*". The above statement starts out saying 'Hey... we are all for teaching history... but..." But what? They don't want to discuss current "controversial" issues without teaching all sides, no wait, "all diverse viewpoints" (which is meaningless)... kind of like teaching evolution and creationism? Also, since when was unarmed people being killed by the police controversial in the way as suggested, as it is a political controversy instead of a civil rights controversy (slash crime).

And let's return to "all diverse viewpoints". Yes, a view is something that can be taught, but shouldn't data and facts lead the way? Why is the inner city community angry? Because a cop killed an unarmed man by kneeing the neck for 9 minutes... and the other officers didn't do anything to stop it... and because that officer had several complaints of abuse... and because of a historic distrust with the police in the area...

This is simple, the legislation is bunk because it is politically charged in the beginning, by suggesting a civil rights issue is a political one. It creates a standard that isn't standardized and can easily be violated if the right people say it violates the policy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Conversations around race in the United States are contentious and rapidly evolving. Our education system should promote all viewpoints and encourage discussion of diverse ideas and not be driven by the political leanings of an educator or outside organizations who promote advocacy for one viewpoint.

This is listed under "Author's Statement of Intent". One can't help but wonder, what events occurred that required legislation in the first place. Were children being inundated by teachers telling them that cops deserved violence against them? Was the talk so one sided, the children were going home and demanding reparations for blacks? Were indoctrinated students burning cars in retribution for crimes of the white race?

Because, if this wasn't happening, this legislation was a message, not a solution. Continuing on the intent statement.

S.B. 2202 promotes the adoption of a curriculum that promotes the understanding of the moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the country, the processes of governance at the local, state, and federal levels, and the founding documents of our nation. However, it discourages the teaching of current controversial issues of public policy or social affairs unless the teacher promotes all diverse viewpoints on the issue.

Yeah, and this is the crux... we find our "but" in the form of a "however", like the "I'm not a racist, but... *insert racist statement*". The above statement starts out saying 'Hey... we are all for teaching history... but..." But what? They don't want to discuss current "controversial" issues without teaching all sides, no wait, "all diverse viewpoints" (which is meaningless)... kind of like teaching evolution and creationism? Also, since when was unarmed people being killed by the police controversial in the way as suggested, as it is a political controversy instead of a civil rights controversy (slash crime).

And let's return to "all diverse viewpoints". Yes, a view is something that can be taught, but shouldn't data and facts lead the way? Why is the inner city community angry? Because a cop killed an unarmed man by kneeing the neck for 9 minutes... and the other officers didn't do anything to stop it... and because that officer had several complaints of abuse... and because of a historic distrust with the police in the area...

This is simple, the legislation is bunk because it is politically charged in the beginning, by suggesting a civil rights issue is a political one. It creates a standard that isn't standardized and can easily be violated if the right people say it violates the policy.

This also puts control of the classroom in the hands of the students. One snowflake says they were emotionally affected and the class has to be halted, reviewed, and the teacher possibly punished.

 

[laughing dog]

You are correct - no bill explicitly prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. One wonders why anyone who routinely extrapolates some alleged incident into the "strange death of" cannot seem to extrapolate from "It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." into a chilling effect on teaching a particular perspective.

Because what you have quoted is false.....

Is there some non-fringe debate about whether the slaves in Texas should have been freed?

You are like a dog with an irrelevant bone. It is fascinating to see someone who routinely expects his audience to understand his extrapolations of law or incidents to be incapable of following the extrapolations of others.

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

 

[Trausti]

You are like a dog with an irrelevant bone. It is fascinating to see someone who routinely expects his audience to understand his extrapolations of law or incidents to be incapable of following the extrapolations of others.

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

What flaming bullshit. It certainly upsets the neo-racists when people are treated as individuals.

 

[laughing dog]

You are like a dog with an irrelevant bone. It is fascinating to see someone who routinely expects his audience to understand his extrapolations of law or incidents to be incapable of following the extrapolations of others.

Moreover, if you even bothered to read your own citations, it should be obvious that

(6) No teacher, administrator, or other employee in
any state agency, school district, campus, open-enrollment charter
school, or school administration shall shall require, or make part
of a course the following concepts: (1) one race or sex is
inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) an individual, by
virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or
oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (3) an
individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse
treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (4)
members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat
others without respect to race or sex; (5) an individual's moral
character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (6)
an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears
responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members
of the same race or sex; (7) any individual should feel discomfort,
guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
account of his or her race or sex; or (8) meritocracy or traits such
as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a
members of a particular race to oppress members of another race.

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

What flaming bullshit. It certainly upsets the neo-racists when people are treated as individuals.

You response certainly shows it.

 

[laughing dog]

I reserve judgment on the over all desirability of the laws. But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.

But is okay for "the right" to do so?

 

[Mumbles]

allows any snowflake to stymie fruitful analysis and discussions about slavery and meritocracy or genocides.

Particularly true given how incredibly quickly right-wingers insert race into just about anything - eg. "Obamacare/the stimulus is reparations", "Obama banned deepwater offshore drilling because he's a Kenyan anti-colonialist and not because of that disastrous spill in the Gulf, he's not even American where's his birth certificate", "Black Lives Matter is a violent supremacist group controlled by the jews to kill cops and replace the white race for some reason" (note on this last one: how did the Jews/George Soros become the evil masterminds?).

 

[Toni]

There's some confusion here, isn't there? Juneteenth, Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project are all different things. They seem to be getting lumped together as if they are one and the same.

Bingo.

I'd never heard of Juneteenth until I joined the NAACP.
Explaining it in broad strokes is really easy. I'm sure schools could manage it as easily as describing Thanksgiving or Presidents Day.
Tom

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

I think the problem is that for some people. freeing the slaves was a bad thing. For lots of others, merely acknowledging slavery is a bad thing because it makes them uncomfortable and might lead to other discussions such as race in America.

 

[Toni]

There's some confusion here, isn't there? Juneteenth, Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project are all different things. They seem to be getting lumped together as if they are one and the same.

Some people seem to regard Juneteenth as a gateway drug.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

Yup, because the only people that exploit the racial divide are people of color or white liberals.

 

[Gospel]

I'm just happy to see that Juneteenth is off to a good start on being a Federal holiday. ThanksGiving, July 4th & Christmas gets just as much love, hate & fence-sitting annually.

 

[TomC]

I'm just happy to see that Juneteenth is off to a good start on being a Federal holiday. ThanksGiving, July 4th & Christmas gets just as much love, hate & fence-sitting annually.

I hope it doesn't get commercialized into a parody.

I'm from a conservative Irish family. Many of my relatives found the spectacle of black bartenders, in English pubs, selling green beer to drunken Italians on Saint Patrick's Day less than particularly meaningful or respectful.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, it just marks the day when the last of the slaves were freed. What's the big deal? We all know the slaves were freed. No controversy there. I do wonder if making it a federal holiday is going to make our current racial divide worse though. People are going to exploit it for their own political ends, so if for some reason you're not 100% on board with it, you're going to be branded a racist. And it you make too big a deal about Juneteenth, you'll come across as just trying to pile on even more white guilt.

We all know we liberated ourselves from the British, so what's the big deal about the July 4th federal holiday?
We all know about the pilgrims, so what's the big deal about the Thanksgiving day holiday? We all know people were killed in wars, so what's the big deal about Memorial day?
We all know about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, what's the big deal about President's day?
We all know about MLK, so what's the big deal about MLK day?

The answer to all of the above (along with Juneteenth day) is to honor the memory of that day or accomplishments.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, it appears they are trying to stifle teachers telling children that white people are racists and oppressors and thus a morally inferior race.

Well, since CRT explicitly rejects the idea of an "inferior race", you'll have to quote that specific part of the law.

In the first place, your opinion about whether CRT rejects the idea of an "inferior race" isn't relevant to the question in dispute. My opinion about that isn't relevant either; neither is the CRT authors' opinion; in fact, not even the fact of the matter of whether CRT rejects the idea of an "inferior race" is relevant. We were arguing about the intent of the laws. For establishing the laws' intent, only the opinion of the legislators matters. And it seems painfully obvious that the authors of these laws think that the moral inferiority of the white race is one of the elements of CRT doctrine.

And in the second place, what was even your point? Are you seriously proposing that CRT explicitly rejecting the idea of an "inferior race" has any bearing whatsoever on whether in fact it teaches that white people are inferior? What, do you also think the fact that the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." has any bearing whatsoever on whether in fact the Bible contains an awful lot of verses directing us to kill people? We are not going to uncritically accept the premise that CRT is internally consistent as a shared basis for discussion.

Oh, and the fact that many of these state laws are phrased stupidly is *exactly* the point.

It's A point; but it's not the only point up for discussion.