Should teachers be allowed to say "Slavery was bad and it should not happen again"?

Please stop with the ignorance or dishonestly.

What you're saying is as laughable as arguing that, just because there wasn't a specific course called "racism" which students enrolled in, that this means that "no racist views were taught in deep South schools prior to the civil war".

 

Well to be fair it would probably have been teaching the bible and why slaves are subservient to white people.

 

Oh give me a break, the arguments in the Bible against slavery are far stronger than any "pro-slavery argument".

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:28

The only way they could be "pro-slavery" is if they reject Christ and the New Testament altogether (or even the liberation of the Israelites from slavery by Egypt in the Old Testament).

 

Cool. Doesn't touch what my point is.

 

I would deal with the counter arguments being presented by others, not some you imagine being presented.

CRT is a thought model and a theoretical framework. It doesn’t matter if it is TAUGHT that way in schools. Schools seldom deal with subject material at that high of a level. However that doesn’t preclude schools from teaching aspects of it at a much lower level and demanding or engaging students in the practices or PRAXIS associated with CRT.

I'll try to clarify for you using math as an example. When you learn say Algebra at a high school, there is a lot that happened before that teacher presents that lesson. At the state level a bunch of people with doctorates work on, argue back in forth, work in an interdisciplinary manner on what are called frameworks that outline everything about how math is to be taught in a K-12 school. Then a textbook publisher hires another round of a bunch of researchers, writers, doctorates in math, etc to create the math textbook. That textbook is vetted by the district, purchased and eventually some guy, likely with just a basic bachelors degree in math can teach it to your kid.

So when you argue that CRT isn't taught at schools and it is high level conceptual stuff that would only take place at graduate schools, law schools, etc. You can be correct but the PRAXIS aka the practice of it can be written into books for schools to use and present to students in a much more basic manner. PRAXIS is the execution of the high level concepts.

You may not be able to teach a student to write a symphony as an example buy you can have them PLAY one. You can PLAY a symphony without having to know how to write a symphony.

In that manner students can engage in the practice or PRAXIS of CRT without having to get into the theoretical framework that generates the worldview behind it.

The second part is the use of your word antiracist. There is a basic definition that simply declares it is being opposed to racism but there is a school of thought and people behind that who have given it an entire framework of thoughts and actions. I wanted to know if you were simply using the basic definition or the framework.

 

Of course people learn at different rates. The fast learners we call smart, the slow learners dumb. And everybody has a limit to how much they can understand. Smart people can understand a lot, dumb people not so much. And money can't fix stupid. Nothing can.

 

CRT is about reparations.

 

I think I responded to that argument at least 2-3 times in this thread so...

Point noted and filed away.

Okay I get what you're saying. You're saying what I call 'teach the dinosaurs'. Kids aren't ready for evolution, so teach them about dinosaurs to get them ready for that. Is that what you're saying?

 

CRT is not about saying slavery is bad it actually has nothing to do with slavery at all.

In slavery in modern times is a result of human trafficking and it doesn't really have anything to do with the race.

CRT is the idea that the only reason someone does poorly or better and certain avenues is because of their race.

It's not just fallacious in theory it's fallacious and practice. This theory is not a theory it's paranoia

So I'll refer to it as CRP.

I would ask you to think about why you're defending one critical race paranoia. Is it because he really know what it's all about?

 

Yeah, I don't think you know what it's about either. Because it's not race-->performance. It's laws and institutions-->racism-->race-->performance. It's a structural argument (but not really).

 

These people say there's nothing wrong with CRT and nobody's teaching it and then you point out what CRT is and they act like you don't know what it is.

 

That's actually not true. That's an awful way of thinking about knowledge. People who struggle in one subject can do fine in another. I openly tell my students "I hate chemistry so much I consider it not a science. Not because it lacks scientific merit, but because I just refuse to call it that as spite".

 

Either? So you admit you don't know what it is?

You should meet up on it before running your mouth about it. When you speak about something you don't understand you just look like a puppet.

What is the race performance how do you perform a race?

This word salad means nothing make sure what you type is not gibberish in the future.

 

I said it was a structural argument but not really because I study comparative politics. I'm relating CRT to what I know of comparative politics. It's just an "institutions reproduce racism" argument. Which makes sense because we know institutions make concepts of race, national identity, etc.

You mean the basic concept of race as a performance... which underlies the idea of our modern understanding of race? You want me to teach you the basics? I normally charge money for that.

 

Why wouldn't you get educated on it you just have to read a little bit.

no it isn't they wouldn't call it a theory if it was an argument.

that doesn't make sense. Institutions aren't organizations of power they are servants. And it's typically people love certain races that want to be acknowledged for being members of certain races I don't think any institution should ever do this. Race is arbitrary. What I just said there and goes against everything CRP holds.

our modern understanding of race was that it was arbitrary until CRP gained popularity.

No you need to learn the basics before you can charge money.

 

...you're just going to ignore what I write aren't you?

I need to start keeping a tab of the number of times a person says "I don't understand how science works, but I'm going to criticize it". Theory is just a term that means a group of arguments bounded together by common assumptions (arguments). Groups of theories are called a paradigm.

...1.
I really don't want to explain the basics of structuralism as if that's really a serious thing to argue. The concept is that institutions (which have people in them) create concepts. The institution of a school creates the concept of race in children. A classic example with race is the grandfather clause. To make sure poor white southerners weren't denied the right to vote because of literacy tests, southern states passed what is known as the grandfather clause. Which was a clause that said if your grandfather could vote in an election, then you can too. As a result, poor white southerners came to identify with their racial identity because that was how to get political concessions from the political elites. "We're both white, so let's keep the blacks down" argument.

And why was it arbitrary? Use words now.

Seeing as how I just cited an example of CRT? I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

what you wrote was misinformation so yeah.

the only kind of theory this is is a conspiracy theory. Which is just a mechanism people use to explain their paranoia.

good nobody asked you to.

I don't need any bullshit.






And why was it arbitrary? Use words now.



[QUOTE[
Seeing as how I just cited an example of CRT? I think I know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] no you know how to gaslight you're just not going to succeed with me because I smell pseudo intellectual bullshit. This may work on far left lemmings but I'm not that stupid.

 

Refusal to engage... is refusal to engage.

That would explain your posts.

Self burns, those are rare.

Why are your posts so bad then? Seriously, you don't respond to my posts at all. Did you even know what a grandfather clause was before you talked about it?

No you're posts are not that stupid. They're dumber. It's just a flat out refusal to engage.

 

the only engagement I can have with misinformation to point it out.

If you double down on it that's your problem. I won't argue with it.

pretending astoundingly simple things are more complicated than they are is only an effort to obfuscate the purpose.

I'm not really friendly to dishonesty.

because they call out your bullshit and you're threatened by it. That's why you rely so heavily on the ad hominem.

I never talked about that I delete the chunks of your posts when you're trying to distract from the subject.

You can attack me all you want it only affirms what I said above.

reliance on ad hominem indicates insecurity

 

You realize grandfather clauses are a form of CRT?

 

You realize CRP is it conspiracy theory?

Within the anti-logic of CRP everything is a form of CRP that's why people are banning it.

 

And I think we're done.

 

Sorry you're BS didn't work.

 

It isn’t at all what I’m saying. Clearly this stuff is way over your head. Go play with some dinosaurs at this stage.

 

You're saying we are preparing students to study things like CRT in college. Hence the comparison to dinosaurs. Teach dinosaurs to teach evolution. Teach slavery to teach CRT. So when people say they're banning CRT, they're banning that training for college. That's your argument in a nutshell.

To which I say, that's clearly a very dangerous thing to do, because CRT is about law. Slavery was the law. There is no difference between teaching CRT as law, and slavery as law then. In effect you've just ruined anti-racist education by saying we can't talk about the laws in place that keep black people segregated.