06-29-2021, 10:15 AM
(06-29-2021, 07:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Understanding history is only important when talking about the necessity of statues of Confederate leaders, Hitler, and Satan.
Fwiw, I do find the argument that CRT is strictly teaching history just a tad bit bit disingenous. It's much more sociology based.
I see this argument made over and over. "Republicans don't want history taught in schools." But is that really what they're opposed to? Because I don't think it is.
I've seen a number of people who are opposed to CRT come out and clearly state they have absolutely no issues with spending more time on historical events that relate to race. (Ex: The Tulsa Race Riots)
What they're opposing is language like: opressor, opressed, systemic, institutional, fragility, privilege, rage, implicit bias, appropriation, microagression, whiteness etc. (None of these are terms commonly found in historical teachings)
People are more than welcome to agree or disagree about whether or not CRT belongs in the classroom. I just don't think it's fair to intentionally paint the opposing side as something it's not, only to make them appear irrational or to make their argument seem flawed. Since he can't see this, I'll just say it; This is a FredToast move that is occuring from some on the Pro-CRT side.
