CRT Part II: Defunding the Military

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2021, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Nately said that CRT was "strictly teaching history." Did someone else somewhere?

But I can see why opposing language like "opressor, opressed, systemic, institutional, fragility, privilege, rage, implicit bias, appropriation, microagression, whiteness etc" could obscure/revise history. You won't disagree that U.S. history includes "oppressors and oppressed," will you? And that this oppression was not simply person-to-person by a few "bad apples," but had institutional, legal, governmental support, right?  And while there might have been a few black slave owners, slavery and segregation were largely a white-dominated institutions which benefited whites, weren't they? I ask these questions to determine where we are in agreement and where not regarding the actual history of the U.S.

It used to be that terms like "slavery" and "segregation" were not commonly found in historical teachings at the public school level--though they have long been at college level. And their inclusion was opposed as "leftist indoctrination" which denigrated heroic Founders and taught students to "hate" America. 

We agree that there has been considerable Trump-led movement among Republicans to ban funding to schools that incorporate the 1619 project into their curricula, right?  


I am guessing where we will disagree is on the question of whether history can be taught without adopting some perspective, as if current/past teaching has somehow been race neutral and now the CRTers want to "slant" or bias it in one direction. 

I knee jerk posted a lazy ass response of that sort, yes.  I admitted I initially lumped crt protests with the glut of misleading gripes coming from the right, as of late.  

I've been a fool. A mostly justified, and fully sexy fool.