American Teachers Resign Over Oddly Similar Circumstances...

[com7fy8]

But a lot of people feel really strongly about a lot of beliefs. That doesn't mean they should be taught.

There's still a lot of Christians in the US, they could insist that children be taught that homosexuality is inherently wrong, it's inherently important to be married before having sex, and atheism is inherently immoral....so long as they didn't present these as "Christian values".

Would you find that acceptable or do you think that perhaps such indoctrination into a set of beliefs and opinions is anathema to an education no matter how strongly they are held?

I feel strongly that murder is wrong. And this is taught.

Where do you draw the line? How do you decide?? I mean about what makes it into education. You might say murder is obvious, so it's qualified to be covered as something which is wrong.

You might, by the way, claim it is obvious that any and all people into Critical Race Theory have to be about Marxism or they are being lured into it without knowing it. But I do not think it is obvious that how I understand it is a stepping stone to Marxism. My ideas I have offered I have had some time before I was told about Critical Race Theory.

the blatant nonsense like "intergenerational trauma" which has no basis in fact whatsoever.

My opinion > it can be nonsense, or not > it depends.

I think one version of this is the idea that how people were hurt generations ago can feed to keep others hurt, generations later.

This can happen. For example, if you set up a culture of slavery and racism, the slaves can suffer while the ones hurting the slaves can also become more and more deeply degraded from knowing how to love. And then the harm of this can pass down to children of slaves and children of the harmful people. And even if the outward action of the slavery is curtailed, this does not automatically stop how children of slaves had learned their attitudes and ways which might not help them to know how to stand up for themselves and do what is good for themselves independently. Meanwhile, the hurtful people's children do not know how to love the newly freed people who were slaves.

So, yes harm which started can keep being passed along, by means of how children of victims and victimizers have been brought up. And outward changing, alone, of things does not automatically make the victims and victimizers able to live in a way good for themselves and others.

For example, certain blacks, not all, have been brought up with adults who do not take good care of themselves. So, the youths of such adult influence might not know how to take good care of themselves. And this all can be because they have been isolated in neighborhoods where the culture favors depending on a welfare check, among other possibilities. But if you throw one of those youths into a work program, he or she might only know how to hide in a bathroom . . . for one example. Because generations have helped produce this youth like this. And a sudden social reform might not change the "jungle" that has grown in the young lion.

On the other hand, we see how a street culture black boy became able to surgically separate newborn twins who were joined by their brains. So, may be his poor, uneducated mother did learn how to bring him up to live a real life, in spite of her being poor and not very educated > ah-hah, then, yes it is possible to even be poor and uneducated and put out a great good.

But it is also possible to pass on trouble, and reap much more than you sowed.

But with God it is possible to stop going along with the ways which have come from parents who are either psychological victim types or victimizers. So, yes it would be nonsense to say generational harm has to keep being passed on. But it is possible for a problem to perpetuate itself for generations. And ones in the exact same neighborhood and culture can come out the exact opposite. So, it depends on who you are talking about

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cool. So it seems that we have the first point covered:

"There is no racism to be found in the fabric and system of the American society.'

You just shifted the goalposts from...

"There are racist individuals in society"

To...

"There is racism in the fabric and system of society."

These aren't the same thing so if you want to discuss one....let's discuss it. If you want to discuss the other....we can discuss that.

I'm not going to make the mistake of conflating the two, they aren't the same.

We've agreed that there is most definitely racism in American society (as there is in all societies).

Sure.

Now if we look at the divide between various cultures and ethnic backgrounds (I don't like using the term 'race', but I may use that term to describe those groups), I think it's a given that in the US we can see that one group has a position that is more advantageous than any of the others. I'm thinking education, wages, housing, health care, positions within company structures and within government organisations, mortality rates, politics etc. Do we agree? Or do I need to post some facts 'n' figures?

Which group are we talking about?

Asians outperform others in most of those categories. Women outperform men in things like education and healthcare positions (far more female nurses than men). Last I checked, black women are the fastest growing group of college graduates.

 

[Bradskii]

You just shifted the goalposts from...

"There are racist individuals in society"

To...

"There is racism in the fabric and system of society."

These aren't the same thing so if you want to discuss one....let's discuss it. If you want to discuss the other....we can discuss that.

The fabric of a society is its structure. It's make-up. So if there are individuals within a society that have certain beliefs then we can say that within the make-up of that society, within its structure, those beliefs exist.

There are patriots within Amercian society. Patriotism is part of the fabric of Amercian society. There are Christians in America. Christianity is part of the fabric of American society.

And which group? I dunno. Let's pick the largest so it's easier to deal with. Do you agree that that group (it's the whites by the way) have advantages in all those areas I mentioned?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I feel strongly that murder is wrong. And this is taught.

Really? Was there some lesson in school that said murder is "wrong"?

I don't recall that at all.

Where do you draw the line? How do you decide?? I mean about what makes it into education.

If the people engaging in this stuff were simply telling children that...

1. Racism is wrong because there's nothing we can correctly assume about someone based upon their race.

I'd have no problem with that....it's factually correct.

The problem is that the exact opposite is being taught....that broad, sweeping generalizations about race are acceptable. That some races are victims and other races are victimizers.

That's extraordinarily racist. Attributing moral distinctions based upon race is slavery era thinking.

You might, by the way, claim it is obvious that any and all people into Critical Race Theory have to be about Marxism or they are being lured into it without knowing it. But I do not think it is obvious that how I understand it is a stepping stone to Marxism. My ideas I have offered I have had some time before I was told about Critical Race Theory.

I don't think most of the people who advocate or even hold such beliefs are aware of its Marxist origins....that is frequently the nature of Marxist movements.

The term "useful innocents" I think was an Eastern Bloc term used to describe traditional liberals who went along with Marxist doctrine unknowingly. This later became "useful idiots" and was applied to anyone repeating Marxist doctrine without any real understanding of it.

It's a well documented phenomenon that I don't hold against anyone personally.

I think one version of this is the idea that how people were hurt generations ago can feed to keep others hurt, generations later.

I'm going to be frank....this is a pretty vapid idea passing itself off as novel, or smart, or something enlightening...

It would be more accurate to say all history affects the present. There are many aspects of our society that can be traced back to events that happened thousands of years ago and shaped the events of every year since. For example, I'm sure you're aware that we didn't invent the idea of a Republic, free speech, property rights, slavery, and many other ideas that were prominent in the past or still are prominent today.

History is not a thing that requires "correction". It simply is.

This can happen. For example, if you set up a culture of slavery and racism,

Ok...what do you mean by "a culture of slavery and racism"?

Because I think you mean something different from "a society where slavery was legal" and "a society where racism was common belief at some time".

I'm not sure though....can you elaborate?

the slaves can suffer while the ones hurting the slaves can also become more and more deeply degraded from knowing how to love. And then the harm of this can pass down to children of slaves and children of the harmful people.

It can also not be passed down, or change. You're making some rather large assumptions about the beliefs of a lot of people.

And even if the outward action of the slavery is curtailed, this does not automatically stop how children of slaves had learned their attitudes and ways which might not help them to know how to stand up for themselves and do what is good for themselves independently.

Or not.

Meanwhile, the hurtful people's children do not know how to love the newly freed people who were slaves.

Or they do.

So, yes harm which started can keep being passed along,

If a parent passes an attitude or belief onto a child....that's the parents' fault.

by means of how children of victims and victimizers have been brought up.

Do you really think you can justifiably make assumptions about the way someone was raised, or their beliefs, by the color of their skin?

But it is also possible to pass on trouble, and reap much more than you sowed.

Again, this is the responsibility of parents....and if faulty, their blame.

It's not the responsibility of teachers to indoctrinate children in a set of moral beliefs. The idea of institutionalizing such things is monstrous to me...and I mean that regardless of whether we're talking about a Christian teacher telling children that homosexuals are evil or a liberal arts major telling white children they're oppressors.

 

[GenemZ]

For example...

Kansas math teacher resigns over CRT training and renewed mask mandates, gets fined

Then, the district implemented the Deep Equity critical race theory training for teachers. The district spent $400,000 on the training, which told teachers to "reject and resist any parents who disagree with" critical race theory, the Sentinel reported.

"It’s all critical race theory stuff," Enyart said. "That was kind of the start where I realized, they’re really trying to bring this in and make it something."

400k to call some teachers racist. They could have stayed home for that...

Teacher at posh NJ prep school quits over critical race theory

An English teacher has resigned from a top New Jersey prep school that is using critical race theory to create a “hostile culture of conformity and fear” — causing white and male students to believe they are “oppressors,” she said.

Dana Stangel-Plowe accused the Dwight-Englewood School in Bergen County of forcing students and faculty to embrace a single set of beliefs, choking off free speech in the process.

The school’s ideology requires students to see themselves not as individuals, but as representatives of a group, forcing them to adopt the status of privilege or victimhood,” Stangel-Plowe wrote in her letter to school brass.

Loudoun County teacher sobs as she quits during school board meeting to protest school's CRT lessons | Daily Mail Online

A Virginia teacher has dramatically resigned during a meeting of her scandal-hit school board after blasting its obsession with lessons on critical race theory.

Laura Morris spoke before Loudoun County School Board in an emotional address, explaining why the 'equity trainings' and political dogma forced her to resign.

In short, forced conformity towards racist beliefs and political indoctrination.

The argument over CRT was never, ever, about history ....but rather the racist left wing political indoctrination of students. It may seep into history lessons, but that isn't the point.

Thoughts?

Historically.... Historically. Atheists make the most proficient Marxists.

I wonder why.

 

[com7fy8]

The problem is that the exact opposite is being taught....that broad, sweeping generalizations about race are acceptable. That some races are victims and other races are victimizers.

That's extraordinarily racist. Attributing moral distinctions based upon race is slavery era thinking.

Sure . . . I accept that that is wrong. But what I read about Critical Race Theory did not say that sort of stuff.

So . . . like I have considered . . . perhaps there are certain ones trying to highjack Critical Race Theory for what some number of people do not think it means.

What I have read is simply that racism is a big American problem. And I see this can be a pandemic thing, since in order for racism to continue there can be not only the obvious bad actors but the perhaps-many who do not do what could stop it. . . . or do what would make it of less and less effect.

And, like I have meant, perhaps the real battlefield against racism is in each individual's self, so we do not allow racist people to decide how we are and we do not be racist, ourselves.

And, by the way > I have thought of this, while we are at it > if people are evil and depending on something which is wrong and hurtful, they "might" not be the ones to expect to straighten things out! So, exposing the wrong people and begging them to get a clue could be not what can work.

But, even if I can not get any high-up person to do what is good, my example can help people I share with personally. And the value of good example can help people deeper than public changes which could have only a superficial effect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fabric of a society is its structure. It's make-up. So if there are individuals within a society that have certain beliefs then we can say that within the make-up of that society, within its structure, those beliefs exist.

If we were a different society perhaps, but I'd argue that we are first and foremost a society of laws. As a representative republic, those laws have to necessarily reflect the will of the people and their beliefs to pass.

We couldn't pass the civil rights amendment until a majority of people looked unfavorably upon racism. We couldn't extend marriage to homosexuals until a large enough group believed it was right.

If you want to see the structure of society, we shouldn't be looking at the opinions of a minority of people, we should look at what the majority are willing to make law.

So if you want to say that we had a pro-slavery social fabric before the civil war...I'd agree. If you say the same about post civil war US....you'd be wrong.

As for racism, it hasn't been a popular or socially acceptable thing for decades now. I don't think I've met anyone who is pro-racism. You don't find it acceptable, I don't find it acceptable.

Oddly though, you seem to be defending those who do. They make prejudicial statements about people based upon nothing more than their race.

And which group? I dunno.

If you don't know which group then the answer to your question is easy.

No.

 

[com7fy8]

It's not the responsibility of teachers to indoctrinate children in a set of moral beliefs. The idea of institutionalizing such things is monstrous to me...and I mean that regardless of whether we're talking about a Christian teacher telling children that homosexuals are evil or a liberal arts major telling white children they're oppressors.

What if a child is not getting the right help, at home, but a teacher can provide good example and counsel for the child?

Children do need to know right from wrong, by the way, so they do not get into stuff that is not good for them. And often enough wrong people can be in denial about this, and even try to export their stuff to children.

Smoking might be an example of how this can work. If parents are negligent about helping their kids not to smoke, I think it can be good for teachers to educate children about smoking and how it can bring financial waste and suffering and even death, while causing others to suffer about the smoker's problems.

Maybe you think this is generalizing.

But I think it can be good to help students to know about wrong things, partly since some number of parents do not do their job.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Historically.... Historically. Atheists make the most proficient Marxists.

I wonder why.

My guess is that a lot of atheists seek to replace an absent moral framework with one of their own design. Marxism has the appeal of idealism.

The problem is, of course, that the same rationality an atheist might apply to the question of gods' existence isn't necessarily applied to other aspects of reality.

It could also be the nature of one's route to atheism. I love truth...even ugly truths. I don't wish or hope for a lack of a god....in fact I find the idea of an all loving god who wishes me to live forever in a state of happiness appealing. I just can't see any truth in it...so I'm an atheist.

I've learned that this particular route isn't perhaps the most common amongst atheists. It appears for a significant number, a fashionable rejection of christianity of sorts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What if a child is not getting the right help, at home, but a teacher can provide good example and counsel for the child?

If a teacher believes that is the case in a child's home....I would have no problem with the teacher taking it up with the parents.

 

[Bradskii]

As for racism, it hasn't been a popular or socially acceptable thing for decades now. I don't think I've met anyone who is pro-racism. You don't find it acceptable. You don't fi d it accetable.
If you don't know which group then the answer to your question is easy.

No.

We aren't discussing whether we think it's right or wrong. We're currently discussing if it's part of society. And as we have agreed that racism exists within society, then it is part of the fabric of that society. And we aren't drawing any conclusions from that as yet. Not who is racist or the extent of it or whether it is increasing or decreasing. But don't worry, we'll get to that.

Now as to which group? I did specify one. I picked the largest group. Those who consider themselves white. So as I asked (do I need to keep count this time?):

'Do you agree that that group (it's the whites by the way) have advantages in all those areas I mentioned?'

 

[GenemZ]

My guess is that a lot of atheists seek to replace an absent moral framework with one of their own design. Marxism has the appeal of idealism.

Naïve idealism at best.... The failure to understand the fallen nature of man allows for such vain cruelty to reign. Its filled with intensely narcissistic and cruel leadership..

No country ever started from scratch utilizing communism.

It can't. For it needs to live off of what was there first. It always had to live off of the already present loaf of bread that was going stale. Because, mold works that way.

 

[Bradskii]

No country ever started from scratch utilizing communism.

That's how societies started. A social group where there was an equal division of labour. A commune. It's where the words socialism and communism come from. It's only later, as we devised farming methods and storage capacity (assets) and a monetary system - capital, that we developed capitalism.

There are pros and conns to each system. Take either to an extreme and you'll have problems.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Naïve idealism at best.... The failure to understand the fallen nature of man allows for such vain cruelty to reign. Its filled with intensely narcissistic and cruel leadership..

No country ever started from scratch utilizing communism.

It can't. For it needs to live off of what was there first. It always had to live off of the already present loaf of bread that was going stale. Because, mold works that way.

Well the most obvious reason it fails is part of the Marxist rejection of capitalism.

One of main criticism of capitalism from the Marxist perspective is that it leads to inequality between people are greedy.

That belief is dropped however, the moment they try to envision an economy that isn't capitalism. People don't stop being greedy....so an economy where people work for the benefit of others is doomed to fail. That's why it ends up with labor camps and forcing people to work at gunpoint.

Even if a person doesn't understand anything about economics....it seems like this point should still be obvious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's how societies started. A social group where there was an equal division of labour.

What society do you think started off this way?

 

[Bradskii]

What society do you think started off this way?

I'd say every group that was larger than a family unit.

 

[GenemZ]

That's how societies started. A social group where there was an equal division of labour. A commune. It's where the words socialism and communism come from. It's only later, as we devised farming methods and storage capacity (assets) and a monetary system - capital, that we developed capitalism.

So.. Communism is going backwards as you described it. A regression to a more primitive way of life.


Communal living is not to be confused with Communism... There were no utopian ideals when those lands started out. It was all about survival.

The Romans started out as blunt rude rural farmers. But they had private property..... Each man owned his own farm. They traded with one another as free trade. No centralized power dictating to them....

Elsewhere.. autonomous tribes also began in other parts of the world. No utopian ideals.

No Civilized society began with Communism. Karl Marx was not reviving an old idea as you were suggesting. Karl was introducing utopian ideals. He was also out to destroy the advancement of capitalism....

Your example was not correct.

 

[GenemZ]

One of main criticism of capitalism from the Marxist perspective is that it leads to inequality between people are greedy.

Most people who do well financially are not greedy. They are "gifted." Just like a virtuoso musician can dumbfound, and even frustrate (with envy) average musicians; gifted people in the business world know how to make a business work and to excel.

Its not about greed. Its about freedom. Tell a jealous person who envies the one who excels in business that he is greedy? He loves hearing that, that the other is greedy. In telling him that you are vindicating his sin, and in doing so, fueling their jealousy which now gives them motivation in fomenting conflicts. Its how the Chinese Communists after the take over turned children against their parents leading to them murdering their own parents. Communism has not genuine virtue. Its an ersatz virtue parading as being superior, while its intent is evil and to take over what it can not normally compete with if its opponent were not in a weakened state.

Stirring up such conflicts is an art form for the trained Marxist when desiring to destabilize a people. A people whom he could not compete with successfully on fair and equal terms.

 

[Bradskii]

So.. Communism is going backwards as you described it. A regression to a more primitive way of life.


Communal living is not to be confused with Communism... There were no utopian ideals when those lands started out. It was all about survival.

The Romans started out as blunt rude rural farmers. But they had private property..... Each man owned his own farm. They traded with one another as free trade. No centralized power dictating to them....

Elsewhere.. autonomous tribes also began in other parts of the world. No utopian ideals.

No Civilized society began with Communism. Karl Marx was not reviving an old idea as you were suggesting. Karl was introducing utopian ideals. He was also out to destroy the advancement of capitalism....

Your example was not correct.

Whooosh...

 

[GenemZ]

Whooosh...

Whoooshful thinking produces no answers. It wishes to avoid having to admit that fact.