Society is screwed

[Beebs52]

Flock, what are you going to do for entertainment now that you're refusing to watch anything other than Tucker Carlson and "our Partner Trump."
Daily Kos? Really? "Whether or not this is a real letter..."
Really sss? You thought it was satire a few posts ago?

It was pretty clear at the time it wasn't intended seriously. Except by those like Flock who like to take it as such.

I'm confused. Where did he say that?

Oh, I'm sure that is a real letter. Whether it is from a real teacher is in question

[Beebs52]

Look at our own e-bigots on this bored. What would you think bob would do if he was the chairman of the school board? How do you think my stalker would respond to a parent he didn't agree with?

Eau Claire (WI) school board president reports receiving death threat over 'radical transgender agenda'

Anonymous email threatened to 'shoot up school-board meeting' over LGBTQ staff training

An Eau Claire school board president is urging his community not to "cede to fear" days after he says he received a death threat for the school district's inclusive LGBTQ policies. Eau Claire Area School District Board President Tim Nordin told WPR he received an email from a sender calling themselves "Kill All Marxist Teachers."

He said the email included direct threats against Nordin and his family and that the sender said they would "shoot up" the next school board meeting "for promoting the horrific, radical transgender agenda." Nordin said he immediately told his wife, who called one of his sons in from the backyard. They locked the doors, and then Nordin said he went to the school district office. Eau Claire police were called and an investigation is underway.

The email came after conservative leaning media outlets published articles condemning a staff development training session that included a PowerPoint slide that said, "Remember, parents are not entitled to know their kids' identities. That knowledge must be earned. Teachers are often straddling this complex situation. In ECASD, our priority is supporting the student." A joint press release from a group of school board candidates opposed to the training called it an example of "blatant disregard for the parents and guardians of our community's children."

Nordin said he believes the threat against him, his family and the school board meeting was a direct consequence of misconstruing the intent of the staff training. He said teachers are instructed to honor the humanity of students who may not feel comfortable or safe coming out to parents. "And for some students, in some situations, we have to understand the context of that and know that if they're not safe and they trust an adult at the school, that might be the only adult that they have to trust in their lives," said Nordin. "And that's important to keeping children safe."

In a statement of his own this week, Nordin encouraged community members to send a message "that Eau Claire cannot be intimidated," wrote Nordin. "Our schools are too important to cede to fear." "And people need to know that these tactics are being used to try to make them afraid, to try to tear the fabric of our schools and to try to drive votes and control through fear rather than through democracy," Nordin said in an interview with WPR.

This article was originally dated March 24. Since then, Eau Claire held elections for the School Board. The election worked a bit strangely. There were three seats up for re-election with six candidates running. Voting was done on an at-large basis with voters voting for up to three candidates. The three candidates with the highest vote total won. Nordin was re-elected (with the most votes overall) as was the only other incumbent running. The third seat went to a college professor who campaigned with Nordin and the other incumbent. The three candidates who issued a statement opposing the School Board policy all lost rather handily.

When Flock accuses teachers and school board members of having an agenda and suggests that Bob and I might react violently to those who oppose our points of view, he's projecting onto us the attitudes that those who agree with him display. And in the case of one recent school board election, those tactics backfired spectacularly. Making a lot of noise, especially on right wing media, doesn't equal having majority support.

Investigation has been initiated on this. Nothing found yet. Supposedly it's true. Obviously not good if it is. Just like any other threat.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, of course bob, any parent that in any way disagrees with you is certainly abusing their children. Probably any republican parent too, which is another reason we need to exterminate the republican party.
So the solution is that we definitely need to sexualize our 8 year olds.

Children do start thinking about sex and sexuality well before they are eight years old. They also pick up on their parents' attitudes about them. And parents who attempt to indoctrinate their children into what they think is an "appropriate" sexuality may well be abusing those children.

Ok. What do you mean by indoctrinate?

So let's give the schools, teacher's unions, and left-wing activists their chance to indoctrinate them instead. Damn parents!

[silverscreenselect]

Children do start thinking about sex and sexuality well before they are eight years old. They also pick up on their parents' attitudes about them. And parents who attempt to indoctrinate their children into what they think is an "appropriate" sexuality may well be abusing those children.

Ok. What do you mean by indoctrinate?

So let's give the schools, teacher's unions, and left-wing activists their chance to indoctrinate them instead. Damn parents!

You've got education confused with indoctrination here.

[kroxquo]

Ear:

I don't have a problem with parents being involved in what their children are learning. However there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that the world was round and insisted that globes be removed from classrooms.

Please let's try and be real here and stay on subject.

Okay, let's take a more realistic situation. Let's suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that racism has been and continues to be an inherent problem in America from its very founding and wanted all references to systemic racism removed from the curriculum.

[Bob78164]

Ear:

I don't have a problem with parents being involved in what their children are learning. However there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that the world was round and insisted that globes be removed from classrooms.

Please let's try and be real here and stay on subject.

Okay, let's take a more realistic situation. Let's suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that racism has been and continues to be an inherent problem in America from its very founding and wanted all references to systemic racism removed from the curriculum.

Of course, the problem here isn't just that the parents are trying to control what their kids are taught. They're also trying to control what my kids are taught. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Ear:Please let's try and be real here and stay on subject.

Okay, let's take a more realistic situation. Let's suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that racism has been and continues to be an inherent problem in America from its very founding and wanted all references to systemic racism removed from the curriculum.

Of course, the problem here isn't just that the parents are trying to control what their kids are taught. They're also trying to control what my kids are taught. --Bob

Such insight! And you're trying to control what their kids are taught.

And Krox's example is a good one. And precisely why parents are and should be involved. Public schools don't need to be teaching such crap.

[earendel]

But, see, asking teachers not to tell is deliberately keeping it from parents. And why is everyone here assuming the parents are going to go ballistic? Most parents would appreciate the info. And, no, I don't think a child wanting that info to not be reported means there is abuse.

Why would a child ask a teacher not to tell, then? Or, to put it another way, why would it matter to the child if his or her (see?) parents knew what pronouns he or she preferred?

[earendel]

Ear:

I don't have a problem with parents being involved in what their children are learning. However there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that the world was round and insisted that globes be removed from classrooms.

Please let's try and be real here and stay on subject.

I'm not sure that it' off-topic. The issue is how much control parents should have over what their children are taught. I agree that this might be an extreme example, but it is a consideration.

Again, I agree. But I would also add that there are parents who are more interested in "enact[ing] policies that they think are in the public good" whether they truly are or not.

That is undoubted. But it will take a lot of parents getting together to enact any policies for a school district that are NOT for the public good. While it only takes a few activists getting elected to a School Board to do what you are suggesting. That is the whole point of the Mama Bear phenomenon. School boards have been making policies and curriculum decisions that have been under the radar for many years. See the recent election in Virginia.

As I said, there are "activists" on both sides. The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

I think they might respond in a rational fashion, just as I think you would do so if you were on a school board.

Oh, I definitely disagree with you there.

I think you say that because you are seeing them in a different set of circumstances. Some of your rhetoric has also been less than civil, and I think you would act differently in a real-world situation.

I think I understand the intent of the Florida law but I think it is overreaching and likely to cause more problems than it intends to solve.

What problems do you see it causing? (Ones that aren't deliberately created by those who are opposing it). You seem to be more concerned about parents' motives and actions than the school's motives and actions. I think, in general, the welfare of the children is the responsibility and concern of their parents. Their views should be predominant.

Overreaching, witch hunts, to name two (the latter of which may seem extreme to you). And as to your last point, I believe I already addressed that - at what point does the "responsibility and concern" of parents outweigh the greater good of society - as, for instance, my previous example about flat-earthers.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear:

I don't have a problem with parents being involved in what their children are learning. However there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that the world was round and insisted that globes be removed from classrooms.

Please let's try and be real here and stay on subject.

Okay, let's take a more realistic situation. Let's suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that racism has been and continues to be an inherent problem in America from its very founding and wanted all references to systemic racism removed from the curriculum.

Good example that illustrates pretty much everything.

Putting aside the issue of whether we need to teach children under the age of 8 anything about queer theory or anything about human sexuality at all in a school setting, I think it's appropriate to teach children history.

But who's version of history do we teach?
(This is a 30,000 foot view of the situation. It is very complex.)

My stalker's version of US history and the current version of history pushed by the 'mainstream' that emphasizes the history of slavery in this country and transposes it onto the present? That does not acknowledge that people in the past lived in a different culture, and their decisions were made based under the culture and society under which they existed, and that our culture and society is now different?

Or a version of history that acknowledges that our history and culture is fraught with prejudice, bigotry, mistakes, and sometimes evil, but we have constantly evolved as a culture to try and correct these things and are better in the present than we have ever been. And that we are still not perfect and we still need to evolve in the right direction?

Many parents have discovered that we are currently teaching version 1, which, as a result, teaches children that they currently are still in either a group of 'oppressed' and 'oppressors'. Which results in the pulling down of statues, racial sensitivity to every issue where it is relevant and even when it is totally irrelevant, and general divisiveness in this country and culture.

Just as an example, as I understand it, many school districts have included the New York Times published '1619 Project' in their curriculums, which. as I understand it, teaches that our Country did not originate in 1776, but in 1619 when the first slaves arrived here. This is under the overall heading of what is known as Critical Race Theory, or CRT.

We also don't want a version of history to be taught where all this country's past flaws are sugar coated and painted over. I don't really think ANYONE is advocating that.

So what do we teach when we teach US history?

I don't know, (because I KNOW that I don't know what I don't know). But I do know that teaching kids that the end result of history is that they are either oppressed or oppressors based on the color of their skin IS NOT what we want to be teaching.

Over all, can you agree with that?

If we can get school boards populated with people who can agree with that simple assumption, then, maybe, we can agree on a way to teach history that will be acceptable to all and bring us together instead of dividing us.

Just my opinion.......

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear:

I'm not sure that it's off-topic. The issue is how much control parents should have over what their children are taught. I agree that this might be an extreme example, but it is a consideration.

Seriously, ear, how much support do you think teaching the world is flat is going to get from anybody. I am just saying let's be real. Kroxquo has brought up an issue that is real and has persuasive arguments on both sides, if not more than 2. No one will come up with a persuasive argument for teaching the world is flat.

As I said, there are "activists" on both sides. The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

In my observations, the activists on the left seem to have a lot more control over the media and flow of information. I see evidence of that every day. It might be more difficult for you to see that.

I think you say that because you are seeing them in a different set of circumstances. Some of your rhetoric has also been less than civil, and I think you would act differently in a real-world situation.

I have only been 'less than civil' to those who have been that way to me first. I have tried several times, both on this bored and in private messages, to reason with some of these individuals, but it never takes.
Take a look at my 'Perspectives' posts. I went into them trying very hard to keep it civil. Look at what it devolved into. I suspect these individuals would react the same way in whatever set of circumstances they are in.
Sorry, it is what it is, but I hope you can agree that, though I disagree with you, I have always been civil to you.

Overreaching, witch hunts, to name two (the latter of which may seem extreme to you). And as to your last point, I believe I already addressed that - at what point does the "responsibility and concern" of parents outweigh the greater good of society - as, for instance, my previous example about flat-earthers.

Overreaching can be done on any issue. On any side of it. My point is that the schools are only caretakers for children, and that the parents are ultimately responsible for their children, so the parents, as a group, should have the ultimate say on any issue.
And the ultimate question is: Who decides what is for the 'greater good of the society'? That is a philosophical point that has been debated for centuries by many of the brightest minds of their times. I believe our Founding Fathers believed that it is not 'The Government', it is the 'People'. They believed so strongly in that idea that they wrote a document called 'The Constitution of the United States, to make it clear what the federal government can do, and what they can't. It seems to me that in the present, many people, most of whom describe themselves as democrats, believe it is the government that should decide this question, and from Washington DC. I, and many other people, fervently disagree with that and are doing our best to resist that.

[flockofseagulls104]

As an addendum to both my posts to krox and ear:
I am NEVER going to agree with any theory, curriculum or teaching that labels me as an oppressor or a racist, either consciously or subconsciously. Because I know that I am not. And they don't know that I am. There might well be those that are, but when you go labeling an entire group of people as something based on the color of their skin, THAT IS THE TRUE DEFINITION OF RACISM.

[wbtravis007]

Children do start thinking about sex and sexuality well before they are eight years old. They also pick up on their parents' attitudes about them. And parents who attempt to indoctrinate their children into what they think is an "appropriate" sexuality may well be abusing those children.

Ok. What do you mean by indoctrinate?

So let's give the schools, teacher's unions, and left-wing activists their chance to indoctrinate them instead. Damn parents!

In Texas our state government is big on letting the parents call the shots, as long as they're calling them the same way they're being called by our governor and them. If not, then it's time to get the Child Protection Service involved, and start arresting them and their doctors for child abuse.

Kind of like emphasizing how important individual rights and decisions are, as long as you're deciding not to have an abortion.

I guess it might have something to do with their professed passion for states' rights and stuff.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ok. What do you mean by indoctrinate?

So let's give the schools, teacher's unions, and left-wing activists their chance to indoctrinate them instead. Damn parents!

In Texas our state government is big on letting the parents call the shots, as long as they're calling them the same way they're being called by our governor and them. If not, then it's time to get the Child Protection Service involved, and start arresting them and their doctors for child abuse.

Kind of like emphasizing how important individual rights and decisions are, as long as you're deciding not to have an abortion.

I guess it might have something to do with their professed passion for states' rights and stuff.

Why don't you try being part of a solution, not part of the problem? All you do is complain and insult those who you disagree with. You NEVER try to understand where they are coming from, much less acknowledge that they might have a valid point of view. You are a prime example why we are where we are. Congratulations!

[wbtravis007]

So let's give the schools, teacher's unions, and left-wing activists their chance to indoctrinate them instead. Damn parents!

In Texas our state government is big on letting the parents call the shots, as long as they're calling them the same way they're being called by our governor and them. If not, then it's time to get the Child Protection Service involved, and start arresting them and their doctors for child abuse.

Kind of like emphasizing how important individual rights and decisions are, as long as you're deciding not to have an abortion.

I guess it might have something to do with their professed passion for states' rights and stuff.

Why don't you try being part of a solution, not part of the problem? All you do is complain and insult those who you disagree with. You NEVER try to understand where they are coming from, much less acknowledge that they might have a valid point of view. You are a prime example why we are where we are. Congratulations!

Why don't you strive to be sufferable?

Try introspecting.

[flockofseagulls104]

In Texas our state government is big on letting the parents call the shots, as long as they're calling them the same way they're being called by our governor and them. If not, then it's time to get the Child Protection Service involved, and start arresting them and their doctors for child abuse.

Kind of like emphasizing how important individual rights and decisions are, as long as you're deciding not to have an abortion.

I guess it might have something to do with their professed passion for states' rights and stuff.

Why don't you try being part of a solution, not part of the problem? All you do is complain and insult those who you disagree with. You NEVER try to understand where they are coming from, much less acknowledge that they might have a valid point of view. You are a prime example why we are where we are. Congratulations!

Why don't you strive to be sufferable?

Try introspecting.

You just keep providing proof of why you are irrelevant to any subject. Why don't you and BJ just go run along....

[BackInTex]

Kind of like emphasizing how important individual rights and decisions are, as long as you're deciding not to have an abortion kill an innocent individual.

Fixed it for ya.

[wbtravis007]

Why don't you try being part of a solution, not part of the problem? All you do is complain and insult those who you disagree with. You NEVER try to understand where they are coming from, much less acknowledge that they might have a valid point of view. You are a prime example why we are where we are. Congratulations!

Why don't you strive to be sufferable?

Try introspecting.

You just keep providing proof of why you are irrelevant to any subject. Why don't you and BJ just go run along....

Keep striving.

And trying to introspect.

[kroxquo]

Okay, let's take a more realistic situation. Let's suppose a parent or group of parents decided that they didn't want their children taught that racism has been and continues to be an inherent problem in America from its very founding and wanted all references to systemic racism removed from the curriculum.

Of course, the problem here isn't just that the parents are trying to control what their kids are taught. They're also trying to control what my kids are taught. --Bob

Such insight! And you're trying to control what their kids are taught.

And Krox's example is a good one. And precisely why parents are and should be involved. Public schools don't need to be teaching such crap.

Which part is crap?

It goes without saying that people of the past lived in a culture and society with different values and mores. It also goes without saying that progress in the area of racism there has been progress. That does not insulate the past from affecting the present. Chattel slavery was introduced to the British colonies in 1619 (having existed for more than a hundred years before that in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies before that) and from that time on it had an impact on what became the U.S. The entire economy of the South was based on slavery which fueled the growth of cash agriculture. It became so ingrained in American culture that the Declaration of Independence would not have passed without references to it being eliminated. It was codified in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise and the ban on touching the slave trade in Congress until 1809. Slavery and its expansion was THE issue that drove the wedge between Americans in antebellum America and the South's desire to maintain it was the primary cause of the Civil War. The Civil War led to Jim Crow which further solidified and codified racism as a system. Moreover, racist practices like redlining in all parts of the country or outright organized state-sponsored purges such as the one in Wilmington NC in 1890 or Tulsa in 1921 led to the marginalization and hindering of the progress of the African American community. The civil rights movement of the 1960's made progress, but did not solve everything. And in fact many of the gains of that era like the voting rights act are now being reversed and gutted. The legacy of Jim Crow, which is the legacy of the Civil War, which is the legacy of the Civil War still exists today. All you need to do is look at the statistics for inequities in prison sentencing, law enforcement, infant mortality, access to health care, funding to schools and any number of other things to see that race is inherent in American institutions and that is not favorable to African Americans.

I'll finish with a question for you. If you could change places with an African American who is on the same socio-economic level that you are, would you?

[tlynn78]

Of course, the problem here isn't just that the parents are trying to control what their kids are taught. They're also trying to control what my kids are taught. --Bob

Such insight! And you're trying to control what their kids are taught.

And Krox's example is a good one. And precisely why parents are and should be involved. Public schools don't need to be teaching such crap.

Which part is crap?

It goes without saying that people of the past lived in a culture and society with different values and mores. It also goes without saying that progress in the area of racism there has been progress. That does not insulate the past from affecting the present. Chattel slavery was introduced to the British colonies in 1619 (having existed for more than a hundred years before that in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies before that) and from that time on it had an impact on what became the U.S. The entire economy of the South was based on slavery which fueled the growth of cash agriculture. It became so ingrained in American culture that the Declaration of Independence would not have passed without references to it being eliminated. It was codified in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise and the ban on touching the slave trade in Congress until 1809. Slavery and its expansion was THE issue that drove the wedge between Americans in antebellum America and the South's desire to maintain it was the primary cause of the Civil War. The Civil War led to Jim Crow which further solidified and codified racism as a system. Moreover, racist practices like redlining in all parts of the country or outright organized state-sponsored purges such as the one in Wilmington NC in 1890 or Tulsa in 1921 led to the marginalization and hindering of the progress of the African American community. The civil rights movement of the 1960's made progress, but did not solve everything. And in fact many of the gains of that era like the voting rights act are now being reversed and gutted. The legacy of Jim Crow, which is the legacy of the Civil War, which is the legacy of the Civil War still exists today.

Not much 'goes without saying' when you're talking about teaching, especially, but not limited to, elementary age students. They simply don't have the context.

[Beebs52]

Such insight! And you're trying to control what their kids are taught.

And Krox's example is a good one. And precisely why parents are and should be involved. Public schools don't need to be teaching such crap.

Which part is crap?

It goes without saying that people of the past lived in a culture and society with different values and mores. It also goes without saying that progress in the area of racism there has been progress. That does not insulate the past from affecting the present. Chattel slavery was introduced to the British colonies in 1619 (having existed for more than a hundred years before that in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies before that) and from that time on it had an impact on what became the U.S. The entire economy of the South was based on slavery which fueled the growth of cash agriculture. It became so ingrained in American culture that the Declaration of Independence would not have passed without references to it being eliminated. It was codified in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise and the ban on touching the slave trade in Congress until 1809. Slavery and its expansion was THE issue that drove the wedge between Americans in antebellum America and the South's desire to maintain it was the primary cause of the Civil War. The Civil War led to Jim Crow which further solidified and codified racism as a system. Moreover, racist practices like redlining in all parts of the country or outright organized state-sponsored purges such as the one in Wilmington NC in 1890 or Tulsa in 1921 led to the marginalization and hindering of the progress of the African American community. The civil rights movement of the 1960's made progress, but did not solve everything. And in fact many of the gains of that era like the voting rights act are now being reversed and gutted. The legacy of Jim Crow, which is the legacy of the Civil War, which is the legacy of the Civil War still exists today.

Not much 'goes without saying' when you're talking about teaching, especially, but not limited to, elementary age students. They simply don't have the context.

What she said.

Plus, should we not include the history of slavery from BC times to now, along with those who sold their families to traders, and Greeks and mideastern folks and indentured servants, yada yada, to include "context", and to illustrate that the US is not the beginning of the problem? At least we're attempting redemption.

Oh, and trafficking. There's that, too.
Hmm. Open borders and internet much?

[flockofseagulls104]

Of course, the problem here isn't just that the parents are trying to control what their kids are taught. They're also trying to control what my kids are taught. --Bob

Such insight! And you're trying to control what their kids are taught.

And Krox's example is a good one. And precisely why parents are and should be involved. Public schools don't need to be teaching such crap.

Which part is crap?

It goes without saying that people of the past lived in a culture and society with different values and mores. It also goes without saying that progress in the area of racism there has been progress. That does not insulate the past from affecting the present. Chattel slavery was introduced to the British colonies in 1619 (having existed for more than a hundred years before that in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies before that) and from that time on it had an impact on what became the U.S. The entire economy of the South was based on slavery which fueled the growth of cash agriculture. It became so ingrained in American culture that the Declaration of Independence would not have passed without references to it being eliminated. It was codified in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise and the ban on touching the slave trade in Congress until 1809. Slavery and its expansion was THE issue that drove the wedge between Americans in antebellum America and the South's desire to maintain it was the primary cause of the Civil War. The Civil War led to Jim Crow which further solidified and codified racism as a system. Moreover, racist practices like redlining in all parts of the country or outright organized state-sponsored purges such as the one in Wilmington NC in 1890 or Tulsa in 1921 led to the marginalization and hindering of the progress of the African American community. The civil rights movement of the 1960's made progress, but did not solve everything. And in fact many of the gains of that era like the voting rights act are now being reversed and gutted. The legacy of Jim Crow, which is the legacy of the Civil War, which is the legacy of the Civil War still exists today. All you need to do is look at the statistics for inequities in prison sentencing, law enforcement, infant mortality, access to health care, funding to schools and any number of other things to see that race is inherent in American institutions and that is not favorable to African Americans.

I'll finish with a question for you. If you could change places with an African American who is on the same socio-economic level that you are, would you?

I know you are not asking me, but my answer would be yes. And I would look to people like Candace Owens, Condoleeza Rice and Ben Carson as models of public discourse to name just a few instead of people like Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris. And I would deal with bigots as individuals, not as a group.

[flockofseagulls104]

Krox, here's my question to you. And I wish that someone would have the guts to really ask it.

Let's establish a goal. To someone like Al Sharpton: Would would have to happen for you, Mr. Sharpton, to publically declare that "OK, I am going away now. We have solved the problem of racism for my generation. I have nothing more to accomplish. Thank you all."

What is our goal, Krox?

[Bob78164]

Which part is crap?

It goes without saying that people of the past lived in a culture and society with different values and mores. It also goes without saying that progress in the area of racism there has been progress. That does not insulate the past from affecting the present. Chattel slavery was introduced to the British colonies in 1619 (having existed for more than a hundred years before that in the Portuguese and Spanish colonies before that) and from that time on it had an impact on what became the U.S. The entire economy of the South was based on slavery which fueled the growth of cash agriculture. It became so ingrained in American culture that the Declaration of Independence would not have passed without references to it being eliminated. It was codified in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise and the ban on touching the slave trade in Congress until 1809. Slavery and its expansion was THE issue that drove the wedge between Americans in antebellum America and the South's desire to maintain it was the primary cause of the Civil War. The Civil War led to Jim Crow which further solidified and codified racism as a system. Moreover, racist practices like redlining in all parts of the country or outright organized state-sponsored purges such as the one in Wilmington NC in 1890 or Tulsa in 1921 led to the marginalization and hindering of the progress of the African American community. The civil rights movement of the 1960's made progress, but did not solve everything. And in fact many of the gains of that era like the voting rights act are now being reversed and gutted. The legacy of Jim Crow, which is the legacy of the Civil War, which is the legacy of the Civil War still exists today.

Not much 'goes without saying' when you're talking about teaching, especially, but not limited to, elementary age students. They simply don't have the context.

What she said.

Plus, should we not include the history of slavery from BC times to now, along with those who sold their families to traders, and Greeks and mideastern folks and indentured servants, yada yada, to include "context", and to illustrate that the US is not the beginning of the problem? At least we're attempting redemption.

Oh, and trafficking. There's that, too.
Hmm. Open borders and internet much?

The point is not the history of slavery and racial discrimination. The point isn't to cast blame. The point is that our country's history of slavery and racial discrimination has very real effects that are quite visible in today's society, and we need to be teaching people how to see those effects.

One straightforward example. Redlining was prevalent shortly after World War II. As a result of that redlining, many, many Black families were shut out of the housing market, when similarly situated white families were able to enter it. And as a result of that outright discrimination (which still exists today, by the way, as many hidden camera studies focused on real estate agents have amply demonstrated), Black families were shut out of a source of generational wealth.

As for context, remember that minority students (particularly Black students) don't have the luxury of waiting until people are comfortable that they understand context. The whole world force-feeds context to them. How long do you think Black families wait before giving their kids, particularly their sons, "The Talk"? --Bob

[Beebs52]

Not much 'goes without saying' when you're talking about teaching, especially, but not limited to, elementary age students. They simply don't have the context.

What she said.

Plus, should we not include the history of slavery from BC times to now, along with those who sold their families to traders, and Greeks and mideastern folks and indentured servants, yada yada, to include "context", and to illustrate that the US is not the beginning of the problem? At least we're attempting redemption.

Oh, and trafficking. There's that, too.
Hmm. Open borders and internet much?

The point is not the history of slavery and racial discrimination. The point isn't to cast blame. The point is that our country's history of slavery and racial discrimination has very real effects that are quite visible in today's society, and we need to be teaching people how to see those effects.

One straightforward example. Redlining was prevalent shortly after World War II. As a result of that redlining, many, many Black families were shut out of the housing market, when similarly situated white families were able to enter it. And as a result of that outright discrimination (which still exists today, by the way, as many hidden camera studies focused on real estate agents have amply demonstrated), Black families were shut out of a source of generational wealth.

As for context, remember that minority students (particularly Black students) don't have the luxury of waiting until people are comfortable that they understand context. The whole world force-feeds context to them. How long do you think Black families wait before giving their kids, particularly their sons, "The Talk"? --Bob

Many many people use this all to cast blame. You are wrong.

Remember when women couldn't get credit cards, the vote, buy a house, oh lotsa stuff.