Texas Senate bill drops teaching requirement that Ku Klux Klan is "morally wrong"

[Edge-]

And why you do not explain how I am wrong in my claim ? You surely have that possiblity.

Because you have yet to establish that your claim has any merit to begin with. You've made some vague complaint without actually connecting it to anything within CRT. Show us some examples and we can have a discussion.

[Milchshake]

https://www.newsweek.com/critical-ra...pinion-1608984

this shit is what's being taught.

How to tell us that you shill for The Federalist, without telling us that you shill for the Federalist. Basically lying by omissions.

Who is Helen Raleigh: https://thefederalist.com/author/helenraleigh/
Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired.” Follow her on Parler and Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.


Newsweek omitted that part of her bio ... on purpose ... for reasons...


I'm betting house odds, you guys got alerted to her article from Parler

[Specialka]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53294013

Already done. Not repeating myself.

If you think avoiding topics like systemic racism or intersectionality is part of "teaching history", then what you're talking about is indoctrinating people into white supremacist propaganda, not teaching history.



You haven't made a claim. You just complained that CRT was "bad".

Here's a concrete and complete debunking of that argument; "nuh uh".

You want more than that? Have actual objections you can put in words.

No, I complained that CRT has nothing to do with history but a lot with ideology. I guess you read only what fit your agenda.

[Alex Moriati]

How to tell us that you shill for The Federalist, without telling us that you shill for the Federalist. Basically lying by omissions.

Who is Helen Raleigh: https://thefederalist.com/author/helenraleigh/
Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired.” Follow her on Parler and Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.


Newsweek omitted that part of her bio ... on purpose ... for reasons...


I'm betting house odds, you guys got alerted to her article from Parler

what the fuck are you even talking about? did you even click the link?

no, of course you did not. kenny xu wrote this. not helen raleigh.

[Bodakane]

No, I complained that CRT has nothing to do with history but a lot with ideology. I guess you read only what fit your agenda.

Like what specifically? Jesus. If CRT is so fucking bad, you should be able to easily articulate why with specifics. But not one person against has. Not. One.

[Endus]

No, I complained that CRT has nothing to do with history but a lot with ideology. I guess you read only what fit your agenda.

Running a search for "ideology" in this thread turns up no posts by you save for this one.

Also, "nuh uh". You're wrong, and have no basis whatsoever for this. In fact, going by the definition of CRT I linked you to from my earlier post, it's not even understandable as an argument, since CRT is a methodology for understanding history.

And saying "but it's ideological is just patent nonsense, since nearly everything is ideological. Including history itself. Rejecting its conclusions because of your ideology means you're engaging in extremism and propagandizing, not argument.

C'mon. Just one actual, meaningful objection to the methodology of CRT. Just one. Surely that should be easy, if you think it's so obviously "wrong".

[Milchshake]

what the fuck are you even talking about? did you even click the link?

no, of course you did not. kenny xu wrote this. not helen raleigh.

Kenny Xu!

Also on PArler
Also on at CPAC 2021!


Remember kids, when you see Epoch Times, open the link incognito.

[Specialka]

Running a search for "ideology" in this thread turns up no posts by you save for this one.

Also, "nuh uh". You're wrong, and have no basis whatsoever for this. In fact, going by the definition of CRT I linked you to from my earlier post, it's not even understandable as an argument, since CRT is a methodology for understanding history.

And saying "but it's ideological is just patent nonsense, since nearly everything is ideological. Including history itself. Rejecting its conclusions because of your ideology means you're engaging in extremism and propagandizing, not argument.

C'mon. Just one actual, meaningful objection to the methodology of CRT. Just one. Surely that should be easy, if you think it's so obviously "wrong".

As I said earlier, you can't read. I said that looking at history though race is not studying history or teaching history.

[Bodakane]

As I said earlier, you can't read. I said that looking at history though race is not studying history or teaching history.

1. Bullshit.
2. But why do you say that? Give fucking specifics.

[Edge-]

I said that looking at history though race is not studying history or teaching history.

Why is factoring race into history not studying or teaching history? Given that it's a pretty important element of a great amount of US history - from slavery to the Reconstruction, to Jim Crow, to Civil Rights, to the Chinese Exclusion Act, to the Tulsa Race Massacre, to the much more recent history of red-lining, to the systemic codification of racism into our laws (crack vs. powdered cocaine sentencing disparities)?

Does all that stuff like...not factor into history and should be ignored? Or is that a part of history that we should learn about and know so that we can understand US history with better context?

[Alex Moriati]

Kenny Xu!

Also on PArler
Also on at CPAC 2021!


Remember kids, when you see Epoch Times, open the link incognito.

so you didn't read the text. ok. thanks for the confirmation, i'll just not ever have to read your posts again.

[Endus]

As I said earlier, you can't read. I said that looking at history though race is not studying history or teaching history.

Not only is it history, it's fundamentally necessary to properly understanding history. You'd have us believe we shouldn't look at the history of slavery in the USA with an eye to have race was involved? That's propagandizing, not teaching history.

You have no argument. You're just blindly pushing ideology.

[uuuhname]

so you didn't read the text. ok. thanks for the confirmation, i'll just not ever have to read your posts again.

it's an opinion piece dude, the only point of them is to push a narrative. their opinions on CRT have as much merit as any poster in this forum...

[Edge-]

it's an opinion piece dude, the only point of them is to push a narrative. their opinions on CRT have as much merit as any poster in this forum...

An opinion piece...shilling his book. That doesn't actually address any specifics within CRT. Weird that people wouldn't take this guy with a personal financial interest in this narrative at face-value!

- - - Updated - - -

indentured servitude is slavery as well though...

And it has been, and should still be, taught alongside the history of slavery, which is unarguably far, far worse and more bloody/brutal. I doubt you'll find any opposition to teaching that many people came to the colonies as indentured servants. But it didn't play as significant a role in the origins of the US as slavery did.

[Endus]

indentured servitude is slavery as well though...

But different from chattel slavery in some very significant ways, most of which can be tied to race, in the example of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Noting that there are many forms of slavery is not a counterpoint to anything I said. In fact, noting the racial component helps inform your understanding of the issue of slavery and the variety of forms it took, and why.

[uuuhname]

An opinion piece...shilling his book. That doesn't actually address any specifics within CRT. Weird that people wouldn't take this guy with a personal financial interest in this narrative at face-value!

well, the guy seems to believe what he wrote, which isn't great. he complains about the erasure of Asian voices but is president of a group that explicitly wants to erase the topic of race all together...

[Specialka]

Not only is it history, it's fundamentally necessary to properly understanding history. You'd have us believe we shouldn't look at the history of slavery in the USA with an eye to have race was involved? That's propagandizing, not teaching history.

You have no argument. You're just blindly pushing ideology.

Sure, asking to teach or study history without any kind of biais (what CRT is) is pushing ideology now. I guess you learn something new everyday!

[Edge-]

Sure, asking to teach or study history without any kind of biais (what CRT is) is pushing ideology now.

Asking teachers to specifically ignore the importance and impact or race on US history is pushing an ideology. The same ideologies that the revisionist, whitewashed history of the US have taught for generations about how American history is all sunshine and roses and we're the "City on the Hill".

Teaching kids a more accurate representation of our history allows us to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. Just as Germany focusing on teaching children the horrors of the Nazi party and the Holocaust is designed with the same goal. It's not teaching them to "hate Germany", it's teaching them the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them in the future.

[uuuhname]

Sure, asking to teach or study history without any kind of biais (what CRT is) is pushing ideology now. I guess you learn something new everyday!

shocking how college kids get to choose the things they learn and want to focus on in history. be it "biased" or not, it's their choice to want to peruse those studies. get the fuck over it dude.

[Specialka]

Asking teachers to specifically ignore the importance and impact or race on US history is pushing an ideology. The same ideologies that the revisionist, whitewashed history of the US have taught for generations about how American history is all sunshine and roses and we're the "City on the Hill".

Teaching kids a more accurate representation of our history allows us to hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. Just as Germany focusing on teaching children the horrors of the Nazi party and the Holocaust is designed with the same goal. It's not teaching them to "hate Germany", it's teaching them the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them in the future.

And you do not need CRT to achieve that. That is all I am saying.