The history of black people is thoroughly covered in history class. I'm not a proponent of CRT because I don't necessarily agree with it's conclusions but everyone is well aware of slavery and Jim Crow without CRT When I first started posting here I had an argument with you because you said slavery was ancient history. I said it's not ancient, I knew old people who knew former slaves in their childhood. I'm glad you have progressed in your racial awareness but save us the preaching
What do you consider thoroughly covered? For example neither me nor my peers learned anything about the Tulsa Massacre through our high school years. We learned nothing about the Tuskegee experiments.
Those aren't history class subjects. . There is nothing wrong with teaching about them. The purpose of history class is to understand how we got to this point. They are examples of the overall hardships blacks faced but what is necessary to be taught is the big picture. There were plenty of race riots during that period, you need to know all of them. I think that period is forgotten for how bad it was for black people but it isn't necessary to be remembered. We are plenty aware of the hardships and violence blacks faced. It's not racism that people don't know about Tulsa. Events like that are kept in our by organizations formed for that purpose
The Problem With “Systemic Racism” The term obscures rather than elucidates the mechanisms by which inequalities persist. https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-problem-with-systemic-racism excerpt: The Problem With “Systemic Racism” The term obscures rather than elucidates the mechanisms by which inequalities persist. Matt Lutz Jan 24, 2022 In “The Imaginary Invalid,” a play written by the French satirist Molière, a doctor is asked why opium makes people fall asleep. The doctor replies that “there is a dormitive virtue in it, whose nature it is to make the senses drowsy.” In other words, opium makes people fall asleep because it has the power to make people fall asleep. That joke has since become a favorite among philosophers and historians of science because it is a wonderful example of an explanation that doesn’t explain. Rather than provide an understanding of why opium causes sleepiness, it’s a tautology dressed up in jargon. These days, in discussions of race, the term “systemic racism” is everywhere. In the bad old days, the theory goes, racism was personal, a matter of individual racial animus. Personal racism was easy to identify and, thus, easy to stamp out, or at least to drive underground. Why, then, do racial inequalities persist? Believers in systemic racism would say that disparities today are not primarily caused by the racism of people, but by the racism of systems. We have a society that is racist, even if the people in it are not personally racist. But what is systemic racism? NAACP President Derrick Johnson defines it as “systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages [sic] African Americans.” Other definitions are similar: systemic racism is the collective structural features of society that give rise to racial inequalities. But the claim that racial disparities are caused by systemic racism is another tautology dressed up in jargon. What is it about society that creates racial disadvantages? There’s systemic racism in it, whose nature is to make society racially unequal. It’s an explanation that only Molière’s doctor could love. This is not to say that systemic racism doesn’t exist. There are persistent racial disparities in society; those disparities have a cause; therefore, there is systemic racism. But the ease of that proof shows that the concept of “systemic racism” is not a particularly useful analytic concept. It is not entirely useless—the idea that disparate outcomes can result even if no one feels personal racial animus is true and important. But the claim that disparate outcomes are explained by systemic racism provides only a facile illusion of understanding the causes of disparate outcomes. Advocates would claim that focusing on systemic racism can help end racial inequalities. But because the concept of “systemic racism” obscures rather than elucidates the mechanisms by which inequalities persist, a conceptual framework centered on “systemic racism” impedes efforts to dismantle those mechanisms. There is a better way forward. One of the most incisive pieces of journalism to come out of the racial unrest of the last seven years or so was an article on policing practices in Ferguson, Missouri, by Radley Balko at The Washington Post. Balko showed that the St. Louis suburbs had an abnormal municipal structure, as the area around St. Louis was divided into an unusually large number of small towns. This created a massive bureaucratic overhead, as each small town needed to maintain its own set of services, including its own local police department. Some of these towns, like Ferguson, encompassed mostly low-income areas, which meant that there wasn’t a wealthy tax base from which to draw. So the town, and the police department, funded itself by fining its citizens for even the most minor infractions. This exacerbated the impoverished conditions among the predominantly black citizens of Ferguson. It also strained the relationship between the people of Ferguson and the police force, which mostly lived in other, wealthier towns. That fraught dynamic explains, in part, why Ferguson exploded in righteous fury after the 2014 shooting of an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown. (Despite initial reports, the shooting was not cut and dry, and the Obama Department of Justice declined, after an investigation, to prosecute the officer involved). This story documents an instance of systemic racism. And it illustrates a pattern of oppression that isn’t confined to Ferguson: poor towns can’t raise enough money through taxes and have to find ways to extract it from their citizens by other means, exacerbating the cycle of poverty and damaging the relationship between police and citizens. Let’s give that pattern a snappy name and campaign against it: End municipal funding exploitation! Ok, that doesn’t have the same snap as “end systemic racism”—branding isn’t my strong suit. But, as a concept, municipal funding exploitation identifies one of the myriad mechanisms by which racial inequalities endure. Talking about it, and campaigning against it, is likely to do much more good than any campaign to “end systemic racism.” Is there anything to be said for the kind of circular explanation that Molière’s doctor provides? In his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn argues that the doctor in Molière’s play is simply the victim of a paradigm shift. The scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries posited a world where all that exists is atoms in a void, whose interactions are governed by causal laws. According to this paradigm, scientific understanding consists of mechanistic, causal explanations of how those atoms interact to produce all the phenomena around us. This replaced an earlier, Aristotelian scientific paradigm where everything was supposed to have a telos—a goal or purpose built into its essence. For Aristotle, you could explain why something acted the way it did by appealing to its telos. Why do our eyes give us sight? An Aristotelian would answer: because eyes allow the organism to navigate the world. Eyes do what they do because that’s what they are for. From this perspective, Molière’s doctor is giving a perfectly intelligible answer. Opium makes people go to sleep because that’s what opium is for. Molière uses his doctor to lampoon an Aristotelian paradigm from the new perspective afforded by the scientific revolution. Teleological analysis has been out of favor for over a century—it held on stubbornly in biology until Darwinism supplanted it—but the idea of function and purpose still seems intuitive to most people, and we’re apt to try to explain the world in those terms. This instinct, I think, is why so many have found the idea that systemic racism explains racial inequalities to be useful and edifying. It’s a teleological explanation, not a mechanistic one: Black people are disadvantaged in American society because disadvantaging black people is what American society is for. The goal of racial oppression is built into the essence of America. This is arguably the thesis of The New York Times’ 1619 Project. But teleological explanations—whether they appear in physics, biology, or sociology—are no good. Things don’t behave the way they do because they have a purpose built into their essence. They behave the way they do because of underlying mechanisms, the relations between individual atoms that add up to make a system. Of course, in demanding that phenomena be given mechanistic explanations rather than teleological explanations, I’m just endorsing the modern scientific paradigm. But that’s a good paradigm! Scientific progress leaped forward once we embraced the mechanistic paradigm and abandoned the teleological one. Similarly, progress on racial equality can only advance once we’ve abandoned the outmoded teleological paradigm that’s come to dominate contemporary discussions of race. To dismantle the mechanisms that propagate racial disparities, it is not enough to know that they work, we must understand how they work. The concept of “systemic racism” impedes that vital work. Matt Lutz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wuhan University.
Growing up I didn't learn about the Tulsa Massacre or the Rosewood Massacre or any of the other large scale massacres of Black communities. For that matter I didn't learn about the Exclusion Acts on Chinese. I did learn that Blacks were lynched long after slavery was ended but little information about how many were or any specific cases. I didn't hear about Emmet Till until I was in College. I took AP history and did well enough on the AP test to qualify out of taking history in College. What I did learn about was nearly every battle during the Civil War. How much events are needed to get the "big picture"? How are students to know what the big picture is of the hardships of blacks is if we don't know major events such as the Tulsa Massacre? Do we need to know the battle of Manassas II to know the big picture of the Civil War?
LOL!!!! Man you are so correct... My family just had this discussion during the Holidays when they were at most visiting... The only thing these schools teach are Malcom, Martin and Rosa... that is about the just of it... My kids HAD no ideal about all of the inventions that African Americans have made in the past and the things that were done... 1. Rosa Parks was not the first Black to not give up her seat... 2. There was another minister who started civil rights before Dr. King.. There is no teaching about Major Taylor Charles Drew Barbara Jordon Moses Fleetwood Granville Woods Fritz Pollard That is just a few... There are many more.... So for Black History Month, more should be taught than the 5 to 10 that are talked about every year in every grade from 1 to 12.. T_Man
It's not history to learn about historical events? Granted Tulsa was just one race riot, but none of them were ever mentioned. Essentially we were taught, blacks were slaves, civil war was fought, blacks were freed, all was OK.
I do have to add one thing. We did learn that George Washington Carver invented peanut butter (which he didn't actually do).
You are a bit older so civil rights wasn't incorporated. What do you think would be different in your understanding of blacks if you learned of the events you mentioned. Sidenote: CRT isn't history
Youngkin asks Virginia parents to turn in teachers for teaching 'divisive' concepts “Report your kid’s teacher for admitting racism exists” is apparently going to be to 2022 as “report your coworker for communism” was to the early 1950s. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has a freakin’ tip line for people to do just that, he said on a right-wing radio show Monday. Youngkin, a Republican, has signed an executive order banning the teaching of “inherently divisive concepts,” such as “critical race theory and its progeny,” a set of terms so broad as to be meaningless in themselves. The meaning comes in the context: He means anything that upsets white parents. And, in his interview with John Fredericks, he offered up an invitation. “We’re asking for folks to send us reports and observations,” Youngkin said. “Help us be aware of … their child being denied their rights that parents have in Virginia, and we’re going to make sure we catalog it all. … And that gives us further, further ability to make sure we’re rooting it out.”
History class isn't about the plight of any group. Any class like that is advanced or upper level learning. History class does teach why black people are in America and we have been here since the beginning and we came as slaves and it's was difficult to gain equal status. Going into specifics to understand lingering concequences is beyond the objective of history class
In the context of the difficulties of poor blacks, it would be awesome to teach kids of the achievements of blacks beyond gaining civil rights. It would help instill some pride and hope I agree, what we learn is blacks were slaves, there was a war and now we are not. Public school isn't about helping black people. When I type stuff I'm not being harsh , I'm being honest and stating a fact that's not up for debate
Teach how hard it was to suddenly be free, and the challenges with that. Teach how the laws were meant to continue to hold AA down, and not give them equal rights. Teach them the truth about the system and how it has always been skewed against the minorities in this country. Why? So we can ****ING DO BETTER ! DD
There is going to be a huge backlash for Republicans, the more they keep on pushing this topic, the more people are going to realize how racist it is and ludicrous these laws are.
Wait what? So what about the Chinese, Greeks, Egyptions, Spanish, Europeans and American Indians? Those groups are all taught about historically. And history is all about lingering consequences, that's why they say you need to learn History or repeat its mistakes.
Is this the big picture? https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019 Is it outside the realm of education to explain how that happened? Or is it okay to leave it to impressionable kids and their racists parents to just conclude for themselves that "it's because of black culture why they have so much less property and money than us".
I graduated from a Catholic high school in Houston in 1976. Plenty of time to have learned about the strife in the 1960s and other events that happened after the Civil War.
He doesn't get that... History is all about lessons learned no matter the culture... So we are to learn the entire history with Columbus, George Washington, Abe Lincoln whom are all white, but nothing about any other culture especially Black Americans..... Also CRT is a freaking joke from both sides... He is basically white people deciding on both sides of Black History they want taught in the schools... Like some who want to say that the Holocausts was not real and want to deny it... Good Luck Jiggy!!!! T_Man
Egyptian culture leads Greek culture leads to Roman culture leads to Western European culture leads to America. You don't learn much about Chinese culture
