Why do you even imagine I would be arguing against history?
Why did you think I was saying you were?
I'm arguing against your mistaken and rather silly assumption that history has nothing to do with critical race theory. They're not separate academic disciplines. One is an academic discipline and the other is a theoretical approach.
Does CRT come under history or social sciences?
It's a simple question. One may not be isolated from the other, but how would you categorize it?
Do you learn about these things in the context of a historical racism that continues into the present, or did you learn about them as abstract, anomalous events with no cause and no significance?
Moreso the former, none the latter.
I think we can both agree that history isn't just anamolous events.
Do we teach racism as a historical anomaly, or did we teach racism as it actually, factually is, as a necessary part of explaining the society we live in.
Well clearly racism isn't a historical anomoly, since it's pretty much ingrained in the majority of human societies. In-group/out-group bias develops as early as 6 months of age IIRC.
Does our education system have a responsibility to allow people to feel good about the society they live in and proud of its supposed achievements, or do we have a greater obligation to the truth?
The latter.
That is the real question which is at stake in this "critical race theory" debate, because let's be real. Noone is actually talking about academic critical race theory because noone has read it. Including you.
If CRT had remained on the academic level, none of us would be debating it here at all.
To be honest, this still just sounds like a whole lot of white people feeling bad.
Really?
So 2+2 can equal 5, based on "alternate ways of knowing?"
We SHOULD embrace "lived experience" as being the equivalent of statistical evidence?
We SHOULD believe that racial groups are inherently suited towards different styles of learning based on inherent traits?
Students are already divided by race.
How, and where? Certainly not legally, bar the examples I've already cited.
It's likely that they will have experienced division on the basis of race since before they could speak.
Again, how? Are you referring to how different ethnic groups will generally form enclaves?
Standing in front of a class of children and trying to teach them about racism while pretending that they will have all had the same experience of racism is the absolute peak of white fragility. Imagine trying to teach racism while being afraid to acknowledge its existence.
Sorry, what does any of that have to do with separating students and meetings?
You can teach racism to a group of students, acknowledge that some are more at risk than others, and not deny its existence.
Bam. Solved it for you.
You literally can't teach CRT at primary school level.
You'd struggle to teach it to most undergraduates.
Literally can't teach practically, or legally? Because either way, it's being taught on the K-12 level.
Again, we're talking about an entirely unrelated series of debates. One is whether history education should be framed in such a way as to present the nation in the best possible light. This one is frankly ancient, and has been going on since at least the 60s.
Yes, history wars. Congratulations. You're talking about every country, ever, and the desire to focus on the good, and whitewash the bad. This isn't some new revelation.
The other is about the use and effectiveness of anti-bias programmes in primary school education. The thing is though, cherry picking examples of anti-bias education being applied inappropriately (or, at the very least, in a ways conservative parents don't like) does not really attest to its ineffectiveness, particularly when compared to the unacknowledged alternative.
Anti-bias training for young children exists for a reason, it exists because most young children clearly exhibit biases, including racial biases, which reflect the historical racial hierarchy in which they live. Why do you automatically assume that's a less serious problem than the vague possibility of anti bias education being applied crudely or inappropriately?
The alternative to segregating students based on race is to not segregate them. Pretty decent alternative. Certainly one I've used when conducting children's activities.
As for anti-bias training, first, anti-bias training is at best useless and at worst counter-productive. Best case results usually linger only a few days. Worst case results make the one who undertook it more biased. It's the "don't think of elephants" paradox in action.
You don't think that if efforts are having a backfire effect, that isn't cause for concern? You don't think it's slightly puzzling that in the 60s, people marched against segregation in the US, only for people to ask for it to be brought back in the 21st century? You don't think it's weird to see Afro-American teachers stress the need for segregated teaching because "black students learn differently from white and Asian students," which, half a century ago, would be the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a white supremacist?
I'm going to be real here, and this could just as easily apply to the cancel culture thing. This is just the same recycled anti-SJW nonsense we've been dealing with for nearly a decade now.
Yes, anti-SJWs (or SQWs) have engaged in cancel culture. I don't give anyone a pass for carrying it out based on where they fall in the political spectrum (or anything else).
There's always going to be some imaginary attack on logic and reason.
Again, I'd like to remind you about the 2+2=5, the need for "different ways of knowing," "my truth," that "objective, rational thinking" are hallmarks of "white culture" debacle (I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who'd disagree, not least of whom come from East Asia), the Grievance Studies Affair, the Science Must Fall affair, the critique or very rejection on the concept of meritocracy, etc. Doesn't critical theory expressly reject the idea of objective truths?
Yes, there's always been an attack on logic and reason, and a lot of times, it wasn't imaginary. We saw it in the end of the Islamic Golden Age, we saw it in the counter-Enlightenment, we saw it in the 90s with the "Science Wars," we saw it in the 2000s with the push for Intelligent Design, and we're seeing it now. When logic and reason are demonized, I don't care who's doing it, there's no scenario where logic and reason can be considered negatives, and there's no scenario where degrading logic and reason ends well for society.
Granted, I say "we," when a lot of this was confided to the US, but the world doesn't operate in a vacuum.
There's always going to be cherry picked, misrepresented examples which can be milked for cringe content. This is just how the right works now. It's predictable, and obvious, and it's sad that you can't see through it.
Frankly, it's how everyone works. What's sad is that you think that such behaviour is only reserved for one segment of society.
en.wikipedia.org
www.popularmechanics.com
www.cfr.org
www.ft.com
