Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I got sent that this morning.

 

I teach with a guy, old dude, he doesn't tell his wife when have a day off, other than the obvious days of course, so that he can pretend he has to teach, then he comes up to school and just enjoys his quiet time.

  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment

3 hours ago, nic said:

Everyone is a unique individual with a unique background. Who said anything about leaving their identity behind?… Unless they chose to I guess.

My point is MLK isn’t asking for color blindness like many people try to make that speech about.

 

Race and religions are part of our identities.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Looking at your posting history, and what you choose to share here, that seems... interesting.

 

How would you say Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech has shaped the things you choose to share here?

I have to admit I am not sure what you are asking or what posting history you are eluding too. I have posted about MLK before in other threads and they should be consistent. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, nic said:

No  speech from MLK is off limits. When and where was this one given? Also I, doubt anyone here would agree 100% with someone else, but hopefully our kids are taught to critically think about issues and they have the freedom to openly debate them if they wish.

 

 

Good for you. Unfortunately, the content of much of MLK's public work is such that if he were an activist alive today the accusations of CRT would be hurled at him nonstop.

 

As far as these speeches, I'd recommend reading Letters from Birmingham Jail, and Beyond Vietnam to start. MLK was a radical activist and was disliked by over 90% of white Americans in the 60's.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/22/2022 at 1:10 PM, funhusker said:

My point is MLK isn’t asking for color blindness like many people try to make that speech about.

 

Race and religions are part of our identities.

He is speaking in terms of unifying the races, not dividing them. Most of what I hear today is about division.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

6 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes the title is misleading. But since you’re the one posting the article why didn’t you read it and realize it is instead of asking?

I did read it…and yes I knew the answer to the question before asking. :D It is odd that CNN would write that headline when the MO is to deny that anything related to CRT is being taught. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, nic said:

I did read it…and yes I knew the answer to the question before asking. :D It is odd that CNN would write that headline when the MO is to deny that anything related to CRT is being taught. 

 

 

Nothing in this article is evidence that CRT was taught before the ban. I don’t think you read the article very carefully. The plaintiffs aren’t saying (at least in this article) they’re challenging it because they want CRT to be taught. There is more to the law than banning CRT. The misleading part of the title is that it makes it sound like it’s all about CRT when it isn’t. 

 

Quote

(CNN)Four families are suing an Ohio school board to challenge a ban on race-based education and staff training in the latest court battle over attempts to suppress anti-racism education in American classrooms.


The Forest Hills School District Board of Education, east of Cincinnati, passed a resolution in June prohibiting teaching of critical race theory, anti-racism, identity and intersectionality to promote what it calls a "culture of kindness."

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

12 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Nothing in this article is evidence that CRT was taught before the ban. I don’t think you read the article very carefully. The plaintiffs aren’t saying (at least in this article) they’re challenging it because they want CRT to be taught. There is more to the law than banning CRT. The misleading part of the title is that it makes it sound like it’s all about CRT when it isn’t. 

 

I was making fun of the title from CNN which implied they were sueing to keep CRT in schools. This plays into the thought that elements of CRT are being taught in schools and I thought that was funny and dumbof them to do. I read the article but now I think it's funny that people are sensitive to this.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, nic said:

I was making fun of the title from CNN which implied they were sueing to keep CRT in schools. This plays into the thought that elements of CRT are being taught in schools and I thought that was funny and dumbof them to do. I read the article but now I think it's funny that people are sensitive to this.

 

 

 

"Families sue Ohio school board over critical race theory ban" isn't the hilarious implication you think it is.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

I have no idea what is in these books. The article didn’t say. It is ironic that Facebook took down the content though. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-school-districts-disciplined-allegedly-violating-critical-race-theory-ban

 

Walters made a Facebook post about the two books, "Gender Queer" and "Flamer," drawing attention to the graphic nature of their content, but his post was taken down by Facebook. The social media site said the material in the post was too graphic.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, nic said:

I have no idea what is in these books. The article didn’t say. It is ironic that Facebook took down the content though. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oklahoma-school-districts-disciplined-allegedly-violating-critical-race-theory-ban

 

Walters made a Facebook post about the two books, "Gender Queer" and "Flamer," drawing attention to the graphic nature of their content, but his post was taken down by Facebook. The social media site said the material in the post was too graphic.

I’d say go to your library and borrow them.

 

I just might now. I googled them and they seem very well received.

 

edit: I can see why folks could be upset if they are required reading.  But the article just says the school made them “available”.  No kid is going looking for a book like this unless they have a reason to.

 

Sounds like Karen might have had a conversation with little Johnny about his “friend” that she didn’t like 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I’d say go to your library and borrow them.

 

I just might now. I googled them and they seem very well received.

 

edit: I can see why folks could be upset if they are required reading.  But the article just says the school made them “available”.  No kid is going looking for a book like this unless they have a reason to.

 

Sounds like Karen might have had a conversation with little Johnny about his “friend” that she didn’t like 

I am more  curious what excerpt from the books the board member’s post contained and why Facebook deemed it inappropriate. 

Was it an accurate excerpt? I do not know. 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...