• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

Dear Tucker Carlson,
Hey Tuck, I just got done watching a segment of your show. You know, the one where you suggest that there should be a camera in every classroom in order to root out…let me get this accurate…”civilization ending poison.” https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1412566208763895810
I’m going to zig where you thought most teachers would zag. I welcome your Orwellian cameras in my classroom. Frankly, I don’t know many teachers who would object to having people watch what we do. As a matter of fact, I hate to tell you this Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, but most of us spent the last year having video cameras in our classrooms.
Click to expand...

What happens in America’s classrooms is teaching and learning. Your “spy cameras” will see teachers and students working together to be better every day. I’ll tell you what I saw on a tour of classrooms not that long ago. I saw a group of kindergartners trying to create bridges over running water with basic classroom supplies in a lesson about collaboration. I saw a high school literature class talking about the character development in The Glass Menagerie. I saw a middle school history class participating in group project where they had to solve problems in a fictional city, with specifics of how they would utilize resources and build public support for their projects. Anyone watching your cameras will see learning…all day every day.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I’ve never been able to figure out, instead of dreaming up Orwellian plans to have Big Brother in all of our classrooms, why you don’t round up an army of bright young conservatives to actually step up and teach? Is it because teachers work hard, aren’t paid as much as those with similar educational backgrounds, don’t have support from our elected officials, constantly serve as punching bags for those who don’t understand public education, or is it just because it’s easier to throw rocks at a house than to build one?
Click to expand...

With all of that being said, count me on the cameras Tucky. Like many teachers, I’m in the early stages of understanding Critical Race Theory (most of us hadn’t heard about it until you and your people started crying about it), but if you find me teaching it, have one of the Tucker Youth watching your surveillance devices let me know. If Critical Race Theory involves talking honestly about American history, I’m probably doing that sometimes. I spent much of the last six years advocating for a way for teaching to become more transparent, and in the dumbest way possible, you are joining that crusade. Let’s make this happen TV Dinner Boy.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Kearney
Click to expand...

https://patrickjkearney.wordpress.com/2021/07/07/dear-tucker-carlson/
 
06deacon said:
Idk if that’d go how you think. Charismatic conservatives have been successfully “debating” without the constraints of facts, logic or shame for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Eh, it is a strategy that works because most Democrats are Charmin soft.

I would belittle and shame these cowards into an early grave.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Conservatives successfully own issues that Democrats are afraid to affirmatively address on behalf of marginalized peoples.

How many Democrats have come out with a statement on this CRT issue beyond simply refuting Republicans? Not many at all.
 
BillBrasky said:
I skimmed through the first linked Atlantic article, which was refuting a portion of an extreme version of a BLM curriculum.

“Anyone” seems a reach since Somerset led to massive confusion over the status of slaves in Britain and other colonies. I agree that slavery wasn’t going to be immediately ended in the British Americas, but the creep towards abolition had begun. And knowing how reactionary our founding fathers were (I mean Christ just look how much they overreacted to tiny tax increases, most of which were retracted) it’s not a wild leap to suggest that many we’re concerned about the end of salutary neglect and how it could effect slavery and the continental economic ecosystem.

It’s not insane to theorize that many of our founders were concerned about the long term viability of the plantation economy under British rule.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the standard for whether something occurred in history is "it's not insane to theorize." I would have thought it would be something like "we have contemporaneous texts to support the notion that" or some such.

On that point, here's The Atlantic article I was referring to: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/

Try the Politico article too: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248. I'll post the takeaway again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America....

Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war....

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619....

Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies. More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition....
Click to expand...

If you have evidence the colonialists were worried about the implications of Somerset on slavery in the 13 colonies, by all means come forward with it. There are lot of historians would like to see it.
 
Conservatives love to read critiques of things they don’t like and parrot those opinions. Guaranteed these are Gotcha links going around in conservative social media circles.
 
PhDeac said:
Conservatives love to read critiques of things they don’t like and parrot those opinions. Guaranteed these are Gotcha links going around in conservative social media circles.
Click to expand...

lol

Read more. Post less.
 
WakeBored said:
Interesting that the standard for whether something occurred in history is "it's not insane to theorize." I would have thought it would be something like "we have contemporaneous texts to support the notion that" or some such.

On that point, here's The Atlantic article I was referring to: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/

Try the Politico article too: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248. I'll post the takeaway again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:



If you have evidence the colonialists were worried about the implications of Somerset on slavery in the 13 colonies, by all means come forward with it. There are lot of historians would like to see it.
Click to expand...

How about the Virginia royal governor threatening to free all the slaves if the colonists didn’t back down in 1775? You don’t think that was taken seriously by the plantation class, aka the future signers?

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...rimary-source/lord-dunmores-proclamation-1775

Or the pro-independence propaganda machine which threatened that the British would unleash the “savages and negroes” on white colonists if they didn’t fight back?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-revolts-drive-american-independence.amp.html
 
Again I’m not arguing her thesis is perfect, but it’s not entirely implausible. Protecting personal property, which included slaves, was the principal motivation of most of the signors of the Declaration.

Its certainty not worthy of this bullshit controversy that’s been stirred up in order to defame a woman of color and to rile up white supremacists like yourself.
 
again, the idea that pursuing and protecting self-determination wouldn't include "protecting our ability to trade in slaves" is fucking hilarious
 
BillBrasky said:
How about the Virginia royal governor threatening to free all the slaves if the colonists didn’t back down in 1775? You don’t think that was taken seriously by the plantation class, aka the future signers?

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...rimary-source/lord-dunmores-proclamation-1775

Or the pro-independence propaganda machine which threatened that the British would unleash the “savages and negroes” on white colonists if they didn’t fight back?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-revolts-drive-american-independence.amp.html
Click to expand...

So your position is (1) Virginian colonialists were on the verge of open revolt, (2) in response, the Virginia royal governor threatened to free the colonialists' slaves, and (3) therefore, the colonialists were on the verge of open revolt because the Virginia royal governor had threatened to free the slaves?

Remind me: Where did you get your PhD?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
again, the idea that pursuing and protecting self-determination wouldn't include "protecting our ability to trade in slaves" is fucking hilarious
Click to expand...

Again (and for the last time, from me, anyway), the idea that the crown was interfering with colonialists' ability to trade in slaves is make-believe.
 
Gotta love republicans getting up set about make believe ideas on a thread where they claim critical race theory is rampant in American schools and is dangerous to America.
 
Since my son is only 1 and a half, pretty stoked to see what kind of stuff he gets to learn by the time time he gets to what ever grade levels start teaching CRT. Suck it, racists.
 
Jesus Fucking Christ the last few posts are rich, even if we go with Brasky and others are full of shit this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top