You are evading the point. Yes, other people may give to charity without intending to promote Christ, but Jesus explicitly said that a Christian gives to charity to promote God.
That is part of the basic practice of Critical Theory ideology that I keep urging you to read for yourself.
No. If a teacher combats racism at her school, that is not "teaching CRT".
On what basis are you going to treat an entire people group differently? Not all Indians are alcoholic, not even all Indians who drink become alcoholic. On what basis would you pass laws to treat the entire people group differently?
You're proposing taking government action based on no real information...but the same kind of myth for with thought the government had taken action on a mythological genetic disposition that Indians have for alcoholism. Black people don't have any genetic disposition toward poverty, either, and no government action should be taken as though we do.
If the teacher is using CRT methodology and principles to attain CRT goals (which is not to combat racism, but to combat white people), she is gaslighting when she says she's not "teaching CRT."
Correct, not all who drink will become alcoholic. However a higher percentage do in relation to society as a whole. It is a thorny problem a shaman friend of mine has been grappling with. His worries are less related directly to alcohol but with the root cause of despair on the reservation and how it leads to drug abuse and suicide. His solution was to start an outreach program that had both economic and drug/alcohol awareness programs. These are obviously just ideas but things along these lines are what I am talking about.
Why do you keep going to laws? As I have repeatedly stated I think everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Of course they do not. What they DO have is circumstances that lead to statistical significant differences in outcome. Those are not myths and phantoms. They DO exist.
So you keep saying but I'm not buying it. As you state I need to read the literature for myself but I have a hard time believing your claims in this area.
This reminds me of the lawmaker who exempted Native Americans from wearing flotation devices then it was revealed that Native Americans die of drowning at a higher rate than all other ethnicities
Egads!This reminds me of the lawmaker who exempted Native Americans from wearing flotation devices then it was revealed that Native Americans die of drowning at a higher rate than all other ethnicities
Washington rep exempts Native Americans from life jacket bill because they're 'very used to our cold waters'
A Washington state lawmaker exempted Native Americans from her life jacket bill, suggesting they're less likely to drown due to "eons" of experience with "cold water" in the state.www.foxnews.com
I think parents ought to be able to opt out on anything where schools teach sexual topics. I mean if parents do y want their children to see how a human is created and develops then that's up to them. I agree it's hypocritical to want parental rights to opt out of things but not the things they want involving sex and procreation.
You know what you've just said has been told to many of these posters before. It do any matter. They just keep making the same statements no matter how much or how many times it's been explained to them. They just keep gaslighting.I think what's being described as "culturally relevant teaching" isn't CRT, but there is a degree in overlap with regards to some of the underlying ideas.
Critical Race Theory (based on the ideas of Derrick Bell) could be summarized as follows (Reader's Digest Version)
Racism is baked into all of the institutions of the US, and any proposed "neutral system" is just a guise for racial power since the aforementioned institutions were structured around white people, so any approach that upholds those existing institutions is still racism.
For example, Derrick Bell opposed the Brown v. Board of Education ruling for reasons of (I'm paraphrasing) "removing barriers that prevented black people from being able to participate in the institution, is still racism because that institution was still tailored to white people, so allowing black people easier access to a white-centric institution isn't solving the problem"
What that idea boils down to, in practical terms, is the theory that any system/institution in which you can find a disparity in outcomes between white people and black people, is due to the fact that those systems were designed for white people.
So when schools propose things like lowering grading thresholds, or having different sets of standards for different demographics to alleviate disparity in outcomes... the are, in essence, employing ideas that are an outgrowth of CRT. (even though it's not through direct teaching methods)
But some actually are employing a more direct method of teaching some of those ideas.
GR - Middle Grades | Are.na
Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledgewww.are.na
GR - High School | Are.na
Are.na is a platform for connecting ideas and building knowledge
Like I noted before, there are cities implementing these in their curriculums (like Seattle and NYC...I'm sure there are others), and these recommended reading lists actually contain things from The 1619 project and some of the works of Derrick Bell.
So when people say "They're teaching CRT in schools", the defense of "No they're not, that's a college level course, nobody's teaching that", it's a bit of a semantics game... They may not be teaching the full in-depth college level content, but they're certainly conveying some of the ideas that are a subset of the subject.
Another analogy... Political Science and the study of the various political positions isn't (at least not any in-depth version) taught in middle schools. However, if a middle school civics teacher was adding books by Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises to the reading list, one could certainly say they're delving into that topic a bit, and injecting a certain viewpoint into it... and it would certainly be understandable if some of the parents accurately identified that there was a "pro-libertarian viewpoint" being promoted.
Do you think that's what we are talking about? Just fighting racism? Here's how a teacher fights racism. "We should judge people based upon their character not the color of their skin. No one is more than or less than because of their skin color. In fact what defines us is how we treat others. If we think we are superior because of our skin color then we are the ones with poor character. If we think other people deserve to be discriminated against because of their skin color then we are the ones of poor character. If we think someone is inherently racist because of their skin color then we are the ones of poor character. Don't judge your fellow man by the color of their skin. It's the actions of the person that defines them and you.",
That's the question, isn't it? What I hear from you is what I hear from many conservatives--that public school students are being taught that white people are inherently and permanently racist. Maybe you are right and it is going on, but it is certainly not happening in schools around me and is not to be found in the curriculum.
I'll put true charity down on my list of things that aren't the province of Christians/Christianity. If you only do it to "promote God" then is it really charity or just an investment in propagation of your religion?
Yes it's a add on to the alphabet soup. 2S is the Native American version of transgender Native Americans concocted by some activists in Manitoba during the gathering of Native American LGBT people. It's was made up by them somehow try and note the Native Americans recognized gender and sex differences.
