I am so interested in this topic. First, can you tell me what it means? Does it mean that the pre-existing curriculum -- whatever it was -- was necessarily racist and must be undone?
Our school has never published an anti-racism curriculum that I'm aware of (NYC public middle school). They do discuss and process current events. In my dd's ELA class they are just finishing up reading and writing about the book "The Hate U Give" which has themes about institutional racism. All of these things I'm very happy with. Why are you asking?
I'm Jewish -- and all I can say is I'm happy we are not in California. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/california-ethnic-studies-curriculum
I definitely think we need an overhaul of the way we talk about racism and blakc history, but man, the initiatives I have seen up to this point seem to be pushed by deranged white liberals, lack historical accuracy and context and are going to do more harm than good.
The kids in our Brooklyn private have had an amazing anti-racism curriculum. They've been able to study everything, from all sides, from all perspectives. I'm unclear as to why this seems to be so hard?
No idea why it's so hard. But with schools In California named after Abraham Lincoln having their names stripped... it sure does seem like the whole issue is posing challenges that schools are not meeting properly.
I think calling it an "anti-racist" curriculum is triggering people, but tackling a deeply embedded cultural POV is going to be unavoidably uncomfortable for those who really see their norms as the cultural baseline.
Anonymous: it sounds like you know what you're talking about -- so -- what the heck is "affinity based class placement"? Sounds like segregation, but can't be!
I would love to hear from you what anti-racist means. To me, it's super inflammatory and totally unhelpful, like defunding the police. It just makes people focus on the words and not on what it's trying to accomplish.
@anonymous I do not know what that translates into in this particular school. I would guess it means placing children who are under-represented in a school as a whole with other children who share some cultural affinity with them in the same classroom. It is hard being an "only." It doesn't mean segregation.
Some of the comments above state what anti-racism *should* be. The problem is that it is evolving in a religion that rejects any dialogue. If you disagree with any of its specific proposals, it's because it makes you uncomfortable, which proves you are racist and you have to do the "work". Therefore anything anti-racists propose is correct. See the problem here?
@Anonymous The pendulum is still swinging -- further and further. At some point people will wake up and say no, this is too much, tearing everything down is not the answer. This, from Clarence Jones, about the ESMC (Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum). (I hope NY has a Clarence Jones to speak up).
(sorry in advance, bit of a ramble, lol. Feel free to skip)
Our Brooklyn private is small, so it was easier for us to develop a curriculum that encouraged the kids to really think.
When I was a kid, it was MORTIFYING to be the only black child in the classroom in my Westchester elementary school when they taught us about slavery and the Civil War. Want to know how bad it was? They had me play a slave in the school play, but I was a "smart slave" who could read and told my master about the Emancipation Proclamation. I will never forgot the shock, dismay and rage that spread across my parents' faces. I can still hear the ragestorm they unleashed on the school administration, lol.
My child's school is addressing how systemic racism has made it so much harder for African American people to achieve. They've addressed the oft-repeated, passive aggressive, "Well, look how successful Asians are. Why can't blacks be like that?" Kids in my child's class know that barriers have been built since the end of the Civil War specifically to keep African Americans people down and out. That's not an opinion, that's simply fact. Sort of like how financial institutions have been built to keep the little guy out of the club (See GameStop, RobinHood, etc). The fact that so many African Americans have succeeded in SPITE of all of the barriers is simply miraculous.
The kids in our school are not taught in a "white people are bad!!" way. They're simply shown the facts. They're asked to debate both sides. For instance, you can't just say Dr. Seuss was a racist. You have to back up your opinion. Enjoy the books (or not) and explain how the author may have been problematic at a certain time in history. Explain how that makes it possible or impossible for you to enjoy his work. And no one is ever told they're wrong.
Do you know the mental gymnastics people of color have had to go through to enjoy famous authors, historical works, and lauded filmmakers with questionable pasts? It's like being a woman and loving Woody Allen films and then finding out he's actually a vile, revolting human.
It's time for EVERYONE to feel that discomfort so that we are honest with ourselves about the past so that we can move forward.
Is it uncomfortable? Of course! It's uncomfortable for ALL of us in different ways. These are difficult conversations, but they need to be had. We will continue to have horrifically uneducated lunatics like Marjorie and Lauren (really, guys!??) getting elected if we're not honest about the past. (And I dare anyone to come in and defend those loons, lol)
Overhearing the kids in my child's class talk, I truly think they're better than us. They're smarter, and they're more open to alternate ideas. They're pretty disgusted at the world we've built for them.
Who are Marjorie and Lauren? The problem I have with all of this is that the only thing kids ever learn about AAs is oppression. Oppression, barriers, violence, less than, etc. There is insufficient attention to the contributions all ethnic groups have made to make the country and the world what it is. That seems so much more important to me than pointing out people's racism.
I'm a new poster and I generally avoid political discussions, but I feel I have to jump in here. Your comments are mainly a regurgitation of standard anti-racism talking points and it appears you don't even try to understand other viewpoints.
In response to the previous poster's reference to the holocaust, you say "all whites have privilege by virtue of their skin color. They can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else." This is facile, and frankly, an age-old anti-semitic meme. It fits in well with the views during the Inquisition - Jews need fear no harm as long as they just renounce their religion. Of course, in practice, even this proved false as the "new Christians" continued to be persecuted. Do you realize how abhorrent it is to say Jews can avoid anti-semitism just by renouncing their most fervent beliefs?
Have you bothered to look at the hate crime statistics in New York? There are more anti-semitic incidents than there are hate crimes against all other groups combined. This ranges the gamut from painting of swastikas on synagogues to assault and murder. And the attacks come from the full spectrum of demographic sectors - white nationalists to POC. When Christians attend mass in New York, do they have to go through metal detectors? This is now standard practice in New York synagogues - sometimes waiting in long lines in the rain waiting for everyone to be screened (at least pre-Covid). Jewish children as young as nursery school are taught what to do in an active shooter situation. But according to you, this can be ignored because Jews can just reinvent themselves.
You have the audacity to say "You've just never been on the receiving end before so you didn't notice." It seems to me that you are the one who really hasn't noticed.
No one said anything about anyone renouncing religion, Jewish or otherwise. I never once said that. You did.
Nor did anyone say anything about ignoring hate crime statistics. You are the only one who has said that.
The point I am making is based in historical fact. What HAS happened. Not what I think should happen. What actually has happened. And it shows that skin color affords privileges. There really is no dispute about that. Or there shouldn’t be at this stage.
Take a look at new york’s history during the industrial era in particular. To deal with rampant anti-semitism, some Jewish people held firm to their beliefs, they just didn’t advertise them. And then, when their anti-Semitic employers realized they were good people and good workers, their hearts and minds softened. To be expected since knowledge has a way of reducing ignorance.
No one is saying anti semitism is ok. The point is simply that a person of color would never even get the chance to be hired because race can be visible and highly immutable.
I'm sorry, but your reply is disingenuous and you are walking away from the clear implications of your words. You dismissed the poster's reference to the Holocaust by saying Jewish people can "can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else." That is a really unfortunate comment on your part. Now saying that all you meant is that Jews just didn't "advertise" their religion is quite the rowback.
You claim you didn't ignore hate crime statistics. I don't know how you square this with your comment "You've just never been on the receiving end before". It shows an unfortunately blinkered mindset. Just look at the facts.
I wrote the post and I’m telling you that you are misinterpreting. This is not a thread about religion. It’s a thread about race. I am more familiar with the horrors of the holocaust than you likely would imagine. So you are wrong about my knowledge and intentions. Your emotions on this issue seem to be causing you to see things in a specific way that I am telling you is incorrect. If you want to persist in misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said, there is really nothing I can do.
@Anonymous Your words were clear and unambiguous (and unfortunate). I understand why you are now claiming misinterpretation but you are not fooling anyone. There is a consistent pattern of anti-racist activists minimizing anti-semitism - just look at the links to California's ESMC posted by others above. And anyone who is as well versed in intersectionality as you clearly are, knows you cannot look at racism apart from religion. If I am mistaken, and you don't believe in intersectionality, I apologize.
@test There was nothing unfortunate about what I said, which is that skin color confers a certain level of privilege that AAs have not historically been able to access since skin color and other physical traits are immutable. That's a documented fact. I'm not even sure how it's a question. What's unfortunate is not what I said, it's the layering over what I said that you're doing, and your conferral of negative intent over what I said, that's unfortunate. You are reading what I'm saying but because of your own hurt and pain, it seems you cannot really hear me or even understand what I said any other way than the way you've chosen to understand it. Such is the nature of historical pain, and it's what makes these conversations difficult to have.
I have never one time minimized anti-Semitism. You know nothing about me, but it's simply not true that I have done that or that I would.
Finally, I do not think it can be true that racism cannot exist apart from religion. Of course it can. Look at the history of the South. Both AAs and their historical tormentors like slaveholders and proponents of Jim Crow, etc., were all Christians.
This is not about anti-racist curriculum, but very related. It's by a Latino legal scholar at Berkeley who has researched extensively. In short, his message is: racism thrives on the us vs them fear. Its fundamental belief and message is that groups are enemies. So does anti-racism. Antiracists also believe that groups are enemies, but ask you to be with the other group for moral reasons. Here comes the important bit. This message doesn't work. It backfires. That's his answer as to why a non-negligible percent of Hispanic voters turned to the person-I-won't-name. His data show that the only message that appeals broadly is "we are all in this together".
I completely agree with this. I don't think the best way through this morass is to call everyone a racist because it assumes a power structure that shouldn't exist in the first place. Better for us to understand that we have all made really important, life-changing contributions, and there are more similarities than differences. And once that's been instilled get into the ways that institutional and structural racism might impede that. I don't think it helps to minimize others to elevate yourself. Just elevate yourself. Even if, historically, there was a ton of minimization going on.
If you are standing behind your offensive comments that Jews can just "reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else" (not recognizing the long historical connotations of these sentiments) and that "You've just never been on the receiving end before", there is really nothing more I have to say to you.
Oh, and your comment on the history of South spectacularly misses the point on intersectionality. Maybe you are not as well versed on the topic as I credited you.
My post was never about Jews to begin with. It was about white people -- about RACE. Others made it about religion, perhaps because of the intersectionality point, which was not mine. You are intent on seeing anti-semitism where it doesn't exist, so, given that, you're right that we can't really converse further.
I don't know how my comments on the South miss the point on intersectionality. The point is that racism can absolutely be addressed separately from religion. Most of the anti-racism initiatives are targeted toward remedying discrimination against AAs, so this really is a racial issue first and foremost.
So then quite simply you are saying you don't believe in intersectionality. The whole basis of the framework is that you can't look at race (or any other factor) independent of the other aspects of a person's social and political identities. That's fine, but surprising for someone who appears to fully on board with critical race theory.
I know your post was never about religion. But when someone mentioned the holocaust you fobbed it off with your offensive comment about reinventing themselves, change their names, be someone else. Maybe treat this as a learning opportunity.
@test I didn't fob anything off about the Holocaust. That's pretty derogatory and maybe you need to treat this as a learning opportunity regarding your own biases and lenses.
Substantively, I don't know what you mean by intersectionality. If all you mean by that is people bring their whole selves to a conversation, of course that must be true by definition. But if you mean by intersectionality that we cannot talk about race without also talking about religion, then no, I don't agree with that, and I think the historical record bears me out if the subject is dealing with institutional racism against AAs.
Just claiming the nonsense you write is "a fact" does not make it so. Is "You've just never been on the receiving end before" an absolute, unequivocal, objective and documented historical fact?
You should really look at your own personal biases.
@Anonymous You really don't. You really seem to have no clue why what you said was offensive. In your fantasy world, the arrant, offensive nonsense you sprouted is "an absolute, unequivocal, objective and documented historical fact." (Though I note you didn't even try defend your last "fact" which I cited).
I am going to harp on this point one last time. If you tell someone who is Jewish that they "can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else", they are likely going to take offense. History does not bear this out at all - see the Inquisition as one example or the Mischling Test in Nazi Germany. Reality is much more complex than your simple "truths". I have been more cutting than I would normally like, but I do hope you get some understanding why I found your comments inappropriate.
In the history of the United States, have very very fair skinned AAs ever "passed for white" to avoid intense discrimination? Yes or no?
In the history of the United States, have Jewish people ever not advertised their Judaism (never renouncing, just not openly practicing it, or doing things like having Christmas trees or ornaments for non-religious purposes) to avoid intense discrimination? Yes or no?
If you're honest or know anything about the history of either group in the US, you know that the answer to both questions is Yes. I'm not saying anyone SHOULD do those things. I"m only saying that IT HAS BEEN DONE (big difference). And that's the only point I was making: skin color matters and has absolutely historically conferred privilege and access.
I will note, for the record, that this country has elected a Black man and his family to the White House. To the pp above who said it's not about antisemitism, of course it is. there is rampant antisemitism worldwide and in this country. I don't think there will be a Jewish president in my lifetime
I think things should be looked at holistically. Hate and discrimination are wrong and stem from ignorance. Discuss. Learn. Don't throw away some classic texts. Learn from them. Know our history. look at other angles. Open our minds. dont close them.
@anonymous The whole point of the protests this summer following George Floyd's death and the actions that schools and business took thereafter was to focus on systemic, institutionalized, and deeply ingrained racism against AAs. Hate certainly needs to be addressed in general, but that's a much broader agenda than what is supposed to be the focus at this exact moment in time.
The main problem with anti-racism is that it paints all white people as evil white supremacists and all black people as victims. It also excludes Latinx and Asian people, who have similarly faced racism on top of language barriers. And none of these groups are monolithic. Trump gained much support from the Cuban and Vietnamese communities, for example. Anti-racism needs to address all of these perspectives, in a much more nuanced way than how it is being forced into curricula.
If it does that then that's wrong to do so, I agree. But it's not inappropriate to exclude other minority groups. We are at a moment in time where we are reckoning with discrimination against AAs that is insidious and that is reflected in every single institution in this country and that has literally been going on for hundreds of years.
@Anonymous As an educator in the system, I think it makes sense to start with the black and indigenous narratives and weave all other cultures alongside it. Our country was colonized and built on the backs of slaves. We put Japanese people in prison camps and turned away more immigrants than we have taken in. We formed unions because of persecution and abuse. I have to admit that it bothers me that some people feel that we are pushing anti-racism when in fact we should have been teaching it all along. It's about damn time. The argument is really how we should teach it - it seems thick and put on to many perhaps the white voice is not at the center of this effort. Heck - this is hard for me too - in my learning I have to shut up and listen to grow.
As someone who studied this and school leadership, I feel the education needs to be tailored to your students. A wealthy white private school needs to have a course on why the historical narrative needs to be revisited along with how we can support change. Minority Authors, scientists, mathematicians, and thought leaders need equal air space throughout your curriculum. You need to build a community of trust with your students in affinity groups so they can ask questions - even if they are tough questions about equality. All hail the privilege walk - google this if you haven't seen a video.
@dyedinthewoolNYr, your comments make absolute sense and I would happily and fully support them. But I would like to see an Ibram-Kendi-and-it's-die-hard-believers' endorsed curriculum though. I would like to see an extensive list of white authors' books that they approve. What I hear is "destroy", "burn", "cancel". I haven't even heard them calling for studying classic and acclaimed black/minority authors. Rather only with anti-racist belief. That's proselytizing and it shouldn't be hiding in ELA "studies". Let's have kids in school study structural racism with hard data. Edited to add: I'm not asking this from you - just voicing my frustrations.
Ugh. What about the Jews who’ve been persecuted and the Asians being attacked for the Virus. Black men/kids have been randomly punching white and Asian people in the face for no apparent reason in the city for YEARS . Schools need to focus on educating , not social justice.
This thread shows how challenging it will be to implement an anti-racist curriculum that doesn't offend large groups of people. Attempts at being "woke" and using the "correct" terminology are also seen as offensive. How can this be done in an inclusive way?
While I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, "inclusive" is a buzzword here. It signals "correct"ness in an ideology that does nothing to make anything more "inclusive". It seeks and has gained power which only incentivizes it to turn people against each other in a quest for more power.
My thoughts? Stop using race to divide people and start talking about the human condition. Use more data, ask where it comes from, and how it could more accurately tell the story because it's missing something. Stop confusing correlation with causation.
Start having difficult conversations which acknowledge the complexity of issues. Call out hypocrisy, contradictions, and paradoxes in thinking to make someone think deeper. A person dealing in good faith should be able to admit it, even if they need more time to think and respond. When someone thinks they have all the answers, and that they are simple, ignore them. They are wrong. Recognize you will never get anyone to agree on everything and that that is OK.
I am so interested in this topic. First, can you tell me what it means? Does it mean that the pre-existing curriculum -- whatever it was -- was necessarily racist and must be undone?
Our school has never published an anti-racism curriculum that I'm aware of (NYC public middle school). They do discuss and process current events. In my dd's ELA class they are just finishing up reading and writing about the book "The Hate U Give" which has themes about institutional racism. All of these things I'm very happy with. Why are you asking?
I'm Jewish -- and all I can say is I'm happy we are not in California. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/california-ethnic-studies-curriculum
I definitely think we need an overhaul of the way we talk about racism and blakc history, but man, the initiatives I have seen up to this point seem to be pushed by deranged white liberals, lack historical accuracy and context and are going to do more harm than good.
Wow. Crazy.
OMG. That is nuts. Glad I am not Cali but this craziness seems to all over
its insane what they are doing in California
Is this post prompted by the Dalton letter?
Like another poster wrote, it's all over the dalton letter was leaked but clearly other schools are In lockstep.
The kids in our Brooklyn private have had an amazing anti-racism curriculum. They've been able to study everything, from all sides, from all perspectives. I'm unclear as to why this seems to be so hard?
No idea why it's so hard. But with schools In California named after Abraham Lincoln having their names stripped... it sure does seem like the whole issue is posing challenges that schools are not meeting properly.
Could you share what makes it amazing?
@anonymous Can you tell me more about this? What does that entail?
getting rid of all the classics is exactly what the OP who received the email wrote. But I agree that it is likely an overstatement.
I think calling it an "anti-racist" curriculum is triggering people, but tackling a deeply embedded cultural POV is going to be unavoidably uncomfortable for those who really see their norms as the cultural baseline.
Anonymous: it sounds like you know what you're talking about -- so -- what the heck is "affinity based class placement"? Sounds like segregation, but can't be!
I would love to hear from you what anti-racist means. To me, it's super inflammatory and totally unhelpful, like defunding the police. It just makes people focus on the words and not on what it's trying to accomplish.
@anonymous I do not know what that translates into in this particular school. I would guess it means placing children who are under-represented in a school as a whole with other children who share some cultural affinity with them in the same classroom. It is hard being an "only." It doesn't mean segregation.
Some of the comments above state what anti-racism *should* be. The problem is that it is evolving in a religion that rejects any dialogue. If you disagree with any of its specific proposals, it's because it makes you uncomfortable, which proves you are racist and you have to do the "work". Therefore anything anti-racists propose is correct. See the problem here?
I agree with you; the pendulum went too far, we need to go back to the center
@Anonymous The pendulum is still swinging -- further and further. At some point people will wake up and say no, this is too much, tearing everything down is not the answer. This, from Clarence Jones, about the ESMC (Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum). (I hope NY has a Clarence Jones to speak up).
https://www.calethstudies.org/aces-resourcedocs/clarence-jones-letter
We were never at center so getting back to center is a misnomer. We were this on the opposite end of the current pendulum swing.
(sorry in advance, bit of a ramble, lol. Feel free to skip)
Our Brooklyn private is small, so it was easier for us to develop a curriculum that encouraged the kids to really think.
When I was a kid, it was MORTIFYING to be the only black child in the classroom in my Westchester elementary school when they taught us about slavery and the Civil War. Want to know how bad it was? They had me play a slave in the school play, but I was a "smart slave" who could read and told my master about the Emancipation Proclamation. I will never forgot the shock, dismay and rage that spread across my parents' faces. I can still hear the ragestorm they unleashed on the school administration, lol.
My child's school is addressing how systemic racism has made it so much harder for African American people to achieve. They've addressed the oft-repeated, passive aggressive, "Well, look how successful Asians are. Why can't blacks be like that?" Kids in my child's class know that barriers have been built since the end of the Civil War specifically to keep African Americans people down and out. That's not an opinion, that's simply fact. Sort of like how financial institutions have been built to keep the little guy out of the club (See GameStop, RobinHood, etc). The fact that so many African Americans have succeeded in SPITE of all of the barriers is simply miraculous.
The kids in our school are not taught in a "white people are bad!!" way. They're simply shown the facts. They're asked to debate both sides. For instance, you can't just say Dr. Seuss was a racist. You have to back up your opinion. Enjoy the books (or not) and explain how the author may have been problematic at a certain time in history. Explain how that makes it possible or impossible for you to enjoy his work. And no one is ever told they're wrong.
Do you know the mental gymnastics people of color have had to go through to enjoy famous authors, historical works, and lauded filmmakers with questionable pasts? It's like being a woman and loving Woody Allen films and then finding out he's actually a vile, revolting human.
It's time for EVERYONE to feel that discomfort so that we are honest with ourselves about the past so that we can move forward.
Is it uncomfortable? Of course! It's uncomfortable for ALL of us in different ways. These are difficult conversations, but they need to be had. We will continue to have horrifically uneducated lunatics like Marjorie and Lauren (really, guys!??) getting elected if we're not honest about the past. (And I dare anyone to come in and defend those loons, lol)
Overhearing the kids in my child's class talk, I truly think they're better than us. They're smarter, and they're more open to alternate ideas. They're pretty disgusted at the world we've built for them.
Who are Marjorie and Lauren? The problem I have with all of this is that the only thing kids ever learn about AAs is oppression. Oppression, barriers, violence, less than, etc. There is insufficient attention to the contributions all ethnic groups have made to make the country and the world what it is. That seems so much more important to me than pointing out people's racism.
NP. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO) from the US House of Representatives.
@Anonymous haha! I thought we were talking about educators :) Thanks.
I'm a new poster and I generally avoid political discussions, but I feel I have to jump in here. Your comments are mainly a regurgitation of standard anti-racism talking points and it appears you don't even try to understand other viewpoints.
In response to the previous poster's reference to the holocaust, you say "all whites have privilege by virtue of their skin color. They can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else." This is facile, and frankly, an age-old anti-semitic meme. It fits in well with the views during the Inquisition - Jews need fear no harm as long as they just renounce their religion. Of course, in practice, even this proved false as the "new Christians" continued to be persecuted. Do you realize how abhorrent it is to say Jews can avoid anti-semitism just by renouncing their most fervent beliefs?
Have you bothered to look at the hate crime statistics in New York? There are more anti-semitic incidents than there are hate crimes against all other groups combined. This ranges the gamut from painting of swastikas on synagogues to assault and murder. And the attacks come from the full spectrum of demographic sectors - white nationalists to POC. When Christians attend mass in New York, do they have to go through metal detectors? This is now standard practice in New York synagogues - sometimes waiting in long lines in the rain waiting for everyone to be screened (at least pre-Covid). Jewish children as young as nursery school are taught what to do in an active shooter situation. But according to you, this can be ignored because Jews can just reinvent themselves.
You have the audacity to say "You've just never been on the receiving end before so you didn't notice." It seems to me that you are the one who really hasn't noticed.
No one said anything about anyone renouncing religion, Jewish or otherwise. I never once said that. You did.
Nor did anyone say anything about ignoring hate crime statistics. You are the only one who has said that.
The point I am making is based in historical fact. What HAS happened. Not what I think should happen. What actually has happened. And it shows that skin color affords privileges. There really is no dispute about that. Or there shouldn’t be at this stage.
Take a look at new york’s history during the industrial era in particular. To deal with rampant anti-semitism, some Jewish people held firm to their beliefs, they just didn’t advertise them. And then, when their anti-Semitic employers realized they were good people and good workers, their hearts and minds softened. To be expected since knowledge has a way of reducing ignorance.
No one is saying anti semitism is ok. The point is simply that a person of color would never even get the chance to be hired because race can be visible and highly immutable.
I'm sorry, but your reply is disingenuous and you are walking away from the clear implications of your words. You dismissed the poster's reference to the Holocaust by saying Jewish people can "can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else." That is a really unfortunate comment on your part. Now saying that all you meant is that Jews just didn't "advertise" their religion is quite the rowback.
You claim you didn't ignore hate crime statistics. I don't know how you square this with your comment "You've just never been on the receiving end before". It shows an unfortunately blinkered mindset. Just look at the facts.
I wrote the post and I’m telling you that you are misinterpreting. This is not a thread about religion. It’s a thread about race. I am more familiar with the horrors of the holocaust than you likely would imagine. So you are wrong about my knowledge and intentions. Your emotions on this issue seem to be causing you to see things in a specific way that I am telling you is incorrect. If you want to persist in misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said, there is really nothing I can do.
@Anonymous Your words were clear and unambiguous (and unfortunate). I understand why you are now claiming misinterpretation but you are not fooling anyone. There is a consistent pattern of anti-racist activists minimizing anti-semitism - just look at the links to California's ESMC posted by others above. And anyone who is as well versed in intersectionality as you clearly are, knows you cannot look at racism apart from religion. If I am mistaken, and you don't believe in intersectionality, I apologize.
@test There was nothing unfortunate about what I said, which is that skin color confers a certain level of privilege that AAs have not historically been able to access since skin color and other physical traits are immutable. That's a documented fact. I'm not even sure how it's a question. What's unfortunate is not what I said, it's the layering over what I said that you're doing, and your conferral of negative intent over what I said, that's unfortunate. You are reading what I'm saying but because of your own hurt and pain, it seems you cannot really hear me or even understand what I said any other way than the way you've chosen to understand it. Such is the nature of historical pain, and it's what makes these conversations difficult to have.
I have never one time minimized anti-Semitism. You know nothing about me, but it's simply not true that I have done that or that I would.
Finally, I do not think it can be true that racism cannot exist apart from religion. Of course it can. Look at the history of the South. Both AAs and their historical tormentors like slaveholders and proponents of Jim Crow, etc., were all Christians.
This is not about anti-racist curriculum, but very related. It's by a Latino legal scholar at Berkeley who has researched extensively. In short, his message is: racism thrives on the us vs them fear. Its fundamental belief and message is that groups are enemies. So does anti-racism. Antiracists also believe that groups are enemies, but ask you to be with the other group for moral reasons. Here comes the important bit. This message doesn't work. It backfires. That's his answer as to why a non-negligible percent of Hispanic voters turned to the person-I-won't-name. His data show that the only message that appeals broadly is "we are all in this together".
I completely agree with this. I don't think the best way through this morass is to call everyone a racist because it assumes a power structure that shouldn't exist in the first place. Better for us to understand that we have all made really important, life-changing contributions, and there are more similarities than differences. And once that's been instilled get into the ways that institutional and structural racism might impede that. I don't think it helps to minimize others to elevate yourself. Just elevate yourself. Even if, historically, there was a ton of minimization going on.
If you are standing behind your offensive comments that Jews can just "reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else" (not recognizing the long historical connotations of these sentiments) and that "You've just never been on the receiving end before", there is really nothing more I have to say to you.
Oh, and your comment on the history of South spectacularly misses the point on intersectionality. Maybe you are not as well versed on the topic as I credited you.
My post was never about Jews to begin with. It was about white people -- about RACE. Others made it about religion, perhaps because of the intersectionality point, which was not mine. You are intent on seeing anti-semitism where it doesn't exist, so, given that, you're right that we can't really converse further.
I don't know how my comments on the South miss the point on intersectionality. The point is that racism can absolutely be addressed separately from religion. Most of the anti-racism initiatives are targeted toward remedying discrimination against AAs, so this really is a racial issue first and foremost.
So then quite simply you are saying you don't believe in intersectionality. The whole basis of the framework is that you can't look at race (or any other factor) independent of the other aspects of a person's social and political identities. That's fine, but surprising for someone who appears to fully on board with critical race theory.
I know your post was never about religion. But when someone mentioned the holocaust you fobbed it off with your offensive comment about reinventing themselves, change their names, be someone else. Maybe treat this as a learning opportunity.
@test I didn't fob anything off about the Holocaust. That's pretty derogatory and maybe you need to treat this as a learning opportunity regarding your own biases and lenses.
Substantively, I don't know what you mean by intersectionality. If all you mean by that is people bring their whole selves to a conversation, of course that must be true by definition. But if you mean by intersectionality that we cannot talk about race without also talking about religion, then no, I don't agree with that, and I think the historical record bears me out if the subject is dealing with institutional racism against AAs.
Just claiming the nonsense you write is "a fact" does not make it so. Is "You've just never been on the receiving end before" an absolute, unequivocal, objective and documented historical fact?
You should really look at your own personal biases.
When you make everything about you, it's hard to see the truth in what others are saying. I get it.
@Anonymous You really don't. You really seem to have no clue why what you said was offensive. In your fantasy world, the arrant, offensive nonsense you sprouted is "an absolute, unequivocal, objective and documented historical fact." (Though I note you didn't even try defend your last "fact" which I cited).
I am going to harp on this point one last time. If you tell someone who is Jewish that they "can reinvent themselves, change their names, be someone else", they are likely going to take offense. History does not bear this out at all - see the Inquisition as one example or the Mischling Test in Nazi Germany. Reality is much more complex than your simple "truths". I have been more cutting than I would normally like, but I do hope you get some understanding why I found your comments inappropriate.
@test Just answer me these two questions:
In the history of the United States, have very very fair skinned AAs ever "passed for white" to avoid intense discrimination? Yes or no?
In the history of the United States, have Jewish people ever not advertised their Judaism (never renouncing, just not openly practicing it, or doing things like having Christmas trees or ornaments for non-religious purposes) to avoid intense discrimination? Yes or no?
If you're honest or know anything about the history of either group in the US, you know that the answer to both questions is Yes. I'm not saying anyone SHOULD do those things. I"m only saying that IT HAS BEEN DONE (big difference). And that's the only point I was making: skin color matters and has absolutely historically conferred privilege and access.
I will note, for the record, that this country has elected a Black man and his family to the White House. To the pp above who said it's not about antisemitism, of course it is. there is rampant antisemitism worldwide and in this country. I don't think there will be a Jewish president in my lifetime
That's not racism. That's anti-Semitism.
It's hate.
No argument there. But it's not really fair to blame this thread for not addressing anti-Semitism when it's about anti-racism.
I think things should be looked at holistically. Hate and discrimination are wrong and stem from ignorance. Discuss. Learn. Don't throw away some classic texts. Learn from them. Know our history. look at other angles. Open our minds. dont close them.
@anonymous The whole point of the protests this summer following George Floyd's death and the actions that schools and business took thereafter was to focus on systemic, institutionalized, and deeply ingrained racism against AAs. Hate certainly needs to be addressed in general, but that's a much broader agenda than what is supposed to be the focus at this exact moment in time.
The main problem with anti-racism is that it paints all white people as evil white supremacists and all black people as victims. It also excludes Latinx and Asian people, who have similarly faced racism on top of language barriers. And none of these groups are monolithic. Trump gained much support from the Cuban and Vietnamese communities, for example. Anti-racism needs to address all of these perspectives, in a much more nuanced way than how it is being forced into curricula.
If it does that then that's wrong to do so, I agree. But it's not inappropriate to exclude other minority groups. We are at a moment in time where we are reckoning with discrimination against AAs that is insidious and that is reflected in every single institution in this country and that has literally been going on for hundreds of years.
@Anonymous As an educator in the system, I think it makes sense to start with the black and indigenous narratives and weave all other cultures alongside it. Our country was colonized and built on the backs of slaves. We put Japanese people in prison camps and turned away more immigrants than we have taken in. We formed unions because of persecution and abuse. I have to admit that it bothers me that some people feel that we are pushing anti-racism when in fact we should have been teaching it all along. It's about damn time. The argument is really how we should teach it - it seems thick and put on to many perhaps the white voice is not at the center of this effort. Heck - this is hard for me too - in my learning I have to shut up and listen to grow.
As someone who studied this and school leadership, I feel the education needs to be tailored to your students. A wealthy white private school needs to have a course on why the historical narrative needs to be revisited along with how we can support change. Minority Authors, scientists, mathematicians, and thought leaders need equal air space throughout your curriculum. You need to build a community of trust with your students in affinity groups so they can ask questions - even if they are tough questions about equality. All hail the privilege walk - google this if you haven't seen a video.
@dyedinthewoolNYr, your comments make absolute sense and I would happily and fully support them. But I would like to see an Ibram-Kendi-and-it's-die-hard-believers' endorsed curriculum though. I would like to see an extensive list of white authors' books that they approve. What I hear is "destroy", "burn", "cancel". I haven't even heard them calling for studying classic and acclaimed black/minority authors. Rather only with anti-racist belief. That's proselytizing and it shouldn't be hiding in ELA "studies". Let's have kids in school study structural racism with hard data. Edited to add: I'm not asking this from you - just voicing my frustrations.
Ugh. What about the Jews who’ve been persecuted and the Asians being attacked for the Virus. Black men/kids have been randomly punching white and Asian people in the face for no apparent reason in the city for YEARS . Schools need to focus on educating , not social justice.
If you don't think this is education, you're sadly mistaken. Schools perpetuate this insidious racism as much as any institution we have.
This thread shows how challenging it will be to implement an anti-racist curriculum that doesn't offend large groups of people. Attempts at being "woke" and using the "correct" terminology are also seen as offensive. How can this be done in an inclusive way?
While I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, "inclusive" is a buzzword here. It signals "correct"ness in an ideology that does nothing to make anything more "inclusive". It seeks and has gained power which only incentivizes it to turn people against each other in a quest for more power.
My thoughts? Stop using race to divide people and start talking about the human condition. Use more data, ask where it comes from, and how it could more accurately tell the story because it's missing something. Stop confusing correlation with causation.
Start having difficult conversations which acknowledge the complexity of issues. Call out hypocrisy, contradictions, and paradoxes in thinking to make someone think deeper. A person dealing in good faith should be able to admit it, even if they need more time to think and respond. When someone thinks they have all the answers, and that they are simple, ignore them. They are wrong. Recognize you will never get anyone to agree on everything and that that is OK.