www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Monday, February 21, 2022
Not Critical Race Theory
I was watching a discussion of US politics / culture wars, and the fight of the right against what they call "critical race theory", which has very little to do with what critical race theory actually is. For once Florida made a good point by calling their legal proposal the "stop woke act", which has the clear advantage of being more to the point and easier to understand. However, if I look at the fundamentals of this fight, it appears to me that this is a part of the culture wars that the right can't actually possibly win.
For thousands of years people have argued where the personality of a child is coming from, the so-called nature vs. nurture debate. That discussion ended up pretty much in a tie, with most people these days agreeing that *both* your genes *and* your upbringing influence what kind of a person you will become. In an increasingly polarized society, there is a definitive risk that a child will become exposed to and possibly pick up values that are offensive to his parents. The further the values of the parent are far off from whatever the center of society is, the bigger the risk.
While this general problem would apply to both extreme left and extreme right parents, the right has a bigger problem here, due to the specific socioeconomic factors of schools. In case you hadn't noticed it, teachers are rather badly paid in the capitalist system. The reason for that is that there are people who want to become a teacher not for the money, but because they believe in the greater good of education. In a capitalist system, people are being paid the lowest possible amount they would do the job for, so people who work for "a purpose" instead of "for money" decrease the market value of a profession. Pretty sad actually, but a good explanation of why jobs that involve helping people, e.g. nurses, are usually paid so badly.
Now if you look at the very nature of political "left" and "right", it becomes pretty obvious that there is a strong correlation of being of a helpful nature and trying to do good for society with the political left. Somebody who is of the political right and strongly believes in the individual rather than society and in self-interest is less likely to become a teacher, because underpaid do-gooders are making these jobs not financially interesting. As a result the average teacher is politically left of center. At the same time, there is less and less "nurture" going on between parents and children. In 2020 among married couples with children in the US, nearly 60% had both parents working full-time. The more society relies on schools to provide all day long care for schoolchildren, the more children will pick up values not from their parents, but from their teachers.
So there you have it: While there is no such thing as critical race theory being taught in primary school, education today has moved way past the point where it would only teach the "3 R's: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic". A school also teaches a lot of things that are inherently political, like history. A parent that is leaning towards white supremacy then is shocked when his child comes home with some left of center ideas about systemic racism in US society. No "stop woke act" will be able to change that.
- posted by Tobold @ 12:04 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
Nature v. nurture may have ended in a tie, but a central tenet of the complex of ideas we mean when we refer to 'critical race theory' is that any disparities between groups must be due to racism, or some other -ism. That hypothesis completely excludes nature and many aspects of nurture (culture etc.) The foregoing does not stop ideologues pushing these ideas, though.
I suspect what parents fear is not so much children learning about history, but one group of children being taken aside and blamed for the lack of success of other groups, and whatever other historic ills may be added. They may also reject other propositions from the same complex that might be presented as truth - for example that their children are girls or boys according to their whim, observation be damned.
Some of the Left in the US have wailed for years about children being taught scientifically incorrect ideas about evolution. But I think the majority of parents would see the issues I have mentioned are more important than a correct understanding of the evolution of dinosaurs...
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Nature v. nurture may have ended in a tie, but a central tenet of the complex of ideas we mean when we refer to 'critical race theory' is that any disparities between groups must be due to racism, or some other -ism. That hypothesis completely excludes nature and many aspects of nurture (culture etc.) The foregoing does not stop ideologues pushing these ideas, though.
I suspect what parents fear is not so much children learning about history, but one group of children being taken aside and blamed for the lack of success of other groups, and whatever other historic ills may be added. They may also reject other propositions from the same complex that might be presented as truth - for example that their children are girls or boys according to their whim, observation be damned.
Some of the Left in the US have wailed for years about children being taught scientifically incorrect ideas about evolution. But I think the majority of parents would see the issues I have mentioned are more important than a correct understanding of the evolution of dinosaurs...
That's not what critical race theory is, Quinn.
(It's a legal theory that sought to explain why inequality stayed around mostly unchanged after the civil rights movement, and points to systemic issues, not that individuals are necessarily racist.)
(It's a legal theory that sought to explain why inequality stayed around mostly unchanged after the civil rights movement, and points to systemic issues, not that individuals are necessarily racist.)
Scrodinger's critical race theory. It doesn't exist. Well, it does exist but it's an obscure academic concept. Well, it's not taught in schools. Well, it is taught, but it's Truth, racist.
"I suspect what parents fear is not so much children learning about history, but one group of children being taken aside and blamed for the lack of success of other groups, and whatever other historic ills may be added."
This is not happening. School districts are not taking white kids to the side and saying all of societies problems are they and their ancestors fault.
Hell we can't even get nationwide standards on basic concepts approved. What makes you think districts across the country are doing this en masse?
Critical Race Theory has a very specific definition. What Republicans are doing is calling any teaching of history they don't like Critical Race Theory. That doesn't mean it actually IS Critical Race Theory.
Anyways I think you nailed it Tobold. It's also kind of funny to me that the party that cried over statues being torn down because of "mUh HiZtoRy" are okay with trying to censor factual history being taught.
The Florida bill in particular is hilarious to me because it actually does nothing to stop real civil rights history from being taught, (which is good) but the right called it an Anti-Woke bill so their supporters are cheering it ignorant of the fact that it won't change much of anything. The bad part of the bill is that it provides yet another avenue for people to sue school districts.
This is not happening. School districts are not taking white kids to the side and saying all of societies problems are they and their ancestors fault.
Hell we can't even get nationwide standards on basic concepts approved. What makes you think districts across the country are doing this en masse?
Critical Race Theory has a very specific definition. What Republicans are doing is calling any teaching of history they don't like Critical Race Theory. That doesn't mean it actually IS Critical Race Theory.
Anyways I think you nailed it Tobold. It's also kind of funny to me that the party that cried over statues being torn down because of "mUh HiZtoRy" are okay with trying to censor factual history being taught.
The Florida bill in particular is hilarious to me because it actually does nothing to stop real civil rights history from being taught, (which is good) but the right called it an Anti-Woke bill so their supporters are cheering it ignorant of the fact that it won't change much of anything. The bad part of the bill is that it provides yet another avenue for people to sue school districts.
As you might know, I am German by origin (later emigrated to Belgium). When I was a kid at school, we were taught about the Holocaust. Nobody directly said "the Holocaust is your fault", because that would obviously have been ridiculous. But you can't really teach German kids about the Holocaust without causing some distress and feeling of guilt arising.
You can't really teach white American kids about slavery without causing some distress and feeling of guilt arising. Especially if you also teach them that there are things like "white privilege" and "systemic racism" still ongoing today.
The hair-splitting discussion about whether these teachings should be called "critical race theory" lead nowhere, and are just a distraction from the actual issue. The actual issue is little Brian coming home and being distressed about what he was taught about race in school, and his parents not being happy about that. And no, nobody taught Brian critical race theory or said that systemic racism was his fault. But it is an inherently uncomfortable subject, and some white parents would prefer if their kid never learned anything about it.
You can't really teach white American kids about slavery without causing some distress and feeling of guilt arising. Especially if you also teach them that there are things like "white privilege" and "systemic racism" still ongoing today.
The hair-splitting discussion about whether these teachings should be called "critical race theory" lead nowhere, and are just a distraction from the actual issue. The actual issue is little Brian coming home and being distressed about what he was taught about race in school, and his parents not being happy about that. And no, nobody taught Brian critical race theory or said that systemic racism was his fault. But it is an inherently uncomfortable subject, and some white parents would prefer if their kid never learned anything about it.
But that's not what Republican lawmakers are arguing for.
I listened to an NPR interview last week where they had a Republican lawmaker come on and talk about the Florida bill.
He specifically pointed out that of course lessons about racism will make students feel a certain way and that the bill was not looking to change that. What the bill is targeting is instances of an adult telling a student how they should feel about the subject. He went on to say that lessons about slavery and racism probably should make someone feel a certain way but the point of the bill was to make sure people weren't telling kids how to feel.
So it's Republican lawmakers who are splitting hairs here not me.
I wish I could find the interview to link it as I don't like to cite things without sources but I wasn't able to find it after a quick Google search.
I listened to an NPR interview last week where they had a Republican lawmaker come on and talk about the Florida bill.
He specifically pointed out that of course lessons about racism will make students feel a certain way and that the bill was not looking to change that. What the bill is targeting is instances of an adult telling a student how they should feel about the subject. He went on to say that lessons about slavery and racism probably should make someone feel a certain way but the point of the bill was to make sure people weren't telling kids how to feel.
So it's Republican lawmakers who are splitting hairs here not me.
I wish I could find the interview to link it as I don't like to cite things without sources but I wasn't able to find it after a quick Google search.
In the 1980s the Conservative (Right of Center) government under Margaret Thatcher passed a law popularly known as Section 28, which prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities, including schools. The intent was very similar to what you're describing to stop kids from being exposed to "radical, leftist propaganda" by their teachers that might lead them to see the world differently from the way their parents saw it.
It worked so well that fifteen years later we had the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships and less than a decade after that same-sex marriage. Governments like to think they can legislate cultural change away but they can't. The best they can do is help push it in the direction its already headed or, as they mostly do, endorse it after it's happened. Unless they want to start shooting people, of course. And even then it only slows the process down.
It worked so well that fifteen years later we had the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships and less than a decade after that same-sex marriage. Governments like to think they can legislate cultural change away but they can't. The best they can do is help push it in the direction its already headed or, as they mostly do, endorse it after it's happened. Unless they want to start shooting people, of course. And even then it only slows the process down.
I don't think the purpose of the culture wars is to actually legislate cultural change away. The purpose is to achieve political power by pandering to the large parts of the population that are uncomfortable about cultural change.
A lot of people, especially in the USA, hold opinions which today they can't even say out loud without risking being fired from their job or other negative consequences. As a consequence a lot of what Republican lawmakers are saying is dog-whistling: They say something that sounds okay, e.g. about zoning laws and keeping property values up, but what they mean, and what their constituents hear is "I will keep black people out of your neighborhood". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and the racist constituent votes for the racist politician without anything overtly racist having been said. The Republican lawmaker promising "No CRT at school" is in reality promising to shield white children from uncomfortable truth about racism in the USA today. And that is a promise that gets votes. Pointing out the fact that "No CRT at school" doesn't really make sense is irrelevant, because the people the message was addressed to understood the *real* coded message behind it.
A lot of people, especially in the USA, hold opinions which today they can't even say out loud without risking being fired from their job or other negative consequences. As a consequence a lot of what Republican lawmakers are saying is dog-whistling: They say something that sounds okay, e.g. about zoning laws and keeping property values up, but what they mean, and what their constituents hear is "I will keep black people out of your neighborhood". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and the racist constituent votes for the racist politician without anything overtly racist having been said. The Republican lawmaker promising "No CRT at school" is in reality promising to shield white children from uncomfortable truth about racism in the USA today. And that is a promise that gets votes. Pointing out the fact that "No CRT at school" doesn't really make sense is irrelevant, because the people the message was addressed to understood the *real* coded message behind it.
The problem is that the Right can get a Pyrrhic win, by continuing to decrease the quality of public education by demonizing teachers, flooding school boards with complaints, forcing additional onerous lesson plan paperwork, adding cameras inside classrooms (!), and otherwise instilling a culture of fear and self-censorship. These laws might not actually mandate teaching "opposing views to the Holocaust" for example, but think about how far things have come that a top school administrator could believe that was the intention. How many teachers will be inclined to remove the Diary of Anne Frank "just in case"? Eventually, things will get so bad that private/charter schools really will be the only way to get a reasonable education, which will continue to drain public school funding until the public system collapses.
That's the end goal for the Right: using public funds to put their kids in Christian fundamentalist schools where they have complete control over the curriculum and can discriminate at will (in subject matter and student body). The right-wing teachers will be/are paid even less than in the public sector, but will be sustained by their righteous faith and GoFundMe campaigns.
There is nothing inevitable about social progress or knowledge in general. In my small town public high school in the 90s, we learned that the Civil War was about States' Rights and we DIDN'T learn anything about the Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment Camps, or the continued existence of racism (or homosexuality) at all. While I will ensure my son knows these parts of American history, there is no guarantee that they will still be taught in school otherwise.
Post a Comment
That's the end goal for the Right: using public funds to put their kids in Christian fundamentalist schools where they have complete control over the curriculum and can discriminate at will (in subject matter and student body). The right-wing teachers will be/are paid even less than in the public sector, but will be sustained by their righteous faith and GoFundMe campaigns.
There is nothing inevitable about social progress or knowledge in general. In my small town public high school in the 90s, we learned that the Civil War was about States' Rights and we DIDN'T learn anything about the Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment Camps, or the continued existence of racism (or homosexuality) at all. While I will ensure my son knows these parts of American history, there is no guarantee that they will still be taught in school otherwise.
<< Home
