Media Bias

[JimC]

From what I've read elsewhere, elements of CRT as a tertiary academic subject are indeed redolent with Marxist theory, including that capitalism is an inherently oppressive system that automatically leads to racism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that as an academic discussion, it was never going to fly in the US as a foundation principle of a secondary school subject.

Discussion of racism and its negative effects should be easily possible without a full-blown leftist theoretical framework.

Yes, but a number of state governments are using CRT as a means to censor all discussion of racism. It's the same mob who condemn communism and use it to clobber social democracy with. Some of them label Biden as a communist, FFS.

I agree entirely that the Republican right in charge of education in the backwards regions of the US are wilfully refusing to let reasoned discussion of racism to occur (just as their colleagues in charge of electoral processes actively follow a racist agenda of voter suppression). Of course they are going to use any scare tactics they can, and will eagerly pull out quotes from left wing academics to spin any mention of racism in schools as a Marxist plot.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Now, is removing creationism from school curriculums 'censorship'?

Though I agree with the distinction that JimC made regarding the lack of a factual basis for Creationism versus racism both historic and systemic in the United States, I'll happily address this question. Simple answer for those who prefer simplistic versions: Yes.

The US government decided that Creationism does not qualify as a scientific idea, so it has been censored. It's not taught in government supported schools as an alternative or alongside science, though there are schools that get support in some form from the US government that get away with teaching it, usually in some version of the 'teach the controversy' dodge.

A fundamentalist Christian teacher in a US public school is not allowed to teach Creationism. That teacher's free speech rights have been curtailed due to the strictures imposed by the government.

A US history teacher who tries to teach their students about historic and systemic racism in a school in one of the states that have banned these topics is likely to run into trouble. I am expecting that sooner or later we will hear of such a case, and it will be interesting to observe how that plays out. I think the ban will likely be upheld. In my opinion it's censorship by the government, censorship imposed by the Republican Party you fancy as supporting 'free speech'.

I brought that up as an instance of Republican lack of support for free speech, but it's not like you have to look very hard to find others. Try this one on for size:

'Conservative Porn Star Brandi Love Banned From Turning Point USA Event'

No? How about this one:

'Most Republicans would ban gay or transgender characters from elementary school libraries'

You could easily find more if you bothered to look. Or you could just continue to regurgitate right wing propaganda.

[JimC]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "teaching Creationism". Clearly, it is not allowed to be taught as if it were a legitimate science. But what if an enterprising teacher wanted senior students to analyse its history, and dissect how it has been presented, as part of a critical thinking class? If this was also banned (so creationism entirely becomes "the subject who must not be named") then I'd agree this is censorship, and not very useful either...

Again, surely some discussion of racial issues must occur in all US history courses, even without any real use of CRT as an organising principle. If Republican states make any discussion of racial issues (even in a very neutral way) verboten, then it would be truly Orwellian...

[Tero]

CC30DE88-7172-4F72-9031-DB530D4F65AD.jpeg (75.3 KiB) Viewed 736 times

[Cunt]

If I were studying it for some reason, my first step would be to wonder why blacks from the original slaves are lumped in with blacks who were the original slavers, and immigrated to the US long after.

I would further wonder why whites (Irish, Jew or Scot) are lumped together, whatever group they were part of.

Then I would remember my reasons for rejecting race as a way to decide if someone is 'privileged or oppressed', or 'inferior or superior', and move on with ignoring the storms the media tries to stir up. Some of those issues are hard enough to understand without corporate media fanning the flames for money.

It's easy to notice, though, that as corporate media censorship goes, they pretty much fan only certain flames. You don't hear about colonizers being horrible, when the indigenous people of a given region are white.

[Hermit]

If I were studying it for some reason, my first step would be to wonder why blacks from the original slaves are lumped in with blacks who were the original slavers, and immigrated to the US long after.

Just ignore the blacks of the past for a moment and tell me if you have a problem with this:

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

[L'Emmerdeur]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "teaching Creationism". Clearly, it is not allowed to be taught as if it were a legitimate science. But what if an enterprising teacher wanted senior students to analyse its history, and dissect how it has been presented, as part of a critical thinking class? If this was also banned (so creationism entirely becomes "the subject who must not be named") then I'd agree this is censorship, and not very useful either...

The fundamentalist Christian who believes that their god created the universe in six days cannot teach this supposed fact in a US public school. We can waltz around this reality and talk about 'proper context' and so forth, but it remains a reality.

Again, surely some discussion of racial issues must occur in all US history courses, even without any real use of CRT as an organising principle. If Republican states make any discussion of racial issues (even in a very neutral way) verboten, then it would be truly Orwellian...

Yes, some discussion of racial issues, but there lies the issue. Historically, schools in the US South often used textbooks that portrayed slaves as 'happy' in servitude. It's not as if that sort of approach has been completely left in the past, either.

'VA Textbook Claims Blacks Fought For South In Civil War. Source? The Internet.'

'Textbook that says some slaves treated like family is pulled'

[Seabass]

If I were studying it for some reason, my first step would be to wonder why blacks from the original slaves are lumped in with blacks who were the original slavers, and immigrated to the US long after.

I would further wonder why whites (Irish, Jew or Scot) are lumped together, whatever group they were part of.

Then I would remember my reasons for rejecting race as a way to decide if someone is 'privileged or oppressed', or 'inferior or superior', and move on with ignoring the storms the media tries to stir up. Some of those issues are hard enough to understand without corporate media fanning the flames for money.

It's easy to notice, though, that as corporate media censorship goes, they pretty much fan only certain flames. You don't hear about colonizers being horrible, when the indigenous people of a given region are white.

So your views on racism are the result of willful ignorance. In that case, you should either take the trouble to learn something or shut the fuck up about it instead of promoting and defending racists all the time and attacking black civil rights movements.

[L'Emmerdeur]

If I were studying it for some reason, my first step would be to wonder why blacks from the original slaves are lumped in with blacks who were the original slavers, and immigrated to the US long after.

I would further wonder why whites (Irish, Jew or Scot) are lumped together, whatever group they were part of.

Then I would remember my reasons for rejecting race as a way to decide if someone is 'privileged or oppressed', or 'inferior or superior', and move on with ignoring the storms the media tries to stir up. Some of those issues are hard enough to understand without corporate media fanning the flames for money.

It's easy to notice, though, that as corporate media censorship goes, they pretty much fan only certain flames. You don't hear about colonizers being horrible, when the indigenous people of a given region are white.

Do you agree with Republicans' censorship of teaching about historical and systemic racism? Do you deny that this is censorship?

[pErvinalia]

It's easy to notice, though, that as corporate media censorship goes, they pretty much fan only certain flames. You don't hear about colonizers being horrible, when the indigenous people of a given region are white.

Yeah we never heard about the treatment of white farmers in Zimbabwe. Though not colonizers and indigenous people, it is an example of black on white racial activity. Something you are demonstrably more concerned about than the reverse.

[Cunt]

It's easy to notice, though, that as corporate media censorship goes, they pretty much fan only certain flames. You don't hear about colonizers being horrible, when the indigenous people of a given region are white.

Yeah we never heard about the treatment of white farmers in Zimbabwe. Though not colonizers and indigenous people, it is an example of black on white racial activity. Something you are demonstrably more concerned about than the reverse.

I know you are just saying that because you are lonely and angry. Hugs, pErv.

[Cunt]

Just ignore the blacks of the past for a moment and tell me if you have a problem with this:

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

You're trying to push equity. I'm not accepting.

I get that you think it is important. We disagree.

So your views on racism are the result of willful ignorance. In that case, you should either take the trouble to learn something or shut the fuck up about it instead of promoting and defending racists all the time and attacking black civil rights movements.

Oh look, an antefa provocateur accusing people of racism.

I see you.

[JimC]

So, the clear, obvious, major disadvantage of an identifiable group is unimportant to you. Not at all surprising, and consistent with far-right sympathies...

The issue has nothing to do with your word games (vaguely expressed, as always) about "equity" and "equality". It is the fruit of the racist history of a nation, and continuing, systemic, racially based social and economic policies.

[Seabass]

Just ignore the blacks of the past for a moment and tell me if you have a problem with this:

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

You're trying to push equity. I'm not accepting.

I don't see him "pushing" anything. He asked you a question. Why don't you just fucking answer it?

[Hermit]

Just ignore the blacks of the past for a moment and tell me if you have a problem with this:

• 71% of White families lived in owner-occupied homes while
  45 % of Latinx families lived in owner-occupied homes and
  41 % of Black families lived in owner-occupied homes
• $70,642 was the average family income of White people while
  $41,692 was the average family income of Black people
• $171,000 was the median family net worth of White people while
  $17,150 was the median family net worth of Black people
• Black child poverty rates are regularly triple white rates
• Black unemployment is consistently almost double white unemployment

You're trying to push equity. I'm not accepting.

I asked you if you have a problem with the statistics I listed. It's a simple question. A simple yes or no will suffice.