Florida's rejection of math textbooks "due" to CRT

[Wahoo Redux]

I had an epiphany this morning: The CRT furor is about Truth & Reconciliation. Truth is only possible if there is the possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible with a full accounting of and acceptance of the truth. Ideally, T&R is mediated by a third-party.

There is the perception that some people want truth--a full accounting of and teaching of the racist oppression of the past--but offer no possibility of reconciliation. The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied.

In response, some people want reconciliation--"what's done is done, so let's move on"--without the offer of any truth. There's no need to teach the history. Just accept the world as it is.

The reality is that we must have both. We must have a full accounting of the systemic racism of America's past, and the way those systems extend to the present. But we also must have the promise of a possibility of reconciliation. There must be some possibility that the systemic racism can be rectified in a way that enables us all to live together.

I don't know if that is possible, but I do think that this is a helpful framing of the controversy. (I say all this as a cishet white man who is fully aware of his privilege, but don't know what to do about it.)

I encourage you to explore this and write it up as an editorial.  This is excellently said.

[RatGuy]

I had an epiphany this morning: The CRT furor is about Truth & Reconciliation. Truth is only possible if there is the possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible with a full accounting of and acceptance of the truth. Ideally, T&R is mediated by a third-party.

There is the perception that some people want truth--a full accounting of and teaching of the racist oppression of the past--but offer no possibility of reconciliation. The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied.

In response, some people want reconciliation--"what's done is done, so let's move on"--without the offer of any truth. There's no need to teach the history. Just accept the world as it is.

The reality is that we must have both. We must have a full accounting of the systemic racism of America's past, and the way those systems extend to the present. But we also must have the promise of a possibility of reconciliation. There must be some possibility that the systemic racism can be rectified in a way that enables us all to live together.

I don't know if that is possible, but I do think that this is a helpful framing of the controversy. (I say all this as a cishet white man who is fully aware of his privilege, but don't know what to do about it.)

That's helpful.

From time to time I teach Catharine Sedgwick's novel Hope Leslie. Published in 1828, it was written in response to Last of the Mohicans and as an argument against possible Indian Removal (which did happen in 1830). Sedgwick does admit that's trying to give a fuller picture of "the character of the times" than a historical narrative usually does, and in the process tries to rewrite the "Truth" of what happened to the Pequots. There's a moment near the end of the novel in which the Pequot maiden Magawisca is on trial (for conspiracy against the British colony). When it looks like she will be acquitted, she admits that the Natives and the English will never coexist -- the possibility of reconciliation, to use pgher's phrase, is nearly nil, because the British have yet to acknowledge what they did to the Pequots at Mystic. She evokes the language of Patrick Henry in this plea, and students normally recognize this as Sedgwick's argument against Indian Removal. "If we do this again," she seems to be saying, "there's no coming back from this."

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

It's been months and I'm still riled up about this. I still don't know what to do about this line of thinking, and I'm worried it'll only get more common.

[downer]

Back at the start of the thread, I asked how CRT issues play with Hispanic voters in Florida. They are 16+% of the voters. They tend to be democrat, but that doesn't mean they are fully on board with CRT and they not feel they have much of a role in any reconciliation between races. Presumably politicians like DeSantis want those voters. He won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2018.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/522060-ron-desantis-makes-5m-spanish-language-media-buy/

[Wahoo Redux]

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

Your student clearly takes the idea too far, but he has a point that we need to take heed of.  Yes, the things our Caucasian forbearers did were atrocities, and yes, we need to learn from them.

But no one living decimated the Pequots. 

[marshwiggle]

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

Your student clearly takes the idea too far, but he has a point that we need to take heed of.  Yes, the things our Caucasian forbears did were atrocities, and yes, we need to learn from them.

But no one living decimated the Pequots.

The question of whether "genetic guilt" and "genetic *entitlement" are valid concepts is a big source of conflict.

(*Note: one doesn't have to accept the idea of "genetic" entitlement to accept that certain things should be a right of anyone in a community. So programs and infrastructure which are intended to help victims of historical injustices and their descendants don't have to be predicated on the assumption of any sort of "genetic" guilt or reparations.)

[Anon1787]

I had an epiphany this morning: The CRT furor is about Truth & Reconciliation. Truth is only possible if there is the possibility of reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible with a full accounting of and acceptance of the truth. Ideally, T&R is mediated by a third-party.

There is the perception that some people want truth--a full accounting of and teaching of the racist oppression of the past--but offer no possibility of reconciliation. The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied.

In response, some people want reconciliation--"what's done is done, so let's move on"--without the offer of any truth. There's no need to teach the history. Just accept the world as it is.

The reality is that we must have both. We must have a full accounting of the systemic racism of America's past, and the way those systems extend to the present. But we also must have the promise of a possibility of reconciliation. There must be some possibility that the systemic racism can be rectified in a way that enables us all to live together.

I don't know if that is possible, but I do think that this is a helpful framing of the controversy. (I say all this as a cishet white man who is fully aware of his privilege, but don't know what to do about it.)

The CRT narrative is one rather tendentious interpretation of American history and government, not the Truth, but its advocates like to accuse those who reject their narrative (social (de)construction of knowledge for me but not for thee!) as simply wanting to ignore that aspect of American history, which makes reconciliation that much more difficult.

[RatGuy]

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

Your student clearly takes the idea too far, but he has a point that we need to take heed of.  Yes, the things our Caucasian forbearers did were atrocities, and yes, we need to learn from them.

But no one living decimated the Pequots.

I'm not sure I understand your point

[Wahoo Redux]

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

Your student clearly takes the idea too far, but he has a point that we need to take heed of.  Yes, the things our Caucasian forbearers did were atrocities, and yes, we need to learn from them.

But no one living decimated the Pequots.

I'm not sure I understand your point

There is a culture of blaming the great-great-great-etc.-grandchildren for the "sins of the father" in contemporary race discussions.  I understand why people are angry, but they seem to want pay-back now, long after we can punish those who committed the crime.

pgher said it best when hu said, "The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied."

The Ramadan-Olm Twitter / Reddit controversy is a good example of misplaced anger directed at allies as well as adversaries in the culture wars.

[marshwiggle]

This year I had a student vociferously argue against this track. His argument is that the Pequots, though decimated and outlawed, should have simply offer forgiveness. This student gave an offhand admission that the Massacre at Mystic was a bad thing (he'd later make the same arguments about slavery), but that it didn't matter anymore because it was in the past. "You can't build a time machine," he said, to which another student replied, "but we can learn not to make the same mistakes." He insisted that the moral thing for Magawisca to do would be to say "I forgive you for committing genocide against my people," and that fact that she didn't means that what happens next to her (and the other Natives) is her own fault.

Your student clearly takes the idea too far, but he has a point that we need to take heed of.  Yes, the things our Caucasian forbearers did were atrocities, and yes, we need to learn from them.

But no one living decimated the Pequots.

I'm not sure I understand your point

There is a culture of blaming the great-great-great-etc.-grandchildren for the "sins of the father" in contemporary race discussions.  I understand why people are angry, but they seem to want pay-back now, long after we can punish those who committed the crime.

pgher said it best when hu said, "The perception is that those who have been hurt have a bottomless well of demands that will never be satisfied."

The Ramadan-Olm Twitter / Reddit controversy is a good example of misplaced anger directed at allies as well as adversaries in the culture wars.

I just finished reading a good book, Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture, which is written by Dan Kovalik, who is a labour lawyer, marched in BLM protests, etc. so he's an honest progressive but he makes a great case for why that "misplaced anger" undermines any chance at real reconciliation.

[Diogenes]

Back at the start of the thread, I asked how CRT issues play with Hispanic voters in Florida. They are 16+% of the voters. They tend to be democrat, but that doesn't mean they are fully on board with CRT and they not feel they have much of a role in any reconciliation between races. Presumably politicians like DeSantis want those voters. He won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2018.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/522060-ron-desantis-makes-5m-spanish-language-media-buy/

The Cuban-American vote goes predominately Republican due to most having fled from Castro, or their parents did. And Florida has a lot of Cuban-Americans. With CRT also being marketed as being bundled with spooky words like "Marxism" and "socialism" these tactic go over well there.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-american-voters-identify-as-republican-in-2020/

[Diogenes]

I just finished reading a good book, Cancel This Book: The Progressive Case Against Cancel Culture, which is written by Dan Kovalik, who is a labour lawyer, marched in BLM protests, etc. so he's an honest progressive but he makes a great case for why that "misplaced anger" undermines any chance at real reconciliation.

It would be real helpful if anyone could actually give a clear operational definition of cancel culture. This video from journalist Michael Hobbes does a pretty good job of breaking down how amorphous and self serving everyone's definition is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkVYvp_CumI

In this podcast he goes into deeper analysis of the manufacturing of outrage around the specter of "cancel culture"
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cancel-culture/id1380008439?i=1000524480233

[downer]

Back at the start of the thread, I asked how CRT issues play with Hispanic voters in Florida. They are 16+% of the voters. They tend to be democrat, but that doesn't mean they are fully on board with CRT and they not feel they have much of a role in any reconciliation between races. Presumably politicians like DeSantis want those voters. He won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2018.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/522060-ron-desantis-makes-5m-spanish-language-media-buy/

The Cuban-American vote goes predominately Republican due to most having fled from Castro, or their parents did. And Florida has a lot of Cuban-Americans. With CRT also being marketed as being bundled with spooky words like "Marxism" and "socialism" these tactic go over well there.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-american-voters-identify-as-republican-in-2020/

It also seems that the Republican stronghold on Cuban-Americans loosens with subsequent generations.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-cuban-american-poll-20190131-story.html
But I still wonder whether the younger generation are going to feel a lot of identification with BLM or CRT movements. They certainly are not going to feel guilt for slavery and racial segregation in the USA.

[marshwiggle]

Back at the start of the thread, I asked how CRT issues play with Hispanic voters in Florida. They are 16+% of the voters. They tend to be democrat, but that doesn't mean they are fully on board with CRT and they not feel they have much of a role in any reconciliation between races. Presumably politicians like DeSantis want those voters. He won 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2018.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/522060-ron-desantis-makes-5m-spanish-language-media-buy/

The Cuban-American vote goes predominately Republican due to most having fled from Castro, or their parents did. And Florida has a lot of Cuban-Americans. With CRT also being marketed as being bundled with spooky words like "Marxism" and "socialism" these tactic go over well there.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-american-voters-identify-as-republican-in-2020/

It also seems that the Republican stronghold on Cuban-Americans loosens with subsequent generations.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-cuban-american-poll-20190131-story.html
But I still wonder whether the younger generation are going to feel a lot of identification with BLM or CRT movements. They certainly are not going to feel guilt for slavery and racial segregation in the USA.

There's no reason that anyone who immigrated (or whose parents immigrated) within the past 60 years should either, for the same reason.

[mamselle]

I wonder...

Would it work if we just pretend there are no black, brown, yellow, or beige people, and never have been?

Then the pinkish-white folks wouldn't have to feel bad, or anything...

M.

[ciao_yall]

I wonder...

Would it work if we just pretend there are no black, brown, yellow, or beige people, and never have been?

Then the pinkish-white folks wouldn't have to feel bad, or anything...

M.

And then the black, brown, yellow and beige people could just accept that they are not the normal standard and learn to live with it and stop complaining.