This strains credulity to the limit and beyond. In the middle of a confected crisis about critical race theory, a Texas Republican decides this would be a good time to clean up some harmless redundancy in the states education standards. Tell me another!
They removed a requirement to teach that the Klan was morally wrong from SB 3. The fact that outrage at that is labeled "race baiting propaganda" by certain people is just more proof that any expectation that we condemn white supremacy is permanently triggering to some, whether in the form of something ridiculous like CRT or something as basic as "teach explicitly the Klan is bad." Teaching about history and social changes without moral context is toothless and the people who passed this bill either should know that or do know it and are deliberately malicious. There is no excuse.
You may be surprised to hear that I prefer education to be consciously and explicitly moral. But I didn't establish the normative conventions for how public school curricula are written. The value-neutral language of TEKS is standard; the value-laden language of H.B. 3979 was actually a departure from standard practice. If you read the social studies curricula of other states, you'll find the same thing, though TEKS is more substantive than most. This is true even of liberal states like California and New York. New York's social studies content standards don't even mention the KKK (though you'll find it in the state's suggested curriculum materials), let alone dictate it be condemned.
I understand how people can be confused about the language issue; I've had some Twitter discussions to that effect today. But I don't believe a reasonable reader who understands the context can read the HuffPost article and fail to recognize the lies it is propagating. The ultimate effect of propaganda like this is to encourage even more reactive legislation from red states.
I just think labeling a article that accurately reported on what the Texas GOP did propaganda is at least as hyperbolic as the HuffPosts framing of the general issue and therefore contributes to the general problem of gratuitous labeling tons of people and groups as bad actors.
If we’re gonna say HuffPost made more out of it than it is I can kind of see that. But it would have to be false to be propaganda and no one is arguing that the Texas GOP didn’t do what HuffPost said they did.
Blatantly taking something out of context can still be false. Let's say that I donate $20 a month to a group called the American Alliance Against Breast Cancer (fictional org, just using as an example). Then I find out that they spend way too much money on high salaries and perks for staff, cancel the payment, and start sending the same amount to a different group, Stop Breast Cancer. Would it be fair to write an angry post about how Cathy has decided to stop her donations to a breast cancer charity?
It wouldn't be fair but that 20 buck example is out of context and the HuffPost might have been hyperbolic but it didn't rise to the level of propaganda. That label is at least as hyperbolic as HuffPost. Texas GOP did do what Huff said they're trying to. I'm trying figure out what key details are missing that make what the HuffPost said rise to the level of outright disinformation.
Let me back up. I was referring the to HuffPost article Lee referenced. There headline wasn’t misleading or overblown at all. Now the social media spin on it may have been ridiculous but I don’t think some trolls on Twitter is who he’s referring to here, I think he’s talking about HuffPost.
To ask the kids to imagine family or friends in there position is asking them to put it in a moral context. And I don’t think moral conclusions are inherent. If they were we wouldn’t have gotten bad systems in the past. Right and wrong has to be instilled or attempted to be instilled. Whether individual teachers condemn the Klan from a personal place is secondary in my opinion. Whatever individuals think, our structures shouldn’t dictate bend to the lie. Our systems should attempt to instill truth. Without that, the point of the history lesson is lost.
Before I respond I want to recenter my initial irritation. The HuffPost article might over blow a minor issue (l don’t think it does but I’m gonna get to that in a second) but it isn’t misleading at all. That element of this article is flat wrong and that’s probably the most annoying thing about it.
Also I agree these things ought not to be taught as hopeless or solved. People who take the former position inparticular I find suspicious. If it’s hopeless why bother talking about it!? What’s your real angle then?
I think we ought to decenter the individual in all discussions and teaching about race. It’s not just about the morality of the Klan, or the atrocities of Tulsa and so on, it’s about the systemic forces that allow for the Klan and the mistreatment of Mexicans to happen in the way that they did. Decentering isolated tragedies and discussions about who benefits can cut down the bullying of certain leftists and the defensiveness of alot of people.
The issue though is you can’t take about why the Klan is wrong without specific moral conclusions. The reason for a systemic change has a moral underpinning. What makes something right or wrong is it’s moral underpinning. What else would make it right or wrong? Without that moral basis, there can’t be a reason for that change. And without a point there’s no defense to maintain it.
If moral truth was self evident how did we get the bad systems in the first place? These systems hung around so long because lies were explicitly passed down for years. Truth must be passed down to counter that.
And I agree that the individual mindset of people may never change no matter the structures those individuals operate in. But the key is, they have to operate within them whether they agree or not. We can’t control what people accept but we can format the country in a way the compels truth to be disseminated.
I actually believe passionately in American exceptionalism. Other places don’t even talk about the failures of their systems and who they disadvantage. That in and of itself is exceptional. But we have to establish clear moral stakes so we can have a clear rationale for maintaining the advances we have made.
Texas has a well-documented history of undue political influence within its public education system, particularly when it comes to textbooks: https://billmoyers.com/content/messing-with-texas-textbooks/ This "defense" of Texas Republicans is in no way reassuring given past decisions about how particular aspects of history should be taught. No propaganda or stretch of the imagination is required to believe that Texas is willing to pull a "very fine people on both sides" with respect to the KKK when at one point in the recent past they had a textbook in circulation calling enslaved Africans "workers" and treating the trans-Atlantic slave trade as a typical "pattern of immigration" in U.S. history.
This strains credulity to the limit and beyond. In the middle of a confected crisis about critical race theory, a Texas Republican decides this would be a good time to clean up some harmless redundancy in the states education standards. Tell me another!
They removed a requirement to teach that the Klan was morally wrong from SB 3. The fact that outrage at that is labeled "race baiting propaganda" by certain people is just more proof that any expectation that we condemn white supremacy is permanently triggering to some, whether in the form of something ridiculous like CRT or something as basic as "teach explicitly the Klan is bad." Teaching about history and social changes without moral context is toothless and the people who passed this bill either should know that or do know it and are deliberately malicious. There is no excuse.
You may be surprised to hear that I prefer education to be consciously and explicitly moral. But I didn't establish the normative conventions for how public school curricula are written. The value-neutral language of TEKS is standard; the value-laden language of H.B. 3979 was actually a departure from standard practice. If you read the social studies curricula of other states, you'll find the same thing, though TEKS is more substantive than most. This is true even of liberal states like California and New York. New York's social studies content standards don't even mention the KKK (though you'll find it in the state's suggested curriculum materials), let alone dictate it be condemned.
I understand how people can be confused about the language issue; I've had some Twitter discussions to that effect today. But I don't believe a reasonable reader who understands the context can read the HuffPost article and fail to recognize the lies it is propagating. The ultimate effect of propaganda like this is to encourage even more reactive legislation from red states.
I just think labeling a article that accurately reported on what the Texas GOP did propaganda is at least as hyperbolic as the HuffPosts framing of the general issue and therefore contributes to the general problem of gratuitous labeling tons of people and groups as bad actors.
If we’re gonna say HuffPost made more out of it than it is I can kind of see that. But it would have to be false to be propaganda and no one is arguing that the Texas GOP didn’t do what HuffPost said they did.
Blatantly taking something out of context can still be false. Let's say that I donate $20 a month to a group called the American Alliance Against Breast Cancer (fictional org, just using as an example). Then I find out that they spend way too much money on high salaries and perks for staff, cancel the payment, and start sending the same amount to a different group, Stop Breast Cancer. Would it be fair to write an angry post about how Cathy has decided to stop her donations to a breast cancer charity?
It wouldn't be fair but that 20 buck example is out of context and the HuffPost might have been hyperbolic but it didn't rise to the level of propaganda. That label is at least as hyperbolic as HuffPost. Texas GOP did do what Huff said they're trying to. I'm trying figure out what key details are missing that make what the HuffPost said rise to the level of outright disinformation.
Let me back up. I was referring the to HuffPost article Lee referenced. There headline wasn’t misleading or overblown at all. Now the social media spin on it may have been ridiculous but I don’t think some trolls on Twitter is who he’s referring to here, I think he’s talking about HuffPost.
To ask the kids to imagine family or friends in there position is asking them to put it in a moral context. And I don’t think moral conclusions are inherent. If they were we wouldn’t have gotten bad systems in the past. Right and wrong has to be instilled or attempted to be instilled. Whether individual teachers condemn the Klan from a personal place is secondary in my opinion. Whatever individuals think, our structures shouldn’t dictate bend to the lie. Our systems should attempt to instill truth. Without that, the point of the history lesson is lost.
Before I respond I want to recenter my initial irritation. The HuffPost article might over blow a minor issue (l don’t think it does but I’m gonna get to that in a second) but it isn’t misleading at all. That element of this article is flat wrong and that’s probably the most annoying thing about it.
Also I agree these things ought not to be taught as hopeless or solved. People who take the former position inparticular I find suspicious. If it’s hopeless why bother talking about it!? What’s your real angle then?
I think we ought to decenter the individual in all discussions and teaching about race. It’s not just about the morality of the Klan, or the atrocities of Tulsa and so on, it’s about the systemic forces that allow for the Klan and the mistreatment of Mexicans to happen in the way that they did. Decentering isolated tragedies and discussions about who benefits can cut down the bullying of certain leftists and the defensiveness of alot of people.
The issue though is you can’t take about why the Klan is wrong without specific moral conclusions. The reason for a systemic change has a moral underpinning. What makes something right or wrong is it’s moral underpinning. What else would make it right or wrong? Without that moral basis, there can’t be a reason for that change. And without a point there’s no defense to maintain it.
If moral truth was self evident how did we get the bad systems in the first place? These systems hung around so long because lies were explicitly passed down for years. Truth must be passed down to counter that.
And I agree that the individual mindset of people may never change no matter the structures those individuals operate in. But the key is, they have to operate within them whether they agree or not. We can’t control what people accept but we can format the country in a way the compels truth to be disseminated.
I actually believe passionately in American exceptionalism. Other places don’t even talk about the failures of their systems and who they disadvantage. That in and of itself is exceptional. But we have to establish clear moral stakes so we can have a clear rationale for maintaining the advances we have made.
Texas has a well-documented history of undue political influence within its public education system, particularly when it comes to textbooks: https://billmoyers.com/content/messing-with-texas-textbooks/ This "defense" of Texas Republicans is in no way reassuring given past decisions about how particular aspects of history should be taught. No propaganda or stretch of the imagination is required to believe that Texas is willing to pull a "very fine people on both sides" with respect to the KKK when at one point in the recent past they had a textbook in circulation calling enslaved Africans "workers" and treating the trans-Atlantic slave trade as a typical "pattern of immigration" in U.S. history.
But persist with the excessive protestations...