Inexplicable “balance”

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/576890-texas-school-leader-tells-teachers-to-balance-holocaust-books-with

In an attempt to maintain “balance” in the classroom, a school leader in Texas tells teachers that if they have books on the Holocaust, they need to provide “balance” and provide for views from the “other side”. All because a 4th grade teacher had a book on anti-racism in her classroom.

Sounds to me like in the rush to hide the racism that still exists in this country, some administrators are advocating for Holocaust denial.

For anyone who wants to deny that over 12,000,000 people, including over 6,000,000 Jews (family members included) were exterminated by the Nazi regime, I got news for you: You are an idiot.

19 thoughts on “Inexplicable “balance”

  1. The concept that books in school should freely offer multiple points of view is certainly reasonable. But so is the concept that schools should teach morality.

    Perhaps the point of the story is to recognize that the Holocaust can be propagandized as easily as any other topic. For example, one book about the Nuremberg trials might promote the legal doctrine of crimes against humanity whereas another might argue that no such doctrine is valid.

    Like

    1. “The concept that books in school should freely offer multiple points of view is certainly reasonable. But so is the concept that schools should teach morality.”

      Your statement goes against your previous post concerning the VBCPS Board’s refusal to approve a resolution that would APPEAR to ATTEMPT to prevent teaching the big bad (non existent) boogeyman of CRT.

      And just how would someone with any historical sense attempt to “propagandize’ the atrocities of the Holocaust, except to say it was NOT a bad thing or that it didn’t happen?

      And I just cannot wrap my head around the idea that “crimes against humanity” are not, in interpreting your statement, CRIMES.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “Your statement goes against your previous post concerning the VBCPS Board’s refusal to approve a resolution that would APPEAR to ATTEMPT to prevent teaching the big bad (non existent) boogeyman of CRT.”

        How so? CRT is rubbish, just like denying the mass murder of Jews in WWII.

        RE: “And I just cannot wrap my head around the idea that “crimes against humanity” are not, in interpreting your statement, CRIMES.”

        You can look it up. The concept is that humanity is not capable of being a plaintiff. Also, that the doctrine was invented, without precedent, for the Nuremberg prosecutions.

        Like

        1. You do know that all precedents had a first time, right?

          You say CRT is “rubbish” simply because you disagree with the concept that there has been a history of racial bias in this country since its founding. To deny that is to deny facts, which you are really adept at. You are also very closed minded about what has been going on on this continent for over 400 years.

          I refer to the closing line of the original post.

          Like

          1. RE: “You say CRT is ‘rubbish’ simply because you disagree with the concept that there has been a history of racial bias in this country since its founding.”

            I didn’t say anything like that at all. So, since you are just making things up and being unpleasant, I have nothing more to say.

            Like

          2. …”I didn’t say anything like that at all.”…

            With no explanation provided, what am I to do? Based on YOUR previous comments concerning CRT, you have disagreed with the concept that racism and racial bias has been a big part of this country’s history. To deny that is akin to denying the Holocaust. It is true, but you hate truth. See your support for the concepts that the 2020 election was somehow “stolen” by some cabal of 80 million voters.

            Like

          3. Well, if you’re going to state other people’s opinion for them and then argue against your guess at their position, what’s the point of other people participating at all?

            No one denies that there has been racism and that there still is. That is still poor support for CRT. The presumption that a person must be a racist because of their skin color is in itself deeply racist.

            CRT is rubbish because it exploits people’s doubts about their own progress as a smokescreen to advance Marxist ideology. It is a hateful ideology on a par with that that led to the Holocaust.

            Like

          4. There’s the fear porn word – Marxism. Yes, CRT may be based in some Marxist ideology, but to condemn the entire concept because SOME of it is based in Marxism seems to be a case of throwing out the good in pursuit if the perfect.

            As far as my interpretation of others’ words, you are saying MY opinion is invalid. I read what people say and I take those words at face value.

            You accuse others of doing the same thing. Hypocritical attacks, again, taint your views.

            Like

          5. Not that it would be relevant, but yes.

            If I had unrealized racist sentiments, who, other than myself, would be harmed? I might fail to select the best employee, or the best doctor, or the best restaurant, but that only disadvantages me in a free marketplace.

            But Marxism denies the protective choice of the marketplace. It is inherently the use of force to deny choice. You can’t have a little bit of Marxism without having an effect on others.

            Like

          6. “Not that it would be relevant, but yes.”

            It IS relevant. And that is the issue I have with deniers of racist ideals in this country’s history.

            Racism denies equal rights to ALL. You can’t have a little bit of racism without having an effect on others.

            Like

          7. Racism absent force harms only the racist.

            If an employer doesn’t hire the best because of race, whose business suffers?

            Of a patient chooses an inferior doctor because of race, who suffers?

            If a buyer pays more for the same product because of the race of the seller, who doesn’t get his money’s worth?

            It is only when force accompanies racism that others are harmed. A truly free market punishes racism far better than government, as you can fool the government with technicalities, but you can’t fool the market.

            Like

          8. How?

            Does someone own my patronage?

            If I don’t hire the best employee because of race, my competitor will, and I have only hurt myself. Only if I can prevent others from hiring the better employee by force is that employee harmed.

            You state opinions as though they are fact, but you cannot support them logically.

            Like

      2. So you are saying that the US judicial system and entirety of law enforcement is inherently racist and that whites just exploit blacks for personal enrichment? That being the definition of CRT, you are full of sh#t my friend. Not in my schools, not in my government, not in my house, not in my world. You can believe CRT racist trash all you want but you are the problem, not the solution.

        Like

        1. CRT actually explains the presence of racism in our culture, including in the courts and police forces.

          Tis you who is full of shit. Denying the presence of racism in this country is what is holding MANY people back, both Black AND White. Ignoring the COMPLETE history of this country is a gross injustice against ALL of us. But you live in your lily white tower and your lily white world and ignore those citizens of this country who are different from you in appearance, religious belief (or non-belief) and pretend those things do not exist.

          Like

  2. BTW, I think you and The Hill are mischaracterizing Ms Peddy’s intentions.

    I think her statement was intended to illustrate the impossible position HD 3979 places teachers in. That the bill required the ludicrous balancing of books on the Holocaust with Holocaust denial books.

    The intention of HB 3979 is clearly to require both sides of a controversial topic be considered, like the differing opinions on the cause and consequences of climate change, but can be extended to include clearly factual matters like the Holocaust because some loon disputes them.

    It’s hard to draw such lines.

    Like

    1. I disagree. It was quite clear that Holocaust deniers should be given a seat at the table. Historical facts should not give way to bukllshit idiots who say it never happened or that it was just a move by the Rothschilds to take over the world.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s