“…inherently divisive concepts”…OK, what are they?

So the causes of the Civil War, the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, thousands of lynchings, the Tulsa Massacre, Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japanese Internment 1/6/21…bye, bye. Nothing more to see here. Back to young George cutting down a cherry tree. In my view, understanding a country and its culture means a deep dive into all its history, not just the feel good parts. When we don’t do that, we are truly indoctrinating our youth and giving us a national hubris that will weaken us in the long run.

IMO

69 thoughts on ““…inherently divisive concepts”…OK, what are they?

  1. Apparently you refuse to accept that critical race theory is not history but a belief/concept/theory that whites, law enforcement and the entire judicial system are inherently racist oppressors and blacks are the oppressed in today’s society. THAT is a divisive concept, it’s bull crap and you know it!!! Stop pretending you don’t in order to conduct left wing pandering for votes.

    Like

    1. “Critical race theory” as you define it this time is not now nor has it ever been taught as part of the public school curriculum. Banning something that does not exist is nothing but Republicans “pandering for votes.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. As “I” define it it is from britannica not made up like YOUR definition and YES it has been taught as such. Lying as usual doesn’t change facts.

        Like

        1. How many teachers are being indoctrinated and by whom? Kerry does a regular “Hannity”. That is she finds some “outrageous” position by a few on the left and spews vitriol from a position of self-righteousness.

          But that is where we are today.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “Loudin County alone paid $314,000 for teacher “training” on applying CRT to their lesson plans.”

            You should have learned by now, the sources you rely on are not honest. This firm was NOT hired to train teachers what to teach. It was hired in response to allegations by the 60% of the residents who are not white that their children were not being treated equitably. It was an attempt to study, quantify and address a perceived problem.

            https://loudounnow.com/2021/06/02/school-board-battles-misinformation-over-equity-efforts/

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Sometimes it seems there is a panic among some on the right that seems to repeat that of antebellum whites regarding slave revolts.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. So, teaching and understanding the realities of life is Marxist? I guess just about everything is.

          You people think you are so smart and yet you hold up ignorance as an ideal. Odd. And anything that might develop empathy for the problems of others – can’t have that.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Equity in outcome” is an undefined term that you pulled out of your ass. And until we actually have “equality of opportunity” you should help achieve it rather than opposing every step in that direction.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “So, teaching and understanding the realities of life is Marxist? I guess just about everything is.”

            Well, yes, because Marxism is correct. Or, at least more correct than Dunning School stuff, which was an intentional revisionist project.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. “No one has claimed CRT is an item in the K-12 curriculum. The problem is that teachers are being indoctrinated to inject the Marxist ideas of CRT into other curriculum lessons.”

          Actually, you are the first right winger I’ve encountered who seems to understand this distinction. I think you’re giving your fellow travelers too much credit.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. My, my. We have struck a nerve.

      I did not mention CRT in my post. Did I?

      No, but your knee jerk reaction says otherwise.

      So, my post was that the XO, in its fervor to pander to his base, mentions CRT as an example of ANY divisive subject. Schools did not teach CRT, but who cares about facts.

      But, if you were a teacher, would you be comfortable teaching the causes of the Civil War. Or why Jim Crow was the law. Or Greenwood. Or that the government lied to us about Vietnam. Or WMD’s in Iraq.

      Remember that Youngkin set up a hotline for parents to turn in teachers they may not agree with. Sounds like the “Great Leap Forward” under Mao. Do you remember those bloody purges?

      It starts with Americans turning in other Americans to some government authority because they are not “American” enough to suit them.

      Is this what you want? Because it is what the Republicans are doing. Talk about cancel culture. Book burning is next, my friend.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. “Glancing over the opinions at BR, I did not see school systems adding CRT as a course.”

            The usual effort to equate “opinions” with “facts”. They are consistent in their arguments. Too bad facts are very rarely used.

            Like

        1. The article does not say what you claim it says.

          It has yet ANOTHER definition of what CRT really is and bemoans that reporting in media does not get how pervasive and insidious it is.

          It makes this point . . .
          “[“conservatives”] do not oppose teaching the history of racism and slavery, but they want it taught accurately and in context.”

          Ay, there’s the rub. What is accurate? What is in context? Luckily, we now have a hotline where parents can turn in teachers for investigation and correction.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. My, my, my you play others like fools. News flash, we are not fooled. What you want “taught” are not facts but subjective slants, fantasy and downright lies to instill leftist ideology. You know, like boys can be girls if you put lipstick on them, dress them in a bra and send them to the girls locker room. You people are truly sick in the head.

        Like

      2. Oh, yes, critical race theory is clearly included in your post. Look at your link, you know the basis for your post to begin with.

        Like

        1. The link is the governor’s own XO. Not my writing.
          But, if you read it, you’ll see the issue more clearly.

          Combined with a hotline to report teachers who may have strayed from state dogma and we are at Mao’s doorstep.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Hot lines to question teaches sounds a whole lot like the Texas abortion law where citizens can turn in other citizens for having or assisting someone in having a medical procedure that is NONE OF THEIR DAMNED BUSINESS.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If this XO and the snitch line become the modus operandi then I would imagine a “Rosa Parks” might file a complaint and we go from there.

            We already have a possible precedence being set by Texas’ abortion bill. State authorized vigilantes turning in neighbors to the state for transgressions. And cash. And immunity from false reporting.

            Your papers please.

            We could put Stasi to shame on volume of secret files alone if this type of authorized extortion takes hold.

            The flag wrapping and cross bearing thugs have landed.

            In my opinion of course.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Teaching my grandchildren that they are responsible for the acts of others who were dead before my grandfather was born is pretty damned divisive. Teaching other kids that they are due reparations for those acts from my grandchildren is as well.

    Like

    1. Well put.

      I think it needs to be emphasized that Youngkin’s EO basically directs a review of policies, curricula and instructional approaches. “Inherently divisive concepts” are to be the litmus test applied in the review.

      It is important not to overreact to the governor’s action. First, the review will be done, then a report will be published, then — and only then — will material actions take place.

      You’d think that everyone would want “inherently divisive concepts” to be eliminated in public education. Opposition to the EO suggests that some people want “inherently divisive concepts” to be preserved. The preservation is so important to them that they are willing to attack the process even before the review is completed and the report is published. That is, these antagonists are staking out a position before any facts are known.

      Like

      1. “ You’d think that everyone would want “inherently divisive concepts” to be eliminated in public education.”

        Why? Critical thinking requires hard choices to work the cranial “muscles”.

        You want to squash biology because of evolution? Or any physics that approaches the age of the universe as more than 10,000 years. Or Civil Rights legislation because it’s history is divisive?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “Why? Critical thinking requires hard choices to work the cranial ‘muscles’.”

          There’s a big difference between dialectic and divisiveness. Allow me to illustrate:

          Dialectic: I point out that you have committed a category error by failing to distinguish between things that are different.

          Divisiveness: I call you stupid.

          Here, divisiveness would certainly work the cranial muscles, but it would never amount to critical thinking.

          Like

      2. “You’d think that everyone would want “inherently divisive concepts” to be eliminated in public educations”

        Uh, what are those concepts? Who is going to decide? Is the truth – which can be divisive – to be repressed? Are people to be punished if SOMEONE reports them? Study up on the Chinese Cultural Revolution to see where this is headed.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh, it is an exclusive list of divisive concepts? Who knew? Wait a minute. It says that these “divisive concepts” include BUT ARE NOT LIMTED TO [the list].”

            And it is a list of things that are NOT part of any school’s curriculum. At least, not since the 1960’s and the law made those “European civilization chauvinists” go underground.

            So, I am a teacher, and I gave little Johnny a “D” on his history test. The next thing I know, little Johnny’s parents have called the hotline and accused me of teaching “divisive concepts.” Who gets to adjudicate? What evidence is to be presented? To whom? On a scale of 1 to 10, how divisive was my teaching? Am I guilty until proven innocent?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Who gets to adjudicate?”

            Do you think you should be allowed to teach without supervision?

            Like

          3. “Do you think you should be allowed to teach without supervision?”

            No.

            And that does not answer the question.

            It was a rhetorical question because it is a nonsense order with no mechanism for interpretation and enforcement.

            Again, I suggest you study what happened with similar ideas about what it is okay to say and teach took hold in China under Mao. Here is the short version – it was a disaster.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I think that to the extent that CRT appears in our schools, THAT is analogous to Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

            Like

          5. “I think that to the extent that CRT appears in our schools”…

            Just saying it appears in our schools does not prove that it does. Keep throwing the fertilizer and the lie grows.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Nobody is saying you or your progeny are personally responsible for our racial problems.

      But ignoring the history of race in our nation is a classic elephant in the room example.

      Reparations? Not going anywhere except among some theorists on the left. The closest might be acknowledgment of past injustices through rebalancing education funding, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Best I could tell from your link is that it is based on co-morbidity which happens to be higher among some ethnicities.

          Would you want to be first in line for a sickle cell cure because of age?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If I were in danger, yes, but that is irrelevant.

            The co-morbidities are counted twice if you are not white.

            In the NY version of the allocation for therapeutics, for example. you get a point for HBP, 2 for diabetes, 1 for kidney disease and so on. But you get 7 points for being Black, justified because Blacks have a higher incidence of HBP, diabetes, kidney disease and so on.

            So, the co-morbidities common among Blacks are effectively counted twice.

            That makes a healthy 40 yo Black man equal in priority with a 70 yo white man with diabetes, Hbp, cancer treatment and an organ transplant. You almost can’t make up a 7 point handicap.

            This does not mean that we would be trading white lives for Black lives, it means that more people of both races will die, just proportionately more white deaths.

            If the scarce therapeutics get used up by healthy, young Blacks who don’t really need them, they won’t be there for those elders who really need them of any race.

            But that’s OK because the death toll will fall slightly higher on whites.

            That’s how fanatical the equity mob has become.

            Like

          1. But entirely accurate?

            There’s your problem. You have a terminal case of white victimhood.

            Here and there race has been a small factor, among many, in scoring priorities for vaccines and medicines. You blow it out of all proportion. That is white victimhood at work.

            You claim that blacks in these scoring systems get too much priority because their co-morbidities are already known. That ignores the FACT that as a group they have far less access to the medical system and FREQUENTLY their co-morbidities are not known – even to them.

            We DO know that suffer disproportionately from Covid for a variety of reasons. You argued that FACT in defending Trump. But let that FACT get a little weight in some tough decisions and you just can’t get past how unfair TO YOU that is.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. “Teaching my grandchildren. . .”

      Ah, yet another definition of CRT at work. This time it is explicitly about money and – by extension – progressive policies and TAXES (Oh my!) that might address some of the inherited problems plaguing the poor.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Where did I mention money?

        That is your obsession. I pointed out children being told they are to blame for the actions pf people dead over a hundred years.

        Just as bad is telling other kids that their potential is limited by what happened 100 years ago.

        Like

      1. “You are just as divisive in your concepts and theories.”

        That’s not fair. To be “divisive,” you must be taken seriously. No one takes insane babbling, utter conspiracy theory nonsense, and clueless name-calling seriously. It might evoke pity or a good laugh, but that is about all.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. ” No one takes insane babbling, utter conspiracy theory nonsense, and clueless name-calling seriously. ”

          If only that were true. Mr. Price gets a LOT of support for his ideas and theories on the Forum. Ignoring it or saying no one takes it seriously is a problem. Some people DO take it seriously and therefore it must be challenged whenever possible.

          Like

  3. It turn out that the phrase Critical Race Theory is in the actual link. The link is, of course, to the primary source of the XO itself.

    My oversight, but that both misses and emphasizes my point.

    The biggest issue is the vague meaning of “inherently divisive concepts” coupled with a hotline for parents to report teachers to the state who may or may not have crossed some imaginary line.

    Why is that even in the XO, and who defines divisive? CRT was the issue and from that we now are heading in anything that some one is offended by. Wasn’t this the point of objection to the obnoxious behavior by liberal students in a few colleges regarding conservative speakers?

    What is next? Biology? Physics? Archaeology? All of these can be problems for some conservative religions. Add in all the controversies in our history, racial and otherwise, and we now have an endless purging of the ranks in strict accordance with the lowest common denominator.

    And chillingly, another move towards vigilante law.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “The biggest issue is the vague meaning of ‘inherently divisive concepts'”

      The EO provides a 200-word definition. What part do you find vague or disagree with?

      “For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual’s moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.”

      Like

      1. “…including, but not limited to…” is pretty vague to me.

        “… an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith…”.

        Can Jim Crow be taught as part of American history? A part that was perfectly acceptable to a large part of America about a generation ago. What about its lingering after effects? Northam was vilified for black face. Can that be mentioned in VA history without explaining what the origins are and why?

        The XO is a can of worms and combine that with a hotline to report errant teachers to the state and you have a pandering mishmash. Mao would be proud of our “Reds”.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The XO is a can of worms and combine that with a hotline to report errant teachers to the state and you have a pandering mishmash.”

          The XO initiates a review and orders a report. I think you are vastly overreacting.

          Like

          1. You believe the government is better at reviewing criteria for divisive subjects, but not necessarily limited to racial issues?

            Perhaps if the complaining parent had to go face to face with the teacher in voicing a complaint in a courtroom or mediation setup, there might be some fairness.

            Maybe loser pays legal fees would help.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Everything was just fine so long as everyone knew their place. Or so I was told.

      The post-WW2 boom in housing, education and wealth accumulation was all denied to Blacks. Even those returning from a war to defend our nation.

      A few decades later, laws were finally passed to effect full American citizenship to minorities. Legally, but obviously not culturally or these debates would be in a dustbin.

      The blame game is in full swing. Still, as a nation, no matter the reasons or faults, we really should be fully integrated socially, culturally and economically by now, one would think.

      Unfortunately, the global experience says otherwise. Shiite v. Sunni, Irish Catholic v. Protestant, Israelites v. Palestinians, etc. Some go back millennia, so our racial divide is in its infancy among some others.

      Maybe we are not as exceptional as we think.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Don, John, Bruce, Bob, it seems like you all take issue with the very premise that the US is an inherently racist country with racist institutions. Is that correct? How do you counter that premise? Do you deny that indigenous genocide and African slavery occurred on this continent by our forbearers?

    At what point did someone snap their fingers and the country changed fundamentally and these issues just went away?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “Don, John, Bruce, Bob, it seems like you all take issue with the very premise that the US is an inherently racist country with racist institutions. Is that correct? How do you counter that premise? Do you deny that indigenous genocide and African slavery occurred on this continent by our forbearers?”

      Yes, I take issue with the premise. I counter it by asking, So what?

      That is, if you can prove to me that the “US [is] an inherently racist country with racist institutions,” what do you expect me to do about it?

      I note, as well, that I have never seen a scintilla of compelling evidence to support the premise. I can’t even figure out what “inherently racist” means in a practical sense. So, I’m inclined to view the premise as an unreality, a fiction, a false consciousness.

      I do not deny that “indigenous genocide and African slavery occurred on this continent by our forbearers,” but again I say, So what? Tell me why this is important or why I should care.

      Like

      1. Here is a very brief narrative of indisputable, non-partisan facts that I think should answer the “so what?”. Let’s just look at black people for simplicity.

        First slave ship arrives in VA in 1619. Nearly all black people on the continent are slaves until the end of the Civil War in 1865. 1619 to 1865 is 246 years. 1865 to 2022 is 157 years. That means for the majority of black peoples’ time on this continent, they were the chattel property of whites. After most federal troops left the former conferderate states, it was common for many localities to pass vagrancy laws, meaning if you were just out minding your own business and couldn’t prove to the satisfaction of anyone who inquired that you had proper business to take care of, you could be impressed into free labor by local police departments, which were just continuations of earlier “fugitive” slave patrols. We all know about Jim Crow, lynchings, all-white juries, the Klan, etc. Success stories of thriving black-owned neighborhoods and businesses are victims of white mobs armed by local law enforcement in many cities, Tulsa, OK in 1921 being the most notable. “States rights” language in the GI Bill–the thing credeted with lifting so many out of poverty by granting access to college and mortgages, which many of your parents were able to take advantage of–made it functionally impossible for black WWII veterans to access their due benefits. Those who did try to get homes found their neighborhoods red-lined and thus, did not qualify for government-backed mortgages that your parents got. (Google “Norfolk redline maps” sometime). When the interstate highway system was being build, many cities chose to level prosperous black neighborhoods to accommodate the new roads (Jackson’s Ward in Richmond, for example). Voting was basically impossible for black people in the south until the mid 1960s. Black men were more likely than whites to be drafted to fight in Vietnam. Civil Rights leaders assassinated, COINTELPRO, black areas more likely to face environmental pollution, more likely to be arrested, longer time in prison, the list goes on and on until the present day. There is a through-line of black people being second-class citizens–de jure and de facto–until this very moment.

        If someone asked you what WWII was, would you start with the Normandy Invasion? Or would you attempt to provide some historical context? The “so what” is that to understand social, cultural, economic, phenomena, you must understand its antecedents.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The ‘so what’ is that to understand social, cultural, economic, phenomena, you must understand its antecedents.”

          That’s fair. I even agree. I do not, however, see any linkage to your premise or any reason to believe the premise is valid. Disparate impact is easy to observe or to invent by narrative, but even if it is real it tells us nothing about causes.

          Disparate impact /= inherent racism.

          Like

          1. So here is where a scary Marxist interpretation/analysis is useful. The fact that these events and trends occurred is not disputed by anyone serious. However, I also don’t think it’s particularly accurate to say a plantation owner owned black slaves because he was racist. He owned them because it was profitable. The racism is secondary and a justification for the system. (“They’re not as civilized as us, it’s better for everyone they are my property,” etc.) Now the Civil War is over, horrible losses on both sides, and southern society is uprooted. These institutions that were built around a slavery and later Jim Crow model start to have their own self-justifying internal logics.

            Here’s an example that is more timely. There is a recording of Nixon explaining that they need to make a big deal about drugs and then to get people to associate weed with hippies and heroin with black people (two demographics not likely to vote for him) and then crack down hard on “the drugs.” So there’s this huge nationwide effort to heavily police those neighborhoods. So now it’s decades later, those communities have been gutted and those communities are now “high crime” which in turn means more policing. Officer Russell, fresh out of the academy with dreams of being one of the good ones, shows up to the Norfolk precinct on his first day and is told “these are the high crime neighborhoods that you need to focus on.” Maybe I’m not racist, and maybe nobody in my department is personally racist, but our institution was designed in a way–decades ago–to produce outcomes more punitive to one race. This is structural racism in modern parlance. It is a very clumsy and shorthanded way to describe it, but it is the terminology that most people are familiar with. It is incredibly alienating to people at first glance (case in point), but it is the language capitalism forces us to use, i.e., everything is attributable to individual motivations, rather than the institutions we are forced to live under.

            When we talk about these things, we’re not saying you are personally racist, just that you (and me) have materially benefitted from systems designed to ensure better outcomes for you than for others. When framed that way, most people agree this is not right.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “When framed that way, most people agree this is not right.”

            Again, I think the framing is wrong. I see no particular value in claiming that I or anyone else “materially benefitted from systems designed to ensure better outcomes” [for our people]. In fact, I see little evidence that the systems were designed for that purpose.

            I recommend a different approach to framing black history in America: Read the Slave Narratives collection on the Library of Congress web site. There, at least, you’ll see history through the eyes of people who lived it, not through some dubious academic construction.

            Like

          3. “I recommend a different approach to framing black history in America”

            To be honest, if you were a Black American, I would consider your suggestion worthy. But as you have never lived as a Black man in America, I look at your suggestion as a deflection from what you believe to be true.

            I did pick up on your education dig. “Academic construction”? It’s called history. And if looked at FULLY, and not whitewashed, the construct would be more complete than what we have been taught over the decades.

            The Civil War is the only history written in greater part by the LOSERS.

            Liked by 1 person

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 )

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