Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

[PyramidHead]

 

[ruby sparks]

nm

 

[ruby sparks]

It sounds like part of this curriculum makes the same mistake that some of the college ethnic studies programs make, namely: emphasizing empowerment to the point of no longer being very objective.

Yes. To me, it's the same sort of flaw that Gender Studies seems to have. To me, it's often a case of a good idea taken a bit too far.

 

[laughing dog]

So basically, you're mad that the facts associated with this issue connote a supposedly liberal bias, but aren't sure what "alternative facts" ought to be pushed to the kids? Let us know when you decide, I guess. Unlike you, the committee was mandated to produce a model curriculum whether it was "tricky" or not, so rather than engaging in politicking, they stuck to what was demonstrably true and sticks relatively close to scholarly consensus on these issues.

I never said I was, and am not, mad about anything.

Unlike you, the committee was mandated to produce a model curriculum whether it was "tricky" or not, so rather than engaging in politicking, they stuck to what was demonstrably true and sticks relatively close to scholarly consensus on these issues.

Oh it is definitely politicking, imo.

And to illustrate the point about 'facts', it may arguably be true that capitalism is a power structure that can be set alongside patriarchy and white supremacy, but it is only part of the truth. Capitalism is also liberating, and in most if not all current forms, at least to some extent, progressive, though not especially in the USA, because it's arguably less 'mixed' there, compared to some other places, but even there it would be possible to make a case in favour of capitalism because in many ways America, with its history of capitalism, is a great country. Granted, that's especially true, in general terms, if you're white and/or male.

That's my point. It's a curriculum that only tells half the truth and half of the facts, because it's coming at them from an ideological position. And that's why it's politicking. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with politicking per se. But in this context, educating children, I'd have preferred a bit less of it, while still being in favour of informing children about many of the relevant and traditionally-neglected sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues regarding ethnicity.

Curricula about history or culture or society come from an ideological position - it is not possible to do otherwise.

 

[ruby sparks]

Curricula about history or culture or society come from an ideological position - it is not possible to do otherwise.

It's not clear from that what your point is. I'd be guessing.

But what I would say is that even if it is correct, I think it would be better to strive towards as much objectivity as possible.

 

[J842P]

So to make the course more factual and less politically correct, we should teach that "Capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"?

Stop pretending that ethnic studies and critical theory just deals with plain facts. It is clearly ideological. And not merely ideological, but explicitly activist.


I would also say, filled with terrible scholarship. But that is just my opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

Curricula about history or culture or society come from an ideological position - it is not possible to do otherwise.

It's not clear from that what your point is. I'd be guessing.

But what I would say is that even if it is correct, I think it would be better to strive towards as much objectivity as possible.

Any curriculum in history or the social sciences is based on an ideological position. Critiques of such curricula are also based on an ideological position. The idea of "as much objectivity as possible" is also ideologically driven - one person's objectivity is another person's bias.

The study of history outside of memorizing facts is the study of telling a story because history is always being interpreted through new lens and views.

IMO, when one says "this curricula is ideological driven" that really means "this curricula does not fit within my ideological prism". Which is not a meaningless statement, but a very useful one either.

 

[Politesse]

So to make the course more factual and less politically correct, we should teach that "Capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"?

Stop pretending that ethnic studies and critical theory just deals with plain facts. It is clearly ideological. And not merely ideological, but explicitly activist.


I would also say, filled with terrible scholarship. But that is just my opinion.

No such thing as a "plain fact". But I would be interested to see any specific explanation for how you think this model ought to be redesigned.

 

[ZiprHead]

So to make the course more factual and less politically correct, we should teach that "Capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"?

Stop pretending that ethnic studies and critical theory just deals with plain facts. It is clearly ideological. And not merely ideological, but explicitly activist.


I would also say, filled with terrible scholarship. But that is just my opinion.

No such thing as a "plain fact". But I would be interested to see any specific explanation for how you think this model ought to be redesigned.

I'm sure if an American Indian wrote a history textbook, it would be a helluva lot differant than the ones you were taught from.

 

[Politesse]

No such thing as a "plain fact". But I would be interested to see any specific explanation for how you think this model ought to be redesigned.

I'm sure if an American Indian wrote a history textbook, it would be a helluva lot differant than the ones you were taught from.

I highly recommend this one: https://www.amazon.com/Indigenous-Peoples-History-ReVisioning-American/dp/0807057835

Or from a more pedagogical perspective: https://www.amazon.com/United-History-without-American-Indians/dp/1469621207

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No such thing as a "plain fact". But I would be interested to see any specific explanation for how you think this model ought to be redesigned.

I'm sure if an American Indian wrote a history textbook, it would be a helluva lot differant than the ones you were taught from.

Let's say so. That does not change the fact that there are facts, like, say, the fact that the Moon Landing happened, the fact that ML conspiracy theorists are mistaken, etc. And there are also facts of the matter regarding the claims made in "ethnic studies and critical theory", or in any other course.

Whether those facts are "plain" or not, I'm not entirely sure because the language is somewhat ambiguous, but if the question is whether there are professors that teach facts (or make false claims, depending on the case) with an intent to promote some ideological agenda (religious or otherwise), and professors that have no such agenda, that is true as well.

 

[Bomb#20]

Capitalism is oppressive.

Can you kindly name me one economic system that is actually better than capitalism?

Keep in mind capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the world.

Every economic system contains an authority that controls some aspects of the economy and neglects to control other aspects of the economy. Consequently, regardless of what is observed to happen in any economic system, a partisan of control by authority always has the option of giving the controlling authority credit for everything good that happens, while simultaneously blaming everything bad that happens on whatever subset of decisions were left to others.

"He is merciful. He sent the rain."

"Oh Ralph. Who sent the fire?"

The Thorn Birds​

 

[Bomb#20]

Stop pretending that ethnic studies and critical theory just deals with plain facts. It is clearly ideological. And not merely ideological, but explicitly activist.


I would also say, filled with terrible scholarship. But that is just my opinion.

No such thing as a "plain fact".

"Plain fact" was Jarhyn's terminology. "Demonstrably true" was your terminology. What is the distinction in your mind between "plain fact" and "demonstrably true" that makes you think it's possible for there to be no such thing as a "plain fact" but such a thing as "demonstrably true" stuff?

But I would be interested to see any specific explanation for how you think this model ought to be redesigned.

Well, for starts, how about both leaving out the "capitalism is a form of power and oppression" and also leaving out the "capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"? Why should a captive audience be required to submit to such editorializing?

So to make the course more factual and less politically correct, we should teach that "Capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"?

That's no different from defending making children recite the Lord's Prayer by saying "So to make the course more factual and less establishing religion we should make them recite that there's no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet?".

 

[ruby sparks]

Curricula about history or culture or society come from an ideological position - it is not possible to do otherwise.

It's not clear from that what your point is. I'd be guessing.

But what I would say is that even if it is correct, I think it would be better to strive towards as much objectivity as possible.

Any curriculum in history or the social sciences is based on an ideological position. Critiques of such curricula are also based on an ideological position. The idea of "as much objectivity as possible" is also ideologically driven - one person's objectivity is another person's bias.

The study of history outside of memorizing facts is the study of telling a story because history is always being interpreted through new lens and views.

IMO, when one says "this curricula is ideological driven" that really means "this curricula does not fit within my ideological prism". Which is not a meaningless statement, but a very useful one either.

I can't fully agree with that assessment. I think you're right, but only up to a point. Sure, a lot of such activities involves interpretation, but my issue would be that you are putting all degrees of 'ideology' on the same footing, as if there was no way to tell if one was much more biased or selective than another.

 

[laughing dog]

Any curriculum in history or the social sciences is based on an ideological position. Critiques of such curricula are also based on an ideological position. The idea of "as much objectivity as possible" is also ideologically driven - one person's objectivity is another person's bias.

The study of history outside of memorizing facts is the study of telling a story because history is always being interpreted through new lens and views.

IMO, when one says "this curricula is ideological driven" that really means "this curricula does not fit within my ideological prism". Which is not a meaningless statement, but a very useful one either.

I can't fully agree with that assessment. I think you're right, but only up to a point. Sure, a lot of such activities involves interpretation, but my issue would be that you are putting all degrees of 'ideology' on the same footing, as if there was no way to tell if one was much more biased or selective than another.

How does one distinguish the level of selectivity or bias among competing curricula without using ideology? For example, take the notion that capitalism is "oppressive". I know capitalists that agree that capitalism is "oppressive" and believe capitalism is good. I know socialists that agree capitalism is "oppressive", that capitalism has improved people's lives but believe capitalism can be improved/evolve into something better. I know people who think capitalism is oppressive and believe it is a force for no good. I can envision competing curricula that teach capitalism is oppressive using each one of those views as its ideological slant. Is only one of those possible curricula too biased or too selective? IMO, there is no intelligent way to make an assessment without much more detail about each curriculum.

In this particular case, I seriously doubt the WSJ (whose ideological bent is not amenable to the notion that capitalism is "oppressive") looked that at the proposed curriculum in depth when it is made its report.

 

[Politesse]

"Plain fact" was Jarhyn's terminology. "Demonstrably true" was your terminology. What is the distinction in your mind between "plain fact" and "demonstrably true" that makes you think it's possible for there to be no such thing as a "plain fact" but such a thing as "demonstrably true" stuff?

Facts are demonstrable as well, but social facts are complex and contextual. Anyone trying to sell you a regimen of "just plain facts" that explain the world simply and just-so-happens to lead one to their political perspectives is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Well, for starts, how about both leaving out the "capitalism is a form of power and oppression" and also leaving out the "capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"? Why should a captive audience be required to submit to such editorializing?

Are you suggesting that ethnic relations in America could possibly discussed while leaving out the role that capitalism played in creating and maintaining a class structure? I can only conclude that you are new to the field, as there is really no way of coming to an understanding race in the US absent the class issues that underlie them and have always underlain them. Race and ethnicity were invented to justify the existing system of caste, not the other way around. One of there things demonstrably existed before the other did.

So to make the course more factual and less politically correct, we should teach that "Capitalism is progressive" and "America is a great country"?

That's no different from defending making children recite the Lord's Prayer by saying "So to make the course more factual and less establishing religion we should make them recite that there's no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet?".

I was merely trying to make sense of Ruby's post, which critiqued the model and suggested that it would be correctable by acknowledge the "greatness" of America.

 

[ruby sparks]

How does one distinguish the level of selectivity or bias among competing curricula without using ideology? For example, take the notion that capitalism is "oppressive". I know capitalists that agree that capitalism is "oppressive" and believe capitalism is good. I know socialists that agree capitalism is "oppressive", that capitalism has improved people's lives but believe capitalism can be improved/evolve into something better. I know people who think capitalism is oppressive and believe it is a force for no good. I can envision competing curricula that teach capitalism is oppressive using each one of those views as its ideological slant. Is only one of those possible curricula too biased or too selective? IMO, there is no intelligent way to make an assessment without much more detail about each curriculum.

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

In this particular case, I seriously doubt the WSJ (whose ideological bent is not amenable to the notion that capitalism is "oppressive") looked that at the proposed curriculum in depth when it is made its report.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't, but we have moved on from just reading the WSJ article.

 

[ruby sparks]

I was merely trying to make sense of Ruby's post, which critiqued the model and suggested that it would be correctable by acknowledge the "greatness" of America.

I think that was your suggestion actually.

All I was doing was highlighting how merely saying 'capitalism is oppressive' is arguably an ideological statement more than a balanced or objective one.

For what it's worth, I think the inclusion of capitalism alongside patriarchy and white supremacy as an (implied) oppressive power structure, whilst imo not a great idea all things considered, is a relatively small or secondary matter, that has been seized on and overplayed by some.

 

[Politesse]

I was merely trying to make sense of Ruby's post, which critiqued the model and suggested that it would be correctable by acknowledge the "greatness" of America.

I think that was your suggestion actually.

All I was doing was highlighting how merely saying 'capitalism is oppressive' is arguably an ideological statement more than a balanced or objective one.

For what it's worth, I think the inclusion of capitalism alongside patriarchy and white supremacy as an (implied) oppressive power structure, whilst imo not a great idea all things considered, is a relatively small or secondary matter, that has been seized on and overplayed by some.

Yes, but what are your recommendations for correcting the curriculum? Are you arguing that the economic dimensions of the problem should not be examined? This document is open to public review, you're free to make any edits you like and forward them to the committee for consideration.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, but what are your recommendations for correcting the curriculum?

For starters, as others have suggested, think of another candidate for 'oppressive power structure' to go alongside patriarchy and white privilege. Especially when doing the first Sample Theme. Capitalism is not a good candidate, imo, and I think the fact that the text accompanying the first Sample Theme does not even mention it again bears this out.