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

[Politesse]

Why?

And what?

 

[ruby sparks]

Why?

And what?

Why is capitalism not a good candidate imo? I've already elaborated.

What else might be a candidate instead? What if I say religion?

The fact is, I wouldn't say religion, because unlike something like, say, white supremacy, it can't reasonably (setting one-sided ideologies aside) be described of itself as an oppressive power structure, even though it sometimes is and more often was.

If I was putting together a Model Curriculum for Secular Studies to be taught to schoolchildren, would it be ok to introduce religion as being an oppressive power structure?

I hope you understand that the objection, such as it is, is not that capitalism, especially in relation to ethnic minorities in the USA, has not or cannot be oppressive or at least have oppressive features in the way it plays out, or even that some ethnicities have borne more of a brunt of the negative results than others, just that the bald statement 'capitalism is an oppressive power structure' or words to that effect, is a bit politically ideological (or at best a poor or at least controversial choice as a 1st example). The ways capitalism has been oppressive could be discussed, just as the ways religion (or any other 'system' that is a mixed bag) has been oppressive, could be discussed, without the thing itself being negatively labelled at more or less the outset.

 

[Politesse]

Why?

And what?

Why is capitalism not a good candidate imo? I've already elaborated.

What else might be a candidate instead? What if I say religion?

The fact is, I wouldn't say religion, because unlike something like, say, white supremacy, it can't reasonably (setting one-sided ideologies aside) be described of itself as an oppressive power structure, even though it sometimes is and more often was.

If I was putting together a Model Curriculum for Secular Studies to be taught to schoolchildren, would it be ok to introduce religion as being an oppressive power structure?

I hope you understand that the objection, such as it is, is not that capitalism, especially in relation to ethnic minorities in the USA, has not or cannot be oppressive or at least have oppressive features in the way it plays out, or even that some ethnicities have borne more of a brunt of the negative results than others, just that the bald statement 'capitalism is an oppressive power structure' or words to that effect, is a bit politically ideological (or at best a poor or at least controversial choice as a 1st example). The ways capitalism has been oppressive could be discussed, just as the ways religion (or any other 'system' that is a mixed bag) has been oppressive, could be discussed, without the thing itself being negatively labelled at more or less the outset.

In other words, the point of view, that capitalism is oppressive, is a valid idea that can be debated. But essentially shoving it at schoolchildren as a simple done deal is not imo a good thing.

But the curriculum as written does emphasize critical thought on these issues. And obviously religion has played a major role in creating and justifying ethnic segregation.

 

[ruby sparks]

But the curriculum as written does emphasize critical thought on these issues.

Show me the part of the curriculum where the idea that capitalism is oppressive is counter-balanced or where critical thought on that is encouraged.

And obviously religion has played a major role in creating and justifying ethnic segregation.

Sure, but the question was whether it would be a good idea to label religion an oppressive power structure, as if that's what it was, and not merely what it could be, has been, or is/was in certain ways in certain places at certain times, in some of its forms.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

First, see the bolded. Second, ideological imbalance is in the eye of the beholder. Third, there is no objective criteria to determine which bolder's eye is the best or most useful.

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

Not really.

 

[Gun Nut]

Show me the part of the curriculum where the idea that capitalism is oppressive is counter-balanced or where critical thought on that is encouraged.

I'm not revisiting text to quote, but I am not sure if you noticed that this program made reference to being aligned with existing programs, which were named. You would need to look at those existing frameworks to see if there is mention of these sub-programs needing to encourage critical thought, etc... Overarching principles, etc..
In other words... did you check the appendices?

 

[ruby sparks]

Show me the part of the curriculum where the idea that capitalism is oppressive is counter-balanced or where critical thought on that is encouraged.

I'm not revisiting text to quote, but I am not sure if you noticed that this program made reference to being aligned with existing programs, which were named. You would need to look at those existing frameworks to see if there is mention of these sub-programs needing to encourage critical thought, etc... Overarching principles, etc..
In other words... did you check the appendices?

I have read through quite a bit of what material seems to be available, including, briefly, some of the things you mention (the appendices, the existing programs) but I have not done a complete analysis, no.

I've also been reading around quite a bit about Ethic Studies generally, and what you call its 'overarching principles', both in the USA and here in the UK. My general feeling is that while I broadly accept that it's a 'good thing' I'm not fully on board with some of what appears to be the underlying.......ideological content. But it would be wrong to say that I think it's a bad thing. I have similar feelings about things like Women's Studies or what are called Gender Studies. I think it's by and large a good thing, but I have reservations.

To be honest, whilst I was aware of the term 'Ethnic Studies', I wasn't familiar with the nuts and bolts of it. Not that a model curriculum is nuts and bolts. It's mostly just guidance, and as such, quite vague, to be fleshed out in different ways by each school or college or what have you that implements it. I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty much fine with some versions of it.

Also, I only understand the context from far away, from a place which does not have the same issues, by and large. I don't mean mainland UK. I mean Northern Ireland specifically. The best way to get my head around it is by analogy with our local issue regarding 1st and 2nd class citizenry and supremacy and privilege and so on. I think about the idea of having 'Minority Studies' on school curriculums here, where a large part (not all) of the agenda would be about how the protestants oppressed the catholics and still hold the upper hand, albeit much less so. Because the equivalent of that seems to be a prominent part of US Ethnic Studies. There are ways in which it might help, it might especially help catholics, similar to how it seems to help many non-whites in the USA, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't alienate most protestants, even those with relatively few discriminatory tendencies.

 

[steve_bank]

My response to this is always compared to what?

Capitalism today is not the capitalism of Maex and the 19th century.
Higher education for all.
Warwe supplies,
Sewage.
Freedom of choice of path.
Freedom of speech.
Clothes for all
24/7 grocery stores.

In an historical context what the average person today has compared to the first half of the last century would only be had by the few.

Quick medical attention.
Education
Decent food all the time
Global travel for vacations
and so on.

We need to take a bteth and take stock of where we are.

There are positives and negatives.

Consider what the average person in the industrialized countries have compared to the 50s.

Computers with unheard of cost and capcity 50 years ago.
The net.
Global communication from a cheap cell phone.
Most everybody has flown a on a jeet.
In the USA border to border freedom of travel and choice of work.

Contrast to China, Russia and the Soviet Union. Cuba, Viet Nam, NK, Venezuels, Nicuragua. All authoterian ideological sts that started out claimng to be for the people.

Modern capitalism includes average people with IRAs and investments. Business is the people, people own stock through investment and IRAs.

The black African woman who came over as a teen, went to school, and then to congress all made possible by free market capitalism.

Not that there are no problems some serious, capitalism has raised global standards of living according to a UN report. To denounce capitalism summarily is ideological and ignorant.

Evergreen State College in Washington is a far left progressive institution. It has been frought with problems for years. It teaches an anti American view.

A day was declared blacks only on campus by black students. A prof went on campus and ended up forced out for being labeled gracist.

Free speech rorm reports does not exist there.

On this the conservatives are right. It is not just a difference in social and economic policy between left and right. Progressives want to quickly usher in a new system.

We know how that goes. China's Cultural Revolution. Stalinist and successor political purges. The OP scares me far more than white terrorism and nationalism in the long run.

The reports on Google and other tech companies are that expressing contrary politics to the liberal agenda will cost you your job.

Some progressives want to tear down that which provided the wealth and freedom for then to be where they are.

 

[James Madison]

Relevant language from the proposal.

Sample Theme #1: Systems of Power

For example, a theme that can be covered in this type of Ethnic studies course is systems of power. Teachers can introduce the theme by defining and providing examples of systems of power. These are structures that have the capacity to control circumstances within economic, political, and/or social-cultural contexts. These systems are often controlled by those in power and go on to determine how society is organized and functions.

Some examples of systems of power are: white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy.

In introducing this theme, teachers should consider taking one system of power, like sexism and patriarchy, and offering perspectives across the various ethnic groups. Discussions of systems of power should include both the struggles that come with being entangled and impacted by these systems, but also resistance to them. Systems of power can be analyzed using the four “I”s of oppression (ideology, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized).

Building on the theme of sexism and patriarchy, teachers can concentrate on the various ways in which women and femmes of color have been oppressed and resisted. For example, teachers could introduce Ethnic studies concepts like machismo and misogyny/misogynoir to discuss how women of color are impacted by overt displays of patriarchy and sexism within the context of their respective communities. Alternatively, this section can also include a discussion on how women of color resisted and elevated women’s rights issues (e.g., adequate reproductive health care and equal pay) via social movements (e.g. the second wave feminist and #Metoo movements), the creation of their own organizations, through writings (literature, poems, and scholarly works), and other mediums.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/samplecoursemodelsesmc.docx

Practically labeling and treating capitalism, inter alia, as oppressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo whether the writers of this Model Curriculum are actually neo-Marxists or anti-capitalists or not is up for grabs, and I strongly suspect they aren't, even if they are coming from the general direction of the 'left'. But including capitalism in that shortlist of oppressive power structures has certainly given opponents of ethnic studies, and other critics, a big stick to beat them with.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

According to the LA Times, " Among other things, the model curriculum lists capitalism with white supremacy and racism as “forms of power and oppression.” ". According to you, the committee "stuck to what was demonstrably true".

So put yourself for the moment in the shoes of an infidel. How would infidel-you perceive what believer-you said as substantively any different from what Jarhyn said: that it's a "plain fact" that capitalism is oppressive? You appear to be trying to sell us a regimen of "demonstrable truth" that explains the world simply and just-so-happens to lead one to your political perspectives. You appear to be trying to sell us a bill of goods.

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.

Oh, please. In the first place, one of the things that "demonstrably existed before the other did" is that the class structure and the existing system of caste and the invention of the doctrine of racial inferiority all existed before capitalism. Early capitalists inherited those cultural practices along with the supporters of every other johnny-come-lately ism that arose before he-who-must-not-be-named made racism disreputable.

And in the second place, to jump from "capitalism played a role in maintaining a class structure" to "capitalism is a form of power and oppression" is exactly the same error as jumping from "Muslims blew up the World Trade Center" to "Islam is a form of terrorism". Is the model curriculum going to teach children that socialism is a form of ethnic oppression because Russians used socialist economic controls to starve five million Ukrainians? Is it going to teach children that collective farms are a form of ethnic oppression because in Israel they have thousands of Arab employees and yet just one kibbutz has invited just one Arab to become a member? Is it going to teach children that collective bargaining is a form of ethnic oppression because the Progressive Era was the heyday of whites-only labor unions? I didn't think so.

When people decide to engage in ethnic discrimination, they use whatever economic tools they happen to find at hand. That doesn't make the economic tools themselves forms of ethnic oppression. They're tools. Tools are put to whatever use people choose to put them to.

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 was proposing an even-handed tell-both-sides approach to teaching ideological opinion. You made it sound like he was proposing to get rid of the model curriculum's ideological slant and replace it with an opposing ideological slant.

 

[ruby sparks]

From an editorial in the LA Times:

"Consider this passage on assigning students to engage with their communities:

“For example, if students decide they want to advocate for voting rights for undocumented immigrant residents at the school district and city elections, they can develop arguments in favor of such a city ordinance and then plan a meeting with their city council person or school board member.”

No problem with that per se, and community engagement is a fine way to involve students in politics and civic life. But there is no mention here — or just about anywhere in the curriculum — of students who might dare to disagree with the party line. In this case, for instance, some students might think that the right to vote in mayoral and city council elections is the prerogative of citizens, not noncitizens (that’s not a right-wing idea, is it?), and they might want to meet with the school district about that. Chances are, with a curriculum like this one, they’d be afraid to even mention it."

and

"And isn’t it possible that some students won’t agree with the curriculum’s assertion that BDS is a social movement “whose aim is to achieve freedom through equal rights and justice.” Does that perhaps merit further debate?"

California’s proposed new ethnic studies curriculum is jargon-filled and all-too-PC
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-02/californias-new-ethnic-studies-curriculum

Moving away from the 'capitalism controversy', does anyone know where I might look online to find the sources (in the Model Curriculum) of the two LA Times editorial comments above?

 

[Politesse]

Oh, please. In the first place, one of the things that "demonstrably existed before the other did" is that the class structure and the existing system of caste and the invention of the doctrine of racial inferiority all existed before capitalism. Early capitalists inherited those cultural practices along with the supporters of every other johnny-come-lately ism that arose before he-who-must-not-be-named made racism disreputable.

There's a reason I emphasize demonstrable truths.

 

[steve_bank]

Of course the teaching should be balanced leaving students to draw their own conclusions.

Balanced means present modern free market capitalism's positives and negatives both. No bias in the teaching.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of course the teaching should be balanced leaving students to draw their own conclusions.

Balanced means present modern free market capitalism's positives and negatives both. No bias in the teaching.

Is it your view that learning ceases when a teacher is biased? I think that everyone is biased and that it's impossible to not have a bias. And I thought that some of my best teachers taught the opposite of what I believed.

 

[steve_bank]

Of course the teaching should be balanced leaving students to draw their own conclusions.

Balanced means present modern free market capitalism's positives and negatives both. No bias in the teaching.

Is it your view that learning ceases when a teacher is biased? I think that everyone is biased and that it's impossible to not have a bias. And I thought that some of my best teachers taught the opposite of what I believed.

Yes. My best science and math teachers in high school were a priest and a nun, both creationists.

It is about an institutional bias, you know that. A history and poly sci department that teaches an ideology promoting one view.

CNN and MSNBC are biased. They refuse to broach the idea that part of the border problem is due to the idea south of the border that once you get here you are home free. As I am sure you know how question are asked can create a biased or skewed re4sponse biased to a specific conclusion. CNN does it all the time. Now when I watch I know how the questions will be asked and what the responses will be.

No different in college. How the teacher presents with tone and expression matters.

The extreme progressives are anti free market capitalism. We never hear the system has given us this, and it also has some serious problems.

 

[ruby sparks]

Something that should be borne in mind of course is that the context here is Ethnic Studies, not economics in general, or any other subject, primarily-speaking. In that context, it would, I think (having googled a bit) be easy to make a case that capitalism in the USA has been particularly hard on non-whites. It is not capitalism per se that is racist or oppressive, rather that capitalism carried out or controlled mainly by whites has not helped non-whites as much, and at other times has actually harmed them more. In other words, American capitalism is by and large white capitalism, and that has been and possibly still is the problem (for non-whites), not capitalism of itself.

For example, in general terms, in the boom-bust cycles that are part of the US economic pattern, whites have been to some extent buffered from the negative effects of a downturn when blacks have traditionally been the first to be fired when the economy contracts. I read that this was a particular problem during the Great Depression, but still continues today.

Last Hired, First Fired: How the Great Depression Affected African Americans
https://www.history.com/news/last-h...e-great-depression-affected-african-americans

The structural problem the US never fixed
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/03/08/1552069745000/The-structural-problem-the-US-never-fixed/

And historically, it would arguably not be too far off the mark to say that 'modern' capitalism was built off the back of exploitation, most notably slavery. And I would bet that it would not be too hard to find ways in which this has left legacies that affect current situations.

And when we say capitalism has benefitted us, with the average wealth of US blacks apparently only one sixth of that of average US whites, there is room to wonder who 'us' is.

I suppose one could also make the counter-case that even with the hindrances and obstacles that non-whites have faced and to a lesser extent still face, modern capitalism (post-slavery) nonetheless allowed for opportunities to all, if perhaps less so to some than others. And possibly too that all, regardless of race, have benefitted from the successes of US capitalism, in terms of raised standards of living for example, if again some Americans) less so than other Americans. For example, to contrast the 'one sixth' (US black versus US white) statistic above, black Americans are apparently on average, at the same time, 6 times more wealthy than the average (white) Russian.

What If Black America Were a Country?
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../what-if-black-america-were-a-country/380953/

That last point, often arguably taken to extremes by some conservatives (when they say that Blacks should be grateful, sometimes even grateful that their ancestors were enslaved and brought to America) could nonetheless, if expressed in reasonable terms, perhaps be something that a balanced Ethic Studies Curriculum could consider before it describes/defines capitalism in purely negative terms.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course the teaching should be balanced leaving students to draw their own conclusions.

Balanced means present modern free market capitalism's positives and negatives both. No bias in the teaching.

Is it your view that learning ceases when a teacher is biased? I think that everyone is biased and that it's impossible to not have a bias. And I thought that some of my best teachers taught the opposite of what I believed.

Yes. My best science and math teachers in high school were a priest and a nun, both creationists.

It is about an institutional bias, you know that. A history and poly sci department that teaches an ideology promoting one view.

CNN and MSNBC are biased. They refuse to broach the idea that part of the border problem is due to the idea south of the border that once you get here you are home free. As I am sure you know how question are asked can create a biased or skewed re4sponse biased to a specific conclusion. CNN does it all the time. Now when I watch I know how the questions will be asked and what the responses will be.

No different in college. How the teacher presents with tone and expression matters.

The extreme progressives are anti free market capitalism. We never hear the system has given us this, and it also has some serious problems.

Shit, I'm pretty much on the "extreme progressive" side of things, and not even I am anti-capitalist. I am merely also pro-labor and pro-regulation. A regulated market is not a free market; only the most extreme of the regressives are, in fact, free-market capitalists.

My vision for the future is one wherein companies are regulated in a specific way: where, following incorporation, as a cost of limiting liability and extracting profits, the workers at a particular company, as individuals, gain ownership stake over the companies they work for.

Essentially nothing changes except for the fact that power and profits eventually start to go to the people who are actually doing the work.

There's a problem when the only thing you need to make more money is to simply have a lot of money.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yes. My best science and math teachers in high school were a priest and a nun, both creationists.

It is about an institutional bias, you know that. A history and poly sci department that teaches an ideology promoting one view.

CNN and MSNBC are biased. They refuse to broach the idea that part of the border problem is due to the idea south of the border that once you get here you are home free. As I am sure you know how question are asked can create a biased or skewed re4sponse biased to a specific conclusion. CNN does it all the time. Now when I watch I know how the questions will be asked and what the responses will be.

No different in college. How the teacher presents with tone and expression matters.

The extreme progressives are anti free market capitalism. We never hear the system has given us this, and it also has some serious problems.

Shit, I'm pretty much on the "extreme progressive" side of things, and not even I am anti-capitalist. I am merely also pro-labor and pro-regulation. A regulated market is not a free market; only the most extreme of the regressives are, in fact, free-market capitalists.

My vision for the future is one wherein companies are regulated in a specific way: where, following incorporation, as a cost of limiting liability and extracting profits, the workers at a particular company, as individuals, gain ownership stake over the companies they work for.

Essentially nothing changes except for the fact that power and profits eventually start to go to the people who are actually doing the work.

There's a problem when the only thing you need to make more money is to simply have a lot of money.

Workers buying out companies is a fairly common succession plan. We've explored it. The government could make ESOP transactions easier and encourage them more. The truth here is that many workers have no desire to become owners. It's actually far more work and long hours than what you think. Most workers that I've met prefer security, shorter hours, less stress and higher pay vs becoming equity partners.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. My best science and math teachers in high school were a priest and a nun, both creationists.

It is about an institutional bias, you know that. A history and poly sci department that teaches an ideology promoting one view.

CNN and MSNBC are biased. They refuse to broach the idea that part of the border problem is due to the idea south of the border that once you get here you are home free. As I am sure you know how question are asked can create a biased or skewed re4sponse biased to a specific conclusion. CNN does it all the time. Now when I watch I know how the questions will be asked and what the responses will be.

No different in college. How the teacher presents with tone and expression matters.

The extreme progressives are anti free market capitalism. We never hear the system has given us this, and it also has some serious problems.

Shit, I'm pretty much on the "extreme progressive" side of things, and not even I am anti-capitalist. I am merely also pro-labor and pro-regulation. A regulated market is not a free market; only the most extreme of the regressives are, in fact, free-market capitalists.

My vision for the future is one wherein companies are regulated in a specific way: where, following incorporation, as a cost of limiting liability and extracting profits, the workers at a particular company, as individuals, gain ownership stake over the companies they work for.

Essentially nothing changes except for the fact that power and profits eventually start to go to the people who are actually doing the work.

There's a problem when the only thing you need to make more money is to simply have a lot of money.

Workers buying out companies is a fairly common succession plan. We've explored it. The government could make ESOP transactions easier and encourage them more. The truth here is that many workers have no desire to become owners. It's actually far more work and long hours than what you think. Most workers that I've met prefer security, shorter hours, less stress and higher pay vs becoming equity partners.

That's bullshit and you know it. From the perspective of most shareholders, the "work" involved in it is receiving dividends, elections for the board, and sending a proxy to the meeting... Or selling out the shares again.