Happy Juneteenth one and all!

[Metaphor]

Are you now suggesting that outlawing the teaching of CRT means you are outlawing the teaching of historical facts like slavery? CRT emerged in academia in the 1970s and since American schoolchildren were somehow taught about slavery before CRT was formulated, banning CRT does not mean banning the teaching of the meaning of Juneteenth.

Honestly, I expected a "is that the best you've got, Trevor Noah and Joy Reid are not the left, nobody on the left really believes teaching the origin of Juneteenth is outlawed, turn off your right wing outrage news aggregator" but instead I got people actually defending the absurd idea that it is outlawed.

Nobody is teaching CRT in grade school.

If that's the case, then the idea that the "anti-CRT" bills outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth is even more absurd.

 

[ZiprHead]

Are you now suggesting that outlawing the teaching of CRT means you are outlawing the teaching of historical facts like slavery? CRT emerged in academia in the 1970s and since American schoolchildren were somehow taught about slavery before CRT was formulated, banning CRT does not mean banning the teaching of the meaning of Juneteenth.

Honestly, I expected a "is that the best you've got, Trevor Noah and Joy Reid are not the left, nobody on the left really believes teaching the origin of Juneteenth is outlawed, turn off your right wing outrage news aggregator" but instead I got people actually defending the absurd idea that it is outlawed.

Nobody is teaching CRT in grade school.

If that's the case, then the idea that the "anti-CRT" bills outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth is even more absurd.

You posted the anti-CRT bill that didn't mention CRT at all. But it will certainly put a stifle on the teaching of racial conditions in the history of the US.

 

[Metaphor]

If that's the case, then the idea that the "anti-CRT" bills outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth is even more absurd.

You posted the anti-CRT bill that didn't mention CRT at all. But it will certainly put a stifle on the teaching of racial conditions in the history of the US.

That's an unevidenced assertion, but the teaching of the history behind Juneteenth is not outlawed in some American states, despite the absurd claims originated by some on the American left.

 

[ZiprHead]

If that's the case, then the idea that the "anti-CRT" bills outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth is even more absurd.

You posted the anti-CRT bill that didn't mention CRT at all. But it will certainly put a stifle on the teaching of racial conditions in the history of the US.

That's an unevidenced assertion, but the teaching of the history behind Juneteenth is not outlawed in some American states, despite the absurd claims originated by some on the American left.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Metaphor]

That's an unevidenced assertion, but the teaching of the history behind Juneteenth is not outlawed in some American states, despite the absurd claims originated by some on the American left.

Sure, Jan.

Which American states outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth?

I'll wait.

 

[untermensche]

That's an unevidenced assertion, but the teaching of the history behind Juneteenth is not outlawed in some American states, despite the absurd claims originated by some on the American left.

Sure, Jan.

Which American states outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth?

I'll wait.

You don't outlaw it.

You remove it from the textbooks and require only teaching from the textbooks.

 

[Rhea]

Which American states outlaw the teaching of Juneteenth?

I'll wait.

It’s a question that will dig up additional information of interest, so I took a tour of the bills.

They appear to be pretty clumsily written, and in ways that would indeed impact the ability to teach about Juneteenth. So let’s look at that, shall we?


(These quotes arefrom NPR)

A bill signed into law by Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt bans lessons that include the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that a person's "moral character is inherently determined by his or her race or sex,"

If they can’t even include the concept that one race is inherently superior, how on earth can they teach about the Peculiar Institution? It’s what American slavery was based on, it’s what secession was based on. It’s what Juneteenth finally took the first step in breaking.

, and though its penalties are not yet clear, the danger is the fear it instills.

"What if they say the wrong thing?" Lewis said. "What if somebody in their class during the critical thinking brings up the word oppression or systemic racism? Are they in danger? Is their job in danger?"

Then there’s Texas,

In Texas, a bill that has passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature would impose restrictions similar to Oklahoma's, including banning public universities from requiring students to take diversity training. It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."

No deference to abolition versus enslavement? How do you teach about Juneteenth without giving any deference to the fact that the enslaved people were suffering a wrong? “Contending perspectives” about slavery!?. Oh, yeah, it was all very, um, okay, right?



Still continuing reading about other states, but these two are so broadly written that it would indeed be difficult to teach about Juneteenth in the face of them. And teachers tring to thread that needle may fear their jobs are at risk if they even go near the line.

Some people. Might pedantically assert that if the bill does not say, “you may not teach Junettenth,” then, by golly, the bills don’t prevent the teaching. But from these two bills alone, it very clearly is written in a way that will put any discussion of Juneteenth in the spotlight for a lawsuit. INdeed one of the article cites a lawsuit already brought agains a teacher for discussing the racism inherent in the Jim Crow era. Teaching Juneteenth would require the same conversation.

 

[Metaphor]

If they can’t even include the concept that one race is inherently superior, how on earth can they teach about the Peculiar Institution? It’s what American slavery was based on, it’s what secession was based on. It’s what Juneteenth finally took the first step in breaking.

Juneteenth is a federal holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.

This is the Oklahoma bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

Explain to me how this bill prevents the teaching of the fact listed above.

It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."

This is false. The Texas bill does not make this prohibition on historical events. The relevant part of the bill reads:

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall,to the best of their ability,strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

Is freeing the slaves a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy?

Still continuing reading about other states, but these two are so broadly written that it would indeed be difficult to teach about Juneteenth in the face of them. And teachers tring to thread that needle may fear their jobs are at risk if they even go near the line.

Quote any part of a bill that prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. I'll wait.

Some people. Might pedantically assert that if the bill does not say, “you may not teach Junettenth,” then, by golly, the bills don’t prevent the teaching.

No, I believe all legislation can have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I just plain don't believe the left wing lie that teaching about Juneteenth is 'illegal' in 15 states and nobody has produced any evidence that such a thing is a remotely probably consequence of recent legislation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oklahoma law:

No ...employee of a school district......shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:.. one race ... is inherently superior to another...

Yes, this is very clumsy wording.

There is a preceding portion that states current state curriculum is not prohibited. So they can continue teaching WW2 which includes concept of one race being superior.

However Juneteenth and current events are not part of standard curricula. Therefore, they are not exempt.

Since some current events include the concept of one race being superior, like say George Floyd's murder or the events of Charlottesville or the adoption of Juneteenth as a holiday, they can be interpreted as banned. Maybe this is a misreading by potential future court judges or maybe not.

 

[laughing dog]

Juneteenth is a federal holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.

This is the Oklahoma bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

Explain to me how this bill prevents the teaching of the fact listed above.



This is false. The Texas bill does not make this prohibition on historical events. The relevant part of the bill reads:

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall,to the best of their ability,strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

Is freeing the slaves a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy?

No, but you need to explain how that is relevant to the teaching of history which is not about current events.

You are correct - no bill explicitly prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. One wonders why anyone who routinely extrapolates some alleged incident into the "strange death of" cannot seem to extrapolate from "It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." into a chilling effect on teaching a particular perspective.

 

[Bomb#20]

Couldn’t have had this slavery if not for black-African slave traders. (And lets not forget the black and Indian slave owners.). So all black people are to blame. That’s how this works, right?

Trausti's argument seems to be "Why can't we honkies enslave people?"

lpetrich's argument seems to be "Why can't we double-plus-good folks make libelous trumped-up accusations of crime-think against infidels?".

 

[Bomb#20]

It’s a question that will dig up additional information of interest, so I took a tour of the bills.

They appear to be pretty clumsily written, and in ways that would indeed impact the ability to teach about Juneteenth. So let’s look at that, shall we?

(These quotes arefrom NPR)

A bill signed into law by Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt bans lessons that include the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that a person's "moral character is inherently determined by his or her race or sex,"

If they can’t even include the concept that one race is inherently superior, how on earth can they teach about the Peculiar Institution? It’s what American slavery was based on, it’s what secession was based on. It’s what Juneteenth finally took the first step in breaking.

Oklahoma law:

No ...employee of a school district......shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:.. one race ... is inherently superior to another...

Yes, this is very clumsy wording.

There is a preceding portion that states current state curriculum is not prohibited. So they can continue teaching WW2 which includes concept of one race being superior.

However Juneteenth and current events are not part of standard curricula. Therefore, they are not exempt.

There's a distinction you guys aren't making, that I think needs to be made, between teaching a concept, and teaching that some historical person subscribed to a concept. To use the WW2 example, it's one thing to teach that Hitler thought Aryans were superior to Jews, and an entirely different thing to teach that Aryans are superior to Jews. And while I would never presume to deny that legislators are overly prone to clumsy wording, the intent of the laws appears to be to ban state teachers from teaching their students that the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" is correct. They do not appear to be intended to ban teachers from teaching that there have been people who believed they were correct.

 

[Metaphor]

You are correct - no bill explicitly prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. One wonders why anyone who routinely extrapolates some alleged incident into the "strange death of" cannot seem to extrapolate from "It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." into a chilling effect on teaching a particular perspective.

Because what you have quoted is false. The prohibition discussed does not apply to "episodes in history" but current events over which there is controversy.

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall,to the best of their ability,strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

Again, can somebody explain to me how either the historical event of Juneteenth or the surrounding context are 'current events' or 'widely debated' and 'currently controversial'?

Is there some non-fringe debate about whether the slaves in Texas should have been freed?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oklahoma law:

No ...employee of a school district......shall require or make part of a course the following concepts:.. one race ... is inherently superior to another...

Yes, this is very clumsy wording.

There is a preceding portion that states current state curriculum is not prohibited. So they can continue teaching WW2 which includes concept of one race being superior.

However Juneteenth and current events are not part of standard curricula. Therefore, they are not exempt.

There's a distinction you guys aren't making, that I think needs to be made, between teaching a concept, and teaching that some historical person subscribed to a concept.

Yes, but that distinction isn't relevant, nor does it say "teaching the concept." It says "make part of the course" the concept. So, if they are teaching about Hitler and Nazism, they are still making part of the course the concept of Nazism.

To use the WW2 example, it's one thing to teach that Hitler thought Aryans were superior to Jews, and an entirely different thing to teach that Aryans are superior to Jews.

Obviously, but it doesn't say what you are claiming. It just says that the concept of one race being superior to another cannot be part of the course. Concepts are taught in history like social Darwinism, Isolationism or Nationalism in order to discuss movements and trends in history or even in current events. Just because these concepts may belong to historical figures does not mean that the concept is not part of the course.

And while I would never presume to deny that legislators are overly prone to clumsy wording, the intent of the laws appears to be to ban state teachers from teaching their students that the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" is correct. They do not appear to be intended to ban teachers from teaching that there have been people who believed they were correct.

There isn't evidence of their intent within the wording you are referencing. Perhaps instead that would go to public meetings and discussions. Do you have links to videos of their state assembly discussing the bill? I don't.

I do see an article in The Daily Oklahoman, 30 Apr 2021, page A1, that describes the bill as such "The Oklahoma House on Thursday passed legislation to prohibit public schools and universities from teaching critical race theory..." and based on my reading of the bill, I'd say that is the purpose of the bill, at least in general. So, it does appear that they are trying to stifle discussion of teachers (perhaps sometimes imagined) to teach about modern* racism. It would seem then the problem isn't just that the new law was clumsily written, but also in being clumsily written it is also too far reaching.

* Note that there is a distinction you appear to have browsed over. You are discussing what historical figures "believed," but as I wrote before the bill makes the state curriculum exempt which would include most of history. It would not include current events, though, nor would it include new historical things that have been discovered such as maybe they don't cover the Tulsa Massacre which really hasn't been taught in history curricula.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Juneteenth is a federal holiday commemorating the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.

This is the Oklahoma bill:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1775 ENR.PDF

Explain to me how this bill prevents the teaching of the fact listed above.



This is false. The Texas bill does not make this prohibition on historical events. The relevant part of the bill reads:

(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall,to the best of their ability,strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

Is freeing the slaves a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy?

No, but you need to explain how that is relevant to the teaching of history which is not about current events.

You are correct - no bill explicitly prohibits the teaching of Juneteenth. One wonders why anyone who routinely extrapolates some alleged incident into the "strange death of" cannot seem to extrapolate from "It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective." into a chilling effect on teaching a particular perspective.

The thing you quoted does not ONLY say current events. It says A or B:
A = "current events"
B = "widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs"

"Widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs" is not equivalent to "current events."

For example, Juneteenth is a currently controversial issue of public policy because a number of Republicans say it is divisive. On the grounds of it being divisive, it might not nationally be considered "widely debated" but in Texas it would be considered both "widely debated" and "currently controversial issue...only on the issue of divisiveness. There may be other things as well that Republicans use to make it controversial.

Some other things that might go with this legislation: the cause of the Civil War, Historical Revisionism and Lost Cause Ideology, the Tulsa Massacre.

The cause of the Civil war is debated, especially in the South. A debate on the topic is a social affair. So the cause of the civil war is a currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, Juneteenth is a currently controversial issue of public policy because a number of Republicans say it is divisive.

Even if some Republicans say it is divisive, that does not make Juneteenth a current event. It's a historical event.

But on the even more generous interpretation that Juneteenth is a current and controversial event, this bill would not prohibit teaching about it. It would direct the teaching to:

"strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective"

In this case, I would assume it would mean if you were discussing the divisiveness of Juneteenth, you would need to explore the reasons some people find it divisive. But it could not possibly restrain you teaching about Juneteenth all together, to outlaw it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For example, Juneteenth is a currently controversial issue of public policy because a number of Republicans say it is divisive.

Even if some Republicans say it is divisive, that does not make Juneteenth a current event. It's a historical event.

I doesn't have to be a current event.

But on the even more generous interpretation that Juneteenth is a current and controversial event, this bill would not prohibit teaching about it. It would direct the teaching to:

"strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective"

Which is dumb.

In this case, I would assume it would mean if you were discussing the divisiveness of Juneteenth, you would need to explore the reasons some people find it divisive. But it could not possibly restrain you teaching about Juneteenth all together, to outlaw it.

And what if the other side is inaccurate? Like in the case I gave: Tulsa Massacre, Civil War Revisionism and Lost Cause Ideology. You want history teachers to give equal airtime to false narratives, like Creationists want to give equal time to Creationism in science classes?

But apparently this is even more complicated than merely blocking something--you are right about that part!

The previous clause says that no teacher can be compelled to teach such issues. So, for example, if the school district board of education wants the history teachers to teach about Juneteenth on Juneteenth, then the teachers don't have to. In a state like Texas, how many history teachers would choose not to do so? 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%? Then, out of the remaining teachers, they all have to teach it giving equal air time to diverse views like that it's divisive, which it isn't.

It's much worse when you consider things like the cause of the Civil War.

 

[Metaphor]

Which is dumb.

Whether the Texas or Oklahoma or any other bill is dumb is not the point. Prominent media figures on the left have said the legislation will outlaw teaching of Juneteenth.

And what if the other side is inaccurate? Like in the case I gave: Tulsa Massacre, Civil War Revisionism and Lost Cause Ideology. You want history teachers to give equal airtime to false narratives, like Creationists want to give equal time to Creationism in science classes?

I have not here or anywhere else defended the Texas or Oklahoma bills or said they are immune from unintended consequences or anything else. Nor can I see anywhere where I've said or implied I want history teachers to 'give equal airtime to false narratives'.

I made what I thought was an obvious point: that it is not illegal to teach about Juneteenth, and the left wing media figures saying it is illegal are peddling an unevidenced, false, scaremongering narrative. And I was prepared for this board to respond with "don't pretend this is a mainstream left opinion, stop generalising, Trevor Noah and Joy Reid don't speak for the left" etc, etc. But I was not prepared for this board to actually entertain and defend the absurd notion that the teaching of Juneteenth was outlawed in 15 states.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which is dumb.

Whether the Texas or Oklahoma or any other bill is dumb is not the point. Prominent media figures on the left have said the legislation will outlaw teaching of Juneteenth.

And what if the other side is inaccurate? Like in the case I gave: Tulsa Massacre, Civil War Revisionism and Lost Cause Ideology. You want history teachers to give equal airtime to false narratives, like Creationists want to give equal time to Creationism in science classes?

I have not here or anywhere else defended the Texas or Oklahoma bills or said they are immune from unintended consequences or anything else. Nor can I see anywhere where I've said or implied I want history teachers to 'give equal airtime to false narratives'.

I made what I thought was an obvious point: that it is not illegal to teach about Juneteenth, and the left wing media figures saying it is illegal are peddling an unevidenced, false, scaremongering narrative. And I was prepared for this board to respond with "don't pretend this is a mainstream left opinion, stop generalising, Trevor Noah and Joy Reid don't speak for the left" etc, etc. But I was not prepared for this board to actually entertain and defend the absurd notion that the teaching of Juneteenth was outlawed in 15 states.

As long as you agree the laws are stupid, I really don't care. After all, this thread is about Juneteenth, not an endless debate on what those people said.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether the Texas or Oklahoma or any other bill is dumb is not the point. Prominent media figures on the left have said the legislation will outlaw teaching of Juneteenth.



I have not here or anywhere else defended the Texas or Oklahoma bills or said they are immune from unintended consequences or anything else. Nor can I see anywhere where I've said or implied I want history teachers to 'give equal airtime to false narratives'.

I made what I thought was an obvious point: that it is not illegal to teach about Juneteenth, and the left wing media figures saying it is illegal are peddling an unevidenced, false, scaremongering narrative. And I was prepared for this board to respond with "don't pretend this is a mainstream left opinion, stop generalising, Trevor Noah and Joy Reid don't speak for the left" etc, etc. But I was not prepared for this board to actually entertain and defend the absurd notion that the teaching of Juneteenth was outlawed in 15 states.

As long as you agree the laws are stupid, I really don't care. After all, this thread is about Juneteenth, not an endless debate on what those people said.

I reserve judgment on the over all desirability of the laws. But I do not think the left should weaponise a false narrative about the laws using Juneteenth as a springboard.