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

[Keith&Co.]

Stalin killed about 20 million. Looks like the saying should be "Stop being a Stalin!"

Is that really 'a saying?' Really? Who says this?
People regularly see a need for a pithy aphorism offering advice that suggests not being a Hitler?

Where do you hang out that this is common?

And, Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, you think that the saying needs to be improved?

But, leftist propaganda has told us Hitler was the biggest villain in the world history and he's right-wing.

Oooooooooooh. Okay.

But, really, if you think liberals would identify with, or protect Stalin, because of his politics, then would it not make more sense, in your workd, for liberals to say, 'Don't be like Hitler?'
To your logic, if liberals say, 'Don't be like Stalin,' the advice is 'Don't kill millions for power.'
But if liberals say 'Don't be like Hitler,' the advice is 'Don't kill millions, AND don't be right-wing.'
Much more efficient.

 

[ZiprHead]

If anyone is interested, here is what the model actually supports. It doesn't sound anything like what the WSJ opinion piece is saying, although because it's behind a pay wall, I couldn't read the entire thing.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ethnicguidelines.asp

The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum must reflect the requirements in the authorizing statute as well as other legal requirements for curriculum in California. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following topics:

The model curriculum shall be written as a guide to allow school districts to adapt their courses to reflect the pupil demographics in their communities.

The model curriculum shall include examples of courses offered by local educational agencies that have been approved as meeting the A–G admissions requirements of the University of California and the California State University, including, to the extent possible, course outlines for those courses.

The model curriculum must meet federal accessibility requirements pursuant to Section 508 of the United States Workforce Rehabilitation Act. Content that cannot be made accessible may not be included in the document.

General principles. The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum shall:

Include accurate information based on current and confirmed research;

When appropriate, be consistent with the content and instructional shifts in the 2016 History–Social Science Framework, in particular the emphasis upon student-based inquiry in instruction;

Promote the values of civic engagement and civic responsibility;

Align to the Literacy Standards for History–Social Studies within the California Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History–Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, as appropriate;

There's a little bit more, but it doesn't mention anything about teaching that capitalism is racist, so......

Does anyone remember or acknowledge reading this post?

 

[Politesse]

If anyone is interested, here is what the model actually supports. It doesn't sound anything like what the WSJ opinion piece is saying, although because it's behind a pay wall, I couldn't read the entire thing.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ethnicguidelines.asp

The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum must reflect the requirements in the authorizing statute as well as other legal requirements for curriculum in California. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following topics:

The model curriculum shall be written as a guide to allow school districts to adapt their courses to reflect the pupil demographics in their communities.

The model curriculum shall include examples of courses offered by local educational agencies that have been approved as meeting the A–G admissions requirements of the University of California and the California State University, including, to the extent possible, course outlines for those courses.

The model curriculum must meet federal accessibility requirements pursuant to Section 508 of the United States Workforce Rehabilitation Act. Content that cannot be made accessible may not be included in the document.

General principles. The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum shall:

Include accurate information based on current and confirmed research;

When appropriate, be consistent with the content and instructional shifts in the 2016 History–Social Science Framework, in particular the emphasis upon student-based inquiry in instruction;

Promote the values of civic engagement and civic responsibility;

Align to the Literacy Standards for History–Social Studies within the California Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History–Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, as appropriate;

There's a little bit more, but it doesn't mention anything about teaching that capitalism is racist, so......

Does anyone remember or acknowledge reading this post?

I also linked to the full draft document, in post #2 of this thread, as well as the link to post public comment on it if any of the cowards here actually wanted to contribute to the state's discussion of the proposed model rather than just complaining about it.

 

[southernhybrid]

Does anyone remember or acknowledge reading this post?

I also linked to the full draft document, in post #2 of this thread, as well as the link to post public comment on it if any of the cowards here actually wanted to contribute to the state's discussion of the proposed model rather than just complaining about it.

They don't want to know the facts. They just want to make unsubstantiated claims and argue, usually for the sake of bashing the other side. And, one poster here has a special talent for derailing threads or confusing facts and fiction.

A lot of people here don't like blind links, so I added more than just a link, in the hopes that someone might read it, but other than ZiprHead, it was ignored, as was your link. The claims in the Wall Street Journal were obviously biased, and most of us couldn't access the entire piece. For that matter, it was an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are just that, opinions which rarely reflect facts.

 

[Bomb#20]

Reality has a liberal bias. Cry about it if you don't like it, but don't expect people to stop learning or teaching about reality.

Capitalism is oppressive.

Reality has a liberal bias, true; but there's nothing liberal about the notion that capitalism is oppressive. That's a socialist notion. And although for decades it's been popular for socialists in America to call themselves "liberals", calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Compulsory collective ownership of the means of production is a recipe for severely illiberal practices. When the paper and ink are collectively owned, the press is censored. When the representatives of the collective are the sole employer, they prohibit independent trade unions.

Capitalism is predicated on the idea that initial investment of resources drives continued extraction of labor value even absent a continued contribution of labor. That is, on its very face, oppressive to those who contribute the labor. And since capitalism also assumes the use of government guns to enforce this extraction, it is oppression at gunpoint, particularly with regards to industries and investments that have a high barrier to entry.

It is a plain fact and while you can complain all you like, you won't change the fundamental nature of reality in which capitalism allows investors to unfairly extract value from labor.

And another sect of activists insists it's a plain fact that God made the world in seven days and humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They too want the government to indoctrinate everyone's children with their opinions and call it "teaching about reality". What makes your claim to the schools better than theirs?

Creationists have no empirical evidence for their alleged "plain fact". What empirical evidence do you have that capitalism is predicated on the idea that initial investment of resources drives continued extraction of labor value? What empirical evidence do you have that "extraction of labor value" is a real thing? What empirical evidence do you have that "value" is a real thing? What empirical evidence do you have that capitalism allows investors to do what they do "unfairly"?

 

[Half-Life]

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Capitalism is oppressive.

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

Do you understand that no matter WHAT the answer is, that question doesn't make capitalism any less oppressive?

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

cite?

 

[Half-Life]

Do you understand that no matter WHAT the answer is, that question doesn't make capitalism any less oppressive?

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

cite?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

I also notice you did not name a better system than capitalism. It's probably why immigrants want to flock here and you guys don't want to leave.

 

[bilby]

Capitalism is oppressive.

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

Easy: The western representative-democratic mixed economy.

A blend of socialist infrastuctural provision with capitalist/mercantilist provision of goods and services under the regulation of an elected government with a progressive tax system that helps to redistribute wealth from areas where it concentrates to areas where it becomes sparse.

This is the system that has led to an unprecedented quality of life improvement for well over half of the world's population in the last two centuries.

To credit that success to mere capitalism is exactly as stupid and misguided as to credit it to mere socialism.

I presume that you don't seriously think that the interstate highway system, or the railroads before them; your harbours, ports, airports, bridges, sewers and water supply systems, were either unnecessary for your nation's observed prosperity, or were built entirely by the application of pure capitalism, free from government intervention and control?

Then again, you clearly believe a lot of other obviously untrue things, so maybe you do.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you understand that no matter WHAT the answer is, that question doesn't make capitalism any less oppressive?

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

cite?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

While I agree that capitalism has made people much better off, your citation is just a bunch of handwaved claims.

[
I also notice you did not name a better system than capitalism. It's probably why immigrants want to flock here and you guys don't want to leave.

There is no inconsistency in observing that capitalism has done a good job in improving people's lives and that capitalism is oppressive. So there is no reason for any rational person to address yet another one of your red herrings.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Capitalism is oppressive.

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

Easy: The western representative-democratic mixed economy.

A blend of socialist infrastuctural provision with capitalist/mercantilist provision of goods and services under the regulation of an elected government with a progressive tax system that helps to redistribute wealth from areas where it concentrates to areas where it becomes sparse.

This is the system that has led to an unprecedented quality of life improvement for well over half of the world's population in the last two centuries.

To credit that success to mere capitalism is exactly as stupid and misguided as to credit it to mere socialism.

I presume that you don't seriously think that the interstate highway system, or the railroads before them; your harbours, ports, airports, bridges, sewers and water supply systems, were either unnecessary for your nation's observed prosperity, or were built entirely by the application of pure capitalism, free from government intervention and control?

Then again, you clearly believe a lot of other obviously untrue things, so maybe you do.

You guys are really arguing past each other. I'm sure that Half-Life isn't defending a mythical capitalist country that doesn't have any government (or I'll assume that). And you aren't referring to a real socialist country that has outlawed private ownership! Half-life wants a smaller safety net; you want a larger one. That's the only difference...

 

[bilby]

Easy: The western representative-democratic mixed economy.

A blend of socialist infrastuctural provision with capitalist/mercantilist provision of goods and services under the regulation of an elected government with a progressive tax system that helps to redistribute wealth from areas where it concentrates to areas where it becomes sparse.

This is the system that has led to an unprecedented quality of life improvement for well over half of the world's population in the last two centuries.

To credit that success to mere capitalism is exactly as stupid and misguided as to credit it to mere socialism.

I presume that you don't seriously think that the interstate highway system, or the railroads before them; your harbours, ports, airports, bridges, sewers and water supply systems, were either unnecessary for your nation's observed prosperity, or were built entirely by the application of pure capitalism, free from government intervention and control?

Then again, you clearly believe a lot of other obviously untrue things, so maybe you do.

You guys are really arguing past each other. I'm sure that Half-Life isn't defending a mythical capitalist country that doesn't have any government (or I'll assume that).

I believe that to be a poor assumption, based on his posting history. I think he not only believes that such a mythical country can exist, but that the USA was once, and (with a little bit of a purge) could again become, that mythical country.

And you aren't referring to a real socialist country that has outlawed private ownership!

Nothing I have said in any way suggests that any such country does, should, or ever did, exist.

I am most emphatically, and I thought very clearly, rejecting the hypothesis that there is a dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. You don't have to pick a side - in fact, picking either to the exclusion of the other is disastrous.

Half-life wants a smaller safety net; you want a larger one. That's the only difference...

I think the safety net I have is pretty close to ideal. It could perhaps be a little larger, but the basics are not too bad, despite the recent dominance of the Coalition.

I think that it's very obvious that the US hasn't got an effective safety net at all, and that a large section of your countrymen are keen to rip away the last threads of it forthwith. And Half-life appears to think that most of those people aren't going far enough.

Whenever I look at what passes for a 'safety net' in the US - whether it's healthcare, or workers rights, welfare provision, assistance to the homeless, or any of the myriad other things that governments in the civilised world do to protect their least fortunate citizens - I find myself astonished that your people still haven't risen in bloody revolution and guillotined the hyper-rich fuckers who are responsible.

And then I look at your huge numbers of workplace mass shootings, and wonder whether the only problem is that your revolutionaries are merely uncoordinated, and focused on the wrong targets.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you understand that no matter WHAT the answer is, that question doesn't make capitalism any less oppressive?

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

cite?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

Wow. That's a cite? You just can NOT supportnany random claim you feel the urge to throw out there, vcan you?
Okay, i only have a high school education, but that looks, to me, like utter crap.
See, it's an opinion piece. Sure, they have charts, but the charts only show a decrease in poverty. Then they just assert 'this is because of capitalism.' Not sure how they managed to isolate all other forms economies. I mean, it's not like all the countries involved were purely capitalist.
Also, there is no place they compare capitalist numbers to the numbers for anything else, so it couldn't possibly support your 'more people than any other' claim, now, could it?

So, your record of ZERO support for your claims remains perdfect.

I also notice you did not name a better system than capitalism.

You notice that? You should consult a urologist.
Really. It would take sone substantial balls to ignore as many questions as you do and then act smug when one of yours goes without.
But, i have made no claims here, just pointed out that you were throwing a non sequitur out.
And i felt confident someone else here could answer it, anyway.

It's probably why immigrants want to flock here and you guys don't want to leave.

Ifvthe whole place went communist tomorrow, my entire family would still be here, along with all my property. So, i would still not leave. The capitalism is not the why for my staying.
As for immigrants, the low numbers of people dragged into the street to be shot may be a rank or two above capitalism.

 

[ruby sparks]

As far as I can see, from doing some googling of the actual Model Curriculum, capitalism is cited as a 'system of power' alongside patriarchy and white supremacy.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ethnicguidelines.asp

and

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmcpubliccomment.asp

So, while the OP article might be said to paraphrase that slightly too dramatically, it's correct in saying that capitalism, in this curriculum, is considered oppressive, and not actually that far off the mark in saying that as far as this curriculum is concerned, capitalism is racist.

Which seems true, at least in the (this) context of 'Ethnic Studies', which is not or at least has not been, in the USA at least, as the name implies, about the study of different ethnicities, but about the study of those groups, some of which aren't even ethnicities (eg women) which have traditionally been disadvantaged.

 

[ruby sparks]

To my mind, the Californian Model Curriculum is a bit skewed, in its current form. Skewed to the left. A bit too PC.

Do not ask me exactly how I think such a topic should be taught in schools, or where something crosses from PC (which I do not object to) into too PC, because those would be a very tricky questions. But I would say that when we're talking about something that will be a compulsory module in secondary schools (as opposed to, say, an optional one at college) that there should perhaps be less ideology coming from one direction, that there should be more balance.

 

[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

"Among other things, the model curriculum lists capitalism with white supremacy and racism as “forms of power and oppression.” OK, but shouldn’t students also hear arguments that capitalism has allowed for an expansion over time of the middle class, or even from those who believe in a laissez-faire, sink-or-swim economy.

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

 

[Politesse]

Do not ask me exactly how I think such a topic should be taught in schools, or where something crosses from PC (which I do not object to) into too PC, because those would be a very tricky questions. But I would say that when we're talking about something that will be a compulsory module in secondary schools (as opposed to, say, an optional one at college) that there should perhaps be less ideology coming from one direction, that there should be more balance.

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[couch_sloth]

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

"Among other things, the model curriculum lists capitalism with white supremacy and racism as “forms of power and oppression.” OK, but shouldn’t students also hear arguments that capitalism has allowed for an expansion over time of the middle class, or even from those who believe in a laissez-faire, sink-or-swim economy.

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

Yeah. I was just going to post a link to this editorial...
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.

 

[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"?