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

[Derec]

... and to honor left-wing terrorists and cop killers.

California Wants to Teach Your Kids That Capitalism Is Racist

Begin with economics. Capitalism is described as a “form of power and oppression,” alongside “patriarchy,” “racism,” “white supremacy” and “ableism.” Capitalism and capitalists appear as villains several times in the document.
[...]
Teachers are encouraged to cite the biographies of “potentially significant figures” such as Angela Davis, Frantz Fanon and Bobby Seale. Convicted cop-killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur are also on the list. Students are taught that the life of George Jackson matters “now more than ever.” Jackson, while in prison, became “a revolutionary warrior for Black liberation and prison reform.” The Latino section’s people of significance include Puerto Rican nationalists Oscar López Rivera, a member of a paramilitary group that carried out more than 130 bomb attacks, and Lolita Lebrón, who was convicted of attempted murder in a group assault that wounded five congressmen.

The rest of the curriculum is just as bad. For example

The curriculum is entirely wrongheaded when it comes to critical thinking. Critical thinking is described not as reasoning through logic and consideration of evidence but rather a vague deconstruction of power relationships so that one can “speak out on social issues.” Thinking critically “requires individuals to evaluate phenomenon [sic] through the lens of systems, the rules within those systems, who wields power within systems and the impact of that power on the relationships between people existing within systems.”

If California won't Calexit voluntarily, can we just vote to expel them from the union?

 

[Politesse]

You object to the teaching of facts why, exactly?

The comment period on the proposed model is still open actually, if you want to make a formal complaint. But if your objection is just that ethnic studies programs exist, or that it should only include teaching about "good people" rather than ones you personally dislike, your comments are unlikely to be greatly influential.

 

[Derec]

You object to the teaching of facts why, exactly?

This is not facts, it's far leftist propaganda.

The comment period on the proposed model is still open actually, if you want to make a formal complaint. But if your objection is just that ethnic studies programs exist, or that it should only include teaching about "good people" rather than ones you personally dislike, your comments are unlikely to be greatly influential.

Ethnic studies are not a very good idea to begin with, but when they are used to condemn capitalism and glorify left-wing terrorists they become an insanely bad idea.

 

[zorq]

You object to the teaching of facts why, exactly?

This is not facts, it's far leftist propaganda.

The comment period on the proposed model is still open actually, if you want to make a formal complaint. But if your objection is just that ethnic studies programs exist, or that it should only include teaching about "good people" rather than ones you personally dislike, your comments are unlikely to be greatly influential.

Ethnic studies are not a very good idea to begin with, but when they are used to condemn capitalism and glorify left-wing terrorists they become an insanely bad idea.

Asking students to read and cite a notable figure who has spoken out on ethnic issues doesn't condone or endorse any of their actions.

Public relations, marketing, and film students are often asked to study Goebbels. You know this right?

 

[Derec]

Asking students to read and cite a notable figure who has spoken out on ethnic issues doesn't condone or endorse any of their actions.

Calling a robber and murderer like George Jackson a "warrior for black liberation and prison reform" is condoning what he did.

Public relations, marketing, and film students are often asked to study Goebbels. You know this right?

Yes, but the curriculum does not describe him positively. This curriculum describes black and Puerto Rican terrorists positively. That is a difference, and let's not be so dishonest as to pretend that California is not condoning this shit because far left has celebrated left-wing terrorists and cop killers for a while now.
Example from Berkeley, in you guessed it, California.

Joanne Chesimard, aka "Assata Shakur", murdered a state trooper in 1973. While in prison, her fellow black terrorists freed her from prison and she is currently a fugitive harbored by the Cuban communist regime. She and her actions are supported by the Far Left.

 

[zorq]

Asking students to read and cite a notable figure who has spoken out on ethnic issues doesn't condone or endorse any of their actions.

Calling a robber and murderer like George Jackson a "warrior for black liberation and prison reform" is condoning what he did.

Public relations, marketing, and film students are often asked to study Goebbels. You know this right?

Yes, but the curriculum does not describe him positively. This curriculum describes black and Puerto Rican terrorists positively. That is a difference.

You are so wrong about this. Goebbels is widely regarded as very successful at promoting the issues he tried to promote. Goebbels has on occasion been called a "genius" by people who were anything but fans of his political goals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is not facts, it's far leftist propaganda.

It isn't if you know anything about labor history. Just because things are a lot better today doesn't mean it wasn't oppressive 100 years ago in the US... or oppressive today in the third world nations of whose labor we do exploit quite a bit. The capitalism in the US and Europe today is not what existed in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Laborers, who were deemed expendable, died in explosions, were burned to death in factory fires, were gunned down by troops when they striked to get improved working conditions. Workers in some cases became indentured slaves, subsiding on corporate housing, stores... destined to never break even.

This was real. The benefits provided in capitalism today were born out of the suffering of these people. Maybe you should crack open a history book.

 

[Derec]

You are so wrong about this. Goebbels is widely regarded as very successful at promoting the issues he tried to promote. Goebbels has on occasion been called a "genius" by people who were anything but fans of his political goals.

They may say that he was a talented propagandist, but they would not say that he is working for "German liberation" though. Unless they were Nazis. The description of George Jackson is one of praise, not condemnation, not even neutrality.

 

[laughing dog]

The WSJ is not a disinterested reporter on these issues. I would prefer a less ideologicsl source on this situation before I bothered to think deeply about it.

 

[Politesse]

You are so wrong about this. Goebbels is widely regarded as very successful at promoting the issues he tried to promote. Goebbels has on occasion been called a "genius" by people who were anything but fans of his political goals.

They may say that he was a talented propagandist, but they would not say that he is working for "German liberation" though. Unless they were Nazis. The description of George Jackson is one of praise, not condemnation, not even neutrality.

Where in this rubric does it say anything about requiring "praise" of anyone?

 

[Shadowy Man]

There are good people on both sides, right?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are good people on both sides, right?

Usually there are well meaning people on most sides, yes. And usually people mischaracterize people on opposing sides.

 

[bilby]

There are good people on both sides, right?

Usually there are well meaning people on most sides, yes. And usually people mischaracterize people on opposing sides.

Well meaning doesn't imply moral. Or good.

There are always well meaning people on all sides. The Nazis wanted to make the world a better place for everyone - they just had a very restrictive definition of who was 'someone'. The plan was never to make the world less good; It was to force it to become a better place by eliminating the sub-human malefactors who were holding back the advancement of the real people.

The whole Nazi ideology was well meaning. They just had different ideas about what that meant than we do.

The Spanish Inquisition was founded on the benevolent principle of defending as many people as possible from hell. That hell doesn't exist implies that they were mistaken, not that they had bad intentions.

There are no bad people; Just people with bad ideas.

But when people use violence to impose their bad ideas on others, their good intentions are irrelevant. Gold intentions on the part of an enemy are not a reason for their victims not to fight back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are good people on both sides, right?

Usually there are well meaning people on most sides, yes. And usually people mischaracterize people on opposing sides.

Well meaning doesn't imply moral. Or good.

What JP meant was, in his progressive greatness, that both sides are just as bad.

 

[southernhybrid]

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......

 

[AirPoh]

If California won't Calexit voluntarily, can we just vote to expel them from the union?

How unAmerican.

 

[AirPoh]

You object to the teaching of facts why, exactly?

This is not facts, it's far leftist propaganda.

The comment period on the proposed model is still open actually, if you want to make a formal complaint. But if your objection is just that ethnic studies programs exist, or that it should only include teaching about "good people" rather than ones you personally dislike, your comments are unlikely to be greatly influential.

Ethnic studies are not a very good idea to begin with, but when they are used to condemn capitalism and glorify left-wing terrorists they become an insanely bad idea.

This is not facts, it's far right propaganda.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If California won't Calexit voluntarily, can we just vote to expel them from the union?

How unAmerican.

Yeah, can't expel them. It's in the Pledge, a nation indivisible!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If California won't Calexit voluntarily, can we just vote to expel them from the union?

How unAmerican.

Yeah, who'd want access to all that tax money. For a state run so poorly, they seem to be rich in all sorts of things like technology advancement, agriculture, and ground shaking.

 

[Politesse]

If California won't Calexit voluntarily, can we just vote to expel them from the union?

How unAmerican.

Yeah, who'd want access to all that tax money. For a state run so poorly, they seem to be rich in all sorts of things like technology advancement, agriculture, and ground shaking.

Also oil, precious metals, the entire entertainment industry, and a sizeable military. Yeah, they're not going to let us secede. It's a nice pipe dream though.