Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

Rationalization.

 

I'm being perfectly nice to him. However I'm not required to have to tolerate what I consider to be an inherently bad faith posting style that he's done in nearly ever single issue where there is disagreement between him and others. I am going to call it out.

 

I think he just wanted to say Pubis.

 

I'll charitably assume that it wasn't deliberately done, but the discussion in the "Race Relations" thread was firmly on DeSantis' ban on AP African American Studies until someone made an offhand comment about LGBTQ+ studies as another example, and he responded with incredulity towards the offhand comment only - and the thread got derailed.

Attempts were made to try to keep the thread on topic (including by myself, twice), but those generally failed - and Pumas, you made it clear that you wanted to only talk about the LGBTQ+ studies. We have two other on-topic threads (LGBTQ, Education) where a continued discussion would have been more appropriate.
And Pumas, saying phrases that can be construed as inflammatory - such as "I don't trust teachers" or singling out public schools - whatever your intent, it can't be surprising that you received heated replies. And your posts do frequently imply a strong opinion that doesn't track with the inevitable "shrug" post that you make at the end. It can be confusing to posters here with the apparent tonal shift. I would probably suggest making it clear that it's not a topic that you have any particular viewpoint on from the start, or at least make it clear what, exactly, it is you are trying to say. We've had plenty of people over the years here that seem to want to engage in verbal trickery rather than actually participate in discussions, so you can understand people's reactions here, right? Just my two cents.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand:

The Advanced Placement program is run by an organization called the College Board, a non-profit which has been around for about 125 years and its membership consists pretty much of college and universities across the US and Canada. They create the programs and certify the classes that teach AP - but really, the only thing that matters is the AP test itself. Unlike Dual Enrollment classes, which allow you to earn college credit by attending class, an AP class does not give you anything in of itself - it is simply designed to teach you college-level material that you would then take the Advanced Placement test on - it is your score on the test that grants you the credit. Also to note: one does not need to take an AP course to take the AP test - anyone can take the test. So, yes, private schoolers and home schoolers can also score AP credit, technically.

Now, in the case of Florida, DeSantis' administration has accused the program of 'lacking educational value', saying "If the course comes into compliance and incorporates historically accurate content, the Department will reopen the discussion." What, specifically, did they object to? Well, there's where it all falls apart - they won't really say what it is. Because, ultimately, it doesn't matter - it's just another performative motion by the DeSantis administration. They don't care what's in the program. Their objection is to the concept of "African American Studies" in general - and to fire another salvo in DeSantis' Conservative Culture Warrior conflict as part of his ongoing Presidential campaign.

Edit: Well... it looks like there's a reason that they didn't want to reveal it, as a leaked internal document stated "it teaches students about activism, intersectionality and encourages “ending the war on Black trans, queer, gender non-conforming, and intersex people” "
Oh, and they are pointing out that of course DeSantis isn't against African American History:
"“One example from his first term is HB 1213, passed and signed into law in 2020. This is a bill that requires all Florida students to learn about the Ocoee Massacre,” said the Florida DOE press secretary.
... which isn't exactly true. It's another vaguely worded bill that:
A) Is primarily about the Holocaust
B) Most damning, the bill doesn't call it the "Ocoee Massacre" - the term that everyone, from historians to the press secretary in the quote above uses - but the "Ocoee Election Day Riots".
And no, it wasn't a ****ing riot - it was a large group of white racists that gathered together to methodically drive out or kill every African American citizen of Ocoee, and burned the town to the ground. But 'riot' makes you think a certain way, right?

Now, there is an actual African American History Task Force under the Commissioner of Education (mainly because Florida Statutes require it) - and their official Twitter feed does have one of their members, an African-American Democratic state rep who doesn't have to fear losing their job speaking out against DeSantis, talking about how absurd this is. Odd that none of the news stories have mentioned this, isn't it?

 

You’re spot-on: it’s performative. He’s gearing up for an election and **** like this will get certain parts of Florida excited about continuing to back him.

In that case, Im not really offended or appalled, no more than I would be from any politician playing politics. His platform is anti-wokeness. “Woke” is a term that is largely tied to black movements. It sort of makes political sense to broadcast that you’re kicking back an African-American history class.

Douchebag move, for sure. Sort of racist. Politically savvy though.

 

I took both AP and Dual Enrollment classes my Senior year in high school, and it helped immensely get my college education started. The only exception was AP English, but only because the teacher had a bad reputation.
Florida has the largest university in the nation - the University of Central Florida - mainly because it used the "Disney method" of having bought a large amount of unwanted land in the middle of nowhere when the school was founded in the 1960s and has been able to outpace universities that sit smack dab in the middle of cities (like Florida's traditional top two, FSU and University of Florida). That's my alma mater, and infamously was also the school that was considered so out of the way that President Nixon chose to speak at my dad's graduation ceremony in 1973 during the height of the Watergate scandal.
And yes, DeSantis has been targeting the state universities as part of his 'counterwoke' movement. And it's always been a conservative dream to rewrite history when it comes to African-Americans - witness the 'accidental' rewording in Texas school textbooks that somehow changed 'slaves' to 'immigrants' back in 2015 (which matters, specifically, because since Texas is one of the largest markets, whatever happens to textbooks there usually gets changed everywhere else - and conservatives know this).

And keep in mind these are public school textbooks. Private school textbooks are 1000% times worse, because they can say anything:

"The Guardian reviewed dozens of textbooks produced by the Christian textbook publishers Abeka, Bob Jones University Press and Accelerated Christian Education, three of the most popular textbook sources used in private schools throughout the US. These textbooks describe slavery as “black immigration”, and say Nelson Mandela helped move South Africa to a system of “radical affirmative action”.
"One Accelerated Christian Education high school textbook refers to the civil war as the “war between the states” (a term ordinarily used by those who romanticise the Confederacy) and says that the “end of slavery in this country was a legitimate goal, but much was done in the name of abolition that was as evil as the institution of slavery itself”. It contains a section titled “Black immigration”, referring to slavery, which notes: “Not all immigrants have come to America willingly.”

 

I don't really understand these sentiments. Is it less offensive because you think it is performative/insincere?

We know that Donald Trump wasn't sincere when he was saying that COVID was mostly harmless. His commentary along these lines still contributed to thousands of deaths. We know that there were insincere defenders of Jim Crow, too. But their actions still encouraged substantive denial of rights to millions of black people and the actual murder of people who were trying to change it.

We all understand that politics has a certain degree of ideological flexibility. You might vote down a certain tax one day and then vote for a very similar one the next. If we're talking about any number of campaign issues, that's fine. But it's not hard to draw a line at letting someone's "issue" being encouraging hatred against a whole racial/ethnic group. This isn't just sort of racist, it absolutely is. Nor is it "just" his DeSantis's brand. It's not similar to John Kerry voting for it before he voted against it, and it's not similar to Ronald Reagan joking not to hold his opponent's youth against him. This a policy platform of public racism. If we can't manage full-throated pushback on this, then I don't know principles are worth having.

 

Less is relative. I’ll say I’m not really offended by a politician playing politics, even if they play on racial sentiments. If it was a more serious issue, I may be more activated, but not over a class.

If you think it’s racist, then we’re in agreement.

 

I don't understand the obsession some people (mostly the anti-"woke" crowd) have with the idea that others might be "offended" about something. If you do not feel the pain or hurt or negative effects that something causes, that's fine. But these are attacks on minorities. Attacks cause harm, and whether or not we feel offense at the harm being caused, we should still be fighting against them.

 

The context is broader than 'a class', but a wider symptom of the conservative idea of censoring and erasing any concepts and ideas they find wrong. Living in the state of Florida, we can see the effect readily - a massive teacher shortage is getting worse with every passing year, because conservative culture warriors have made the occupation readily unpleasant. Social programs are being gutted that hurt minorities the most. Real issues that need addressing are shunted to the side. This is a preview of what a DeSantis administration would be like nationwide - a zealous 'counterwoke' inquisition as he abandons the pretense of his 'states rights' position to enforce conservative ideals on every state, while the nation falls apart.

 

These are political attacks, sure. The best way to stop them is to vote your opponents out; which is what people in Florida are already trying to do. So if by framing them as racial harmful despicable attacks gets them the victory they seek, great.

I guess… idk. From Jim Crow to the civil rights movement to the election of Trump, maybe I’ve grown disillusioned of trying to convince racist white people that their words hurt people’s feelings and harm their rights. I’d rather just kick their ass and get them out of office. Im not very sentimental nor have I seen evidence that being openly offended changes how people behave towards minorities, so it’s hardened me.

I am understanding of where you’re coming from, truly, but it’s hard for me to feel the same.

 

I'm not following this logic. If you believe that the best way to stop them is to vote them out of office, well democracy works by majority rule. You are a minority in this country. It is in your best interest, based on your own logic, to push back against these ideologies.

 

I do push back against these ideologies, but the main engine for that pushback is not sentimentality or because it’s wrong or prejudice. The main driver for my political beliefs is that I think they are better than my opponents. Are DeSantis and republicans in Florida playing on racist tropes to get votes? Yea, an argument can be made. However, republicans will get maximum pushback from me simply for disagreeing with my ideals.

All the “this is racist/sexist/transphobic” stuff is secondary for me. My primary analytical lens is “is what is being proposed going to solve the stated problem and what is the validity of the stated problem?”

———
@Jedi Merkurian

Yknow… I don’t know if I’ve ever talked about voter suppression here before but I am against pretty much any barrier placed in between voters and voting. I think voting should be mandatory.

Plus, some of these voter suppression laws are facially insulting if you accept that they are racist and classist: “Let’s make people bring IDs and drop the number of polling stations in low income areas because they don’t need it, they don’t vote anyway.”

 

This seems like a weird framing to me, because it treats all racial/gender issues as inherently separate from other spheres of life. The whole problem of things like racism and sexism is that its advocates do not allow that. It's not just that they privately thought Black people were dumb or that women belong in the home, it's that universities were literally banned form accepting non-white or female students to ensure the world lined up with that private viewpoint.

We are again seeing longstanding private animus transform into public policy (eg "I don't personally enjoy Black History courses" has become "It is not legal to teach a Black History course for anyone."). In such situations, the problem itself is literally that racists are building their bigotry into the program of public policy. That's the whole thing. That alone is a tangible socioeconomic problem for every person of color in the state, regardless of whether the tax structure is otherwise favorable or whatever point you want to make.

I don't talk about racism to appeal to white people. I talk about racism because it directly impacts the ability of non-whites to live, in exactly the same way as a bad defense, economic, or foreign policy would.

 

I don't disagree with anything that you said. We don't agree on how I arrive to my positions, but, mostly, my positions are similar to yours.

As stated above, I don't particularly care about the motivations behind my opponents' bad policies. Is it important to know them and understand them? Yes, but whether or not someone is racist is secondary to if I find their policies disagreeable.

For example, when Trump first announced his travel ban, I called it xenophobic, but my main opposition to it was that it was dumb and ineffective.

 

To be blunt, I'm never going to say "Okay but this is a way to make a whole lot of money selling cotton though." I hope to God we are far beyond the days when anything ever would.

I know there's this polite fiction that all the most profitable/efficient systems are coincidentally always the most ethical ones, but I don't really care to test the proposition. I am perfectly okay setting some policies out of bounds because they are inherently inhumane.

 

Yeah, it's like the whole "well actually torture isn't effective." I don't care whether it's effective or not. Even if it was effective, it's inhumane.

 

Very much like this. I am not a communist, and I know disagree with them sometimes on these boards. But one thing I deeply admire is the willingness to call out how horrific the idea of amoral pursuit of profit/efficiency maximization is. That is both specifically and explicitly what I do not want to do. I am okay with calling things inherently wrong.

 

I looked deeper into what was in that proposed course because I wanted to see if there was any merit to what the DeSantis administration was saying…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...es-course-heres-what-it-actually-teaches/amp/

I don’t think it’s grounds for rejecting it and still think Florida should have just let whichever schools wanted it to have it, but… I do have to wonder why it’s important to teach high school students about concepts like intersectionality (because I think a deeper exploration into the concept is a class on its own), black reparations, and “black struggle in the 21st century”.

Like… what the **** is the sub topic of “black struggle in the 21st century”?

 

I think that means “Racism is not a dead historical phenomenon that ended when Martin Luther King Jr gave the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, so here are some ways it affects people’s lives today.”

I also don’t recall anyone ever banning math standards that introduce sines in algebra even though there’s definitely more depth to study about it later in a whole separate class called trigonometry. Probably because successive re-exposure with greater depth is a basic principle of learning.

 

Hmm… that’s not how I interpret someone saying “black struggle in the 21st century”, but different strokes for different folks.

We don’t agree on the fact that social sciences should be treated differently than STEM. Your example, in my opinion, is a poor one, but agree to disagree.

EDIT: It’s actually refreshing to encounter opinions such as these. During my academic history, both undergrad and graduate, I’ve 100% encountered political theories, philosophies, and many analytical frameworks that I don’t think are fit for young minds nor do I think that a brief mentioning of a concept is sufficient when discussing matters as significant as how society has formed legal theories or societal treatments of marginalized classes.

So, I thank you for the different opinion. I don’t find it particularly persuasive, but I do value examining it and asking questions.

 

Poetry is it's own class. A whole discipline at the collegiate level. I don't mind kindergartners learning "I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream."