In Teabagistan Schools Will Be Segregated

[BeAChooser]

I'm sorry you don't appreciate my pithy banter

"Pithy" is not the word that comes to my mind.

 

[bikerdruid]

In his schools, the teacher preaches “social justice” and that American capitalism is racist, materialist, imperialist and unjust.

it is.
your point?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly this.

Similarly, if all schools received equal per-pupil funding rather than underfunding schools with poor children, and teachers were randomly assigned within the district rather than the best teachers getting to teach at the wealthiest schools, the demographics wouldn't be nearly as important.

Not really, concentrations of poverty will still mess up schools. The goal of this system is to break up those concentrations of poverty.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not really, concentrations of poverty will still mess up schools. The goal of this system is to break up those concentrations of poverty.

I don't think it's the concentration of poverty that is the problem, since per student spending in the low income areas is often higher than in wealthier areas. It's something else. Perhaps it's the way they, their parents, and their peers view the value of education. Now perhaps busing to spread out low income students might impact the effect of peers, if you could completely remove them from their peers. But you can't do that since they still go back to their neighborhoods after school and on weekends. And of course busing doesn't do much to impact how their parents view education. In fact, then it's even harder for those parents to maintain contact with the schools. It also doesn't make the students alter the number of hours spent watching TV or how much they study. In fact, forcing them to travel large distances to school might reduce the hours spent on homework? And then there is the impact that those students have on the schools they go to ... which isn't always positive. Maybe the problem is the way public education approaches education? Maybe the problem is teaching victimhood to both the parents and the students. Because that's what liberals tend to teach.

 

[Ausmerican]

Is Teabagistan anywhere near Libertopia?

They are 'around the bend' from each other.

 

[BeAChooser]

it is.
your point?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/at-public-school-anti-americanism-hides-in-plain-sight/?singlepage=true

At Public School, Anti-Americanism Hides in Plain Sight

A father files an eye-opening report from the front lines.

January 14, 2011

… snip …

In the Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln called America “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Yet today, if a large proportion of American schoolchildren are taught that America is a nation conceived in bigotry and dedicated to the propositions of racism, sexism, bigotry, male chauvinism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and homophobia, what’s going to happen?

Lincoln answered that one in another speech: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

 

[Galteeth]

There's part of your problem.

How is it "my problem" that my AP history class offered that? My OP was pointing out how that book was inaccurate.

 

[Galteeth]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/at-public-school-anti-americanism-hides-in-plain-sight/?singlepage=true

Isn't it possible it could be both those things? History, culture, and morality are complex. A dichotomy of the history of some nation-state as being all "bad" or "good." isn't a useful intellectual approach.

Furthermore, when it comes to education, history should ideally be presented as moral-neutral. Of course what one decides is significant and worth learning about is going to be shaped by morality, but high school history is hardly the be-all.

 

[bikerdruid]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/at-public-school-anti-americanism-hides-in-plain-sight/?singlepage=true

spin it as you will, but american capitalism is in direct opposition to social justice.

 

[TraneWreck]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/at-public-school-anti-americanism-hides-in-plain-sight/?singlepage=true

Yes, why oh why was Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg address anyway? Everyone must have gathered there to celebrate how awesome and non-racist America was at the spur of the moment. It surely wasn't because half the country was fighting a war to maintain the institution of slavery.

I should point out that "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," does not mean, "achieved a state in which everyone was free and equal."

THat's sort of why the Constitution referred to a "more perfect union," not a perfect union.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, why oh why was Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg address anyway? Everyone must have gathered there to celebrate how awesome and non-racist America was at the spur of the moment. It surely wasn't because half the country was fighting a war to maintain the institution of slavery.

I should point out that "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," does not mean, "achieved a state in which everyone was free and equal."

THat's sort of why the Constitution referred to a "more perfect union," not a perfect union.

As I'm sure you know, the Union was not fighting to end slavery.

 

[WildCat]

As I'm sure you know, the Union was not fighting to end slavery.

I bet you think the Confederacy was fighting for "state's rights".

 

[Galteeth]

I bet you think the Confederacy was fighting for "state's rights".

No, they were fighting for slavery.

Edit: And nationalism

 

[TraneWreck]

As I'm sure you know, the Union was not fighting to end slavery.

Not solely.

The South certainly seceded over slavery.

The point is that it was not the purity of American spirit and our undying commitment to equality for all of mankind that put Lincoln at Gettysburg on the day he delivered the address. It was the fact that half the country was willing to die for exactly opposite values.

 

[mhaze]

Of course it would be. But there is some logic to the statement. Perhaps we would be better off if we stopped diluting the problem of high school graduation rates that are as bad as the predominantly democratic controlled public education system has tolerated for decades?

Also, we no longer have ethic enclaves in the US the way there were historically up to the 1960s. In my neighborhood I can count all types races, ethic, within a block. Where in the 1960s this very neighborhood could be called uniformly white, today it certainly is not.

So the issue today is way different than when busing was started in the 1960s, and the results would be different. I can't see where this issue should rise above local level politics.

 

[pipelineaudio]

By the way, can anyone explain to me why it's so all-fired important to these whacktards to emphasize the "republic not a democracy" shtick?

Because it correctly reenforces the notion that the usa is NOT mob rule, but a constitutionally protected republic.

Why the tea party would want this, being a populous movement is beyond me, but politics make strange bedfellows

 

[Thunder]

I have a major problem with modern-day desegregation politics.

Black kids can benefit from this, by being bussed to schools in wealthier communities. Good for them, the extra funding from property taxes will likely get them a better education.

But, what if there are two black communities: one upper middle-class and one lower class?

will the children of the lower class class communities get bussed to the higher income schools? no they will not.

this whole argument depends on whether "White" means wealthy and "Black" means poor.

And the fact is, being white is NOT synonymous with having money, and being black is NOT synonymous with being poor.

What if you are a poor white kid growing up in a poor white area? Do you get to go to a wealthier school in a wealthier white area? Nope. Sorry Charlie.

Sure, I love cultural and racial diversity. It exposes us to different people and makes us better Americans. But to suggest that desegregation is the "answer" to our education problems is just a joke.

Honestly, if we want to give as many American children as possible the best education possible, we should have busing based on economics, and NOT just race.

Its not the fault of kids that their parents and their community is poor, no matter what race they are. There is no reason why black or Hispanic poor kids should get special treatment, while white poor kids get screwed.

Its almost as though the logic is that if you are poor AND white, its all your fault and the government should do nothing to help you and your kids. Racial minorities, however, get and deserve that extra "lift".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Also, we no longer have ethic enclaves in the US the way there were historically up to the 1960s. In my neighborhood I can count all types races, ethic, within a block. Where in the 1960s this very neighborhood could be called uniformly white, today it certainly is not.

So the issue today is way different than when busing was started in the 1960s, and the results would be different. I can't see where this issue should rise above local level politics.

So because your neighborhood is integrated you've drawn the conclusion all neighborhoods are likewise integrated?

 

[Galteeth]

So because your neighborhood is integrated you've drawn the conclusion all neighborhoods are likewise integrated?

Neighborhoods have become greatly more integrated over time in the US. I live in what's allegedly one of the most most diverse towns in the country. I have heard that areas in the south are still largely segregated, for example, areas in New Orleans that are nearly exclusively black (although low property values have lead to an influx of non-blacks.)

 

[slingblade]

Also, we no longer have ethic enclaves in the US the way there were historically up to the 1960s. In my neighborhood I can count all types races, ethic, within a block. Where in the 1960s this very neighborhood could be called uniformly white, today it certainly is not.

Yes, we do, depending on what you mean by "enclave."

I can travel for blocks and blocks where I live and see nothing but white faces. There are other neighborhoods that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino/Mexicano, with few of any other nation or ethnicity.
There are approximately 10 blacks for every 1690 whites.

The most racially integrated place where I live seems to be Wal-Mart, but it's still quite well-peopled by the lighter-of-skin.

So the issue today is way different than when busing was started in the 1960s, and the results would be different. I can't see where this issue should rise above local level politics.

On a nationwide scale, it seems different. Locally, in some places, you may still see a time-warp. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily invalidate what you said about handling it at the local level...unless the local level is rather fond of that status quo, and still needs some convincing.