White? Dont teach here. Op Updated to address false 'racist' labal

[realibrad]

I infer it from this part of the article:
This to me means they want someone who understands the experience of being in the racial minority when it comes to race relations. If they were concerned about the teacher being all of the races they would have asked for that. They did not. Clearly a black teacher is qualified in their opinion to teach not only African studies, but Latino and Asian as well. Why do you think differently?

You can understand without having been through it. Its how almost all teaching works. If it did not work, then empathy would not even be a word right.

Also, they did say this...

In order for one to convey the messages and teach the real lessons, the authentic lesson, it has to be someone who lives it and has been there

This means that a white teacher cannot teach it, because they can never understand what its like. But, if a white teacher cannot understand, how can a student unless they have been through the same situation, and if they had, why would they need to be taught about it?

 

[jhbball]

That in itself is incredibly racist.


I place value on knowledge, capability to teach and provide insight.

You place value in race.



Very sad.

Oh look, the blathering wise and beautiful woman speaks again. Not only does he covet poor peoples' cell phones, he's also a huge racist. Shocked, I tell you.

 

[dank69]

You can understand without having been through it. Its how almost all teaching works. If it did not work, then empathy would not even be a word right.

Also, they did say this...



This means that a white teacher cannot teach it, because they can never understand what its like. But, if a white teacher cannot understand, how can a student unless they have been through the same situation, and if they had, why would they need to be taught about it?

You are back to arguing the merits of the protesters' logic. This is not the discussion we are having. We are discussing whether or not Waggy's post indicates if he thinks "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

 

[justoh]

On the flip side, Karen Crozier is implicitly saying that black teachers are incapable of teaching European history.

exactly. so i guess they should fire every black history teacher (except for African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies).

Because he was trying to find an example of a group that is not a part of another group and his example was black people not being a part of American History. The logic was sound, his example did not fit.

Where did he state that if not white then not part of american history? If non white then fired unless those subjects -> if non white then not qualified to teach anything else. They gave a few reasons why whites aren't qualified to teach those subjects, but the most pertinent reason they gave was that they can't think critically about minority issues.

The original article talks about history in the cultural studies context. They don't seem to have a sub-branch of cultural studies involving europeans, for obvious reasons, consistent with its purpose. Not that that point is relevant to the logic employed, but it adds to the confusion.

He agreed with spungo about the implications of if white then not qualified, wrongly. Spungo thought that meant if non white then incapable of teaching european history. The logic cannot possibly be sound, because it's not true. It's not valid because we can't validly negate the if white proposition. And inductive logic isn't subject to validity or soundness, but there's no cogency in thinking that's what the protestors or waggy believes.

Seems like spungo and waggy misrepresented what the protestors think, or what could follow from what they think, and then you misrepresented what waggy thinks.

 

[realibrad]

Bullshit. He said all black history teachers should be fired except for African studies. Is American History a subset of African studies? No. This post of yours holds zero water.

The context should be applied here though. It simply could have been a mistake, and you jumped to "oh great, another person who does not believe..."

Thats a pretty harsh jump really. The guy was saying it was bad to reject the teacher based off of race, and you jumped to "you demean black history".

Also, if a black teacher can teach American history because black are apart of American history, what about when it gets to the "White" parts. How can a black teacher teach about the majority of the peoples that make up American history? The black teacher cannot have both minority and majority experience of American history can he?

 

[justoh]

and doc savage tries to misrepresent what einstein thinks

 

[realibrad]

Where did he state that if not white then not part of american history? If non white then fired unless those subjects -> if non white then not qualified to teach anything else. They gave a few reasons why whites aren't qualified to teach those subjects, but the most pertinent reason they gave was that they can't think critically about minority issues.

The original article talks about history in the cultural studies context. They don't seem to have a sub-branch of cultural studies involving europeans, for obvious reasons, consistent with its purpose. Not that that point is relevant to the logic employed, but it adds to the confusion.

He agreed with spungo about the implications of if white then not qualified, wrongly. Spungo thought that meant if non white then incapable of teaching european history. The logic cannot possibly be sound, because it's not true. It's not valid because we can't validly negate the if white proposition. And inductive logic isn't subject to validity or soundness, but there's no cogency in thinking that's what the protestors or waggy believes.

Seems like spungo and waggy misrepresented what the protestors think, or what could follow from what they think, and then you misrepresented what waggy thinks.

I think the implication from Spungo is correct. A black person cannot teach European history, because the black teacher would be teaching from the viewpoint of an outsider. Waggy is a bit harder to defend, because he has not really commented too much on this, and so it could be many different things.

dank69 however, took it to another level, by jumping to his conclusions.

 

[dank69]

Where did he state that if not white then not part of american history? If non white then fired unless those subjects -> if non white then not qualified to teach anything else. They gave a few reasons why whites aren't qualified to teach those subjects, but the most pertinent reason they gave was that they can't think critically about minority issues.

The original article talks about history in the cultural studies context. They don't seem to have a sub-branch of cultural studies involving europeans, for obvious reasons, consistent with its purpose. Not that that point is relevant to the logic employed, but it adds to the confusion.

He agreed with spungo about the implications of if white then not qualified, wrongly. Spungo thought that meant if non white then incapable of teaching european history. The logic cannot possibly be sound, because it's not true. It's not valid because we can't validly negate the if white proposition. And inductive logic isn't subject to validity or soundness, but there's no cogency in thinking that's what the protestors or waggy believes.

Seems like spungo and waggy misrepresented what the protestors think, or what could follow from what they think, and then you misrepresented what waggy thinks.

Wrong. The protesters think that white people can't teach minority studies because they have no experience being a minority. Spungo extended that to mean they also must believe blacks can't teach European history and Waggy further extended it to mean they think black people can only teach African studies and black history teachers need to be fired. This means that Waggy thinks blacks have no experience with American History in the same way that whites have no experience with being in the minority.

 

[dank69]

The context should be applied here though. It simply could have been a mistake, and you jumped to "oh great, another person who does not believe..."

Thats a pretty harsh jump really. The guy was saying it was bad to reject the teacher based off of race, and you jumped to "you demean black history".

Also, if a black teacher can teach American history because black are apart of American history, what about when it gets to the "White" parts. How can a black teacher teach about the majority of the peoples that make up American history? The black teacher cannot have both minority and majority experience of American history can he?

...

dank69 however, took it to another level, by jumping to his conclusions.

Wrong. As I explained, Waggy searched his brain for a example of what blacks are not a part of and came up with the example of no history other than African Studies.

 

[justoh]

I think the implication from Spungo is correct. A black person cannot teach European history, because the black teacher would be teaching from the viewpoint of an outsider. Waggy is a bit harder to defend, because he has not really commented too much on this, and so it could be many different things.

dank69 however, took it to another level, by jumping to his conclusions.

nah, spungo is just wrong. it doesn't follow from the protestors statements.

 

[justoh]

Wrong. As I explained, Waggy searched his brain for a example of what blacks are not a part of and came up with the example of nothing other than African Studies.

nuh uh. he carelessly extended spungo's incorrect inference, ironically, and ironically.

 

[dank69]

nuh uh. he carelessly extended spungo's incorrect inference to absolutely everything else, ironically, and ironically.

No. Clearly from Waggy's post the extension is limited to history type subjects. He didn't say all black teachers should be fired he said all black history teachers.

 

[alzan]

How far are you going to keep digging?

Probably a better question to ask yourself.


Dank, maybe you should make a poll thread on this, AT loves polls.

If you choose to do so, put me down for option "I get what you are saying"

 

[justoh]

No. Clearly from Waggy's post the extension is limited to history type subjects. He didn't say all black teachers should be fired he said all black history teachers.

oops. so he did. hehe.

He's still attributing that to what doesn't follow from what the protestors were saying, but what he thinks does follow, and not to his own beliefs.

 

[dank69]

Probably a better question to ask yourself.


Dank, maybe you should make a poll thread on this, AT loves polls.

If you choose to do so, put me down for option "I get what you are saying"

Haha, thanks for the support. :thumbsup:

No poll needed, like I said, "airtight." Still wouldn't stop people like SA from voting against me out of spite.

 

[justoh]

You are back to arguing the merits of the protesters' logic. This is not the discussion we are having. We are discussing whether or not Waggy's post indicates if he thinks "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

How could the protestors logic not be relevant when waggy's statement was an extension of it?

 

[realibrad]

nah, spungo is just wrong. it doesn't follow from the protestors statements.

There were very complex racial issues all through European history. If a white person cannot teach black history, how can a black teacher teach non black racial issues?

 

[dank69]

How could the protestors logic not be relevant when waggy's statement was an extension of it?

Because I am not arguing for the merits of their logic, I am arguing against the connection Waggy made between "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

 

[justoh]

There were very complex racial issues all through European history. If a white person cannot teach black history, how can a black teacher teach non black racial issues?

It's not history, per se, it's cultural studies, involving history, like all subjects involve history to some extent, and in this case, within the US context. That karen woman was talking about white people not being qualified to teach minority issues in the us context, and no special category of cultural studies exists featuring europeans. It doesn't make sense to talk about what non whites are qualified or not qualified to teach according to the protestors, except maybe, inductively, to talk about non whites being a necessary but not sufficient ocndition to teach those subjects referred to.

 

[realibrad]

Because I am not arguing for the merits of their logic, I am arguing against the connection Waggy made between "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

But the statement was not Waggy's belief, but what he though the conclusion of the protesters would imply.

If we establish what Waggy likely thought the view point of the protester was, we can establish a context to place his statements in.

 

[dank69]

But the statement was not Waggy's belief, but what he though the conclusion of the protesters would imply.

If we establish what Waggy likely thought the view point of the protester was, we can establish a context to place his statements in.

Yes. He thought that is what their conclusion would imply because he thinks that "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

 

[realibrad]

It's not history, per se, it's cultural studies, involving history, like all subjects involve history to some extent, and in this case, within the US context. That karen woman was talking about white people not being qualified to teach minority issues in the us context, and no special category of cultural studies exists featuring europeans. It doesn't make sense to talk about what non whites are qualified or not qualified to teach according to the protestors.

But the implication of the protesters was that culture cannot be taught by someone who does not have first hand knowledge. If culture is apart of history, a teacher would not be able to teach with out this experience. Thus a black teacher would only be able to teach history from a relatively recent time frame, as northern Europe have zero blacks from 2000+ years ago.

Also, there are cultural studies featuring Europeans.

 

[justoh]

Because I am not arguing for the merits of their logic, I am arguing against the connection Waggy made between "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

It's a connection he clearly made encompassing his misunderstanding of what can logically be deduced or inferred from statements made by the protestors. It's not something he just came up with in a vacuum. He doesn't have to believe this to make a statement which inadvertently leads to what looks like him having this belief?

 

[realibrad]

Yes. He thought that is what their conclusion would imply because he thinks that "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History."

Wait...
Do you believe Waggy believes "whites can't teach African studies is the same as blacks can't teach American History" or that Waggy believes thats what the protesters think?

 

[dank69]

It's a connection he clearly made encompassing his misunderstanding of what can logically be deduced or inferred from statements made by the protestors. It's not something he just came up with in a vacuum. He doesn't have to believe this to make a statement which inadvertently leads to what looks like him having this belief?

No. He has to believe the two statements are equal. That is how logic works.