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

[Newell Steamer]

Take your crude racism elsewhere, please.

Perknose
Forum Director

Especially where it will be appreciated - like the Republican Senate.

 

[MongGrel]

Looks like a trap

Later.

 

[OutHouse]

is this racist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kppx4bzfAaE

lol, that was mildly entertaining.

 

[D-Man]

Especially where it will be appreciated - like the Republican Senate.

Wait are you predicting the Republicans are going to win the Senate Good Deal

 

[SheHateMe]

lol. Hey look, the forum's biggest remaining racist thinks everyone else is a racist. Funny, all the people you always accuse of racism have never been sanctioned for it here while you have been repeatedly. I'm sure you just tell yourself that's because everyone's conspiring against you of course.

I wonder how long it will be until you go the way of Geosurface?

Remember Geosurface's last post where he said that White people have an inherent desire to be surrounded by whites and to be served by other whites (teachers, doctors, mailman, etc)?

That wasn't racist, that was just him speaking the hurtful truth.


But, wanting a black/asian/hispanic person to teach your kids their history is racist.





Welcome to P&N.

 

[werepossum]

Remember Geosurface's last post where he said that White people have an inherent desire to be surrounded by whites and to be served by other whites (teachers, doctors, mailman, etc)?

That wasn't racist, that was just him speaking the hurtful truth.


But, wanting a black/asian/hispanic person to teach your kids their history is racist.

Welcome to P&N.

Well . . . Yeah. It's racist in that you're judging teachers based primarily if not solely on skin color. I can kind of see it though. Such courses really don't have much place if the core history curriculum is well constructed, but it's a given that American history and European history are primary constructed by white males. People who weren't white males made important individual contributions, but I can see how a black or Hispanic kid might think people like me aren't important, we don't usually matter. Black studies and Hispanic studies (and women's studies) are simply comfort food for the mind, saying "you do matter; this is what happened to people like you, this is what people like you accomplished, these are the challenges they had to overcome."

In that context, it might well be more important that the teacher be black (or Hispanic, female, transgendered Eskimo, etc.) than that the teacher be experienced and especially competent, even though that's a racist thing in and of itself. Hard to say since a really good teacher can engage most kids and a bad teacher isn't going to engage kids simply because they originated in the same continent and latitude, but there's always a risk that the real lesson the kid learns is "Jeez, people like me even need white people to tell us about our own history."

In that context, it might be better to have one overall teacher but have guest teachers come in to lecture. And make it not just about blacks and/or Hispanics - that seems too much like a pity party - but also about other races and cultures. Native Americans for instance - blacks had no worse time in America than did Native Americans. Chinese Americans have interesting stories to tell of the challenges they had to overcome. Jews and Irish can fill a day or two each. Japanese Americans can tell of World War 2 and what they endured here. Native Mexicans and Central/South Americans can tell their own particular stories. At the very least it would be more interesting and the kids would be exposed to many different peoples and understand that they aren't the only people with challenges. AND the race of the teacher becomes unimportant since each group has its own representative telling its stories.

 

[Remobz]

nobody who's anybody sends their kids to public schools anyway, who cares?

lol!

But, the Jesuit Priests at my Catholic Private school were brutal in some ways

 

[Victorian Gray]

Remember Geosurface's last post where he said that White people have an inherent desire to be surrounded by whites and to be served by other whites (teachers, doctors, mailman, etc)?

That wasn't racist, that was just him speaking the hurtful truth.


But, wanting a black/asian/hispanic person to teach your kids their history is racist.

Welcome to P&N.

You don' see any problem not hiring this, apparently, well qualified teacher for this job simply because he's white?

You don't have a problem with this?

"The concerns are far from personal, McCoy said. Hiring teachers who look like the students they teach simply helps ensure sensitivity about topics related to race, he said."

Then we move on to only African Americans can play the blues and only English people are allowed to Morris Dance. (although why anyone else would like to Morris Dance I'm not sure)

 

[werepossum]

lol!

But, the Jesuit Priests at my Catholic Private school were brutal in some ways

But that's a good thing. It's when priests start being nice to you that you have to watch your back.

Literally watch your back.

 

[xj0hnx]

Report me, then.

If you have a problem with what I said, then quote me and directly address your angst.

Rather, I see you defending explicit xenophobic racism with a diversion for ungrounded personal attacks against me.

The racist are the ones that think a white person can't teach those classes just as well, because they're white.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

l

But that's a good thing. It's when priests start being nice to you that you have to watch your back.

Literally watch your back.

You absorbed experience and knowledge of the subject the hard way? Painful study sessions at first but later on you feel good when you got the point of hard lessons?

 

[cubby1223]

Notice everyone else here is smart enough to STFU. This makes you the weakest link. Go ahead and fill in the ??? if you can manage to follow along.

Nobody's filling in your ??? because your post was pure bullshit. It was bullshit before you even got to your ???. Thus it is an unanswerable question because so much of the post up until that point must be changed.

My analysis of his comparison:
Premise 1: Conclusion 1 is based on the link that the current teacher is not of the correct descent.
Premise 2: For Waggy's extension to follow the same pattern and be a valid reductio ad absurdum, the 2nd premise that leads to the conclusion in his Premise 1 MUST BE that black people are not of the correct descent to teach anything other than African History
Conclusion: Waggy thinks a person of any color can teach any history course.

FTFY, you twit. Go stroke your ego somewhere else.


The closest "fill in the ???" to your bullshit post is:
Proper descent is not a requirement for teaching any history class.

But the conclusion must be changed to:
Being black is not a requirement to teach African studies


Either race matters, or race doesn't matter. If race doesn't matter you can swap any race into the scenario and the acceptability remains constant. If the acceptability differs, then race does matter.

Premises:
A->B
~B
Conclusion:
~A

Holy hell, seriously, how did you manage to devote so much time to being so fucking wrong?

Here's the other logic you failed at:

Premises:
-dank69's post is sound logic!
-No one is answering my question!
Conclusion:
-dank69 is so awesome!

I just proved you are not awesome. Therefore your post was not sound logic. The worst part is you will walk away having learned absolutely nothing.

 

[LaserBlast]

I don't see why students and parents can't have a preference for teachers who reflect their community. I think that's understandable.

 

[Sulaco]

Remember Geosurface's last post where he said that White people have an inherent desire to be surrounded by whites and to be served by other whites (teachers, doctors, mailman, etc)?

That wasn't racist, that was just him speaking the hurtful truth.


But, wanting a black/asian/hispanic person to teach your kids their history is racist.





Welcome to P&N.

First off, who are you speaking for?

Because there are very few posters who defended Geo's openly (and sometimes sneakily) racist messages, and most called him out on it.

But, so what? Because A guy who was banned for his racist views once posted here means that other posters can't point out racism from the other spectrum?

 

[justoh]

Nobody's filling in your ??? because your post was pure bullshit. It was bullshit before you even got to your ???. Thus it is an unanswerable question because so much of the post up until that point must be changed.



FTFY, you twit. Go stroke your ego somewhere else.


The closest "fill in the ???" to your bullshit post is:
Proper descent is not a requirement for teaching any history class.

But the conclusion must be changed to:
Being black is not a requirement to teach African studies


Either race matters, or race doesn't matter. If race doesn't matter you can swap any race into the scenario and the acceptability remains constant. If the acceptability differs, then race does matter.

Premises:
A->B
~B
Conclusion:
~A

Holy hell, seriously, how did you manage to devote so much time to being so fucking wrong?

Here's the other logic you failed at:

Premises:
-dank69's post is sound logic!
-No one is answering my question!
Conclusion:
-dank69 is so awesome!

I just proved you are not awesome. Therefore your post was not sound logic. The worst part is you will walk away having learned absolutely nothing.

the hell? His only real error, apart from term conflation, was insisting that people mean to say or think everything that can be deduced from any statement they make. Waggy demonstrated that he disagrees with the consequences of his own post. The end, and you're welcome.

 

[justoh]

I don't see why students and parents can't have a preference for teachers who reflect their community. I think that's understandable.

Protesting about it isn't understandable, unless you consider that they're religious. duh?

 

[dank69]

Nobody's filling in your ??? because your post was pure bullshit. It was bullshit before you even got to your ???. Thus it is an unanswerable question because so much of the post up until that point must be changed.



FTFY, you twit. Go stroke your ego somewhere else.


The closest "fill in the ???" to your bullshit post is:
Proper descent is not a requirement for teaching any history class.

But the conclusion must be changed to:
Being black is not a requirement to teach African studies


Either race matters, or race doesn't matter. If race doesn't matter you can swap any race into the scenario and the acceptability remains constant. If the acceptability differs, then race does matter.

Premises:
A->B
~B
Conclusion:
~A

Holy hell, seriously, how did you manage to devote so much time to being so fucking wrong?

Here's the other logic you failed at:

Premises:
-dank69's post is sound logic!
-No one is answering my question!
Conclusion:
-dank69 is so awesome!

I just proved you are not awesome. Therefore your post was not sound logic. The worst part is you will walk away having learned absolutely nothing.

Good try Cubby, much better than I would have ever expected from you, but you still missed the actual point. Waggy's thought process was if A is true then B would be true. B is not true. Since B is not true, A cannot be true. No problems so far. Let's replace A and B with his actual statements to see what's up.

A = White person cannot teach African Studies
B = Black person cannot teach anything but African Studies (which by extension means black people cannot teach American History which is why he said all black history teachers would need to be fired)

Waggy knows B is false. The problem, and this is the only problem I have and the one which you guys can't wrap your head around, is that the premise "if A is true then B must also be true" is also flawed. It isn't flawed in a way that makes B true, which is the cause of your confusion. It is wrong because even if white people couldn't teach African Studies it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that Black people can only teach African Studies. In order for anyone to believe that one necessarily leads to the other, they would need to believe that black people were not part of American History

the hell? His only real error, apart from term conflation, was insisting that people mean to say or think everything that can be deduced from any statement they make. Waggy demonstrated that he disagrees with the consequences of his own post. The end, and you're welcome.

Wrong. I am simply illustrating what Waggy HAS to believe in order to make the statement he did, even if he didn't agree with the statement. I am talking about the simple logic behind making the false statement.

 

[justoh]

Look. People say things. It's a fact.

 

[dank69]

Look. People say things. It's a fact.

You can just say you don't understand what I am saying...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see why students and parents can't have a preference for teachers who reflect their community. I think that's understandable.

So no blacks in white suburbia?

 

[realibrad]

B = Black person cannot teach anything but African Studies (which by extension means black people cannot teach American History which is why he said all black history teachers would need to be fired)

Ok, so I finally found where you messed up.

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

I took this statement to mean that every black history teacher that is teaching any race based history class that does not fit "African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies" should be fired.

The whole premise of the protesters is that you cannot teach any racial history unless you have first hand experience. American is not made up of a mixed race, its made up of many "different" races. Your argument also seems to be that blacks being apart of American history, could teach American history. The fallacy is that the moment you get into the history of a different race that was in America, you must stop. This is the conclusion of their view.

American history is simply a mix of all peoples history in America. If a white teacher cannot teach blacks about black history because he is not black, it would not matter if it were black American history, or black African history, or any other black location/culture history. If the protesters wish to split the history that can be taught along racial lines, then you cannot have an "American History" teacher that can talk about any racial issues in American history.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Remember Geosurface's last post where he said that White people have an inherent desire to be surrounded by whites and to be served by other whites (teachers, doctors, mailman, etc)?

That wasn't racist, that was just him speaking the hurtful truth.


But, wanting a black/asian/hispanic person to teach your kids their history is racist.


Welcome to P&N.

No one defended geo or spidey's outright racism. Plenty of people, myself included, routinely call out blatant racism from 'either side'.



I treat people only by their actions, I call out thugs of all colors, I support people of all colors, I shun people of all colors - yet when one of the modern progressive racists disagree with my viewpoints instead of having an open and honest debate they shriek racism over and over.


Welcome to P&N.

 

[justoh]

You can just say you don't understand what I am saying...

He doesn't have to believe that. Understand?

 

[dank69]

Ok, so I finally found where you messed up.



I took this statement to mean that every black history teacher that is teaching any race based history class that does not fit "African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies" should be fired.

The whole premise of the protesters is that you cannot teach any racial history unless you have first hand experience. American is not made up of a mixed race, its made up of many "different" races. Your argument also seems to be that blacks being apart of American history, could teach American history. The fallacy is that the moment you get into the history of a different race that was in America, you must stop. This is the conclusion of their view.

American history is simply a mix of all peoples history in America. If a white teacher cannot teach blacks about black history because he is not black, it would not matter if it were black American history, or black African history, or any other black location/culture history. If the protesters wish to split the history that can be taught along racial lines, then you cannot have an "American History" teacher that can talk about any racial issues in American history.

I'm glad someone finally understands what I am talking about.

However, I do not agree with your conclusion that "the moment you get into the history of a different race that was in America, you must stop." The protesters weren't splitting down to that level. The class was African-Latino-Asian but they think a black person can teach all of that. The qualifier is clearly "you must be a part of this group" and not "you must be every part of this group."

 

[dank69]

He doesn't have to believe that. Understand?

Wrong. He said that blacks are a part of non-African history in the same way that whites are a part of African-American, Latino and Southeast Asian studies.