Critical Race Theory: Voters versus Liberal Extremism

What's happened here is that Max's lies and bullshit are exposed and everyone can see him for what he is.

Teachers don't push narratives they encourage pupils to look at the facts, the sources and make their own decisions.

The only person trying to enforce a narrative on children is Max.

Although I can understand his problems with American education considering it employed him at one time.

Operative phrase "at one time." Seems the educational system managed to shake him out.

My main point is that the narrative of history is subjective different historians, and people with different life experiences will see history in very different ways. A good historian (I believe) can understand things from more than one point of view.

I want to highlight the different reactions to differing perspectives.

1. Izzy and bobsal attack and insult any perspective other than his own. Everyone from a different perspective is a "right-winger" or an "idiot" or an "liar". Izzy doesn't have to consider any other point of view because people who hold them are evil.

2. The less bombastic approach is to focus only on a single perspective. If you ignore the flaws in your own narrative and focus on the flaws on other narratives (judged from your own culture) you can convince yourself that your narrative is always the correct one.

Seriously? You've answered the last comments and this one, with insults.

Izzy and Bobsal represent part of the problem. It isn't good education to insult students or attack their families.

When I was teaching Earth Science, we were discussing the development of the Solar System. I was teaching in a community that had a significant number of Evangelical Christians who believed in Young Earth Creationism.

It was not my job to tell my students that their families are idiots (as much as Izzy and Bobsal would have applauded that).

In high school science, you have to be humble and open. Science is not truth (truth is a philosophical concept that doesn't belong in science). I told my students that they did not have to believe anything, but they had to understand the reasoning and the explanations behind carbon dating, and star life cycles and evidence for the formation of the planets.

My religious students actually did pretty well. They learned the material and could discuss it. Did I change their religious beliefs? I don't know, and I don't care. It wasn't my job or my goal to change their religious beliefs.

I had a student get up and declare after a lesson; "That is how we know there is no God". I answered, "No, that doesn't say anything about the existence of God". She dropped the class.

See? Insults.

Though I find your personal virtue signalling quite amusing.

Everything can only be seen from your personal life and "observation". Bet that caused peals of laughter in the teacher's lounge when you weren't around letting everyone know what a swell guy you are.

One other story, because this is relevant. I focused on multi-cultural education in school. I had an amazing opportunity to spend a week on the Navajo reservation in Arizona and I did some research there.

The Navajo nation has their own creation stories that are tied into their history and their culture. Science education is as big an issue for the Navajo as it is for Fundamentalist Christians, in science class students are learning ideas that aren't the Creation stories they learn from their grandmother. Of course, White people coming in to tell Navajo what to believe is a historical problem on many levels. And yet, most people believe we need to teach modern science.

The elder who I talked to was intelligent, welcoming and funny. He told me (with a big grin); "We Navajo believe that we were created from clay, so our chests are smooth. You White men believe you came from monkeys..." That was how I started my paper on multicultural education.

What are you talking about? I haven't stated "my narrative" in this thread or in any other thread. All I've done in this thread is to dispute your contention that different perspectives on historical and contemporary racism need to be made off-limits in the educational curriculum. Like "Defund the Police", CRT has been turned into a brand which people throw around simplistically without really understanding what it consists of. If a substantial portion of our population objects to this caricatured and deliberately misinterpreted "theory", maybe we should be asking why. I've asked you several times to define what is to be feared and you keep spouting from your usual script about "extremism" and "ideological narratives©" without showing why this contention – that the USA is a racist country – is false while the counter-claim – that the the USA is not a racist country – is the non-ideological "Truth". I would think that a good teacher, presiding over a class of engaged students, could hold a discussion where points raised by either side could be analyzed and assessed as to how the conform to actual social conditions.

(By the way, the term, "a racist country", is sort of meaningless. A "country" is an arbitrary geopolitical subdivision of the planet's surface. When the USA is indicted as a "racist country" this really means that there are a substantial number of racists living here and that examples of historic and contemporary racism abound.)

I read your post a couple of times hightor, and I don't understand what point you are making.

- America is a great country that has made progress in racial justice and made the world better.
- America is flawed country defined by a history of racism and injustice that has hurt the world.

These are two different narratives. They are equally true. They are subjective. Each of these narratives can be supported with facts and refuted by facts. Whether you believe one or both or neither of these says more about you than it does about America.

A good history teacher will be able to analyze events from either of these two equally true perspectives. I am not sure if that is what you are saying.

My impression is that you believe that one of these narratives represents an absolute Truth and that a teacher's job is to guide students to accept the one true Truth. If I am wrong about this (and you aren't saying this), then please tell me.

Thanks.
BUT: I'd asked for your " ideas and practical experiences in theory and didactics of history".

Fenyman said "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". I suppose I feel the same way about "didactics of history".

I am curious on your opinion though,

- Do you agree with my point that the interpretation of history, and the narratives of history, are subjective and informed by the culture and ideology of the viewer?

- Do you agree that even within the same cultural context, different historians will disagree on the narrative or meaning of historical events?

My experience is in multiculturalism, specifically in viewing things from more than one cultural perspective. This experience absolutely informs my ideas on this topic.

Every historian - even a bad one* - arrives at his opinion by weighing the importance of the various sources.

*According to which scientific criteria do you judge a historian as good or bad? And what are your qualifications to judge this?

You didn't answer my questions.

I have no qualifications to judge a historian as good or bad. I don't see how that is relevant. I have read enough of the work of historians to know that even when they agree on the facts, they arrive at different narratives.

Could you answer my questions?

That would be your lies and BS. Max has not said anything that is untrue. But everything that you say is untrue.

Falsely accusing me of your own shortcomings is no substitution for an intelligent argument.

You are lying about my vocabulary.

You are just confirming your limited vocabulary.

You're really that stupid.

Didactics of history is the scientific discipline that deals with the form, development and promotion of historical consciousness. It is not a sub-discipline of general didactics, but an independent discipline with references to historical science (especially historical theory), educational science, pedagogy and psychology as well as social and cultural sciences. History teaching in schools is the primary, but not the only field of activity of history didactics.

It is relevant since
So I just wanted to know what in your view a good (or bad) historian is.

You are lying about my vocabulary.



No. You are the only stupid person here.

Your silly comments about "Max supposedly posting his views of CRT" are proof of that.