You're lucky you don't teach in Arizona, I could get you fired.

 

Hell in Texas you could get him lynched...

Hell in Texas you could get him lynched...

He's white and employed. People like that don't get the death penalty in TX.

He's white and employed. People like that don't get the death penalty in TX.

 

I'm not talking about the death penalty...

I'm not talking about the death penalty...

Ok, he's white. They don't get lynched in the south either.

Ok, he's white. They don't get lynched in the south either.

 

Yeah, about that...

3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

 

What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective?

 

 

Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865.

 

I'm not African American and neither was the teacher.

 

 

Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class?

Turning back the other way, what if the classes were anti-minority in focus, such as a KKK class on black history?

3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

 

What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective?

 

 

Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865.

 

I'm not African American and neither was the teacher.

 

 

Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class?

 

I took an early African history class (basically everything until about 1600 and not in Egypt) and the teacher was this 5 foot nothing pale, white haired old white woman who apparently studied in North Africa for years. Good class. Woman was crazy though.

3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

 

What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective?

 

 

Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865.

 

I'm not African American and neither was the teacher.

 

 

Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class?

 

Please read my post. There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching history of a particular ethnic group as long as it is open to everyone. So your class would not be covered.

Turning back the other way, what if the classes were anti-minority in focus, such as a KKK class on black history?

 

It would not be permitted either.

Please read my post. There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching history of a particular ethnic group as long as it is open to everyone. So your class would not be covered.

I think there's a difference between what you say here and what the law appears to say...you say "open to everyone", the law says "Primarily designed" for one ethnic group.

"if it ain't white, it just ain't right"

 

i have a novelty shirt that says that. i wear it all the time.

So because there are no references to Mexicans regarding the Revolutionary War, you think it is ok to teach them that American 'stole' part of their country and such? To be divisive? All this does is fuel the racial animosity even more by trying to give them victim status.

 

After the Tejanos defeated Mexico and gained their independence there was a dispute over where the boundary was between the Republic of Texas and Mexico. The US claimed the Rio Grande River, Mexico claimed the Nueces River. Since Mexico did not recognize the Republic as legal and valid, they never really pursued the issue. Later, when the US annexed the Republic of Texas, tensions started. With manifest destiny on every one's lips, the US basically taunted and provoked Mexico into a war. After winning the war, the US took over about half of Mexico's land. Whether you want to use the word stole or not, we were a conquering army. The public believed that God wanted the US to stretch from sea to shining sea. About 1/4th of the lower 48 is land that formerly was Mexico. Our motivation for the war was to take land from Mexico.

It would not be permitted either.

 

I know it wouldn't be permitted under this law, I am just curious how far the freedom of education goes in people's minds.

I know it wouldn't be permitted under this law, I am just curious how far the freedom of education goes in people's minds.

 

What freedom of education? With all the standardized tests, fewer and fewer choices of textbooks, everyone winds up teaching about the same stuff.

After the Tejanos defeated Mexico and gained their independence there was a dispute over where the boundary was between the Republic of Texas and Mexico. The US claimed the Rio Grande River, Mexico claimed the Nueces River. Since Mexico did not recognize the Republic as legal and valid, they never really pursued the issue. Later, when the US annexed the Republic of Texas, tensions started. With manifest destiny on every one's lips, the US basically taunted and provoked Mexico into a war. After winning the war, the US took over about half of Mexico's land. Whether you want to use the word stole or not, we were a conquering army. The public believed that God wanted the US to stretch from sea to shining sea. About 1/4th of the lower 48 is land that formerly was Mexico. Our motivation for the war was to take land from Mexico.

 

If you like Mexico so much then why don't you marry it.

That would be the Mexican-American war that we started.

 

check this out

 

 

a painting of the US occupying Mexico City. wish i could have been there. bask in a most noble victory over the clueless Spaniards.

 

 

check this out

 

 

a painting of the US occupying Mexico City. wish i could have been there. bask in a most noble victory over the clueless Spaniards.

 

The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico.

The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico.

They don't speak English, therefore, they must be clueless.

They don't speak English, therefore, they must be clueless.

 

 

But if you speak Spanish slowly and loudly. people will understand.

What freedom of education? With all the standardized tests, fewer and fewer choices of textbooks, everyone winds up teaching about the same stuff.

 

Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left.

The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico.

 

toh-may-toh

toh-mah-toh

 

 

either way, still a most righteous win.

Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left.

 

 

I just remember so much more flexibility in scheduling when I was in High School. Now they have all these programs from scholars to whatever and you get like 3 or 4 electives in four years. And the craziest of all are the "required electives".

Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left.

Frankly, if you want to really allow that population to "naturalize", that's exactly what you should be teaching in some of these areas.

toh-may-toh

toh-mah-toh

 

 

either way, still a most righteous win.

 

Nice to see the US could kick the same ass that Texas kicked.