Az Gov decides kids shouldn't learn about other cultures

[Losonti Tokash]

Because it's pretty easy for stupid assholes with an ax to grind to interpret "white Americans enslaved blacks and committed genocide against the native americans" as something designed to "create resentment."

PS the melting pot isn't something that really existed so much as "obliterate their cultural identity (and languages) and replace it with our own."

[Alyrium Denryle]

So why the "open to all students" cavaet?

Because they are not rational. They think that being accepting of and learning about people's cultures is reverse racism.

What the Hell happened to "melting pot"?

Does not exist. Never has.

[Lonestar]

Because it's pretty easy for stupid assholes with an ax to grind to interpret "white Americans enslaved blacks and committed genocide against the native americans" as something designed to "create resentment."

Annnnnnd....encouraging "ethnic solidarity" is a good thing in your eyes?

PS the melting pot isn't something that really existed so much as "obliterate their cultural identity (and languages) and replace it with our own."

Forgetting for the moment that's a false statement(hell, I'm reading through Made in America right now and it covers the incorporation of loanwords and traditions into American culture), why is integration a "bad" thing?

Because they are not rational. They think that being accepting of and learning about people's cultures is reverse racism.

Seriously? That's your response? Not saying it's possible that the school district in question was doing something to limit access to that class?

Does not exist. Never has.

Bullshit. Just because your family history is whiter than sour cream doesn't mean mine is.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Annnnnnd....encouraging "ethnic solidarity" is a good thing in your eyes?

Why is it necessarily bad, in a state where ethnic minorities are treated like dirt? How exactly is a course that teaches children about their ethnic heritage (through literature and explicity non-whitewashed treatment of their history) thus forming a sense of cultural identity a bad thing that should be objected to?

This also of course applies to teaching kids about someone else's ethnic heritage.

why is integration a "bad" thing?

It is not. But to integrate someone culturally does not necessarily entail that you erase their cultural and ethnic identity in the process.

Seriously? That's your response? Not saying it's possible that the school district in question was doing something to limit access to that class?

I spent 12 years of my life in Arizona. That is the prevailing attitude both in and out of the legislature. The state is full, chalk full, of people who virulently hate hispanics.

Bullshit. Just because your family history is whiter than sour cream doesn't mean mine is.

Actually, a good 8th of my genome is Choctaw.

That having been said, even white immigrants get treated like shit in this country and have historically. The irish and italians in particular. I need not mention Jim Crow, or the fact that we still relegate native americans to reservations, or heaven forbid the horrible things we did to asians. The history of America is full of instances where white anglo-saxon protestants have ruthlessly oppressed anyone who was not white, anglo-saxon, or protestant. The idea that the United States is a melting pot of some kind is laughable. Unless of course you want to refer to the US as an overdone stew where the heat and length of cooking renders the otherwise flavorful foods you toss into it bland and without texture.

[Lonestar]

Why is it necessarily bad, in a state where ethnic minorities are treated like dirt? How exactly is a course that teaches children about their ethnic heritage (through literature and explicity non-whitewashed treatment of their history) thus forming a sense of cultural identity a bad thing that should be objected to?

Sorry, I don't like the idea of encouraging turning the American Southwest into a mini-Quebec. It's encouraging segregation in the name of "solidarity".

It is not. But to integrate someone culturally does not necessarily entail that you erase their cultural and ethnic identity in the process.

Yeah? I thought you lived in Texas now. Latino cultural and ethnic identities have been eradicated, have they? Man! Shit in the DFW metroplex must have changed a lot since I was last there in January.

I mean, the the United States totally nukes cultural identities when they have immigrants integrate into the greater society.

I spent 12 years of my life in Arizona. That is the prevailing attitude both in and out of the legislature. The state is full, chalk full, of people who virulently hate hispanics.

Well, as long as we're trading ancedotal stories and appeals to personal authority then, when I was in SF in High School in the '90s the school district decided to mandate that 60% of the material in Junior American Lit class be written by "ethnic" authors. Out went Melville, Twain, and Miller. In came turds like Bless Me, Ultima and some book about Fa Mu Lan(for the record, I felt I know why the Caged Bird Sings was a great addition to the curriculum). Part of the greater shake up included getting rid of authors in the existing Ethnic Lit class that were not "ethnic enough". Out went Night by Eli Wiesel because he was a white oppressor.

The lesson I walked away with from that whole expierience? "Ethnic Studies" is nothing but a smokescreen for teaching that Whitey doesn't contribute anything culturally, and WE'RE in charge bitches.

Actually, a good 8th of my genome is Choctaw.

Fantastic. On my mother's side you have Choctaw, (a lot of)Tejano, Hungarian, and English. They look Latino. On my dad's side you have German, Scottish, and Syrian Jew. I admit that's the mother of all selection bias, but that seems to be one whopper of a melting pot right there.

That having been said, even white immigrants get treated like shit in this country and have historically. The irish and italians in particular. I need not mention Jim Crow, or the fact that we still relegate native americans to reservations,

Seriously? Indians aren't allowed to leave the Reservation? Huh.

or heaven forbid the horrible things we did to asians. The history of America is full of instances where white anglo-saxon protestants have ruthlessly oppressed anyone who was not white, anglo-saxon, or protestant. The idea that the United States is a melting pot of some kind is laughable. Unless of course you want to refer to the US as an overdone stew where the heat and length of cooking renders the otherwise flavorful foods you toss into it bland and without texture.

Sure thing buddy. Yeah, America has a homegenous culture that nukes everything during the process of integration.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sorry, I don't like the idea of encouraging turning the American Southwest into a mini-Quebec. It's encouraging segregation in the name of "solidarity".

Perhaps we are operating on different definitions of "solidarity"

sol·i·dar·i·ty (sl-dr-t)
n.
A union of interests, purposes, or sympathies among members of a group; fellowship of responsibilities and interests

Oh the horror! In a state where police can now walk up to brown people and say "Deine Papieren bitte" and if documentation of legal status is not there (say, a guy went to take his dog out for a walk and left his wallet on his desk), the person can be imprisoned. I hardly think promoting solidarity in this case is a horrible thing.

Yeah? I thought you lived in Texas now. Latino cultural and ethnic identities have been eradicated, have they? Man! Shit in the DFW metroplex must have changed a lot since I was last there in January.

Yes. I do live in Texas. Now.

Yes. An example of integration without homogenization. On the other hand, only those who study it academically know a damn thing about non-white authors or historical figures. Or even women for that matter.

If education somehow enriches someone's sense of cultural identity and promotes the above definition of Solidarity is a problem. What do you think solidarity means exactly? A desire to secede from the union? Oh wait... we already have that here.

Well, as long as we're trading ancedotal stories and appeals to personal authority then, when I was in SF in High School in the '90s the school district decided to mandate that 60% of the material in Junior American Lit class be written by "ethnic" authors. Out went Melville, Twain, and Miller. In came turds like Bless Me, Ultima and some book about Fa Mu Lan(for the record, I felt I know why the Caged Bird Sings was a great addition to the curriculum). Part of the greater shake up included getting rid of authors in the existing Ethnic Lit class that were not "ethnic enough". Out went Night by Eli Wiesel because he was a white oppressor.

Wow. So a bunch of people mandating curricula without knowing what the fuck they are talking about is somehow comparable to this situat...oh wait.

The two anecdotes are not at all comparable. A statement about the general level of racism in a state is hardly the same thing as what you describe. I am not taking one instance and generalizing it, which is what you are doing. I am taking over a decade of observation in a region and then only applying it to that region.

The lesson I walked away with from that whole expierience? "Ethnic Studies" is nothing but a smokescreen for teaching that Whitey doesn't contribute anything culturally, and WE'RE in charge bitches.

And how on earth is the situation you describe comparable to an elective set of literature courses?

Fantastic. On my mother's side you have Choctaw, (a lot of)Tejano, Hungarian, and English. They look Latino. On my dad's side you have German, Scottish, and Syrian Jew. I admit that's the mother of all selection bias, but that seems to be one whopper of a melting pot right there.

Good for you.

I will note that genetic lineage does not equate to a cultural melting pot that is desirable. For example, do you speak any of the languages of any of those groups of people? Have you read a significant amount of german literature for example?

Seriously? Indians aren't allowed to leave the Reservation? Huh.

Now they are... They are still where most of the natives live and they are basically third world.

Sure thing buddy. Yeah, America has a homegenous culture that nukes everything during the process of integration.

Barring loan words and a few ethnic dishes, do you actually know a damn thing about any of the groups of people that make up your genetic lineage? Have you read Goethe? How many people do you think do? How many of the asians who's families have been here a while ever read ancient chinese or japanese literature, or even speak the language? After the third generation or so, there is little to nothing left of the original culture other than a half assed ethnic identification, skin tone, and a last name.

Yeah. It pretty much does nuke everything. Other than St. Patrick's day and Mardi Gras at any rate. Leave it to the irish and the cajun french to spread their love of drinking binges

Now, Hungarians have not actually contributed much to american history. Black People did. Where is the talk about major black historical figures? What about african american literature? What about hispanic literature in an area that until (sort of) recently was in fact part of mexico?

Let us extend this further. How many works that you read in your HS literature classes were written by women?

[Lonestar]

Perhaps we are operating on different definitions of "solidarity"

sol·i·dar·i·ty (sl-dr-t)
n.
A union of interests, purposes, or sympathies among members of a group; fellowship of responsibilities and interests

Oh the horror! In a state where police can now walk up to brown people and say "Deine Papieren bitte" and if documentation of legal status is not there (say, a guy went to take his dog out for a walk and left his wallet on his desk), the person can be imprisoned. I hardly think promoting solidarity in this case is a horrible thing.

Once you start placing a special emphasis on racial identity beyond national identity you are encouraging segregation. "Ethnic Solidarity" is just as much bullshit as "Racial Hygeine".

Yes. I do live in Texas. Now.

Yes. An example of integration without homogenization. On the other hand, only those who study it academically know a damn thing about non-white authors or historical figures. Or even women for that matter.

I submit that most white Americans probably don't know much about white authors or historical figures either, beyond some hazy reference to the Founding Fathers(or the Pilgrims. I've met many native Virginians who assume that Plymouth was the first colony in the United States).

If education somehow enriches someone's sense of cultural identity and promotes the above definition of Solidarity is a problem. What do you think solidarity means exactly? A desire to secede from the union? Oh wait... we already have that here.

It encourages the closing of ranks and self-inflicted segregation, by placing a special emphasis on racial identity over a national one.

Wow. So a bunch of people mandating curricula without knowing what the fuck they are talking about is somehow comparable to this situat...oh wait.

The two anecdotes are not at all comparable. A statement about the general level of racism in a state is hardly the same thing as what you describe. I am not taking one instance and generalizing it, which is what you are doing. I am taking over a decade of observation in a region and then only applying it to that region.

And I'm talking about something that is pretty damn close to "ethnic studies"(the main difference being that this was requried rather than an elective) which is ultimately what the OP is about.

And how on earth is the situation you describe comparable to an elective set of literature courses?

Yes. how on earth COULD I compare classes that place special emphasis on "ethnic" literature to...classes that place special emphasis on ethnic groups?

Good for you.

I will note that genetic lineage does not equate to a cultural melting pot that is desirable. For example, do you speak any of the languages of any of those groups of people? Have you read a significant amount of german literature for example?

No german literature, and my Spanish is fairly limited(I speak more Swedish than German).

Barring loan words and a few ethnic dishes, do you actually know a damn thing about any of the groups of people that make up your genetic lineage? Have you read Goethe?

Nope. I'm of German descent, but I'm not German. I do not identify myself with the "Old Country".

How many people do you think do? How many of the asians who's families have been here a while ever read ancient chinese or japanese literature, or even speak the language?

Every single fucking person of chinese descent that I was friends with at GWHS in San Francisco, even the ones whose fmailies had been there multiple generations, at least went to "chinese school" after regular school. It's only when I deal with folks who do not live in an area with a very large Asian does the "don't speak a lick of the lingo" come into play. There's ethnic solidarity for you.

After the third generation or so, there is little to nothing left of the original culture other than a half assed ethnic identification, skin tone, and a last name.

So? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I seriously do not see what the problem is.

Yeah. It pretty much does nuke everything. Other than St. Patrick's day and Mardi Gras at any rate. Leave it to the irish and the cajun french to spread their love of drinking binges

Or drinko Cinco de Mayo.

Now, Hungarians have not actually contributed much to american history. Black People did. Where is the talk about major black historical figures?

I bet you a nickel more people would be able to identify who MLK was over, say, James Madison.

What about african american literature?

Well, I mentioned that I felt I know why the Caged Bird sings was a great book. But to me it should be included in the curriculum because it stands on its own merits, rather than being shoehorned in to meet a quota.

What about hispanic literature in an area that until (sort of) recently was in fact part of mexico?

Bless Me, Ultima may not have been the worst book I had to read in high school, but goddamn that was a turd of a book.

Let us extend this further. How many works that you read in your HS literature classes were written by women?

Off the top of my head? Farewell to Manzanar, I Know why the Caged Bird Sings, Woman Warrior:Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts are three books I can think of. I think we read The Lottery in one of my high schools as well.

EDIT: FWIW, I read Farewell to Manzanar in all three high schools I went to, and one middle school.

[Guardsman Bass]

Barring loan words and a few ethnic dishes, do you actually know a damn thing about any of the groups of people that make up your genetic lineage? Have you read Goethe? How many people do you think do? How many of the asians who's families have been here a while ever read ancient chinese or japanese literature, or even speak the language? After the third generation or so, there is little to nothing left of the original culture other than a half assed ethnic identification, skin tone, and a last name.

What's your point? That's been the case with every wave of immigration, and fears of brown people notwithstanding, it is the same with hispanic immigration today. Just look at the third-generation hispanics, over 90% of which don't speak spanish of any kind (or more than a few words).

It doesn't bother me. All cultures change and borrow from other cultures, and the US is just a very obvious case of that.

Now, Hungarians have not actually contributed much to american history. Black People did. Where is the talk about major black historical figures? What about african american literature? What about hispanic literature in an area that until (sort of) recently was in fact part of mexico?

Didn't you ever learn about Booker T. Washington in school? W.E.B. Dubois? For that matter, Frederick Douglass and MLK were in any high school history class I took that touched on the Civil War.

Speaking of which, I'm amused by the "sort of recently part of Mexico." Does that mean that the Civil War happened "sort of recently"? In any case, depending on where you start from, the US ownership of the land in question is only a couple of decades off from how long the Spanish (then Mexicans) possessed it.

Let us extend this further. How many works that you read in your HS literature classes were written by women?

Several, including Pride and Prejudice. If you are looking for black female literature, then we also read Their Eyes were Watching God.

It encourages the closing of ranks and self-inflicted segregation, by placing a special emphasis on racial identity over a national one.

Moreover, it plays into a long-standing American tendency that I don't like - our tendency to try and pidgeon-hole everyone into neat, convenient categories of race, like "black", "white", "latino", "asian", etc. Ghosts of the old racial caste system.

Nope. I'm of German descent, but I'm not German. I do not identify myself with the "Old Country".

Me neither with Great Britain, and technically I'm of fairly recent extraction - my father and his immediate family were immigrants from the UK.

It doesn't really bother me, obviously. Cultures, languages, and the like - these are barriers to interaction. If all we keep is the bastardized food and a couple of words, then I'm happy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Once you start placing a special emphasis on racial identity beyond national identity you are encouraging segregation. "Ethnic Solidarity" is just as much bullshit as "Racial Hygeine".

Not in a place where racial identity matters in terms of how your government and people around you will treat you.

I submit that most white Americans probably don't know much about white authors or historical figures either, beyond some hazy reference to the Founding Fathers(or the Pilgrims. I've met many native Virginians who assume that Plymouth was the first colony in the United States).

Sure, but at least someone tried to teach them. Some people are beyond saving.

It encourages the closing of ranks and self-inflicted segregation, by placing a special emphasis on racial identity over a national one.

Since when has anyone said anything about placing racial identity over a national one? In addition to is more appropriate for this situation.

Yes. how on earth COULD I compare classes that place special emphasis on "ethnic" literature to...classes that place special emphasis on ethnic groups?

The two are not at all comparable for the question being discussed in that segment of our argument. Namely, the racist nature of AZ politics.

That having been said, required "ethnic" content being passed down on high from individuals who have never read the books in question is a far cry from having an elective course taught by people who have in fact read and enjoyed those books. Two completely different things.

Every single fucking person of chinese descent that I was friends with at GWHS in San Francisco, even the ones whose fmailies had been there multiple generations, at least went to "chinese school" after regular school. It's only when I deal with folks who do not live in an area with a very large Asian does the "don't speak a lick of the lingo" come into play. There's ethnic solidarity for you.

Fair enough. And has this education and identification with their chinese heritage in any way impaired their American identification?

So? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I seriously do not see what the problem is.

It depends. When entire groups of people are short-changed in the historical narrative of a country, there is a problem. It may not really matter with Hungarians for example, because there are not that many hungarians in the US and the historical contribution was small. However talking about Andrew Jackson and not mentioning the Trail of Tears, or altering textbooks to whitewash the Texas-Mexican war (whatever the formal name is) and removing mention of Mexican contribution to the Texas side of that war is a problem. Not mentioning the huge volume of african american literature and contributions to history is a problem. Just not talking about what happened to asians during the railroad expansion is a problem.

If talking about all of that in detail in elective courses promotes ethnic solidarity and resentment, then it is high time.

I bet you a nickel more people would be able to identify who MLK was over, say, James Madison.

I dont know which option makes me more cynical. I would expect many people to not know who either of them are...

Well, I mentioned that I felt I know why the Caged Bird sings was a great book. But to me it should be included in the curriculum because it stands on its own merits, rather than being shoehorned in to meet a quota.

That is why I do not like quotas. On the other hand, it is very possible to have entire courses (and in fact, entire majors in universities) devoted to african american literature and history. The problem is, the individuals who made the rules in your district probably had no idea what they were making a rule regarding. Teachers making the book selections will do a better job.

Off the top of my head? Farewell to Manzanar, I Know why the Caged Bird Sings, Woman Warrior:Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts are three books I can think of. I think we read The Lottery in one of my high schools as well.

EDIT: FWIW, I read Farewell to Manzanar in all three high schools I went to, and one middle school.

I am impressed. I only got to read one. The Diary of Ann Frank. Pretty much it.

It doesn't bother me. All cultures change and borrow from other cultures, and the US is just a very obvious case of that.

I am OK with the changing and the borrowing. I welcome it. I am not OK with the whitewashing and the forgetting.

Didn't you ever learn about Booker T. Washington in school? W.E.B. Dubois? For that matter, Frederick Douglass and MLK were in any high school history class I took that touched on the Civil War.

My perceptions may be colored by my HS (which was in AZ), but Frederick Douglass was mentioned and MLK got a day. Spent more time on Ralph Waldo Emerson... Remember what I said about AZ being amazingly racist?

It doesn't really bother me, obviously. Cultures, languages, and the like - these are barriers to interaction. If all we keep is the bastardized food and a couple of words, then I'm happy.

No one ever said that people are only allowed to speak one language...

[Ethereal235]

There is a perception that these "ethnic studies" classes are being presented to promote ethnic solidarity and resentment. That the measure includes a requirement that the course "is open to all students" makes me wonder what the hell was going on that someone felt a need to include that. This didn't occur in a vacuum. Somewhere a school district was doing something to limit access to ethnic studies classes and Latinos were leaving that class hating whitey.

Could you either be more specific (IE provide an example) or admit that this is conjecture based on the bizarre assumption that no one would ever make a provision in a law that was unnecessary?

This didn't come about because a school district was making sure their American History course was being open and honest about American History(Lies My Teacher Told Me has two chapters, back to back, about the invisibility of both racism and antiracism in American History texts) it came about because a school district was teaching a separate course that promoted ethnic solidarity. Possibly while doing something to prohibit non-minorities from going to those classes.

Demonstrate that this is the case. If you can't, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but unsubstantiated claims have no place in rational discourse.

The Problem with the mesaure! What the fuck is the problem with the measure? Why is making sure some electives don't promote "ethnic solidarity or resentment" actually BAD? Public schools are suppose to bring about greater integration, not build walls saying "Mexicans are awesome because of x and you should take pride in being part of a specific ethnic group."

Who's going to decide what promotes ethnic solidarity or resentment? How is it at all possible to remove bias from the process of determining what is and isn't acceptable under this law?

What role should truth have in this process? After all, if we teach the history of slavery in the United States, some may resent the fact that one group of people in recent history thought it was acceptable to own people. If we teach about the genocide of the Native Americans, how will that not stir resentment towards those of European descent? If we teach the history of manifest destiny and essentially admit that the US seized much of the Southwest from Mexico, what exactly do you expect people to feel?

The simple truth is that in recent history, Europeans have been in power, and the most obvious expression of power is cruelty. An account of recent history is going to realistically lead to resentment of white people in the US, at least among some groups. The purpose of education is to educate, not to make sure everyone's nice and happy with their neighbors.

[Guardsman Bass]

My perceptions may be colored by my HS (which was in AZ), but Frederick Douglass was mentioned and MLK got a day. Spent more time on Ralph Waldo Emerson... Remember what I said about AZ being amazingly racist?

Mine was in Utah, in an overwhelmingly Mormon suburban school.

After all, if we teach the history of slavery in the United States, some may resent the fact that one group of people in recent history thought it was acceptable to own people. If we teach about the genocide of the Native Americans, how will that not stir resentment towards those of European descent? If we teach the history of manifest destiny and essentially admit that the US seized much of the Southwest from Mexico, what exactly do you expect people to feel?

That's why you put the whole thing in context of the social and economic realities of the time, and also show how things have changed over the years - for good and bad. As the Lies My Teacher Told Me book points out, much of the history of racism and slavery is still "invisible", but so is much of the history of anti-racism and anti-slavery.

It all depends on how whether or not you use the above history as a cause for grievance or as a way of understanding.

[Ethereal235]

That's why you put the whole thing in context of the social and economic realities of the time, and also show how things have changed over the years - for good and bad. As the Lies My Teacher Told Me book points out, much of the history of racism and slavery is still "invisible", but so is much of the history of anti-racism and anti-slavery.

It all depends on how whether or not you use the above history as a cause for grievance or as a way of understanding.

I haven't read Lies My Teacher Told Me. Is it worth a read?

More to the point, the student is the one who will ultimately judge this history. Educators have an obligation to teach facts about history; the same can't be said of value judgments. This law is designed to sound like it's trying to stop exactly that; the teaching of value judgments. However, based on the wording and those promoting it, it seems like it'll realistically be an excuse to censor mention of white people as oppressors from classes.

Think of it this way; who's going to be deciding what it means to 'promote ethnic solidarity and resentment'? How is it even possible to assess such a thing in an even-handed manner?

To be honest, I think 'ethnic studies' courses for high school students is a waste of taxpayer money, but that isn't really at issue here.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's why you put the whole thing in context of the social and economic realities of the time, and also show how things have changed over the years - for good and bad. As the Lies My Teacher Told Me book points out, much of the history of racism and slavery is still "invisible", but so is much of the history of anti-racism and anti-slavery.

It all depends on how whether or not you use the above history as a cause for grievance or as a way of understanding.

I haven't read Lies My Teacher Told Me. Is it worth a read?

Yes. There are some parts that I might quibble a bit on, but he does a good job of presenting the history in its complexity, while debunking some of the popular misconceptions that make it into American history.

It's getting a little dated in some of the more "contemporary" stuff discussed (the book was written in 1995, although there's a 2008 edition where he adds some stuff - the additions come across awkwardly at times), but mostly good on the history.

Think of it this way; who's going to be deciding what it means to 'promote ethnic solidarity and resentment'? How is it even possible to assess such a thing in an even-handed manner?

Sure. Is the teacher trying to promote a better understanding of the situation, or is the teacher "advocating", trying to promote a certain nationalist or ethnic "cause" with it? I compare it to teaching the history and contemporary status of, say, evangelicalism in America, and actually advocating that students believe in a version of it.

[Ethereal235]

Sure. Is the teacher trying to promote a better understanding of the situation, or is the teacher "advocating", trying to promote a certain nationalist or ethnic "cause" with it? I compare it to teaching the history and contemporary status of, say, evangelicalism in America, and actually advocating that students believe in a version of it.

You've basically just restated the criteria. It isn't necessarily easy to assess the intent of a teacher, and the standard that most would judge against is their own sense of neutrality (essentially by its agreement with their own biases). How can you objectively determine what the intent of a teacher is?