Are you talking about this link which describes the 7th grade level curriculum? If so, I’m missing the part where slavery and African-Americans are discussed. It’s possible that I’ve overlooked something, though.
I remember covering slavery very briefly in the fifth grade. We actually did more about Native Americans in elementary school than we did slavery (although, to be fair, we did spend a whole heap of time on Martin Luther King Jr.).
We had no American history in middle school, unless you count Georgia history in the eighth grade.
Slavery didn’t come up again until US history in the eleventh grade.
I didn’t learn anything about the civil rights movement in school until…never. We didn’t even cover it in my college black history class, which stopped at the civil war. We were assigned “Coming of Age in Mississippi” in my college US history class, but the class did not discuss it, nor was complimentary information supplied. It was like the professor knew the topic had to be covered somehow, and just threw us the book so she could check it off of her To-Do list. I remember lots of students admitting in class they didn’t finish the book (which was actually pretty good) because it was too depressing. Oh brother.
Maybe racism has something to do with the neglect, but I also think it has something to do with the disjointed way social studies is taught in school. I didn’t learn much about this country’s obsession with communism either. It’s like some topics are hashed out over and over (like the Revolutionary War or the importance of the Industrial Revolution) while others are ignored.
No, I’m talking about the links to information skills (i.e., reading and writing) and the book that is used in grades 3 to 5.
Quite honestly, this whole exercise of plowing through North Carolina’s public school curriculum guide, scraping for signs and artifacts of racism is utterly Neanderthal in its conception. It’s one thing to make a first-blush comment about some perceived oversight, but now it has moved over into the territory of the ridiculous and pathetic. Askia’s points are now well served. If we are finding racism in these documents, then we are finding racism in ourselves. And now we need a word to call the hideous thing that motivates lynchings and dehumanization because we’ve sapped all the soul out of the one we used to have.
I thought your definition of racism consisted of this:
Have you changed to something else? This is essentially the same definition that I gave in the same thread:
The thing that motivates “lynchings” and “dehumanization” is racist beliefs towards another group that make it okay to do those things. Not all racist beliefs will make it okay to do those things, but some will. The difference between “Native Americans are moral degenerates” and “She’s Native American so she’s probably an alcoholic” is big in terms of their practical implications, but both can be considered racist statements despite the fact that one can lead to much horrible outcomes than the other.
The problem with labeling the former statement “racist” and calling the other one something else is that doing so is purely arbitrary. Plus, it flies in the face of established definitions. I have a problem with defining a word so that it only applies to only the most obviously cringe-worthy stuff, while calling the less offensive stuff something else. Call that a weak position if you want, but yours looks a bit flip-floppy to me.
Interesting site, Lib. I especially like how within one of the goals for 3 to 5, they look at bias and stereotypes. There is probably a lot about culture and history that the kids will pick up, too.
Call me a fool, but I guess I just don’t understand why the social studies curriculum leaves out what it does. There doesn’t seem much reason for that. The Information Skills competency goals includes ethnicities and cultures that are also covered in social studies, so I don’t see the issue of redundancy being a factor. :shrug:
Now we’re getting somewhere. OK! The narrow extremism I use to describe racism begins with a firm belief in a racial hierarchy, where all other “races” are hated, villified, despised. This, to me, is the only kind of hatred that accurately describes racism. Everything else is some lesser form of bigotry, prejudice, racial bias, xenophobia or ethnocentrism.
The first statement is bigoted (the speaker has made up their mind all Native Americans are degenerates), the second one is prejudiced (pre-judging a person based on stereotypes.) Neither are racist, as seen in this context, precisely because they don’t reflect the kind of hate that motivates lynchings or other physical attacks, nor does either dehumanize Native Americans as less developed human beings. A racist statement would be something like: “lazy, ill-suited to hard work or deep thought, and prone to drunkenness and lascivious behavior, the savage red man is not as evolved as the white man – morally, intellectually or physically.”
Or possibly: “That half-breed’s bitch is probably an alcoholic.”
My reasoning how I establish the difference is NOT arbitrary. It is much more rigorous than how “racist” is usually flung about. Using “nazi” as an ordinary invective is dumb. It devalues the horrors perpetuated by real Nazis. Similarly using “racist” to describe someone who’s bigoted does not address the real problem: the bigotry. Their racism has not yet been proven, so why assume it’s true without more evidence?
I have a problem with expanding certain ideological terms beyond their original definitions, so that the more extreme behavior is devalued and the lesser behaviors are distorted. The lesser behaviors already have names: they’re just overlooked.
I appreciate your concern. But isn’t it just possible, having given this matter so much thought, I’ve flip-flopped from being wrong once to being in the right frame of mind now?
Now we’re getting somewhere. OK! The narrow extremism I use to describe racism begins with a firm belief in a racial hierarchy, where all other “races” are hated, villified, despised. This, to me, is the only kind of hatred that accurately describes racism. Everything else is some lesser form of bigotry, prejudice, racial bias, xenophobia or ethnocentrism, which is often called racism. While these lesser tendencies are often conflated with racism they aren’t the same thing.
The first statement is bigoted (the speaker has made up their mind all Native Americans are degenerates), the second one is prejudiced (pre-judging a person based on stereotypes.) Neither are racist, as seen in this context, precisely because they don’t reflect the kind of hate that motivates lynchings or other physical attacks, nor does either dehumanize Native Americans as less developed human beings. A racist statement would be something like: “lazy, ill-suited to hard work or deep thought, and prone to drunkenness and lascivious behavior, the savage red man is not as evolved as the white man – morally, intellectually or physically.”
Or possibly: “That half-breed’s bitch is probably an alcoholic.”
My reasoning how I establish the difference is NOT arbitrary. It is much more rigorous than how “racist” is usually flung about. Using “nazi” as an ordinary invective is dumb. It devalues the horrors perpetuated by real Nazis. Similarly using “racist” to describe someone who’s bigoted does not address the real problem: the bigotry. Their racism has not yet been proven, so why assume it’s true without more evidence?
I have a problem with expanding certain ideological terms beyond their original definitions, so that the more extreme behavior is devalued and the lesser behaviors are distorted. The lesser behaviors already have names: they’re just overlooked.
S’okay. I’m much more comfortable changing my mind to what I honestly feel is a better way of thinking than to persist with a little foolish consistency.
**Groan ** I THOUGHT I had deleted this from my original post, because when I re-read this I thought this was too smug. When I double-posted just now, this turned up again. I did not mean for anyone to see this.
Then why are you even questioning whether this curriculum guide is racist? It cannot possibly be racist using the definition you and I employ. Now, if it said something like “The student will examine the contributions of Europeans and explain why they are superior to the contributions of Asians and Africans,” then it would be racist. And you can’t keep harping on any perceived omission. At least not honestly. The inclusion of Afro-centric studies has now been documented from third grade fundamental reading and writing skills forward into full-fledged whole-course elective status. This bizarre pursuit of racism in the guide has become Quixotic.
Forgive me for going back to the inital interest of the topic, and bypassing a lot of the subtle discussion since then…
What is Racism… this is an overloaded term (as has been discussed), but for me, it is simply, believing one race or another is better and/or deserves something others do not…
If you put your ‘race’ before others, you are choosing to place your lot with those with similiar body features, we can try to give exceptions to those activities that we either partake in or approve of, but that is what is going on…
The example giving very early in this thread, is Mayor Ray Nagen, and his comment on the content of New Orleans…
The good Mayor did not say he wanted people of good moral fiber… nor of strong back for a strong work force… nor intelligent people to develop a new era of high tech innovation… he said he wanted ‘Black’ people to come back…
Does he care if they are criminals or doctors? Engineers or Bus drivers? Food Service or Terrorists? No, he wants people of a certain ‘look’… a certain ‘race’…
Another example given is that ‘some’ people might sit in a room and root for one race over another in a boxing competition… how could that not also be racist (on EITHER side)?
Adding the component of violence, almost excuses the aspects of seperation… it is no more true that white men can’t jump, as it is that black men are criminals… or asians are good at math… it is just a means to seperate ‘us’ from ‘them’ on basis of how we look…
I personally see LESS racial connotation in the choice of music, and/or the dislike of a musical approach, at least there the delimiting factor is not based solely on race…
Not to me. A white racist person could conceivably think all blacks and Latinos are intellectually bankrupt, but not think the same about Asians or East Indians. Most racist ideas do not advocate absolute supremacy, as in “my race is the best race in terms of everything”. Usually individual traits (e.g. intelligence/civility/physical prowess) are held as being the superior in one group versus another (e.g. white vs black). And if that is not the case, one group as most often treated as being inferior to all others (e.g. “Whites are the physically weakest race”).
But what is likely motivating that bigotry and that prejudice?
“Native Americans are moral degenerates” can quite conceivably motivate someone to commit hate crimes and advocate oppression. If you believe that NAs are inherently immoral, then very little will stop you from 1) stripping of their right to due process, 2) turning a blind eye to injustices (hate crimes) commit against them, and 3) commiting those injustices.
So if I, a black women, thought the same thing about NAs, would you call this racism?
I don’t see how that counts as racism while the other statement was just prejudiced. The essential meanings are the same “Someone is NA, ergo they are an alcoholic.”
Applying a word as it is defined by the dictionary is not the same thing as flinging around “nazi” as an invective.
The way you define racism basically makes it impossible to prove someone’s racism, because it is so narrow and extreme. A “racist” in your eyes is automatically much worse than a “bigot”, which means that it rates up there with nazi in terms of the seriousness. If you take the unwarranted weight off “racist”, then you’ll see that confusing a generic bigot with a racist bigot should be as big of a deal as confusing a polo shirt with a red polo shirt. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the underlying reason for it.
Can you supply a cite that supports your definition of racism? Mine is supported by The American Heritage Dictionary and I see no evidence that it has been expanded.
The flip-floppiness comment was directed to Lib. In one thread, he defined racism the same way defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, which coincides with my definition. But in this thread, he is suggesting that a more narrow definition is the right one.
It’s funny that you wrote this when I specifically wrote this a few posts back:
I could give a rat’s fig if this is racism or not. And frankly, I don’t know why it bothers you so much that I think the social studies’ curriculum could be improved by including a little more African American history. It also looked short on Native American history, if that makes you feel better. My stance appears no different with Dorkness’s.
What about French immigration… or Dutch… or immigration from northern states?
There are a number of things ‘missing’ from that single year… though some (the ones you bring up) are addressed in the later years…
At what point is it ‘racist’ to want ‘your’ group to be taught… while others might be missed… and at what point is it ‘racist’ to leave out a particular group?
Is it racist to want ‘african american studies’? Is it racist to want ‘white studies’?
Would it make more sense to have ‘cultural studies’ that try to address issues/history by commonality, rather than ethnicity?
The first ostensibly would be covered in this:
In a competency goal that specifically addresses the various ethnicities within NC, I don’t understand why African-Americans (the 2nd largest ethnic group) would be left out. Sure, the curriculum doesn’t address a lot of things, but in the context of that specific goal, leaving out African-Americans is a lot like leaving out Vietnam War in a question about American wars.
I don’t know. It depends on why those groups are left out. That’s a question that can’t be answered based on the data at hand.
No and no.
I’m not sure I understand the question. “African-American studies” is short hand for the “study of the culture and history associated with African-Americans”. The same applies to study of any other ethnicity.
Oh I understand that… but what does ‘African American’ really mean? It seems to imply a shared history, which is not the case; anymore than European-American Culture is…
Even during slavery, depending on how long a certain slave (how many generations) had been here set a different perspective … esp. when compared to those who were new to this country…
You also have examples of ‘free blacks’ some of which were freed slaves, others came to the US as many Europeans did, either indentured and/or as fully free people… some even owned farms with slaves…
Post slavery the ‘history’ is even less homogenous… with a large Diaspora between urban and rural cultures… where histories reflect more socio-economic realities rather than color issues…
At this point, I think discussion of the NC SCoS is a distraction, so I’m going to bow out of that. If I hear back from my professor (who I argued with a lot in class, and who I think believes I’m a neoconservative–yeah, you read that right–and who may not write me back because of the friction I had with him), I’ll probably start a new thread to discuss it.
Askia, if I understand correctly, you shy away from the word “racism” under most circumstances because you don’t want to get folks’ backs up. I do wonder if there’s a problem at the other end: does not using the word when it’s appropriate breed complacency? Might some people, on hearing themselves characterized as prejudiced, say, “Well, I can live with that,” whereas they wouldn’t be comfortable living with the characteristic of racism?
I don’t in any way want the word to be used flippantly: calling someone a racist because they don’t like bluegrass or klezmer or hip-hop is stupid and counterproductive. But when the shoe fits, I think it might be helpful to use the word matter-of-factly, regardless of whether folks get defensive.
Daniel
I’m not sure there are a ton of people who would be ok with being prejudiced, who are not also ok with being racist…
I personally think the term ‘racist’ as it works today isn’t broad enough… (and I know you didn’t ask me 
) … it tends to apply to WASPs, while I have heard the term ‘reverse-racsim’ to apply to ‘minorities’…
What is that supposed to indicate? Reverse-Racsim IS Racism…
If we truely are to become an inclusive group of humans… we need to look at people AS people… no different than ourselves, color nor national origin nor sex can influnece us with our interactions, else we are NOT inclusive
In that context, I see what you mean, and I apologize for misunderstanding you. Sometimes, people don’t realize that they agree. At any rate, I suppose that any curriculum could be improved. Frankly, I would agree to forego Indian studies altogether if they would teach instead personal time management and fiscal responsibility. That’s what I see most lacking in most students.
Go lurk at Stormfront for a few weeks then see if that opinion doesn’t change. Racists are that absolute. Bigots are (usually) not.
In a bigot, ignorance and a fear of some sort of (real or imagined) personal loss, prestige or social change. In a racist, it’s all that – plus violent hatred and anger.
On another thread I illustrated the differences between a bigot and a racist as the thin line that separates an Archie Bunker and Fred Sanford from the hatemongering racists like Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin.
Ah, but first you have to also, in your words “dehumanize” them, remember? I can see where your statement starts there… I also can see where it ends there, no harm done. it’s not hateful enough.
Yup. I’ll go one further: if you were Native American and believed it, I’d call you a self-hating victim of other’s racism.
Well… I was trying to convey miscegenistic hate (half-breed), dehumanization (bitch) and prejudice (alcoholic) in one short accusatory slur. I mean, what racist is going to use a PC-term like “Native American?” 
Agreed, to a point. Most people concentrate on the second usage of the term, “racist” while ignoring the necessary ideology you’d need to embrace in the main usage.
Not impossible – difficult. And difficult to “prove” with only a few facts. I define it that way to account for the realization that racism itself is just that narrow and extreme. YES… a racist is much worse than a bigot. YES… as I’ve said before, racism is essentially equated with some aspects of the degradation and dehumanization of Jews that led to the camps.
I don’t agree bigotry is bigotry anymore than I agree that love is love or rape is rape. (eros is not agape; consensual statutory rape is not a date rape.) There’s reasonableness in some prejudice. (Yes, I said it.) The prejudice engendered in your dealings with a group are somewhat justified if you consistently see/experience that behavior, and come to expect it over time. The problem with bigotry is that a bigot is usually far too quick to assume behavior either can’t or won’t change, or that their that condemnation of that group for the behavior is too broad and indiscriminate. It’s too often applied to people who simply don’t deserve it.
You’ll need an older dictionary to discover that racism and racist used to refer almost exclusively to the ideology. I’m so forward thinking my definition of racism will not be widely accepted for another five years, by which time I hope to have brokered Middle East Peace,successfully persecuted Michael Jackson and gotten O.J. to confess. But In my view of racism as an extreme ideology, and racists therefore as people who adhere to that specific ideology, I invite you to look over this web page on extremism.
Ah. Liberal can speak for himself, then.
Dorkness and EEMan, be with you two in a minute…
(Yawn) Finally home, long day.
Okay, Left Hand of Dorkness: it’s more like I’m trying to quit flinging names at people in general and recognize that if I’m dealing with intolerance within my own nature and fighting the prejudices indoctrinated during my formative years, other people probably are, too. Overt racism is rare. Covert racism is dying off. Bigotry and the rest need to be deconstructed from mainstream racism as we have seen it in the bad and dealt with by individual bias.
EEMan. There’s no such thing as “reverse racism.” I hate that term. “Mutual racial hatred” fits the bill nicely. “Longstanding ethnic tensions”, might work, too. Or just plain 'ol bigotry. Whatever happened to bigotry?