The commentary cited by Jackmannii repeats the same mischaracterizations as the Washington Times article. It also repeats the odd assertion that any reflection on appropriate reactions to the barbarities of terrorism is “wholly inappropriate to a day of national mourning” over the most barbaric terrorist strike in the nation’s history.
Yes, let’s try not to discourage racism, xenophobia and ignorance; that might hamper the poor tykes’ ability to display the appropriate level of patriotic unity. ([/dripping sarcasm], in case that wasn’t clear. I wouldn’t want any one to have to read my individual sentences in context or anything.)
It must take a special sensitivity to want to take a day of remembrance for 9/11 and obliterate all mention of those responsible, while indulging in self-flagellation over the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII.
This portion of the NEA’s recommendations strikes me as grotesquely stupid and inappropriate.
Right. Because obviously all the links to CIA and Homeland Security web sites, and all the real lesson plans provided by the NEA mentioning al Qaeda and the Taliban are mere camoflage. The real message is for our children to accept all blame for all injustices in the world. Obviously. I mean, just look at the list, man.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: That was more sarcasm.)
Cite for the “real lesson plans provided by the NEA” mentioning the role of al Queda and the Taliban in 9/11?
A previously linked NEA site does provide links to government sources - but apparently while it’s OK for site visitors to check out these links, it’s not OK for teachers to talk to schoolkids about the terrorists’ responsibility for the attacks to the or the role of those sheltering them.
We’re not talking about espousing blind patriotism, or claiming that nothing the NEA does on this issue is worthwhile. Which you know.
Drip misplaced sarcasm all you wish, but it does not address the foolishness highlighted in the OP.
I think it does. The “foolishness” that was highlighted in the OP? You’re talking about the Washington Times, right?
Whatever, here’s the cites you asked for. Along with the relevant guiding text from the NEA News Release regarding the site.
Please note the bolded text. I realize that, like myself, most people are not and never have been professional journalists, so it’s understandable how you may have missed this.
6-12 Grade Lesson Plan: The Day the World Changed “Assign groups of students the task of creating a special edition newspaper that will be published for students at their grade level to deal with the following question: How did September 11 change the world? All articles for the paper must deal in some way with this question.” This lesson plan requires students to discuss in detail real examples of the different types of newspaper articles dealing with the subject matter.
9-12 Grade Lesson Plan: First-Hand Experience:
Activation to the Remote LocationObjective To teach about the necessity for hydration and survival in remote locations such as Afghanistan, Irag and Uzbekistan. “As a result of 9/11, many of the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters have been called to serve our country. Many of them have been called to take on new roles and life styles. Living conditions are unique in other parts of the world. Examine our current conditions and compare them with the people of Uzbekistan and compare these with the soldiers living in tents on bases in that region.”
Impact of the Facts, 9-12 Grade Lesson Plan (This is a Red Cross link, and may require some information from you before you can download the free file.) " Purpose Identify the economic, political and human impact of terrorism and tragic events on our homes, schools, communities, nation and the world."
Here’s one that a lot of SDMB posters could probably use: 9-12 Grade Lesson Plan: Be Media Savvy (Another Red Cross lesson plan.) “Purpose To compare and evaluate journalism and the media in a world of instant communication. To become a critical viewer of the visual media.”
The lesson plans are accompanied by the “Additional Resources” section which includes the government links, accompanied by the text: “Though it is beyond the scope of this site to discuss the War on Terrorism in detail, here are a few key links to provide an overview on Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin, the terrorists who killed innocent Americans on Sept. 11th and the al-Qa’ida network.” Teachers, as noted above, are encouraged by the NEA to use these links in developing their own lesson plans.
Nothing you cite is relevant to the complaint in the OP, i.e. the NEA’s ludicrous zeal to prevent the 9/11 remembrance from including mention of blame attaching to any group or nation for the terrorist attacks - while encouraging discussion of largely imaginary or remote U.S. sins.
I’m glad to hear that it’s permissible for students to talk about hydration in Uzbekistan. (In terms of hilarious irrelevancy, I think december is influencing your posting style).
You don’t have to have professional journalism experience to recognize a tactic that’s been debunked earlier in this thread - pointing up non-controversial and/or praiseworthy elements of the NEA’s recommendations in order to gloss over the stupid and silly ones.
The position espoused by the Washington Times, Milossarian and Jackmannii, that the NEA in their Remember September 11 web site is actively denying the culpability of al Qaeda, advocating a “blame America” attitude or encouraging American self-flagellation, is a position which does not stand up under even the most cursory scrutiny of the NEA’s website.
And BTW, Jack’, the relevance of the Uzbekistan lesson plan is that it requires a discussion of not only the geographical and climatic conditions of foreign assignments but also the role of our armed forces, the sacrifices our service men and women must make and the relationship these military assignments have to the events of September 11: “As a result of 9/11, many of the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters have been called to serve our country. Many of them have been called to take on new roles and life styles. Living conditions are unique in other parts of the world. Examine our current conditions and compare them with the people of Uzbekistan and compare these with the soldiers living in tents on bases in that region.”
Get it now? Do I have to explain how the other lesson plans cited encourage a realistic examination of the events of 9/11, the history of terror and its effect on this country and the world?
Honestly, I can’t find any “ludicrous zeal to prevent the 9/11 remembrance from including mention of blame” anywhere in the links. I can, however, see ludicrous --and sickening-- zeal at work among those who wish to portray the NEA as a bunch of fuzzy-headed America haters.
Jack was there a point you wanted to include with your whining? Please explain which parts of my summary of the OP (and your position) you disagree with. (I can provide direct quotes which support my summary.) Failing that, please tell me which parts you don’t understand. (I can use smaller words for you.)
OK, I see the problem now, looking back at the specific phrase “…actively denying the culpability of al Qaeda…” I admit, that’s not accurately phrased, and I apologize.
What you are alleging, rather, is that the NEA is actively discouraging discussion regarding the culpability of al Qaeda. (An equally silly charge which doesn’t stand up to an examination of the NEA’s actual words on the subject.)
Since Milo is apparently gone, I’m gonna stop by to offer a few brief comments - really, an outline of sorts:
Here is the main page of the NEA’s “Remember September 11” website. Any America-bashing there? Nope. Sorry.
Here’s a resource page about the War on Terrorism. It’s the first link from the main “Remember September 11” page that actually goes to another page, right up at the top. It in turn links to the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. Any America-bashing there? I sure doubt it.
Here’s another link off the main page, to a speech by Dubya. Unless he’s had a personality change, there’s no America-bashing there.
Down in the “Lesson Plans” section of the main page, you see that the lesson plans are divided by grade level: K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. After that, they have links to materials for Teacher/ESP Support (ESP=Ed. Support Professional?), and Parent Support.
If you click on the Teacher/ESP link, you get to a page with about five links off it. If you click on the fourth one down, you’ll get to another NEA page, entitled Tips for Parents and Schools Regarding the Anniversary of 9/11. And if you click the link off of that page, that takes you off the NEA’s site, to that of John F. Kennedy University, where you finally get to Dr. Lippincott’s ‘Reviled List’ that has been the subject of all the furor.
Just from that placement, you can tell that the NEA intended Dr. Lippincott’s list, rather than any of the zillions of materials actually on its own site, to be the focus of teachers’ approach to remembering 9/11 in the classroom. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
Thanks, xenophon, for taking over the Fight Against Ignorance in this thread in my absence. It really is taking longer than we thought, isn’t it?
Anything I could possibly have to say would be repeating myself for the 10th time. Which is apparently necessary when xeno says things such as this (after correcting his first ridiculous premise):
**
Can’t speak for Jackmannii, but you’ve just misrepresented my position.
I’ll repeat it yet again. The NEA offers a lot of material, some of which is middle-of-the-road and seems completely appropriate to a classroom discussion on 9/11 Remembrance Day. It includes the list we’re talking about here, which also includes numerous topics that seem completely appropriate for a classroom discussion on 9/11 Remembrance Day. It also contains a few points that many find offensive, and pushing of a particular far-left ideology that is inappropriate for a classroom discussion on 9/11 Remembrance Day. The NEA is responsible for any content it presents via its website as a resource to be utilized for 9/11 Remembrance Day.
That’s the last repeat you or anybody else gets. In the future, re-read. Or be inaccurate. :shrug:
If you disagree, disagree. Or disagree and be a dickhead. Some people here’s favorite maneuver. What you think = smart; what I think=stupid.
Have at 'er. Like I give a fuck.
Dryga_Yes:
**
No I haven’t. Schmuck.
Even the Washington Times didn’t do that! It said:
I don’t believe that there is any dispute that the webpage in question urges educators and parents to do exactly what this passage claims it urges them to do. It didn’t say it “blames America for 9/11,” and neither did I.
It says the list encourages taking a “blame-America” approach to the 9/11 Remembrance Day in schools that follow the list-writer’s recommendations - that one in particular.
Merriam-Webster’s website says one of the definitions of “blame” is “to find fault with.”
Gonna argue that on the above-cited point, the list writer wasn’t suggesting a blame-America approach as part of the lesson plan?
Talk about “monumentally stupid.”
For the 47th time, encouraging students not to act out against Arabs or Muslims because of 9/11 is a good message. Expounding on it during the Sept. 11 Remembrance Day, talking about Japanese Internment camps and the Gulf War, strikes some as a bit odd.
WE WERE THE VICTIMS. COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY. I laugh at people who are so uncomfortable with that fact, they have to find convoluted ways to still find fault with America, when discussing the topic at hand.
Is it possible that Lippencourt’s list was all just worded horribly, and he meant vastly different things on every point that’s been cited? Yes, it is.
Is it likely? Not in my opinion. Because all of the offensive-at-their-face points happen to go one ideological way. They all seem to point to a view of the subject that is all-too-familiar to some of us reading what some of a particular ideology had to say here after the attacks.
If it was a problem with communication, why would the other non-offensive parts of the list be so clearly eloquated? Why aren’t there unclear statements that don’t seem far-left?
I have no problem with Lippencourt or anybody else believing what they believe. Play it straight, and don’t push an ideology in a kids’ classroom. A few points from the list seem to be drifting in that direction.
(I don’t want Cal Thomas’ or Rush Limbaugh’s ideologies pushed in a Sept. 11 classroom discussion, either, FTR.)
“To blame” and “to find fault with” are hardly synonymous, regardless of what Webster’s says. While you can’t exactly blame without finding (or at least implying) fault, it’s hardly uncommon to find fault without apportioning any blame. (One does that in any good post-mortem.) So claiming that any time fault is mentioned, blame is being cast, is pretty disingenious.
I’m not sure I can pin down the point in history where the dreaded NEA took the place of the cigar-chompin’ labor chief as the cartoon of conservative horror. But, lo, it has come to pass. Radical hippies, it would appear, having tired of munching food stamps, have infiltrated our schools in the guise of schoolteachers! "They will indoctrinate our precious youth, etc. etc. " Oh, and they hate America.
Looking it over, it seems to me that the original stuff is rather innocous and well-intended. That the Times writer in question regards that passage as somehow “blaming America” sheds more insight into his psychology than it does on any presumed machinations on the part of NEA-Comintern.
It makes perfectly good sense to point out that war hysteria is not partriotism, but pathology. The internment of Americans of Japanese descent is a very apt example. The injustice of that time should remind us that we are all too human.
The thrust of the overall theme is not “blame America” but “don’t blame Muslims”. This is an entirely legitimate demonstration and excercise in the civility that democracy requires of its participants.
American Muslims were injured equally with us all by the attack of 9/11. But they are injured in addition by the suspicions they must bear for no rational cause. Hence, of all Americans, they are the group most injured: more than Baptists, more than Mormans, more than Rotarians.
Further, I can hardly see how such conduct is in furtherence of any scurrilous left-radical conspiracy. After all, they are only reflecting the stated views of Our Churchill! Jr. may know who Trotsky is, but probably thinks he wrote War and Peace.
When I was about 12 I got this suspicion that teachers were idiots and it has grown stronger over the years
I am an idiot. I was sitting in a classroom on September 11. I was using all of my below average mental and emotional tools to help my students cope with this tragedy. Too bad we were not fortunate enough to have an instructional leader with some higher level of intelligence available. I suppose you have achieved all of your educational goals without support from teachers. Good for you.
Oh, really? That’s a dumb claim to make, considering all your posts are here in this thread, free for all of us to read. Allow me to quote your second post:
Judging from this comment, one gets the impression that you assumed Lippincott mentioned Japanese internment camps & the Gulf War because “Lippincott thought they triggered 9-11”. I’m glad you gave a clarification on this page, then. :rolleyes:
And you manage to on one hand write tripe like this, and still accuse me, Xenophon, Princhester and RTFirefly of playing wordsmiths, trying to extrapolate different messages from the material. POT. KETTLE. BLACK, ASSHAT.
Now, how likely do you REALLY find it that when the Washington Times talked about NEA’s “blame-america” approach to 9-11, they mean the first definition?
Now, English is my second language, but I still think I have a workable grasp of the English language. And I’ve never heard the words used the way they use it in that first definition. Judging from the example sentences they gave, I think the second definition is a much more likely to be used in the context of the article.
And, even IF (and that’s a big if) the guy who wrote the article meant the first definition, it’s still (maybe intentionally) misleading. Most people would assume that when they talk about “the blame-America approach” the mean that America is to blame for causing 9-11.
In case you missed all 47 times RTFirefly talked about this, I’ll say it again. The items on Lippincott’s list weren’t part of the regular lesson plan. They were there as a back-up-plan, in case the discussion took that direction, because discussions do often get away from the topic… Especially in the classroom where students often assume that their teacher knows everything about the topic discussed. If the discussion were to take a nasty turn, maybe a student starts talking about how we should go to war with the entire mid-east, or talks about the arabs that are his next-door neighbors, then the items on the list would be useful. And I don’t think talking about past instances of intolerance, and their consequences, is a bad way to promote tolerance today.
Where has anyone said that the USA wasn’t the victim?
On the 9-11 remembrance day, the kids are supposed to work with and thoroughly discuss 9-11. The fact that one of the messages that MIGHT be discussed is “don’t hate the ragheads” doesn’t mean that Lippincott “is uncomfortable with the fact that we were the victims”. You should probablyu return that “jump to conclusions”-mat.
The points are not offensive at their face points. They’re not offensive when worded horribly. They’re offensive when taken blatantly out of context. Big difference.
When this thread started, you had Jodi, WV_Woman, zev, LolaCocaCola, Fenris, sailor, Tuckerfan & Diff T cheering you on. For the last two days or so, once the discussion turned towards the actual list and not the Washington Times’s description of the list, it’s just been you and Jackmanii calling them batshit crazy. It sounds really smug to say this, I know – and, well, maybe there are lots of people who agree with you but don’t have anything to say – but I really get the impression that once people actually read through the list they weren’t so offended.
And what do you mean, far-left? The one message he pushes throughout that I can see is that of “not hating”, “not being violent”, “not discriminating” and “pro-diversity”. If you claim that that’s a strictly leftist message, then I think you might be the single best spokesperson for the political left on this message board.
(In terms of hilarious irrelevancy, I think december is influencing your posting style).
