Canceled: co-opt

[Heartofice]

24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Same reasons for teaching them  American civil rights movement

why would you teach them that? How is a 5 year old kid going to understand the complexities of the civil rights movement?
 

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm OK with kids of 5 being taught this stuff, but surely it's way down the list of priorities? 

My daughter starts school in September and will be 5 in feb, there is no way she could get her head around this stuff at that age. 

Exactly.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

why would you teach them that

It was a pretty important and I want them to think racism bad when they grow up?

Why wouldn’t you want that?

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How is a 5 year old kid going to understand the complexities of the civil rights movement?

It used to be that black people weren’t allowed to work with, sit next to or marry white people. That was bad.

Being mean to people because they don’t have the skin tone as you is bad.

Boom this is a rough approximation of how most Americans learn about the civil rights movement.

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Exactly

What age is it appropriate to learn about the existence of systematic discrimination against the LGBT community?

[Heartofice]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It was a pretty important and I want them to think racism bad when they grow up?

Why wouldn’t you want that?

I do want that, I don't think you need to talk about complex things like the civil rights movement to do it. I also don't think kids are naturally racist so going around confusing them is probably not useful. 

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It used to be that black people weren’t allowed to work with, sit next to or marry white people. That was bad.

right and it doesn't happen now, so why teach it to a 5 year old?

What else should we talk to 5 year olds about...The Holocaust? The Nanjing Massacre? The Black Death?

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm OK with kids of 5 being taught this stuff, but surely it's way down the list of priorities? 

My daughter starts school in September and will be 5 in feb, there is no way she could get her head around this stuff at that age. 

It’s easier to get them to develop inklings towards certain things when they’re young.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I do want that, I don't think you need to talk about complex things like the civil rights movement to do it.

When is it age appropriate to learn about sythemic discrimination against the LGBT community?

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it my friend.

Its okay for kids to learn about their nation’s history and how bad racism is. 
I’m sorry if such a stance is too woke for you.

The kids minds also won’t be destroyed by virtue of letting them know gay people exist and that’s okay 

 

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I also don't think kids are naturally racist

Who said they’re naturally racist?

I simply want them to grow up to be especially spiteful or wary of racism when it appears.

And have an appreciation for the great progress their societies have made in combating social injustice.

I want them to grow instinctively detesting homophobia as well and equivocate being tolerant of sexual minorities as integral to being a good citizen.

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

so going around confusing them is probably not useful. 

I think most five year olds can grapple with the idea of being mean to others for things they can’t control to a degree and most when learning about the civil rights movement weren’t that confused by it.

Like what harm do you actually see arising from kids learning about it to any extent?

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

right and it doesn't happen now, so why teach it to a 5 year old?

Eh, in America the cons are prepping to try and change that.

I want these five year olds growing equating bigotry against gay people as degenerate to make the cons efforts doomed or have them to afraid to act out of fear of cancellation.

 

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The Holocaust?

Sure. There was an evil group who wanted to kill people because of their family and take over the world.   

That was bad and England and America prevented that from happening.

You know you don’t have to go into any graphic descriptions of the sheer brutality involved in right?

 

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The Nanjing Massacre?

How about the revolutionary war?

Slavery?

Columbus arrival to th Americas? 
Vikings?

How many historical events  should suppressed from the youth?

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The Black Death?

Oh especially, now given we’re still in the midst of a pandemic it’s good to drill into the heads of everyone who can understand to treat disease seriously.

[Heartofice]

Have you ever even met a 5 year old child?

Thats basically last response to this conversation. I don't see the point of continuing when there is no shared agreement on what a child is! 

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Have you ever even met a 5 year old child?

Yes. I was once even a five year old child. 

Perhaps my mind was just wrecked after watching a cartoon about the revolutionary or something and I haven’t been able to recover.

I was too confused: how could I grasp something fully so complex.

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't see the point of continuing when there is no shared agreement on what a child is! 

Hmm I guess the answer to my question of when is it age appropriate to teach kids about historical discrimination against the lgbt community is never.

It’s okay to let kid’s know about gay people and how being mean to them or anyone close to them over it is wrong.

I think there’s no shared agreement on the appropriateness of the LGBT community.

To you telling kids about anything involving them is equivalent to putting on a porno.

You’re fine with the gays—so long as they’re kept away from the kids course.. 

@Heartofice

But seriously my fellow woke. I genuinely am a bit surprised I got you to denounce literally teaching the civil rights movement to kids as inappropriate. This this is an even more extreme position than I think even  Paul Joseph Watson would be comfortable agreeing with in public. Well done sir

You have earned your laughing emoji.

And I give you this one:

 

[DaveSumm]

Except this whole discussion has been about the mental capacity of five year olds, not the ‘wokeness’ or otherwise of what it is you’re trying to teach them. Nobody’s saying never teach them that. Can we give them a tiny window to just be innocent and care free? Instead of “right, put down your finger painting Timmy, it’s time you learnt about the time Hitler tried to exterminate an entire people”.

[Ran]

I don't know what education they give in the UK in primary school grade, but in the US children are introduced to and taught very general concepts of history beginning in kindergarten. Here is the California State Board of Education on the history and social science standards for kindergarten through twelth grade (kindergarten section), approved in 1998:

 

Quote

Learning and Working Now and Long Ago

Students in kindergarten are introduced to basic spatial, temporal, and causal relationships, emphasizing the geographic and historical connections between the world today and the world long ago. The stories of ordinary and extraordinary people help describe the range and continuity of human experience and introduce the concepts of courage, self-control, justice, heroism, leadership, deliberation, and individual responsibility.

Historical empathy for how people lived and worked long ago reinforces the concept of civic behavior: how we interact respectfully with each other, following rules, and respecting the rights of others.

K.1     Students understand that being a good citizen involves acting in certain ways.
1. Follow rules, such as sharing and taking turns, and know the consequences of breaking them.
2. Learn examples of honesty, courage, determination, individual responsibility, and
patriotism in American and world history from stories and folklore.
3. Know beliefs and related behaviors of characters in stories from times past and understand the consequences of the characters’ actions.

K.2 Students recognize national and state symbols and icons such as the national
and state flags, the bald eagle, and the Statue of Liberty.

K.3     Students match simple descriptions of work that people do and the names of related jobs at the school, in the local community, and from historical accounts.

K.4     Students compare and contrast the locations of people, places, and
environments and describe their characteristics.
1. Determine the relative locations of objects using the terms near/far, left/right, and
behind/in front.
2. Distinguish between land and water on maps and globes and locate general areas
referenced in historical legends and stories.
3. Identify traffic symbols and map symbols (e.g., those for land, water, roads, cities).
4. Construct maps and models of neighborhoods, incorporating such structures as police and fire stations, airports, banks, hospitals, supermarkets, harbors, schools, homes, places of worship, and transportation lines.
5. Demonstrate familiarity with the school’s layout, environs, and the jobs people do there.

K.5 Students put events in temporal order using a calendar, placing days, weeks, and months in proper order.

K.6     Students understand that history relates to events, people, and places of other times.
1. Identify the purposes of, and the people and events honored in, commemorative holidays, including the human struggles that were the basis for the events (e.g., Thanksgiving, Independence Day, Washington’s and Lincoln’s Birthdays, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day).
2. Know the triumphs in American legends and historical accounts through the stories of such people as Pocahontas, George Washington, Booker T. Washington, Daniel Boone, and Benjamin Franklin.
3. Understand how people lived in earlier times and how their lives would be different today (e.g., getting water from a well, growing food, making clothing, having fun, forming organizations, living by rules and laws)

 

While this is from 24 years ago, it very loosely fits my recollection of primary school in the early 80s. I don't remember kindergarten and 1st grade that much (mostly because we were stationed in Italy and I was immersed in a parochical school being taught in Italian, so all the newness and culture change left the most impression), but certainly by 2nd and 3rd grade in North Carolina and then Georgia we  were certainly learning the sort of stuff seen above. I don't know how it is anymore, but MLK Jr. was absolutely one of the star historical figures. And then from 4th through 9th I was in California, and absolutely history began to become increasingly detailed, and made more complicated -- there was a big focus on the indigenous peoples of California, and while Spanish colonialism was discussed with some care, field trips to places like San Luis Obispo missionary did not fail to note that the experience for many indigenous peoples were harrowing.

My recollection is that the basic approach to civil rights for very young students is to talk about it in terms of fairness, and indeed most kids start to understand fairness between 4 and 6, so it's one of the perfect historical examples of unfairness that can be taught (that, and the suffrage movement) to young children.

Did we get into lynchings and riots and so on at that age? No, of course not. Year by year, as children are older, they can understand more. And I can totally buy that there are people today who believe that there's an argument to be made to be much more unvarnished about the past for even very young students, and I suspect I'd disagree with a lot of them, myself. But the idea that children can't be presented with the beginnings of very complicated topics, in a general way, as early as the age of 5 doesn't seem like it fits my own recollection of how I (and presumably most kids my age) were taught.

You can find the full document I quoted from here.

[Heartofice]

There is a big difference between teaching kids aged 5 general concepts such as fairness and trying to instruct them on historical events to which they cannot possibly contextualise or understand fully. 
 

Maybe it’s very different elsewhere but when I was 5 I was still finger painting and playing with building blocks, we certainly weren’t being told about genocide.

You can teach kids to be nice and treat people equally without the need to burden them with topics on sexuality or descrimination, especially if you are going to do it through the lens of current left wing thinking such as Anti Racist baby. 

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also don't think kids are naturally racist

Anecdote alert, but I think there's an important point here.

I don't believe kids are naturally racist either. But it's not really sensible to believe that by the time a kid reaches the age of 5, they are still somehow still in a state of nature, untouched by the social influences around them.

I went to a primary school that, because of the weird social history and prejudice of the area where I grew up, had another primary school right next to it - literally next door, with just a fence in between the two. Why? Because in Scotland there are two kinds of schools, Catholic schools and 'non-denominational' (read: largely Protestant) schools.

These schools, by the way, were also right next door to my parents' house. So I not only had the experience of being a pupil there myself, I was in a position to observe the behaviour of the kids attending these schools until I left home at 18.

And of course those kids started school at the age of 5. And by the age of 5, although they were not really capable of mastering the complexities of why there were two schools, they absolutely showed prejudice towards the kids attending the other school. Prejudices they'd been taught by their older siblings, parents, community members.

So yeah. Kids of 5 need to be educated about prejudice. Because they are being educated about prejudice. At home, on the playground, on the street.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

So yeah. Kids of 5 need to be educated about prejudice. Because they are being educated about prejudice. At home, on the playground, on the street.

I'm guessing you weren't taught about the troubles or shown videos of bombs going off, or taught the history of the British Empire at 5 years old though. 

[BigFatCoward]

There is a world of difference between teaching kids to be decent, tolerant humans (which absolutely should happen and is far more desirable than learning to read and write at 5), and teaching them about complex issues. 

 

[HoodedCrow]

I taught preschoolers. You can break things down for them, or model:) I supervised in the playground every week. There was only one bike. I would intervene if they fought or shoved another kid off. Usually I would give them 5 minutes each and then stop them for the next turn. Kids are not more virtuous naturally. There was also spontaneous kindness shown. 

[Heartofice]

Just now, HoodedCrow said:

I taught preschoolers. You can break things down for them, or model:) I supervised in the playground every week. There was only one bike. I would intervene if they fought or shoved another kid off. Usually I would give them 5 minutes each and then stop them for the next turn. Kids are not more virtuous naturally. There was also spontaneous kindness shown. 

Do you remember a time when a kid shoved another kid off a bike and you sat them down and gave them a brief 5 hour lesson on the history of violence and how taking a bike can escalate to the invasion of Poland and creation of concentration camps?

[HoodedCrow]

I don’t like your sneering sarcastic mixed messages. Very few of your responses are free from this attitude of contempt. No wonder you fight online all the time. Most people have more self awareness. You pretend to discuss issues, but bring nothing but rudeness.

[Conflicting Thought]

38 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

There is a world of difference between teaching kids to be decent, tolerant humans (which absolutely should happen and is far more desirable than learning to read and write at 5), and teaching them about complex issues. 

 

I would think that teaching a kid to be a decent and tolerant human is a very complex issue. Children are learning how things work from the moment they are born, at 5 they have had a lot of things taught to them by their families and society. So to teach a kid to be "decent" you not only have to teach them but also to un-teach a lot of things to. I think its a very complex issue. And kids would benefit from learning the "possitve" and un learning  the problematic things as early as possible

[maarsen]

I was born in 1956, 11 years after a war that changed both of my parent's lives in a huge way. At 5 I was well aware of who the Nazis were, as were just about every kid my age. Parent's talked, comic books carried war stories, older siblings may even had memories of the war. Never underestimate how much a 5 year old knows.

[TormundsWoman]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Just read the bill. It’s not that long. 
It’s okay to teach small children gay people are a thing and they’re okay.

Its good to teach that to big children to.
And adults.

under the law a teacher discussing systemic homophobia against to any grade level or they’re same sex partner has a reasonable worry about getting fired and/or sued.

why shouldn’t a 8 year old learn about any of the political persecution the lgbt community has faced and overcome? 

 

I did read it. It's weird and shameful. Kids on k-3rd grade already have some form of health courses / presentations in many states due to Erin's Law. But I mean specifically targeting in the 3rd paragraph, line 97-100 the sexual orientation and gender identity to k-3rd grade when you teach them sexual health in some basic form it's just not right.

I do think it's a Florida thing though. If one takes a look at how they are required to teach and emphasize abstinence outside of marriage (specifically written in the early education state law) as the method of not getting children out -of -wedlock or a sexually transmitted disease,  you know as a parent where you stand and in what state you live in or moved to.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

I don’t like your sneering sarcastic mixed messages. Very few of your responses are free from this attitude of contempt. No wonder you fight online all the time. Most people have more self awareness. You pretend to discuss issues, but bring nothing but rudeness.

I invite you to read the last few pages over again and see if you can spot any other instances of sneering, sarcasm, contempt, rudeness.