Um, okay. Did you have a specific point to make on the topic, which is Critical Race Theory?
Red seems to be saying the foundation of CRT is already taught. Which I'd already pointed out. So I'm not sure what his objection is. I will repost my main point....
....why would it be a threat to teach, as a factual part of American history, that there were racists laws, treaty violations, and institutions in our history? Jim Crow, 3/5, Fort Laramie, chain gangs, segregation, etc. were all real things -- to teach students about them is to teach that our past is checkered and that our union isn't perfect and that past mistakes reverberate today...
I can find no evidence of the Strawman that KidC invokes.
I think my point was clear.
My personal belief is that historical events should consider various POV when they are examined.
Teaching how to examine history is not the same as teaching history, as has been and for the most part remains the norm.
Think about it.
What did the First Amendment mean to Colonial Era women or people of color or men who did not own property or Native Americans or Jews or Quakers or Catholics or Germans living in Philadelphia when it was first read aloud in the public square?
The questions we ask surrounding historical events are far more important than the answers that traditional teachers of history like to convey.
So, if you want to get into it with someone like FLA's governor, ask him what questions students should be asking when exploring say, the origin of Jacksonville. How should they go about researching that? What should be their takeaway from such an examination?
And then you'll expose him for who he is, because you'll reveal more fully the bias he brings to the subject. And then, you will be able to argue more convincingly that the phrase "it's already being taught" is a falsehood.
Poll
