site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31035 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just saw the headlines about DeSantis banning an AP African-American Studies course. According to AP news, "Florida education officials did not specify exactly what content the state found objectionable."

I have two questions about this.

  1. What reason would there be to not say what about the content was objectionable? Would it violate copyright, or some kind of NDA?

If the DeSantis administration's objections to the content are reasonable, then sharing the content would make it impossible for intellectually honest people to say that DeSantis doesn't want the history of American slavery to be taught. Because the objections are left ambiguous, a person can fill in the blanks with whatever best fits their priors, and if someone who doesn't have exposure to current year progressive narratives on race, then their priors probably are "those backwards hicks just don't want their kids to learn things that challenge them." If I hadn't updated my priors since the debates on evolution and intelligent design, that's what I'd assume is happening. But because I've been paying some attention to cultural changes this past decade, my prior is now that some version of disparate impact/critical race theory/systemic racism/Ibram X Kendi's personal philosophy is in the course. But like my hypothetical leftist, I'm using my priors to fill in blanks that ideally the government would be filling in for me.

  1. Is there any information anywhere online about what material was in this course?

The government may not be able to tell us, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean the information isn't out there.

They did quite explicitly say what was objectionable on Jan 20 (the article you link is from Jan 19)

https://twitter.com/SenMannyDiazJr/status/1616565048767385601

My guess is that at the time the reporter called, they were in the process of making the graphic included in the tweet above. They might have even told the AP reporter who asked them but the reporter decided not to mention that a detailed statement was forthcoming - that is the kind of thing DeSantis hostile reporters have done.

The FLDOE's twitter account also linked to this page describing the African American studies curriculum and listing 6 courses on the topic which are taught in Florida. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/subject-areas/social-studies/african-amer-hist.stml

Here's a long take from National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/desantis-ap-african-american-studies-program-violates-florida-law/

I'll try to cut/paste it in case it's paywalled, which will remove the internal links.

/// by Stanley Kurtz

The College Board — the group that runs the SAT test and the Advanced Placement (AP) program — has launched a pilot version of an AP African-American Studies (APAAS) course, to great fanfare in the mainstream press. Although the APAAS pilot has received plenty of publicity, the College Board has clothed the course in secrecy. The curriculum has not been publicly released, nor have the names of the approximately 60 schools at which the pilot is being tested.

In various press accounts, College Board advisers and teachers — so as not to fall afoul of new state laws against the teaching of critical race theory — have denied that APAAS advocates CRT or indeed any particular theory or political perspective at all.

On January 12, however, the administration of Florida governor Ron DeSantis wrote a letter to the College Board informing it that Florida was rejecting its request for state approval of APAAS. The letter, from the Florida Department of Education’s Office of Articulation, goes on to state that, “as presented, the content of this course is inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value.” At the same time, the letter notes that “in the future, should College Board be willing to come back to the table with lawful, historically accurate content, FDOE will always be willing to reopen the discussion.” In short, DeSantis has decided that APAAS does in fact violate Florida’s Stop WOKE Act by attempting to persuade students of at least some tenets of CRT.

As far as I know, this is the first time that any state has refused to approve a College Board Advanced Placement course of any kind. While there were serious expressions of concern by some states during the 2014 controversy over the College Board’s leftist revision of its AP U.S. history course, no state or school district actually refused to approve the course. So this is a bold and unprecedented move by DeSantis.

DeSantis’s refusal to approve APAAS is entirely justified. Although the College Board has pointedly declined to release the APAAS curriculum, I obtained a copy and wrote about it in September. There I argued that APAAS proselytizes for a socialist transformation of the United States, that it directly runs afoul of new state laws barring CRT, and that to approve APAAS would be to gut those laws.

Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, for example, bars any K–12 attempt to promote the idea that color blindness is racist. Yet most of the readings in the final quarter of APAAS (Unit 4: Movements and Debates) reject color blindness. One of the topics in that unit is explicitly devoted to “color blindness.” There, APAAS suggests reading CRT advocate Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, best known for his theory of “color-blind racism.” Overall, the readings in the final quarter of APAAS — the quarter chiefly devoted to ideological controversies rather than to history per se — are extraordinarily one-sided. They promote leftist radicalism, with virtually no readings providing even a classically liberal point of view, much less some form of conservatism. If DeSantis were to approve a course pushing the idea of “color-blind racism,” he would effectively be nullifying his own Stop WOKE Act.

Then there’s APAAS’s promotion of socialism. A state doesn’t need a preexisting law to decide that a course filled with advocacy for socialist radicalism is inappropriate. In my earlier exploration of APAAS’s curriculum, I described the neo-Marxist thrust of the course. This is evident enough from the readings. On top of that, however, we know that Joshua M. Myers, the member of the APAAS curriculum-writing team whose expertise covers the final quarter of the course, is an acolyte of Cedric Robinson, author of Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Myers’s writings on African-American studies explicitly call for the field to reject traditional concepts of disciplinary neutrality and adopt openly anti-capitalist radical advocacy instead. In short, for DeSantis to approve the APAAS course as currently configured would be to repudiate everything he stands for. It would welcome woke, not stop it.

The College Board’s decision to keep the APAAS curriculum secret is indefensible. At least during the 2014 controversy over AP U.S. history, troubling though it was, the curriculum was public. This, of course, is why the College Board is resorting to secrecy now. It is trying to get states to approve APAAS for high school and college credit before there’s even a chance of informed public debate.

Last October, North Carolina’s James G. Martin Center submitted a public-records request calling on the lab school of Florida State University, where we know that APAAS is being piloted, to release the curriculum and associated materials. Gavin D. Burgess, associate general counsel of Florida State University, wrote back in December refusing that request. According to Burgess, “The vendor, College Board, has asserted that the materials you are seeking are trade secret and confidential.”

Again, for the College Board to keep the APAAS curriculum secret while simultaneously asking states to approve the course for high school and college credit is indefensible. This secrecy validates long-standing concerns about the College Board’s acting as a de facto unelected national school board. By filling APAAS with Marxism and critical race theory, while at the same time presenting the course as a harmless exercise in African-American history, the College Board is trying to fool the public. In effect, the College Board has decided to go to war with the national movement of parents working to take back control of their children’s schools. The College Board is using secrecy and prestige to nullify democracy.

The tactic is nefarious, but politically clever. What governor wants to be attacked for rejecting a course in African-American studies? It takes guts to say no to a course that looks benign on the surface but is in fact filled with CRT and leftist propaganda. DeSantis has got guts.

The larger danger here is that once APAAS is approved, we will see the College Board devise AP courses in women’s studies, gender studies, transgender studies, latino studies, environmental studies, the full panoply of politicized “studies” courses that have balkanized and politicized higher education. This will drain off students from AP U.S. history and quickly convert high schools into woke bastions. But again, once APAAS is approved, who will be able to say no to the others? That’s why I hope DeSantis will stand strong against any “studies-style” AP course at all.

That said, Florida has invited the College Board to revise its curriculum. A radically reconfigured APAAS still has a chance in Florida. A successful revision wouldn’t necessarily require the complete elimination of readings based in neo-Marxism and CRT. At minimum, however, it would call for such readings to be fully balanced by traditional liberal and conservative perspectives. (See my earlier piece on APAAS for specific suggestions.) Promoting radicalism is one thing. Even-handed discussion of competing views is another.

Yet again, DeSantis is setting the mark for other states. Will red states now reject the current APAAS curriculum? What about Texas? What about Georgia? These and other states have CRT laws and Republican governors. To approve APAAS as currently configured would be to make a mockery of those laws. And why would any state — CRT law or no — approve a course plugging socialist radicalism?

We shall see how it all plays out—and whether the College Board maintains its unjustified secrecy. At a minimum, no state should approve APAAS until the curriculum is released and there has been ample opportunity for the public to assess and debate it. In the meantime, all honor to DeSantis for being faithful to both his word and to the law. Truly, he is doing what it takes to stop woke.

///

in case it's paywalled

It's not. National Review only paywalls the NR Plus articles, which are labeled by a red box at the top.

Overall, the readings in the final quarter of APAAS — the quarter chiefly devoted to ideological controversies rather than to history per se — are extraordinarily one-sided. They promote leftist radicalism, with virtually no readings providing even a classically liberal point of view, much less some form of conservatism. If DeSantis were to approve a course pushing the idea of “color-blind racism,” he would effectively be nullifying his own Stop WOKE Act.

I'm not particularly inclined to accept NR's characterisation of the curriculum, but nevertheless I think there's an important point to be made in that the concept of African-American history or studies probably lends itself away from the more conservative-associated conception of history as mostly high politics, and towards a more left-associated focus on social and economic history, and I think it's sort of inevitable the course will reflect that, which I think is basically fine. If an AP class called something like 'Kingship in Europe', or whatever, was started, you'd inevitably be reading historians like Elton more than historians like E.P. Thompson, which is fine because that's the nature of the course. And by the same token, it's more or less fine that a course on A-A history wouldn't feature many of the Joseph J. Ellises of the world.

probably lends itself away from the more conservative-associated conception of history as mostly high politics, and towards a more left-associated focus on social and economic history,

Can you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure I understand.

My priors are that an ‘African-American studies course’ is going to be heavy CRT, mixed with pseudo history and a bit of asspulled claims about current events/structures. So of course it’s going to fall afoul of a law literally designed to ban CRT.

Of course the real reason is probably that Desantis wants to dethrone Trump through policy achievements, and claiming he took control of education curricula is a heck of a way to do that- look at what he’s doing to Florida colleges.

Presumably, the curriculum is in conflict the the "Stop WOKE Act," which says:

(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

1 . Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

  1. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

3 . A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

4 . Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.

  1. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
  1. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
  1. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
  1. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.

Whether the AP course actually falls afoul of that provision is of course anyone's guess. Though DeSantis is running for President, probably.

Note also that, in my experience, the individual teachers have a fair amount of flexibility re what to emphasize in an AP course, since they tend to be too broad to cover everything, and even if the course presents one of those concepts in a non-objective fashion, teachers are free to give students materials on the other side. So, I suspect there is some theater going on here.

Honestly I feel like this is below motte quality without reading the comments. Moderate politics reddit had the same post and I thought it was beneath them. The curriculum hasn’t been released. Until that happens it’s tough to form an opinion.

The only thing I can say is without curriculum African American history seems too limited for a full year course unless it’s an avenue for crt and other issues. They just didn’t figure into big events people need for a generalist course. And would be more of a cultural study - which is more of a college level course but a half semester on different African American course could have valuable content.

The only thing I can say is without curriculum African American history seems too limited for a full year course unless it’s an avenue for crt and other issues.

I remember taking AP Calc 1 in high school many years ago. They also managed to take a semester-long course and stretch it out to a full year.

If teachers can pad out a math course, they can absolutely pad out a humanities course. There's a lot more material to choose from.

I thought a year was reasonable for high school. The subject matter was high for even the average high school student and not the type that could handle real college paced calculus.

Wouldn't you think it inappropriate to ask states to approve the course before releasing the curriculum?

The curriculum hasn’t been released. Until that happens it’s tough to form an opinion.

Why hasn't the curriculum been released? Is there any reasonable cause for not releasing it?

Their saying things like afraid content gets stolen and it’s there IP or something.

But they basically know I’m guessing if they release it will end up getting made fun of on twitter is my guess.

The only thing I can say is without curriculum African American history seems too limited for a full year course

Is there any faint hope this is the reason the course was banned? I don't even know if it was banned, but that's the headline. Did the state officials decide "Nope, this doesn't qualify as an AP course because it's not long enough and doesn't have enough content" and that's why it's not been accepted?

Since we don't know what is in the curriculum, we can't say why it was quashed. It might simply be this was too soft and easy to reach the standard necessary for advanced classes. If the idea is "give black kids an easily passed course where they don't have to do work so they can have an AP class" then that's not good teaching, whatever it may be for political angle of "our schools increased numbers of minority students taking advanced courses" numbers.

There doesn't seem to be much actual information about the course, but some of the stuff put out about it by the College Board explicitly lists "get more black kids to pass AP classes" as a motivating goal for designing the course. Given general precedent, I would expect that "black kids will try harder because this is more engaging and relevant to them" is the PR rationale, and "standards will be particularly low" will be the reality. On a less CW angle, it would probably be less rigorous just because it's new. 20 years ago, I was taking AP tests for fun without having had a class, and getting top scores just because I was a generally well-read, nerdy kid. I am told that is much more difficult these days, as standards and expectations keep rising to match how much extra effort and specialization kids/parents/tutors/schools are putting in AP test prep.

At the tactical level, Republican activists have learned and arguably over-learned Rule 13. For better or worse, modern politics has made any politician's willingness to touch the specifics akin to whizzing on the third rail; it's exposing weakness. Instead, they farm out to third parties who can provide sets of objections tailor-made to their client base: in particular, the emphasis on treating color-blind behavior as racist seems a clear-cut contradiction to the Stop WOKE Act (for whatever that means given the near-certainty the law will be blocked) and more importantly is hugely unpopular outside of academic circles.

This is why the right loses. It finds itself in a hair splitting debate which it eventually loses. Trying to make 'more accurate' African history courses is not answer. The answer is such courses should not exist at all.

Why not? If people are interested, then I think these courses should be offered as electives.

Think you are forgetting the amount of education of a high school grad even one going to an elite school.

Africans just haven’t figured into the big world events that high school kids don’t know. They’ve had zero influence on major ideologies, political systems, communism versus capitalism etc. The course is either going to be about soul food, Tulsa race riots, and rap music or be a crt/Marxist indoctrination.

The former I think high school kids need training in bigger things or the latter is just woke training.

If it's strictly optional I don't see a problem in teaching "lesser" things in addition to bigger ones. The school by necessity both would spend some time teaching you stuff you'd never need and would fail to teach you stuff you need or interested in. This is the inevitable effect of schools being mass product and people being different, even as kids. If optional courses can mitigate this to some degree, I don't see a problem with that. Teaching CRT I would see a problem, because it is evil and actually makes students worse off - it's like having them beaten up instead of PE. But if it's African history, or even soul food and rap music - I see no big deal with it as long as the necessary bases are still covered as much as they were before.

Africans just haven’t figured into . . .

The course is African-American studies, not African studies.

And Africans haven't figured into history much regardless of what continent they're on.

That is a ridiculous assertion. As @Gdanning pointed out, the course is specifically African-American studies, and Africans have been a huge part of American history. Multiple key events in the history of our country had to do with African slaves or their descendants.

I don't even think it's a particularly good idea for a course (it's too specialized imo), but your argument against it is factually false.

Multiple key events in the history of our country had to do with African slaves or their descendants.

As objects of history, sure I suppose. As subjects? Not so much.

As objects of history, sure I suppose. As subjects? Not so much

There is not really a meaningful difference between these things in historical study, as far as humans go. I mean we basically treat even 'great men' as basically objects of analysis anyway.

The Civil Rights movement says "u wot m8". That was one of the most significant events of the 20th century in the US, and was led by black people.

Really, African-Americans have not figured much into American history? Other than, say, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement? And they have not figured much into American culture? (Because the course is not African-American history; it is African-American studies, and hence is an "interdisciplinary course [which] reaches into a variety of fields—literature, the arts and humanities, political science, geography, and science —to explore the vital contributions and experiences of African Americans.")

This is rather silly. History education is not just teaching about the 'objectively' most important things in the world, otherwise British schools wildly under-study Asia and over-study British history, or at any rate certainly pre-Industrial revolution British history. Clearly, race and slavery has been enormously significant in American history, being possibly the biggest running issue in American politics for the first half of the nineteenth century, and certainly for a few decades before the Civil War, and of course being the cause of the Civil War itself.

The course is either going to be about soul food, Tulsa race riots, and rap music or be a crt/Marxist indoctrination.

It's so blindingly obvious you have almost no history education. Yeah, soul food and rap music is the sum total of the impact of race and African-Americans in American history.

Ok so tell me what important things have African Americans done?

Also we are talking high school history not college level. High School still has a need to teach basic things like why Democracy is important and how it developed etc. We aren’t talking about a college elective.

Also it’s not motte appropriate to say someone has no history education. Which isn’t true but you need to flesh out what you mean by that.

Ok so tell me what important things have African Americans done?

Well for starters until the Civil War they formed the basis of one half of the country's economic system, and thereafter were a crucial element in industrialisation. And aside from African-Americans as a group, there are countless individuals who are easily worthy of inclusion in any high school history education.

Also we are talking high school history not college level

Well race is one of the most important themes in American history across many centuries; even in high school that seems like a reasonable basis for an elective course; it's not compulsory after all.

So you can’t even name one important thing African Americans did and accused me of not knowing history?

Being a day laborer (farmer/factory worker) is no different than being a cow in the field. We don’t study horses in history class.

Race literally doesn’t matter to me. It’s not an important thing.

Being a day laborer (farmer/factory worker) is no different than being a cow in the field. We don’t study horses in history class.

Come on, man. Even if not being specifically directed at black people, this violates the rule to write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

We probably do not have a lot of day laborers who post here, but don't assume there are none, or at least people who are former day laborers or have family members who are. You can make your argument without literally equating people with cows in the field.

More comments

Being a day laborer (farmer/factory worker) is no different than being a cow in the field. We don’t study horses in history class

Completely wrong. Social history is one of the biggest disciplines of the field.

The fact that they were regarded as no different than a cow in a field in a nation that claimed to be for liberty is arguably a huge deal that deserves plenty of attention no?

More comments

While I don't agree with the poster you responded to we already have an AP course that covers all of these topics, it's called AP US History or APUSH and it's probably the most widely taken AP class. All of these topics are covered in it. You can find a list of AP courses here, an African American studies course does seem kind of out of place. An African History course on the lines of AP European History would fit much more with the rest of what's on offer.

My point is that I don't see the problem with an elective course that takes a closer look at one of the most important themes in American history. If it's out of place I'd say that's an argument for adding other similar AP classes looking at one aspect of history in more depth, for instance say a class in economic history.

AP courses aren't really about being electives, they're for college placement. Whether or not highschool students will choose to study this or not has very little to do with their interest and much more to do with how it will impact their college application.

That's a shame, but that's more a problem with the American school system than it is a problem with offering an elective class on African-American history.

More comments

If colleges are going to start requiring some diversity BS elective, maybe this knocks it out as an AP class in high school, saving students later time and money?

At which point the blame lies upstream. But just looking at my own bookshelf, I could teach a state college freshman elective (how I'd rate an AP class) on African American Thought from Doughlass through Du Bois to Baldwin and McWhorter Next Week. The idea that there "isn't enough material" is absurd, and meant to say something else.

Clearly, race and slavery has been enormously significant in American history, being possibly the biggest running issue in American politics for the first half of the nineteenth century, and certainly for a few decades before the Civil War, and of course being the cause of the Civil War itself.

This is the correct answer. Of course African American history is important to know, so simply offering the class as an elective is perfectly legitimate. I would prefer a more general ethnicity course, which covers the issues relevant thereto globally, not just in the US, but still.

Well, I said ethnicity, not skin tone. Regardless, the question is not whether the experience is "coherent." It whether examining

and comparing data from a variety of societies is likely to be more analytically fruitful. I think the answer is yes. Works like this one, work on middleman minorities, and John Ogbu's work on immigrant social mobility certainly benefited from that approach.

Edit: Added links.

This whole thread makes me think that we have people who think that it's "woke" to portray African-Americans, or black people in general, doing anything interesting, important or notable, so I'm going to use it as a point to discuss something else I've thought about for the last couple days...

Some days ago I noticed that there is going to be a new movie called "Chevalier" on a black composer/musician in 18th century France. The way I saw this was noting that far-right social media persons like Lana Lokteff were yukking up how ridiculous the mere idea that such a person might have existed is. "We wuz and shieet" and other trite catchphrases in full display, declarations that wokes are now going to claim that Mozart was black (because the post Lokteff is quoting talks about him as "black Mozart"), that the only reason why this movie is made is anti-white hatred (because the composer is portrayed as facing racism) etc.

Of course, even a modest amount of Googling would show that this movie is indeed about a real person, Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges. The trailer does not appear to show anything that would majorly clash with the Wikipedia article - Chevalier de Saint-Georges did indeed enjoy fame in prerevolutionary France, was an accomplished swordsman, at least was rumoured to have an affair with a female aristocrat, experienced racism (because of course he would, this was an era when there was still slavery in the French colonies, and of course a biopic is going to show the subject facing adversity) and was involved in the French Revolution.

He's not supposed to be a literal black version of Mozart, and the trailer does not even refer to Mozart - it obviously happens in France, and if you know literally anything about Mozart, you know he's an Austrian. Based on the Wikipedia article and other stuff I've read about him, he was a fascinating man, and the only weird thing about there being a movie about him is that no-one has made one sooner. The only weird thing about the trailer is that there's no obvious reference to his duel with Chevalier D'Eon, which would of course have the potential to take accusations of preposterous wokery to stratosphere.

Some comments (not necessarily in Lokteff's thread, maybe in one of the quote threads) indicate that it's still odd that someone would make a movie about such an obscure character(???) or that they doubt Chevalier de Saint-Georges even existed, because, well, apparently 18th-19th century Frenchmen would invent a black composer just so that someone could make a woke movie about him in 2023 to foment white genocide.

This seems also remarkable in the way that if there's one thing where even anti-black racists have sometimes acknowledged black talent to exist, it would be music. Apparently the whole narrative about black accomplishments and innovations just plain don't exist as reached the point where a large portion of the "race realist" sphere recoils at portraying black people as anything beyond literal A. Wyatt Mann caricature types.

Oh, hey, I wrote a paper about that guy in high school French, all the way back in 2004. TBH, I didn't even remember he was black, but vaguely remember the other stuff. If I still have that essay on a jumpdrive backup of my HS nettwork drive, ...' I probably won't read it, because I remember barely squeezing out something I thought I could get away with turning in, but I am at least a little confused that I'd forget almost everything but the guy's name.

still odd that someone would make a movie about such an obscure character(???)

His oeuvre isn't notable, private life par for the course for someone of his time, place and class.

Given that Galois still lacks a movie, despite his professional accomplishments being notable in their own right while his non-mathematical behaviour is quite cinematic (involved in the French revolution (1830), spent .5 of a year behind bars, once released get into a duel over women, die in said duel aged only 21), means biopics aren't made in descending order of interestingness of the person depicted.

This whole thread makes me think that we have people who think that it's "woke" to portray African-Americans, or black people in general, doing anything interesting, important or notable, so I'm going to use it as a point to discuss something else I've thought about for the last couple days...

Some days ago I noticed that there is going to be a new movie called "Chevalier"

What % chance is this movie made if its about a straight white male? What other French 18th century minor celebrities have gotten movies in the last 20 years? The selection of the character was obviously made for woke reasons. Its not even clear he is the most prolific 18th century composer named "Chevalier". There are 3.

Its not even clear he is the most prolific 18th century composer named "Chevalier".

Chevalier here is not a name but a title (rendered in English as "knight")

Speaking of accomplishments of black people in 18th century Europe, for anybody familiar with Russian history, there's this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal

English Wiki unfortunately doesn't do full justice to his fascinating biography - he was captured and gifted as a slave to Peter The Great, got education, was freed and grew up to be a man of many talents, who took active role in Russian politics, served under several emperors (or empresses, as it were), was exiled to Siberia and then brought back, got highest military rank in Russia, was overseeing the whole army's engineering corps (there's a joke somewhere here about the army engineering works being so corrupting you need to bring a person from far away Africa to effectively manage it), introduced Russia to the concept of eating potatoes (they were known before, but not as common food), and was a great-grandfather of Alexander Pushkin, considered the founder of modern Russian literary tradition.

Interesting parallel with Alexandre Dumas, author of The Count of Monte Cristo, whose father was also a black general (son of a slave and a french aristocrat). A little suspicious. Did these authors make up an illustrious and exotic ancestry in their diversity essay?

I think you are pointing to a real thing. I do find the whole dynamic frustrating and perhaps you're only addressing the right wing side of it because you think it's what this community, especially in the context of this thread, needs to hear. But it does feel quite incomplete without addressing that it is in response to what really does seem like an obsession among progressive creatives to add representation to every type of media. No, that some right wingers fell for it does not say volumes about their enemies or however that quote goes but this might be a good time to look at the whole dynamic from a top down view to better understand why partisans believe what they do.

The argument/values conflict at play I think is the left with "representation matters" and the right with either "You're retconning our culture and we don't appreciate that" or "This is not actually an accurate representation" or even "Hey this stuff is starting to look really cynical, it's starting to seem like you don't care at all about the myths you're rewriting".

To steelman the Left's representation narrative.

  1. Straightforwardly representation just matters. It's important for young minority kids to be able to see themselves as agents in society capable of anything. Majority people don't have this problem and cannot easily understand how disempowering it is to grow up never seeing anyone who looks like you represented in the media you consume. The epitome of this is that reddit story of the black kid seeing Mile Morales and exclaiming "He looks like me!". This is the kind of story that ultimately melts ours hearts and even my black cynical heart lightens three shades at the thought*. It costs very little to get minorities this representation and many of us just straight up find joy in it for its own sake even if it might be partially vicarious.

  2. There already is an overwhelmingly large amount of white representation in society. It's not hard to find images like this poking fun at the concept. Just for the sake of variety exploring other identities and cultures is valuable. Most of the super heroes are cis hetero white dudes as is historical canon, as are contemporary figures just because of demographics. And if your for some reason want to watch all white media you can settle for merely 40% of new content or look to the back catalogue.

  3. These media products always had ideological components and preachiness, you just didn't notice because it was preaching your ideology. Did you not notice how every villain for a decade was a cell of brown middle eastern terrorists?

To Steelman the Right's 'stop shoe horning' narrative

  1. Our culture and myths actually matter, cynically retconning aspects of them completely divorced from their context is cheap and the outcome is almost always mediocre because you're prioritizing ideological soap boxing over quality.

  2. It's very uncomfortable that your idea of progress seems to, at all times, consist of minimizing the existence and representation of people like me. It may be unfortunate that other races/gender/ect have less representation than us but it was never an explicit goal of ours**. It's tremendously difficult to shake the frame of "us vs them" when your absence is celebrated by 'them'.

  3. There seems to be a kind of cynical element where you are going out of your way to offend us as a marketing technique. You release some new revision of an old IP custom designed to be maximally antagonistic towards us hoping that there is a backlash, and sometimes generating one yourself, in order to trick people into thinking consuming low quality corporate produced slop is meaningful political action.

Conclusion

Now this 'Chevalier' movie actually sounds pretty solid and like it doesn't deserve the scrutiny from the right it got. But for every Chevalier that seems to be a half dozen 'Velma's. In a better world without this culture war front I don't think it would have gotten that scrutiny. But we don't live in that world.

I'd appreciate refinements on the basic generalized arguments on each side of this debate. I think there is a kernel of truth in both but they're kernels deep in the center of massive irritated swellings of culture war.

*My black cynical heart refuses to let me get through this without a foot note that the The Walt Disney Company trademark probably paid good money for me to see this reaction on reddit.

**ours being contemporary mainstream conservatives. Please don't quote me some historical racist diatribe about keeping undesirable out of the film industry that zero mainstream conservatives today would endorse.

arguing against both steelmen

I don't think representation matters for either 'empowering' or improving outcomes of minorities in an already anti-racist society. In terms of being motivated or moved by media, consider how anime, which is thoroughly culturally japanese, is loved by whites, blacks, and others worldwide.

On the other hand, 'minimizing white people' is only really bad to the extent it represents confused or malicious tendencies among those minimizing them - by the same logic above, it doesn't really do anything other than that. So directly and vocally pushing back against black representation isn't effective, and just makes you look kinda dumb like "LESS BLACKS IN VIDEO GAMEZ".

And it seems unlikely imo 'offending as a marketing technique' is a contributor to even 10% of casting lots of ethnic minorities, or 'woke themes' in shows generally - it seems like a big change for a small effect, I haven't seen any internal-to-production accounts of that (whereas I have seen some internal accounts of cartoons or tv shows being written or cast by 'crazy wokes'), and the explanation of 'people who really want diversity' is much simpler

Did you not notice how every villain for a decade was a cell of brown middle eastern terrorists?

I did notice how for approximately one decade, the demographics of terrorism were accurately portrayed (in the ballpark of 75% Muslim) on a small number of TV shows (24 and Homeland being the only notable ones) which likely gained popularity for that reason. Note that "accurate" is perhaps overstating things; from what I recall, seasons 2-5 of 24 (season 1 was pre 9/11) had about 50% Islamic terrorists. The primary terrorists on Homeland (at least in season 1) were 50% white.

Both of these shows were both heavily criticized for this.

I'll also note that even on these TV shows, the portrayal always very carefully exemplified the George W. Bush ideal that the problem was Islamic terrorism, not Islam. Frequently Islamic terrorists were merely pawns of evil Dick Cheney-ish white people (season 2 of 24 - Halliburton engineered the attacks to start a war in the middle east and sell weapons) and Muslim anti-terrorist agents were nearly always included in the cast. Characters who were unreasonably suspicious of good Muslims were frequently portrayed.

I also noticed that before and after that, most terrorist villains were explicitly made European to avoid offending people.

Your post reminds me of the archetype of a 'centrist' movie/video game critic persona found on various blogs and Youtube channels that would go on tirades against Anita Sarkeesian and the like for 'pointing out sexism' and whatever else. To the point they would be denying reality itself just to rebuke every word ever written by a feminist.

Just like the reason for the main character in a video game being a guy is sexist and the reason the women in the game are dressed to sexually provoke men is sexist, the reason for this movie existing is racist. There is no lack of fascinating men in the world. The reason this fascinating man is getting a movie is because he was black.

To borrow an argument from Anita Sarkeesian: It's not that you can't make a game about men and scantily clad women without it being sexist. It's that the reason for these things existing today as they do and the cultural context surrounding them is sexist, and it's worthwhile to recognize that and point it out for what it is. The same is true here. It's not that you can't, in theory, make a movie about a black man beating the odds in white society. It's that you can't do it today and not recognize it for what it is and most importantly why it is.

Actually, the argument makes a lot more sense for black people headlining movies than men in video games. Because most of the audience for those games is made up of men. (Statistics showing that many women play "video games" misleadingly lump all types of video games together. The types of video games that people like Sarkeesian complain about and which star men have a largely male audience.)

It would be better for students spending an entire year reading (1) Paine, (2) Declaration, (3) Articles of Confederation, (4) federalist papers, (5) anti-federalist papers, (5) constitution, (6) Jefferson and Adam’s correspondences, and (7) key early cases (eg Marbury, Gibbons). That provides a much more detailed American history background compared to…AA history.

I think this a narrow and parochial view of American history that almost no contemporary scholars would subscribe to. High politics is, of course, very important, but so is economic history and social history. A student who has a detailed knowledge of the federalist papers and related debates in the early republic, or in later periods congressional debates etc. still has a fundamentally incomplete understanding of American history if that's all they know about.

It's an elective. They will be taking this course in addition to a US History survey course, not instead.

Scarcity is a thing. Doing this means doing less of other things including an in depth review of more important American history.

My guess is a lot of the things I list are covered only in a cursory manner. Do high school students read all the federalist papers? Do they know there are anti federalist papers? Do they understand the importance of the constitution in relation to foreign bond holders?

Scarcity is indeed a thing, but no student will ever get a complete and in depth understanding of every period of American history, that's just not realistic. So there are going to have to be some somewhat arbitrary decisions on what to cover and what not to cover, elective classes just means students are choosing what they cover in depth, which is fine.

More comments

You seem to be arguing that the mandatory US History survey course should be two years, which is fine. But that leaves less room in student schedules for all AP classes, not just this one. Do you oppose offering AP Stats or AP Bio for the same reason?

More comments

It would be fascinating to arrange the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers as a Reddit-style discussion tree. I’d definitely read them that way.

Because it is akin to the government subsidizing courses to teach QAnon conspiracy theories as the truth.

This is a pretty low-effort hot take. You aren't even talking about teaching Critical Racial Theory, you're just broadly asserting that "teaching African-American history" is equivalent to teaching QAnon conspiracy theories. This is inflammatory enough that you should at least make some effort to justify such a claim.

The course, as many have pointed out, is "African-American studies", not "African-American history". The assertion that teaching X-studies (also known as "grievance studies") is equivalent to teaching QAnon conspiracy theories is far less controversial and far easier to support than that "African-American studies". That is, the problem isn't that it's about black people; the problem is that it's grievance studies.

Your reprimand is both based on a false premise and undeserved.

Your reprimand is both based on a false premise and undeserved.

Swap "studies" for "history" and my reprimand remains unchanged.

You can post all the criticism of "grievance studies" you like. You just can't drop sneering hot takes. You, certainly, should know this.

Swap "studies" for "history" and my reprimand remains unchanged.

Which is just you being unwilling to admit error, because the difference is significant.

Which is just you being unwilling to admit error, because the difference is significant.

Funny, then, that I actually used the word "studies" in the same post you are whining about. But do go on with your bad faith nitpicking over a word and pretending that you actually believe I don't know the difference.

Edit: This post, where I clarified. In the original warning, I did say "history." If I went back and rewrote it to say "studies," I would still write the same warning.

It's certainly higher status, but the way African-American history seems to be taught in the states is that it's inextricably linked with the idea of omnipresent, shadowy conspiracy of white supremacists - and one that wasn't comprehensively destroyed by the Civil Rights Act.

Now, I personally think it wasn't a 'conspiracy' just white people acting in their own self interest in excluding a racial group with a roughly 10x higher propensity for violent crime from their neighborhoods. (the homicide ratio between black/white is fairly constant through time btw, as if it were more a function of innate aggression and impulsivity rather than something environmental).

If you don't believe black people are that violent, or that the exclusion is just in some way, it can look like a conspiracy. We know that black people have a particularly optimistic and rosy view of themselves, and are least likely to suicide out of all major ethnic groups.

But given what has happened to many cities since the Civil Right Act has passed, it's clear that 'White Supremacy' has no power in the US, and teaching people that such a nebulous and nefarious and powerful group is still out there, conspiring and harming black people is really quite similar to QAnon.

(which in my opinion is a false theory promoted by some psyop outfit[1] designed, among other things to absolutely muddy anything and everything to do with actual pedophile conspiracies which undoubtedly exist but are modest in extent and not all powerful, just middling important. Because everyone who starts writing anything about pedo influence networks and allows any feedback will have to contest with 50 excitable QAnon morons driving the signal/noise ratio to shit.)

[1]: I believe the 'psyop origin' because QAnon posited there are 'good insiders' trying to save the US, and you just have to wait a bit and they'll fix things. Preaching passivity.

They didn't say that ~'if you want to fix things, you should get care about local politics, go into politics if you are well established, don't do stupid things, try to get as much power for your party, support police, fight against Soros prosecutors, destroy the Con inc grift' etc which are actually important endeavors needed for true regime reform in the US.

Really? I'd think the hot take would be that any critical studies curriculum is utter garbage would be the default anywhere that isn't a left wing echo chamber. But lets examine.

The College Board has refused to pre-release its entire curriculum. Red flag.

African American Studies courses typically taught in colleges are almost universally utilizing CRT and are pro-socialism and communism.

Lets start with the Wiki, go to the history portion:

A specific aim and objective of this interdisciplinary field of study is to help students broaden their knowledge of the worldwide human experience by presenting an aspect of that experience—the Black Experience—which has traditionally been neglected or distorted by educational institutions.

Oh, so the whole endeavor is, indeed, founded on a conspiracy theory.

Now, its quite hard to get detailed course curriculum/syllabi for the entry level courses at most the major universities I looked at from their websites. Here's one of the more detailed ones I can find from a large uni Georgetown.

The introduction to African American Studies, which currently satisfies a General Education Requirement, traces the African American experience, which spans four hundred years from the colonization of the US and the installation of trans-Atlantic slavery to the present day. Throughout their expansive history, African Americans have consistently created modes of self-fashioning even in the midst of institutionalized anti-black racism. African Americans developed rituals, traditions, music, art, dance, literature, and spiritual practices; kinship structures and communities; and political and social theories and practices that negotiate the contradiction at the core of the uneven experience of US democracy.

Through an examination of primary and secondary sources, this course will introduce students to the distinct epistemologies and methodologies of African American Studies. As Robin D. G. Kelley states, African American Studies “interrogate[s] the construction of race, the persistence of inequality, and the process by which the category of ‘black’ or ‘African’ came into being as a chief feature of Western thought. Students learn how slavery was central to the emergence of capitalism and modernity, presenting political and moral philosophers their most fundamental challenge.” Organized chronologically, the course begins with the historical and philosophical foundations to modern black experience from slavery to the Harlem Renaissance. The course then takes up how black thought and political action shaped the years from the Great Depression to the present.

So even in this brief introduction we are introduced to a wild eyed conspiracy theory.

Here's a syllabus for a course.

Kimberle Crenshaw, University of Chicago Legal Forum, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Class: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Policy,” pg. 139-167

Week 11: African American LGBTQ Communities

Week 12: African American LGBTQ Communities

So certainly at least one required reading containing a conspiracy theory and two whole weeks dedicated to a highly intersectional topic.

So yes. There is a mountain of evidence the median AA Studies course will teach, as truth, at least one unhinged conspiracy theory. Likely multiple. On top of that if the NRO reporting contains even a grain of truth on this, there is ample amount of space for such things in the college board's course.

Really? I'd think the hot take would be that any critical studies curriculum is utter garbage would be the default anywhere that isn't a left wing echo chamber. But lets examine.

"African-American history" != "critical studies."

So yes. There is a mountain of evidence the median AA Studies course will teach, as truth, at least one unhinged conspiracy theory.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether you've provided a "mountain of evidence" about the "median" AA studies course, only say that your initial post did not even put this much effort into justifying your assertion, and you are like several posters who've been reprimanded recently for assuming that all you have to do is say "African-American" and the most low-effort weakman sneers will speak for themselves.

Students learn how slavery was central to the emergence of capitalism and modernity, presenting political and moral philosophers their most fundamental challenge.”

This is clear nonsense, of marxist origin. Industrial revolution was more likely a product of the conditions: by high rate of savings, enclosures efficiently realloacting workforce into factories, inventiveness enabled by a tolerance for eccentricity and particular features of the UK at the time - lack of manpower, access to coal, lots of flooded mines, rationalism etc.

Slavery was of miniscule importance. What great resource was supplied from the slave areas ? Sugar ?

I guess this comes down to how central you think 'central' implies. Was it the single most important factor? Maybe not. Was it nonetheless important? Yes; the growth of Northern textiles was enabled at least in part by cheap Southern cotton, protected by tariffs.

"Lots of flooded mines" is not really an independent variable. Flooding had been a major limit on how deep mines could be profitably dug for roughly two millennia.

I think the independent variables behind that are the relatively-cold temperatures and the depletion of English forests (creating a demand for coal sufficient to make machine-pumped mines profitable), though I'm not 100% sure.

"African-American history" != "critical studies."

The course, per the OP, and the AP linked article is, "African American studies". So it is not a history class, by title, it is a critical studies class, by title (and probably in truth).

I'm not going to argue with you about whether you've provided a "mountain of evidence" about the "median" AA studies course, only say that your initial post did not even put this much effort into justifying your assertion, and you are like several posters who've been reprimanded recently for assuming that all you have to do is say "African-American" and the most low-effort weakman sneers will speak for themselves.

No. I think the median critical studies class, which this one holds itself out to be, speaks for itself.

So, again. You reprimanded me for 1) Your own inability to distinguish between the words "studies" v. "history"; 2) Not providing evidence that no one in favor of the dubious curricula provided; and 3) Being vaguely racist (or something?).

No, I stated why I reprimanded you. The reprimand stands.

"African-American history" != "critical studies."

I would disagree. While it's theoretically possible (and has existed in the past) for an African-American History course to not be taught from a critical theory persective, the reality is that they have become synonymous in practice. Gender studies, queer studies, indigenous studies etc are all so deeply intertwined with critical theory (I would argue by design) that there is really no distinction to be made in contemporary academia.

As to the original claim being made that these are essentially just left wing conspiracy theories, I agree with that claim though I agree that the poster didn't substantiate their claim with evidence. However, I will offer a piece of evidence - one of the tenants (and there are a lot of conspiratorial ones) of CRT is that liberalism and the Civil Rights Movement basically amounts to a psyop (they wouldn't word it as such) by the White supremacist society to make Black folx think they are no longer oppressed and are equal to Whites but in reality this is just a cover story so Whites can continue to oppress Blacks.

I cite Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic for this.

How so? Are you claiming that any possible set of material about African-Americans is a false conspiracy theory?

I am saying the median AA Studies curriculum is.

AP courses for gunner students aren't as optional as they seem. If this is the easiest history AP for a year everyone will take it and it will have nothing to do with do with interest.

In addition to this issue, we actually pretty heavily restrict what courses and sometimes even extracurriculars are available: I’ve given my rants on the death of shop classes and rifle teams in the past.

Joining AP Human Geography in the joke "padding out your 5 scores" category.

There's a wikipedia article about the course that talks a little about its development. The College Board also has their own page about it that link to articles from last August by outlets like Time and the New York Times that describe some of the curricula at a high level. From an interview with a teacher involved in a pilot program for the course:

Mr. Williams-Clark, who teaches at Florida State University Schools, a laboratory charter, said he sticks to state standards for history and literature and was not worried about falling afoul of laws that aim to restrict education about race.

“I think people need to understand that critical race theory is not an element of this course,” Mr. Williams-Clark said. “As far as the 1619 Project, this course is not that either. There might be elements that cross over. But this course is a comprehensive, mainstream course about the African American experience.”

From CBS (quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr.):

Henry-Louis Gates, Jr., one of the country's foremost experts on African American history, helped develop the AP African American Studies program. He told TIME that the class "is not CRT. It's not the [New York Times'] 1619 Project. It is a mainstream, rigorously vetted, academic approach to a vibrant field of study, one half a century old in the American academy, and much older, of course, in historically Black colleges and universities."

In a statement to CBS News, the College Board said it has been working on this course for nearly a decade, and that it is "designed to offer high school students an inspiring, evidence-based introduction to African American Studies."

...

In a statement, Trevor Packer, the senior vice president of AP and Instruction at the College Board, said the class "will introduce a new generation of students to the amazingly rich cultural, artistic, and political contributions of African Americans."

"We hope it will broaden the invitation to Advanced Placement and inspire students with a fuller appreciation of the American story," he added.

This is the bit from Wikipedia that raises questions for me:

Advocates of the launch of AP African American Studies argue the course will help attract more African American students to AP programs and will bolster minority scores. According to 2019 data, 32% of black students passed their AP exams compared to 44% of white and Asian students respectively. Some information regarding the course's structure and exam have not been released; College Board will reveal more about the course as the pilot program progresses. Additionally, College Board described that AP African American Students would further "[attract] Black and Latinx high school teachers"

If it's in line with other, established AP courses then good. But if it's being set up as an easy course to give black students a sure and soft pass, so that it will "bolster minority scores", then that's not good.

Imagine a hypothetical Irish-American Studies course. It could either be rigorous about the interconnections between Ireland and the USA, or it could be an easy course that relies heavily on stereotypes about Paddy's Day celebrations, Irish cops, the Kennedys, and the presentation of shamrock at the White House every year for Paddy's Day green beer corned beef and cabbage leprechauns gimme my A now thanks.

I don't know if Gates is telling the truth, but if he is, then DeSantis is in the wrong here.

I went through a link chain to figure out who/what Crenshaw was, and I ended up at the Time Magazine article, which does provide some useful context.

"While the Reconstruction era after the Civil War is often skimmed over in high school U.S. history classes, AP African American Studies delves into progress made at that time, as well as how the roots of today’s mass incarceration system can be traced back to that era."

That's where my alarm bells went off. Mass incarceration is critical race theory. It's a conspiracy theory which, depending on which version you hear, states that the reason 13% of the population makes up 52% of the arrests is that either A. they're not actually committing more crime, the police just have it out for them because they're black or B. they are committing more crime, but there's deliberate social conditioning to make them do it (because they're black).

I mean, I'm totally sympathetic to the claim that the existence of prison labor provides incentive to arrest more people and hold them for longer. I'm also sympathetic to the claim that people whose jobs depend on the existence of prison will try to arrest more people and hold them for longer to protect their job security. The part of mass incarceration that always loses me is when people make race a part of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the reason that America bought slaves from Africa wasn't because they had a pre-existing, innate antipathy towards Africans; it's because Africa was doing the selling. There is no similar reason I can think that would motivate the prison-industrial complex to go after black people, specifically. And every time I've asked a leftist to provide me with a reason, they just say "racism," and I've never found that satisfactory, because the vast majority of racists don't take pleasure in inflicting pain on a particular race for the sake of it, they're just indifferent to it and/or care about it less than they do pain inflicted upon members of their own race. I could argue that white people in power feel less guilty arresting black people than arresting white people, so they target black people to lesson their guilt over the horrors of the prison-industrial complex, but without any supporting evidence, I'm inclined to assume the other explanations for 1350 are more accurate. And even if the hypothesis I just created has truth to it, it doesn't connect to Reconstruction, like the paragraph says.

Sorry if I come across as dismissive in the above paragraph. I want to be more open-minded. f anyone reading this wants to make a case for racial mass incarceration as the result of systemic racism, I'd appreciate it and I promise not to belittle you.

states that the reason 13% of the population makes up 52% of the arrests

27% of all arrests. It's only in the 50% neighborhood for homicide, robbery, and gambling.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

Henry Louis Gates is the guy best known for attempting to break into his own house, then throwing a fit when a police officer stopped him, and then hung around for an hour until his identity could be confirmed.

That is what Henry Louis Gates is most famous for among poorly read people. And if you think he is some sort of wokester, you are sadly mistaken.

He has had a tv show for ~ 10 years, which he's surely more famous for than being arrested when his front door jammed.

Also many reasonable positions which support trusting him:

The enemy of individuality is groupthink, Gates says, and here he holds everyone accountable. Recently, he has enraged many of his colleagues in the African-American studies field—especially those campaigning for government reparations for slavery—by insistently reminding them, as he did in a New York Times op-ed last year, that the folks who captured and sold blacks into slavery in the first place were also Africans, working for profit. "People wanted to kill me, man," Gates says of the reaction to that op-ed. "Black people were so angry at me. But we need to get some distance from the binary opposition we were raised in: evil white people and good black people. The world just isn't like that."

(critical theory) that in fact is rarely taught below the graduate level...

To succeed on the pilot AP African American Studies test, students will have to understand the concept of intersectionality, a way of looking at discrimination through overlapping racial and gender identities, and know that while it was written about by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw—a leading thinker on critical race theory

Those absolute scumfuck liars. What else can you possibly say about the CRT gaslighting campaign at this point?

the history of the reparations movement and Black Lives Matter activism

Oh boy, I wonder what the "research" on those will be about.

in-depth lessons on the Black Panther Party’s free breakfast and medical programs, often seen as taboo topics to cover in class because critics historically smeared the group as violent and communist.

Of fucking course.

And just quoting them is banworthy, apparently. Looks like I was on the list.

Your comment is almost all heat.

I even happen to be in complete agreement with you that critical theorists, with the assistance of corporate media, are 100% gaslighting the American public on these matters. I share your anger about that. But the point of this space is not to vent our anger at one another or at our outgroups. There are times and places for that sort of thing, but this is the space where we try to have difficult discussions with people who disagree with us.

And you were just warned about this, not long after a ban of a day, and a ban of a week. You've got to cool down. This time you get two weeks to do it.

the history of the reparations movement

Gates, the guy speaking:

The enemy of individuality is groupthink, Gates says, and here he holds everyone accountable. Recently, he has enraged many of his colleagues in the African-American studies field—especially those campaigning for government reparations for slavery—by insistently reminding them, as he did in a New York Times op-ed last year, that the folks who captured and sold blacks into slavery in the first place were also Africans, working for profit. "People wanted to kill me, man," Gates says of the reaction to that op-ed. "Black people were so angry at me. But we need to get some distance from the binary opposition we were raised in: evil white people and good black people. The world just isn't like that."

It's rather even handed. He doesn't support the reparation movement!

I wonder when AP History classes on Nazism start covering Winterhilfswerk.

in-depth lessons on the Black Panther Party’s free breakfast and medical programs, often seen as taboo topics to cover in class because critics historically smeared the group as violent and communist.

Plenty of violent groups do good things for people in the 'hood. It gets them good publicity and a small core of supporters. Saddam Hussein created public welfare programs.

And Al Capone set up a soup kitchen precisely to repair his public image. That the Black Panthers were "smeared" as being violent and Communist is nonsense, they were Marxist-Leninist in ideology. As to violence, well - that's one of those 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' questions, but certainly they didn't think the struggle would be won by handing out flowers.

To add on to this, my understanding is that these supporters, esp. if geographically clustered well, enables the coverup of activities and other forms of support that allow the organisation to exist stably.

Some of it does make sense when one considers that many such societies started as kinship or mutual-aid organisations. It does seem like a pretty central modus operandi for underworld groups.

What reason would there be to not say what about the content was objectionable? Would it violate copyright, or some kind of NDA?

Perhaps it makes it more difficult for whatever kind of lawfare challenges Blue Tribers will inevitably try to throw at it. If you don't tell them why you're doing it, then when someone tries to file an injunction on you, you can retrodict your motivation to function as the hard counter to whichever statute they're lawfaring you under.

Idk, IANAL, but shenannegains amongst Boomers In Black Robes are often the reasons for obfuscation.

It’s a general pattern that Desantis tries to do this. On the other hand the Texas GOP(which is a far more oligarchic, established, and less personal right wing government) prefers to rely on ties to individual judges, good legal talent, and procedural limitations. It’s an interesting contrast between the two most powerful state GOPs- Desantis prefers to keep his opponents off balance through keeping details close to his chest, presumably because he hasn’t built the same level of control via party ties. I’m interpreting this to mean he has a limited amount of in-house talent and has to be careful about what he uses it for.

Black Robes, you say? ;)

I so desperately wanted that show to be good and it simply refused.

I think the time they made fun of Alex Jones over Sandy Hook was what did it fit me. In a world where all the conspiracies are true, where secret societies and reptilians control the world, where JR is already portrayed as a violent sociopath, why can't you have a joke about it? Why not a throwaway line like, "that really wasn't our best work," or, "I was working overtime for weeks trying to cover it up." It's a betrayal of the premise, one of many, that eventually made me drop the show.

I think part of the lore is that people fixate on the fake conspiracies instead of the real ones. Flat earth is, in-universe, a psy-op created to prevent people from learning about the secret world under the Earth's surface.

"The Earth's not flat, it's hollow," is fine in-universe, but "Alex Jones is a wackadoodle for thinking Sandy Hook is a hoax," isn't. It would be the same as saying, "the Earth's not flat, it's exactly what everyone says it has always been, nothing to see here."

In-universe, it makes no sense for Sandy Hook to be just a school shooting. It needs to be some group doing something for some purpose. I don't care who it is, or why, but it's disappointing that they have no problem saying Kennedy was assassinated by the deep state, but can't say that the deep state murdered children for gun control (or child sacrifice! or they kidnapped them to feed to reptilians!).

A betrayal of the premise, and one that I couldn't move past.

You know what? That's completely reasonable. I appreciate your take.

Remember, sometimes when they want to finish a hit piece with "X did not reply to requests for comments at press time", they literally just called the person's office outside of business hours 5 minutes before releasing the article, making the claim technically true. There's been some drama on twitter about this, with journos coming down on the side of "you can't call it a lie!"

Do you have a Twitter link?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats