southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2010 -> 01:16 PM) You're lucky you don't teach in Arizona, I could get you fired. Hell in Texas you could get him lynched... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Hell in Texas you could get him lynched... He's white and employed. People like that don't get the death penalty in TX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) He's white and employed. People like that don't get the death penalty in TX. I'm not talking about the death penalty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:26 PM) I'm not talking about the death penalty... Ok, he's white. They don't get lynched in the south either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) Ok, he's white. They don't get lynched in the south either. Yeah, about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective? Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865. I'm not African American and neither was the teacher. Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Turning back the other way, what if the classes were anti-minority in focus, such as a KKK class on black history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) 3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective? Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865. I'm not African American and neither was the teacher. Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class? I took an early African history class (basically everything until about 1600 and not in Egypt) and the teacher was this 5 foot nothing pale, white haired old white woman who apparently studied in North Africa for years. Good class. Woman was crazy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) 3 Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. What does this mean exactly? Is Hispanic history only for Hispanics? Is black history only for blacks? Isn't this purely subjective? Great point. At UIC, I took African American History since 1865. I'm not African American and neither was the teacher. Is it wrong to divide history up to teach it? You could divide it by time period, gender, race, religion, location (co/state). What about literature. Is a Women's lit class wrong? What about a Hispanic Lit class? Please read my post. There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching history of a particular ethnic group as long as it is open to everyone. So your class would not be covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) Turning back the other way, what if the classes were anti-minority in focus, such as a KKK class on black history? It would not be permitted either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (G&T @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) Please read my post. There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching history of a particular ethnic group as long as it is open to everyone. So your class would not be covered. I think there's a difference between what you say here and what the law appears to say...you say "open to everyone", the law says "Primarily designed" for one ethnic group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 07:10 AM) "if it ain't white, it just ain't right" i have a novelty shirt that says that. i wear it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 14, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) So because there are no references to Mexicans regarding the Revolutionary War, you think it is ok to teach them that American 'stole' part of their country and such? To be divisive? All this does is fuel the racial animosity even more by trying to give them victim status. After the Tejanos defeated Mexico and gained their independence there was a dispute over where the boundary was between the Republic of Texas and Mexico. The US claimed the Rio Grande River, Mexico claimed the Nueces River. Since Mexico did not recognize the Republic as legal and valid, they never really pursued the issue. Later, when the US annexed the Republic of Texas, tensions started. With manifest destiny on every one's lips, the US basically taunted and provoked Mexico into a war. After winning the war, the US took over about half of Mexico's land. Whether you want to use the word stole or not, we were a conquering army. The public believed that God wanted the US to stretch from sea to shining sea. About 1/4th of the lower 48 is land that formerly was Mexico. Our motivation for the war was to take land from Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (G&T @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) It would not be permitted either. I know it wouldn't be permitted under this law, I am just curious how far the freedom of education goes in people's minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) I know it wouldn't be permitted under this law, I am just curious how far the freedom of education goes in people's minds. What freedom of education? With all the standardized tests, fewer and fewer choices of textbooks, everyone winds up teaching about the same stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) After the Tejanos defeated Mexico and gained their independence there was a dispute over where the boundary was between the Republic of Texas and Mexico. The US claimed the Rio Grande River, Mexico claimed the Nueces River. Since Mexico did not recognize the Republic as legal and valid, they never really pursued the issue. Later, when the US annexed the Republic of Texas, tensions started. With manifest destiny on every one's lips, the US basically taunted and provoked Mexico into a war. After winning the war, the US took over about half of Mexico's land. Whether you want to use the word stole or not, we were a conquering army. The public believed that God wanted the US to stretch from sea to shining sea. About 1/4th of the lower 48 is land that formerly was Mexico. Our motivation for the war was to take land from Mexico. If you like Mexico so much then why don't you marry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) That would be the Mexican-American war that we started. check this out a painting of the US occupying Mexico City. wish i could have been there. bask in a most noble victory over the clueless Spaniards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:45 PM) check this out a painting of the US occupying Mexico City. wish i could have been there. bask in a most noble victory over the clueless Spaniards. The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico. They don't speak English, therefore, they must be clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:51 PM) They don't speak English, therefore, they must be clueless. But if you speak Spanish slowly and loudly. people will understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) What freedom of education? With all the standardized tests, fewer and fewer choices of textbooks, everyone winds up teaching about the same stuff. Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) The Spainiards were kicked out in 1821, this was Mexico. toh-may-toh toh-mah-toh either way, still a most righteous win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 02:59 PM) Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left. I just remember so much more flexibility in scheduling when I was in High School. Now they have all these programs from scholars to whatever and you get like 3 or 4 electives in four years. And the craziest of all are the "required electives". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2010 Author Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Well if the history of Chicano's in America is being taught, there are some electives left. Frankly, if you want to really allow that population to "naturalize", that's exactly what you should be teaching in some of these areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 14, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) toh-may-toh toh-mah-toh either way, still a most righteous win. Nice to see the US could kick the same ass that Texas kicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts