The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Teachers Union: Oppose Bill Mandating Teaching Dangers of Communism Because Many Communist Countries Are Asian
From Fox News (Bradford Betz) last week:
Virginia Democrats last week rejected a bill that would have required schools to teach about the dangers and victims of communism after the state's largest teachers union argued that it may encourage anti-Asian sentiment.
Emily Yen, a research coordinator for the Virginia Education Association (VEA), said the union opposed HB 1816 because four out of five current communist regimes are in Asian countries.
"We are concerned that this bill would subject Asian-American students to anti-Asian sentiments," she said.
Today the five remaining communist regimes are China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam—all in East Asia—as well as Cuba, which is in the Caribbean.
The proposed bill would have required public schools to "suitably observe[] Nov. 7 as Victims of Communism Day"; would have taken the existing provision that, "The Board of Education shall include in the Standards of Learning for history and social science the study of contributions to society of diverse people" (with "diverse" defined to "include[] consideration of disability, ethnicity, race, and gender"), and added "and the study of the dangers of communism"; and would have required school boards to include that in part of the curriculum that they developed.
That seems reasonable to me: Teaching about the dangers of communism strikes me as comparably important to teaching about the dangers of, say, Nazism—which I presume Virginia schools do in the history of World War II—or specifically about the Holocaust, which I understand Virginia schools are also required to do. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Naturally, any such teaching should be done honestly and thoughtfully, as real history rather than propaganda; but it sounds like an important lesson that Virginia students should learn.
But whatever you might think of whether this should be mandated by state educational standards, the Virginia Education Association's argument quoted above is ridiculous. Of course, any history of the dangers of communism would talk about the atrocities of European (Russian-led) Communism at least as much as of Asian Communism, and would note that the victims of Asian Communism were overwhelmingly themselves Asian (as the victims of European Communism were overwhelmingly themselves European).
But beyond that, history is history, and needs to be taught regardless of whether some fools do racist things because of it. Are we going to stop learning about World War II or 9/11 because those might lead to attacks on Japanese-Americans or American Muslims? No, wait, let's not give anyone any ideas ….
In any event, I decided to check to make sure that the VEA spokeswoman's statements were quoted correctly. Here's the answer from her:
There are several peer-reviewed research studies suggesting that Asian American students have faced an increased amount of racial discrimination since the start of the pandemic. Since China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba are the only countries that currently have communist regimes, there is a strong association between communism and Asians. One of the reasons the Virginia Education Association opposed HB 1816 was out of concern that students of Asian descent would be subjected to additional anti-Asian sentiment.
For more examples of this, see the China Kinda Sus incident (Emerson College) and the Univ. of San Diego Law School Investigating Professor for Post Critical of China incident. Thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This seems more about symbolic red-baiting than an actual issue with teaching about Communism is bad.
We don’t need a law teaching Nazis were bad. Or the Mongols. This is solving a problem that is not established to exist. But the right wants it to exist, so let’s gooooo!
Dunno if I’d care enough to oppose it, but it seems pretty silly.
We don’t need those laws, but we have some of them anyway. The Mongols are — I think rightly — viewed as no longer a plausible threat, whereas Nazis and Communists are very much still around and virulent. Do we need states to demand their schools teach the evils of slavery?
You forget that the Nazi form of oppression and murder is bad, but the communist form of oppression and murder is benevolent and kind.
If a professor showed up and proudly claimed to be a Nazi, he be ridden off campus on a rail. But openly communist professors are a dime a dozen and nobody cares. I’ve never understood why.
Along with the fact that communism killed 4x-10x the number of humans killed by nazism.
Sarcastr0: "But it was for a good cause! Stop red-baiting!!!"
the Nazi form of oppression and murder is bad, but the communist form of oppression and murder is benevolent and kind.
Nobody thinks this, nobody says this.
The ignorant young call themselves socialists, and don't really track the USSR or China as their model.
Right. Their role model just tracks how the founders of those communist regimes started out.
What role model?
I think they're actually interested in public health care, a strong social safety net and action on climate change.
What are you trying to sy?
The Menshiviks were also socialists for all the good that did them.
And the USSR no longer exists
I was pretty clear:
Nobody thinks 'the Nazi form of oppression and murder is bad, but the communist form of oppression and murder is benevolent and kind.' Nobody says that either.
Tankies have no voice in society. They are not teaching school.
Commies had/have better press agents
"This seems more about symbolic red-baiting than an actual issue with teaching about Communism is bad."
Any evidence, or just your gut?
Look up what seems means, chief.
"Appears to be true, probable, or evident" based on what, chief?
I talk to people. high school teachers, kids. I was also a kid myself once.
The USSR and its evils is not left out of history. At least not in the DCMA. I haven't spoken deeply enough to be sure of exactly at what level it's covered, but history does not stop in 1952.
"based on what, chief?"
Unverifiable sources who just happen to totally agree with his position.
More to the point, if there were even a single actual Nazi in academia, it would be all over the news. But a plethora of actual Marxists and at least a few self-proclaimed Communists such as Angela Davis? Good, more of 'em!
It's been 60 years since Davis says they're a communist, maybe don't use the present tense?
"says"
Leopards removing spots.
Only if you haven't read anything of hers in the last 60 years.
So now we're just taking wrongthink and labeling it communist.
Scratch a red-baiter, find a wannabe tyrant.
red-baiter?
Explain yourself, because you seem to use the term as a convenient shibboleth to throw darts at.
ABC said that Angela Davis was a 'self-proclaimed Communists.' When I noted that she hasn't been that since the 1970s, ABC switched to saying her current writing shows she's a communist.
Her current writing is about race relations. ABC is just talking out of his ass calling that writing communist.
Calling things and people communist because they are not is redbaiting.
He is doing so in an attempt to argue Communists are all over the place in present academia, requiring authoritarian action. To purge these commies he claims are around with weak proof.
That's a flask of whiskey away from being worthy of McCarthy hisself.
Hence, scratch a redbaiter, find a wannabe tyrant.
Interesting that on "Finding Your Roots" with Henry Louis Gates, Davis discovered that one of her ancestors came over on the "Pasty White" Mayflower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K-Atl0POTc
Now will she have to pay herself reparations?
See, this is why black people will never, ever, ever vote for Republicans in significant numbers. They say ignorant shit like this. Because a white slaveowner impregnating a black slave is a joke to them, and a gotcha, not a rape, and even though everyone knows it happened, it's still shocking to be confronted with evidence that it happened to your family.
She had two white grandparents, nobody was raped and her grandparents weren't slaveowners either, though apparently prior ancestors were.
She had one white grandfather, and one slave-owning great-great x 4 grandfather.
I love how you just assume that colored woman is a slave descendent.
Lol
A black woman whose descendants go back to the Mayflower? And you are claiming it's way out there to assume there are slaves in her ancestry? And you're suggesting the assumption is... offensive? I offer this as exhibit B.
Dear ChatGPT, how many slaves came on the Mayflower?
ok, let's be accurate -- Jamestown was founded in 1607 and -- allegedly -- that was where the Mayflower was bound. Either navigtional error (I doubt) or a desire to be alone put them in Massachusetts instead. On the sand dunes of Cape Cod -- 50 miles further north would have been fertile soil...
But this was 1620 -- Salem was something like 1626? and Boston (which took over) was 1630.
While 1619 is bullbleep, the argument is that it was the 1607 colony IN VIRGINIA importing slaves, and not the Mayflower...
You don’t need Angela Davis. Bernie Sanders has been working in political roles since before electricity. Finished 2nd in the last two Democratic nominating processes.
And yeah, yeah he says he’s a Democratic Socialist now, but that’s just bullshit. He spent the 70s and 80s extolling the virtues of Cuba and the Soviet Union. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck….
Bernie Sanders: Communist?!
Even his socialism is milquetoast European level.
No, Sanders is not going to advocate for a neo-USSR.
And yeah, yeah he says he’s a Democratic Socialist now, but that’s just bullshit. He spent the 70s and 80s extolling the virtues of Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Oh for Pete's sake, Bevis.
That's some serious mind-reading you're doing there.
What communist policies is Sanders supporting these days?
I’ve seen Bernie, on video, within the last two years, say explicitly that all high level energy executives should be sent to prison. A real class warrior.
You actually assert that he isn’t one?
Look, I sort of admire Bernie. He’s cantankerous, and he’s basically mostly straightforward. But he’s absolutely a communist.
Post a link.
How about a tweet: "Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused.". First page googling for "bernie oil executives prison".
That was on 22Aug2019. From the comments, it seems like he is referring just to producing oil in general rather than a spill or whatever, but I'm open to persuasion if it followed some particular disaster.
From the comments, eh?
I'm sure you can tell this is a far cry from 'say explicitly that all high level energy executives should be sent to prison.'
That tweet is not aligned with the following: explicitly, all, and energy.
I am open to the counter argument that he was in fact inaptly saying 'Shell Oil executives (as opposed to fossil fuel executives in general) should be prosecuted for their negligence in some specific disaster. I'm just not aware of such a disaster prior to his comments, and the comments also don't mention any specific disaster.
"That tweet is not aligned with the following: explicitly, all, and energy."
'explicitly': It seems pretty explicit to me. Are you quibbling about 'should be prosecuted' vs 'sent to prison'? We hopefully only prosecute people we think should be in prison.
'all': He doesn't seem to be singling out some subset ('oil company executives who don't follow environmental regulations'). What subset of fossil fuel executives do you think he doesn't want prosecuted?
'energy': I'm trying to guess what the objection is. Are you saying that he only wants to jail fossil fuel executives, but not nuke or solar executives? Fair enough, but it still doesn't make Bernie look good. Politicians should not, full stop, be advocating putting people in prison for activities that weren't crimes at the time the activity happened. If he wants to make it illegal to be an oil company executive, fine, pass a law, and then prosecute any who don't resign before the effective date. But no making up 'enemies of the people' retroactively.
Legal arguments aside, I'm also not sure why he thinks that oil company employees are any more culpable than oil company customers.
I took it as an prosecute if they knew about the collateral damage they’re causing.
It is not explicit about ‘all high level energy executives should be sent to prison’. There’s a bunch of modifiers to that. Due process, knowingly…none of that was required, and yet all of it was included. You’re working hard to read those out of the statement.
You’re reading ‘all’ into the statement, but the language is narrowing, not broadening. Knowingly is a limiting qualifier no matter how you read it.
Plenty of energy execs who don’t do fossil fuel, as you noted.
My thesis is *not* that this makes Bernie look good. My thesis is that the tweet you offer comes nowhere near what bevis accused Bernie of. In service of saying Bernie is a Commie in the mold of Stalin, might I add.
This is all getting in the weeds of this thesis: Bernie Sanders is not communist. His policies are European state level socialism.
"I took it as an prosecute if they knew about the collateral damage they’re causing."
That's the problem. You don't put car execs in jail because they know people die in wrecks, or distillery execs in jail because they know about cirrhosis. It's legal to knowingly do legal things.
It isn't illegal to run an oil company. And Bernie knows that. And for that matter he knows he can't pass a law banning fossil fuels, because people don't like to walk or shiver. Bernie, in fact, uses fossil fuels himself. Saying the people that provide those to him ought to be in prison ought to be beyond the pale for a senator.
It isn’t illegal to run an oil company. And Bernie knows that.
If you're knowingly causing destruction, that becomes a closer question. Hence, presumably, the language Sanders used.
I don't agree with his populism myself, but you're barking up the wrong tree calling him a communist.
Bevis and S_0,
Let's define terms.
In your eyes what is a communist. And don't say someone who follows the rules of the USSR Circa 1985 or who follows Chairman Xi. Be specific rather than tossing around slogans
I take my definition from Marx. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ via state control of all aspects of the economy. I would expand that to include states and people that take that mantle. Cuba, USSR, Mao’s China…not modern China, despite what they claim – they’re some hybrid situation, though still authoritarian as hell.
Not a lot of communists in America.
Socialism, according to Marx: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution’ via workers’ control of most aspects of the economy. I don’t really follow that definition of socialism, being more into the European definition of a strong welfare state.
Those who call the New Deal socialist are fools.
"We don’t need a law teaching Nazis were bad"
How many schools teach about the horrors of the Holocaust and WWII? How many teach about the horrors of Communism?
Stop beclowning yourself.
No, you tell me...how many? Show me there is a problem before you decree to solve it.
The horrors are inherent, or they're not being taught properly, like the horrors of religious wars, or the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the post-9-11 wars. The horror and waste and futility and folly are unavoidable.
Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of oh-so-socially-just Millennials who have *neither* heard about the Holocaust *nor* Pol Pot's Killing Fields.
Fortunately, they all have smart phones and can bring up the .jpgs -- and trust me enough to believe that those pictures are real -- but still, it is truly scary...
you’d be surprised at the number of oh-so-socially-just Millennials who have *neither* heard about the Holocaust *nor* Pol Pot’s Killing Fields.
No, I wouldn't, because you're pulling bullshit out of your hat again.
Republicans have given up on governing and believe they're getting another shot on ruling.
So all they can do is horse shit like this - not even a wedge issue, just grist for a 2 minute Fox spot. Meanwhile, shitty schools get shittier and more people come to think jingoism is civics and tribal identity is destiny.
But hey, our host is still hoping to sit next to the cool kids like Bart O'Kavenaugh someday. He tied his lot to the tribe who aspires to the authoritarianism his family fled, too late to change now.
So we get obvious horse shit like this as part of his proving his PR-safety to his betters.
Why do you think government schools just keep on getting shittier ans shittier?
Deliberate Republican sabotage.
lol, what rank are you in the CCP?
You do realize thar journalism and academics red-washed the USSR and Maoist China so as to preserve the brand, right? Walter Duranty, anyone? Herbert Marcus? Paulo Frieri?
Or their acolytes like Henri Giroux or Angela Davis, etc?
The family tree of leftist/Communist/Marxist thought leaders is littered with academics.
To think that they have been objectively teaching or reporting about the Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution, Lysenkoism, etc requires some really think blinders.
Just as Nazis and Neo-Nazis today try to cover up, justify, or minimize the Holocaust, true believers in the Way of the Red do the very same thing. A former coworker of mine (HS history teacher just last year) would make very explicit statements about how it was totally justified to destroy the lives of those he considered exploiters via capitalism even to the point of saying that the would would be decidedly better if they were dead.
And before you claim him a crank... the other history teacher in my subject nodded along in agreement. And this is in a "red state." I can only imagine the types of teachers one would find in blue states.
I realize that happened in like the 1970s and 80s. Well before I was reading.
Acolytes, eh? Again, your grievances are not high school teachers, and also your grievances are old as fuck.
Invoking Nazis does not help your case. Do we have legislation banning Holocaust denial in the classroom?
Paulo Friere is one of the most prominent sources used in pedagogy classes in colleges of ed across the US. Henri Giroux proudly boasts of having gotten over 100 Marxists tenured as ed profs in the 90s. Those profs have perpetuated their ideology as seen in the rise of critical theory (all forms) as the underlying "truth" of leftists today (as opposed to liberalism of yester-year).
Institutional capture has effects long after the capture is complete... In fact that is the WHY of such capture.
And yeah... it is "some" not all. But it only needs to be "some" for the issue to exist counter to your claim of this just being nothing other than GOP culture masterbation.
And the some is, quite frankly, a lot more than you seem to want to admit. After all, do to human nature and our compliance tendencies, it does not take "a lot" to begin to skew the conversation. And once that is done you start to skew the general understanding of issues.
As for the Nazi example... you moved those goalposts pretty quickly. The Holocaust is mandated to be taught. There is not a law outlawing denial. The law in question mandates teaching of atrocities carried out by and in the name of Communism. It does not outlaw denial. But it is the existence of deniers in both cases that prompt the move to demand that history not be erased in both cases so as to prevent a repeat of them.
As further proof of the need... every year I ask my students if they had heard of Hitler. Nearly all (and very sadly a decreasing number each year) have and know him for the Holocaust. None of them, save maybe 2 or 3 exceptionally self-motivated students, have ever heard the names Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or even Castro. That imbalance should cause someone to at least stop and scratch their head. That it causes you to jump to the defense of such an imbalance is... curious.
This is a conspiracy theory. Like Bircher-level shit.
The Holocaust is mandated to be taught
Is it?
The Font of All Knowledge has a list of 23 states that mandate teaching it, including Sparkstable's OK.
You do realize thar journalism and academics red-washed the USSR and Maoist China so as to preserve the brand, right? Walter Duranty, anyone? Herbert Marcus? Paulo Frieri?
Oh wow. Some journalists - not "journalism" - and some academics covered up or minimized atrocities. That's never happened before or since with other such cases. RIght?
OP claimed the problem did not exist ergo there is no other reason for these laws other than chest thumping.
Existence of examples where such a law would stop the red-washing proves at least the possibility of other, legit reasons for the law.
Those possibilities having been established and often cited by defenders of such a law therefore requires a rebuttal to that, and not a hand wave accompanied by a "Nuh-uh!"
Ok, Bernard. Why? Why is Nazism shunned on campus and in politics while communism is not? The philosophy and the actions of the two are equally vile.
The truth is the heads of teacher unions have a soft spot for the USSR and communism. Many of them have ancestry from that area and still harbor wishes that Trotsky won out versus Stalin. The left controls public sector unions and hence the desire to spread marxism and today cultural marxism.
My mother-in-law was taught the dangers on communism when she was a child, in an Asian country, by the Communists.
But I hope they don't use the same curriculum, which was in a nutshell: kill her father, separate her from her mother, and make her and her siblings walk over a 100 miles to a "commune" and work on a farm paid only in starvation rations. She was 13 and the oldest of 4 siblings.
She told my wife that when they were working in the fields, and they found something to eat,they quickly learned grab it eat it raw immediately, grasshopper, snail, lizard or frog. The people who brought something back and tried to cook it were informed upon and then beaten or killed.
It's anti-Asian not to teach the dangers of communism.
They are opposed because teaching the evils and dangers of state control reflects poorly on the democrats.
What is Democrats' current push for "equity" but warmed-over communism?
It is not even proper Leninism. It is just mealy-mind thinking.
I think that you don't even know what the DEI definition of equity is
Correct. Teaching against communism is, to some degree, teaching against leftism and the Democrat platform.
You're just lost in your own fantasy land. Trump won the election, Hunter Biden's laptop has evidence of child abuse, and the Democrats are all communists.
Wow. Is that stupid. You've outdone yourself.
Kinda ironic, since many Asian-Americans are here fleeing communism.
https://nypost.com/2023/02/11/north-korea-defector-yeonmi-park-slams-woke-us-ideology/
"Virginia Democrats last week rejected a bill that would have required schools to teach about the dangers and victims of communism..."
Of course. Why would they want to criticize their chosen philosophy.
You are the target audience of this blog.
And the reason its Conspirators operate at the disaffected, disrespected fringe of modern legal academia.
Please, tell us more about the "liberal-libertarian mainstream" (that, for some strange reason, has a problem with teaching the history of Communism).
The liberal-libertarian mainstream. The people who have kicked the everlasting, bigoted shit out of conservatives in the culture war. The people who have shaped our national progress and right-wing efforts and preferences for more than a half-century. The people this blog and its followers whine about incessantly.
At least they are consistently dishonest.
Just say you hunger for the fruits of others' labor and you never want the banquet to end.
Professor “history is history” missed some Florida developments but is on top of this situation!
Carry on, clingers. So far as cherry-picked partisanship, blatant hypocrisy, and being on the wrong side of history and the losing side of the culture war permit.
Jerry, you know, the 576, 956th time you say that gets pretty old
I don't disagree but you should be the last one complaining. I don't know if you noticed but most of your comments are reruns of manic, disorganized nonsense phrases (Man!).
I respond to the same old partisan polemics and cowardly hypocrisy, placed on a rerun loop by a right-wing blog that is mostly mailing it in these days.
What side of history is Central Planning, Statism and Communism?
Among the many demerits of the union's position (ably canvassed by EV) is this: it is appallingly ignorant of how racial bias manifest itself. Does anyone actually attribute communistic (and repressive) government to some innate racial characteristic of Asians? All my life, the Vietnamese I've known are boat people or their descendants. Not Communists! China is many, many things. But if you go to a market in Beijing to watch locals ply their trade, the term "Communist" is very unlikely to enter your mind. North Korea is an example that speaks for itself.
I'm not sure which is worse: that these alleged educators actually believe this pablum, or the gnawing suspicion that they don't.
They don't. Ben nailed it above. They're getting the fruits of others' labor through redistribution via taxation, and they like it that way. Plus they get to indoctrinate others' children into their sick ideology, so this gets perpetuated forever! (Well, at least as long as there are enough others still willing to actually work for a living...)
“Redistribution of taxation” in this case means “receiving a salary for work”. There are plenty ways to criticize communism with out being ridiculous.
A certain Penn law professor comes to mind...
No, but classes that are less about teaching history and more about how, say, 'communist China is inherently evil and they want to kill us all' are a bit, well, Maoist, ironically.
I think the concern is about national origin more than race.
Though this is quite silly, so who knows. I do know some leftists who cry sinophobia whenever anyone cricizes China...
Not to mention a Supreme Court case coming up. Is this some bizarre effort to try to mislead the justices into thinking educators actually care about anti-Asian discrimination?
I suspect the real reason is that so many teachers/professors are communists, or at least sympathizers, and have woven the glories of collective State action into their curriculum.
I think Marx should sue the PRC and Vietnam for trademark infringement for calling themselves communist.
Not sure NK really qualifies either ... was Marx into hereditary dynasties? And NK seems to be rather missing the 'to each according to their need' part, too (although, in fairness, all the historical communist regimes have ended up with well off apparatchiks and everyone else struggling. I don't think you can distinguish robber baron capitalism from communism by looking at the income distribution).
Then you aren't trying very hard.
John D. Rockefeller made his fortune by raising the country's living standard. If you tote up how much better off people were with cheaper energy and more lighting, it puts Rockefeller's fortune into the spare change category.
Whereas every socialist regime has ended in ruin.
As will ours (and probably sooner than we think).
I think our Constitution and more-or-less guaranteed two- and four-year elections will allow fiscal reality to save us ... eventually. It's going to be a mess for a long time, regardless.
I think the point is that not even China, ostensibly ruled by the CCP, isn't "communist" in practice. These days it is essentially a run-of-the-mill authoritarian capitalist vehicle for well-connected Chinese elites.
It's not that "real communism has never been tried", but that no one is even bothering anymore.
Robber Barons good, actually.
Good lord, man.
Capitalism can be good without every single thing involved being good. We bust monopolies these days for a reason, and too much freedom and progress ain't it.
Show me a single robber baron who actually made society worse.
Show me a single socialist who actually made society better.
You can't. You can only cherry pick individual episodes which made select subsets better or worse. You may as well point out that Hitler liked dogs for all the value it adds to the discussion.
Whichever socialists created public health care and social safety nets. As opposed to whatever robber barons persuaded the US public that an unnecessary middleman getting between you and your health care and absolutely minting it is 'freedom,' or whatever robber barons persuaded the US that helping poor people is evil and giving billionaires more and more tax cuts is good.
Ask everyone in a socialist health care regime who goes out of country for vital surgery if they agree with you.
Ask everyone who got more light and energy from Rockefeller how much they'd prefer paying more for less.
Your absolutes are absolutely wrong.
Ask everyone who doesn't.
Show me a single robber baron who actually made society worse.
All of them. They emmiserated just about all of their workers. Their corruption basically ruined the railroad industry. The awful things they did to rivers and the air. They distorted our democracy to make their money, and then tried to buy absolution.
Not quite the same era, but same energy is GM dismantling public transportation in SF for no reason other than profit, which messed up that city.
You can have capitalism and not love you some monopolistic tyrants.
Honestly, you complain about money in politics and rich elites then demand to know what harm robber barons ever possibly caused. We have the modern drug war because some robber baron didn't want hemp competing with his paper mills.
That evil comes from governments enabling corruption. You statists can only imagine more government as a fix.
Who has the power, businesses or government? Who sets the terms of the contest, who is the referree?
Wake up and smell reality for a change. Stop thinking government is the victim and not the bully.
The corruption comes from private companies suborning governments to act in their interests, not in the interests of the people. Imagine what they'd do with no restraints on them and a populace deprived of any say. Oh, you don't have to, we've seen what oil companies do in Africa and South America and what tech companies do in East Asia and Africa. Not to mention assorted child labour cases emerging in US red states.
If the people in government weren't so eager to sell their power, there wouldn't be any buyers, now would there be?
Chicken/egg - keep big business out of politics.
We should give the same people who corruptly sell their power, more power to control people so they won’t be so corrupt! We have to give these corrupt powerful people total power so they won’t act corruptly!!!
lmao
Good one bootlicker!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I can find where the US "busted" a monopoly was 1982, over four decades ago.
Unless you're referring to the current litigation against Meta? In which case "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
It's not quite as dire as you say - we have denied merger permision plenty. But also allowed it in some head-scratching areas.
And I just read about a big publisher merger denied because of anticompetitive issues not with customers but with authors - the employees. Interesting new vistas over there.
But by and large, your point is right - our trustbusting is quite anemic these days compared to the past.
I think that one needs to distinguish between 19th century "marxism" of Marx and Feuerbach and the institutional realization of the basic concepts by Lenin and Mao.
"Today the five remaining communist regimes are China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam—all in East Asia—as well as Cuba, which is in the Caribbean."
And please God they will all soon be freed of the yoke of Red Tyranny. If that makes me racist, so be it.
That seems reasonable to me: Teaching about the dangers of communism strikes me as comparably important to teaching about the dangers of, say, Nazism—which I presume Virginia schools do in the history of World War II—or specifically about the Holocaust, which I understand Virginia schools are also required to do.
I don’t think it is even workable to frame a historical assignment in the form: “Teach about the dangers of (whatever).”
Teach whatever history you think merits attention. But you can’t begin with a conclusion, and then reason from that to discover presumed facts from the past which delivered your starting point. It isn't that you cannot do that because there is some rule against it. It is because it is impossible to do.
So we can't teach that Nazis were bad?
Or, perhaps, we looked at the historical record and concluded mass murder, oppression, etc were bad.
Just because we know the conclusion doesn't mean we started with it. But once it is known and proven, there seems little reason to rehash the process by which we got there save for when new evidence or reasoning is provided. But for general knowledge for the populous... we don't prove 2+2=4 to little kids... we just tell them it is because it is. If they want to get in the weeds when they are older they can.
sparkstable, how do you justify the word, "teach," unless you purport to know? An answer to the question how you know seems necessary to suppose you are positioned to teach.
If you say the Nazis were bad, does that preclude that the Italian Fascists were bad? Can you say what teaching would result if they were compared? Should we group those two with the Spanish Fascists, and throw in Vichy French Fascism, and teach the subject thus, "Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad?" What does doing it that way improve?
Or more generally, should the lesson for little kids be that 2 + 2 = 4, and likewise 2 + 3 = 4?
I am perhaps unfair to your comments. My frame of reference is specific. It has become a famous puzzle among historians that study of Fascism stretching by now over generations has failed to turn up consensus to say definitively what Fascism is. The only approach to that question left standing is to do what you seem to oppose, which is to say in detail what happened in each disparate case. Apparently, we must let such accounts stand together as the answer to define the genre.
To whatever extent that example may inform treatment of ideological questions in history, it seems to caution against attempts to resort to an ideology as a means to define what the ideology teaches.
I will say one more thing to illustrate an advantage that happens when history remembers to be cautious about ideological verities. Capitalism is a widely celebrated ideology, as you can see even in this thread. History has delivered striking support for celebration. While capitalism has been practiced, advances in world-wide material wellbeing have become commonplace. Capitalism and material advance have risen together, and seem clearly related.
As it happens, history also shows another social practice which developed alongside capitalism, with dates and places of inception fairly closely matched, and improvements in material wellbeing which necessarily seem to match dates and places which point to capitalism's contributions. That other practice is, if anything, even more directly related to material improvements than capitalism itself. That other practice is industrialism.
It is not an easy thing for a historian to disentangle capitalism from industrialism, or even to say with certainty that they are not two manifestations of a single phenomenon. But comparative study does show examples that teach the two cannot be equivalent. There have been times and places where advances in industrialism have been applied by anti-capitalists, who were also seeking national material advance, and got striking success when they tried.
The Soviet Union after WW I furnishes one such example. China following WW II supplies another. What to make of that remains a contested question, but it could not become a question at all without willingness to set aside for the sake of discussion the ideological arguments which promote capitalism.
" It has become a famous puzzle among historians that study of Fascism stretching by now over generations has failed to turn up consensus to say definitively what Fascism is."
Sparkstable didn't say 'Fascism' was bad. He said that the Nazis (and in context, I think he is referring to the Third Reich in particular, not, say, Illinois Nazis or John Cleese). If you think that 'the Third Reich was bad' is a difficult, nuanced question with arguments on both sides, we'll just have to disagree.
Absaroka, we argue toward the same conclusion. A difference between our arguments is that if 400 years hence yours became the sole historical survival of this debate from our time, your argument would baffle everyone. Unless an argument such as mine also survived. Mine would bring with it through time the power to explain yours. Your comment ignored that I had chosen to respond to Sparkstable in historical context.
Your commentary often shows command of critical thinking. In this case, you have inadvertently demonstrated difficulties which can accompany attempts to apply critical thinking across disparate time frames.
The key critical thinking question will always be, “How do I know that?” In present context that question can sometimes (as in the Nazi case, considered now, in the US) be satisfied by the answer, “Because it is evident from present context.”
You can never expect that answer to remain reliable indefinitely, or even for long. Whatever present context exists at any given moment is destined shortly to be forgotten almost completely, and replaced later by something we cannot even imagine.
Whatever survivals from our time make it into that later era will arrive there without any trace of today’s context of creation remaining. That universal condemnation of Nazis upon which you rely will disappear, not necessarily because it will be overturned, but because an unknown future packed with its own thoughts and occurrences will crowd out the memory of it.
What do you suppose would happen 400 years hence to interpretation of your Nazi argument, if 100 years hence other apologists for some similar ideology revive in popularity? Suppose they spark a notably successful world-wide movement to proselytize that Nazi-adjacent ideology.
One effect you probably do not expect would be time conflation. There would be difficulty to say in 2423 whether your argument was somehow a goad to that later movement of 2123, in defiance of it, or unaccountably a response to it, indicating a possibility that the later movement began earlier than supposed.
Because of time conflation, the mid-20th century is probably destined to be remembered as the era of the cowboy and the atom bomb. Present-minded interpretations of history deliver such retrospective confusions in abundance. The granularity of history tends to be seen in bigger chunks when viewed from longer historical removes.
Interpretations which rely only on present-minded context of creation are thus destined to be interpreted, willy-nilly and successively, on the basis of the present-minded context of every future era which ensues. Present-minded thinkers in those eras will adjust continuously the meanings attributed to historical survivals.
If you can consider that, and remain complacent about your method to condemn Nazis out of hand, and without elaboration, then perhaps it would be useful to reflect whether present context is as uniform world-wide as your personal experience of it might lead you to insist. Are middle-eastern despots and their followers as likely as you to condemn Nazis?
The point I meant to develop when I began this comment is that heedless use of shared present context is not reliable enough to form a basis for ideology—even present ideology, let alone enduring world-wide ideology of the sort ideologues imagine they espouse. It may serve adequately to support casual remarks. But I do not think Sparkstable thinks he offers casual remarks. He seems a committed ideologue of a fairly extreme sort. Hence this rebuttal.
“How do I know that?”
I know the Third Reich was bad because:
A)my male relatives all served in the military in WWII, and have been shot at by Germans
B)I have seen the crematoria with my own eyes.
We lived in Germany in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding.
"your method to condemn Nazis out of hand"
You know what? I really am completely OK with my method of condemning the Third Reich out of hand. You do you, though.
Absaroka, you ignore two points I made, which of course you may do. But you cannot ignore them without conceding my broader argument. The points are:
1. The personal experiences and accounts of relatives you describe may die with you, and probably will, maybe after passing down for a few more generations.
2. Assertions of ideological principles meant to apply everywhere and for all time cannot rely for support on factual accounts if those turn out to be perishable and/or replaceable by contrary accounts happening later. Which nearly always happens.
I get that you do not like Nazis. If that is the limit of the point you intend to make, okay. Just don’t suppose you have advanced any ideology or moral principle in context of anything but your own experience.
Once again, Sparkstable’s ambitions seem broader than yours. My larger points were meant for him, and for his attempts to frame views in a lasting ideological context.
So when do we mark Victims of Capitalism Day, commemorating all those people whose lives have been destroyed in the name of profit for big business?
If you don’t understand the difference between how people are treated by communism and how they’re treated by capitalism you’re as blind as one can be.
Two examples from the mid-20th century. How did the folks in Western Europe fare in the period after WWII compared to those behind the iron curtain? How have the South Koreans done compared to the North Koreans?
I agree communism sucks, and is way worse than capitalism. But post-WW2 Western Europe's success was largely the US propping them up. AND Hoover knowing who was corrupt and who could be trusted with direct gifts of resources from his international business experience.
Hardly a capitalist success story. More a 'have a nascent super power that has nationalist reasons to prop you up.'
Now, I'd rather live under capitalism, and believe our high-tech sector has been as badass as it's been for as long as it's been because of the genius way capitalism aligns incentives. But I'm not going to tart acting like capitalism is pure good. Ya gotta regulate those markets, or you'll have failure. And ya gotta keep track of what your policy goals are, because for some things market efficiency is *not* what you want.
If you happen to live in a capitalist democracy, you're pretty comfortable and free, this is true, though some comformity is expected. Where capitalism interacts with other sorts of regimes is where we see just how amoral a system it actually is. We do tend to forget just how many of our electronics and candies are made with labour that's treated as borderline slaves, when it isn't actual child slavery, and how much appalling environmental destruction is inflicted in countries with poor to negative regulatory systems.
As for capitalism's failure to confront climate change - it's pretty much a suicide cult. Say what you will about communist China (cf Lebowski) they are outpacing the rest of the world in developing renewable energy, while in the US car manufacturers pump out overpriced overlarge SUVs which emit more CO2 and other pollutants in a week than most people in poorer countries do in a year. Using the horrors of communism to overlook the current and ongoing failures of capitalism is a con.
"China Is Burning More Coal, a Growing Climate Challenge
By Keith Bradsher and Clifford Krauss
Published Nov. 3, 2022Updated Nov. 10, 2022
But China also burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and has accelerated mining and the construction of coal-fired power plants, driving up the country’s emissions of energy-related greenhouse gases nearly 6 percent last year, the fastest pace in a decade. And China’s addiction to coal is likely to endure for years, even decades."
And yet the carbon emissions of China are tiny compared to the emissions of the US, and they are STILL way ahead on the development of renewables. This isn’t about praising China, this is about how slow and stupid Europe and the US with their democracies and developed economies are being about an imminent threat behind all their acknowledgements and pledges.
"Top 10 polluters
However, most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%.In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2" ClimateTrade May 17, 2021
You are so bad at this.
Change that to per capita and cumulative, and it's a different picture, since there are rather a lot more people in China than in the US and the US has been emitting a lot longer. But again, I'm not praising China - I'm asking why capitalist economies are doing so little.
If climate change is an imminent threat why isn't any government in the world making drastic sacrifices with its own employees?
I don't think human sacrifices will actually work, even as a last ditch measure.
If climate change is an existential and imminent threat, what are you doing to stop it?
Capitalism, as flawed by crony corruption as it was and is, lifted billions out of poverty from the 1700s to today, yes, even continues working today.
Socialism murdered 100-200 million last century alone, impoverished millions more until capitalism saved them, and continues murdering and impoverishing millions today.
How about you show one socialist regime which has done anything other than murder and impoverish its people?
True Capitalism has never been tried, eh?
Communism is awful, murder starvation and oppression are part-and-parcel of what they do. But the argument that they failed to lift their people from poverty is not true. China and Russia managed to industrialize pretty well and quickly from an agrarian peasant economy. Of course, that only helps those that stayed alive, and prosperity without freedom is weak tea itself. But no need to say things that aren't true.
"China and Russia managed to industrialize pretty well and quickly from an agrarian peasant economy."
I'm not sure communism deserves the credit for that, though. Latecomers to the industrial revolution don't have to start with atmospheric steam engines and wrought iron; they can jump right to Watt engines and Bessemer converters. Stalin famously imported factory designers etc from the west. See also Japan's industrialization.
Consider "Native Americans managed to leave the stone age pretty quickly once European colonists arrived"; that's true, but it isn't because colonialism was groovy, it's because humans can easily make the jump from flint arrowheads to lever actions once the path is blazed.
Eh, capitalism has a good industrial push, but Communist countries did as well.
I think it's hard to disaggregate both the capitalist and communist industrialization pushes from causality.
But of course, it's impossible to concretely establish any causality for industrialization because we don't know the counterfactual.
The question is, would they have industrialized and gotten away from an agrarian peasant economy even without the gulags? It's not like progress has only come to countries that are communist, after all. Maybe communism is claiming the credit for something that would have happened anyway, possibly even faster, but almost certainly with less horror.
It's like what Mark Twain said about the French Revolution - there were two reigns of terror, the communist reign of terror that lasted for decades, and the reign of terror that came before that lasted centuries. You can't really teach about the horrors of communism without at least touching on the horrors of what came before.
But somehow you can and should teach the horrors of American slavery without reaching the horrors of the blacks who were capturing and selling other blacks to Jewish slave traders.
Where did you learn about that? It's hardly a state secret.
I mean, people like you are never slow to bring it up, so you must have learned it somewhere.
'Jewish'
Hmm.
This is not to say that every communist regime is composed of angels or anything like that, but they cannot even begin to touch the body counts of capitalist-imperialist regimes historically. The *extremely aggressive* figure of 100 million reached by the Black Book of Communism (which included millions of fascists killed when the USSR liberated Europe as "victims", by the way) is dwarfed by the British Empire alone. One recent study found that the British were responsible for the deaths of 165 million over the course of 40 years, just in India. https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-million-indians-in-40-years/ That's to say nothing of the genocides of Native Americans and Africans.
The better question would be: How about *you* show one western imperialist regime which has done anything other than murder and impoverish other people?
Speaking of comsymps.
The USSR liberated Europe? lol wtf
Take a break from watching gay porn and read a history book for once in your life, my dude.
You in rt.com are on the same page!
https://www.rt.com/news/253753-europeans-wwii-victory-poll/
yikes-a-rooni
P.S. I don't read Red propaganda from the Russkies, or from you Democrats.
I mean, I certainly don't think RT is a credible news source, but I suspect that they might agree with me on a few things. The color of the sky, the shape of the earth, etc. Apparently also that 20 million is more than 400,000.
For what it's worth, immediately after WWII - before all the revisionist propaganda had kicked in - pretty much everyone agreed that the USSR was the most significant contributor to the Allied victory in Europe. https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not
Gonna do a rare agreement with ol' BCD here, the USSR was crucial to defeating the Nazis, but 'liberating' is kind of the wrong word for the European territory they ended up controlling.
While you might not agree with the way they operated in the eastern bloc after the war, there's no question that their efforts were in fact "liberating" to the millions of people saved from the gas chambers operated by BCD's intellectual forebears. And there is simply no credible argument to be made that the Nazis could've been defeated without the efforts of the Red Army, which pulled nearly all the Allied weight in Europe.
Hey, do me a favor.
Go read the NAZI Party 28 point plank and report back how much of it aligns with your beliefs, and how much might align with what you think mine are.
Try as a %. E.g. 10% you, 90% me etc
Okay?
Doing the “leftists are the real Nazis” schtick is always stupid and pathetic, but to do it in the same thread that you’re posting about Jewish slave traders is . . . really something.
"name of profit for big business"
Apple phone or computer with Microsoft software?
You are creating profit everyday, you capitalist enabler, best to log off for good.
‘Living in a capitalist society makes you complicit with the crimes of capitalism’ is always an argument that concedes way more than it challenges.
"You claim to oppose feudalism, and argue that it ought to be replaced by a different mode of social relations. Yet do you not till the lord's feudal lands? Do you not consume grains harvested from the feudal fields? I hath bested you in facts and logic!"
- Bob from Brandenburg, 12th century
Labor Day and St. Patrick's Day, though I will concede most people don't know the history there.
"Teachers Union: Oppose Bill Mandating Teaching Dangers of Communism Because Many Communist Countries Are Asian"
Ya just have to laugh at the stupidity, every day.
It's a knee-jerk reaction of the left. Everything is "racist." They do it because there was real, oppressive racism in the US against blacks for a very long time, and the crusade to end that was noble. So they try to shoehorn every issue into that paradigm. "See, I'm just like the Freedom Riders and MLK, and my opposition is Bull Connor and the KKK."
That is part of it but also, imagine a well structured in depth lesson on the history and dangers of communism for schoolkids. This is basically a strong warning against increasing government power and centralization -- particularly when it is premised on the idea of ending poverty and providing everyone with food and shelter. And the lesson is based on and overwhelmingly supported by all of history and basic observations of human nature. This is fairly antithetical to modern leftism, even part from the whole race angle.
'This is basically a strong warning against increasing government power and centralization'
Yeah, this isn't ideological propaganda at ALL.
BL,
Let's not forget that there was real, oppressive racism in the US against Chinese for a very long time.
And recall that the President of the Working Man was the guy who put Japanese into labor camps.
Democrats as comsymps, a continuing story.
Dusting off the ol' reds under the beds and holding it up in the hopes that a new generation will get excited and put up McCarthy posters.
How Bob from Ohio spends the time he has left before replacement is his business . . although he will continue to comply with the preferences of his betters. Culture wars have consequences, as do his bigotry, backwardness, and superstition.
Now apply this to how Florida doesn't want students to learn about America's racist and homophobic history.
You mean apart from where FL law mandates teaching slavery, it's effects, Jim Crow, etc.
Right?
Or do you mean the OTHER racist parts that are prohibited to be taught by law (laws which you simply forgot to mention by accident I am sure).
Dude, if a teacher in Florida explains why Oklahoma is shaped like that, they risk getting sued by some butt-hurt parent over "you made little Timmy feel bad". Explaining that Ruby Bridges getting harassed and spit on during her walk to school (which required armed guards) isn't some distance past thing, but that she's still alive (and so are the people that threatened her) is dangerous territory because it might make someone feel "guilt". That the law is so vague that you can defend it as long as you ignore the implementation is the point. That it's defensible while also chilling is the intent.
Pretend ignorance of that if you want (goodness knows Volokh has no intention of addressing it), but it's there.
There is a huge gulf between “People in the past did things in the past that were wrong,” and “People today are guilty for things of the past. And you must think this way.”
Only the latter is outlawed by these types of laws (I will accept there may be some very poorly designed exceptions that do conform to the boogy man you say exists… the world has plenty of idiots).
I live in OK. I have taught and have been taught OK history my whole life. There is absolutely no hiding the tragedy of the Trail of Tears. The cheating of the Sooners to take land that was ill-gotten in many respects to begin with. That most of the tribes here today are not from here but were driven here by force. And not once was I ever told it was my fault because I am white. And not once was I blamed for it. Nor did I blame any of my white students.
And somehow we still managed to teach “real” history. Without the critical theory of structuralism compelling those of us alive today to adopt the guilt of other people’s sins.
Nazi Germany is a story about the Germans who empowered the Nazis. Not a story about Germans inherently. The Cultural Revolution does not impose sins onto the Chinese of today (who oppose Communism obviously). The current French Republic is not responsible for Robespierre. That it is so hard to understand that history can be taught, and taught accurately, without intermixing a demand that students believe guilt is passed through heredity is shocking.
(My bad for thinking this comment was about the other FL laws and not a Victims of Communism day... getting my education bills mixed up... but my points still remain re: how history should be taught).
That's fine.
Here is what is proposed in FL:
General education core courses may not suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics, such as Critical Race Theory, or defines American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
So, not much room for a critical look at American history there.
Can you outline how you think that prevents, say, teaching about Jim Crow, or McCarthyism, or Boss Pendergast, the Japanese internment, or our other collective dirty laundry?
Aren't all of those examples of American history contrary to being a nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence? It's arguable, but that's the point *it's arguable.*
Certainly lots of our Founding seems problematic under that law.
No. Saying "the USA is founded on the principle of equality of all" doesn't imply you can't say "but we haven't always lived up to it".
Saying "communism is founded on the principle of 'to each..., from each..." doesn't mean you can't say "it didn't live up to that".
Companies are formed on the principle of making a profit, but they still go broke. Marriage is founded on the principle of fidelity, and people still cheat.
Saying “the USA is founded on the principle of equality of all” doesn’t imply you can’t say “but we haven’t always lived up to it”.
Haven’t always even aspired to live up to it seems a helluva thing for a founding principle.
Communism isn’t an issue of noble principles not lived up to, that would be a false thing to teach.
Companies are formed on the principle of making a profit, but they still go broke. Oh good lord. America was not the unfortunate victim of market forces.
Marriage is founded on the principle of fidelity, and people still cheat. This one is legit. But I don’t think that describes America’s founding.
However, who cares? You may be right, you may be wrong. But I think it’s extremely fucked up to ban me *arguing* that. Or making any of the above arguments.
This is an interesting conversation, and my points would be silenced in it. Just awful stuff.
"You may be right, you may be wrong. But I think it’s extremely fucked up to ban me *arguing* that."
Can the state legitimately bar a teacher from teaching Lysenkoism or that the Holocaust never happened?
I’m not super sure about the law here, but if I had to guess I’d say a state can ban all of that and that what Florida proposes is legal.
It’s just a very bad policy, and I hate it.
The banning of teaching the Holocaust and bad science seems a solution in search of a problem, so I also think those are bad policies. Though I hate them less, I will admit - I think there is a line to draw between the discussion we just had about the promise of America and a debate about whether the Holocaust happened.
What sarcastro said.
The dirty laundry doesn't exactly comport with the principles of the D of I.
And some might argue that the Revolution and the Declaration were not primarily motivated by those principles. Should the university suppress that idea?
What do you think the point of that provision is?
I don't support that law, but I was addressing your "not much room for a critical look at American history there".
I just don't read that as meaning a teacher can't talk about slavery or Jim Crow or whatever. Suppose you are a social studies teacher and you teach a straightforward history of slavery or Jim Crow (as opposed to, say the '1619 project' version). Do you really think you are going to get in trouble for that, even in reddest Florida? I'm skeptical that a school board exists that is dumb enough to fire a teacher for a facts based examination of slavery.
(I suppose we might be defining 'critical look' differently. I am taking it to mean 'a factual look at what happened, good and bad' as opposed to 'finding something to criticize about everything, and ignore anything good')
I think there's room for both the standard narrative and other perspectives. I read Zinn and Paul Johnson in my middle school history class, as well as the regular textbook narrative.
I guess that could be illegal. Certainly a grey area. Was I being taught Zinn for truth? Didn't seem like it at the time, but all it takes is one zealous prosecutor deciding that's the read to take. Seems my really great history course I fondly remember to this day would become very risky!
We all have different levels of risk aversion, but I'd be happy to teach the facts. Which is what teachers ought to be doing anyway.
History can and should be more than just the facts.
Grappling with perspectives and narratives is not only good and entertaining pedagogy for a developing youth, it's actually how real history is performed.
"Grappling with perspectives and narratives is not only good and entertaining pedagogy for a developing youth, it’s actually how real history is performed."
Sure. And there isn't anything wrong with 'some people feel the Japanese internment was justified because of the risk of invasion', while other people say 'the risk of invasion was zilch and internment was a mistake', etc, etc, hopefully followed by 'what do you think, and why'. That is all safely in the realm of facts.
Contrast that with either 'Americans as a whole are fascists because of internment' or 'we should have just deported them all' or whatever. Those are both spin.
or defines American history as contrary to the creation of a new nation based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Absaroka, apparently you yourself think the 1619 Project is contrary to that rule. Your wrote:
Suppose you are a social studies teacher and you teach a straightforward history of slavery or Jim Crow (as opposed to, say the ‘1619 project’ version).
You could try to defend that to Coates, and he would mop the floor with you.
This is, of course, only an excuse. The oppose mandating teaching the dangers of communism because they don't want the dangers of communism taught.
‘Are we going to stop learning about World War II or 9/11 because those might lead to attacks on Japanese-Americans or American Muslims?’
It depends on how they’re taught, doesn’t it? Jingoistic nationalistic rah-rah ‘Murica rulez, or a more well-rounded and thorough exploration of those events? I’m very sorry to inform you that forcing schools to observe a Victims Of Communism Day is very much the former, to the detriment of both the kids, and the memory of those victims.
That is a pretty big assumption. I am quite explicit in my criticisms of the US while also explaining the horrors of mass murder in the name of Communism.
To think only one way of teaching a subject is possible and therefore that subject should not be taught seems like a fairly weak position to take.
Back in my day, we were taught very explicitly and at great length that Communism was bad. Really bad. The plain facts were never good (or bad) enough, though. The school authorities didn’t seem to think we would get the point when we got the facts. This was, however, counterproductive. I know a number of people who, upon eventually learning from other sources that the commies weren’t ten feet tall and didn't eat their children, as they had been taught, fell too easily into the opposite error of refusing to believe that they were six feet tall and sometimes beat their children.
Not only that, but pretty much everyone to the left of Eisenhower was a suspected Communist, and of course the Birchers thought he was one also.
They were everywhere.
I love how the same people railing against capitalists and western governments in this thread are licking their balls amd tickling their assholes in other threads.
Eugene, the emphasized bit makes me think that there might have been more to the spokesperson's response than you are actually sharing with us here. It seems - if I might be so bold as to suggest it - that you were looking just to confirm the one bit that would clearly outrage a certain portion of the VC's readership, such as it is these days, and may have felt free to omit that there may have been other reasons why the VEA would have opposed this bill.
Indeed, looking through the bill text itself and doing a little cursory poking into the history of this controversy, a couple of things stick out to me. First, that this is part of a broader effort to politicize civics education in Virginia by importing guidelines developed by an arch-conservative college. Second, that the bill itself queerly elevates the study of the "dangers of communism" to a central area of study in Virginia schools. For instance:
The bill would also add the following section to the Virginia Code:
By way of context, this would be a new subsection within the Virginia Code section relating to public holidays, and would stand alongside an existing subsection designating May as the "Month for Children."
It certainly makes sense to teach children studying world history about the rise of Communism, the horrors it has inflicted upon populations, and the ways it has collapsed in recent decades into a kind of kleptocracy that finds common cause today with corrupt autocrats around the world. And we should not shy away from that history just because the few extant "communist" regimes tend to be located in Asia. But I think a reasonable person can look at this bill and find it utterly bizarre, insofar as it seems to elevate the "dangers of communism" to the sort of thing that students can be compelled to observe on a special "holiday" on November 7 and to learn about alongside the "three R's."
As a sidenote, Eugene - you are a legal academic. Nothing that I have cited in my comment is particularly hard to track down or parse. You should have been able to track this down easily, yourself, as a way of educating yourself on this topic - even perfunctorily - before writing this post.
So I have to wonder - did you? If you did, why didn't you think this background was relevant? If you didn't, why not? It is clear that you at least reached out to the VEA spokesperson to confirm one aspect of the story. Did you bother to read the bill itself?
“may have felt free to omit that there may have been other reasons why the VEA would have opposed this bill”
Suppose there’s a bill to modify the speed limit on a certain stretch of road, and an opposition group issues a multi-point criticism of the bill, most of the points being rational (if debatable) but concluding with “plus it’s all a Zionist plot.”
The Zionist plot stuff should be the headline, and the fact that the group uses such language should be emphasized as the primary issue of the dispute. The organization should be constantly questioned and challenged about why they’re being anti-Semitic.
“But, but, I also talked about the dangers of the curve on Maple street blah blah.” Yeah, but you’re an anti-Semite.
Likewise these race-baiters can include all the rational talking points they want, but if they add something like “the bill is racist because of Asian communism,” that should be the point to focus on.
Should it? You seem to have laid out a very clear ad hominem. I hadn't thought to interpret Eugene's OP as engaging in an ad hominem attack, but I can certainly appreciate why (i) his mouth-breathing readers might take it that way and (ii) his mouth-breathing readers would view that as a perfectly valid approach.
They called the bill racist, I’m calling their accusation crazy and insulting. Feel free to phrase that in a way which doesn’t cause hurt feelings.
An ad hominem attack is one that attempts to invalidate an argument by making reference to the person making the argument. It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings."
In your example, you would dismiss an entirely valid, substantive argument made by an opposition group just because they also alleged that something is part of a "Zionist plot." That might be a crazy or racist accusation, but that doesn't mean that the argument is invalid or irrelevant. You are dismissing the argument only because the speaker also said some unrelated, crazy thing.
Eugene is not making that kind of accusation. He is saying that the fear of inspiring anti-Asian animus is not a very good reason to oppose the "dangers of communism" bill. I agree that it is not; but it would appear that the VEA and Virginia Democrats may have other good reasons to oppose it. Indeed, it would appear that the spokesperson Eugene selectively cited may have provided those other good reasons.
Of course, you have perceived, and I recognize, that Eugene has specifically framed the point so that it would trigger his mouth-breathing readers, always sensitive to overzealous "wokism" as they are. But the point you are making is not in fact the argument he is making, and it is not why I am criticizing him.
history is history, and needs to be taught regardless of ...
Even if it offends Ron DeSantis?
Yes.
But that isn't the same as teaching people that their immutable characteristics that align with people from the past place them in the same categories morally as those people of the past. Or that someone should believe this if they currently do not.
"Victims of Communism Day" is the worst kind of intellectual garbage. Lump together Karl Marx, 1917 Bolsheviks, Marshall Tito, Maoists, Josef Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Hugo Chavez, and now (according to bevis) Bernie Sanders, all as one single unified thing and count the bodies. What kind of pseudo historical bullshit is that?
AWD,
"tis not bullshit. It is the common language that each of those historical figures used to describe what they were doing,
It was their "In hoc signo vinces."
They *already* have a Victims of Communism Memorial Day
https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/virginia-has-a-victims-of-communism-memorial-day/
…and good for them.
Develop good anti-Communist curricula and let schools of choice adopt them. Parents should be able to choose schools that soft-pedal communism if they want.
We really are in a “McCarthy era” with racism instead of communism.
McCarthyistic race-baiting should be just as stigmatized as Racism Original Recipe. We can’t just give immunity to the false accuser and force the accused to defend themselves regardless of the absurdity of the charge.
The proper response to McCarthyistic race baiting is not printable on a family blog, but it involves denouncing the baiter in as vehement terms as possible.
Headlines like “Teachers Union Accused of McCarthyism” should be as common as “so-and-so accused of racism.”
Not wishing to be a McCarthyite, I won’t assume that this race-baiting is the product of a calculated plan by the Chinese Communist Party. Americans are capable of doing this evil stuff all by themselves.
I’d even say we need stronger terms than “McCarthyite” – an old term getting past its shelf life – to deal with the race-baiters. They are masters of their craft, and should be faced down with equal mastery.
Margrave, when folks tell me that virulent American racism is a thing of the past, I always wonder:
– When and where they were born;
– Where they grew up;
– Where they live now;
– And how much involvement they have had in local political issues which implicate cross-racial perspectives.
Care to fill me in?
This law violates my parental rights to protect my children from learning about things I don't want them to learn about.