5 ms·

> "Race relations" is kinda wide topic What I mean by race relations is directly related to how the teacher did not know why it is not OK for her, as a white w

> "Race relations" is kinda wide topic What I mean by race relations is directly related to how the teacher did not know why it is not OK for her, as a white women, to use a particular word. Her stance: "why can't I use it, you used it." This shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the history of the word and how it was reclaimed and repurposed by large segments of the African American community. In short (very short) the word is not hurtful coming from the mouths of certain people when spoken a certain way (anyone who has lived in a foreign country and learned a foreign language would know that some words/phrases should not be spoken by foreigners - its kind of the same thing here). The author is unaware of that and is thus uninformed. The author believes that she is actually teaching the students when she is the one that should, in fact, listen to what the students are trying to tell her. > True, it is not easy. But I think that's not the reason to not try? Trying has little consequence for white Americans, trying has very grave consequences for African Americans. I've seen whites deny accusations of racial mistreatment to the point where they are seriously contemplating having the African American committed. > I do not see how. She honestly tried to help those students who want to learn and advance. If feel the adjective phrase "students who want to learn" is an unintentional euphemism for "White students". Know that some students are in a society that from day one tells them they are worthless and are undeserving. Any human being would develop psychoses in such an environment. It doesn't help that the majority of self-positive imagery for these students (imagery that show, at least, healthy, un-impoverished individuals with confidence) comes from explicit rap videos, not royalty in ancient castles, scientist, tech entrepreneurs, or otherwise. smsm42, I hope you understand.

iguy 8y ago
> What I mean by race relations is directly related to how the teacher did not know why it is not OK for her, as a white women, to use a particular word. No, I think she understood perfectly well the usual taboo. And snapped and used the forbidden word anyway. And then used the episode as a teaching moment, maybe the only time (in the article) when she had the students' attention. And managed to point out to the students how thin their logic around this taboo actually is. Is this the only way in which you think her uninformed? Your comments seem to come back to this one point repeatedly, which sounds like it occupied 15 minutes of a decade's experience.
- externalreality 8y ago
  > Is this the only way in which you think her uninformed? Your comments seem to come back to this one point repeatedly, It not that I keep revisiting the same topic. No, in contrast , its just that I keep getting asked the same question so I keep giving the same answer.
  - iguy 8y ago
    So that's a yes?
smsm42 8y ago
> The author is unaware of that and is thus uninformed. I think the author is perfectly aware of this theory (pretty much everybody who have learned to read by now has). Whether she agrees with it or not is another thing. > The author believes that she is actually teaching the students when she is the one that should, in fact, listen to what the students are trying to tell her. That's kinda her job - to teach the students. That's why she is called "teacher" and they are called "students". To listen to the students to tell her they don't want to be taught is not her job. Her job is to overcome this natural infantile attitude and still teach them. Kids are often lazy and dumb - not all of them, not all the time, but these are some of the natural states that kids - and adults - fall into, I know, I was an unruly kid once. The good teacher knows how to get the kid out of this state and into the state where he or she can be taught. The good system supports the teacher in this. This is not what is happening. > Trying has little consequence for white Americans, trying has very grave consequences for African Americans Grave consequences like what? I did hear about white Americans being fired from their jobs and make unemployable for saying single wrong word in a wrong time - without intent to hurt anyone, just mentioning the word exists, but intent does not matter anymore. I haven't heard about African American committed because they discussed racial relationships - maybe in 60s in the South, but now? Can you provide some examples? That of course would be very bad - nobody - not white, not African American, not non-African and non-American - should ever be hurt for just trying to discuss things and explain their position. > If feel the adjective phrase "students who want to learn" is an unintentional euphemism for "White students You are of course wrong. And I must suspect the reason you are wrong is that you are trying to mine the situation for a racial angle. This is the only reason one might make a conclusion like that - other than being so much of a racist as to declare no single non-white student ever wanted to learn. I don't think even David Duke would say something like that, even for him it's too obviously false. It's obviously false for you too, so I conclude you just trying to mine a racial angle when there's none. The problem of course is not "white" against "non-white" students, but students that are from vulnerable communities - including African-Americans - that want to learn and improve their conditions, but lack the support system. They try, to only to be suppressed by both their peers (which is expected, kids can be dumb) and by adult and school system (which is unbelievably cruel, idiotic and inexcusable). The problem is not white students hurt, the problem is smart students hurt - and most of those hurt aren't white, because those hurt are those that lack existing strong support systems, and guess who those are. > Know that some students are in a society that from day one tells them they are worthless and are undeserving. That's exactly the problem I describe above. When the student tries to prove her worth, to achieve something, she gets pushed down, gets impeded and gets no support from the system. And if some brave teacher decides to support the student, the teacher gets punished and told not to do it again. > It doesn't help that the majority of self-positive imagery for these students (imagery that show, at least, healthy, un-impoverished individuals with confidence) comes from explicit rap videos It doesn't. But when somebody tries to come and tell them - hey kids, maybe instead of listening to songs about killing cops and beating up bitches we listen to some nicer things, they get called ignorant racists. I think some conversation should also go into maybe changing that.

iguy 8y ago

> What I mean by race relations is directly related to how the teacher did not know why it is not OK for her, as a white women, to use a particular word. No, I think she understood perfectly well the usual taboo. And snapped and used the forbidden word anyway. And then used the episode as a teaching moment, maybe the only time (in the article) when she had the students' attention. And managed to point out to the students how thin their logic around this taboo actually is. Is this the only way in which you think her uninformed? Your comments seem to come back to this one point repeatedly, which sounds like it occupied 15 minutes of a decade's experience.

externalreality 8y ago
> Is this the only way in which you think her uninformed? Your comments seem to come back to this one point repeatedly, It not that I keep revisiting the same topic. No, in contrast , its just that I keep getting asked the same question so I keep giving the same answer.
- iguy 8y ago
  So that's a yes?

smsm42 8y ago

> The author is unaware of that and is thus uninformed. I think the author is perfectly aware of this theory (pretty much everybody who have learned to read by now has). Whether she agrees with it or not is another thing. > The author believes that she is actually teaching the students when she is the one that should, in fact, listen to what the students are trying to tell her. That's kinda her job - to teach the students. That's why she is called "teacher" and they are called "students". To listen to the students to tell her they don't want to be taught is not her job. Her job is to overcome this natural infantile attitude and still teach them. Kids are often lazy and dumb - not all of them, not all the time, but these are some of the natural states that kids - and adults - fall into, I know, I was an unruly kid once. The good teacher knows how to get the kid out of this state and into the state where he or she can be taught. The good system supports the teacher in this. This is not what is happening. > Trying has little consequence for white Americans, trying has very grave consequences for African Americans Grave consequences like what? I did hear about white Americans being fired from their jobs and make unemployable for saying single wrong word in a wrong time - without intent to hurt anyone, just mentioning the word exists, but intent does not matter anymore. I haven't heard about African American committed because they discussed racial relationships - maybe in 60s in the South, but now? Can you provide some examples? That of course would be very bad - nobody - not white, not African American, not non-African and non-American - should ever be hurt for just trying to discuss things and explain their position. > If feel the adjective phrase "students who want to learn" is an unintentional euphemism for "White students You are of course wrong. And I must suspect the reason you are wrong is that you are trying to mine the situation for a racial angle. This is the only reason one might make a conclusion like that - other than being so much of a racist as to declare no single non-white student ever wanted to learn. I don't think even David Duke would say something like that, even for him it's too obviously false. It's obviously false for you too, so I conclude you just trying to mine a racial angle when there's none. The problem of course is not "white" against "non-white" students, but students that are from vulnerable communities - including African-Americans - that want to learn and improve their conditions, but lack the support system. They try, to only to be suppressed by both their peers (which is expected, kids can be dumb) and by adult and school system (which is unbelievably cruel, idiotic and inexcusable). The problem is not white students hurt, the problem is smart students hurt - and most of those hurt aren't white, because those hurt are those that lack existing strong support systems, and guess who those are. > Know that some students are in a society that from day one tells them they are worthless and are undeserving. That's exactly the problem I describe above. When the student tries to prove her worth, to achieve something, she gets pushed down, gets impeded and gets no support from the system. And if some brave teacher decides to support the student, the teacher gets punished and told not to do it again. > It doesn't help that the majority of self-positive imagery for these students (imagery that show, at least, healthy, un-impoverished individuals with confidence) comes from explicit rap videos It doesn't. But when somebody tries to come and tell them - hey kids, maybe instead of listening to songs about killing cops and beating up bitches we listen to some nicer things, they get called ignorant racists. I think some conversation should also go into maybe changing that.