It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 70
2
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
The FEDEX cas makes me wonder how it is that a person of such insensitivity and downright stupidity can ever get hired, much less rise to a supervisory position.

The senior home case is different. This was partially due to the desires of the tenants, which makes me wonder about the situation. Shouldn't the paying customers have some input to the services they receive?




posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
That is another case of the Government stepping in and creating an atmosphere of intolerance in attempting to eradicate intolerance.


The Fed-Ex suit was valid and a good example, the health care issue is another bird altogether in my opinion.

When the government steps in and limits our personal preference in regards to our own welfare.. WELL..

Semper



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Again, while these numbers of cases brought indicate something, I'm not sure what they say. We really need data on the outcome and details of the cases to determine how big a problem this is. Some cases brought are valid, I'm sure, and I'm just as sure that some are trivial.

I still think it's the education system (or even the home environment) that is the source of the problem. If 7 year olds "know" that they're not going to get a fair chance in life, imagine the numbers of black people who drop out of the education system from 7 through HS graduation, much less go on to college.

Urban Schools vs Suburban



What is at stake is the future of a heterogeneous America, a place where there is equal opportunity for everyone, not just for those who can afford to pay for a good education and the chance to have a more prosperous life.
...
No single thing is so central and important to our hopes for saving the public school system as the teachers. They are on the front line, having daily contact with the students, and are basically the ones that struggle to revive our schools. But the continual worsening of conditions in urban schools for teachers - low pay, overcrowded classes, increased responsibilities, outdated and meager resources - are disintegrating the number and quality of teachers in them. The best teachers then move on to school systems who can offer them better working conditions and more pay - the schools in suburban districts (Farber, 1991, p.90). Teachers who want to give their students a quality education get frustrated with the poor conditions of inner city schools and end up looking for a school where they feel that they can sufficiently do their job. They look for a school system with plenty of financial resources to put into the school and where parents are an active part of their child's education. These schools are in most part the suburban schools where children come from financially secure homes. On the other hand, the majority of children in urban schools come from single parent families where the parent is most often holding more than one job in order to support the family. Because the parent is not able to be actively involved in the child's education, the teacher is also forced to take on the role of parent as well (Farber, 1991, p.160). There is often not enough time to become an active part in their child's education.

Percentage of Reported Discipline Problems in Schools:

-------------------------Urban------Suburban
Absenteeism----------- 81---------- 35
Disruptive behavior--- 53 --------- 30
Drugs------------------- 53 --------- 45
Theft-------------------- 48 --------- 23
Violence---------------- 32 ---------- 9


81% of reported discilpline problems in Urban schools is that they don't show up. And a large part of the problem as reported by the teachers is that the parents aren't involved enough in the child's education because they are in a single parent home and the single parent must work 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet.

One Teacher's Story



To gain control, I tried imposing the kinds of consequences that the classroom-management handbooks recommend. None worked. My classroom was too small to give my students “time out.” I tried to take away their recess, but depriving them of their one sanctioned time to blow off steam just increased their penchant to use my classroom as a playground. When I called parents, they were often mistrustful and tended to question or even disbelieve outright what I told them about their children. It was sometimes worse when they believed me, though; the tenth time I heard a mother swear that her child was going to “get a beating for this one,” I almost decided not to call parents. By contrast, I saw immediate behavioral and academic improvement in students whose parents had come to trust me.
...
I quickly learned from such experiences how essential parental support is in determining whether a school succeeds in educating a child. And of course, parental support not just of the teachers but of the kids: as I came to know my students better, I saw that those who had seen violence, neglect, or drug abuse at home were usually the uncontrollable ones, while my best-behaved, hardest-working kids were typically those with the most nurturing home environments.
...
Certain students hurled racial slurs with impunity; several of their parents intimated to my colleagues that they didn’t think a white teacher had any business teaching their children—and a number of my colleagues agreed. One parent who was also a teacher’s aide threatened to “kick my white ass” in front of my class and received no punishment from the principal, beyond being told to stay out of my classroom.
...
I’ve learned that an epidemic of violence is raging in elementary schools nationwide, not just in D.C. A recent Philadelphia Inquirer article details a familiar pattern—kindergartners punching pregnant teachers, third-graders hitting their instructors with rulers. Pennsylvania and New Jersey have reported nearly 30 percent increases in elementary school violence since 1999, and many school districts have established special disciplinary K–6 schools. In New York City, according to the New York Post, some 60 teachers recently demonstrated against out-of-control pupil mayhem, chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho; violent students must go.” Kids who stab each other, use teachers as shields in fights, bang on doors to disrupt classes, and threaten to “kick out that baby” from a pregnant teacher have created a “climate of terror,” the Post reports.


I'm afraid if I were this teacher, who once had dreams of making a difference in inner city schools, I would have left too.

Now, I'm not saying that the problem with black kids' education is all the parents' fault. I know the schools need more funding to attract better teachers. However, I can't help but think that the parents of these children contribute greatly to the dismal future that their kids face.

Violence, neglect and drug-abuse are problems in these kids' lives that the parents are directly responsible for. A parent makes a choice to abuse their child or spouse. A parent makes a choice to abuse drugs. Not to mention to spend money on drugs. People make choices to have sex without protection and take a chance on having children that they CANNOT afford and maybe do not want. Fathers make a choice to abandon a pregnant wife or sex partner without a look back. Throwing money at these problems isn't going to solve them. Until people take responsibility for the children they bring into the world, these problems are going to exist and grow.

I don't think it helps to try to fix the problem by putting a bandaid (like Affirmative Action) on the festering wound when the real problem, the systemic problem is happening at the 7-year-old level. The real problem as I see it anyway, is happening way before a person enters the workforce or even high school...

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

from BH
I don't think it helps to try to fix the problem by putting a bandaid (like Affirmative Action) on the festering wound when the real problem, the systemic problem is happening at the 7-year-old level. The real problem as I see it anyway, is happening way before a person enters the workforce or even high school...

So very true. A kid with a good foundation and mediocre opportunities will generally outperform a kid with a bad foundation and excellent opportunities spoon fed to him.

So, the early years are the most important. But the children must not be told this, else they will use it as an excuse to give up trying. And I'm serious about this.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BH
I know the schools need more funding to attract better teachers.

"Better teachers?" Ha! The teachers they have now are crap, they need teachers who want to work instead of writing long articles about how terrible the kids and their parents are. If a teacher can't handle it, she should be encouraged to leave.



I'm afraid if I were this teacher, who once had dreams of making a difference in inner city schools, I would have left too.

The Teach for America model of sending recent college grads to inner-city schools does not work. These kids need teachers with experience with troubled children, not 22 year olds still wet behind the ears. This guy should have worked for Gore. We don't need him. We need real teachers.



I couldn’t help feeling guilty dismay when I thought of the millions of kids who’d never even tasted the great teaching...I’d enjoyed for my entire life....I had decided to teach in an inner-city school.

How arrogant of him to presume that he could provide "great teaching" with five weeks of training and a glaring lack of experience. I'd bet his own teachers would have been offended, as I'm sure they spent quite a lot of time in higher education, fine-tuning their skills.

What job only requires 35 days of training?!


several of their parents intimated to my colleagues that they didn’t think a white teacher had any business teaching their children—and a number of my colleagues agreed.

I agree, at least when it comes to urban, public schools. I wonder why he didn't elaborate on the opinions of his collegues in this instance.



I know for sure that inner-city schools don’t have to be hellholes... with their poor administration and lack of parental support, their misguided focus on children’s rights, their anti-white racism, and their lawsuit-crazed culture.

And what about those terribly unqualified teachers???

Overall, after reading this, I feel like this former teacher is angry with the wrong people. He was poorly trained and sent to do a job even veteran teachers shy away from. In my mind, Teach For America is the McDonald's version of Columbia Teachers' college

In this case, it would appear that the then-principal sucked, as did the one before that, which is why he was terminated. They didn't even give detention! I would like to know the reasoning behind that, btw.

Pertinent thread in skunkworks: Could the government purposefully be lowering funding for schools?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by HarlemHottie]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BH
Violence, neglect and drug-abuse are problems in these kids' lives that the parents are directly responsible for. A parent makes a choice to abuse their child or spouse. A parent makes a choice to abuse drugs. Not to mention to spend money on drugs. People make choices to have sex without protection and take a chance on having children that they CANNOT afford and maybe do not want. Fathers make a choice to abandon a pregnant wife or sex partner without a look back. Throwing money at these problems isn't going to solve them. Until people take responsibility for the children they bring into the world, these problems are going to exist and grow.


BH, are you kidding?

"White America" has all of these problems, and similar results. Why aren't we seeing a similar reaction?

When a black kid kills someone, it's "the parents," or "their culture."
When a white kid kills someone, it's "the music," or a "violent society," or "guns."

Seriously, explain the difference.

When do I get to tell white parents that it's their fault their kids are shooting up the whole school?

I'm frustrated and I admit it. I feel like, as civil as this conversation has become in tone, people, including you, are still attempting to place blame for everything wrong with the black community on blacks, solely. You're not understanding that black people control very little of their environs. For example, whose bright idea was it to send 22 year olds to teach kids in the 'hood? I can assure you, it was not the parents. Likely, they were never asked. The same goes for many root problems, but people here keep focussing on the end result: bad black kids vs (good) idealistic college grads--->"Gee, the problem has to be the kids!" Um, no, it's the teachers and the people who hire them. That's like sending first-year engineering students in to fix the levees- stupid idea.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

I can assure you, it was not the parents. Likely, they were never asked. The same goes for many root problems, but people here keep focussing on the end result: bad black kids vs (good) idealistic college grads--->"


Still HH,

It all goes back to the Libertarian principle and one that this nation originally embraced.

It is NOT the government's job to raise children.!

It's no where in the constitution, amendments, legislation.. no where..

Whether it's 22yo's or 87yo's, black/white, should not matter. They are teachers imparting basic fundamentals of education.
The parents are the ones responsible for teaching morals, behavior and foundational principles.

Perhaps all of this stems from too much dependence on government. Everyone is always lamenting how the government has let them down etc. I say, GREAT, support yourself and raise your own children.

Semper



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
"Better teachers?" Ha! The teachers they have now are crap,


Yeah, that's why I said they need better teachers.



they need teachers who want to work instead of writing long articles about how terrible the kids and their parents are. If a teacher can't handle it, she should be encouraged to leave.


If a pregnant teacher can't handle a 5th grader beating on her stomach, she should be asked to leave???

You don't think this guy wanted to work? He only wrote this article after being sued for $20 million for touching a child. This is about an epidemic of violence that teachers and school staff have no power to control or change in the schools.



We don't need him. We need real teachers.


What's wrong with the teachers that are there? Are they stupid? Uneducated? Do they not care? Why are they there? Tell me more. What would solve the problem?



What job only requires 35 days of training?!


He had 17 years of education. I honestly don't see how you can put down TFA for trying so hard to do something about a serious problem in the education system for poor people. It wasn't teaching that this man had issues with, it was kids beating on other kids, yelling and disrupting the whole class. It was a system in which 4 kids could ruin the efforts of the teacher and the rest of the class and he was powerless to do anything about it.

They moved him from 5th grade to 2nd grade and those kids were worse! I could teach 2nd graders! You don't need a huge education to teach kids. You need a nurturing, supportive environment. And you need to be allowed to have some control over the behavior of the kids.



I agree, at least when it comes to urban, public schools. I wonder why he didn't elaborate on the opinions of his collegues in this instance.


So you don't think a white teacher has any business teaching in urban schools? Blame it on the white guy who tries to help. I certainly feel like I'm being blamed for trying to help here...



In this case, it would appear that the then-principal sucked, as did the one before that, which is why he was terminated. They didn't even give detention! I would like to know the reasoning behind that, btw.


So would I. The whole school and the system sucked.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
"White America" has all of these problems, and similar results. Why aren't we seeing a similar reaction?


What are you talking about? We do. It doesn't matter what color the people involved are.



When a black kid kills someone, it's "the parents," or "their culture."
When a white kid kills someone, it's "the music," or a "violent society," or "guns."


That's not true. Nobody said anything about their culture. The "culture" comment was about a "Lawsuit-crazed culture". That's us. That's all of us. When any kid acts out with violence, we need to look at his home life, his environment. We live in a society that worships violence. Kids act out like this for the same reasons.



Seriously, explain the difference.


There is no difference.



When do I get to tell white parents that it's their fault their kids are shooting up the whole school?


Now. It IS their fault. Tell them! I do! The fact that this society worships violence, the kids are being neglected, abused by their drug-using parents are the reasons this crap happens. I don't care what color the people are. It's just that there's something additionally going on in the poor, urban schools that's really out of control. And I'm exploring that angle.

I'm trying to help find out what that is! If you know, let's hear it.



I'm frustrated and I admit it. I feel like, as civil as this conversation has become in tone, people, including you, are still attempting to place blame for everything wrong with the black community on blacks, solely.


I'm not out to place blame! I'm following the "stem" back to try to find the problems. I'm trying to determine the root cause! What's wrong with that? This is a systemic problem and I'm discussing, searching where it's getting broken. I care.

I have asked you several questions in hopes of figuring the difference between these kids and you and I get nothing in response but a pretty sharp smack for even trying to determine what the problem is.



You're not understanding that black people control very little of their environs.


Well, then TELL me about it! If you care if I know, if you think white people can help, you're going to have to be a little more forthcoming than a good reaming for my efforts.




For example, whose bright idea was it to send 22 year olds to teach kids in the 'hood?


Are you saying that's what has ruined the education system in the 'hood? At least it was an idea! At least someone's trying to help! What's wrong with 22-year-old teachers? Nothing - unless the kid is an out-of-control behavioral case. These kids don't need teachers, they need psychological help! Any kid who beats his pregnant teacher's stomach threatening to "beat the baby out of there" needs more than a teacher! I don't care how old or experienced a teacher is (or what color they are, btw) if they can't touch the child to stop an assault or break up a fight because they might get sued, we have a problem!

And only a few of the kids are like that. One child can disrupt and ruin the education of a whole classroom.



I can assure you, it was not the parents. Likely, they were never asked. The same goes for many root problems


Parent's are never asked what kind of teachers they want in public schools. They get the teachers that are there.



but people here keep focussing on the end result: bad black kids vs (good) idealistic college grads--->"Gee, the problem has to be the kids


That's not it at all. The idea of "institutional racism" was put out there and I did hours of research to find out what the real numbers were because no one else was forthcoming. It's always just assumed that institutional racism takes place on some huge scale, so I looked for the data on it and couldn't find any data to back up the notion. No one else has provided any either.

What I found indicated that the reason the black work force is lower is because the black college grad numbers are lower, by exactly the same factor as are in the workplace. Indicating that the 'break' is happening before kids even get into college. So I looked further. So sue me!

I started at the end result (which is a very effective place to START) but found the problem to be further back, so I went there. If you have some data that says something else, feel free to put it out here. But I have spent a lot of time really trying to FIND the problem. I have to admit after reading your post, I'm ready to throw up my hands and tell you to figure it out yourself.

I'm out of the work force and I don't have kids, so what's my interest in pursuing this? To get chewed out for trying? I don't think so. I don't need this.

I haven't heard what you think is the problem. Bad teachers? OK. Why? Because they don't get paid enough? Why? Why do all the good teachers leave? People don't go into teaching to get rich, they do it because they love the kids.

Instead of reaming me because I may be mistaken about something (after all this is my first attempt to delve into this, and probably my last), maybe you can tell me what the problem really is and what you think would solve it.

But don't be surprised if I ask for data that supports whatever notion you put forth.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
BH,
I sincerely apologize if you took my frustration as anger with you or, as you put it, "a pretty sharp smack." I'm frustrated with the conversation. It's my fault, really, for venting here. I should have just waited to post. I didn't think you would take it as directed at you, although I can see how you would.

I don't have a whole lot of time to post, but you asked some questions I thought I had already answered, so that's what I'll address now.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a pregnant teacher can't handle a 5th grader beating on her stomach, she should be asked to leave???

No, no, no, no, no. I was not referring to her, and I think you know me well enough to know I wouldn't think that. When I wrote that, I thought the author of the article was female, I was referring to him.



What's wrong with the teachers that are there? Are they stupid? Uneducated? Do they not care? Why are they there? Tell me more. What would solve the problem?

I already said it: TFA teachers are not specialized. I knew several people who did the program straight out of college, and these people were econ majors, poli sci, anything but education. They are not qualified. Pre-K through undergrad does not qualify one to deal with a population that is, quite obviously, troubled. Do you disagree?




I honestly don't see how you can put down TFA for trying so hard to do something about a serious problem in the education system for poor people.

(emphasis mine)
What exactly does that mean? Our public schools serve their stated purpose: to educate all of this nation's children. Maybe not equally, but they do serve everyone. The public school system in Princeton, NJ is exceptional, and those kids aren't poor.



It wasn't teaching that this man had issues with, it was kids beating on other kids, yelling and disrupting the whole class. It was a system in which 4 kids could ruin the efforts of the teacher and the rest of the class and he was powerless to do anything about it.

These are two different points, right? Disturbed children, and a system that can't handle them. (That's just for clarification. I'll answer in pt. 2
)



You need a nurturing, supportive environment. And you need to be allowed to have some control over the behavior of the kids.

Totally agree.




So you don't think a white teacher has any business teaching in urban schools?

I don't think he should have been there. I wrote a really long post to you, on the last page, I think, about my feelings on this. You never responded to me, unless I missed it. Did you see it?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
It should be obvious that 'neighborhood teachers' are better for everyone, black and white. It's helpful to have a teacher who knows the community, and understands the factors that go into creating the children who appear in her classroom.




Blame it on the white guy who tries to help. I certainly feel like I'm being blamed for trying to help here...

Don't play the race card. Black, white, or purple, he was unqualified. I respect him for his choice to help, hell, I've even considered it myself, but he didn't know wtf he was doing. Excuse my language, but I'm really trying to stress this.

You wouldn't let a plumber with that little experience fix your toilet.

I'm a little older than he is, with a similar education, black, and from a ghetto, yet even I am not qualified to deal with that population effectively.

That's all I have time for now. I hope I've cleared up a few points of contention.

TTYL



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I sincerely apologize if you took my frustration as anger with you


Not a problem.




I already said it: TFA teachers are not specialized.


I mean the current teachers. Not the TFA teachers. The teachers who live in the urban areas in which they teach. The ones you said hate the children. Are they stupid? Uneducated? Do they not care? Why are they there? Tell me more. What would solve the problem?

And no, I don't disagree. The TFA teachers are a bandaid to cover a gushing wound. They're certainly not CAUSING the problem, though. They're just not sufficient to fix it.



What exactly does that mean? Our public schools serve their stated purpose: to educate all of this nation's children. Maybe not equally, but they do serve everyone. The public school system in Princeton, NJ is exceptional, and those kids aren't poor.


Are you saying that the education system (the whole system, including the teachers, the administration, staff and curriculum) in inner city schools is working fine, then? Trust me, if I'm missing something it's not because I'm not trying. I'm trying desperately to understand what the issues are here.

Are you saying there's nothing wrong with the inner city school systems?

What I say is not meant to "mean" anything other than what I say. I am UNFAMILIAR with inner city schools, but I have the distinct impression that kids aren't attending schools, the teachers and staff suck, etc. I'm almost sure there's a misunderstanding here but I can't tell what it is. You've said:

The teachers here hate the kids.
It should be obvious that 'neighborhood teachers' are better for everyone
The teachers they have now are crap
Our public schools serve their stated purpose

I'm confused. I hope you have some time later to straighten me out of the point of confusion.




I wrote a really long post to you, on the last page, I think, about my feelings on this. You never responded to me, unless I missed it. Did you see it?


Yes, I saw it and didn't think it required a response. But WHY do the teachers hate the kids? Why are they teaching if they hate kids? It just doesn't make sense. This is why I asked the questions above about the current 'neighborhood' teachers. What specifically is the problem behind teachers who hate children?


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
It should be obvious that 'neighborhood teachers' are better for everyone, black and white. It's helpful to have a teacher who knows the community, and understands the factors that go into creating the children who appear in her classroom.


It is obvious, But not if they're terrible teachers who hate the kids and scream terrible violent things at them like you said in your post on the last page. It seems I'm getting mixed messages from you about the teachers.



I'm a little older than he is, with a similar education, black, and from a ghetto, yet even I am not qualified to deal with that population effectively.


Like I said, it's a bandaid. Which is better? A 'neighborhood' teacher who hates the kids and screams obscenities at them or a guy with dreams of helping out coming in and trying to make a bad situation better? That's a real question. Not a very attractive choice to make.

Also, while "troubled kids" are a problem, how is being a more educated teacher going to help someone deal with a kid who's beating up on the other students during class time? These behavioral cases shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the class.



[edit on 9-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   


Professor Luthar's Study Finds Suburban Teens more Prone to Substance abuse, Stress and delinquency
Youngsters in two environments-prosperous, manicured suburbs of the Northeast and its grim inner-city neighborhoods-appear to be living on different planets. But unlike the stereotype, relatively affluent teens may well be facing surprisingly high adjustment problems in comparison to their inner-city counterparts.

...which raises the question: Who qualifies as 'more troubled'? The kids who beat up their peers, or the kids who murder everyone there? I'm curious to know how suburban teachers are handling that and why I'm not reading articles about how scared they are to go to work.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The teachers who live in the urban areas in which they teach. The ones you said hate the children. Are they stupid? Uneducated? Do they not care? Why are they there? Tell me more. What would solve the problem?

Ok, I get what you're saying. The teachers we have now don't live here. And, yes, I think they're stupid. They don't care. They're there because it's an easy paycheck, with several months of paid vacation (summer). From what I understand, we, the tax-payer, pay public school teachers for the summer. If it were up to me, I would make them go to school during that time, to learn how to deal with troubled children, or whatever.



And no, I don't disagree. The TFA teachers are a bandaid to cover a gushing wound. They're certainly not CAUSING the problem, though. They're just not sufficient to fix it.

I see them as a band-aid too, but I also think they're exacerbating the problem, through their inexperience. Honestly, I think the TFA teachers would be more useful at good public schools, where they can learn how to be a part of a functional team.



Are you saying that the education system (the whole system, including the teachers, the administration, staff and curriculum) in inner city schools is working fine, then?

No, what I'm saying is that the public school system isn't broken. Princeton, NJ serves as an example of 'getting it right.' But, then again, they probably have real teachers.

The inner-city schools have been allowed to get this bad. My brother attended a public highschool in the 80's and, while there were fights, it was nothing like now. In 20 years, sports and art have been eliminated from public school curriculums, at least here, and American kids are increasingly violent. That looks like 'cause and effect.' Of course, this is just my opinion. I don't have any children, so a lot of the information I get is second-hand.



Are you saying there's nothing wrong with the inner city school systems?

No, I'm saying that, since there are some public schools that work, somebody somewhere knows how to run a good school. They just don't get sent to the 'hood.



I'm confused. I hope you have some time later to straighten me out of the point of confusion.


Did I explain?



But WHY do the teachers hate the kids? Why are they teaching if they hate kids? It just doesn't make sense.

That's what I'm saying!



This is why I asked the questions above about the current 'neighborhood' teachers. What specifically is the problem behind teachers who hate children?

Let me clarify: they current teachers aren't from the neighborhood. They come from the suburbs of NYC, like Long Island. So, on their first day, not only are they thinking about a new job. They're also extremely nervous, due to the environment. It's easy to get overwhelmed your first time here. So, the result is, they're distracted by- what?- being in the hood. For those teachers who grew up here, it's par for the course. I like analogies, so, in a way, the current teachers are like our young soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan, scared and a little trigger-happy, and our kids are the insurgents. F'd up, isn't it?



It seems I'm getting mixed messages from you about the teachers.

I hope I cleared things up a bit.



Also, while "troubled kids" are a problem, how is being a more educated teacher going to help someone deal with a kid who's beating up on the other students during class time?

In any field, being more educated means that you may have the means to deal with unusual problems. I don't see why that doesnt't apply to teachers too. I just spent some time at the website for Teachers' College and they offer a ton of continuing education courses for teachers. Or course, the teacher who doesn't care about her students won't attend, but for those kids whose teachers do care, well, they'll benefit.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Thank you, HH. That clears up the misunderstanding. Can I say I love you?


Is there any more of a problem with 'troubled kids' in the inner city schools than there is in other urban or suburban or rural schools? If so, why?

Sorry to keep asking you these questions, but I figure since you grew up there )and I grew up in rural Ohio) you're a great resource.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit the Crystal River area in Florida. I was part of a group of 49 that went by tour bus. Old people. We viewed the river then went to lunch, which is the nexus of my title. On the way back to Jax we stopped at the live butterfly gardens in Gainesville. In a suitably large enclosure entered through air lock doorways, with tropical temps and a lot of humidly, there were 20,000 butterflies fluttering about at will among the 100s of plants that replicated the area “Middle America” referring to the part of NA below Mexico and above Columbia. A beautifully detailed but imitation “natural waterway” coursed its way down 2 waterfalls through a small pond home to several coys and some turtles visible through the perfectly clean water, to give it all a fanciful air of authenticity.

Then to lunch. We enjoyed a lavishly prepared luncheon - I heard many favorable remarks on the presentment of the food - followed by a proper size piece of key lime pie. Yeast rolls on the table with real butter. Beer and wine was available at extra cost but I did not imbibe.

But the name of the eating place was Plantation Inn. It could as well have been Crystal River Inn. Or the West Central Florida Inn. Maybe Holiday Inn but that is taken? Deland has a very nice place to eat, Holiday House. But no, here, outside Williston, the establishment was named Plantation Inn. As you might surmise, there were no blacks in the place, except one man at the front door. My group was also all white. I’m sure that since the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, no black would be turned away. There are more subtle ways to demean a person than to deny him or her admission. Slow service or even to “overlook” them. To be addressed in condescending tones. Maybe overcharged. The list is endless.

So why pick a name with such baggage associated with it? Was it pure accident? Was it picked out of a hat? Was it quaint? Perhaps its adverse potential was not even considered when it was chosen. But I can tell you this, "plantation" is not a good word in black history. Forget the fact traveling African Americans could not take their children to the gas statoin bathrooms until Pres. Johnson had the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, so tell me, why would any sensitive person want to use a name so burdened with bad history? I would not have done that.



[edit on 10/18/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
DW, sometimes I think sensitivity can be taken too far. Plantations were a big part of the South. There is SO much more to plantations than slavery. Yes, slavery is a dark spot on the idea of plantations, but goodness, if we were that sensitive about everything...

We wouldn't celebrate Thanksgiving.
Childhood games of Cowboys and Indians would be abolished.
Aunt Jemima Syrup would have to change its name.
DEVO wouldn't have sung "Whip it"
New Mexico would have to change its name to a name that didn't "rip off" Mexico.

When I think of the Plantation Inn, I think of large porches with wood floors and swings, Mint Julips, men in white suits and hats, cotton fields, the Southun accent and lazy, summer afternoons. If the very word Plantation conjures up images of slavery for you, that's fine, but let me assure you that not everyone is so sensitive about it to think that we shouldn't use the word in another context.

I believe you carry the baggage. And perhaps others do, too. But not everyone does so.

This reminds me of the other thread about race being taboo. Is naming a restaurant The Plantation Inn taboo?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   


posted by Benevolent Heretic
DW, sometimes I think sensitivity can be taken too far. We wouldn't celebrate Thanksgiving. Childhood games of Cowboys and Indians would be abolished. Aunt Jemima Syrup would have to change its name. DEVO wouldn't have sung "Whip it" New Mexico would have to change its name to a name that didn't "rip off" Mexico. This reminds me of the other thread about race being taboo. Is naming a restaurant The Plantation Inn taboo? [Edited by Don W]



You many well be right, B/H. The majority has gone as far as it is going to go, it is up to the minority to get in step and give up the unpleasantries of the past if it wants to keep up. No sarcasm meant. Just the social application of the political Machiavelli’s “Real Politick.”


[edit on 10/18/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
It's just that a negative connotation can be associated with just about any concept or word from history in somebody's eyes. It would be impossible to avoid them all.

DW, I really appreciate your sensitivity to the black community, to the race and to difficulties they face. It's important that we, as white people think about it and be aware of non-white people's plights. Some of us are more sensitive to it than others and I really think it's great that you have such interest in the subject.


AND, I think it's really important (for me) not to patronize or be too easy, you know, walking on eggshells where their issues are concerned. Without the right state of mind, it can be condescending. But I'm sure you have the right state of mind and you honestly have their best interests at heart.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Enkidu
"Racism" is a natural socio-biological mechanism designed to keep us away from other people and animals who are recognizably different than we are.


Sorry, but there's not such theory in any of my books, Enkidu.


Maybe it isn't an actual theory in a book. Maybe it's in books you don't have. However, after I read it, it could make sense in a common sense sort of way. You see "us against the strangers" behavior in animals (which we are also) all the time. It could, therefore, make some sense that millions of years of history in which you have to be very careful of 'that unknown group of people over there because they might do you and yours harm' might lead to some kind of 'instinctive' behavior directed at outside groups that we label as racism.

That 'theory' stated, it doesn't mean we can't use our intelligence to try and overcome those 'instinctive' feelings - if they exist.

Maybe it's not in a book because no one thought to explore it, no one was able to find a way to test it, or it was deemed 'politically incorrect' (because an instinctive behavior would leave no one to blame) to investigate the theory?

[edit on 10/18/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Bringing us all the way back to the original questions, I wanted to share this report with all of you.

Socialist little buggers that we are, Canada actually has a government department to deal with the issue of multi-culturalism and diversity. While I know this might sound like a crazy idea to Americans, Canada has an 'Action Plan'.

A Canada for All: Canada's Action Plan Against Racism



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
But the name of the eating place was Plantation Inn... There are more subtle ways to demean a person than to deny him or her admission. Slow service or even to “overlook” them.

I agree with you DW. I certainly won't be dining there.

You also have excellent timing.



Rose Rock says she and her daughter sat in the the restaurant on May 16th for half an hour with no service and she says it wasn't busy.

"The manager offered us a free meal, he did not say I'm going to call over who was in that area to see what happened. Just bring them over and say, did you see these people. It's hard to miss two black people sitting in a sea of white people," said Rose Rock.

Rock says she called the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission with the complaint and says they never followed up. That's when she turned to Sharpton, who says he plans on telling state legislators about the Commission's lack of action.

"It's one thing to investigate the matter and say there's no merit, or say we don't have enough evidence," said Reverend Al Sharpton. "It's another thing to not even respond."

Diana Wynne, Senior Vice President of Cracker Barrels' Corporate Affairs, says the restaurant did not discriminate against the Rocks. According to a preliminary investigation, Wynne says they came in around dinner time when the wait staff changes and the table was overlooked. She says the restaurant made an honest mistake.
Reverend Al Sharpton and Rose Rock to file lawsuit against Murrells Inlet Cracker Barrel



... and people wonder why I avoid the South...


[edit on 18-10-2006 by HarlemHottie]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join