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.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Mizzijr
Whoops...most of the time, the parent is not involved in their education in the first place, eh?
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kaylaluv
Do you really expect people to be that stupid to believe the left and right 'switched' sides ?
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Garkiniss
Sorry. There is no difference between the Democratic Party of yesterday and 'Progressive Liberals' of today.
Same party, same platform, same policies.
Whenever the topic of racism gets brought up between Democrats and Republicans, there are two facts you’ll almost always hear conservatives use to counter the belief that their party is full of racism:
President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican
The KKK was largely organized, and populated by, Democrats.
And both are facts.
But when someone uses these two items as their defense that the Republican party isn’t loaded with racism, they’re only showing their ignorance about the reality of racism within their party.
It’s true, Southern Democrats were extremely racist. At the same time, Northern “liberal” Democrats and Republicans had already been working together to end discrimination and pushed for ending segregation.
See, in 1948, President Harry Truman made one of the boldest public moves by a Democrat towards Civil Rights for African Americans by creating the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, and ending discrimination in the military. At the Democratic National Convention in 1948 a call was made for civil rights—prompting at least 35 Southern delegates to walk out.
These movements towards civil rights for African Americans spurred a short-lived political party — the States Rights Democratic Party, also known as the “Dixiecrats.” The people who comprised this movement adamantly defended segregation of the races. It was an attempt to keep the “tyrannical Northern liberals” from “destroying the freedom of states’ rights in the South.”
Luckily, this political party only lasted one election. But what this movement really did was recognize the shift of Democrats embracing equality for African Americans and Southern whites strongly opposing any mention of civil rights.
The moves by President Truman sparked the spread of equality in the South and left Southern white Democrats with a feeling that their party was abandoning their racist — and oppressive — system of beliefs.
Over the next decade, more and more Democrats began to embrace equality, passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And while more African Americans began to vote for Democrats, in the late-1960′s a new Republican strategy was put into place—the “Southern strategy.”
This was a plan was that was first popularized by Richard Nixon.
What the “Southern strategy” essentially does is it identified the fact that African Americans were voting for Democrats, therefore Republicans decided they would make white voters more aware of this fact in hopes of driving the “white vote” towards the Republican party.
Doubt me? Let’s look at a comment from a 1970′s interview in the New York Times with Richard Nixon’s political strategist:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
Essentially it was the Republican party saying, “Look, blacks are voting for Democrats so you white people need to vote for Republicans—the party that will represent whites and oppose the blacks.”
To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president’s demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.
This seems to be the sentence everyone is on their period about. First, let's classify this sentence. This is a sentence speaking of the present issues AA face hindering their educational success. This is apart of what they would call a 'thesis' that gives reason to even make this EO in the first place. It's not saying that this EO will prevent black from getting in trouble! The thesis goes on to say:
Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by ButterCookie
To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president’s demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.
I read the Executive Order -- White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans and no where does it say that.
Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by ButterCookie
To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president’s demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.
I read the Executive Order -- White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans and no where does it say that.
Originally posted by Garkiniss
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Garkiniss
Sorry. There is no difference between the Democratic Party of yesterday and 'Progressive Liberals' of today.
Same party, same platform, same policies.
I suggest you read 'The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans' by Matt Levendusky.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Mizzijr
This is response to the video of the white student 'telling the teacher off'.
One, the child was out of place to disrespect the teacher, just because he didn't approve of her teaching method.
Ad two- yes he is wrong.
When students come to school, they have to be motivated to learn regardless of the teaching method. That's one problem right there. Entitlement mentality. "I want her to teach me like this."
That is not real world learning.
The classroom is not supposed to be where you get 100% of your education from.
If a child is not understanding it in the classroom, they have the library, other students, the internet, and PARENTS.
Whoops...most of the time, the parent is not involved in their education in the first place, eh?
Originally posted by ButterCookie
Originally posted by Staroth
reply to post by ButterCookie
To comply, public schools would have to engage in a racial quota system of discipline. The executive order will create a new Federal bureaucracy to pressure school systems to comply with the president’s demands. The executive order makes no mention of any effort to get black students to improve behavior.
I read the Executive Order -- White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans and no where does it say that.
Duhhh...because those are the authors words.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
Originally posted by Garkiniss
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Garkiniss
Sorry. There is no difference between the Democratic Party of yesterday and 'Progressive Liberals' of today.
Same party, same platform, same policies.
I suggest you read 'The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans' by Matt Levendusky.
I take it you have read such book.......Share with us how the parties magically switched.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Garkiniss
No. The article was summing up what the Executive Order.
This thread was placed into the Social Issues Forum, which means you are to use your own social commentary on a subject and can connect it with legislation or news.
In the Breaking News forum, you are to use the exact quote from the news story or legislation; any deviation from that and you are sensationalizing news.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Garkiniss
Are you going to share with us how the parties did the infamous 'switch-a-roo"?