Opposing views of same incident
There’s a recent news story about a black foster teen who was pepper sprayed and handcuffed in his own NC home by police responding to a possible break-in in progress. The family was white. What is interesting is my response vs my wife’s reaction to the same facts and incident.
I happen to be Asian and raised in Chicago during the 50’s and 60’s. My wife is white and raised in primarily if not all white middle class communities. Chicago was one of the most segregated cities growing up, and there was definitely a pecking order of race.
My reaction to the story was one of “there’s a subtle racism” going on here. My wife’s reaction was there is no racism, just a misunderstanding. I then pointed out the neighbor’s 911 call which stated that there was a black boy with dreadlocks walking into the house. The boy by the way had no dreadlocks and his hair was trimmed very short. I suspect the hair may have been an embellishment to convey a sense of danger to the police. I then pointed out to my wife, how would the response have been if the boy was white rather than black? She mumbled a few things about it still would be a misunderstanding and dropped the discussion.
I’m definitely more sensitive to racism due to growing up a minority in a segregated city. I did experience less than my friends of other racial groups, but I do see it more than others. My wife is a great person, and she doesn’t see the racial profiling overtones I do. It’s just not in her experience. She truly feels it’s nothing more than a misunderstanding.
That lack of experience is what leads many good people to support things like restrictive voter laws, disdain of welfare, reduction of unemployment benefits, and a whole host of social program cutbacks. It’s not necessarily racism, but a lack of real experience. They are looking at these programs through the filter of their backgrounds which likely have no basis in actual experience. Unfortunately, they are also making laws and regulations based on those rose colored glasses.
That’s Dr. Ben Carson, commenting on the new framework for AP U.S. history courses. Carson’s name occasionally comes up whenever people are casting about for a GOP presidential nominee in 2016.
And what is it about the new AP curriculum that he thinks will turn formerly bright-eyed American high schoolers into radical Islamists who represent the most recent greatest threat to America?
It’s not sufficiently patriotic and doesn’t adequately paper over controversies in American history:
"There’s only two paragraphs in there about George Washington … little or nothing about Martin Luther King, a whole section on slavery and how evil we are, a whole section on Japanese internment camps and how we slaughtered millions of Japanese with our bombs," Carson said.
Of course, Carson is coming late to the party. The new framework has drawn plenty of criticism from conservatives already … and there’s already been a thoughtful response from the authors of the framework:
The AP U.S. History course is an advanced, college-level course – not an introductory U.S. history course - and is not meant to be students’ first exposure to the fundamental narrative of U.S. history. Because countless states, districts, and schools have their own standards for U.S. history teaching, we did not want to usurp local control by prescribing a detailed national curriculum of people, places, and events. As a result, we created a framework, not a full curriculum, so that local decision makers and teachers could populate the course with content that is meaningful to them and that satisfies their state mandates (such as teachers choosing to discuss the heroic World War II experiences of Bob Dole, Daniel Inouye, or Dorie Miller).
Many of the comments we have heard about the framework reflect either a misunderstanding of U.S. history or a very limited faith in history teachers’ command of their subject matter. The Curriculum Framework was written by and for AP teachers – individuals who were already experts in U.S. history and its teaching. Based on feedback from other AP teachers outside the Curriculum Development and Assessment Committee, we did not think it necessary to specifically identify Martin Luther King, Jr., among the post-war “civil rights activists” mentioned in the framework. Any United States History course would of course include King as well as other major figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Dwight Eisenhower. These and many other figures of U.S. history did not appear in the previous AP framework, either, yet teachers have always understood the need to teach them. Critics who believe we have omitted them from the course are misunderstanding our document, and we request that they examine the AP Practice Exam as evidence of our determination that AP students must be exposed to a rich and inclusive body of historical knowledge.
This all sounds pretty reasonable to me, so I’d be interested to hear what Carson has to say in response given that all of his criticisms have already been addressed here.
Except, of course, the criticism that this new framework will lead students to join ISIS, which is just a special kind of ridiculous.
Politicalprof: remember: the study of actual American history will apparently make you hate America.(via politicalprof)
(Source: The Huffington Post)
As best I can tell ….
Americans would like both President Obama and the Democratic Party in general if only they had managed to pass the Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare.” Americans LOVE what’s in the ACA. But they HATE Obamacare.
Just proves that racism is alive and well in America although less overt. Obama was hated from the minute he was elected primarily because he was an “uppity black man”. Anti-Obama rhetoric has been thrown out so much it’s become “truth”. Anything associated with Obama has become toxic. If it was named “Romneycare” it would have been hailed as a great American social program.