White Lives Matter

[Arthur Brain]

It's propaganda, and only people that have never been encouraged to think for themselves and end up with low self-esteem and rely on others to tell them how they should feel would ever fall for.
It's over-inflated peer pressure.
Raise your children to think for themselves, to be realistic that they will excel in some things and suck at other things, and not to look for excuses to blame another for their shortcomings, and to not be offended by every little nit-picking thing that others think or say.
And for pete's sake, tell them that everyone does NOT deserve a trophy.
You shouldn't get a trophy for something you suck at.

So what about kids who aren't encouraged to think for themselves, are raised differently to you and made to feel inferior because society says where they should sit on a bus or what restroom to use because of the colour of their skin?

You are so simplistic it's almost unreal. No wonder you like those 'Duke' vids...

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

She asked how it made the whites feel superior....not how it made the blacks feel inferior.

Who imposed the laws in America where black people weren't allowed to sit in theaters, even if they'd been in the film showing? Who imposed segregation laws? Who declared laws where they had to sit in a certain place on public transport?

Get a grip you nut. As much as you might want to wipe part of your nations history into oblivion you'd be better off taking ownership of it instead of blaming the "black community" for how you think they have such a 'problem'.

 

[Tambora]

It shouldn't have been in place to begin with. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Irrelevant if you think it should have never been in place to begin with.
It was the law at the time.
Rosa Parks broke the law and was arrested for breaking the law.


I don't think abortion should have been in place to begin with.
But what I think about it is irrelevant.
It's legal right now.

There's no denying that black people were treat as second class citizens in all manner of societal aspects and not so far back that it can be forgotten - even if cranks like CS would prefer such abject injustice and degrading treatment were swept under the 'historical carpet' etc because it would somehow solve his perceptions of the "black community".

Makes no difference if it was yesterday or a thousand years ago.
It's not that way now.

Get this straight Tam. There's no denying that there's many a crank amid people no matter what their skin colour or creed is but if you willingly downplay just how black people were treat as inferior human beings by whites then you're either fundamentally dishonest or living in la la land.

You get this straight ---- I do not downplay it.
I talk about every angle of it, not just the stories of bad apple masters like you do.
And I can tell ya right now that I do not think slavery is evil.
In fact, I think slavery can be beneficial among any ethnic community, and could solve a lot of the homeless and jobless and poverty situations without draining funds from the government that waste money like crazy anyway.

 

[Arthur Brain]

anna hates white children and wants to see them suffer permanent psychological harm

Oh wow, what an idiot...

:freak:

 

[Tambora]

Who imposed the laws in America where black people weren't allowed to sit in theaters, even if they'd been in the film showing? Who imposed segregation laws? Who declared laws where they had to sit in a certain place on public transport?

The same authorities that make laws now (many of which I do not care for at all, but it's legal now and I have to deal with it as it is now).

You talk about others living in LaLa land.
You live in the past.
It's 2017, AB.
There are no laws of segregation and haven't been for many many years.
Should be rejoicing instead of looking for some sort of perverted revenge for what was legal back then.

 

[Lon]

An often-quoted letter stated, "How dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children? Black children grow up accustomed to such behavior, but white children, there's no way they could possibly understand it. It's cruel to white children and will cause them great psychological damage."

I am against this kind of teaching. Just the one day of this could have ruined her relationship with some students, especially vulnerable and/or abused ones permanently. It wouldn't have been a good joke nor a teachable moment.

Imh but professional opinion, it is unconscionable to cause harm to a child. There are other ways to teach this lesson, especially during teachable moments and one-on-ones. This 'may' have taught me to empathize at that age, but it more probably would have isolated me and left me feeling unsafe with that particular teacher. It isn't the way I teach and I'm very against it. The ends do not at all justify the means and the potential harm outweighs the chance-desired effect of empathy. She actually 'stimulated' the problem and it may have lasted well into their school years, creating a pecking order of those good at manipulating social order and those who would be victims of it.

Developmentally, kids aren't ready to learn the lesson, they will rather be victims or victors of the pecking order of the experiment. Typically, we don't see kids being able to get through the lesson to integrating the desired effect until middle school and high school. A middle school class or High school class would likely benefit from such, but I don't believe it is appropriate for third graders See more here Piaget and Erikson place the ability to learn more empathetically, somewhere further down concrete and formal learning stages. While some kids reportedly, were ready and able, it just isn't the age where all are ready and able.

In a nutshell, I appreciate what she was trying to do, but don't think the age group was appropriate for this kind of lesson. Kids generally understand 'what' more than 'why' in third grade. Example: The golden rule, would be the 'what.' Why treating everyone fairly reaches into their formal operation stage. -Lon

 

[Arthur Brain]

Irrelevant if you think it should have never been in place to begin with.
It was the law at the time.
Rosa Parks broke the law and was arrested for breaking the law.

I don't think abortion should have been in place to begin with.
But what I think about it is irrelevant.
It's legal right now.

I asked you whether such a law should have been in place or not, not about the legality of it at the time. All the question requires of you is a yes or no answer. Should it have been legal in your opinion to treat black people as inferior citizens?

Makes no difference if it was yesterday or a thousand years ago.
It's not that way now.

It might not to you...

You get this straight ---- I do not downplay it.
I talk about every angle of it, not just the stories of bad apple masters like you do.
And I can tell ya right now that I do not think slavery is evil.
In fact, I think slavery can be beneficial among any ethnic community, and could solve a lot of the homeless and jobless and poverty situations without draining funds from the government that waste money like crazy anyway.

So, you see no problem with slavery in principle then?

Well, ok then. That says a lot...

 

[Tambora]

So what about kids who aren't encouraged to think for themselves,

They end up on plantations where they can rely on others to tell them how they should act.

You are so simplistic it's almost unreal.

The narrow tunnel vision you express is almost unreal.

 

[Lon]

No wonder you like those 'Duke' vids...

:freak:

What Duke video?

:think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The same authorities that make laws now (many of which I do not care for at all, but it's legal now and I have to deal with it as it is now).

You talk about others living in LaLa land.
You live in the past.
It's 2017, AB.
There are no laws of segregation and haven't been for many many years.
Should be rejoicing instead of looking for some sort of perverted revenge for what was legal back then.

Recognizing the present doesn't and shouldn't mean failure to acknowledge the past. Black people certainly didn't write those laws and I'm not talking about 'revenge' here anyway so that's just a sidebar of yours. Who should be 'rejoicing' exactly? You? Or those who were finally given the same rights as everyone else that they should have already had?

 

[Arthur Brain]

They end up on plantations where they can rely on others to tell them how they should act.


The narrow tunnel vision you express is almost unreal.

Right, so if you were black in the 1930's you'd have had exactly the same access to education and an upbringing that encouraged you to think for yourself and make the best of things with the same opportunities as anyone else?

Go back to your stupid YT videos Tam.

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

I am against this kind of teaching. Just the one day of this could have ruined her relationship with some students, especially vulnerable and/or abused ones permanently. It wouldn't have been a good joke nor a teachable moment.

The point is moot, Lon. Every class I've ever had that's shown this video, the professor acknowledges that they couldn't do the same experiment today, just as they wouldn't do another Little Albert experiment. And it wasn't meant to be a joke. It certainly was controversial, and I can see good arguments for both sides, both from the standpoint of psychology (pro and con) and as a parent (pro and con). It was certainly a teachable moment for this former student:

Jane shielded her eyes from the morning sun. "Malinda? Malinda Whisenhunt?"
"Ms. Elliott, how are you?"

The two hugged, and Whisenhunt had tears streaming down her cheeks. Now 45, she had been in Elliott's third grade class in 1969. "Let me look at you," Elliott said. "You know, sweetheart, you haven't changed one bit. You've still got that same sweet smile. And you'll always have it."

"I've never forgotten the exercise," Whisenhunt volunteered. "It changed my life. Not a day goes by without me thinking about it, Ms. Elliott. When my grandchildren are old enough, I'd give anything if you'd try the exercise out on them. Would you? Could you?"​

Imh but professional opinion, it is unconscionable to cause harm to a child. There are other ways to teach this lesson, especially during teachable moments and one-on-ones. This 'may' have taught me to empathize at that age, but it more probably would have isolated me and left me feeling unsafe with that particular teacher. It isn't the way I teach and I'm very against it. The ends do not at all justify the means and the potential harm outweighs the chance-desired effect of empathy. She actually 'stimulated' the problem and it may have lasted well into their school years, creating a pecking order of those good at manipulating social order and those who would be victims of it.

Developmentally, kids aren't ready to learn the lesson, they will rather be victims or victors of the pecking order of the experiment. Typically, we don't see kids being able to get through the lesson to integrating the desired effect until middle school and high school. A middle school class or High school class would likely benefit from such, but I don't believe it is appropriate for third graders See more here Piaget and Erikson place the ability to learn more empathetically, somewhere further down concrete and formal learning stages. While some kids reportedly, were ready and able, it just isn't the age where all are ready and able.

In a nutshell, I appreciate what she was trying to do, but don't think the age group was appropriate for this kind of lesson. Kids generally understand 'what' more than 'why' in third grade. Example: The golden rule, would be the 'what.' Why treating everyone fairly reaches into their formal operation stage. -Lon

I'm familiar with the work of Piaget and Erikson. However, as I've said above, I already understand this was controversial, I don't need to be educated on the hows and whys.

I also understand that black children lived every day with what white children never had to experience. That's the part I'm interested in, what the kids said without prompting from Elliott. It's very illuminating. Also the speed at which these social layers separated and hardened. In a day's time. Now take that and add years and generations.

 

[annabenedetti]

That's what social pressure manages and whole societies respond like those children.

While I'd bet most people have felt both of those at some point in their lives, you're actually relating what the average white person is probably comfortable believing. It's not the message that has gone out into the minority communities for generations, but it's the inheritance of the average white kid. The impact of that is profound.

A version of it already has.

Nailed it.

 

[Tambora]

I asked you whether such a law should have been in place or not, not about the legality of it at the time.

Yes you are.
You are complaining that it should have never been a law to begin with.
But it was a law, AB.
It's not different than today's laws that I don't think should have ever been a law to begin with.

All the question requires of you is a yes or no answer.

Or a 'I don't care either way' what seats on a bus are reserved for who.

If they make a law tomorrow that whites must sit at the back of the bus, I'll be sitting at the back of the bus BECAUSE IT's THE LAW.
And it won't make me feel inferior because of where I'm sitting on a bus.
That bus will take me to my destination no matter where I'm sitting on it.
And that's the whole point of riding a bus in the first place, to get to your destination.
Fussing about what seat you can sit in is just nitpicking because the purpose of the bus is to get you to your destination, and it will do that no matter where you are sitting.
Mission accomplished.

So, you see no problem with slavery in principle then?

Nope.
It's been in practice for thousands of years, and I don't recall GOD ever condemning it.

When you think of slavery, you conjure an image of Hollywood's Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin or the KKK.
I've read about slavery in many cultures throughout history, so the image I conjure is not so limited.

 

[Lon]

Also the speed at which these social layers separated and hardened. In a day's time. Now take that and add years and generations.

Just like I'm against anything we've learned from studying aborted fetuses, I'm against using information that causes harm and you can see in the video there is genuine harm. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Teacher's kids are not 'experiments.' It is her primary responsibility to teach. I am convinced that her study, was actually biased against the age of her students. Few of those students would be capable of the comments made until WELL into their formal operations. What you are seeing learned is rather in reflection. If you look at the link, it also calls into question whether the end even resulted positively and issued concerns over the longevity of harm. I realize it was not your point, but I have a difficult time with the ethics involved. I'm very against unethical experimentation. Invariably, the harm isn't worth the point of the lesson. Kids learn that its okay to lie (the teacher lied). The students learn that the ends justify the means by the very person who should have protected them against it. Developmentally, most of the class were not capable of making sense of what transpired until they were just entering their formal operation stage. So, for me at least, not a moot point. I simply do not use what is problematic ethics and especially my questioning this teacher's ability and understanding of developmental education and psychology. It overshadows anything and everything and renders it, for me and a good many others, inappropriate and I look elsewhere for someone with better ethics (for instance, Piaget's data gathering).

 

[annabenedetti]

Just like I'm against anything we've learned from studying aborted fetuses, I'm against using information that causes harm and you can see in the video there is genuine harm. Again, the ends do not justify the means. Teacher's kids are not 'experiments.' It is her primary responsibility to teach. I am convinced that her study, was actually biased against the age of her students. Few of those students would be capable of the comments made until WELL into their formal operations. What you are seeing learned is rather in reflection. If you look at the link, it also calls into question whether the end even resulted positively and issued concerns over the longevity of harm. I realize it was not your point, but I have a difficult time with the ethics involved. I'm very against unethical experimentation. Invariably, the harm isn't worth the point of the lesson. Kids learn that its okay to lie (the teacher lied). The students learn that the ends justify the means by the very person who should have protected them against it. Developmentally, most of the class were not capable of making sense of what transpired until they were just entering their formal operation stage. So, for me at least, not a moot point. I simply do not use what is problematic ethics and especially my questioning this teacher's ability and understanding of developmental education and psychology. It overshadows anything and everything and renders it, for me and a good many others, inappropriate and I look elsewhere for someone with better ethics (for instance, Piaget's data gathering).

Sorry, I'm not going to work my way through all that. You're going anyway into what I already told you I understand. I don't require additional explanation.

If you'd like to talk about the ways the children processed the segregation, then good - otherwise, my previous point stands.

 

[Tambora]

Right, so if you were black in the 1930's you'd have had exactly the same access to education and an upbringing that encouraged you to think for yourself and make the best of things with the same opportunities as anyone else?

It was my parents that encouraged me to think for myself.
Try being a good parent and not depending on school to teach your kids that important lesson.
Cause as we have seen in that video, teachers can mess up kids minds.
They need to stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Go back to your stupid YT videos Tam.

lain:

They are not stupid.
And I'm watching TV with my husband right now.
I might watch some more YT videos later.

 

[Lon]

It's been in practice for thousands of years, and I don't recall GOD ever condemning it.

When you think of slavery, you conjure an image of Hollywood's Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin or the KKK.
I've read about slavery in many cultures throughout history, so the image I conjure is not so limited.

It is used currently in Viet Nam. It is a form of adoption and/or apprenticeship. I think you correct on a broader sense of the word and description. Perhaps 'adoption' or 'apprenticeship' are better terms. In the early stage of languages, one word stood for multiple things.

 

[annabenedetti]

If they make a law tomorrow that whites must sit at the back of the bus, I'll be sitting at the back of the bus BECAUSE IT's THE LAW.

That's a good illustration of Right Wing Authoritarianism at work there.

Some laws are unjust and meant to be broken.

Nope.
It's been in practice for thousands of years, and I don't recall GOD ever condemning it.

When you think of slavery, you conjure an image of Hollywood's Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin or the KKK.
I've read about slavery in many cultures throughout history, so the image I conjure is not so limited.

How would you like to be taken into slavery, starting tomorrow?

The slave traders will be there to pick you up at 4 a.m. sharp - be ready!

 

[Tambora]

It is used currently in Viet Nam. It is a form of adoption and/or apprenticeship. I think you correct on a broader sense of the word and description. Perhaps 'adoption' or 'apprenticeship' are better terms. In the early stage of languages, one word stood for multiple things.

Yeah, it was actually beneficial for the poor and homeless that may have starved or died from the elements (weather) if it was not available.
Whole families could be enslaved to be able to have a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not to mention they can learn skills that could help them support themselves when they are free.
It was also used to pay off a debt you were unable to pay, avoiding you being locked up for failure to pay.