Fact: very few movies and plays have been made over time with black protagonists telling stories unique to black Americans.
Fallacy: this means it's racist to complain about black actors portraying white historical figures. 1/
I've long wondered what would happen if the people arguing "Race of actors shouldn't matter," even if the real life person, or original fictional character was from a specific ethnic storytelling tradition (see: Snow White, Cinderella, etc) would do if we flipped that script. 2/
"The role of Frederick Douglass will be played by Kevin Costner," or "The Life Story of Richard Pryor, starring Rowan Atkinson."
Why would this be a problem? Shouldn't it matter more if they are good actors? 3/
Just because A is true, doesn't make B the logical solution. Tell more black stories, cast them with black actors. And don't get all bent if some of those stories show black Americans in a negative light (ask Italians what that's like).4/
Phenotype isn't a costume, and ethnicity isn't always interchangeable across all phenotypes for storytelling purposes, especially when portraying real people. So unless you're OK with Harriet Tubman, as played by Meryl Streep, cut the crap with the double standards. /END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This notion that "balance" fixes indoctrination in K12 is silly. First, as a practical matter, school isn't the McNeil Lehrer Report. It's school. It's supposed to select some values to teach, and in public school, they were supposed to be as universal as possible. 1/
Second, there are only so many hours in a class day, and only so much space in the library. Third, creating confusion is the point of wokism; adding more messages helps their cause, it doesn't balance anything or return a child to equilibrium.2
Fourth, children who are pre-rational (and taught by irrational wokists) aren't able to tease out "truth" from competing ideas. They have to be taught and incentivized to do this. Load the library with Locke and Sowell, and their fiction counterparts, and it won't make a dent.3/
The argument least likely to persuade me a policy is good or bad: "Well the poor won't be able to --- if that's the plan."
Define "won't be able to?" Will they be literally prohibited? Ok yes, that's bad, but 99.9% of the time this statement means "It will be harder."1/
Yeah, I know, that's why being poor sucks. It's also why charity exists, it's also why we get policies based on whether they literally infringe in liberty, not whether they make something more expensive. Look at why they're more expensive first. 2/
If they make things more expensive because govt is intervening in the market and costing you out, by all means rail against govt, intervention, but be consistent. Don't demand interventions for some things, then balk when the same powerful make rules YOU don't like 3/
So sick of the "gotcha" game! This is when people demand that I name the exact school, classroom, teacher and lesson plan in my state (or any state) that proves to their satisfaction CRT is being used in K12.
A thread...1/
These are the same people who insist we must teach kids "how to be anti-racist," that "systemic racism" exists and is "everywhere," upholding "whiteness" as the "dominant culture," and "oppressing black and brown people." They insist they know these things to be true because 2/
"disparities in outcomes" by race exist and persist; they insist all efforts to correct these disparities over time have failed because the "systems" are designed to keep them in place, to uphold "white power structures" and to "benefit white people." 3/
Dear parents: unless and until you understand who really decides what gets taught in your child's classrooms, you won't be able to understand why reforming the current system is impossible. It starts with recognizing that most "teachers" aren't what or who you think they are. 1/
They were neither selected for their "expertise" at anything, nor are they "well-meaning" by your standards. You make assumptions about the people in control of your children all day at their, and your own, peril.2/
Sucks to be a good teacher reading this, but my guess is good teachers reading this would agree, and be more than happy to go along with what I'm about to propose: parents should assume malicious intentions, and insist upon proof to the contrary, NOT the other way around.3/
Started watching Yellowstone, and am about 4 episodes in to Season 1. Some takeaways (could contain spoilers, so be forewarned)...1/
1. Kevin Costner absolutely KILLS it in this role. He was born to play the lead in this series, and deserves all the kudos he can get. I forget he's not literally this man IRL. 2. Watching women smoke is nauseating. Love the show, but this adds nothing to it.2/
3. There is something worse than a police force with a few bad apples: people who are so powerful they ARE the law because they can buy and sell those who would otherwise write and enforce the laws. "Abolishing cops" does NOT leave you "free."3/
Can we talk about how we giggle and shrug our way through teaching our kids how to socialize with each other without ever opening their mouths to speak? It's not that they don't use the phone, they WON'T use it. 1/
So these kids who can barely communicate using spoken English, are expected to make new friends, and sustain those relationships, exclusively through text and emoji and memes? Really?! 2/
How much meaner are you willing to be that way than over the phone? How much more likely are you to ignore what someone is saying when they can't see you listening (or not listening)? How much easier is it to lie outright? 3/