I appreciate and agree by far most all in Ms. Sears' article shown here. Yet, I must object to her unconscious acceptance of the language of the side of radical progressives and cultural Marxists who, all in turn, become racists in their own rights. Sears says, " In a pluralistic society, a public school district that teaches students th…
I appreciate and agree by far most all in Ms. Sears' article shown here. Yet, I must object to her unconscious acceptance of the language of the side of radical progressives and cultural Marxists who, all in turn, become racists in their own rights. Sears says, " In a pluralistic society, a public school district that teaches students that there is only one way to be anti-racist is not only wrong, but it also makes it more difficult to reach every student and convince them of the virtues of being anti-racist. " Why should public schools teach one how to be an "anti-racist" in the first place?
NO! I do not support racism, yet that does not make me an "anti-racist." A "racist" is a person, likely very sick in his/her soul and low on humanity and appreciation of such, who BELIEVES IN AND ESPOUSES RACISM. I don't want racism, but to be "against" a "racist" is to somehow wish to impede his well being, livelihood and standing of rights due us all. A white journalist once asked an elderly Black man if he hated people of the KKK. The old Black man's reply was a high example of humanness and decency. I paraphrase the elderly Black man's answer: 'I don't hate them. Hatred is a disease. You wouldn't hate someone for being sick, would you?". Sears' statement plays into the hands of neo-racists by using their verbiage. I appreciate the article. It is illuminating. Yet, please, we should teach children tolerance of racial differences, not intolerance of the ignorant people who don't understand this.
I appreciate and agree by far most all in Ms. Sears' article shown here. Yet, I must object to her unconscious acceptance of the language of the side of radical progressives and cultural Marxists who, all in turn, become racists in their own rights. Sears says, " In a pluralistic society, a public school district that teaches students that there is only one way to be anti-racist is not only wrong, but it also makes it more difficult to reach every student and convince them of the virtues of being anti-racist. " Why should public schools teach one how to be an "anti-racist" in the first place?
NO! I do not support racism, yet that does not make me an "anti-racist." A "racist" is a person, likely very sick in his/her soul and low on humanity and appreciation of such, who BELIEVES IN AND ESPOUSES RACISM. I don't want racism, but to be "against" a "racist" is to somehow wish to impede his well being, livelihood and standing of rights due us all. A white journalist once asked an elderly Black man if he hated people of the KKK. The old Black man's reply was a high example of humanness and decency. I paraphrase the elderly Black man's answer: 'I don't hate them. Hatred is a disease. You wouldn't hate someone for being sick, would you?". Sears' statement plays into the hands of neo-racists by using their verbiage. I appreciate the article. It is illuminating. Yet, please, we should teach children tolerance of racial differences, not intolerance of the ignorant people who don't understand this.