First of all, I did some search to get a photo of the Minnesota State Flag for this post and WOW! t appears they are in the process of redesigning it. I could not believe some of the submissions, albeit I was expecting to see one honoring George Floyd, maybe it’s coming?
Folks, if you live in MN or know someone who resides there, you may want to share this post with them. I can tell this much, if I lived there, which would be akin to living in the real cesspool of politics, yes you guessed it, ILLINOIS, and I had school aged children, you can bet they would not be attending the public school system. Wait till you read this garbage
“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
Well, this country is working on that generation right now and before our eyes. And MN is leading the way. Question: Do you know what’s being taught to your children? Do you ask them at the dinner table every night what they learned in school that day? Well, if you don’t, than I happen to think you are part of the problem!!!
Minnesota’s New Social Studies Curriculum Would Racialize First-Graders, Teach High Schoolers About The Evils Of ‘Whiteness, Capitalism, And Christianity’
DailyWire.com
The Minnesota Department of Education released a draft of its new social studies curriculum standards, which place a new emphasis on diversity, equity, and gender.
The social studies curriculum is up for state-wide review during the 2020-21 school year as part of Minnesota’s 10-year cyclical curriculum review. The Department of Education’s standards committee has dubbed the new framework a “more inclusive approach to social studies education.”
According to a copy of the standards, the committee wants to begin social studies classes with a land acknowledgment. Land acknowledgments tell students that they are learning on land that was conquered by Americans, though once belonged to Native Americans.
“Minnesota is the contemporary and ancestral home of the Anishinaabe and Dakota peoples, and social studies education on this land will acknowledge and honor their contemporary and historical voices,” the draft reads.
Under the new standards, learning about social justice curriculum begins in the first grade. Six and seven-year-olds may be taught about systemic discrimination and how groups have fought against such discrimination.
The standards insist that fourth-graders investigate how race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, and geographic location shape the opinions of people.
In fifth grade, students are asked to “investigate how groups (example: women, religious groups, civil rights groups, indigenous peoples, LGBTQ) have advocated for access to greater rights.” Fifth-graders must also learn about the ongoing debate about renaming buildings following the death of George Floyd and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Elementary students are asked to “analyze how different perspectives influenced past decisions to name places and impact changing place names today.”
Middle schoolers may soon be exposed to learning about racism in relation to the criminal justice system in Minnesota, the evils of capitalism, and social justice activism.
The standards ask sixth-graders to “describe the goals, offenses, penalties, long-term consequences, privacy concerns of Minnesota’s juvenile justice system and evaluate the impact on Black, Indigenous, Person of Color (BIPOC) communities.”
Sixth-graders are also asked to assess the goals of activists in their “quest for their voice to be heard.” The standards specifically address the activism of anti-war, racial minorities, immigrants and refugees, women, LGBTQ, and indigenous people.
In seventh grade, students may be asked to describe how profit can be used as “an incentive for people to exploit others or the environment.”
High school students undergo the most intense social justice indoctrination. At one point in the curriculum, freshmen are taught about the evils of “whiteness, Christianity, and capitalism,” and asked to question the country’s founding documents.
According to the standards, ninth-graders must “describe the tactics used by the United States government to claim indigenous and Mexican land, including but not limited to an analysis of the ideology of Manifest Destiny and its relationship to whiteness, Christianity, and capitalism.”
The same students learn about how Euro-Americans allegedly used “whiteness” and traditional gender norms to keep people enslaved.
“Identify how Europeans and Euro-Americans developed new legal justifications for slavery and settler colonialism in the Americas by creating new racial categories (i.e. Whiteness), and new ideas about gender,” the curriculum reads.
Other lessons include an explanation of how “systemic inequity” created barriers to accessing credit, explain how race is a “social construction” used to “oppress people of color,” and learn to embrace gender ideology.
“[Students will] explain the social construction of race and how it was used to oppress people of color and assess how social policies and economic forces offer privilege or systematic oppressions for racial/ethnic groups related to accessing social, political, economic, and spatial opportunities,” the curriculum reads. “[Students will] develop a respectful awareness about how ideas and norms about gender have changed over time, and how members of the LGBTQ+ community have responded to persecution or marginalization by building coalitions in order to promote gender equality/equity.”
Instructors are told to teach about the failure and successes of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments during the Reconstruction era. The curriculum asks teachers to “connect this history to persistent discrimination and inequity in the present.”
Ninth-graders must also question why the United States’ founding documents included only the voices of white people.
“[Students will] analyze the founding documents of the United States, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as historical sources, asking who created them, whose voices were absent, and whose interests were articulated,” the standards read.
According to the Department of Education’s webpage, the committee will delay making a second draft until it has paid “full attention to issues of diversity and equity.”
During a virtual committee meeting, the department’s Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Teaching and Learning Bobbie Burnham said that the standards will be developed with an emphasis on the “lived experiences” of young, marginalized students.
“The committee has articulated the need to make standards and supporting benchmarks more meaningful by attending to the race, ethnicity, identity, and lived experiences of young people in relation to civic life and acknowledging voices and experiences of marginalized youth,” Burnham said.
A second draft is slated to be released in early June.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
Originally posted 2021-04-11 17:22:43.
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA – Revelations that the insurrection at the US Capitol included many former and current members of America’s armed forces have been met with alarm. And yet, as a 35-year veteran and retired commandant of the US Marine Corps, I saw the events of January 6 as the predictable culmination of a growing disconnect between the US military and civilian society.
Once home, many veterans joined organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, where they were surrounded by like-minded people who had served, suffered, and sacrificed together. Jobs were plentiful, and Americans took pride in their country and their military.
Similarly, in the Korean War less than a decade later, though America was never “all in,” it nonetheless had clear strategic goals. As in WWII, US servicemen and women did a remarkable job and came home to an appreciative country.
But then came Vietnam, where most Americans never really knew what their country was fighting for. When the conflict finally came to its ignominious end in April 1975, there was no victory to celebrate (and it certainly was not fireworks that flew from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon). Unlike previous generations, those who fought in Vietnam were not honored for their service and sacrifice. Equally important, the public backlash against the war led to the end of military conscription, which fundamentally transformed the relationship between the military and the American people. The rift created by the shift to an all-volunteer military has grown wider ever since.
After Vietnam, America’s next major war was Desert Storm, in 1990. Again, clear strategic goals were met in a dramatic fashion, and US servicemen and women returned to a proud country – on the cusp of becoming the world’s only remaining superpower with the collapse of the Soviet Union the following year.
Yet by the end of the Gulf War, globalization and technological change had already begun to reshape American society. Old-line industries were being upended, and many manufacturing jobs were disappearing. Although immigration had only a minor effect on the big economic picture, it became a hot-button political issue for those who found themselves out of work. At the same time, a new wave of social-justice issues also started gaining momentum during this period. As a microcosm of America, the US military was not immune to these political dynamics.
It was against this political, social, and economic backdrop that America embarked on its “long war.” Much like Vietnam, the “War on Terror” lacks clear strategic goals and has lost public buy-in over time. Many of those who have fought it subscribe to the apocryphal refrain that while the military was at war, America was at Walmart. After serving multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, servicemen and women who sacrificed years of their lives have received little recognition.
In his 1973 book, The American Way of War, the historian Russell F. Weigley quoted US General George C. Marshall as saying, “a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years’ War,” because any protracted conflict eventually will lose the support of the electorate. The longer a war runs – particularly when it becomes cross-generational – the greater the disconnect between the typical citizen and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve.
he War on Terror is an abiding case in point, helping to shed light on the unrest and extremism that burst into public view at the Capitol. A small minority of alienated former and active service members have concluded that something is wrong in the America for which they fought and sacrificed. The past two presidential elections have fueled this discontent and convinced some that they have a duty to confront perceived domestic “enemies.” Political leaders, meanwhile, have exploited these sentiments for their own advantage.
The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to a perfect storm. As the economy shed jobs – particularly at the lower end of the income distribution – face-to-face interactions were no longer possible. With deepening social atomization, it has become more difficult to experience solidarity. Angst or boredom have afflicted many, and some have found refuge in online communities espousing extremist ideologies. The 2020 presidential election brought the situation to a boiling point. A sitting commander-in-chief openly sought to overturn a free and fair election with lies and intimidation, and a small minority of his acolytes answered his call to action. Really?
But Americans should have faith. Notwithstanding a few outliers, the US military is unwavering in its support of, and dedication to, the US Constitution. Those in its ranks who harbor extremist views will be discovered and dealt with appropriately. Looking ahead, recruitment methods will be strengthened to weed out extremists. Recruiters will have to look not only at candidates’ social-media activity but also at their “body paint” (tattoos) and other potential indicators of extremist or racist sympathies. Interviews will need to be more pointed, and education for active members improved.
While the troubling trajectory of US military-civil relations has created fertile ground for some members to be radicalized, it is important to remember that the insurrectionists represent an exception. The US military has defended American democracy for centuries and will continue to do so, in keeping with our noblest traditions. Yes, I agree general, you can bet on it!
CHARLES C. KRULAK
Writing for PS since 2020
4 Commentaries
In sum, I categorize this fellow in the same company as Mattis, Allen, and all the other Kool Aid drinking generals viewing the military through their woke eyes and ears. Krulak says the recruiters will take care of this supposed problem. LOL What does he know about recruiting — Nothing!