This is true. Teachers are supposed to teach, they won’t say this explicitly, in a way that supports Marxist values, CRT, and a certain brand of inclusivity/cultural sensitivity that has its own version of exclusion and insensitivity. It’s in the curriculum and every subject needs to include these elements. But to call them teachers would not be correct anymore as they prefer to see teachers as facilitators (their word). They hate the idea of hierarchies and authority figures so they are actively diminishing the teacher’s role as a “power” figure or leader which has the obvious result of diminishing the respect they get from students. It’s not coincidence that more teachers are verbally and physically abused by students these days.
I think that’s what he was trying to accomplish. We read DuBois saying he crossed the color line and shook hands with some of the greatest (mostly “white”) writers in Western civilization, then Coates saying he didn’t even watch Tarzan because he was white. He was showing us how ridiculous that line of thinking was.
You only included half of my sentence. I said I’ve never had a right-leaning professor get upset with a student for disagreeing with their views, while a left-leaning professor has admonished me for saying the wrong thing in her class.
I went a small, private Christian school in a red state for a few years. They publicly prayed for Trump multiple times a week, and stressed the importance of praying for our leaders. As a Christian, I don’t disagree, but they never once did it for Obama when I was there. In fact, they’d openly disparage him. And they don’t do it for Biden.
I don’t care about Obama, Trump, or Biden, but even as a 14 year old, the inconsistency was obvious, and seemed inappropriate. If you disagreed with the Democrats so much, it seems like you want to pray for them and that they “see the light,” so to speak.
As I think back to what I read (it was over 2 years ago), he may have actually been referring to a Tarzan radio show. I don’t quite remember.
EDIT: I found the part of his essay where he mentions Tarzan. I wasn’t exactly right in how I remembered it.
Now, the heirs of slaveholders could never directly acknowledge our beauty or reckon with its power. And so the beauty of the black body was never celebrated in movies, on television shows, or in the textbooks I’d seen as a child. Everyone of any import, from Jesus to George Washington, was white. This was why your grandparents banned Tarzan and the Lone Ranger and toys with white faces from the house. They were rebelling against the history books that spoke of black people only as sentimental “firsts”—first black four-star general, first black congressman, first black mayor—always presented in the bemused manner of a category of Trivial Pursuit. Serious history was the West, and the West was white.
If I understand the context of this assignment, it was done not to teach Coates’ ideas as a factual and valid worldview, but to contrast it against a coherent writer like DuBois, correct?
I’ve never read anything more than a few brief essays by Coates, but what you posted is total racist tripe, bereft of any meaningful insight into the world around us. It only gives insight into Coates’ deeply racist view of the world.
This is encouraging for me to hear. Both authors clearly have racial grievances, but one presents his ideas eloquently and grounded in truth that can be observed. I probably would have been a socialist just like DuBois if I found myself in his place and time.
I happen to have the benefit of knowing how that all plays out, which he did not well over a century ago. Coates has the same advantage of knowing the actual outcomes of socialist policies that I do, if he ever gets his head out of his ass. Then again, he’s probably got a lot more money than me, so his line of thought is clearly quite productive in ways that my line of thought is not.
It could have something to do with the people who painted him and the people they saw in their daily lives as well as the available models. The idea that it was a “white” conspiracy is uneducated as that concept didn’t exist at the time. Here is another version of Christ. He doesn’t have blonde hair or blue eyes. It was created in the Middle East (and guess how the Chinese depicted Jesus):
This would be incorrect. First off, it’s art. And artists concern themselves with meaning more than historical accuracy. The Virgin Mary, in Michelangelo’s Pieta, is portrayed as taller and bigger than Jesus. I believe she’s six feet tall. Is that historically accurate? She’s also younger looking that she would actually have been. But there were thematic reasons for these inaccuracies.
Second, from a religious perspective, Jesus called Himself the Son of Man (a human being). He represented all peoples. Depicting Him as appearing like the people who would be looking at the paintings reinforces His universality.
Ignorant race baiters, due to their psychosis and lack of education (even with college degrees), try and find ways to project modern thinking on people from different eras who had a completely different perspective on how they viewed the world and their place in it.
I feel like you and I are rarely on the same page. It also seems like you’re often schooling me on thoughts I don’t actually have myself.
I don’t care so much how artists from hundreds of years ago decided to portray Jesus or anyone else. I was just saying I understand the feelings some black people may or may not have had when they were shown a white Jesus.
I was shown the first picture I posted in Sunday school as a kid, and someone asked if that was how Jesus really looked. I think we’d had a missionary from Jordan or somewhere in the region come to speak so kids might’ve put together that maybe Jesus was possibly not blonde. The Sunday school teacher said, and I’m paraphrasing because it’s been a while, “No sweetie, Jesus didn’t look like those people.”
That attitude might be hard for others to understand. And it’s likely not true. That’s all I’m saying.