282
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The movie, which is based on a book of the same name, stars Lily Gladstone, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Robert De Niro (and, boy, do they shine) and tells the chilling true story of how white settlers carried out dozens of murders of members of the Osage Nation in the 1920s. It’s a dark—and essential—tale of American history that I, like KOTFM author David Grann himself, can’t recall learning about in school.

But in Oklahoma, where the murders took place, teachers say they aren’t sure they’re allowed to teach it in class. Under state measure HB 1775, schools are prohibited from teaching the idea that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously” or that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” (The law is similar to the policies in states like Florida and Texas, among a handful of others, that aim to block the discussion of themes like systemic racism, unconscious bias, and privilege.)

Of course, HB 1775 doesn’t specifically ban Killers of the Flower Moon. But the law is so vague that some educators reportedly say that they have avoided assigning the book and other texts out of fear of punishment.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago

Hell we can't teach kids about the the Tulsa Race Massacre. The fucking dip shit who came up with that fucking bill said the Tulsa Race Massacre wasn't about race. He definitely would get pissed if we taught kids about that. Wonder the movie isn't banned in our state.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because truth, history and facts upsets white nationalists (Republicans)

[-] generic@iusearchlinux.fyi 17 points 1 year ago

"It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

[-] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

It blows my mind that conservatives watched that show for years and didn't get Colbert wasn't one of them.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I've read somewhere that cons tend to do poorly at understanding/doing satire, as contrasted with liberals.

Which would explain why they think satire started with Alinsky or something...

[-] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago

schools are prohibited from teaching the idea that ... any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex

The party of "facts don't care about your feelings," passing laws to keep facts from hurting their feelings.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It's always projection with that bunch. They are ALL about the feelings, no matter what they claim about others. It's probably that overly large amygdala.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I bet they don't know if it's legal to teach about that other massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma around the same time period.

[-] livus@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well all I can say is they need to first teach the meaning of the words inherently and should in that state.

Teaching people about historical injustice (let alone about a movie) in itself doesn't normally involve either promulgating essentialism (that people are inherently this or that) or telling people how to feel.

It's bizarre that the law as worded here is used to stop people from teaching about facts or art.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 1 year ago

You would think the law wouldn't apply to this, as the story features virtuous white people too, but I think the issue is that getting sued is bad enough, and Oklahoma is conservative enough that a judge might go along with a prosecution despite what the first amendment says. The supreme Court might even let it stand, like they do with anti-BDS laws.

[-] livus@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

@jonne I don't get how the law would apply to it even if all the white people in it were totally evil.

No history teacher is ever going to claim that the reason historical figures were racist was because it's inherent in their biology.

But yeah I can see how it might have a chilling effect on ordinary people who don't want to be sued. Is there any kind of organization over there that helps to test the meaning and limits of laws like these? Is it something the Civil Liberties Association would be interested in?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All it takes is for one parent to complain- even if the complaint isn't justified- and the teacher's job is on the line, if they aren't in legal hot water.

[-] livus@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@FlyingSquid that's so terrible. It's a wonder any science or history even gets taught.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago

The ACLU would definitely love to be involved to test a case like this, but if you're a regular teacher, are you prepared to lose your job and then be involved in a years long court case?

[-] livus@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@jonne good point, thanks for explaining. I always forget how easy it apparently is to fire people in some parts of the US.

[-] DokPsy@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

In many parts of the US, lunch and breaks are not guaranteed. Companies can also fire someone for any or no reason as long as it's not a very narrow and specific set of reasons without any legal repercussions. They can fire a person for those reasons as well and, if the person fired can't find a lawyer or afford a lengthy case, get away with it.

The US is very much pro-employer.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago
[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because parents in that state and around the country terrified of their children learning anything that might cause them to question the worldview they were brought up with and then change it to one that’s different and not compatible with that of the parents. In this case that’s racism, in others it’s that the Bible might not hold the objective truth of the universe, or that being LGBTQ+ isn’t an abomination, you get the idea.

It’s fundamentally stupid and abusive

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

The last sentence sold it.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

This is just sad.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
282 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3859 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS