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.
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.
Because truth, history and facts upsets white nationalists (Republicans)
“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.” -Stephen Colbert
It blows my mind that conservatives watched that show for years and didn’t get Colbert wasn’t one of them.
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…
deleted by creator
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.
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.
I bet they don’t know if it’s legal to teach about that other massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma around the same time period.
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.
Removed by mod
@hiddengoat sorry, to be more specific I don’t mean I’m surprised that the establishment in a society built on settler colonialism wants to suppress the past (and present).
What surprises me is that they can do so with legislation that simply says you can’t pretend DNA causes racism etc and you can’t order people to feel guilty. No teacher worth their salt would be doing either of those things.
Surely this law is ripe for being tested by limit cases?
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.
@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?
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.
@FlyingSquid that’s so terrible. It’s a wonder any science or history even gets taught.
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?
@jonne good point, thanks for explaining. I always forget how easy it apparently is to fire people in some parts of the US.
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.
So…why?..
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
The last sentence sold it.
This is just sad.
deleted by creator
