*Note that this Model Curriculum is mostly the same as the 2020 version, which I have downloaded and will attempt to make available if the need arises. All links are archived at web.archive.org
**Note that parenthetical reference refers to the page number (P) if one were to download all of the attachments from the cde link below and convert into one pdf document—which I strongly recommend doing as it allows you to search the document.
***Final Note: all parenthetical references to the Chinese Cultural Revolution comes from the Revised Edition of “East Asia: Traditions and Transformations” by Fairbank, Reschauer, and Craig.
Chapter 1 of the California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, adopted on March 18, 2021, that can be accessed at https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmc.asp, is a lesson in gaslighting. In fact, the same can be said of the entire Critical Race Theory movement.
The term “gaslighting” of course refers to the act of making someone believe the opposite of what they can plainly see is reality. So, while we are told that “division is antithethical to…” Ethnic Studies (P3) in the Preface, we are also told in the outset of Chapter 3 (Instructional Guidance) that the course divides into four main areas of study: African-American, Chicano, Asian, and Native American (P52), the rest are only referred to as perpetrators of “Systemic Racism”, White Supremacy, or Capitalism (P13). This gaslighting would not be possible without the control of the National Media News outlets, which 71% of Americans believe are propaganda.
There was another era in history, in a land across the sea, that also saw history as a “moral drama and revolution [civic engagement?] as a moral crusade(962); that stressed “the moral pursuit of social equity and selfless virtue”(962); that relied on the control of the mass media (968); that saw “the wanton destructiveness of ignorant teenagers” and would close schools and universities for years; that would give way to a decade-long reign of terror that would claim millions of lives (971); that practiced an extreme form of cancel culture (966); and would switch reliances from brain-washed teenagers to an indoctrinated military (967A) to accomplish their goal of control. That era was the Cultural Revolution of 1966, and that land was China.
The Cultural Revolution began in China in 1966, when Mao, worried that society was falling from the goals of the Communist Revolution, decided that young people needed to learn revolution by practicing revolution in order to keep the revolutionary spirit alive (964). Eleven Million teenagers, known as the Red Guards, were released from school and gathered in Beijing (where they were “trained”) before dispersing throughout the Country (967) with instructions to “bombard HQ” (968) in order to effect change to fill life with mass meetings, parades, and the destruction of anything associated with the “Four Olds”—ideology, thoughts, habits, and customs (968). This could include public shaming, public beatings, being sent to re-education farms, or even death to those seen as not capitulating to the new ways of thinking.
By 1968, the ignorant teenagers (who had missed years of school) were replaced by a military that had been properly purged and brainwashed—many of the Red Guards were sent themselves to the re-education farms and are counted among the 1 million dead. Is this starting to sound familiar yet?
We are told in the preface, which relies heavily on the writings of Christine Sleeter and Miguel Zavala, that the “historical struggle” between groups is central to the study of Ethnic Studies (P5). We are told that students will not only study but emulate extremist movements such as Third World Liberation Front, La Raza, and Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter in fact is mentioned throughout the model curriculum at least 26 times as a model resistance movement to “connect to” (P5) and emulate in order to gain a “post-imperial life that promotes collective narratives of transformative resistance (P6).
The Model Curriculum describes eight outcomes that should be expected from the course(s).
- Pursuit of Justice and Equity. To end “systemic racism” and the “legalization of racism and discrimination” (P13). This outcome relies on the false premise that these two ills exist, they do not as the exact opposite is true.P13 Note 22
- Greater Inclusivity. This “should emphasize equity by being inclusive of all students” (P14). Another false premise. First Ethnic Studies is not all inclusive for it divides students into either a group of victims or one of oppressors (even if benign). Secondly, if greater inclusivity in Education was desired then why not support school choice? Thirdly, liberal democrats have had complete control of education for decades (find a conservative University Professor, if you can, and ask them).P14
- Further Self Understanding. Read further to see that students are expected to research until they can identify how many ways they are a victim (P14A).P14A
- Developing a better understanding of others. Translation to this is “how did systemic racism and white supremacy hurt you and how can you use that hurt to connect with others that were hurt?” (P16)P16
- Recognizing Intersectionality. For those unfamiliar with intersectionality, one is basically asked to identify all the victim groups they belong to that are systemically oppressed (P16).
- Promoting self-empowerment for civic engagement. Youth.gov describes civic engagement as: “volunteering, national service, and service-learning are all forms of civic engagement.” In the model curriculum, “civic engagement” is most always accompanied by examples of violent protests of TWLF or BLM. Students are then asked to emulate these movements at a local level.
- Supporting a Community Focus. This sounds great does it not? But read deeper to discover that this outcome is really to identify as many victim groups as possible in the local community as a lead-in to outcome 8 (P 18).P18
- Developing interpersonal communication. Wow! Also sounds great! But, and there always seems to be a but when dealing with this curriculum, read deeper to discover that assignments are to challenge the status quo in the local community in real life. Most of these assignments use and promote Black Lives Matter as an example that students should implement in their community.
As one can see already, the eight outcomes are based on an unreal, constructed reality. I once had a conversation with my son about “systemic racism”, and the crux for him came down to the existence of the inequality of the educational system, which is completely controlled by liberals…who will now solve the problem by further dividing our children? Being a gen Xer, a product of the 1980’s and a high school teacher for 25 years, I could give a ton of anecdotal evidence of how today’s kids (at least up until 2019 or so) not only don’t care what color each other are anymore, they don’t care much about sexual preference either. Both millennials and Gen Zers are more accepting of differences and commonalities than previous generations.
But I digress. Not only do the outcomes depend on a constructed reality in order to divide, but the Model Curriculum relies on an enormous amount of disinformation and misinformation—propaganda. For example, let’s take a look at Charlottesville, which is mentioned twice in the Model Curriculum. Charlottesville, as should be common knowledge by now, is a case (one of many) in which the MSM deceptively edited a video of President Trump to make it appear that he praised Nazi’s as “very fine people.” To put this myth to rest, one only needs to view the second (fake) impeachment trial in which President Trump’s team exposed this lie.
The model curriculum, in one instance, states the Charlottesville incident, as propagated by the MSM, as fact, as can be seen in the image below.
Did you catch the other bit of propaganda in the image above? That Mike Brown was murdered and not the thug on drugs that had just robbed a store, assaulted a much smaller Asian man, and attempted the murder of a Law Enforcement Officer before being killed in self-defense?
In the second instance, Charlottesville is used in connection with Nazis being anti-semetic (P486).
Well, yeah, does anyone not understand that? The problem lies with the linked propaganda that students are supposed to interpret as fact, which can be found here. Two bits of information should stick out as completely false in that article: First, that David Duke was inspired by Trump—David Duke has been a racist nazi since last century and has nothing to do with Trump. Secondly, that Melania Trump plagiarized Michelle Obama that even the extreme-left outlet Snopes debunked.
This “tidbit” should invalidate not only the entire source as being questionable but should give us pause to reflect on the fact that the California State Government, through the California Department of Education, is knowingly and willingly pushing propaganda upon its school children…K-12! But wait, there’s more!
If you happen to be keeping count, I just exposed three absolute falsehoods simply by searching for, and finding, one word in the Model Curriculum. These are very hurtful and damaging falsehoods that are expected to be taught as fact—this is the very definition of indoctrination. Indoctrination being the technique that was heavily relied upon by the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution. Is there any doubt that a mountain of propaganda is yet to be found within the pages of the Model Curriculum? Perhaps an article dedicated to the sources relied upon the Model Curriculum is in order in the future, but for now we should move on to how the Model Curriculum, in the guise of greater understanding and increased civic engagement is actually training America’s very own Red Guard to go out and use the violent tactics of the Marxist Black Lives Matter organization in their local communities.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a Marxist-terrorist organization (?!), you may ask aghast. If you have not done your own independent research into this question—beyond anything MSM puts out, it should go without saying— well, shame on you. Why not? This is not the specific purpose here, but in order to establish credibility for my claims, please allow this slight digression, before I move on to the manner in which BLM is presented as a credible form of “civic engagement” in the Model Curriculum.
The BLM riots, in only two months after George Floyd consumed a fatal dose of Fentanyl, amassed $1-$2 billion in damages https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html No movement that causes such damage in two months is entitled to be deemed “mostly peaceful”, nor can it be purported to be a legitimate form of civic engagement.
It would behoove us then, to look into the root founding and funding of BLM. Feel free to read for yourself here https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/black-lives-matter-foundation/ as I highlight.
Let’s take a little more illustrative look.
Oh, “major left-of-center donor-advised fund”. Anything else?
Wow, with that kind of money from far-left donors, is there anyone who could not create a “grassroots” movement? Even the Nazi collaborator, Jewish property appropriator (that happened to be Jewish), George Soros threw more than $33 million into the BLM kitty. But where did all that money go? I am glad you asked, that is there too, but first you should view this video that backs my Soros claim in his own words.
He does not really care about societal effects so long as he makes money? Wow. Okay, so moving forward with the financials of BLM.
Oh my. Okay, but are they terrorists? I have already shown that they are, but allow me to ask one question: what kind of peaceful organization demands that domestic terror laws be dismantled… besides organizations that might want to commit acts of terrorism?
I will prove more on that point, but are they Marxist? Perhaps we should figure out who founded BLM and ask them what they think. Onwards.
Patrice Cullors, by the way, now owns one $1.5 Million +++ mansion and several houses worth $500,000 or so each… go figure. So what do Patrisse, Alicia, and/or Opal have to say on the subject of Marxism?
“The first thing, I think is that we actually do have an ideological frame.
Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.
We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.” – Patrisse Cullors at 7:05 below.
Oh my, anything else? Well yes, there is, but hold on a minute. Go back and watch that video again. Patrice says that BLM was created by the death of Trayvon Martin by White Supremacist George Zimmerman. Okay… but George Zimmerman was Hispanic. Note how Patrise describes George… as a white-passing guy? Patrice stripped George Zimmerman of his cultural identity, why? Perhaps all that money was waiting for a “White Supremacist” and the white-sounding name Zimmerman fit the bill?
Perhaps by the time it was discovered Zimmerman was actually Hispanic (one of the four groups Ethnic Studies divides into), it was too late, thus the word salads when describing George Zimmerman?
Will Ethnic Studies teach this? By any means necessary? Letting us know what comes next? I wonder if Opal Tometi could give any advice on who we should consult should we want to start a Marxist organization?
That is Nicholas Maduro of Valenzuela by the way. Now that we have ascertained that BLM is a Marxist-terrorist organization, and about as far from “grassroots” as you can get, let’s move on. Where were we? Oh yes, the way the Model Curriculum praises BLM.
Black Lives Matter is mentioned 26 times in the California Model Curriculum. The mentions range from crediting BLM with removing Confederate statues and changing the name of the Redskins (p. 432)—without mentioning the violence perpetrated by BLM of course— to holding them up as a model of a contemporary social movement (P. 346) that is effective (P. 357), to an activity to create a pop-up book about BLM and is even compared to the Freedom Riders (P. 283).
What would the purpose of teaching school children such Revolutionary destructive tactics if not to practice such Revolutionary and destructive tactics? Rhetorical question as the Model Curriculum is clear they want our students to practice change by force. Is change by violent force and the utter destruction of those that speak against such force really the change we are looking for?
Consider how the Model Curriculum stresses that students are to find an instance of oppression in their community and effect change using Black Lives Matter tactics and ideology. Attacking anyone that expresses old, racist ideology, or thoughts, or customs, or habits—drag them from the car and beat them senseless if they will not exhibit the BLM fist—sound familiar?
I am certain a similar comparison could be made to the indoctrination of the NAZI Youth, but then it is the Chinese Communist Party that funds and controls, the MSM, Hollywood, and politicians like California’s own Dianne Feinstein—who had a CCP spy as her personal driver for 20 years— and Rep Eric Swalwell who was funded his entire political career by the CCP spy Fang Fang who did a bang bang job! All of these groups mentioned also support Critical Race Theory…by coincidence I am sure.
I hope my thoughts encourage you to research further if you haven’t already. Keep in mind this is just the tip of the iceberg, much more can be gleaned from the sources and the authors found within the Model Curriculum. Jeanelle Hope, for instance. Hope is one of the three credited writers of the California Ethnic Studies, and we know she was paid to do so…but who provided the money to Mellon for the grant? https://culturalstudies.ucdavis.edu/people/jeanelle-hope
Ethnic Studies/Critical Race Theory is more insidious than the idealistic descriptions make it seem to be. I urge everyone to take a closer look to see that California Ethnic Studies relies on false narratives and fake news to push fake ideologies—who is paying them to do this and why are they paying so much? I will leave you with this description of Cancel Culture from the Chinese Cultural Revolution, let me know if it resonates.
—Kenny, from the tavern. Image at top from AZ quotes