Recent comments in /f/Newark

cmonsquelch t1_j9jv454 wrote

The PATH from Newark Penn Station goes directly into the World Trade Center, if that's of interest. The station is a mall now. Go upstairs to street level and you can see the memorial; there's a museum, or you can walk around the plaza and see the memorial itself.

There's lots to see walking around downtown. You can walk over and see the Brooklyn Bridge (walk across it if you are able & its not too cold/wet).

It depends what sort of stuff you and your Mom enjoy. Shopping? Restaurants? Museums? Walking?

5

Chelseafc5505 t1_j9hlaim wrote

So you'll need a way to get from Vailsburg to Newark Penn Station. Plenty of Ubers & light rail if you're willing to walk a bit.

I'd recommend going to Jersey City & Liberty State Park. Can get the ferry from there out to the statue I believe. Also great views of lower Manhattan

Path train from Newark Penn to Hoboken. Take the Jersey City light rail from Hoboken terminal to Liberty State Park.

7

Chelseafc5505 t1_j9hi7i4 wrote

Where are you staying?

Are you actually interested in where to go in Newark, or are you flying into EWR and figured this would be a good starting point?

If you're in town for a weekend only, you'll be limited how much you can get done.

Trains from Newark to NYC are frequent and very safe. Either PATH or NJTransit available, depending where in NYC you want to end up.

4

Nwk_NJ t1_j9hhdii wrote

Well it isn't being used correctly. I'd love to have a detailed conversation regarding some of the intellectuals you're referencing. I'm sure some of them are up for debate as well, as far as people's take on their ideas. Again, people should be exposed to everyone's work and ideas, as long as they aren't singularly put forth.

1

Echos_myron123 t1_j9hfw4k wrote

There might not be a literal ban but watering down a black history course to the point that some of the most important black intellectuals in U.S. history have been removed from the syllabus because they offend the sensibilities of reactionary dipshits like Ron DeSantis is the main point, not whether the word "ban" is being used correctly.

2

Nwk_NJ t1_j9f3do2 wrote

I appreciate your engagement and intellectually honest response....This debate is nuanced and people want to make it zero sum/binary. Essentially, in today's academic environment if you don't subscribe to Bell's theorhetical "critical" school of thought on race, or don't want to include that philosophy as part of a curriculum, you're "banning" or "against teaching" black history. But black history is a different conversation...thats factual history, not a theorhetical approach to teaching, analyzing, or discussing it. There are a number of valid paradigms in which to do those things, including but not limited to a critical approach. I do not know of any state or school district that bans the teaching of black history in the factual sense. And in NJ, Murphy just doubled down on the AP curriculum, which I'm certain includes a heavy dose of "critical" philosophy (which I'm fine with including and discussing...but am skeptical of having it guide entire curriculums exclusively...i feel that way about any theorhetical approach to any subject). If AP h.s. students learn about critical approaches to history, and choose to subscribe to them, thats fine with me. But introduce them to competing frames of thought as well, and let them engage and discuss...do not construct an entire curriculum based on just one theorhetical approach, designed to make the case for just that theory, and then pretend its a comprehensive curriculum. I'm not saying that's what's happening...just defining the actual parameters and competing perspectives in today's current discussion.

I don't agree with Hamm's politics. . . And I don't subscribe to the current predominant academic conceptualization of everything boiling down to some inherently and irredeemable system....removing the nuance and complexity of the conversation, and instead creating a straw man - i.e., "you don't agree with all critical perspectives on race, and therefore take issue with an unfettered pedagogical approach to teaching it...therefore, you are BANNING black history, and are against teaching black history"...is not true, but its a convenient way to paint a competeting perspective as problematic and to remove voices and perspectives from the conversation without having to actually take up the debate on the merits. This seems to be a common tactic these days with folks at Hamm's position on the political spectrum. I'm simply calling out the straw man, and hyperbolic headline. To your credit, you acknowledged the nuance.

Now, if certain academics or their works are being pulled from the curriculum without reason, or bc they are critical perspectives, that could very well be a problem. But if they are simply diversifying the theorhetical approaches to analyzing the history, or making the course less theorhetical in general, whether we agree or disagree, all I'm saying is that's a conversation to have, but it isn't banning the factual teaching of history.

This would be akin to teaching an English class, but only selecting works, and pushing students to analyze works exclusively through an existentialist lens, and when someone asserts that some existentialist works should be removed to make room for epistemology, and therefore a more diversified theorhetical approach to analyzing the printed page, the existentialist shouting "they want to ban philosophy!"

0

Jimmy_kong253 t1_j9eczts wrote

Except for Florida(even that is a bit overblown) there really is no ban on black history it's being taught in most colleges and plenty of museums, historical sites with plaques. It's not much work like looking into history in general if you really want to find stuff out. Seriously more parents should take their kids to museums in general

2

HudsonGuy91 t1_j9e9ijf wrote

My friend stayed at that Watt Hotel a couple times, which is what led me to exploring Rahway. I was pleasantly surprised. A nice hotel (with a nice bar), many other bars/restaurants, a brewery, an arts center, old buildings mixed with the new, the train station, then a lovely residential area. A damn thriving and walkable downtown! A lot of people just know those towns between Newark and Woodbridge from the Turnpike, which doesn't leave the best impression, but they've got a lot to offer.

3