Again, not proof per se but since the topic of what exactly CRT is, I thought I’d bring in good ol’ Ben to explain it. Of particular note is the following:
Shapiro notes that CRT was specifically designed as an activist ideology for tearing down the institutions of the United States.
Principle #1: racism is not an aberration–it is everywhere and seeped into everything we do.
Racism is difficult to fight or address (must be done by “looking within”).
Principle #2: white over color ascendance - racism serves white people so white people have an incentive to keep the racism.
Principle #3: race is not natural/biological but a social constructs used for political purposes.
Principle #4: voice of color - colored people can communicate things about their experiences of racism to white people that white people can’t experience.
In order to get over your white racism, you must actively tear down the system that supports you.
Whoever’s telling you guys that CRT is nothing more than American history has you completely duped (I mean, you don’t have to have a special theory in order to teach American history, especially one that only emerged in the late 80s–what were they teaching before? German history?).
Shapiro notes (rightfully) that principles #3 and #4 conradict each other (and I’d venture to say principle #3 contradicts pretty much everything else in CRT)–how can black people have their own experiences that white people can’t even talk about when there is no such thing as black people or white people? How is there even racism if race is just a social construct. Racism implies that there are members of a certain race and members of another race, both locked in a oppressor/oppressed relationship. But if race is just a social construct, how are we determining who belongs to what race? And how would one ever claim that one is being mistreated because of one’s race?
In any case, I usually don’t like to say that video sources are unquestionably right, but come on, it’s Ben.
Not vulnerable enough since their parents have often already fulled their minds with hate and prejudice well before they are introduced to the idea that racism might be a bad idea.
Principle #2: white over color ascendance - racism serves white people so white people have an incentive to keep the racism.
Principle #3: race is not natural/biological but a social constructs used for political purposes.
In order to get over your white racism, you must actively tear down the system that supports you.
Not at all. I think it’s great that there are gender neutral bathrooms (maybe a bit of a waste of space and construction budget, but hey, if people are happy…). Doesn’t mean that transgender people are gonna use them. If a man who identifies as a woman thinks that means he’s owed being treated exactly as a woman, he may feel he has a right to use the woman’s washroom. He may even feel being told to use the gender neutral washroom is a form of oppression–he is being denied his right to be treated as a woman!
Well, now that’s an interesting response. I was expecting something along the lines of “They’re being paid to say those things” or “The videos were taken out of context.” But I wonder if this response is a consequence of me posting too many videos–enough to compel you to gloss over them all and fail to really be hit with the actual evidence (which requires attention to the details)–I mean, some of them are over half an hour long and you responded almost as soon as you saw that I posted–so it reminds me of the more basic psychological response of plain old denial–the blocking from consciousness of that which you don’t want to see. At least it’s interesting learning how a mind like yours works.
In any case, I tried. Not gonna do that for every round. You’ve lost credibility with this response. Now that I know how easily you dismiss evidence even after asking for it, how can I be sure your comments about PTA meetings are remotely accurate? How can I know you’re not just relaying your distorted, cherry picked, and invented memories, and all the stuff that would prove the parents’ claims were omitted or wiped from your mind?
I don’t know if it was my ancestors or not (I’m half white, half arabic, all Canadian) and I don’t know where my family lineage can be traced back to (except apparently some knighthoods in the 9th century). But listen, P, I don’t need to reason about how CRT makes kids racist (although it’s obvious how this works) because the proof is in the pudding. I’m arguing that it’s making kids racist because it’s making kids racist–i.e. the empircal evidence is in–colored students are beginning to distrust and dislike white students, teachers are humiliating white students and making them feel bad for being white (or having conservarive parents, or having a cop for a dad, etc.), white students are being forced to publicly shame themselves by admitting to how being white is an overall bad thing. You really think that all CRT teaching is is a teacher standing there saying “Ok, kids. The colonists brought the first black slave to the Americas in 1619. From then until 1862, they were slaves to white slave owners. Ok, class is ajurned.” Like you did in the last post, you left a whole swath of the material out (for example, that America was founded on the first black slave brought here in 1619). So yeah, it may be a fact that the first slave was brought to America in 1619 (although I can’t confirm this but let’s grant it) and no one should have any qualms denying that, but that this marks the foundation of America? ← Is that a fact? Did that even enter your consciousness when you brought up the first slave thing? Proly not because you’re trying to bring up only examples that no one can deny. And the rest you call “assumptions”. That we’re making things up. I guess you would say that from inside your little bubble. ← That’s what it’s designed for. To keep alive whatever rosy picture of the world you want to live in and to keep out all the actual facts that are going on outside your bubble. Don’t know what to do about that.
So is CNN, NBC, ABC, etc… are you at least willing to admit that at the end of the day, no one really knows what news source can be trusted and which can’t? That no one really knows the truth except for what happens directly in front of them? I’m guessing that because your left-wing liberal sources tell you that you can trust them and not to trust the right-wing media, it’s a no. I’m guessing you’re gonna say: left-wing source good, right-wing bad.
(And just for the record, I’m not a huge Fox News fan (although that’s what the youtube algorithm seems to be feeding me lately); I prefer more central to moderately right leaning sources, like NTD News; Fox News is a little too beyond “moderate” for my liking–when a news source features more interviews than actual live footage, a red flag is raised in my mind.)
It’s the exact opposite to me. CRT is the ultimate and most unabashed brainwashing tool the Democratic left have ever come up with.
Against all odds, we happen to agree on this point. Personally, I think the line should be drawn long before teaching things like if you disagree with CRT or the left, that makes you racist. Or that if you believe in the “all lives matter” slogan, you’re a racist. Or if you think not all cops are racist, then you’re a racist. Teachers and the school boards have no place teaching this to kids. And I’d even go so far as to say teachers and the school board have no place teaching what counts as racist and what doesn’t at all–even if it obviously is racist–like the KKK lynching black people as an expression of their cause–because the teacher’s job is not to moralize, it’s to teach the facts and train students the essential skills required in life. Teaching children morals is the job of the parents. Leave it to them.
But P, those very parents whom you accuse of complain provided the answer to your question. Several of the videos show where CRT is being taught. What more did you want? To take you by the hand and physically go to one of these schools? Sit down in class with you and listen to the teacher teach material that comes straight out of CRT?
Ah, the 3/5th clause. I was hoping someone would bring this up, because it’s probably one of the most misunderstood phrases in the Constitution. Sure, on a surface reading, it sounds like they’re saying slaves aren’t worth the value of a full human being, that they’re less than human, but this is not what they were getting at with that clause. It was a compromise between the abolitionist states and the slave states, and it was the slave states who pushed for slaves to count as full human beings. The abolitionists didn’t want them to count at all. Really, Gib? Are you sure you don’t have that backwards? Yes, I’m sure. The 3/5th clause was put in the Constitution in order to protect slaves, to prevent the slave states from prolonging slavery indefinitely. Let me explain…
If you look at Article I, Section 2, in the third paragraph it states “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.” They’re saying that for every block of 30,000 people in each state (a district), they get one representative in the House of Representatives. If slaves count as full persons, then the slave states get more representation in the House of Representatives, and can therefore dominate the House to the same extent. If slaves don’t count as persons at all, then it is more difficult for slave states to dominate the House by way of their numbers. Thus, the 3/5th compromise was an effort on the part of the abolitionists to make it more difficult for the slave states to gain influence in the House of Representatives. It had absolutely nothing to do with what they thought the worth of a slave as a human being was.
Even though America didn’t even exist at the time? Look, if you’re going to claim that America is found on some event that doesn’t even have to have occurred after the Declaration of Independence (which, by definition, is a proclamation of the founding of a new nation), then it’s completely arbitrary what you choose. I choose the colonizaton of Roanoke Island (the first British settlement in the Americas) as the founding event of America, so all of America–it’s culture, it’s history, it’s values, it’s institutions, it’s way of life–are based on Roanoke Island. Or how 'bout Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the Americas in 1587? Why isn’t that the deciding event that marks the foundation of America? If events before 1776 are up for grabs, you can literally pick anything.
And it is a confused point to say that just because something was going on at the time of a nations birth, then the nation is founded on that. So sure, slavery was in full sway in 1776, but so was the spice trade, so was agriculture, so was horse back riding. ← Why aren’t these what America is founded on? Unless you have an insidious agenda to push, focusing on just one event or trend that so happened to be going on at the time of a nation’s founding, and calling that the basis on which the nation was founded, seems pretty arbitrary.
Really??? If you don’t get it, I’m not going to explain it to you. That would be too irritating.
Gee, ya think?
That’s hardly an objective statement. Who cares what a bunch of Marxist historians think about Trump. The humanities in pretty much all the universities across the western world are riding happily on the woke train to commie town.
Here’s what you said:
“if someone tries to burn down a building, then does a very modest amount
to save said building, do they get credit for helping a bit or do they get blame
for being an arsonist?”
That translates exactly into saying Trump caused the virus. If you mean to say Trump sat back idly while the virus took over the population, that would be more like someone noticing that the building is on fire and standing by idly while the fire consumes the building and the people inside. If he gets the blame for being an arsonist, doesn’t that mean he caused it?
But in any case, I’m still baffled as to why inventing the vaccine doesn’t count as doing something about the virus. It’s pretty much the thing that was ever done about the virus, and the rolling out of the vaccine counts as part of that effort (Biden doesn’t get the credit for that except in the sense that he didn’t oppose it–your tax dollars hard at work there).
I see they’ve trained you well. You know exactly when to call someone a racist cunt. Good thing too. If you hadn’t called me that, I wouldn’t be nearly convinced of your point as I am now.
Dividing and conquering… again. Not the best way to go, in alleviating or trying to solve the pockets of racial tensions in a country. There are better ways, plus… teaching children about slavery, creates hate and animosity in the youngsters… I remember it happening here, when it was taught in my History class in the 80s… it divided some blacks and whites, but not all, and everyone else remained impartial.
Thank you, obsrvr. I think all of us who see the corruption going on in the deep state of the US today have an obligation, to a greater or lesser extent, to speak up and say something. I have no doubt the same corruption is going on in many countries around the world, but I see it in the US the most. Today the US, tomorrow the world.
[b]"There are many ways to answer these questions. The most important is by having honest conversations with the people directly affected. But another is by asking: How high are the barriers to opportunity for different groups? Do different groups have a fair shot at the American dream? This approach isn’t perfect, but at least it points us to empirical data rather than just theory and supposition.
When we apply this lens to the African American experience we see that barriers to opportunity are still very high. The income gap separating white and Black families was basically as big in 2016 as it was in 1968. The wealth gap separating white and Black households grew even bigger between those years. Black adults are over 16 times more likely to be in families with three generations of poverty than white adults.
Research shows the role racism plays in perpetuating these disparities. When, in 2004, researchers sent equally qualified white and Black applicants to job interviews in New York City, dressed them similarly and gave them similar things to say, Black applicants got half as many callbacks or job offers as whites."[/b]
Note to Gib:
You are in Observr’s Coalition of Truth, aren’t you? Or do you dare not actually go that far?
This alone doesn’t tell us anything. It assumes that disparities between black income and white income is due to barriers to opportunity. But it doesn’t look at any other possible causes (like maybe blacks don’t apply for high paying jobs as often, or maybe blacks tend to be less educated than whites).
Now this is more to the point, and it doesn’t surprise me. It may very well be the case that people have an unconscious bias against black people, at least when it comes to hiring practices in New York. I’d like to see what the results are in other regions, and more recently.
I have not heard of this “coalition of truth”–sounds cultish–but perhaps I’m the type that belongs there. You think?
That’s right! We’re closing in on you from both north and south.
Or, as some here might suggest, maybe it’s because blacks are just an inferior race and are simply incapable of achieving any real success despite the absence of systemic racism. Even though it is likely to be racist attitudes like this that in fact sustain any systemic racism there might actually be.
I’m on the side of the facts, whatever they are. I seriously doubt that blacks are any more incapable of achieving success in the current system than whites, but if it happens to be a fact that they are, we need to know about it and do the right thing about it.
Gib - there is a ritual sacrifice that everyone has to go through to join. You have to cut off your - erm - well - you know - your erm - that private thing that men love so much - - - your Ego.
According to your theory - if you don’t cut it all off - the remaining portion should be browned. I don’t think we want to hear how you accomplish that.
Really??? If you don’t get it, I’m not going to explain it to you. That would be too irritating.
