CNN: Being anti-CRT means you're pro-Nazi

[Rickeroo]

How a diverse coalition in a red state shut down anti-CRT legislation

Parents and teachers were shocked after an Indiana state senator introduced a bill requiring that teachers remain neutral when teaching about Nazism. And in less than two days, a coalition to defeat the bill was born.

Nevermind that the words "Nazi" or "neutral" never appeared in that bill, here's more:

The bill was later pulled from the education committee's schedule in the Senate, however, its successor -- House Bill 1134 -- created even more of an uproar, not just among Indiana educators, but among a wide range of interest groups in the state.
The bill, which some Republicans called anti-CRT (critical race theory) legislation, prohibited "teachers or other employees to use supplemental learning materials to promote certain concepts regarding sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin."
Supporters said the bill would give parents more say on what their children learn in school, but critics saw it as censorship.

Here's the "censorship" of the bill:

Sec. 3. (a) In accordance with IC 20-33-1-1, a school corporation or qualified school:

(1) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that any sex,
race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently
superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion,
color, or national origin;

(2) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that an
individual should be treated adversely or preferentially
because of the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color,
or national origin; and

(3) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that an
individual, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin, is inherently responsible for actions
committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race,
ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

CNN, democrats, and all supporters of CRT want the following to be taught to 3rd graders, or to have public school curriculum frameworks adhere to the following principles:

- the concept that some sexes, races, ethnicities, religions, colors, or national origins are inherently superior or inferior to others

- a student should be treated adversely or preferentially because of the student's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin

- a student, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, is inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

 

[PeteEU]

I am confused... are you against or for the Indiana legislation?

 

[Torus34]

We as a nation would do better to seek out ways of reducing racial inequalities in a number of important areas rather than promulgating political palaver, often wrong, about CRT.

That racism exists in the United States of America is a given. Reducing it should be the goal of a society which likes to think of itself as just.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[TheParser]

That racism exists in the United States of America is a given.

It certainly is.

I am still sick to my stomach after the wonderful Daily Mail posted another example this morning.

A middle-aged lady (of the rapidly shrinking ethnicity) was visiting New York City and happily walking down the street when a gentleman of a different background purposely tripped her. She's in the hospital now.

Racism is, indeed, a "given," and it will only get worse in the coming decades (as a lot of Asians have found out since 2020).

 

[jnug]

I am confused... are you against or for the Indiana legislation?

He is for anything that damages the United States.

 

[NatMorton]

We as a nation would do better to seek out ways of reducing racial inequalities in a number of important areas rather than promulgating political palaver, often wrong, about CRT.

Ever consider the possibility that CRT-based public policy is likely to exacerbate racial inequalities, and that fighting CRT may actually be a way to fight those inequalities?

 

[Cardinal]

(3) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that an
individual, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin, is inherently responsible for actions
committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race,
ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

That is going to be a very weird law to enforce. So can I blame a white Southern slave owner in 1850 for owning slaves, or would that run afoul of the law because the institution of slavery in America was created a couple hundred years before him?

I think the intent of this law is to prevent people from saying that there was an institution of black slavery by white people, but the wording of this law doesn’t really achieve that. Racists think they’re being blamed for slavery that happened over a hundred years before they were born, but they only think that because they’re completely insane. So now they’ll have a law that will protect them from something that isn’t happening.

The only way they’re going to get the kind of law they want is to create one that specifically bans the teaching of slavery from American history.

 

[Rickeroo]

I am confused... are you against or for the Indiana legislation?

I'm for it. It merely applies the Civil Rights Act (don't discriminate by race) to school systems.

A supporter of CRT holds that a white 7 year old is inherently oppressive (especially of Blacks) and possesses unrightful and unlawful privilege. Since I don't hold don't views, I'm not a CRT supporter.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm for it. It merely applies the Civil Rights Act (don't discriminate by race) to school systems.

A supporter of CRT holds that a white 7 year old is inherently oppressive (especially of Blacks) and possesses unrightful and unlawful privilege. Since I don't hold don't views, I'm not a CRT supporter.

Any 7 year old who can successfully oppress an entire race is basically Lex Luthor and Hitler combined and must be killed now.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Ever consider the possibility that CRT-based public policy is likely to exacerbate racial inequalities, and that fighting CRT may actually be a way to fight those inequalities?

Ever consider the possibility that the fringe right coming unglued about fighting CRT public policy where it has never been advanced, or at least never advanced in the manner they claim, causes more problems than it solves-primarily more divisiveness?

 

[PeteEU]

I'm for it. It merely applies the Civil Rights Act (don't discriminate by race) to school systems.

I see.... but the civil rights act is hated by the right.

A supporter of CRT holds that a white 7 year old is inherently oppressive (especially of Blacks) and possesses unrightful and unlawful privilege. Since I don't hold don't views, I'm not a CRT supporter.

That is not what CRT is about.....do you even know what CRT is?

Taken from here

critical race theory (CRT), intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans. Critical race theorists are generally dedicated to applying their understanding of the institutional or structural nature of racism to the concrete (if distant) goal of eliminating all race-based and other unjust hierarchies.

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Rickeroo]

So can I blame a white Southern slave owner in 1850 for owning slaves, or would that run afoul of the law because the institution of slavery in America was created a couple hundred years before him?

I think the intent of this law is to stop people saying that there was an institution of black slavery by white people, but the wording of that law doesn’t really do that. Racists think they’re being blamed for slavery that happened over a hundred years before they were born, but they only think that because they’re completely insane. So now they’ll have a law that will protect them from something that isn’t happening.

You're misunderstanding CRT and the intent of the law. I'll get right to the heart of who's getting blamed.

Are you saying that present-day whites are not in possession of unlawful privilege that was built on a legacy of slavery? Are you saying whites shouldn't be singled out based on their unlawful privilege?

 

[Cardinal]

You're misunderstanding CRT and the intent of the law. I'll get right to the heart of who's getting blamed.

Are you saying that present-day whites are not in possession of unlawful privilege that was built on a legacy of slavery? Are you saying whites shouldn't be singled out based on their unlawful privilege?

What does that have to with this law or my post?

Read the bill and my post more carefully and try again.

 

[Rickeroo]

I see.... but the civil rights act is hated by the right.


That is not what CRT is about.....do you even know what CRT is?

Taken from here


Do you disagree with this?

I suggest you read "Whiteness as Property" by Harris, and search for "whiteness" and "white privilege" at school websites.

What does that have to with this law or my post?

The bill (as well as other anti-CRT laws) prevent discrimination against white students based on their skin color. The law prevent a teacher or school from considering that the white student is privileged based on their race. Conversely, the law also prevents a school from considering that a Black student is inherently underprivileged, underperforming, etc.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in interpreting anti-CRT legislation. It can be summed up in two words: race neutrality.

 

[Cardinal]

I suggest you read "Whiteness as Property" by Harris, and search for "whiteness" and "white privilege" at school websites.



The bill (as well as other anti-CRT laws) prevent discrimination against white students based on their skin color. The law prevent a teacher or school from considering that the white student is privileged based on their race. Conversely, the law also prevents a school from considering that a Black student is inherently underprivileged, underperforming, etc.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in interpreting anti-CRT legislation. It can be summed up in two words: race neutrality.

Explain clearly to me of how somebody would violate (3). Provide an example.

 

[Antiwar]

A supporter of CRT holds that a white 7 year old is inherently oppressive (especially of Blacks) and possesses unrightful and unlawful privilege.

I've never studied 'critical race theory' nor sociology. I've never even been a graduate student. Is that what 'critical race theory' says?

 

[sardonicsky]

It is too difficult for many Americans to admit that our nation was founded on Native American genocide, the enslavement of Africans and the exploitation of Latinos and Asians by white people.

If they can't even admit that basic fact, they can't begin to face what that legacy means.

 

[PeteEU]

I suggest you read "Whiteness as Property" by Harris, and search for "whiteness" and "white privilege" at school websites.

So do you agree or disagree with the definition of CRT?

 

[element94]

How a diverse coalition in a red state shut down anti-CRT legislation

Parents and teachers were shocked after an Indiana state senator introduced a bill requiring that teachers remain neutral when teaching about Nazism. And in less than two days, a coalition to defeat the bill was born.

Nevermind that the words "Nazi" or "neutral" never appeared in that bill, here's more:

The bill was later pulled from the education committee's schedule in the Senate, however, its successor -- House Bill 1134 -- created even more of an uproar, not just among Indiana educators, but among a wide range of interest groups in the state.
The bill, which some Republicans called anti-CRT (critical race theory) legislation, prohibited "teachers or other employees to use supplemental learning materials to promote certain concepts regarding sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin."
Supporters said the bill would give parents more say on what their children learn in school, but critics saw it as censorship.

Here's the "censorship" of the bill:

Sec. 3. (a) In accordance with IC 20-33-1-1, a school corporation or qualified school:

(1) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that any sex,
race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently
superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion,
color, or national origin;

(2) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that an
individual should be treated adversely or preferentially
because of the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color,
or national origin; and

(3) shall not promote as part of a course of instruction or in a
curriculum or instructional program the concept that an
individual, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or
national origin, is inherently responsible for actions
committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race,
ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

CNN, democrats, and all supporters of CRT want the following to be taught to 3rd graders, or to have public school curriculum frameworks adhere to the following principles:

- the concept that some sexes, races, ethnicities, religions, colors, or national origins are inherently superior or inferior to others

- a student should be treated adversely or preferentially because of the student's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin

- a student, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, is inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

Where did you get that last bit of point-by-point, Info-Wars?
Yeah, it's a shame they have to do this at all because of right wing white supremacists that can't take the hint that their bad ideas are facing extinction.

 

[Helix]

The daily CRT feed is working again, apparently.

 

[Acadia]

Ever consider the possibility that CRT-based public policy is likely to exacerbate racial inequalities, and that fighting CRT may actually be a way to fight those inequalities?

Fighting CRT is fighting racism.

 

[NatMorton]

Ever consider the possibility that the fringe right coming unglued about fighting CRT public policy where it has never been advanced, or at least never advanced in the manner they claim, causes more problems than it solves-primarily more divisiveness?

Yes, I have. Your side as turned that into a mantra. One could hardly escape it.

If you look at what I and others have said about CRT, I suspect you'll find that it doesn't jibe with your idea of "the manner [we] claim." You folks generally argue a straw man that we assert the full law-school level CRT is being taught in public schools or that we're against teaching "the history of slavery and racism." That is not what we've been arguing.

 

[Rickeroo]

Explain clearly to me of how somebody would violate (3). Provide an example.

Of course. For reference: not promote the concept that an individual, by virtue of race is inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race

Banned concepts would then be:

A Japanese student responsible for Pearl Harbor or its after-effects
A German student responsible for the Holocaust or its after-effects
A white student responsible for slavery/Jim Crow or its after-effects

One could claim that whites benefit from the after-effects of slavery by virtue of the possession of privilege (higher wealth, higher income). It could be argued that whites are responsible for having that wealth, since they choose to keep it and not donate it to more deserving races, notably Blacks.

Are whites, as a race, responsible for having more wealth than Blacks?

It is too difficult for many Americans to admit that our nation was founded on Native American genocide, the enslavement of Africans and the exploitation of Latinos and Asians by white people.

If they can't even admit that basic fact, they can't begin to face what that legacy means.

Finally someone gets CRT. The next steps are:

1. Get whites the hell off Indian lands

2. Before whites get kicked off, transfer privileged white wealth to Blacks

If we're going to cry about whites killing Indians and taking their land, yet we'll allow whites to stay on Indians lands, why even bother bringing it up? One word: Performative.

Where did you get that last bit of point-by-point, Info-Wars?
Yeah, it's a shame they have to do this at all because of right wing white supremacists that can't take the hint that their bad ideas are facing extinction.

Regardless of source, feel free to refute the point. I can't wait to hear a liberal try to explain to me that a 7 year old white kid in first grade is "not" in possession of white privilege.

 

[NatMorton]

Many on the left don't quite understand the difference between Critical Race Theory and the application of Critical Rate Theory. The former is not the latter, and the latter has absolutely been finding its way into public school classrooms. You don't need to look beyond The 1619 Project for that.

 

[Cardinal]

Of course. For reference: not promote the concept that an individual, by virtue of race is inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race

Banned concepts would then be:

A Japanese student responsible for Pearl Harbor or its after-effects

I can’t think of this ever having happened.

A German student responsible for the Holocaust or its after-effects

I can’t think of this ever having happened.

A white student responsible for slavery/Jim Crow or its after-effects

I can’t think of this ever having happened.