• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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?
No, dude you are and have been misunderstanding the intent the whole time. Whether it's because of ignorance or for other reasons is on you.
The fact that you continually spam this board with your lies makes me think it's for other reasons.
 
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.
There's nothing to refute. That's not what they're doing. You present a biased exaggeration at the end of the OP. As for white privilege, we're working to get rid of it.
 
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.
That's the strawman they use, and we ALL know that college-level-course material as it relates to CRTheory is not taught as a subject or course.
The pedagogy is being imbued into literally, every single subject in our public and even private schools.

This indoctrination, along with queering our kids, does not have the support of the majority of Americans. We will stop this.
 
I can’t think of this ever having happened.

If you want an example of a people getting chronically blamed for things they objectively didn’t do, look no further than the scapegoating of Jews.

Interesting. So if a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions? Are you saying that disparity in wealth is to be tolerated?

If it's not to be tolerated, why then would it be acceptable for the white student to keep that wealth?

As for white privilege, we're working to get rid of it.

Excellent. Then you agree that a 7 year old white first grader is in possession of privilege by virtue of his race, which is a CRT concept and would be banned by anti-CRT legislation. I count you among the people that understand CRT.
 
Interesting. So if a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions? Are you saying that disparity in wealth is to be tolerated?

Apparently I need to remind you of (3) from the proposed law.

(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.


Since this doesn’t actually happen, why is this a law? The examples you cited aren’t taught in school. No teacher has ever pointed to a white student and said, “You caused slavery.” No teacher has ever pointed to a Japanese student and said, “You bombed Pearl Harbor.

So again, why is this a proposed law?
 
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.
Well, in most parts of the US, that 7 year old white child is inherently and unlawfully privileged if you hold that all men are created equal and have equal rights under the law. While the child is not to to blame for any thing of this it is still a fact that as a whole (and not seen from an individual child but of all children as a whole), it is inherently true that a lot of these children will grow up to some degree part of a society that has repressive tendencies to blacks/latino's/Jews (you know people who physically do not conform to the "majority") and people like transgender/gay).

For almost 100% it is not the fault of the child, it is the "fault of teachers", the media, schooling, parents, family, etc. etc. etc. You know, society as a whole. Loads of people shown in the media/hollywood as lazy, criminal, slumming, poverty are usually minorities. Most brave police officers are usually shown as nice white family men/women. The education system is the same, parents have also grown up with the same institutional bias, especially older generations.

I do not know if CRT is the solution to this problem, I really do not because I have not studied it enough but the knee jerk reaction towards it is also part of the institutional bias. Rather than looking for the good in CRT and removing the unwanted things and making it age appropriate might be wiser than just banning it because it also bans the chance for honest discussions.

And I admit in the Netherlands we have created the same problems, maybe even bigger because with us it is the immigrants who have the issue and people like from where I live and other very dialect speaking areas of the Netherlands.

Part of it is worse school achievements and black and white schools. My mother was a reading teachers assistance at school and because the parents of a lot of kids were growing up in a home where only dialect was spoken, most kids had a huge reading deficiency in Dutch because they often did not know what specific words meant. The same is true with immigrant children, their parents do not speak Dutch so at home they grow up with all foreign language speaking people. Often they also watch foreign television. So when they reach school age they already lag a lot behind when it comes to the Dutch language. In speaking language the difference is a bit less but especially when it comes to reading and writing they are way behind their Dutch classmates.

While the US does not have that specific problem, it also has the issue of black children often coming into schools with teachers of lesser quality, schools that are not as good as "white schools", etc. etc. In this it is the same as in Dutch schools because white children usually live in better areas where there are better schools (white schools) and most minority children and poorer Dutch children go to "black schools" and that difference in being in arrears is often then an issue throughout the rest of these children's lives.

All in all it is a very difficult problem. I do not know if CRT is the solution but maybe discussing institutional discrimination is a good thing if done properly if it is age appropriate.

Also, from what I understood CRT was supposed to be taught at college level and university level. Which sounds the best as it is a very complex field to study.
 
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.
No, that is not my argument.
First off, the right is all over the board in its claims of what is and isn't being taught. That's one big problem. Just look at this board. You have wild claims that CRT is being used to indoctrinate white kids into hating themselves, hating the white race, making them feel personally guilty of the evils of racism.
So what are the specific things supposedly being taught that are objectionable? And where is that being taught. For the most part, CRT is being used by the right as a boogeyman to rally the troops further right.

I've mentioned this anecdote a few times: in the fairly affluent and largely republican township just west of me, they have a great school system and housing prices that reflect how valuable a great school system is.
Last fall, 4 women who had never served on a school board rallied behind the evils of CRT to get themselves elected to the board and ousted 4 members who had about 75 years of service under their belt, and in all other respects seemed to be doing a good job.

Problem is, CRT is not on their school curriculum; was not proposed to be on their curriculum and there was no suggestion that any teacher had been providing instruction on CRT, or whatever its core principals supposedly are. Do you consider that progress? A win for conservatives?
 
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.

I think the main disconnect for performative leftists is making the cognitive jump from "A white guy in 1845 held slaves and that was bad" to "All whites including children are in unlawful possession of white privilege, and laws need to be changed to eliminate that privilege".

Any cursory reading of Whiteness as Property (Harris, 1993, CRT founder) reveals a CRT advocacy for extreme redistributive affirmative action based on race.

So again, why is this a proposed law?

I'll ask a second time: If a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions?

Have you looked up "whiteness" and "white privilege" on public school websites and colleges? Schools are holding whites responsible for privilege and segregating traits based on race. That's why the law is proposed: No race is inherently privileged, oppressed or oppressor.

the right is all over the board in its claims of what is and isn't being taught. That's one big problem. Just look at this board. You have wild claims that CRT is being used to indoctrinate white kids into hating themselves, hating the white race, making them feel personally guilty of the evils of racism.

Search colleges and schools for "whiteness" and "white privilege", then get back to me on indoctrinating white kids into hating the white race.
 
Interesting. So if a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions? Are you saying that disparity in wealth is to be tolerated?

If it's not to be tolerated, why then would it be acceptable for the white student to keep that wealth?



Excellent. Then you agree that a 7 year old white first grader is in possession of privilege by virtue of his race, which is a CRT concept and would be banned by anti-CRT legislation. I count you among the people that understand CRT.
Why don't right wingers want anyone discussing the white racist past? It's because it's still going on, it's a leftover from the confederacy (also still going on), and is apparently the right's lifeblood. CRT seeks equality, it does not condemn the white race moving forward. Not sorry that it's a fact that slavery is a shameful practice from our past and it and its ongoing ingrained affects should be acknowledged.
 
I'll ask a second time: If a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions?

I’m not answering your tangent because you’re not answering my specific question. Why is the bill proposing a statute for a thing that doesn’t happen? If teachers aren’t telling white people that they caused slavery, why is there a bill banning it?
 
And I admit in the Netherlands we have created the same problems, maybe even bigger because with us it is the immigrants who have the issue and people like from where I live and other very dialect speaking areas of the Netherlands.

To analogize with the American leftist concept of CRT, immigrants to the Netherlands are faltering because the white Dutch are in possession of "Dutchness", which unfairly raises the Dutch up while keeping the immigrants down. CRT applied to the Netherlands would seek to de-center and deconstruct Dutchness, which is the same whiteness. The white Dutch speak a majority, oppressive language and engage in an oppressive culture based on merit.

Google 'deconstruct whiteness" for a better understanding of CRT.
 
To analogize with the American leftist concept of CRT, immigrants to the Netherlands are faltering because the white Dutch are in possession of "Dutchness", which unfairly raises the Dutch up while keeping the immigrants down. CRT applied to the Netherlands would seek to de-center and deconstruct Dutchness, which is the same whiteness. The white Dutch speak a majority, oppressive language and engage in an oppressive culture based on merit.

Google 'deconstruct whiteness" for a better understanding of CRT.

Why not just become an anti-racist?
 
Well, in most parts of the US, that 7 year old white child is inherently and unlawfully privileged if you hold that all men are created equal and have equal rights under the law.
Quite a statement coming from someone from a country where the power structure is -- and always has been -- entirely white.

1648998922593.png
 
and its ongoing ingrained affects should be acknowledged.

If I can "acknowledge" past and current systemic racism in a performative manner and keep my white wealth and white privilege, I'm all for it.
 
No, that is not my argument.
First off, the right is all over the board in its claims of what is and isn't being taught. That's one big problem. Just look at this board. You have wild claims that CRT is being used to indoctrinate white kids into hating themselves, hating the white race, making them feel personally guilty of the evils of racism.
So what are the specific things supposedly being taught that are objectionable? And where is that being taught. For the most part, CRT is being used by the right as a boogeyman to rally the troops further right.

I've mentioned this anecdote a few times: in the fairly affluent and largely republican township just west of me, they have a great school system and housing prices that reflect how valuable a great school system is.
Last fall, 4 women who had never served on a school board rallied behind the evils of CRT to get themselves elected to the board and ousted 4 members who had about 75 years of service under their belt, and in all other respects seemed to be doing a good job.

Problem is, CRT is not on their school curriculum; was not proposed to be on their curriculum and there was no suggestion that any teacher had been providing instruction on CRT, or whatever its core principals supposedly are. Do you consider that progress? A win for conservatives?
Do you think it is at all significant that less than a year ago the nation's single largest teachers union voted both to advocate for CRT and have CRT influence public school education programs?
 
Why is the bill proposing a statute for a thing that doesn’t happen? If teachers aren’t telling white people that they caused slavery, why is there a bill banning it?

You've changed my mind - #3 in the proposed bill isn't required, because there is no way a school system would ever consider that present-day white people are responsible for slavery or Jim Crow.

You an I are in agreement - whites are totally off the hook.
 
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).

This part of your post says it all. Thanks for letting me know what you really are.
 
Why not just become an anti-racist?

Seeing as how the definition of anti-racist is to actively work against systemic racism, I'll become one on the following conditions:

1. I get to stay in a 98% white town and send my kids to a 98% white public school, and never set foot in Detroit, Baltimore, or Pine Ridge.

2. I keep my wealth and income, and don't donate it to Blacks

3. I get to stay in my house, which currently sits atop land formerly occupied by the Nipmuc Indians.

4. As a sign of my good faith, I'll advocate that another street in a godforsaken city I don't live in gets renamed "MLK Boulevard"
 
While it's frustrating to see the left squirm under CRT in favor of performative support, I should be thankful. Every day that a liberal denies or dodges CRT is another day I get to keep my wealth.
 
If I can "acknowledge" past and current systemic racism in a performative manner and keep my white wealth and white privilege, I'm all for it.
Keeping for posterity.
 
I think the main disconnect for performative leftists is making the cognitive jump from "A white guy in 1845 held slaves and that was bad" to "All whites including children are in unlawful possession of white privilege, and laws need to be changed to eliminate that privilege".

Any cursory reading of Whiteness as Property (Harris, 1993, CRT founder) reveals a CRT advocacy for extreme redistributive affirmative action based on race.



I'll ask a second time: If a white student is not responsible for slavery or Jim Crow or its effects, can he and his parents keep the wealth that were supposedly obtained from such actions?

Have you looked up "whiteness" and "white privilege" on public school websites and colleges? Schools are holding whites responsible for privilege and segregating traits based on race. That's why the law is proposed: No race is inherently privileged, oppressed or oppressor.



Search colleges and schools for "whiteness" and "white privilege", then get back to me on indoctrinating white kids into hating the white race.
How exactly do you search a college or school for whiteness?
And assuming you have not attended college, you apparently don't know all classes are elective?
So your claim is that white kids are choosing to take classes in which professors are indoctrinating them into hating the white race? Makes perfect sense to..... absolutely no one.

But no, I'm not searching anywhere for anything. When you advance a conspiracy theory like this, it is incumbent upon you to prove it's actually occurring as you claim, not my burden to prove it is not.
 
To analogize with the American leftist concept of CRT, immigrants to the Netherlands are faltering because the white Dutch are in possession of "Dutchness", which unfairly raises the Dutch up while keeping the immigrants down. CRT applied to the Netherlands would seek to de-center and deconstruct Dutchness, which is the same whiteness. The white Dutch speak a majority, oppressive language and engage in an oppressive culture based on merit.

Google 'deconstruct whiteness" for a better understanding of CRT.
Except being Dutch is not a color, a lot of black Dutch people can speak Dutch excellently, this has to do with language skills.

That is why the Dutch government puts a lot of effort into increasing the language skills of immigrants. This means usually that either parents learn Dutch and then the language skills vastly improve or it is the children of immigrants as in second generation and usually these kids speak Dutch as well as "white/black" Dutch children.
 
That is why the Dutch government puts a lot of effort into increasing the language skills of immigrants. This means usually that either parents learn Dutch and then the language skills vastly improve or it is the children of immigrants as in second generation and usually these kids speak Dutch as well as "white/black" Dutch children.
Ah, you see that's where you're behind. Here in America we understand that student outcomes are meant to be a secondary goal. The primary objective of our public education system is job stability for public sector union teachers.
 
Back
Top Bottom