Why is CRT a hot button issue and how did it become one?

[Dans La Lune]

CRT seems to be all the rage among the right and the far right. When and how did this become a thing? Who made it a thing? What, specifically is CRT, how old is it, what does it do, is it even an "it"?

Because that's what's on the memo. Ten years ago it was Obama's line, 'You didn't build that!' or 'Benghazi!!'. Next month it will be something else. Round and round we go. And like most nuanced topics, the right-wing are unable to grasp it except in the most troglodytic, hamfisted way. 9.9 out of 10 times, you get a Majorie Taylor Green level of understanding.

'Ah don't like CRT 'cause I don't think preschoolers should be taught to hate white people!'

 

[NatMorton]

Because they are the ones who are actually teaching it?

The associate editor of EdWeek magazine is not teaching it. He’s pimping for it.

 

[cpwill]

You mean, people are so terrified about parts of their own history that they want to make it illegal for teachers to talk about it.

Nope. Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, local histories, all that is being taught and will continue to be taught.

What people don't want their 7 year olds taught is that Johnny is an Oppressor because he's a white kid or that Deon's future will always be limited because he's a black kid, and Johnny is oppressing him. What people don't want is for us to bring back segregation by calling it "affinity groups". What people don't want is their 9 year old daughter to get lectured about how her whiteness is rooted in plunder and rape, and that she's a racist if she thinks that just because she hasn't personally raped or plundered anyone, that she's not guilty of that.

CRT asks useful questions, but, it has serious epistemological problems and assumptions that lead it towards destructive answers; it's not "history".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Nope. Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, local histories, all that is being taught and will continue to be taught.

What people don't want their 7 year olds taught is that Johnny is an Oppressor because he's a white kid or that Deon's future will always be limited because he's a black kid, and Johnny is oppressing him. What people don't want is for us to bring back segregation by calling it "affinity groups". What people don't want is their 9 year old daughter to get lectured about how her whiteness is rooted in plunder and rape, and that she's a racist if she thinks that just because she hasn't personally raped or plundered anyone, that she's not guilty of that.

CRT asks useful questions, but, it has serious epistemological problems and assumptions that lead it towards destructive answers; it's not "history".

Then people should get involved and see to it that curriculae do NOT turn into bashing of that kind.
Why are you behaving as if this is all carved in stone. It isn't.

"Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, local histories, all that is being taught and will continue to be taught."
It was taught to ME as I sat there LIVING through the Civil Rights movement in real time but it was NOT taught to my older brothers a decade or so earlier.
Slavery was briefly touched on.
Then: George Washington chopped down a cherry tree - father I cannot tell a lie, etc. and Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, The End.
People on school boards saw to it that it WOULD be taught.

Know what else wasn't touched on when my older brother attended school? The braceros and Operation Wetback.
They were LIVING through that in real time and knew nothing about it.
In fact my oldest brother who was a fan of The Byrds didn't understand what "Deportee" was about or why Woody Guthrie wrote it.



And since you know some of my background with Leon...
Not a SINGLE Okie I know EVER heard the 1921 Tulsa Massacre taught in school and Leon HIMSELF said that he heard about it from fellow musicians, not at Will Rogers High School, his alma mater.
So please, don't make it sound as if there's no need for a closer look.

 

[Olddemocrat]

Actually, most Americans prefer individual liberty and free enterprise to the Marxist-inspired progressive left's dubious ideology based on critical race theory (CRT). Since Republicans and conservatives, as well as most independents & libertarians and even the liberal democrats all believe in American excellence, judging people as individuals rather than their race or gender, so now that the progressive left and Democrats leaders including Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden/Harris are all pushing this racist and Marxist dubious progressive left ideology that is little more than a delusional but increasingly dangerous cult.

That is not correct. Most Americans still oppose identity politics and want their children educated in the 3Rs and not indoctrinated in some delusional secular cult. Affirmative action (AA) was never supported by most Americans who understood the way it worked. That is mostly done behind closed doors. But race-based AA in which people of different ethnic or racial groups are favored or discriminated against flies in the face of what most Americans still believe in. People should be judged based on individual merit and not by the color of their skin. Here Kenny Xu explains why AA is anti-American and undermines merit and individual liberty. More here from Kenny:

Kenny Xu on 'An Inconvenient Minority' and How the Push for Equity Is Dumbing Down America

“They claim to be attacking white supremacy, but really, they're attacking meritocracy,” says Kenny Xu, author of “An ...

www.theepochtimes.com

You really need to learn what CRT is, why it emerged from CLS, and I suppose you should get grounded as to CLS as well. When did CRT emerge, what body produced it, when it emerged, the authors, and why was it referred to as a verb rather than a noun. The fact is, sonny, you don't know near enough to be close to this discussion let alone take part in it. To those of us who have done the work you look like a silly fool reminiscent of monkeys in the zoo screeching and flinging their feces.

 

[Captain Adverse]

"CRT" doesn't claim this at all. "CRT" has almost no resemblance to what conservatives popularly claim it does. CRT is nothing more than an attempt to paint slavery and race as it actually was and is from a historical perspective and help educate those people who have absolutely no experience of being raised and surviving as a black American in the United States that their experience as a white American is not comparable to the experiences of the majority of black people in the US. This is what systemic racism refers to. They live in a country where, to some degree, the cards are stacked against them and they don't often enjoy the same privileges as the white majority, even if there is no law preventing them from enjoying them.

They are not consciously oppressed by white people. But their experience is different, and it isn't only because of "their own bad choices." Those choices are not made in a vacuum, they are made in a society. And that society exists in the state it is in thanks to a legacy of slavery and racism.

You keep using terms like "they, them, their" when referring to Black Americans, as in "what THEY think; THEIR experiences; how it affects THEM." Which begs the question, if you are not Black and have not experienced any of the alleged "systemic racism" yourself...how would you know if the allegations of such are or are not true? Even if you are "Black" how can you ignore the fact that peers ARE achieving their goals, while others are falling behind where YOU are, and others are keeping pace?

How can you dismiss the growing number of Black American voices clearly stating we are not experiencing "systemic racism?" That there is a difference between experiencing individual or even extremist group acts of racism, and being subjected to "systemic" (used to be called "institutional") racism?

How can you ignore the growing numbers of Black American voices pointing out that CRT and every other form of Identity Politics divides people into categories of oppressed and oppressor? Then demands "special privileges" in a fake effort at some unattainable ideal of "equity."

That is a slap in the face of every Black American, male and female, and IMO every other "person of color" who has ever achieved success by dint of our own hard work and efforts.

Equity is not the same as equality. Equity means holding people back in order to let the slowest runner "catch up," then everyone running at the pace of the slowest runner.

Equality, on the other hand, is giving everyone the equal opportunity for training, education, etc.. This for preparation to travel along the route EACH PERSON may then choose to take to reach whatever goal each person seeks to achieve. Knowing that some will do better, some will do worse, and some will break even. It all depends on one's will to achieve.

We have achieved. There is no clearer example than holding the two highest offices in American politics: President and Vice President (not to mention all the other offices, elected and appointed). That could NEVER be accomplished in any society steeped in "systemic racism."

 

[Olddemocrat]

What could we lose if CRT and progressive leftism takes over the US government? How about individual liberty, free enterprise, and people being hired or fired based on the color of their skin and increasingly also their fidelity to a belief that American is a great country whose founding principles focused on individual rights and not on a rig social system where only those in the ruling party have any chance at a decent life.

Why is it that so many people who know so little insist on pontificating as if they were a learned authority when in truth they are ignorant vassals regurgitating talking points fed to them by Fox, Breitbart, and the rest of the alternate right pantheon. If they won't do the basic work, you know, like do a quick search on google or the search engine of their choice, if they are to lazy to spend a half hour or so familiarizing themselves to the basic tenets of that which they are arguing against, how do they expect to be taken seriously? Do they believe that we share their ignorance?

 

[nucky9]

You keep using terms like "they, them, their" when referring to Black Americans, as in "what THEY think; THEIR experiences; how it affects THEM." Which begs the question, if you are not Black and have not experienced any of the alleged "systemic racism" yourself...how would you know if the allegations of such are or are not true? Even if you are "Black" how can you ignore the fact that peers ARE achieving their goals, while others are falling behind where YOU are, and others are keeping pace?

How can you dismiss the growing number of Black American voices clearly stating we are not experiencing "systemic racism?" That there is a difference between experiencing individual or even extremist group acts of racism, and being subjected to "systemic" (used to be called "institutional") racism?

How can you ignore the growing numbers of Black American voices pointing out that CRT and every other form of Identity Politics divides people into categories of oppressed and oppressor? Then demands "special privileges" in a fake effort at some unattainable ideal of "equity."

That is a slap in the face of every Black American, male and female, and IMO every other "person of color" who has ever achieved success by dint of our own hard work and efforts.

Equity is not the same as equality. Equity means holding people back in order to let the slowest runner "catch up," then everyone running at the pace of the slowest runner.

Equality, on the other hand, is giving everyone the equal opportunity for training, education, etc.. This for preparation to travel along the route EACH PERSON may then choose to take to reach whatever goal each person seeks to achieve. Knowing that some will do better, some will do worse, and some will break even. It all depends on one's will to achieve.

We have achieved. There is no clearer example than holding the two highest offices in American politics: President and Vice President (not to mention all the other offices, elected and appointed). That could NEVER be accomplished in any society steeped in "systemic racism."

Interesting thesis. I don't think you understand what systemic racism is, and sources for your claims would be nice, but w/e. I have two questions though:

1) What is the highest position that a marginalized group can achieve in a racist society?
2) Was there ever a time, in your opinion, that there was racism in the US, systemic or otherwise?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Interesting thesis. I don't think you understand what systemic racism is, and sources for your claims would be nice, but w/e. I have two questions though:

Since I am old enough to have lived during the latter part of FACTUAL systemic racism, (You know, the era of "Separate but Equal" racism?) as well as the civil rights period and subsequently, I claim personal experience of same.

1) What is the highest position that a marginalized group can achieve in a racist society?

Too vague a question, but arguably no position of high authority, esteem, or real power over members of the "dominant" group of said society. Not unless such members of the "dominant group" have themselves become outcast due to perverse or criminal behaviors.

2) Was there ever a time, in your opinion, that there was racism in the US, systemic or otherwise?

Before I answer this question, let's define the term "racism." That is necessary because I do not accept the new definition of requiring "power" in order for some act to be considered racist.

I hold to the simplest definition "discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race." Systemic racism is the use of societal power to enforce racial prejudices. Yes, there were lengthy periods during which factual systemic racism (institutional racism) existed in the USA.

Of course there is still evidence of simple racism occurring now. Some expressed in various ways by some persons who are White, who are Black, IMO some from every cultural/racial group in society.

But I do not see "systemic racism" unless (as I mentioned in another post) we are talking about things like Affirmative Action laws and policies which give special "considerations" to some members of society over other members based SOLELY on race.

 

[American]

Then people should get involved and see to it that curriculae do NOT turn into bashing of that kind.
Why are you behaving as if this is all carved in stone. It isn't.

"Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, local histories, all that is being taught and will continue to be taught."
It was taught to ME as I sat there LIVING through the Civil Rights movement in real time but it was NOT taught to my older brothers a decade or so earlier.
Slavery was briefly touched on.
Then: George Washington chopped down a cherry tree - father I cannot tell a lie, etc. and Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, The End.
People on school boards saw to it that it WOULD be taught.

Know what else wasn't touched on when my older brother attended school? The braceros and Operation Wetback.
They were LIVING through that in real time and knew nothing about it.
In fact my oldest brother who was a fan of The Byrds didn't understand what "Deportee" was about or why Woody Guthrie wrote it.



And since you know some of my background with Leon...
Not a SINGLE Okie I know EVER heard the 1921 Tulsa Massacre taught in school and Leon HIMSELF said that he heard about it from fellow musicians, not at Will Rogers High School, his alma mater.
So please, don't make it sound as if there's no need for a closer look.

We are getting involved, we're trying to stop it; and you should too. It's not what MLK preached.

 

[American]

Why is it that so many people who know so little insist on pontificating as if they were a learned authority when in truth they are ignorant vassals regurgitating talking points fed to them by Fox, Breitbart, and the rest of the alternate right pantheon. If they won't do the basic work, you know, like do a quick search on google or the search engine of their choice, if they are to lazy to spend a half hour or so familiarizing themselves to the basic tenets of that which they are arguing against, how do they expect to be taken seriously? Do they believe that we share their ignorance?

So you think the Left has all the knowledge and authority on the subject? Sounds like you really just described yourself, just change the sources to CNN, MSNBC....

 

[HangLow]

Since I am old enough to have lived during the latter part of FACTUAL systemic racism, (You know, the era of "Separate but Equal" racism?) as well as the civil rights period and subsequently, I claim personal experience of same.



Too vague a question, but arguably no position of high authority, esteem, or real power over members of the "dominant" group of said society. Not unless such members of the "dominant group" have themselves become outcast due to perverse or criminal behaviors.



Before I answer this question, let's define the term "racism." That is necessary because I do not accept the new definition of requiring "power" in order for some act to be considered racist.

I hold to the simplest definition "discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race." Systemic racism is the use of societal power to enforce racial prejudices. Yes, there were lengthy periods during which factual systemic racism (institutional racism) existed in the USA.

Of course there is still evidence of simple racism occurring now. Some expressed in various ways by some persons who are White, who are Black, IMO some from every cultural/racial group in society.

But I do not see "systemic racism" unless (as I mentioned in another post) we are talking about things like Affirmative Action laws and policies which give special "considerations" to some members of society over other members based SOLELY on race.

​

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We are getting involved, we're trying to stop it; and you should too. It's not what MLK preached.

You can't stop what you don't understand.

 

[lwf]

You keep using terms like "they, them, their" when referring to Black Americans, as in "what THEY think; THEIR experiences; how it affects THEM." Which begs the question, if you are not Black and have not experienced any of the alleged "systemic racism" yourself...how would you know if the allegations of such are or are not true? Even if you are "Black" how can you ignore the fact that peers ARE achieving their goals, while others are falling behind where YOU are, and others are keeping pace?

How can you dismiss the growing number of Black American voices clearly stating we are not experiencing "systemic racism?" That there is a difference between experiencing individual or even extremist group acts of racism, and being subjected to "systemic" (used to be called "institutional") racism?

How can you ignore the growing numbers of Black American voices pointing out that CRT and every other form of Identity Politics divides people into categories of oppressed and oppressor? Then demands "special privileges" in a fake effort at some unattainable ideal of "equity."

That is a slap in the face of every Black American, male and female, and IMO every other "person of color" who has ever achieved success by dint of our own hard work and efforts.

Equity is not the same as equality. Equity means holding people back in order to let the slowest runner "catch up," then everyone running at the pace of the slowest runner.

Equality, on the other hand, is giving everyone the equal opportunity for training, education, etc.. This for preparation to travel along the route EACH PERSON may then choose to take to reach whatever goal each person seeks to achieve. Knowing that some will do better, some will do worse, and some will break even. It all depends on one's will to achieve.

We have achieved. There is no clearer example than holding the two highest offices in American politics: President and Vice President (not to mention all the other offices, elected and appointed). That could NEVER be accomplished in any society steeped in "systemic racism."

You misunderstand what systemic racism is. Systemic racism does not prevent all individuals of a certain race from achieving success, nor does it refer to individual acts of racism that prevent success. A person can never have experienced any form of racial bigotry and still be the victim of systemic racism merely by being born into a system where such disparity exists. Systemic racism makes it more difficult to achieve success for a minority culture in a given society.

And on the contrary, rather than minimizing the efforts of black Americans achieving success by the dint of their own hard work and efforts, CRT celebrates their sadly unusual success in spite of walking a road with more obstacles than a member of the majority culture has, and attempts to explain why it is unusual. What is a slap in the face to black Americans who achieve success by the dint of their own hard work is to pretend that their obstacles to success were no different or more difficult than anyone else's. In the majority of cases, there are more obstacles for black Americans in American society to achieve success than white Americans. Critical Race Theory examines these obstacles and where they came from, and refers to them under the umbrella term of "systemic racism."

 

[Olddemocrat]

So you think the Left has all the knowledge and authority on the subject? Sounds like you really just described yourself, just change the sources to CNN, MSNBC....

No! I just know that some of us do the requisite work and some of us don't. I will be glad to talk to you after you have done the same. Go now, study and learn, and then come back. If you get stuck, I will be more than happy to help you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You misunderstand what systemic racism is. Systemic racism does not prevent all individuals of a certain race from achieving success, nor does it refer to individual acts of racism that prevent success. A person can never have experienced any form of racial bigotry and still be the victim of systemic racism merely by being born into a system where such disparity exists. Systemic racism makes it more difficult to achieve success for a minority culture in a given society...

You say "I" misunderstand what systemic racism is? Really?

Out of curiosity, what makes YOU have such greater understanding? Where does your expertise come from? Personal experience under Jim Crow back in the day? Perhaps you were "taught" CRT in some "law school" where we are told it is only being taught?

Are you a current Teacher, who has had training in CRT and have bought into this "theory?" Enlighten me.

...And on the contrary, rather than minimizing the efforts of black Americans achieving success by the dint of their own hard work and efforts, CRT celebrates their sadly unusual success in spite of walking a road with more obstacles than a member of the majority culture has, and attempts to explain why it is unusual. What is a slap in the face to black Americans who achieve success by the dint of their own hard work is to pretend that their obstacles to success were no different or more difficult than anyone else's. In the majority of cases, there are more obstacles for black Americans in American society to achieve success than white Americans. Critical Race Theory examines these obstacles and where they came from, and refers to them under the umbrella term of "systemic racism."

LOL!! You make me laugh.

Sadly unusual? Hmmm, perhaps that has something more to do with a combination of Affirmative Action and Welfare State programs which I agree are inherently systemic racism.

You make a lot of assertions, but I am proof against them. I see more obstacles being placed in front of my peers by those very programs allegedly designed to help us.

It is 2021, over 40 years since those programs were initiated, and yet despite all these special programs, typically run by Democrat controlled cities and States, spending billions of dollars, what do we see?

Our kids are still performing at the lowest levels in education. We have millions on some form of welfare, living in houses paid for by the government. Multiple kids out of wedlock, "fatherless" families feeding (often scamming) off various forms of government assistance. Meanwhile many of their father's killing each other over drugs and gang rivalries. All arguably in worse situations than most of us dealt with back in the "bad old days."

IMO you are partly right. But it is the racism of low expectations perpetrated by "do-gooders" like yourself aided by our own race grifters. All treating us like "needy backward children" dependent on government largess with no expectation of personal responsibility for our own actions. THAT is what has been holding us back as far as I am concerned.

 

[dixon01767]

You misunderstand what systemic racism is. Systemic racism does not prevent all individuals of a certain race from achieving success, nor does it refer to individual acts of racism that prevent success. A person can never have experienced any form of racial bigotry and still be the victim of systemic racism merely by being born into a system where such disparity exists. Systemic racism makes it more difficult to achieve success for a minority culture in a given society.

And on the contrary, rather than minimizing the efforts of black Americans achieving success by the dint of their own hard work and efforts, CRT celebrates their sadly unusual success in spite of walking a road with more obstacles than a member of the majority culture has, and attempts to explain why it is unusual. What is a slap in the face to black Americans who achieve success by the dint of their own hard work is to pretend that their obstacles to success were no different or more difficult than anyone else's. In the majority of cases, there are more obstacles for black Americans in American society to achieve success than white Americans. Critical Race Theory examines these obstacles and where they came from, and refers to them under the umbrella term of "systemic racism."

Like standardized testing. given daily in classrooms, used by industries and governments to screen employees, and since blacks dont do as well on average, standardized testing is therefore by definition "systemic racism". Yes, "systemic racism" as defined by CRT is rampant in our society. Or laws against murder and robbery. Blacks are only 13% of the population but commit 52% of the murders and 54% of the robberies. Laws creating criminal penalties for murder and robbery disproportionately impact blacks. "Systemic racism" it is everywhere under CRT. MARK

 

[nucky9]

Since I am old enough to have lived during the latter part of FACTUAL systemic racism, (You know, the era of "Separate but Equal" racism?) as well as the civil rights period and subsequently, I claim personal experience of same.



Too vague a question, but arguably no position of high authority, esteem, or real power over members of the "dominant" group of said society. Not unless such members of the "dominant group" have themselves become outcast due to perverse or criminal behaviors.



Before I answer this question, let's define the term "racism." That is necessary because I do not accept the new definition of requiring "power" in order for some act to be considered racist.

I hold to the simplest definition "discrimination or prejudice on the basis of race." Systemic racism is the use of societal power to enforce racial prejudices. Yes, there were lengthy periods during which factual systemic racism (institutional racism) existed in the USA.

Of course there is still evidence of simple racism occurring now. Some expressed in various ways by some persons who are White, who are Black, IMO some from every cultural/racial group in society.

But I do not see "systemic racism" unless (as I mentioned in another post) we are talking about things like Affirmative Action laws and policies which give special "considerations" to some members of society over other members based SOLELY on race.

You accuse me of being vague, but your answers are equally so. Your premise is that racism cannot exist, since one of members of the group you feel is no longer marginalized was able to achieve a certain level of success and because some proportion (percentage unknown) of the group reject the notion. This implies that there is a limit to the amount of success an individual from a marginalized group can achieve. I diagree with this, since to my understanding, systemic racism impacts average outcomes, not necessarily the top or bottom. That becomes a subjective argument. But, the idea that a certain level of success proves the absence of racism is not subjective. That is objective and measurable. So, I want to know what level of success shows this. Is is becoming a doctor or lawyer? A mayor? Scientist? Middle manager at a car dealership? Then, based on the first year a black person achieved such a position, we should be able to conclusively state when racism against black people ended in the US, correct? Now, that seems like a strange conclusion to make, given the size and variety of viewpoints present in the population of the US, but there are several logical fallacies with your conclusion, and one has to start somewhere.

As an aside, this would presumably extend to sexism as well, correct? No woman has become president of the US, so we can't use that bar. But again, women have achieved high level positions - so what position did a woman achieve that demonstrated that sexism was abolished? Or is there sexism still in the US?

 

[dixon01767]

"CRT" doesn't claim this at all. "CRT" has almost no resemblance to what conservatives popularly claim it does. CRT is nothing more than an attempt to paint slavery and race as it actually was and is from a historical perspective

Hannah Jones in response to criticism of the 1619 project from historians responded that the 1619 Project wasnt history and was instead an "origin story". "Not the origin story but an origin story"
False propaganda to teach stories as history.

 

[nucky9]

Like standardized testing. given daily in classrooms, used by industries and governments to screen employees, and since blacks dont do as well on average, standardized testing is therefore by definition "systemic racism". Yes, "systemic racism" as defined by CRT is rampant in our society. Or laws against murder and robbery. Blacks are only 13% of the population but commit 52% of the murders and 54% of the robberies. Laws creating criminal penalties for murder and robbery disproportionately impact blacks. "Systemic racism" it is everywhere under CRT. MARK

No, that is not the reasoning. Assuming the testing is fair, and the trials are just, neither would be systemic racism. Systemic racism is a theory to explain *why* these negative outcomes happen disproportionately.

Really though, as lwf has stated - the vast majority of systemic racism is an extension of classism. I hope no one will argue that being poor doesn't lead to different result in the legal system compared to being rich, or that the education system doesn't favour the rich. Else, why would there be a difference in price between lawyers/schools?

And that is where everything comes together. Results for poor people are poorer on average than results for rich people. Being born poor makes it far more likely you (and your children) will die poor then the opposite. Overt racism in the past against the black people in the US has lead (in the past) to them being disproportionately poor, and because poverty is 'heritable', the consequences of this still echo today. Wealth leads to more opportunity, relatively speaking. Thus, if there are institutional reasons for a group to be poorer than another (which there are - simply due to inheritance) then that group will have fewer opportunities, regardless if exceptional individuals among them manage to do exceptional things.

I mean, there is more to it then that, but that is the gist of it, and I don't see how any of the above is arguable.

 

[Nickyjo]

Searched, and among the analyses was this: "Is CRT a way of understanding how American racism has shaped public policy, or a divisive discourse that pits people of color against white people? Liberals and conservatives are in sharp disagreement." It seems that CRT is like the parable of the two blind men feeling an elephant and defining it differently. I assume that it is both. It can be a divisive discourse if used in a demagogic way by either side. But it can also enlighten. For example, I recently became aware this that the GI Bill, something that helped create a strong (white) middle class post WWII, though nominally open to all, had its benefits denied to many blacks. Thus racism shaped public policy, and that policy had significant societal effect. Knowing this fact, assuming I understood the history correctly, is rare among Americans I assume, and that ignorance colors attitudes and affects discussion of remedial solutions. Misconceptions about affirmative action work in the same way. It can mean outreach to minorities and women, should not mean quotas.

 

[cpwill]

Then people should get involved and see to it that curriculae do NOT turn into bashing of that kind.
Why are you behaving as if this is all carved in stone. It isn't.

"Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, local histories, all that is being taught and will continue to be taught."
It was taught to ME as I sat there LIVING through the Civil Rights movement in real time but it was NOT taught to my older brothers a decade or so earlier.
Slavery was briefly touched on.
Then: George Washington chopped down a cherry tree - father I cannot tell a lie, etc. and Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, The End.
People on school boards saw to it that it WOULD be taught.

Know what else wasn't touched on when my older brother attended school? The braceros and Operation Wetback.
They were LIVING through that in real time and knew nothing about it.
In fact my oldest brother who was a fan of The Byrds didn't understand what "Deportee" was about or why Woody Guthrie wrote it.



And since you know some of my background with Leon...
Not a SINGLE Okie I know EVER heard the 1921 Tulsa Massacre taught in school and Leon HIMSELF said that he heard about it from fellow musicians, not at Will Rogers High School, his alma mater.
So please, don't make it sound as if there's no need for a closer look.

Cool, but:

1. At least as of the 90s in Alabama - Alabama! - this stuff was taught. I went to school a couple of miles from the church that was bombed where the four little girls were killed, and we knew what that was, what that meant, and the kinds of people who did it. George Wallace, Selma Bridge, the Bus Boycott, they were all part of the local history and the curriculum. I believe you may be a bit more well-seasoned than I am, but, it's not like they're teaching less since I went through. If you want to shape local curricula, well, we are a public participation kind of government, and you can do that, but, I suspect you will find much of it already there.

2. I think you are conflating "I think we should teach more about the bad things that have happened in American history" with "CRT", which is a policy advocacy movement that often provides support to curricula in order to further an explicitly political agenda. Letting CRT shape history curricula and claiming that anyone who opposes that is opposing teaching history is like letting the Family Research Council shape public sex education, and then saying that anyone who disagrees with little Johnny being taught at a public school that homosexuality is perversion and a mental disease is against teaching biology - in neither case is the shaping entity interested in the subject for it's own sake, but, rather, using pieces of a subject to further a current political platform.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You accuse me of being vague, but your answers are equally so. Your premise is that racism cannot exist...

WRONG! I made it very clear that racism not only can, but DOES exist. I just don't accept your assumption that SYSTEMIC Racism is the problem here. One cannot control how any individual views another, or how some group of like-minded individuals might act out.

Moreover, I assert there IS a currently existing form of "systemic racism" created by Affirmative Action laws which continue to give advantages to certain citizens based SOLELY on their race.

since one of members of the group you feel is no longer marginalized was able to achieve a certain level of success and because some proportion (percentage unknown) of the group reject the notion. This implies that there is a limit to the amount of success an individual from a marginalized group can achieve. I diagree with this, since to my understanding, systemic racism impacts average outcomes, not necessarily the top or bottom. That becomes a subjective argument. But, the idea that a certain level of success proves the absence of racism is not subjective. That is objective and measurable. So, I want to know what level of success shows this. Is is becoming a doctor or lawyer? A mayor? Scientist? Middle manager at a car dealership? Then, based on the first year a black person achieved such a position, we should be able to conclusively state when racism against black people ended in the US, correct? Now, that seems like a strange conclusion to make, given the size and variety of viewpoints present in the population of the US, but there are several logical fallacies with your conclusion, and one has to start somewhere.

I dispute your basic argument. It is YOUR responsibility to show systemic racism exists (beyond the Affirmative Action example I gave above.) The mere assertion based on presumptions is not sufficient.

For example, this "systemic racism" seems to only affect SOME native born Black Americans. Strangely, most Black Africans or Black's from the Caribbean and their descendants don't seem to be "held back." Nor do members of other ethnic and racial groups. For example, Asians who seem to fit in and excel to the point schools are restricting well-qualified Asian students simply because there are so many with high academic records they swamp other applicants.

As an aside, this would presumably extend to sexism as well, correct? No woman has become president of the US, so we can't use that bar. But again, women have achieved high level positions - so what position did a woman achieve that demonstrated that sexism was abolished? Or is there sexism still in the US?

Aside from Hillary Clinton, how many ended up the Party choice, and ran as the Presidential Candidate for either major party? That would be an issue for Political Party action, so take action in YOUR Party.

 

[nucky9]

WRONG! I made it very clear that racism not only can, but DOES exist. I just don't accept your assumption that SYSTEMIC Racism is the problem here. One cannot control how any individual views another, or how some group of like-minded individuals might act out.

Moreover, I assert there IS a currently existing form of "systemic racism" created by Affirmative Action laws which continue to give advantages to certain citizens based SOLELY on their race.



I dispute your basic argument. It is YOUR responsibility to show systemic racism exists (beyond the Affirmative Action example I gave above.) The mere assertion based on presumptions is not sufficient.

For example, this "systemic racism" seems to only affect SOME native born Black Americans. Strangely, most Black Africans or Black's from the Caribbean and their descendants don't seem to be "held back." Nor do members of other ethnic and racial groups. For example, Asians who seem to fit in and excel to the point schools are restricting well-qualified Asian students simply because there are so many with high academic records they swamp other applicants.



Aside from Hillary Clinton, how many ended up the Party choice, and ran as the Presidential Candidate for either major party? That would be an issue for Political Party action, so take action in YOUR Party.

I did explain everything, based on my understanding/thinking - systemic racism is essentially an extension of classism, along with, at times, the overt racism that you do acknowledge exists. You said there is clear evidence against it, but refuse explain that evidence to me in more detail. It is true, the burden is on those who believe system racism occurs to provide support, but you offered counter-evidence which I feel is easily countered, but refuse to support your position in a way that allows it to be objectively attacked. Why raise the points in the first place then, if you will simply retreat to a position of not having to prove anything when challenged? It seems intellectually dishonest to me, but YMMV.

Anyway, the whole point is that it isn't written in any law anywhere (although some make the argument regarding voting laws etc.).

Highlighting positive results for a given group - especially one that is external to the historical issues in the US - is meaningless. Rich people of any ethnicity do well, period. Furthermore, comparing anyone to an immigrant is pointless. Immigrants are rarely average in any way and also do not have the same experiences, nor history. Again, it isn't talking about outcomes among the exceptional, but rather the average or below-average.

I mean it isn't really that hard. Assuming all else is equal (which it rarely is), do the rich and poor have equal opportunities in life? Take two identical twins that are the children of an exceptional individual and raise one in poverty and the other in a middle class or better environment. Which one would you bet on being more likely to have success in life?

If you agree that being rich is an advantage, then you easily explain why outcomes among black Americans are poorer, on average, even if you assume all else is equal, which it probably isn't.

 

[Visbek]

Dr Martin Luther King said he had a dream....

Here we go.

King didn't mean "we should ignore racism." He was telling the racists to stop being racist. He also spoke out strongly against economic inequality. It is truly stunning how so many on the right distort his position.

The bottom line is most people; 98%, were not part of the problem.

Cool story bro. Too bad it's completely false.

The Confederate states literally betrayed their nation, and fought a bloody war, rather than give up slavery. The leaders were very explicit that they were fighting because they wanted to keep their slaves.

That means roughly 1/3 of Americans were part of the problem.

If the content of character; choice, was important to CRT, it would not fixate of skin color....

I have a feeling you don't know what the **** "Critical Race Theory" actually means. If it helps, it's not a blanket theory about race in America, it's a specific legal theory about how race influenced US laws, and it's basically only taught in law schools.

CRT doesn't actually "fixate on skin color," it takes into account other intersectional issues like sexism, homophobia, and hatred of ethnicities. The reason why CRT "fixates on skin color" (among other factors) is because that is the trait that racists routinely use to decide whom they're going to hate.

By the way, slavery may have officially ended on January 31st 1865, but racism certainly did not end on that day. Feel free to tell us when racism actually ended, though. That should be rather amusing.

They would not try to start their story in the 1600's and ignore the first 5000 years of slavery, thereby distorting the context of slavery as a US created problem.

Well, that's an enormous crock of shit. CRT focuses on racism in the US legal system, meaning there isn't really much reason to discuss slavery in ancient Rome. Nor does pointing out past instances of slavery in any way, shape or form exculpate racists in US history.

They would also teach that a Republican; by choice, Abraham Lincoln, altered this long standing tradition of some humans, by making all slaves free in the USA.

lol... Hello? CRT is taught in law schools. Anyone who is admitted to a law school almost certainly knows who Lincoln is.

Of course, it's important to note that Lincoln was still a racist, who thought that former slaves should be shipped off to Liberia. And, of course, focusing on Lincoln largely erases the history of those slaves who took matters into their own hands, and fought for their freedom.

Dr King would also say that Southern Democrats, who choose their own political orientation, wanted slavery to continue after Lincoln freed the slaves.

Yes, we know. Some of us also know that the party realigned after the civil rights laws were passed in the 1960s -- the laws that King advocated for, and that racists railed against.

One is not born with a political stance, but people makes such choices with will power.

Or... Structural racism doesn't rely on the intent of the individual. It's largely based on how institutions act, and unconscious biases.

It is not coincidence that Democrats still control cities that create social environments, leading to segregation by skin color.

Uh huh. By the way, crime dropped more than half between 1991 and 2019 in those big cities. When do you plan to credit Democrats with that?

Look at the inner cities of most large Democrat controlled cities. CRT does not go there, since that would be about lack of character among their own leaders, and not the racist and reverse racists philosophy used to distract blame.

And again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as CRT discusses how structural racism winds up perpetuating many of the issues of blacks.

The Democrats party of today is now openly tilted toward Socialism.

Let us know when you can actually bother to learn the topics you're discussing, rather than rely on hoary old heuristics.