• 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!

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

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.
Well... You kinda shouldn't.

"Critical Race Theory" is a specific framework for examining how racism influenced American law. It's basically only taught in law schools.

People on the right are losing their minds over "CRT," but they don't have a clue what it is, what it means, or where it's taught. This is why they frequently confuse Critical Race Theory with "culturally responseful teaching," which basically trains teachers how to work with students with different cultural backgrounds.

What really seems to have happened is that right-wing racists realized that Americans are understanding and accepting that racism is still a problem in America, which manifested in (among other things) lots of whites joining blacks in protests against police brutality last year. Thus, they found a conveniently scary-sounding scapegoat, and started a witch hunt against teaching kids about the history of racism in America.

I for one suspect that this is going to backfire on them, because now you have lots of people looking into CRT (the real thing), and talking about and acknowledging another form of structural racism.
 
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.

Classism is NOT racism, it is economic stratification. There are many Black Americans, Asian Americans, and even some Native Americans who belong to the highest classes of wealth.

Most of those scions of wealth accept you if you have the money; if you don't then they don't.

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.

You just supported my refutation above of your earlier statement. That argues against systemic racism, because in systemic racism it does not matter how much money you have, the dominant racial group be they rich OR poor will hold you in low esteem.

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.

Wrong. In a racist society it does not matter one's land of origin. Once one joins a racist state, one's race becomes the deciding factor in how one is treated. PERIOD.

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 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?

What has this to do with anything? In a truly racist society mere wealth has little effect, as those with more or equal will ostracize you, and those with less will still despise you while taking your money.

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.

What? I'm not sure I understand this "point." IMO when it comes to poverty, much has to do with the "Welfare State" system which "rewards" unmarried women with children and an absent male provider. I am well aware of how this system is "played" having an Aunt with three sons who played it for all it was worth. Had NOTHING to do with "racism" and everything to do with maintaining a stream of "easy money" while having "something-something" of unreported income on the side.
 
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.

Sorry but I honestly think that the amount of overreaction we're seeing is largely manufactured and astro-turfed to the hilt.
If school systems embark on a politicized campaign to make everything go sideways, it will not sell to the public, but furthermore, it will create more problems than it solves, just as the mandated creationism curricula did back when several states opened that door, which is now largely CLOSED again. Yes, a few school districts are still attempting to "teach the controversy" but for the most part the hardwired Creationism curriculum flopped hard, and the disaster around Ken Hamm might have been a final nail in the coffin.

I see the hysteria around CRT as a cartoon.
 
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."
CRT asserts that, and more. It's the "more" part many of you leave out.
 
You say "I" misunderstand what systemic racism is? Really? o_O

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.


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. :coffee:

If you think affirmative action has been bad for the black community, you clearly weren't around before the program was put into place. Do you think the black community was a shining example of success in America before affirmative action was created and sent it into the toilet?

1626997259686.png

Black children have been steadily improving in education since the affirmative action program was initiated, and there are record numbers of black people in high paying positions of power. You're correct that it's not enough, however. They still underperform whites. But you are incorrect that doing nothing and leaving them to their own devices would have been better for the black community. So if the black community was even worse off before affirmative action, to what do you attribute this? To what do you attribute the disparity between black and white culture before there was affirmative action and white "do-gooders" and "race grifters?"

CRT doesn't have low expectations for black children. It explains the very real low performance of the black community in America as being a result of the legacy of racism in the United States. Do you disagree? If so, why do you think the black community historically consistently underperforms whites in the US in pretty much every area of success even before Democratic policies to help them were put into place?
 
Last edited:
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
This is correct. Systemic racism IS everywhere and it IS the reason (on a society-wide level) that black culture underperforms. And before you say it: Yes. Every black person who chooses to commit a crime is directly responsible for that crime just like every white criminal.

But don't you ever ask "Why do black people commit a disproportionate number of murders and robberies in the United States? Why do they underperform in education and employment?" If you do, what is your answer?

Hopefully we can agree that it is irrational and unscientific, (at best,) to simply shrug our shoulders, look at superficial biological differences, and assume that it must be their skin pigmentation that causes this. So what causes it? And don't say "their culture" because that does not answer the question. What causes their culture to underperform? Why do black people struggle with maintaining a healthy culture compared to white people in America? And don't say poverty either: What causes black people to be poorer than white people?

CRT answers this. The answer is systemic racism. The legacy of slavery, oppression, separate but equal, and bigotry in general is why black culture in America evolved the way it did, and why the black community under performs to this day. There is no other cause. Skin pigmentation does not have a biological or behavioral affect, but it can have a social effect in the form of discrimination against people with a different skin color. When a culture evolves in this environment, it is guaranteed that they will underperform their oppressors, even long after the laws enforcing oppression are lifted and the ancestors of their historic oppressors are no longer actively bigoted against them.

THAT is what CRT teaches, and it should be taught because it is a sound explanation for racial disparity, unlike the "blacks are an inferior race" or the "I honestly have no idea" explanations. This is a well-researched theory by sociologists and anthropologists that fits the facts. Therefore it should be taught to children in schools.
 
Well... You kinda shouldn't.

"Critical Race Theory" is a specific framework for examining how racism influenced American law. It's basically only taught in law schools.

You are about 25 years behind the times.

Spread​

In 1995, Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate began applying the critical race theory framework in the field of education, moving it beyond the field of legal scholarship.

Now, Bidens Dept of Education instruction to ALL public schools opening up after COVID included a link to

"Guide for Racial Justice & Abolitionist Social and Emotional Learning"​

It's introduction includes ways to help students 'for whom the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing inequities'.

'uild a school culture that engages in healing and advocacy. This requires a commitment to learning from students, families, and educators who disrupt Whiteness and other forms of oppression.'

the guide states that teachers should remove "all punitive or disciplinary practices that spirit murder Black, Brown, and Indigenous children."

The Abolitionist Teaching Network’s guide also lists abolitionist teachers’ "demands," which include "[f]ree, antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff." Additionally, it states that teaching and learning standards, as well as teacher evaluations, should be "grounded in the pursuit of Black, Brown, and Indigenous liberation, criticality, excellence, and joy."

The network "is dedicated to not creating new schools or reimagining schools, but destroying schools that do nothing but harm Black and brown children," co-founder Bettina Love said during a welcome webinar.

"If you don’t recognize that White supremacy is in everything we do, then we got a problem," Love, who also chairs the board of directors, said. "I want us to be feared."

 
If you think affirmative action has been bad for the black community, you clearly weren't around before the program was put into place. Do you think the black community was a shining example of success in America before affirmative action was created and sent it into the toilet?

Let's see, a combination of "personal incredulity" followed by a False Equivalence. In the first case I've made it clear I was around prior to the advent of Affirmative Action. But I am not required to "dox myself" to you to prove that point.

In the second case, one COULD argue that the Black Community WAS fairly successful prior to Affirmative Action and the Welfare State, in several metrics. But I'll leave that for YOU to study from our experts on the subject. (Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, to name a few).

Black children have been steadily improving in education since the affirmative action program was initiated, and there are record numbers of black people in high paying positions of power. You're correct that it's not enough, however. They still underperform whites. But you are incorrect that doing nothing and leaving them to their own devices would have been better for the black community. So if the black community was even worse off before affirmative action, to what do you attribute this? To what do you attribute the disparity between black and white culture before there was affirmative action and white "do-gooders" and "race grifters?"

It would take a whole new thread on issues with education, addressing the difference between ACTUAL educational attainment and merely receiving a High School Diploma. For example, I graduated from a High School in NYC. Back then there were TWO types of Diploma, the standard and the Regent's Diploma. One got a standard diploma which merely showed one had attended school through their Senior year, and "graduated" regardless of how bad their actual grades were. The Regent's Diploma was earned via a combination of scores on the Regent's exams and ones GPA.

One could also show how poorly Black High School student's are doing currently in places like Baltimore, and other locales where they simply "graduate" after aging out. One could then discuss issues with Black student's being accepted in the top colleges thanks to Affirmative Action "quotas," and failing to meet academic standards when they could have gone to a less prestigious school and done much better. Don't even get me started on those (often) junk online college diplomas.

CRT doesn't have low expectations for black children. It explains the very real low performance of the black community in America as being a result of the legacy of racism in the United States. Do you disagree? If so, why do you think the black community historically consistently underperforms whites in the US even before Democratic policies to help them were put into place?

I was mentioning the Racism of Low Expectations. CRT is just socialist propaganda based on Critical Theory, which has been talked about ad nauseam in other threads.

The only systemic racism that exists in the USA today is Affirmative Action. The rest of that CRT is just socialist BS.
 
Last edited:
There are three reasons right wingers object to critical race theory. First, it is critical, and we know they cannot stand criticism. Second, it is about race, a topic that motivates them always, but not in a good way. CRT posits that "race" is a social construct, which sounds an awful lot like socialism, so they have to be agin' it. Third, it's a theory, which smacks of science, which is far too intellectual to be countenanced.
The reason people object to it is because it promotes judging someone based on the color of their skin. Rational people on the left and right object
 
CRT asserts that, and more. It's the "more" part many of you leave out.
From the wikipedia entry.

The basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals. CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of intersections of whiteness at the expense of marginalized communities. In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways. A key CRT concept is intersectionality, which emphasizes that race can intersect with other identities (such as gender and class) to produce complex combinations of power and disadvantage.

Yes, there are varying interpretations of CRT, and a few that are blatantly bigoted against white people tend to get the biggest headlines, especially among conservative politicians who seize on the political capital it brings to frighten the ignorant into voting against their own interests. But taking the most wild and extreme examples and assuming that this is what CRT represents isn't rational. You may as well paint the Republican Party as a party of white supremacists. That a few wingnuts identify as both doesn't mean the central tenets of being a Republican necessarily include, (or even support,) being a white supremacist. The things that you think liberals are "leaving out" with some kind of an agenda are largely conservative myths built on a few inane ramblings of confused progressives trying to justify their fear of white men and nothing more. If you can ignore the few blatant white supremacists who misuse their claimed allegiance to the Republican party to promote racist agendas, liberals can ignore the blatant anti-white bigots who misuse their support of CRT to promote their own bigoted ideas.

Liberal nuts abusing it don't undermine CRT anymore than white nationalists abusing it undermines the Republican Party. It's not a good look and it makes headlines when it happens, but most Republicans are not white nationalists, and most people who teach CRT aren't promoting any kind of "anti-white" agenda. They are teaching historical facts and social awareness, because that is what CRT is and why it was developed.
 
Last edited:
The reason people object to it is because it promotes judging someone based on the color of their skin. Rational people on the left and right object
CRT doesn't promote judging people based on the color of their skin, it explains how a dominant culture judging another culture based on the color of their skin has partly shaped both cultures into what they are today.

This aspect of American history is not something that the government or anyone else has any business censoring. Children should be taught the realities of history, not a sanitized version meant to hide the worst aspects of it and make the history of white American culture look better than it was.
 
Last edited:
This is correct. Systemic racism IS everywhere and it IS the reason (on a society-wide level) that black culture underperforms. And before you say it: Yes. Every black person who chooses to commit a crime is directly responsible for that crime just like every white criminal.

But don't you ever ask "Why do black people commit a disproportionate number of murders and robberies in the United States? Why do they underperform in education and employment?" If you do, what is your answer?

Hopefully we can agree that it is irrational and unscientific, (at best,) to simply shrug our shoulders, look at superficial biological differences, and assume that it must be their skin pigmentation that causes this. So what causes it? And don't say "their culture" because that does not answer the question. What causes their culture to underperform? Why do black people struggle with maintaining a healthy culture compared to white people in America? And don't say poverty either: What causes black people to be poorer than white people?

CRT answers this.


What friggin nonsense. CRT sees the racial disparity, be it in standardized testing results or murder rates and attributes the disparity to racism. Read transcript of Kendi arguing that a reduction in the capital gains rate would be systemic racism because whites would more likely benefit than blacks. Racial disparity equals systemic racism. No exceptions, no caveats. They are changing the definition of racism. Reductions in capital gains tax rates are not systemic racism.

SOOOOOO since CRT answers why blacks commit 52% of the murders and 54% of the robberies, you going to share that answer with us?
 
The Far Right is ALWAYS outraged against something or somebody. Immigrants, Black people, Muslims, Black people, "critical race theory," Black people,...
Still crt can be argued about...

I am so sick of right wing LOONS making up crap and just arguing their own idioticy among themselves...

Still crt is, like any theory, is worthy of critique
 
Last edited:
CRT doesn't promote judging people based on the color of their skin,
It absolutely does. It also promotes the absurd and offensive notion that if one is white, they are naturally inclined to be a racist and White supremacist.
 
Liberal nuts abusing it don't undermine CRT anymore than white nationalists abusing it undermines the Republican Party.

The Republican party doesnt promote white nationalist ideology. The liberal nuts are advocating these changes to the childrens education with their ideology, and the democrats are promoting it.

The Abolitionist Teaching Network’s guide also lists abolitionist teachers’ "demands," which include "[f]ree, antiracist therapy for White educators and support staff."

BECAUSE of the color of the skin of each of these individual white educators and NOT for the individual black educators, because of the color of their skin.
 
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"?
maybe because it is anti white propoganda?
 
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."
I just saw (on Fox News) an interview with Shelby Steele and thought some of his words would apply to this thread and comment. The topic was the Olympics and kneeling. A comparison was being made to the 1968 Olympics and the fist in the air then. Steele discussed how much he identified with the fist in the air in 1968 but also how he supported George Foreman and his love of America in 1968.

Shelby was asked if his views have changed since 1968. His answer was, "You betcha!". "All the things we protested back then are over with. We are as free as you can possibly be free." "Our problem has been a lack of development. We haven't developed commensurate with the new freedom that we won for ourselves and so we're still behind." "Protest is not going to develop black America. Black America is going to have to develop itself." "There is no racial discrimination behind it." (meaning, behind the kneeling) "This is not a systemic racist society. It is a systemically goodwill toward black people society. The people in this country are rooting for us. They're not holding us back, they want us to do well."

Then he was asked if he felt the country was coming apart as it was in 1968. He answered, "This is a very tense moment. We're coming to the end of many bad ideas that started in the sixties, that took away responsibility for our development, from us. That hurt us more than anything, so now here we are having to really face a mountain that's very high. We have to take responsibility for the development of ourselves, of our people, if we're ever going to see equality. We'll have to do that. That's difficult. We'll resist, we'll protest, and act as though that will do it. But, it never will."

I thought it a very interesting interview!
 
This aspect of American history is not something that the government or anyone else has any business censoring. Children should be taught the realities of history, not a sanitized version meant to hide the worst aspects of it and make the history of white American culture look better than it was.
CRT isnt history. Hannah Jones in response to criticism from historians regarding her 1619 project said it is not history, but instead an "origin story". Not "the origin story but an origin story". Stories about the past are just one of the preferred tools of CRT to "shape the narrative". Myths, parables and stories.

Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it.

And presenting CRT as theory of understanding or explaining society when it is instead an attempt to change society is false propaganda. Its a philosophy.
 
maybe because it is anti white propoganda?
I challenge you to do the impossible, namely point out which part of CRT qualifies as anti white propaganda. OK, go ahead, we are all waiting to be amazed!
 
Classism is NOT racism, it is economic stratification. There are many Black Americans, Asian Americans, and even some Native Americans who belong to the highest classes of wealth.

Most of those scions of wealth accept you if you have the money; if you don't then they don't.



You just supported my refutation above of your earlier statement. That argues against systemic racism, because in systemic racism it does not matter how much money you have, the dominant racial group be they rich OR poor will hold you in low esteem.



Wrong. In a racist society it does not matter one's land of origin. Once one joins a racist state, one's race becomes the deciding factor in how one is treated. PERIOD.



What has this to do with anything? In a truly racist society mere wealth has little effect, as those with more or equal will ostracize you, and those with less will still despise you while taking your money.



What? I'm not sure I understand this "point." IMO when it comes to poverty, much has to do with the "Welfare State" system which "rewards" unmarried women with children and an absent male provider. I am well aware of how this system is "played" having an Aunt with three sons who played it for all it was worth. Had NOTHING to do with "racism" and everything to do with maintaining a stream of "easy money" while having "something-something" of unreported income on the side.

You are missing the point. If you agree that wealth leads to better outcomes, then a group that is disproportionately poor will necessarily have disproportionately worse outcomes, assuming all else is equal (which I don't believe it is - and neither do you, having admitted that overt racism still exists). So, the question becomes why/how did that group become disproportionately poor? Systemic racism is an attempt to explain this, and it is an explanation I find compelling. To be honest, my concentrating on economic factors is an oversimplification anyway, since there are many other factors. For instance, in Canada, it is more or less accepted that outcomes are poorer for indigenous who enter the justice system, relative to other groups, even when the crimes are identical. A quick search found some evidence of this here and here.

You seem to equate systemic racism with some sort of system where anyone can do anything they want to a specified minority, and everyone is complicit in it. That is not what systemic racism is describing. It is describing the 'death by a thousand cuts' phenomenon, in which a group is allowed to play the same game, but they are exposed to extra barriers along the way. Again, I think the majority of those hurdles are due to the disadvantages caused by poverty, but justice system outcomes (for indigenous at least, and I bet similar research shows the same for blacks in the US) show there are other factors as well.

Anyway, I have little interest in trying to convince you that systemic racism exists, because I frankly doubt it is possible, no matter how compelling an argument I or anyone else makes. Back to the original point I do care about - have you conceded that having a black president doesn't disprove the existence of systemic racism, or will you provide me with some idea of what level of success is needed to proclaim such?
 
It absolutely does. It also promotes the absurd and offensive notion that if one is white, they are naturally inclined to be a racist and White supremacist.
Horrifying! Can you provide something to substantiate the claim that you made with such certainty?
 
Last edited:
Well... You kinda shouldn't.

"Critical Race Theory" is a specific framework for examining how racism influenced American law. It's basically only taught in law schools.

People on the right are losing their minds over "CRT," but they don't have a clue what it is, what it means, or where it's taught. This is why they frequently confuse Critical Race Theory with "culturally responseful teaching," which basically trains teachers how to work with students with different cultural backgrounds.

What really seems to have happened is that right-wing racists realized that Americans are understanding and accepting that racism is still a problem in America, which manifested in (among other things) lots of whites joining blacks in protests against police brutality last year. Thus, they found a conveniently scary-sounding scapegoat, and started a witch hunt against teaching kids about the history of racism in America.

I for one suspect that this is going to backfire on them, because now you have lots of people looking into CRT (the real thing), and talking about and acknowledging another form of structural racism.
It's funny - so many Truths about CRT, so few citations. I won't make any claims about CRT, because I have no idea what it describes and I don't care to find out. Is it so much to ask that others who do care, actually do some reading of the source literature and base their criticisms on it? I mean, shouldn't that be a basic requirement to debating something in good faith?

But, it seems to be more Faith, and not much good about it.
 
It's easy to see where you get your views from. Have you ever studied CRT? Do you know when it emerged, what its precedents were, who authored it, why it was created? I would be comfortable waging a large sum that as of this moment you have done none of the above, yet you craft arguments out of ignorance, vomiting Fox talking points as if they were established fact, having no knowledge of your own.
Why on earth would I want to "study" CRT? For what reason?
I have read the five tenets of CRT and feel that, because I am a non-racist white American, I don't need someone telling me that my skin color makes me a racist and that all blacks are victims of racism in this country.

Five Basic False Principles of Critical Race Theory​


July 20, 2021


The goal of critical race theory (“CRT”) is to create hate that uncontrollably cascades throughout diverse societies to make all races hate each other. The five basic false principles of CRT are:
  1. Regardless of race, you are born a racist, and you will always be a racist towards all other races.
  2. The content of your character is irrelevant, because you will always be a racist. Any effort to prove you’re not a racist only magnifies your racist nature towards all other races.
  3. Your race is automatically condemned by all other races, because all the other races are also racists.
  4. All sins — past and present — of your race are unforgivable, but all sins of all the other races are completely ignored.
  5. Because we are all racists, we are all condemned and no one is redeemable.
CRT promotes victimhood and suppresses a specific race because one race proclaims themselves “oppressed” (the victim) while accusing another race of being the “oppressor” (the villain). The objective is to push society to hate the oppressor villain’s race and rally behind the proclaimed victim’s race.

 
Why on earth would I want to "study" CRT? For what reason?
I have read the five tenets of CRT and feel that, because I am a non-racist white American, I don't need someone telling me that my skin color makes me a racist and that all blacks are victims of racism in this country.

Five Basic False Principles of Critical Race Theory​


July 20, 2021


The goal of critical race theory (“CRT”) is to create hate that uncontrollably cascades throughout diverse societies to make all races hate each other. The five basic false principles of CRT are:
  1. Regardless of race, you are born a racist, and you will always be a racist towards all other races.
  2. The content of your character is irrelevant, because you will always be a racist. Any effort to prove you’re not a racist only magnifies your racist nature towards all other races.
  3. Your race is automatically condemned by all other races, because all the other races are also racists.
  4. All sins — past and present — of your race are unforgivable, but all sins of all the other races are completely ignored.
  5. Because we are all racists, we are all condemned and no one is redeemable.
CRT promotes victimhood and suppresses a specific race because one race proclaims themselves “oppressed” (the victim) while accusing another race of being the “oppressor” (the villain). The objective is to push society to hate the oppressor villain’s race and rally behind the proclaimed victim’s race.

How could anyone doubt 'TheKimHammerShow.com'? Still, I'm sure you have verified all the above is actually in the CRT documents, just in case, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom