Is The Current Critical Race Theory Movement Legitimate
To clarify the intent of the title, I think the current CRT in the news is a `movement', rather than an academic concept of study that CRT was intended to be.
As an off-shoot of the theory of Critical Thinking, the concept of CRT makes logical sense—as a concept of academic study. However, in my shallow understanding, (I audited a couple of Google University courses—meaning I did a quick Google search), and it appears to me that the current CRT movement is a distorted and mutated watershoot grown from the trunk of the tree of CT.
It appears the CRT Movement wants to be the solution rather than the study that its namesake is defined as.
I don't agree with the "movement" as it is being portrayed, but I do think there would be value in CRT as a direction of study.
Also, I didn't find any information that CRT, as portrayed by most Republicans, is being taught in any K-12 classes.
GAAt a hearing at my grandkids charter school, grades K-12, several complaints were aired that kids were coming home after being told their white skin made them liable for the problems of society.
Don't know where that could come from except from the roots of CRT.Back up a bit, You are getting ahead of me. And remember, I noted that all I know about CRT came from a bit of Google search.
Secondly, my comment about not finding evidence of CRT as part of any K-12 curricula. That is different from saying there is no evidence of CRT-influenced teaching, (by misguided teachers), going on.
That your reference was anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't true, (and, there may or may not be other such anecdotes elsewhere), but I didn't find any evidence of `Officially' approved CRT courses.
Even so, if your CRT is the same as the mutation `movement' that I spoke of, then I agree, such an occurrence would have to come from the roots of this CRT movement. And that isn't what I think the concept of CRT is. That was the point I meant to discuss.
GAI think you're right - CRT was never intended to be a simple case of white bashing and providing a "victimhood" mentality for blacks. But that appears ("appears" because I haven't studied it either) to be what is being promoted.
I will say that the Idaho legislator have banned state schools, including universities, from teaching it. Presumably (pretty big assumption, I know) they DID examine what is being taught, whether within the original intent or modern intent, and found it severely lacking.Your last thought explains why my understanding of CRT is so fuzzy. I haven't found any clear explanations of this CRT's plans. I have only found anecdotal evidence of some teachers choosing to implement the CRT's claims in their teaching.
I understand that real CRT is simply a focused direction for studying the effects of societal law-making on all of its citizens and then using that data to seek solutions.
My understanding of this new CRT movement is that rather than study the problems, they want to declare their validity and demand implementation of their ideas.
That could be wrong, but it is the impression I have from what I found in a Google search.
GA
In my view, which is limited, it appears "critical race theory” was meant to be a curriculum that could be used in schools to provide a comprehensive understanding of how American racism has affected our society, and generally shaped public policy, and possibly has caused divisive discourse that has to lead to systemic racism. CRT can be tweaked as all curriculum as individual school boards see appropriate. So, do we need CRT in our schools? I guess it would depend on how the curriculum was presented.
In my opinion, I don't agree with much of what is being presented today with the theory. But the older theory was fine. The curriculum did not place blame but certainly and importantly discussed slavery, and how it over our history has created many social problems for some black citizens.
I found a website that lists where CRT is part of a University curriculum.
https://criticalrace.org/This is the most intelligent answer so far:
"In my view, which is limited, it appears "critical race theory” was meant to be a curriculum that could be used in schools to provide a comprehensive understanding of how American racism has affected our society, and generally shaped public policy, and possibly has caused divisive discourse that has to lead to systemic racism. CRT can be tweaked as all curriculum as individual school boards see appropriate. So, do we need CRT in our schools? I guess it would depend on how the curriculum was presented."
-----------
This aspect of American history should not be considered the sole driver of the American experience. But, I resent those that downplay the fact that this issue is a major player and not just a footnote in American History. As, I see that there is more truth in CRT than fiction.Thank you. I think that common sense tells us we all need to be aware of our history and how it affected many Black people, lives negatively. A college is a good place to really have the discussion, and if needed debate.
I do not see a problem with teaching this sort of information at the high school level.
I agree the original CRT could be taught in high school. The history is there, it needs to be discussed in a manner that is factual.
Cred, would you have a look at the CRT presented in 1970? Let me know what you think. Would these theories work in a curriculum for the student of today? They are sound, and non-punitive, yet are sound and honest. Would this concept not work better to provide truth without being so very graphic or punitive?
Would this kind of teaching not be a good place to start?
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_spec … heory.htmlThanks Sharlee, for sharing this bit of scholarly information with me.
I agree to the substance of what was written. Of course, not all younger people from K-12 can handle it. No more than I would offer courses in differential calculus to the average 4th grader. The information is pertinent and names like WEB DuBois and Frederick Douglass, as an example, are important parts of American history and should be a part of any high school history curriculum in my opinion.
"I think that common sense tells us we all need to be aware of our history and how it affected many Black people, lives negatively."
I am likely even more of a novice with critical race theory than GA but agree 100% here. And, I will add that we should be teaching the myriad of ways white immigrant lives were affected negatively. Particularly, non land-owner whites, so many of which were indentured servants, some even being born into this plight with virtually no way out. Many outrageous atrocities were done to "white trash" also and it is insane to leave our stories out. The bad sides of a country needs to be taught so that we can grow better. But, we should not use these things as tools to further divide an already divided nation.I do agree if this theory is punitive to white people just due to their color and not their actual beliefs, in my view, it will most defiantly add to dividing us further. Being so removed from the original "sin" should be enough to indicate we need to consider the root of the problem, how it evolved from that root, and come together to work on the problem of systemic racism.
We need to make some common sense out of this, or we will become further divided as a people that share one spot on this earth.I agree. We are seeing a concerted effort to divide the people of America from each other, and it scary just how well it is working.
People with light colored skin, and in particular those with both light skin and a "y" chromosome, have become the "jews" of Nazi Germany. They are the goats today; blamed for everything wrong that is, has or will ever happen. We, and our children, are being taught they are inferior morally and ethically, that they are working to harm others rather than working to improve the world, and that they must be pushed to the bottom of society.Your statement is an eyeopener for sure... And to my dismay, I must agree with every word. We are in great trouble. We have to realize the root of the problem, and at this point, it appears to be is a segment of our society that hopes to tear it down with a racial dived and anything else they can come up with. We have a small chance of turning this around, and it would take Americans coming together, and start rejecting what is dividing us --- which is out-and-out lies, rhetoric, and race-baiting.
The people need to realize although we have problems we have come a long way, and are being driven backward at this point not forward. Common sense to some has become unrecognizable... We are headed for very bad times unless we start waking up to some realities. It seems we don't solve or work on problems anymore, we just create more in their wake...
For instance --- In regard to CRT, look to the first versions that go back over 40 years, the theory was plausible, it gave good a good explanation to the theory as to why slavery gave rise to the current problems of racism in America. The scholars did not assign blame to the white people that descended from slave owners as committing the sin of owning human beings. They looked at what evolved from slavery, how it traveled a path that they felt contributed to systemic racism. In no way was anyone pointed out to penalize as the current CRT does. I think today most American's would come to respect CRT as it was theorized long ago."For instance --- In regard to CRT, look to the first versions that go back over 40 years, the theory was plausible, it gave good a good explanation to the theory as to why slavery gave rise to the current problems of racism in America."
I've little doubt that the first versions were plausible as you state they go back 40 years.
I watched an old 60 minutes, or something similar, a few months ago, where they were discussing a crime on a New York subway that took place between a white and a black. Apparently, the black person did something that resulted in the white person taking aggressive action that wound up in the death of the black person. Maybe the action was justified, maybe it was not. The thing is that when they asked people on the streets, there was no correlation between color and how they felt about the case. They were using their own common sense, and minds to make a decision about the case as opposed to taking sides with their race. Why does it seem that the left wants us to take sides with a race?
Your thoughts are one of the reasons I can't support today's CRT. It appears they have made it all about race instead of the issues that were created by society's actions.
I think you can see the relationship between your thoughts when you consider that the original CLT, (Critical Legal Theory), has been supplanted by CRT.
GAI think I understand that the point to your OP had more to do with the exactly what CRT is, how much influence it may have in our schools and whether it is what it was originally meant to be what it is today.
I'm also Googling a bit about CLT this morning as I know squat about the origins of CRT other than what I'm learning here: " the law is necessarily intertwined with social issues, particularly stating that the law has inherent social biases." For sure, but maybe an even more truthful and helpful statement is "the law is unnecessarily tied to individual economics considerations with evolved biases toward those with means."Yes, that was the message in the OP.
And now a new NEA move seems to make my questions even more clear.
What is CRT 2.0? What are they going to teach? When are they going to teach it?
It seems CRT 2.0 is not CRT at all. CRT was just the name that caught on. So what are the things they want to teach? And just as obvious is the question of "Just what the hell are legislatures banning?" Who has the official version of what is being argued about?
However, after looking at that NEA article I am feeling less conflicted. I think the concept of CRT is valid and I was feeling stuck supporting that but not the publicly presented CRT 2.0.
GA
The problem is the focus on race.
In truth there are few descendants of "Slave Owners", the overwhelming majority of people came to this country as free men, or indentured servants.
What we have is a case where the Rich / Elites of America owned slaves and indentured servants, there are plenty of books out there that tell the real story of our history:
Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607-1776
White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.
The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it.
With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.
As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land.
The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Plantation and Estate owners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.
Soon after America became a free and independent Republic the banning of slavery began.
States that adopted policies to abolish slavery:
Pennsylvania in 1780.
New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1783
Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784
The Republic of Vermont had limited slavery in 1777, while it was still independent before it joined the United States as the 14th state in 1791. These states enacted the first abolition laws in all of the Americas.
Its a complicated issue, one that led to a country with deep racial divide, there is however a difference between the perception that the country was awash in slave owners for centuries and the reality that within a few years of the country being created, slavery had begun to be abolished.
The difference between the slave states and non-slave states existed almost from the onset of the Nation, in which a Civil War was fought rather than let those Southern States leave and form their own Confederacy.
Those who owned slaves either prior to the formation of the new Nation or soon thereafter, were the 1%ers of their times.I think you are right that "the problem is the focus on race." It seems to me that CT and CLT were intended to look at societal problems overall, whereas CRT wants to look at those same problems through a race-focused view.
I think that is wrong and harmful.
GAThanks, Ken for your imput. But the narrative and attitude of the slave owners became the wider American attitude. How do you explain so much terror after 1865? A small number of slave owners could be responsible for the great division that has had such breath and has lasted for so long.
Untrue. The narrative and attitude of slave owners has never been shared by more than a minority of Americans and that minority has gotten smaller every year.
Just tonight I saw a man being attacked, verbally and otherwise, by his neighbors (white and black) for spewing racial epithets at another neighbor. That's the reality today - not that we are living in a country with rampant, overt racism.Gosh, Wilderness, the attitude and narrative of the slave holders has been a predominant one in America during and at least for a century after Emancipation. The racism is not overt to the extent that it was in the past but is covert alternative really any better?
What is your explanation for Jim Crow and the 100 years of racism and legalized terror after emancipation? Is that really the result of such a small minority of Americans?
The difference is racism existed in the Northern states long after they had abolished slavery, but the fight against even that began almost at the inception of the USA... where as the Southern states even after the Civil War practiced in actions and attitude something far worse than bigotry.
If all white people are evil, why was slavery ever stopped?
Why was a Civil War fought to abolish it?
Why is CRT focused on race and fostering racism anew?The north was not immune to racism as they made the finished goods from the cotton produced by the south which they sold. They can be considered an accessory. More than willing to subject themselves to greed as a biproduct of a capitalism that allow them to eat the bread that someone else planted.
The bigotry of the North allowed them to coexist with the South and its practices as none of them (as whites) need not have been concerned as they were not directly affected.
I mentioned early in this thread that whites people were and are not evil but the institutions and mass behavior were.
Slavery was an embarrassment for the United States and the world as all this vaunted talk of rights of man and freedom was exposed as gross hypocrisy, particularly after slavery was banned throughout the British Empire.
As to the viciousness and double standards of American institutions, if it were not for Fort Sumter, slavery could have lasted well up to the end of the 19th century.
Technology and industrial improvements would under Capitalism make it more efficient to hire free labor than use slavery. But then there were the social constructs of how these people were to be treated after they were freed in 1901. Would we have seen the century of terror visited upon the freedmen after slavery was abruptly ended in 1865? There is no indication from history that it would have been any better for them. Greed, exerting power and control would have placed them within some sort of caste system, regardless.
So, slavery was not abolished due to kindness and decency of anyone's heart. The voices of the true abolitionists of the time were not enough to start the war, but the threat of secession was. Abraham Lincoln would tell you as much.
I want the truth, Ken, not some watered down version that is palatable to those that just assume and say that none of this had ever happened. We all have to admit to the truth before any real healing or attempt at understanding is possible. Racism is not going to go away by our denying the truth.So, the uneducated who worked 12 hour days for their daily bread in North America were supposed to consider the moral dilemma of where the cotton came from that they were making into clothes?
Do YOU consider the moral dilemma when you shop at Walmart buying clothes and tools made in "prisons" and "re-education camps" in China?
When looking back at the 1700 - 1800s we are talking Horse and Carriage times... we are talking short and miserable lives for most people in America who were not educated and very well off.
What is the excuse today for accepting the subjugation and slave like conditions of entire peoples in China? It should be beyond acceptable... there should be outrage and boycotts being orchestrated by our MSM and Politicians. I wonder why there is only silence?
Its a myopic viewpoint focused solely on this culture.
It happens in all places, all cultures, all times.
It is happening in China today, the Chinese all but enslave the Muslim Uighur population.
In Zimbabwe they implemented a land seizure program in 2000 that seized hundreds (all) of white-owned farms around the country. The violent seizures resulted in the murder of dozens of white farmers, with many more displaced (out of the country), and close associates of Mugabe given large chunks of land.
It's the way of the world, minority races are targeted by the majority time and time again, those with power abuse and subjugate the minorities for their own gains.
Its not a "white" problem... its a "human" problem.
If it weren't for the kindness in someone's hearts, there would still be slavery here today, and all that goes with it.
It is because decent people, white people, stood up and countered what was accepted globally at that time, and were willing to risk their own safety and wellbeing to do so that slavery does not exist today.Thank you. Well said, and my sentiments exactly. Racism (and slavery) happens within every culture, not just white ones.
Ken, I am talking about the people that owned the factories, not the workers.
I am not excusing China or what is occurring in Zimbabwe, but I don't excuse America either. I don't live in China or Zimbabwe, I live here.
I already told the real reasons why slavery was abolished.....
What you say about minorities being exploited is true, why not acknowledge that this happened in America and who the perpetrators were?I believe I already have, in the statements in this thread.
Yes, oppression and racism became institutionalized in America, years ago, and now it is not, not by law, not by societal norms.
The people responsible for this will never be held accountable.
The people of power, owners of corporations, banks, entire families like the Kennedys, Bushes, Fords, even today the likes of Gates, Bezos, etc. rarely are.
I can agree with CRT curricula at Universities and colleges. I think those students are old enough to accept or reject the concept.
Your thoughts are one side of the argument, and the pro-CRT folks have a different side that is their view. I don't think the sides are looking at the same thing.
I see the mainline anti-CRT folks' position to be just as you described—the slippery slope of sanctioned anti-white teachings. I am only guessing that the mainline pro-CRT folks see their position as; of course, it is only natural and wise to look at our society and our nation's history using any branch of the Critical Thinking tree. But the CRT I see promoted to the public, (either side), is not what the academic concept really is.
So, other than that both sides are arguing `may be, could be, and should be, they are arguing different things.
My initial thoughts were that I didn't like CRT as it was presented in the media. I looked around just enough to be confident in my opinion. I fully support the concept of CRT as one school of academic societal study that would, I think almost certainly, be a benefit to any society. But, the CRT promoted, even by its proponents, isn't what I read CRT is. I think this CRT will be even more damaging.
GAI guess I should have given a better description of where I was coming from. I will at this point be aging myself --- The CRT I was referring to goes back to its conception about 40 years ago, or possibly a rebirth of from even further back. this theory does not mirror what is being described today.
While critical race theorists " of old' had the opinion that racism evolved from slavery, and the racial outcomes we witness today have resulted from a combination of social and institutional dynamics. The older concept of CRT did not assign blame or feel there were intentional or innate prejudices on the part of individuals.
As you might see this older version of CRT does not have much in common with the CRT of today. It is very much almost the perfect opposite. IMO the new CRT theory would do more harm than good to race relations. Pointing a finger at white human beings that are hundreds of years removed from slavery is non-sensical. It only stands to villainize and put up a further barrier. Race-baiting is dangerous, and can only end up with one side hating the other --- in the end, the problem grows, and nothing gets solved.
I think the original version could be thought of in high school and college. In my view. it gives a concept of what has developed over time due to the act of slavery. It does not blame white people that walk the earth today for something that occurred so long ago. It just pretty much gives an explanation of how systemic racism evolved into a serious norm in society over time.
Very interesting subject.One has to wonder, how many at the heart of this "movement" and those that fund it, had this exact goal in mind.
We have gone a long way from "equal rights for all" and “This nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free” and have the liberty to pursue opportunity to the best of their ability, to "Reparations for past and continuing harms." and "Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy" based solely on race.I can only give my view, and I feel that yes the goal of those that support the current CRT are hell-bent on putting up more racial barriers than removing them. I think we have come a very long way from what I witnessed in regard to racism in the '60s. I hate to even share this, but I see some of the same hate growing in my own little part of the planet. I blame most of this on the blatant race-baiting of the media.
We have taken a sharp turn in the wrong direction IMO.
I think I understand your point about the "original" CRT, and I would go back to when CLT morphed into CRT to point to when the race focus changed the validity of this branch of study.
GA
(This is information overload even after editing, (my apologies) though feel it is a very important social issue and worth discussion.)
Let me begin with I am mixed about it while do have trepidation of how it will be used in K-12 especially after visiting Google University and personal information. It is actually a very complex issue spanning several academia pursuits, of which just a few are philosophy, sociology, and education. And, we all know there are think tanks advising our political leaders and our local, state, and national governments. Yet, the majority of us are reliant on current forms of media exposure feeding who knows what into our lives while we can pick our political lean source.
Yes, it is a movement taking storm over our larger society causing further division. As I see it, it carries the same weight as the change of removing religion (God) specifically Christianity out of K-12 as a movement just reversed – in instead of out. At its crux IMHO is if it is being used in the K-12 schools, which is mandatory or forced therefore not of liberty, as education or indoctrination. Lawsuits regarding liberty? It is an academic pursuit at the higher education level, which is voluntary.
Ignorant, I first wanted to know what Critical Theory (CT) is and its relationship to CRT, of which I am in full agreement CRT is based on it. The following quote from an article at ThoughtCo an education site, Understanding Critical Theory, which is a short read, hit me over the head.
“Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. It differs from traditional theory, which focuses only on understanding or explaining society. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works."
As I see it what is in bold says it all – change, yet CRT aim for that is race and systemic racism taught within schools, which I feel is a guise for the black movement.
As for being taught in K-12 try researching 1619 Project as well as CRT remembering the 1619 project is CRT. Here I will offer some links if interested that are educator and education focused. Remember, they may not be teaching it today, yet preparing for tomorrow.
13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate from theFire.org
https://www.thefire.org/13-important-po … ry-debate/
Educationnext.org – “The 1619 Project” Enters American Classrooms
A quote from the article is:
“Schools or school districts in Chicago; Newark, N.J.; Buffalo, N.Y., and Washington, D.C. all announced 1619 Project-related events. The Pulitzer Center’s annual report says more than 3,500 classrooms used the materials.”
At the article scroll to In the Classroom subheading. https://www.educationnext.org/1619-proj … cant-cost/
Pultizercenter.org - The 1619 Project: Pulitzer Center Education Programming
This organization is closely associated with the 1619 Project for getting education material to educators for creating lesson plans using the 1619 Project as its basis as well as educating themselves further.
https://pulitzercenter.org/lesson-plan- … curriculumWe appear to have followed the same path in our Google journey. I would have described things just as your opening paragraph did. But, I didn't make the 1619 Project connection. I think you are right about that.
My Google trip also backed up and started with Critical Theory. As you mentioned, there are multiple philosophies branching from CT, (Critical Theory), the most closely aligned with today's CRT seems to be Critical Legal Theory, (CLT). It looks like CRT superseded CLT and changed the focus from legal considerations to race considerations. And I think that is wrong and dangerous.
It seems that rather than define the problems and how they came to be, CRT wants to place blame and seek redress instead of understanding and solutions.
CRT has to be more than `other bashing. ( I let Wilderness keep his white-bashing credit) I don't have the impression that they are anything but that.
GAI am in agreement with most of what you shared. And, I see Wilderness's point of view too as you put it 'other bashing'. That is why I am mixed on establishing a position for now while pursuing more information.
Thanks for the tip on CLT while learning that CRT is a subgroup of it as well as feminism and others. And, it is a school of CT.
Critical Legal Theory from Cornell Law School.
From that article in my original post, Understanding Critical Theory, is the following quote. I can see how its line of thought may be at the root of CRT as well as its controversy as seen with it since it involves Marx.
“Following in Marx's critical footsteps, Hungarian György Lukács and Italian Antonio Gramsci developed theories that explored the cultural and ideological sides of power and domination. (The White oppressors with its white privilege) Both Lukács and Gramsci focused their critique on the social forces (Media, Education, Legislation) that prevent people from understanding how power affects their lives.” Thus, the introduction of CRT into K-12 while knowing it is in higher education, CRT in the media today, and legislation seen mainly with prohibiting CRT being taught in K-12 in many states.
Following along the thoughts of Sharlee with tweaking the curriculum here in California where I live they recently passed an Ethnic Study for high school curriculum, which may become a required class, yet is up to individual school districts. CRT will be within that from what I read at A final vote, after many rewrites, for California's controversial ethnic studies curriculum. I am inclined to be for it as there is emphasis on the Hispanic, Asian, and Native American race/ethnicity and not just Black. I say that because the 1619 Project IMHO is not inclusive of other races.
As an aside note the article definitely demonstrates what goes into making a change with education and legislation. I felt it was a good read. And, many Media outlets covered it when it went through.
Regarding CRT, Manuel Rustin who oversaw the drafting of the model curriculum said the following:
“Ethnic studies without critical race theory is not ethnic studies. It would be like a science class without the scientific method then. There is no critical analysis of systems of power and experiences of these marginalized groups without critical race theory.”
Footnote: Racial Demographics for California
White alone, percent 71.9%
Black or African American alone, percent 6.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 1.6%
Asian alone, percent 15.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.5%
Two or More Races, percent 4.0%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 39.4%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 36.5%I am no longer mixed. I am firmly against CRT 2.0 and fully support CRT 1.0 and most of the other branches of CT. It seems to me that the only negative to any of them is the natural strong probability that they will become political power tools instead of methods of study and change.
GA“It seems to me that the only negative to any of them is the natural strong probability that they will become political power tools instead of methods of study and change.”
As far as it being a political tool IMHO it is as seen with the many states introducing bills to ban it while six have passed theirs. While I also see in the background the liberal/Democrat vs. Conservative/Republican clash occurring. Yet, won’t go there for now.
I like the idea of CRT 1.0 and 2.0 being two different concepts. For me I may be more focused on it is Critical Race Theory and not Black Race Theory, though the obvious is the greater minority race is Black with its travesty within the history of the U.S and all the forces affecting their journey. I just prefer for there to be inclusivity of other races with CRT as is seen with here in California being Hispanic is the dominate minority with its history and forces affecting their journey.I think your CRT is the focus of CRT as an academic concept. I don't recall seeing any race designation in the original concept.
GA
It is already agreed upon that critical race theory is an extremely important line of study, and you are correct that this mutated version of CRT is nothing more than another hate-filled and fueled social movement rather than a relevant line of logic. The problem we are facing is educated people abusing their position of influence and power to promote division using this social idea of CRT, and then an educated group using it inversely; both opposing groups are using it as a way to win power in their own camp.
Critical race theory is being taught as a social movement, but it isn't being actively labelled. "White people are bad, and everything they do is racist," was a common moral in school when I was growing up, and it manifested itself in extremely weird ways. Take for example the day we celebrated African American history with the African Club, but whites were purposefully excluded, and there were quite a few suspensions (which were overturned later) because many individuals refused to adhere to the, "no whites allowed," rule.
So, yeah, it isn't being taught directly, but the social movement and its ideals are bleeding into the education system swiftly. I'd venture to tell you that it is so solidified the only thing we can do now is teach CRT in its scholastic form to combat its sociopolitical form. The argument is to teach, or not to teach it, and I say teach it under strict monitoring to ensure the social poison that is its non-scholastic movement can't have anymore influence.
Explaining my understanding of CRT concisely: It allows for a clear and concise way to describe the study of problems in society with mostly-racial influencing factors. CRT is almost an admission that there are problems in society that certain races contribute to more than others, and as a direct result those problems could be solved if everyone worked toward a solution to those problems.Ha! Here is a thought . . . for clarity let's call the CRT being presented to the public now CRT 2.0?
Speaking of CRT 1.0 I agree with your closing. But speaking of today's CRT 2.0 I don't think they hold the "if everyone works together" feeling. It seems like more of a `now it's your turn' thing.
I also agree that it is not dummies that are fueling this issue.
GAMost certainly, I agree, this movement we see today is a rebirth of the acceptance of the same racist ideals CRT was meant to solve. My assumption is that many on all sides of the argument found things they did not like while studying CRT, and rather than solve the problem at its roots they split from the theory and politicized it. I think basic sociology explains why CRT is abused quite well.
However, I disagree that we should even call this movement CRT 2.0, the movement should be called what it is: An attempt at reviving racism under the guise of anti-racism. CRT is a very important line of study, and in no way should we align it with the demagogues and ideologues abusing and mutilating its important existence.
It seems the winds of justice aren't blowing in favor of what is right, though, as any dissent against the mainstream social narrative is harshly punished any time it picks up authoritative steam. Truly a blunder.
Think of it this way, though, CRT was meant to solve the very issues people are using it to create. Teach the proper form of CRT, let it grow to fruition, and the people abusing it will be punished by the educated majority when they get the opportunity to reach that point of being educated. Although, that is my idealistic take, I think we are actually in an age of newfound turmoil that won't end well.I see it a bit differently. I think CRT was meant to discover the causes of problems, not solve them. The benefits of CRT's study may be credited for prompting the solutions, but the solutions have to come from society's representatives, not CRT's representatives.
Could it be that any solution posed by CRT might be subject to the same racial forces that it is supposed to solve? Would that then make any CRT solution suspect? I think yes is a probable answer for both questions.
GAIn that context I'd agree CRT would probably be best as a background subject. It is as if you'd need to argue the racial value of every conclusion you made, and then argue the racial value of the individuals presenting the arguments. CRT seems more like a philosophical teaching than a practical one from that perspective.
The long-term success of CRT depends on everyone presenting things fairly and equally, and that's an impossibility even in the most controlled situations. You may have just brought me to change my stance completely.
To the query of the original post, it appears there are major efforts in progress to make CRT a central component of K-12 curriculum.
The National Education Association has approved a plan to "publicize" critical race theory and dedicate a "team of staffers" to assist union members looking to "fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric."
In what the NEA claims to be the inclusion of “accurate and honest teaching,” it vowed to “oppose attempts to ban critical race theory” and the “1619 Project”.
Several states across the country are fighting back against critical race theory by banning educators from teaching it as fact in public school classrooms. Idaho was the first state to pass laws banning critical race theory, and other states such as Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Florida, and Iowa passed similar legislation.
Despite the bans, thousands of teachers nationwide have pledged to continue teaching critical race theory.One unfortunate result of the CRT movement, Parents fight back ---
Ohio moms speak out after private school expels their children over critical race theory pushback.
"Two Ohio mothers spoke out Wednesday morning after their children were expelled from a private school due to the mothers pushing back against critical race theory.
Columbus Academy is denying re-enrollment to several students, alleging that their mothers breached part of their contract by leading a public campaign against the school's purported attempt to "indoctrinate" students with left-wing ideas.
"I feel like it is unfortunate that when you are speaking out and you are trying to say your truth, unfortunately, there are people who want to retaliate against you. In this case, they retaliated against our children, who are innocent," Andrea Gross" https://www.foxnews.com/media/ohio-moms … ace-theory
"As part of the campaign they say they have collected sworn testaments from other parents accusing the school of pushing progressive ideas about race on students and discriminating against conservative thinking.
Around 400 other parents of Columbus Academy students are said to have joined the campaign" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … culum.html
It appears some schools K-12 are teaching CRT --- Columbus Academy is a coeducational private country day school that provides education to students age 3 through grade 12. Located in Central Ohio.CRT is yet another piece of the puzzle, along with the toppling of statues, revising or complete omission of our history; in the leftist, progressive, Marxist movement to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.......right out of existence. We've been warned many times, along our way, that this could happen, sadly, it's happening!
I have some faith left that true American's won't stand for the leftist ideologues to grow to a majority. I can see lots of pushback at this point to stop CRT in the schools, and many questioning the need for a teachers union.
I told understand your view, a few months ago I had that very view. I think it is becoming evident that a majority are well over all the BS of the left, it's evident the Dems put their eggs in the wrong basket with Biden, and are now left with a mess of scrambled eggs. His administration is all but
done.
So, don't lose sight of 2024, the Dems have put a big old nail in their coffin with the "Biden ploy". This trojan horse plan just did not pan out... One could say the hinges on the old horse stuck and they just could not let lose the troops.I will never give up on this Nation Sharlee; I just see the stranglehold that a very small, destructive, manipulative (backed by powerful enemies of this Country) minority, has on us. It is, in fact, a minority, but a minority with all the momentum!
They have the momentum and have had it for far too long (Trump just interrupted it for a moment in time and he had to be properly dealt with)
I have faith; I'm an optimist, but I have seen Pastors, almost immediately, without knowing anything about BLM, get behind the movement, as if it was the right thing to do. They've since learned the truth!
Same with CRT, until Parents began to see the evidence of what it is truly all about, for themselves, and have gotten involved.
We ACCEPT now and we question later!
Why do we do this, all the time!! Look at Obama, many people ignored or explained away his use of the words,"fundamental transformation".
I was shocked, I am still shocked! Not a lot of people were talking about it or writing about it; a man elected to be the President of the U S who was all about transforming (bringing permanent change to what he sees, as an unworthy place)
How can any individual (at this point) trust the left, Dems (those who have sold out to Marxism)? But they do, they will, no matter what!
I am trying to keep the pessimistic demons at bay, but it is proving to be draining!The left has indeed lost some "true Americans." I think trojan horse is a great descriptor of the entire Democrat platform these days. To gain entry, they used some reasonable policies that many of us backed and felt could move the nation forward, then they brought in the hate. Some of us can see it for what it is though.
I hope that more and more "true Americans" "see it for what it is" hard sun, to the point where the momentum is back where it has always belonged, with the people!
That's odd, since it's taught in college. Sounds more like parents are instilling their own ideology onto their children but using the school as the scapegoat to escape the truth. That's sad. Poor kids.
I think in all fairness, I need to clear a few things up. I don't like the CRT tendency to make every white person that ever lived an ogre. The idea of inherent racism being linked inextricably to whites is unfair and as Sharlee says is unduly punitive. And, I agree with Wilderness to the point that every grade school student should not be subjected to assume a guilt about him or herself.
But when I look at the so-called revision, what was it? The "1776 project" that presents history with the emphasis on patriotism and the intent of the founding fathers regarding America as an "exceptional place". Trump and the conservatives are all for this. I was raised with Santa Claus and George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, etc. There were topics and contributions from unrecognized people that were excised and minimized in the sanitized and disneyesque versions of what we were taught in K-12.
It was only during the early 1970s that I was only beginning to see alternate and revised views of American History from what would be considered the "victims" views of America history from other than the "establishment's viewpoint. I had to take ethnic study courses that were brand new at the university level to be made aware of contributions that I should have learned as part of a broader American History in K-12
There are decent people here of which I have the pleasure to associate with, race notwithstanding. Having been to Europe, I know that the racial strife that has been a part of American life is not necessarily due to one being white. Different Societies have been shown to me to be constructed differently, although the human condition tends to create hierarchy regardless of race, color or creed. And if it is not there, it will be created.
It is clear how politics color how history is provided and who's truth is the most reflective of the reality.
I would say the reality is somewhere between whitewashing of the truth that the conservatives want to feed us and CRT, that make assumptions about people their and motives that are not warranted.
The truth about American History is while there were glorious moments, there were painful ones as well. Don't cover up or sugar coat. This should be revealed to K-12 students as well.
Yes, racism in America is systemic, I speak of institutions and groups of people and not individuals, necessarily. So, it is more involved than just a few "bad apples".
Yes, slavery and the 100 years of terrorism that followed emancipation has had an affect on black people, their opportunities and prospects. While that is not the sole reason we remain behind on so many positive yardsticks of achievement, denying that that did not contribute to it is dishonest.
No one is here to beat anyone up, but I give my honest opinion from a perspective none of you can really appreciate. But, I appreciate your efforts to listen and learn all the same.You have a perspective having lived the experience of being black, which, for me being white, I can only exercise my ability to empathize seeking an understanding while educating myself. I appreciate your perspective. Hopefully, CRT if administered correctly will enlighten students in K-12.
You are right in my view that history needs to be inclusive of race. Looking through my lens of living life, as most do, I can’t remember an emphasis being placed on the different races with their contributions to U.S. growth as a nation with as you said, “The truth about American History is while there were glorious moments, there were painful ones as well”.
Keep in mind I entered 1st grade 1960 graduating high school 1972, yet as a military brat I bounced around the country not staying any longer than three years in one place. I did not know any black person until the 4th grade, yet now pondering may not have known they existed. That is why I say if CRT is administered correctly in K-12."You are right in my view that history needs to be inclusive of race."
Are you sure of that? When it comes to slavery, most cultures have kept slaves at one time or another. Even in the US we had black slaveowners and some Indian tribes kept slaves as well. The Aztecs kept slaves, and commonly sacrificed them to their gods. Slavery has been seen on every continent in the world, possibly excepting Australia.
Likewise, mankind's inhumanity to mankind, finding a "goat" to degrade and denigrate, is hardly limited to Caucasians; it is found even today all over the world. Discrimination has, and does, exist for every possible difference between people, and those differences number in the thousands, from color to sex, to gender preference to language, to almost anything you care to name.
Would we not be smarter to stop furthering racial hatred and division and concentrate on tolerance in our teachings? Teach that people owned slaves, teach that people discriminate for any reason possible, teach that ALL peoples have it in their history and ancestory...and that it is long past time to put an end to it. Stop trying to blame one race for all the discrimination and slavery that has happened and let the truth be known.Yes, in my view history should be inclusive of race. Here I will repeat, “if CRT is administered correctly in K-12”. What correctly is at this time I am in quandary. Race is a fact of life or a given. I don’t see how you can teach history without race entering into it. Even the mere mention that Crispus Attuks, a black man, was the first man shot during the Revolutionary war brings race into it. I don’t think it is discriminatory if it is mentioned.
I agree with the sentiment that slavery has existed since the inception of time. Possibly that could be addressed with world history. Adding to, just now I considered the fact that here in California the Spanish enslaved the Native American Indians. I think that should be at least taught in state history.
As to your second question quite frankly the answer is yes to the first part and hopefully for the second. Racial hatred is a tight rope when thinking of is racism innate or learned beginning at home followed by further actions of socialization with its folkways and mores.
Addressing the remaining paragraph, again, I see it with “if CRT is administered correctly in K-12”. To me that is a perplexing challenge for educators to design a class and not fall into the trappings you mentioned regarding discrimination. Maybe I will seek out what the CRT training is for educators.The comment on Attuks is instructive; just why it is necessary, or in any way advantageous, to point out he was black? What possible difference does it make? He was a human being, killed in a war being fought over who would control the new world. That's all that needs to be said, IMO.
You mention that the Spanish enslaved Indians; what about the Indians that owned slaves? Don't they get a mention? Or the black men that were slaveowners? That was my point; that virtually ALL our ancestors owned slaves. Blacks did, Caucasians did, Indians did, Asians did; we ALL have ancestors that were slaveowners. It is nothing but race baiting and hatred that limits the discussion to Caucasians that did.
Did you know that one of the leading founders of New Orleans owned slaves? And that he was black? No - our discussions are limited to white slaveowners when the real problem is that the powerful among us mistreat people regardless of their race. And that's what needs discussed; not what race they were or what race did it more often or owned more slaves. Just that power and the ability to do so too often results in mistreatment of other people. People, not blacks or Asians or whites; just people."The comment on Attuks is instructive; just why it is necessary, or in any way advantageous, to point out he was black? What possible difference does it make? He was a human being, killed in a war being fought over who would control the new world. That's all that needs to be said, IMO."
Well, Wilderness, that is not good enough. The only people that ever did anything were white people when I was in school and that is incorrect.
In American History, the power and ability to mistreat others were found primarily among whites. The victims were overwhelmingly those that were not. Why can't we admit that?
Taking aberrations to the general rule does not make that general rule any less valid. Who was responsible for the Jim Crow and the outrages for people of color after slavery was ended. What does have to do with "people just being people"?That's the problem as I see it. If YOUR race isn't mentioned it is a slight somehow. That we are all people is subjugated into what race we are. This has caused massive problems in our country; why do we insist on continuing it?
That's what I said; it doesn't matter WHAT race we are; we ALL have ancestors that did evil things. Including your own race. YOUR race captured slaves and sold them to the slavers to transport to America; do you talk of that, or just those that bought them? Black people were, to a large degree, responsible for slavery in America with this practice; do we teach that?
No, Cred; we would all be far better off were we truly color blind in this matter. It truly does not matter what race did what where, for ALL races are guilty. Not just the whites you harangue so much. And again, that includes "your people".The massive problems are things that were done to people that should not have been done, and there are consequences.
When I was school, no one mentioned race, because according to the teaching, there was only race who contributed to America. It did not have to be mentioned.
Fine, teach that slavery is not a new concept. But it was practiced here and was for the most part the legacy of one group of people.
it is more than just "people", it was institutions that were responsible.
What are we supposed to say about history, that none of this happened?
why are you so anxious to bury all of this?"But it was practiced here and was for the most part the legacy of one group of people."
On this you are correct; it was the legacy of one group of people. Rich, powerful people. Black and White, the group was one of rich, powerful people. Even the slavers in Africa that sold slaves to the slavers for transport to America were rich and powerful on their own turf.
So why do you spread it to anyone white - rich or poor, peon or plantation owner...but never those "of color" that were also part of the cruel practice?
It is not I toppling statues - that is "your people" trying to bury the past. It desperately needs discussed...but from a truthful, full disclosure discussion. Not from "white people owe black people because a tiny percentage bought slaves from black people" point of view?
The real question is why you and others wish to balloon our racial problem? Why is race so central that everything is based on it? Why are we discriminating against one race (99.9% innocent of any wrongdoing) to benefit another, with full support from you? Cannot we just all be "people", not black, white, Asian, Hispanic, men, women, Indian, etc., etc., etc?"Kumar Rashad, an NEA delegate from Louisville, Ky., introduced a new business item that calls on the union to publicly express its 'support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society,'" wrote Education Week. "The measure also says that the NEA should publicly say it's appropriate for curriculum to be informed by critical race theory."
So, what is your problem, Wilderness, what is wrong with this?
A racial problem continues to be exacerbated because of the denial that it ever existed and that will not stand.
No one is talking about owning a debt that cannot be paid, but let's be honest about what occurred and why. I don't care if conservatives types feel uncomfortable about these revelations.
I am not afraid, let's have that desperate full disclosure discussion. Let's bring it all out to be critically examined. Most of you just assume that it be swept under the rug, but that is not where it is going.
I have told you before and I have documented the circumstances where blacks owned other blacks, and that was primarily to preserve families. 1 out of 1000 is not much a "part" to me.
You conservatives love to sell the big lie and obsfucate the obvious. Rich blacks and whites, indeed. How do you know any of this outside of pulling it down from the sky?I'm sorry, Cred, but if you can't understand that choosing one race and claiming it (or a large percentage of it) discriminates against all others, with zero discrimination done against that one race, then you are most definitely a part of the problem. A very large part, for white people are far, far from the only people to discriminate against other races and you are working hard to demonize the entire group above all others.
When we were on the Right Path:
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. ” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” — Elie Wiesel
Today we are being led astray by "leaders" with agendas and self aggrandization:
"[It is] White People [who are] at fault. We must not ever consider our work toward racial justice to be finished," Robin DiAngelo admonishes. "I use my position as a white 'insider' to share information with BIPOC people," and "I have demonstrated that I am open to feedback on my own unaware racist patterns." - author of White Fragility
Ibram X. Kendi author of "How to be an Antiracist" and “Stamped from the Beginning,” is also the founding director of The Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University and a 2019 Guggenheim fellow.
Kendi has stated in his books and in tweets, his personal feelings towards "whites" so I will not belabor those quotes, I find this far more telling. In a 2019 piece for POLITICO magazine, Kendi proposed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit racism. Here is his idea in full:
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with "racist ideas" and "public official" clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
A brazen assault on the principles of a free society if I ever read one.
Kendi would like to empower a team of government bureaucrats, not accountable to any political process, to investigate both public and private racism, and "monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas."
There's no way such a department could avoid becoming an Orwellian nightmare, it would necessitate the formation of "speech police".
Under Kendi's proposal, the government would investigate people for making allegedly racist statements, or causing allegedly racial inequities.
Do you really wonder why this is getting such support, from the wealthiest of the 1%ers?
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research, a project launched by one Ibram X. Kendi.
Oh how they reap the REWARDS:
Robin DiAngelo writes on her website's "Accountability" page "My average fee for an event in 2019 was $9,200. In 2020, it has been $14,000." In the book, she adds that she gives presentations on "whiteness and white fragility" on a "weekly basis."
Taking those numbers at face value, that's $728,000 a year just from speeches and workshops, to say nothing of book royalties and whatever the University of Washington is paying her.
DiAngelo has achieved runaway success, selling racism, lodging herself firmly in the top-earning 1 percent of the world's richest country.
As for Kendi, he is reaping tens of millions off his books, speaking fees, and kind donations from the very elite.
I appreciate your opinion regarding Attuks, yet what about when American history arrives at the civil war? I already acquiesce to slavery is a universal reality with the first reply. No need to go further. Agreed any power with its forces can lead to destruction unless it is harnessed allowing for work to occur producing a desired end product.
Tsmog, your one of the "good ones". And you know what? You and I are exact contemporaries of one another. The years that you spent in public school are the same for me exactly.
Thank you for your most reasonable comments.
So what is the "bill of goods" the Right is selling us? Here is more... excerpt from an Associated Press article. Imagine that no certified American historians on this panel? This is just so much bunk. This so called 1776 Commission.
"President Joe Biden revoked a recent Trump administration report that aimed to promote “patriotic education” in schools but that historians mocked and rejected as political propaganda.
In an executive order signed on Wednesday in his first day in office, Biden disbanded Donald Trump’s presidential 1776 Commission and withdrew a report it released Monday. Trump established the group in September to rally support from white voters and as a response to The New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which highlights the lasting consequences of slavery in America.
In its report, which Trump hoped would be used in classrooms across the nation, the commission glorifies the country’s founders, plays down America’s role in slavery, condemns the rise of progressive politics and argues that the civil rights movement ran afoul of the “lofty ideals” espoused by the Founding Fathers.
The panel, which included no professional historians of the United States, complained of “false and fashionable ideologies” that depict the country’s story as one of “oppression and victimhood.” Instead, it called for renewed efforts to foster “a brave and honest love for our country.”
Historians widely panned the report, saying it offers a false and outdated version of American history that ignores decades of research.
“It’s an insult to the whole enterprise of education. Education is supposed to help young people learn to think critically,” said David Blight, a Civil War historian at Yale University. “That report is a piece of right-wing propaganda.”
Trump officials heralded the report as “a definitive chronicle of the American founding,” but scholars say it disregards the most basic rules of scholarship. It offers no citations, for example, or a list of its source materials.
It also includes several passages copied directly from other writings by members of the panel, as one professor found after running the report through software that’s used to detect plagiarism.I don't care much for MSM American news, as I say, it is always biased, always written to steer opinions... MSM news is never neutral "just the facts" anymore... often it is bereft of facts all together.
Misrepresentation, deception, falsification has invaded the business / finance news as well, unfortunately, nothing can be taken at face value or as fact from ANY news source.
As someone that trades stocks as means of making income, I have seen far more clearly than with politics just how deceptive "news" can be.
So, if business articles can become hit pieces on a company or CEO, to drive down stock value... how far must fabrication and deception go in issues of politics?
An over simplification that doesn't really cover the scope of the threat, the end destination of CRT.
Kendi spelled out the true threat very well in his "Amendment to the Constitution" which I mentioned in my previous comment, of course one only has to create his suggested "Department of Anti-Racism" to derail the liberties and free-speech of Americans, an Amendment such as suggested would merely be symbolic of the Nation's 180 degree turn from what it was founded on.You are right, it is an over simplification.
Liberals are not known for their abilities to comprehend complex ideas. It is simple enough to provides a chance, on some basic level, for liberals to realize the terrible reality of CRT.
The truth is that the world is a rough place. Since humans have been around, poor people have been treated harshly by those with means. They have been labelled, unjustly imprisoned, enslaved, and worse. In recent times, these problems have been relatively better than they were in many days gone by. However, when we look at things like the American justice system, we see we still have a ways to go.
Since some insist that this discussion must revolve around race. How many here have been a poor white guy in prison? They have no NAACP type organizations that have their backs. Getting anything done in the prison system abuses around here seems to be contingent upon being a minority.
Can we talk about race problems. Sure. We did when I was in elementary. We were taught about slavery of the blacks by the whites. But, these teachings must somehow go further. Why? I think the arguments have been fleshed out very well here and it's CRT, as being practiced, seems nothing more than a divide and conquer strategy."We ACCEPT now and we question later!" I think Trump truly woke up many citizens to say --- no we are done with this, over it..
And many will not accept the status quo anylonger. I think Conservatives have truly noted it's time to buck up and get in the mud with mud dwellers. It's a bit hard because conservatives like to stay above mud pits. But, we see the need to get a bit dirty at this point time to rain in all the crazy.Right out of the Trump lexicon, knowing Trump and their followers, I can guess who the "True Americans" are really composed of.....
Are you the majority? Really, you "true Americans" lost by 7 million votes. What are you going to do about it?
Let's face it, "your people" are not my people, your idea of freedom is seen as restrictive from a perspective far beyond your own.
I say to the Right winger, if confrontation is what you want, bring it....Shame on you, Cred, for assuming that true Americans can only consist of those right of center.
Confrontation has already been brought, those battles have already taken place.I don't think I was looking for a confrontation. You know what, I think you are a bit just a bit close-minded. You just don't like hearing other "people's" opinions. Yes. I certainly realize your idea of freedom is not the same as mine. Mine is very obviously void of accepting Government overreach, yours is open to Government being n more involved in your life.
Not sure why you feel I would buy into a restrictive kind of freedom. This seems upside down to me. Conservatives dislike anything restrictive, we are for all freedoms unhampered by Government. It would seem you are the opposite of me in this regard. I don't think there is any need to get bent out of shape by my statements. And put out a --- bring it on.I have no problem with your opinion or anyone else's. We just don't like to be thought of as mad, because we don't see things eye to eye with right wing thought.
This hatred of Government is as unfathonable as an EVA orbiting astronaut that hates his space suit. Life is about restrictions, we cannot all do what we want. We have to accommodate the rights of others and in civilized culture, nothing else is possible. Oftentimes in OUR background WE required the government intervention to insure access to freedom and rights that were not forthcoming otherwise. We are not as quick to not appreciate that role. I am not bent, I am just telling you that your view from my perspective is myopic. But, again, your world and reality differs from mine."I have no problem with your opinion or anyone else's. We just don't like to be thought of as mad, because we don't see things eye to eye with right wing thought."
I would think your last words sounded a bit "mad" --- Bring it on. No one is I can only speak for myself, I am not here to fight with you, or am I here to agree with you all the time. I think we have agreed on some things over time here at HP.
Not sure why you feel I dislike or hate the Government. This is not true, what I said is I don't like government overreach. This does not mean I don't think the government is all bad or not necessary. In regard to "Life is about restrictions, we cannot all do what we want.". -- You are being hyperbolic. I truly believe in in-laws and the need for laws.
"We have to accommodate the rights of others and in a civilized culture, nothing else is possible"
We have wonderful rights in America for all...
"Oftentimes in OUR background WE required the government intervention to insure access to freedom and rights that were not forthcoming otherwise. "
In my view, this is true for some American's. But, don't be inclusive of any one race. many blacks would not have the same opinion on that subject. I don't find my view nearsighted. I have come to just look at us all as human beings. Due to being acquainted with blacks that don't feel the same way you do. So, do I return to many years ago where yes I can see your point more clearly. Blacks have come a long way, many don't appreciate being looked at as anything else but human beings.
Yes, it's very obvious we have a ways to go, but the road has been chartered by many blacks that have left behind some of the sentiments you have expressed.
We need to come together not just say our realities differ. I understand what you are saying, completely. But try to grasp what I am saying.Well, Sharlee, your idea of government over reach and mine are different, can we find a common thread? I don't know.
I don't ever expect to agree with you much as we come from diametrically opposed points of view.
I happen to be among those "some Americans"
If the opinions of blacks were more diverse, you would not have a 90 percent support of the Democratic Party and their candidates by the black electorate. It so many more have left my sentiments behind, it is not reflected when they cast their ballots.
The "human being" thing sounds great and is the ideal, but it is not the reality in our society.
I do try to grasp your point of view, but again we may well be speaking about oil and vinegar.It's very clear we want different things from our Government. There is no denying there are now two different kinds of American's, and that is very unfortunate for the country as a whole.
It is obvious that there is very little diversity among black people. in regard to their political party of choice. However, there are black people that have moved away from the 90% you speak of and have moved to other ideologies due to just wanting to live their lives as "human beings". As I said a while back these people had many obstacles due to being black. But just choose another way to get over it... Like Tim Scott,
Ben Carson, a man that had a really bad start in life. And Candice Owen or one of my very best friends Dr.Miko Jeffries.
Are they the 10% that should not be acknowledged because they took a different path? Could the 90% learn something from the 10%? Would it be worth considering?It is only your opinion that the 10 percent should have merit over the 90 percent. There are always exceptions, I have to give credibility to the rule.
I will take the same tack when it comes to support of climate change and everything else. When 95 percent of scientists say climate change is an adverse affect of human activity while 5 percent say otherwise. All things being equal, more credibility belongs to the greater number of comparably qualified scientists that take a specific position.
Perhaps the 10 percent could pay more attention to the concerns of the 90 percent?
There have always been many versions of Americans, nothing new.You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to convey. I was not trying to offer anyone segment merit. Just wanted to point out some took a different path, and perhaps that path was worth exploring. It is blatantly clear that the majority of black citizens feel as you do.
I can't find common sense in your anology. In regard to climate change, it's a true science with variables, most based on scientific facts. Facts that give solid evidence --- for instance, science can accurately measure the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So the 5% that can't really dispute the science of measuring greenhouse gases, make claims that the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have some positive, and important parts to play on earth. (Some of the most positive effects of greenhouse gases include the following: The greenhouse effect helps to maintain a certain temperature level on Earth's surface, making it habitable for the living beings).
Science tells us Greenhouse Gas Index, which tracks the warming influence of long-lived greenhouse gases, has increased by 41 percent from 1990 to 2017.
So, we have a solid fact to show the 95% are relying on facts.
In regard to the mindset of the majority of Black citizens --- is there any factual evidence that they are on the right path to making strides in the problems that concern them? Has the path through many years brought any evidence that things are improving? Have the 10% moved to a better quality of life due to taking a different path? Evidence might just indicate yes, their methods and mindset have prevailed and offered them better results in the end.
I am not in any respect trying to disparage any one group. Only point out that part of that group has succeeded to solve their problems taking a different attitude, and method to obtain a result.Have the 10% moved to a better quality of life due to taking a different path? Evidence might just indicate yes, their methods and mindset have prevailed and offered them better results in the end.
--------------------
What evidence is there of this, Sharlee?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … ident.html
There is indication that the percentage of black votes to Biden was virtually identical between black college graduates and non graduates. That is as close as I can get to an indication that Biden won the black vote across socio-economic lines. Why would I believe that those that voted for Trump were a successful model for the 90 percent? Really?
Who says that their problems were solved? they just voted for Trump, that's all.I in no respect am trying to say Biden did not get the greatest majority of the black vote. I wish I could make a bet on that. I fully feel there is only a handful of black voters that are even Republicans.
"It is obvious that there is very little diversity among black people. in regard to their political party of choice. However, there are black people that have moved away from the 90% you speak of and have moved to other ideologies due to just wanting to live their lives as
"human beings".
I also did not mean to give you the impression I feel economics plays a part in who one votes for. This is my view all about ideologies. I was trying to say some blacks have moved away from the Democratic party due to ideologies. Most likely a small percent.That is true that there are only a handful... in America, for the most part, we all have a common heritage and experience, that is expressed in the voting booth.
The ones that I did know who,clung to the GOP were single issue voters, abortion, Christianity interpretation, etc., in spite of the fact that an infinitesimal amount consider themselves among the Evangelical Christians that vote overwhelmingly for Trump and Republicans.
Surely, you are not saying that Blacks become human beings by virtue of voting for Republicans?No, I am not saying blacks become human beings due to the political party they ascribe to. . I was trying to say throughout our conversation that some blacks may prefer to just be considered just human beings due to their individual ideologies, rather than skin color.
I did point out that some Blacks have moved away from the Dem party due to just choosing another path, other ideologies than the majority. This is my opinion.
As you pointed out, It's very clear the majority of black people in America have clearly adopted the Dem party's ideologies, and I can certainly respect that they have every right to support the party of their choice."Surely, you are not saying that Blacks become human beings by virtue of voting for Republicans?"
Cred, seriously?!? He knows better Sharlee.No, ma'am, just the facts.
There is a strong indication that I pick up is that people that don't vote your way are missing something......It is like progressive minded people are the "missing link".
I was referencing Sharlee's comment about blacks that don't vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket, as choosing to be just human beings. I would presume that would imply that Blacks' allegiance to the Democrat Party is associated with race.
Look at the earlier comment for some reference.
Okay, we agree, I think you are missing something if you don't vote for Conservatives and you think I am missing something if I don't vote for Democrats.....
that has absolutely nothing to do with you posing the question to Sharlee, "Surely, you are not saying that Blacks become human beings by virtue of voting for Republicans?"
You know, I know, everyone knows... no such thing was ever implied!
....and furthermore, I realize that Sharlee is perfectly capable of standing her ground, this just really rubbed me the wrong way!I can probably agree that what it looked like on its surface was not the intent.
But what does it mean?
We are all the same and vote according to our interests, there is no need to create such a blanket division between one set of voters and the others.Factions will always be ignited by like minds and some minds vote according to group think, of course.
Of course, but
Depends on what side you are on as to who is considered to operate under groupthink and who does not.....and what side are you speaking of?
I mean, both sides are prone to group-think, of course. Its the human condition.Based upon your last sentence, we are in agreement.
Yep. Well, after all, I too graduated high school in the glorious year of 1972.
So we are all contemporaries of each other....
Just a little stroll down memory lane...
https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1972.htmlI took a peek this morning. Again, thanks. I remembered most and it did stir memories. The cost/prices was a stark comparison to today's. Seeing in the news recently an unopened box of 'The Legend of Zelda' sold for $870K and with a 'Super Mario 64' sold for 1.5 million I think I may consider that with today's trends for gift giving at Christmas time for nephews and nieces. Of course an explanation of possibility with those two examples.
Sharlee, I am carefully trying to dissect the meaning of your first paragraph.
We all want to be considered human beings due to the individual ideologies of our choice, it is not as conservatives like to refer to as "groupthink".
I certainly would not want to say that every other ethnic group that overwhelmingly supported Biden in 2020, were not capable of thinking independently regarding what were in their interests.
What am I to say about the NRA gun freaks, the Christian Right? Are they not simply voting in line with what they consider as their best interests?
It is not about adopting the Dems ideologies more than Democrat ideologies are more in line with our interests. And we all have interests and preferences, otherwise why bother to vote?
As I said, we find ourselves voting along the same lines, because of common experiences that most of us share as a part of American life. You can ask the Jews, Asians and Native American if their preference for Democrats is based upon some formal adoption or groupthink?I am not saying blacks become human beings due to belonging to any one political party period.
I was trying to say that some blacks MAY prefer to be considered just human beings due to their individual ideologies. And not automatically placed in with the large majority of blacks that they don't share the same ideologies. Because it is very apparent there is a small percent of black citizens that don't share the majority's ideologies. I gave just a few examples.
By no means am I trying to lessen the majority's rights to their chosen ideologies. or maybe they are lesser human beings. I used the term to indicate sameness --- as all human beings, not set apart by any variables such as skin color.
I have become aware of this kind of thinking, due to a couple of my own black friends, reminding me they are underneath it all human beings and have all the same capabilities as me... and that they hoped not to be pigeonholed. into a majority of any nature. So, yes one could say, they gave me an earful. And I realized there are some blacks that take "a different path". And yes, I would say they are in the minority.
I appreciate you pushing the point, it opens up a learning exsperence. I can see and understand your view, where you are coming from.I am listening, Sharlee
We do not set ourselves apart due to skin color, but through commonly held experiences that can often times said to be the result of race, skin color, etc. That is why I did not care for Biden's comment that if we did not vote for him we are not black. Our affiliation with the Democrats and progressive policies are not based upon the fact that we are black.
If I visited the Navajo Tribe in Arizona, they did not vote against Trump and Republicans because they are indigenous people. They look at their circumstances and the problems and determine which Party and candidates are more sympathetic to their plight, and are willing to do something about it.
It is a free country, and to each his own. I was just offering an explanation as to why Republicans and Conservatives have been less successful within our communities as a whole.
Like I said the few Blacks that vote along with GOP tended to be stark one issue voters. That is OK, for them there are issues that take precedence over those that attract most of us."We do not set ourselves apart due to skin color, but through commonly held experiences that can often times said to be the result of race, skin color, etc. "
This rings very true to me,
"That is why I did not care for Biden's comment that if we did not vote for him we are not black. Our affiliation with the Democrats and progressive policies are not based upon the fact that we are black."
This statement is your opinion, and the majority of black voters could share your reasons for voting Demacratic. This to me would be an unknown due to in my view due to individuum. And yes it would be human nature to vote for a person that would be sympathetic to one's problems. It's the "and are willing to do something about it.: I have a problem with. This is where we have a different view of just what have either party really offered actually any minorities? This to me is disheartening.
I will be honest, I do think Trump offered a little something to all Americans. But, he was just not palatable to half the Country.
I think due to having worked in a field where I met people from all walks of life, different values, different ideologies, down different ways of verbally communicating -- Trump's way of communicated did not phase me.
I also feel he can't be called either a republican or a democrat. He was a disrupture. Maybe at this time in our history, we needed a disruptor. In my opinion, he made it all look so easy, and made me wonder --- why the hell hasn't other presidents got to the bottom of some very long-time problems or really even noted problems that we need not have ever had.
At any rate, it's the here, and now. No need to look backward, we better just look forward.... with strength in numbers and calmness.
but ready for appropriate action.Yes, we do need to keep calm, and hopefully, build on our numbers using that very calm. It's clear we have an uphill battle. We need to keep plugging along, trying our very best to spread common sense.
Yes, I agree completely. We can't sit back any longer, it's apparent the country is faltering. We need to be heard loudly in 2022.
Sorry, just me, butting in again!
Cred...Joe Biden's comment, "if you don't vote Democrat {or for him} you ain't black", is your wake up call!
Unfiltered, off script, Joe Biden, was spilling out a big can of Truth Beans here. The Dem Party doesn't seek your approval or to win you over, they assume...you'll never look any further than the Democratic Party.
Did you even bother to look at the comment I was responding to, Cred? Did you take the time to see it in its proper context or were you much to eager to confront me?
... and a good life requires a limited government. I don't hate government, I hate when it is allowed to get too big and too mighty. But, a limited government, working for us, all of US, is required and very much appreciated by me.
"Perhaps the 10 percent could pay more attention to the concerns of the 90 percent?"
- if they did, they wouldn't be the 10%.
Maybe the 90 percent should follow the example of the 10%.
Focus on your own life, live and let live and find your own way to seize opportunities to earn a living, make money and increase
PROFIT.If ya can't do it in America, go somewhere where you can ... like some hand-out country ... say, France.
Then get back to us regarding your ability to "get ahead."YEP!
"... the goal of those that support the current CRT are hell-bent on putting up more racial barriers than removing them. I think we have come a very long way from what I witnessed in regard to racism in the '60s. I hate to even share this, but I see some of the same hate growing in my own little part of the planet. I blame most of this on the blatant race-baiting of the media." Wise Sharlee!Q. Why are they "hell bent?"
A. From the top, there are marching orders ...
- to divide the people to increase avenues for subversion and infiltration.One quick question, what faltered? No need to write a book but one example would be nice. If you could keep it to Trump's job performance. It's more than clear you do not favor him as a man of character.
His character is a major deficit.
One example is I did not like the way he unilaterally ended the Iran agreement that Obama negotiated without bothering to consult allies to the agreement. It was a provocative and belligerent move, that took leverage from the table to gain nothing in return except more more saber rattling. Conservatives always complain about why Biden did not stick with Trump policies.....Thanks, I see your point, and it makes sense. I think Trump had a go-it-alone, America's first agenda or idealogy. It was evident throughout his decisions as a rule. He was more about sanction the hell out of anyone that would not cooperate with his agenda. I the case of Iran, I think it would have been wise to consult the many other countries that were part of the deal. Many being good allies of America.
I did not agree with releasing Iran's back their cash. But, the deal was made, and it would have been nice if Trump took time to hear from other nations that were in the deal. I remember France's Emmanuel Macron and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson did come to Washington to meet with Trump, and try to persuade him to stick with the deal.
This certainly is an example of a foreign policy that did not really pan out in a positive respect. However, Iran offers multi-problems, and it seems no president thus far has done much to stop their waring agendas.
'We need to keep plugging along, trying our very best to spread common sense."
Y E P !
Related Discussions
- 95
Racist and Perjudice (Race)
by SouthernGirl04 5 years ago
Why is it that different cultures cant get along? What exactly are we afraid of? We all suffer the same, but different. Right?
- 14
Florida Anti-CRT law full of ambiguity?
by Credence2 2 years ago
And, yes, as you see by my copy, I have read the bill. This is stirring up a lot of dismay among educators and yours truly as an occasional sub in the Social Sciences area for county's public school system...........(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,298 guilt, anguish, or any...
- 22
VIRGINIA, RACISM IS STILL ALIVE AND KICKING!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
According to the Huffington Post dated October 5, 2012, Republican State Representative Jon Hubbard from Arkansas in his new book, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, CONFESSIONS OF A FRUSTRATED CONSERVATIVE is of the opinion that slavery actually "benefitted" Blacks and was a...
- 36
Joe, You Need To Do Some Research Before Jumping In With Both Feet
by Sharlee 2 years ago
In April the Biden administration proposed a new Department of Education rule that gives preference in grant awarding to schools that incorporate into their curriculum content from the “1619 Project., a controversial history project that is the most prominent work containing critical race theory...
- 52
Is a healthy public school system critical to America's future?
by kashannkilson 12 years ago
Are public schools still important? Are charter schools and privatization the future? Does it even affect the country's role in the world economy?
- 62
The1619 Project and Its Significance Today
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Some say the 1619 Project presents misleading information regarding America's beginnings and has no value other than stirring up hatred for America. Others say we need to become aware of the issues and realities left over from that era. How can understanding them help us shape America toward a...