10 ms·

pretty vile race baiting. no single argument in the first 4 paragraphs, just hissing implications of racism levelled generically towards people based on their r

pretty vile race baiting. no single argument in the first 4 paragraphs, just hissing implications of racism levelled generically towards people based on their race.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Agreed. This particular fragment really stood out for me: 'Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”. Never mind.' It is a weird opinion piece, because its arguments are just loosely connected pieces of information ( in the fragment above, geography ). Then again, Guardian political stance is at least very consistent.
- deanCommie 5y ago
  I think it's a relevant anecdote, don't you? That the very place where King advocated for civil rights 60 years ago is now attempting to white-wash it's racist history. Not every part of the US is. But that one certainly is. Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed. I'm sure someone might raise the point that some anti-gay/trans bigotry books are ALSO being suppressed, so I'll preemptively state that these are not the same thing.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Eh, poetic license has its place and I am more forgiving when it comes to opinion pieces. That said, the anecdote is almost completely irrelevant. At the best, it is trying to use image of MLK and argue the following: "MLK gave a speech here once, therefore making it a sacred ground, where 'nothing we declare bad' can happen". That is not a very convincing argument. I do not see it as relevant even if we lower its status to an anecdote. At best, it is just something that happened. << Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed. I am not big on overarching statements, but I will address the one quoted above. If open discussion is being suppressed, we have no one to blame, but ourselves, because we let this happen. Inch by inch, some subjects became impossible to discuss without repercussions. It is absolutely wild given how free this country used to be in terms of speech. We now have kids in universities who self-censor so as not to offend. So yeah, open debate is being suppressed, but probably not the way you want to believe it is.
    - deanCommie 5y ago
      Anecdotes are just that - but sometimes can be illustrative. MLK is revered in the United States - even the most ardent right-wingers will put him up as a role model for "good" race relation handling. Yet the criticisms levied today against groups like BLM are identical in phrasing, tone, and vitriol, as what MLK faced in his life. I think that's an interesting anecdote. Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated). > Re: open debate suppression The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap. There are two foundational differences. One: Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's. On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students. Two: By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc. On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.
  - yucky 5y ago
    Being against CRT, which is by definition a racist ideology, is nothing at all similar to whitewashing history. If you don't believe me, read the words of Ibram X. Kendi himself, the leading CRT proponent in the US: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.
    - deanCommie 5y ago
      If the people who were attempting to ban "critical race theory" could define it precisely, and ban it equally precisely, I would not have an issue. That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools. Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today. The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
      - yucky 5y ago
        CRT is defined precisely though. It is the application of collective guilt based on skin color for the actions of individuals with the same color skin. It is similar to the Stormfront crowd blaming all black people for violent crime. It's inherently racist. Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT. This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
ttfkam 5y ago
"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn." – MLK, "Where Do We Go From Here" 1967
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
It actually sounds pretty on point to me. It is uncomfortable to admit, but our nation is still incredibly racist. In some areas of the country this is more obvious than in others, but we still practice the same kinds of oppression we did in the 60s, we just do it under a different banner. It's because of drugs, or gangs, or welfare queens, or 'everyone must vote in person with state ID issued at our vanishingly few DMVs and only during working hours'.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  That's the narrative being used to sow division, and it's not supported by data. U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94% https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar... 84 percent of non-white respondents said they supported requiring photo ID, along with 77 percent of white respondents https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-194529851.html https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-19452985...
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    One survey on one issue proves nothing.
    - Taywee 5y ago
      To be fair, it was in response to an assertion with no evidence.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        An ancient philosophical issue is the most fundamental question of the Internet: 'Do two people, who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than one person who doesn't know what they are talking about?' (courtesy: Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
- astura 5y ago

pretty vile race baiting. no single argument in the first 4 paragraphs, just hissing implications of racism levelled generically towards people based on their race.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

Agreed. This particular fragment really stood out for me: 'Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”. Never mind.' It is a weird opinion piece, because its arguments are just loosely connected pieces of information ( in the fragment above, geography ). Then again, Guardian political stance is at least very consistent.

deanCommie 5y ago
I think it's a relevant anecdote, don't you? That the very place where King advocated for civil rights 60 years ago is now attempting to white-wash it's racist history. Not every part of the US is. But that one certainly is. Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed. I'm sure someone might raise the point that some anti-gay/trans bigotry books are ALSO being suppressed, so I'll preemptively state that these are not the same thing.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Eh, poetic license has its place and I am more forgiving when it comes to opinion pieces. That said, the anecdote is almost completely irrelevant. At the best, it is trying to use image of MLK and argue the following: "MLK gave a speech here once, therefore making it a sacred ground, where 'nothing we declare bad' can happen". That is not a very convincing argument. I do not see it as relevant even if we lower its status to an anecdote. At best, it is just something that happened. << Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed. I am not big on overarching statements, but I will address the one quoted above. If open discussion is being suppressed, we have no one to blame, but ourselves, because we let this happen. Inch by inch, some subjects became impossible to discuss without repercussions. It is absolutely wild given how free this country used to be in terms of speech. We now have kids in universities who self-censor so as not to offend. So yeah, open debate is being suppressed, but probably not the way you want to believe it is.
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    Anecdotes are just that - but sometimes can be illustrative. MLK is revered in the United States - even the most ardent right-wingers will put him up as a role model for "good" race relation handling. Yet the criticisms levied today against groups like BLM are identical in phrasing, tone, and vitriol, as what MLK faced in his life. I think that's an interesting anecdote. Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated). > Re: open debate suppression The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap. There are two foundational differences. One: Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's. On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students. Two: By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc. On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.
- yucky 5y ago
  Being against CRT, which is by definition a racist ideology, is nothing at all similar to whitewashing history. If you don't believe me, read the words of Ibram X. Kendi himself, the leading CRT proponent in the US: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.
  - deanCommie 5y ago
    If the people who were attempting to ban "critical race theory" could define it precisely, and ban it equally precisely, I would not have an issue. That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools. Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today. The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
    - yucky 5y ago
      CRT is defined precisely though. It is the application of collective guilt based on skin color for the actions of individuals with the same color skin. It is similar to the Stormfront crowd blaming all black people for violent crime. It's inherently racist. Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT. This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

ttfkam 5y ago

"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn." – MLK, "Where Do We Go From Here" 1967

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

It actually sounds pretty on point to me. It is uncomfortable to admit, but our nation is still incredibly racist. In some areas of the country this is more obvious than in others, but we still practice the same kinds of oppression we did in the 60s, we just do it under a different banner. It's because of drugs, or gangs, or welfare queens, or 'everyone must vote in person with state ID issued at our vanishingly few DMVs and only during working hours'.

steelstraw 5y ago
That's the narrative being used to sow division, and it's not supported by data. U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94% https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar... 84 percent of non-white respondents said they supported requiring photo ID, along with 77 percent of white respondents https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-194529851.html https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-19452985...
- wolverine876 5y ago
  One survey on one issue proves nothing.
  - Taywee 5y ago
    To be fair, it was in response to an assertion with no evidence.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      An ancient philosophical issue is the most fundamental question of the Internet: 'Do two people, who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than one person who doesn't know what they are talking about?' (courtesy: Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
astura 5y ago