3 ms·

The history of racism has been, and will continue to be taught. That isn't what critical race theory is. Critical race theory posits that an entire race of peop

by yucky 5y ago

The history of racism has been, and will continue to be taught. That isn't what critical race theory is. Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is of course racist, so giving those racists the ability to assign collective blame based on skin color is getting pushback for obvious reasons.

crooked-v 5y ago
Conservative legislators are explicitly using CRT as an excuse to push laws that aren't actually about CRT and are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable [1]. > Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom: [...] An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. [1]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText
- yucky 5y ago
  >are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? I wonder what Ibram X. Kendi, the most well known proponent of CRT, would have to say about the subject: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Yeah, CRT is racist. Anybody who supports it is racist.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    > Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) could cause white students discomfort on the basis of their race, and would thereby be illegal under Florida's bill. > CRT Actual critical race theory is irrelevant in this discussion. The legislation being pushed here has nothing to do with it, beyond using it as a convenient negative label for literally anything relating to historical and modern racism.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) See, this is the crux of the issue with CRT. You have assigned blame to "non-minorities" collectively, and absolved minorities (again, collectively). The reality is very different. Not only were there many black slave owners[1], but of course many of the most successful abolitionists were white (or non-minority as you say). So assigning blame not to individuals, but rather to race, is in fact racist. This is what CRT teaches, and is why it's a problem. There is a reason that CRT uses a collectivist framework too, which as they say, is the quiet part we aren't supposed to say out loud... [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/emblack_slaveownersem_a_review.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/emblack_sla...
      - eesmith 5y ago
        As your [1] points out, the explicit white supremacist structure of ante bellum US had whites at the top (rich whites then poor whites), followed by lighter-skinned blacks then darker skin blacks. Which explains why, "93.1 % of Negro slave owners were mulattos and 90% of their slaves were dark-skinned blacks." The mulattos in this case were often offspring of a white slave owner, and they shared power in the racist system because, quoting it again: > Free blacks and mulattos, the privileged offspring of white masters and slaves, had an interest in preserving slavery, while poor, free blacks and most rural slaves, who knew slavery’s cruelty, were determined to gain control over their own destinies. The free black elite regarded slave ownership as a privilege and status symbol and valued their ties to the white community. Many lived in white neighborhoods, attended white-dominated churches and shunned the slave community. This is very much in line with the CRT views of how power structures were set up to maintain white supremacy. Oh, and of those 'many' black slave owners, "Often, free blacks purchased enslaved kinfolk to buy their freedom." Do you count them as supporting slavery? > the most successful abolitionists How many black slaves do you think were abolitionists, but without the power to influence anyone? Millions? Why do you think they weren't as successful those white abolitionists? If you don't like the sociological terms "majority" and "minority", and view them as "collectivist", then how would you describe the laws that prohibited Blacks from immigrating to Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa, or the ones which prevented Blacks from living in Sundown towns? Why did those white politicians decide to pass those laws? Can we assign blame to them without being called racist? Or do you want to absolve them of blame?
jakelazaroff 5y ago
> Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is very much not what critical race theory is. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-sta...
- yucky 5y ago
  It certainly is - https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ And let's not forget the words of the foremost expert on critical race theory, Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    The domain name makes this appear to be an authoritative source, but it’s a website that exists specifically to promote the agenda you’re describing, run by the conservative publication Legal Insurrection. The fact remains that critical race theory does not assign blame to everyone of a given race, no matter how blithely they lie about it.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The above is a direct quote from Ibram X Kendi, the face of the CRT movement. You can find it doing a Google search and source it from whatever domain makes you feel better. But he did say it and does believe. He has defended it numerous times. But it is racist and we should call it what it is. CRT is a cancer.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        That quote is obviously correct, though. Let's say, for example, that it's "discrimination" to forcibly remove wealth from a specific person to give to another. It would be discrimination to take $100 from me and give it to you. But it would be pretty rich of me to complain about being discriminated against if it turned out I had stolen your $100 in the first place! A different example. We're playing monopoly. I have a house rule that every time you make money, it goes to me. Every time you acquire property, I get it. Then the house rule changes and you can acquire money and property… but I still own everything of yours I've taken until now. Is it wrong to discriminate against me by redistributing my resources to you? Here's some more context to that quote, by the way: > Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d...
southerntofu 5y ago
As a person from France, i can assure you racism is not taught and will not be taught unless we fight for it. Yes, we're taught judging someone solely based on their skin color is wrong, but cultural racism for example is put under the carpet. As for all the atrocities committed by french republic in the colonies and on its own soil, they're not taught to us because if we as a people realize that racial hierarchies were institutionalized by "respectable" people long before Hitler came to power and continued to be official policy long after he died, we may start to ask questions and hold accountable some people who really don't want that. Two specific examples: - the "vel d'hiv" sweep is taught in schools, as an example of the nazi collaorators gathering in a stadium and deporting/murdering thousands of jews ; that the same stadium was reused for the same purpose in 1967 against algerian people is not taught in schools - Jules Ferry is revered in french schools as father of the public school system; yet schools do not teach us that he was famously racist/supremacist, and that his public school system served as a tool to colonize many regions and practice cultural genocide against many ethnicities (including a dozen on the French soil) Fortunately, we have some decent academics studying/teaching the history of racism in this country (ex: Bouamama, Ouassak, Rigouste, etc). Unfortunately, they're under relentless attacks (especially since 2015) to be shut down by the far right who accuse them of being anti-white racists and/or "islamo-leftists". If that last expression rings a bell, that's probably because "judeo-bolsheviks" was an expression used by the nazis: should it surprise us that debates about "islamo-leftism" have reached mainstream TV in a nation that's built on the blood of countless peoples?

by yucky 5y ago

crooked-v 5y ago

Conservative legislators are explicitly using CRT as an excuse to push laws that aren't actually about CRT and are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable [1]. > Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom: [...] An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. [1]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/?Tab=BillText

yucky 5y ago
>are instead about literally banning anything that would make white students uncomfortable Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? I wonder what Ibram X. Kendi, the most well known proponent of CRT, would have to say about the subject: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Yeah, CRT is racist. Anybody who supports it is racist.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) could cause white students discomfort on the basis of their race, and would thereby be illegal under Florida's bill. > CRT Actual critical race theory is irrelevant in this discussion. The legislation being pushed here has nothing to do with it, beyond using it as a convenient negative label for literally anything relating to historical and modern racism.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >The factual history of slavery and discrimination in the US (as promulgated against minorities by non-minorities) See, this is the crux of the issue with CRT. You have assigned blame to "non-minorities" collectively, and absolved minorities (again, collectively). The reality is very different. Not only were there many black slave owners[1], but of course many of the most successful abolitionists were white (or non-minority as you say). So assigning blame not to individuals, but rather to race, is in fact racist. This is what CRT teaches, and is why it's a problem. There is a reason that CRT uses a collectivist framework too, which as they say, is the quiet part we aren't supposed to say out loud... [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/emblack_slaveownersem_a_review.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/emblack_sla...
    - eesmith 5y ago
      As your [1] points out, the explicit white supremacist structure of ante bellum US had whites at the top (rich whites then poor whites), followed by lighter-skinned blacks then darker skin blacks. Which explains why, "93.1 % of Negro slave owners were mulattos and 90% of their slaves were dark-skinned blacks." The mulattos in this case were often offspring of a white slave owner, and they shared power in the racist system because, quoting it again: > Free blacks and mulattos, the privileged offspring of white masters and slaves, had an interest in preserving slavery, while poor, free blacks and most rural slaves, who knew slavery’s cruelty, were determined to gain control over their own destinies. The free black elite regarded slave ownership as a privilege and status symbol and valued their ties to the white community. Many lived in white neighborhoods, attended white-dominated churches and shunned the slave community. This is very much in line with the CRT views of how power structures were set up to maintain white supremacy. Oh, and of those 'many' black slave owners, "Often, free blacks purchased enslaved kinfolk to buy their freedom." Do you count them as supporting slavery? > the most successful abolitionists How many black slaves do you think were abolitionists, but without the power to influence anyone? Millions? Why do you think they weren't as successful those white abolitionists? If you don't like the sociological terms "majority" and "minority", and view them as "collectivist", then how would you describe the laws that prohibited Blacks from immigrating to Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa, or the ones which prevented Blacks from living in Sundown towns? Why did those white politicians decide to pass those laws? Can we assign blame to them without being called racist? Or do you want to absolve them of blame?

jakelazaroff 5y ago

> Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is very much not what critical race theory is. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-sta...

yucky 5y ago
It certainly is - https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ And let's not forget the words of the foremost expert on critical race theory, Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  The domain name makes this appear to be an authoritative source, but it’s a website that exists specifically to promote the agenda you’re describing, run by the conservative publication Legal Insurrection. The fact remains that critical race theory does not assign blame to everyone of a given race, no matter how blithely they lie about it.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The above is a direct quote from Ibram X Kendi, the face of the CRT movement. You can find it doing a Google search and source it from whatever domain makes you feel better. But he did say it and does believe. He has defended it numerous times. But it is racist and we should call it what it is. CRT is a cancer.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      That quote is obviously correct, though. Let's say, for example, that it's "discrimination" to forcibly remove wealth from a specific person to give to another. It would be discrimination to take $100 from me and give it to you. But it would be pretty rich of me to complain about being discriminated against if it turned out I had stolen your $100 in the first place! A different example. We're playing monopoly. I have a house rule that every time you make money, it goes to me. Every time you acquire property, I get it. Then the house rule changes and you can acquire money and property… but I still own everything of yours I've taken until now. Is it wrong to discriminate against me by redistributing my resources to you? Here's some more context to that quote, by the way: > Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d...

southerntofu 5y ago

As a person from France, i can assure you racism is not taught and will not be taught unless we fight for it. Yes, we're taught judging someone solely based on their skin color is wrong, but cultural racism for example is put under the carpet. As for all the atrocities committed by french republic in the colonies and on its own soil, they're not taught to us because if we as a people realize that racial hierarchies were institutionalized by "respectable" people long before Hitler came to power and continued to be official policy long after he died, we may start to ask questions and hold accountable some people who really don't want that. Two specific examples: - the "vel d'hiv" sweep is taught in schools, as an example of the nazi collaorators gathering in a stadium and deporting/murdering thousands of jews ; that the same stadium was reused for the same purpose in 1967 against algerian people is not taught in schools - Jules Ferry is revered in french schools as father of the public school system; yet schools do not teach us that he was famously racist/supremacist, and that his public school system served as a tool to colonize many regions and practice cultural genocide against many ethnicities (including a dozen on the French soil) Fortunately, we have some decent academics studying/teaching the history of racism in this country (ex: Bouamama, Ouassak, Rigouste, etc). Unfortunately, they're under relentless attacks (especially since 2015) to be shut down by the far right who accuse them of being anti-white racists and/or "islamo-leftists". If that last expression rings a bell, that's probably because "judeo-bolsheviks" was an expression used by the nazis: should it surprise us that debates about "islamo-leftism" have reached mainstream TV in a nation that's built on the blood of countless peoples?