3 ms·

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

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?
      - yucky 5y ago
        >Or do you want to absolve them of blame? Who is them? White people, right? Not the individuals who did a thing, but everyone who shares a similar amount of melanin to anyone who did a thing. So Croatian-Americans who came to the country in the 1980's? Italians, Irish and Jews from the early 1900's? Arabs and Hispanics who are considered white? So yeah, that's racist. In fact it's the exact same logic the Stormfront crowd uses to blame all black people for the elevated violent crime rates, which are perpetrated by a tiny fraction of the black community. It is racist in both cases, don't make assumptions about people based on their skin color. This should be easy.

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?
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Or do you want to absolve them of blame? Who is them? White people, right? Not the individuals who did a thing, but everyone who shares a similar amount of melanin to anyone who did a thing. So Croatian-Americans who came to the country in the 1980's? Italians, Irish and Jews from the early 1900's? Arabs and Hispanics who are considered white? So yeah, that's racist. In fact it's the exact same logic the Stormfront crowd uses to blame all black people for the elevated violent crime rates, which are perpetrated by a tiny fraction of the black community. It is racist in both cases, don't make assumptions about people based on their skin color. This should be easy.