2 ms·

> Why would something that supposedly doesn't assign collective blame based on skin color make all white students uncomfortable? The factual history of slavery

> 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.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      You seem to be so fixated on your personal interpretation that you are unable to read normal English. The antecedent to "them" is in the previous sentence: the white politicians who passed the laws that prevented black people from immigrating to those states, and the white politicians who passed laws preventing black people from living in so-called Sundown towns. Those are specific people, with specific names, if you wanted to look up the legislative record. This certainly is NOT "white people". This is a question about history. In US history, Mexicans, as an example of "Hispanics", WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHITE. Had you read the Wikipedia example of Sundown towns you would have seen "No Mexicans After Night". Had you read the Wikipedia page on CRT you would have seen LatCRT as a subfield of CRT, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Latino_critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Latino_cr... . Since you don't seem to understand the history, don't seem to track down relevant references, and since I can't seem to make myself understood, I see no point in continuing this discussion

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.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    You seem to be so fixated on your personal interpretation that you are unable to read normal English. The antecedent to "them" is in the previous sentence: the white politicians who passed the laws that prevented black people from immigrating to those states, and the white politicians who passed laws preventing black people from living in so-called Sundown towns. Those are specific people, with specific names, if you wanted to look up the legislative record. This certainly is NOT "white people". This is a question about history. In US history, Mexicans, as an example of "Hispanics", WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHITE. Had you read the Wikipedia example of Sundown towns you would have seen "No Mexicans After Night". Had you read the Wikipedia page on CRT you would have seen LatCRT as a subfield of CRT, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Latino_critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Latino_cr... . Since you don't seem to understand the history, don't seem to track down relevant references, and since I can't seem to make myself understood, I see no point in continuing this discussion