Critical race theory in national curriculum promotes 'victim

Post Reply New Topic

First Question: The usual suspects are those who make a fortune from the Race Grievance Industry: Sharpton, Jackson, and newcomers Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi.

Second question: Lots of things in American history (or any history) have to be put into world context. Using a hot button topic like slavery or discrimination without putting it into some context leads one to believe certain fallacies.

Unfortunately that seems to be the goal of CRT. To serve the interest of race baiters and to misinform kids. Look up Teacher Paul Rossi and read about what happened to him when he refused to cave to the CRT doctrine.

I agree with the cartoon, so, neat...

I don't believe he was citing the source to discredit it.

If someone could present an unbiased description of what CRT is then I might be able to have an opinion about it.

It may not be the work of the Devil, but it may not be necessary for public school education either. The school system isnt THAT bad about presenting the downsides, as well as the upsides, of US history in K through 12 (they did ok even back in my day back in the early Seventies- at least in my part of the country). So its not obvious to me that this new fangled thing is necessary.

Thats my boring, and non tribal emotionally reflexive two cents worth.

I'm not suggesting that events in American history shouldn't be placed in the context of world history, only that I wouldn't single out slavery as the one topic to delve into for context just to appease people who are ultimately hostile to black history being taught at all.

No one denies that slavery was also practiced elsewhere, but what purpose besides whataboutism does it serve to make that the one topic where international context is provided?

People who oppose CRT keep insisting it spreads misinformation but all I see is it challenging some basic assumptions that benefit some people. Dismissing viewpoints that don't align with your own as misinformation isn't actually a reasonable rebuttal of those viewpoints.

Also, the dog whistle was obvious. How dare civil rights activists discuss issues relevant to their legitimate grievances.

I agree with it, too.  Most of the cartoons on that website align with my beliefs.

I don't think anyone can offer an unbiased description. From what I can tell it's a hodgepodge of left wing anti-racist beliefs, some of which are incompatible.

- The stated goal, as ever, is an equal and just society where race has no bearing on your life.
- At the same time race is the single most important thing about you and is the source of everything negative in your life.
- Colour blindness is racist.
- Racist laws are bad.
- Unless they target whites.
- If there are no obviously racist laws, disparate outcomes between races must mean the problem is elsewhere in the "system".
- But never rooted in biology.
- Race is a social construct so it doesn't matter.
- Literally everything else that matters is a social construct.
- Narrative > Evidence, Observation, Reason, Logic.

Carry on Western Civilisation...

Here you go...

"Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States who seek to critically examine the law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice." -- Wikipedia

"Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.  Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans." -- Brittanica

"CRT ... critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others.  CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past.  Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation." -- American Bar Association

If ever I was forced to attend a CRT course, or had the misfortune to find myself in the company of somebody who actually believed in it, I'd pretend to be extremely low functioning so that they'd leave me alone.

Wow! Calling Sharpton and Jackson "Civil Rights Activists" is like calling Hannibal Lecter a food critic.
When you strip away the BS we all know what CRT is about. Its a way to indoctrinate school kids into the world of identity politics and victim culture. Nobody benefits from being a victim except those who want to exploit them. (DNC, Sharpton, ect) .

Had MLK not been martyred, he'd have been on the right's list of race hustlers.
Sharpton and Jackson are hardly perfect, but they have certainly done their part for civil rights.

MLK is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of what Jackson has become and has done to what has become of his legacy.

[hug]

Regardless, MLK would still be painted with the same brush had he not been martyred. In fact, there are plenty of right wingers who do.

Pretty sure MLK is rolling in his grave more at conservatives twisting his words against modern Civil Rights activists. You can already guess what Fox & Friends would have said back in the day if they were talking about MLK's activism. He got the same accusations Civil Rights activists receive today. "You just hate white people!" "You're inciting riots!" "You hate America!" "You're trying to divide us!" "You're trying to erase history!" "You're a radical who does not reflect the values of the Silent Majority!" Learn history. Think outside the conservative, state-approved, sunshine-and-rainbows version of US history you grew up with.
His calling for non-violence didn't keep him from being one of the most hated men in America at the time of his death. Whites of all political persuasions hated him until he was vindicated by history. Conservatives really started to like him when they realized they could weaponize his non-violence rhetoric to try to shut up civil rights activists any time their protests became anything except 100% peaceful and non-violent. MLK himself said that riots do not just happen for no reason and you should not condemn riots without taking a good hard look at the system that prompted those riots in the first place. But that version of MLK would make conservatives uncomfortable so go on pretending the conservative-friendly MLK was the real one.