Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all when you lead with an insult, i know you already lost and got emotional. 2nd of all "CRT" as you all describe it is about white-washing history, it's not the actual critical race theory.
And the law that the governor signed is exactly stating that. It says essentially not to teach anything that could IMPLY white people in anything bad. And you confirmed with your post, talking about you don't want to be responsible for the slave trade. LMAO. So basically you want it to be taught that black people just fell out of the sky in America and black people voluntarily became "unpaid interns" on "farms". We're supposed to teach kids that minstrel shows had nothing to do with black people. We are supposed to teach kids that Martin Luther King was giving speeches about nothing. Black Wall Street just burned down one day and all the people were slaughtered by nobody.
Grow up.
My post literally said no such thing.
You are saying I said things I did not say.
You completely ignored the fact that I acknowledge America has made some very ugly mistakes.
Getting angry at a moron is not an automatic loss of an argument.
Putting words in other people's mouths when other people can clearly view it? That is a loss.
Okay, well you've done a pretty good job skillfully avoiding much discussion of race, and characterized the problems as a series of one-off incidents. So your contention is that they are not connected by anything? If so, why do so many happen? Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_r..._United_States Wiki counts 16 since 1990.
interestingly, you don't have to go far in the "since 1990" list to see it may be race v race or ethnic group v ethnic group .... but it's not necessarily Black v white or any race v cop.
Quote:
My sense is it's not that clear cut. They argue that the killings are the most extreme outcomes of a general climate of prejudice they have to endure from police. I have to admit that most black people I have known expressed at least a somewhat negative attitude toward police. Most of them could tell stories of times in their lives when the authorities assumed they were criminals, watching them more closely, etc.. and they see the killings like Floyd as the extreme end result that, while not common, might happen to them.
Again, growing up as part of the white ownership class in a place where non-whites made up the lower working class... I can attest that police treated me better, sometimes blatantly so. To the extent that my presence with a non-white friend would make a difference in a police interaction. E.g.: once they realized the nice car was mine and I vouched for my friend... no ticket. Whereas my friend was convinced he would have gotten a ticket and threatened by the deputy, possibly arrested, if I had not been there and he'd been in his own car. There was no way to prove that would have happened, but he was convinced.
this is the part to work on. It is a fine edge in some circumstances though. Consider this:
After Floyd's death, the Senate set out to do some police reform. It was led by Tim Scott, a Black man who acknowledged that indeed, he had been stopped DWB on multiple occasions. That's pretty shameful. But instead of running with that anchor principal, the Dems not only refused to take up the bill (literally, they "filibustered" it), but some accused Scott of being an Uncle Tom.
Conversely, "stop and frisk" has its fans and its detractors. It is ripe for abuse and was abused, which is why it's very difficult to bring it back. But the law-abiding citizens in low-income/high-crime areas are pretty well in favor of cops patrolling their hood and stopping all the expensive cars that roam the streets doing illegal activity - be it drugs or guns.
Quote:
This part I'm curious about. 1) Why does it matter the geographic proximity of the protest to the original incident? 2) why do you think they thought it was the "thing to do?"
Well, look at it this way. MPLS cops have a bad history (Philando Castile), that they were supposed to reform but obviously didn't. So I can see the anger at mistreatment in MPLS boiling over in the days after Floyd's death.
But why were there destructive protests a thousand miles away, when there's not a history of police misconduct?
Why did Portland go insane, except for Antifa and it being "the thing to do"?
Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman has concluded that Raleigh Police Senior Officer D.C. Twiddy shot Akiel Denkins in self-defense and will not face any charges.
In a release issued on Wednesday, the DA's office concluded that Officer Twiddy shot 24-year-old Denkins on Feb. 29 "as a matter of last resort and only because he reasonably believed his own life was in danger."
The release went on to say that Denkins was armed and grabbed Officer Twiddy's gun during a struggle.
they ran out and protested and vandalized and rioted ... and then it turned out the suspect was shot because while running away he had turned with a gun in his hand. He wasn't even killed.
So, why would they be given a free pass 3 months later, after Floyd, when they protested, rioted, and vandalized in a far more widespread fashion?
In which case it's unclear what they do ban, if anything.
You know it'll do nothing right? No teacher is gping to change the way they teach based on a ban that bans nothing in particular. If anything they'll focus on race more.
If I were a teacher in one of these states, I'd respond by reorienting my entire courseload around race. I'd film every class and put it on youtube. They've already been doing that because of the pandemic anyway. I would WANT the administration to try and fire me based on these laws, or even better arrest me and put me on trial for breaking the ban. Because then the prosecution would have to define CRT, prove that it's distinct from teaching about race, and prove that it's false or otherwise so damaging that it warrants a restriction of the 1st amendment.
In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an ill-conceived, overbroad bill that chills the long-overdue reckoning with the Tulsa Race Massacre — a vicious orgy of racist violence carried out in 1921 against one of the nation’s most affluent African American communities. This new law, passed under a special emergency provision, bans the teaching of “divisive concepts” implying that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.”
for the people being obtuse here you go. A sitting governor signing a bill that would essentially eliminate any mention of white people doing bad things, because it would "imply that an individual by race bears responsibility for past actions"...meaning lets not teach white people doing bad stuff because it would IMPLY that other white people are bad.
This is CRT in a nutshell. The white-washing of american history so these snowflakes don't have to hear about their granddaddies lynching black people and destroying places like Tulsa. They want a version of history where black people did stuff to themselves.
"interestingly", when I googled, this is the description from the article that had the link:
Quote:
The measure prohibits schools from teaching students that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another" and that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive."
now, until I can read the legalese of the bill myself - in my quote above there are some incomplete quotes ...
Should we teach that one race or sex is superior?
Should we teach that an individual by virtue of the race or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive?
Read the article I provided, plus a few more, then think about how ICE would like to know where they are ... you might find the answer to that question is, no. Some restaurants are implementing practices (saw this on my LinkedIn) in their farm to table initiatives to ensure the product was not picked by a slave. (governments are silent on the issue as people are not putting pressure on them; it's like slavery today does not exist)
We are being misled in the classroom by our teachers; perhaps they have been misled as well ... Since looking up things on my own I learned another fun fact --- sharecroppers, debt slavery continued until WWII.
The people in the u.s. seemed more concerned with the history, than the present
"In 2016, the Walk Free Foundation released an updated global slavery index (www.globalslaveryindex.org), estimating that there are more than 45 million people trapped in modern slavery today. There isn't a country in the world that isn't touched by modern slavery, but in Ghana, it is estimated that 103,300 people are modern-day slaves. The International Labour Organization estimates that 21,000 children are engaged in hazardous labour on Lake Volta in Ghana, the largest man-made lake in the world."
The first lie that has to be debunked is the ending of slavery in 1865 --- when we get interested in doing that, then we will be interested in freeing 40 million souls around the world and put more pressure on our government to freeing those on our soil, as well. Until the lie is common knowledge we have to find solace in areas like CRT --- removing Statues --- history being erased and rewritten; in which none of those efforts does anything for the people enslaved today. The governments continue to profit, not from the taxes of people as property, but from the products slavery (a multi-billion $ industry) today, produces.
So this is the reason the Democrat administration is encouraging illegals to come here----for a new crop of slaves.
And this article quotes what the bill is word for word. You can't cry about "leftist sources" on that part. The bill is designed so white people can say anything bad that white people did in the past will imply current white people are connected. Like I said, it's about white washing history. People are debating that the actual "critical race theory" be taught or not taught, they just want the "leftist lies" (lol) to stop.
So, you believe not teaching these three concepts in public school will 'whitewash' bad things white people did to POC:
(B) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(F) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
(I) fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex.
They don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
