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.
Kids copy what their parents do. It said "as early as 6 months," but found it much more observabable in kids 4-7, which probably means only a few of their study participants showed anything at the 6 month mark.
Read the article and find out what was wrong with their methodology. I'm not the one who ran it. It was done in 2009 btw.
The most interesting part of it was not the baby part, it was the older kids responses. They got white families from the Austin, TX area, and they asked the kids a pretty simple question "Do your parents like black people?" 38% of the kids answered "no." These parents were asked what they taught their kids about race and almost all of them responded with something about "equality." So clearly many white people say one thing and do another, and their kids know the difference between saying and doing. If there's anything kids pick up on, it's when their parents walk is contrary to their talk.
I would be interested to hear the reasons the kids said no. A follow up question should have been, 'Why did you answer that way? Please provide details.'
There are a lot of white people avoiding groups of black youth these days. What may appear to a kid to be dislike of an entire race may be something else.
Was CRT a product of people of color, or was CRT a product of any scholar engaged in a critical reflection of race? Because I subscribe to the latter proposition, I regard the traditional exclusion of whites from our workshops as an unfortunate development.
This link is a good timeline for the progressions of Critical Race Studies from its inception. Crenshaw explains how CRT is a generic term for Race Studies. The above quote is a real gem. An “unfortunate development” is very telling. It’s also what happens every single time. It also makes the organization highly dysfunctional if not inoperable.
Critical race theory has been around for decades, so all the fake outrage suddenly surrounding it is mystifying.
In academia. It was institutionalized in April of 2011. It went operational. After academia was purged of dissidents it started pumping out “soldiers of the revolution.” Now here we are.
Oh it's a Scopes Monkey Trial waiting to happen. I'm going to love it when no prosecutor can accurately define what the laws actually ban and then they get into the history and sociology of race. In court you can't you can't use Ben Shapiro's Youtube editorials as evidence.
Unless they change the constitution they cannot single people out based of protected classes. Crits know this. I’ve said it at least 30 times in this forum. I figured read their literature leading up to the affirmative action national debate and after you will see that they hit the “colorblind” wall every time. They’ll have to abolish the constitution or change it legally (that ain’t happening) or they’ll hit the same wall.
But as Crenshaw says:
Quote:
Today, by contrast, we are in the throes of a powerful, tightly organized, almost evangelical movement. It is well-organized and highly visible, and it boasts a string of impressive victories to call its own. It has friends in high places: the media, Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. It has a political strategy, a research agenda, and a grassroots and propaganda campaign that are among the most sophisticated and efficient in today's cyberbolic society. It has no known rival, and its resources seem to be endless. Unfortunately, this movement is not ours.
I thought those on the right were big on preserving history.
No?
Gaslighting.
You claim critical race theory is something as innocuous as U.S. history, and then produce a manipulative statement - "I thought those on the right were big on preserving history." Which to the casual listener, would bring the conclusion that to oppose CRT is to oppose U.S. history and with your twisted logic, the preservation thereof; and thus, no one can possibly want to oppose CRT.
CRT is about fomenting bitterness, resentment, envy, and a sense of victimization.
One needs no CRT to learn there were many injustices and many acts of cruelty during the history of this country.
CRT and its proponents, and the left at large, with its agenda and platform, are excellent examples of the instrumentalist approach to the study of history - history is an instrument, a tool, a method, a means, to a greater goal.
when they say "CRT" they are not talking about "CRT" they are talking about teaching the true history of black and white race relations in America. "CRT" just makes them think they are sounding intellectual and they don't have to directly mention race. They want to completely erase any mention of white americans doing bad things, specifically to black people. Which is ironic because many of the same people want to keep confederate statues up for people that fought to keep slavery going.
If "teaching the true history of black and white race relations in America" is important, then teaching the current state of black and white race relations in the year 2021 must also happen.
If lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation must be taught and made clear as having happened (for they all did - they are, after all, historical facts), then the statistics of crime as per the FBI's annual Crime In the United States report, which show that blacks victimize whites far more often than whites victimize blacks, must likewise be taught and publicized.
This is a good thing, because it means you are not going to mind this: Going All In
"Finally, the NEA passed a resolution to “research the organizations” that oppose critical race theory—including grassroots parent organizations—and provide resources to groups and individuals targeting them. The national teachers’ union will use union dues, collected from public employees paid by taxpayers, to attack parents who oppose the racial indoctrination of their children."
This petition contends that the CRT curriculum put students like Clark, a mixed-race boy being raised in a Christian household, in “a deliberately designed, psychologically abusive dilemma: participate in the exercise in violation of his conscience and be branded with a pejorative label; or conscientiously refrain from participation, and suffer isolation from his classmates and be maligned by the same labeling regardless.
<snip>
If advocates of Critical Race Theory want to defend its importance, they should start by agreeing to debate the theory on its merits—something none of its most prominent proponents, like Ibram X. Kendi, have agreed to do even after repeated invitations. Why should they when they are constantly rewarded merely for denouncing “whiteness” (to say nothing of cashing in on their ideology by publishing anti-racist baby books)? But as the increasing number of lawsuits and legislative action suggests (and the outraged reactions of liberal Times readers to Goldberg’s column shows), the resistance to CRT indoctrination is growing, and not only among conservatives.”
I firmly believe there are some things people in authority should leave alone --- teaching about race is one of those things.
I'm actually not a fan of what the NEA put out with all that silly jargon.
But I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between CRT and the history and modern sociology of race, and connections between such. I WANT the courts to weigh in on what the difference is.
So yes I want it in the courts and would be the first to subject myself to it. If these people believe teachers don't have 1st amendment rights and won't let us teach accurate history and how the past influences the present, then go ahead and put us on your monkey trials. The job wouldn't be worth it anyway if they win. If I want to tell sweet little lies for a living I can go into sales.
If what they conclude is that the bans apply to these exercises where people do a "privilege walk" or something, I won't miss those that much.
Last edited by redguard57; 07-27-2021 at 10:08 PM..
Unless they change the constitution they cannot single people out based of protected classes. Crits know this. I’ve said it at least 30 times in this forum. I figured read their literature leading up to the affirmative action national debate and after you will see that they hit the “colorblind” wall every time. They’ll have to abolish the constitution or change it legally (that ain’t happening) or they’ll hit the same wall.
But as Crenshaw says:
Quote:
Today, by contrast, we are in the throes of a powerful, tightly organized, almost evangelical movement. It is well-organized and highly visible, and it boasts a string of impressive victories to call its own. It has friends in high places: the media, Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. It has a political strategy, a research agenda, and a grassroots and propaganda campaign that are among the most sophisticated and efficient in today's cyberbolic society. It has no known rival, and its resources seem to be endless. Unfortunately, this movement is not ours.
Private litigation against critical race theory in Evanston public schools is necessary because the Biden administration won't enforce federal law as written.
"The facts of the case are not much in dispute. They were investigated by OCR, which, in January, under the Trump administration, found that “the District engaged in intentional race discrimination by coordinating and conducting racially exclusive affinity groups,” that “the District appears to have deliberately singled out students and other individuals by their race, in order to reduce them to a set of racial stereotypes,” that “the District’s Policy to apparently impose racial discrimination in discipline has no part in federally funded education programs or activities,” and that the district’s “privilege” activities “may have created a racially hostile environment.”"
"The suit alleges the district’s policies violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by race, color or national origin in public schools."
The premise of CRT is correct:
America was a de-facto white supremacist state until the 1960s.
Effects of that still linger on, the support of Trump is proof of that.
Its conclusions and recommendations are controversial, some of which are dangerous and hostile.
So are these young men and young women white supremacists?
I'm actually not a fan of what the NEA put out with all that silly jargon.
But I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between CRT and the history and modern sociology of race, and connections between such. I WANT the courts to weigh in on what the difference is.
So yes I want it in the courts and would be the first to subject myself to it. If these people believe teachers don't have 1st amendment rights and won't let us teach accurate history and how the past influences the present, then go ahead and put us on your monkey trials. The job wouldn't be worth it anyway if they win. If I want to tell sweet little lies for a living I can go into sales.
If what they conclude is that the bans apply to these exercises where people do a "privilege walk" or something, I won't miss those that much.
I may be wrong, but I think the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers are implementing a curriculum, that isn't CRT. Without seeing the curriculum idk. It's just my take on what I have read and seen in the outspoken parent videos ... so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
But I have yet to hear anyone explain the difference between CRT and the history and modern sociology of race, and connections between such. I WANT the courts to weigh in on what the difference is.
Courts are going to weigh in on the Constitutionality of this curriculum and its creation of a hostile school and workplace environment. If you are looking for a meaningful debate on the finer points, I think you'll be sadly disappointed in the courtroom drama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
So yes I want it in the courts and would be the first to subject myself to it. If these people believe teachers don't have 1st amendment rights and won't let us teach accurate history and how the past influences the present, then go ahead and put us on your monkey trials. The job wouldn't be worth it anyway if they win. If I want to tell sweet little lies for a living I can go into sales.
If you are teaching American History from the official narrative, you're already doing a sales job. My second oldest son said, after I mentioned free black in America, he said, there were no free blacks in America --- he's a 1989 high school graduate (later a bachelors in biology) and I thought, huh --- government education. Then I did what any parent does with an adult child --- I told him he may want to rethink that idea and do a bit of research.
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.
