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.
Everything you said was correct until that last sentence.
You guys list off slavery and Jim Crow like it was a blip in history. These oppressive laws and the advantages given to people simply based on skin color had damaging effects.
and its not like the day Jim Crow was abolished white America woke up the next day with a brand new view on race and equality.
so yes, there will be discussions about the impact American history had on Black America because we have documented proof of hundreds of years of torture and trauma that was protected by law.
You do not get to tell Black folk to get over it because its been 40 to 50 years since Jim Crow was abolished.
If those Blacks who agree with you want to actually accomplish anything in this movement, then you need to shift from the victimization of "400 years of slavery" (really <250) and proclaiming that Jim Crow laws were in every state, and that Blacks have even today not gained any equality.
You need to focus on exploring and explaining the damaging effects, and how despite Blacks' best efforts, they are still damaging some/many in the Black community.
It's not "get over it" because slavery ended 150+ years ago. It's get beyond it. Victims don't ever get beyond it.
My point, which I'll make more directly this third try:
Does CRT ACTUALLY say the bolded, or is that your projection of what their intent is?
If it ACTUALLY says that we should be held accountable for others actions, I'll be the first in line to be against it. If, on the other hand, it says this is what happened, and we (today) have some responsibility to be part of the corrective measure, that is something different.
See, I think that people (not just R's or D's, but "people") tend to see this stuff and make huge assumptions about what the 'real intent' is.
....and to say that ALL of this is already taught in school is clearly false. Look at the comments on this board, who still believe the Civil war had nothing to do with Slavery. Look at all the people who think that centuries of holding people back suddenly disappeared when the Emancipation Proclamation was read and adopted. Look at all the people who have no idea about how Blacks were targeted by lenders to either charge them higher rates, or altogether deny them loans for a home.
Anyway. If there is something in the ACTUAL curriculum of a school that states we should be ashamed to be white, that we should PAY reparations, or that we should be otherwise accountable for anything beyond doing the right thing NOW, then show me, and I'll either denounce it, or if I disagree that it says that in the first place, I'll let you know.
If you look at CRT as a media phenomenon, it fits very nicely into various right wing tropes that have been going on for a while. As I said, very similar to the various grievances and bugbears that fit into what used to be called "political correctness." It used to be gender issues and feminism back when sexism was a bigger concern of the left back in 2016 continuing through the MeToo movement. But now that had declined and the left is interested in race issues. Rufo just got the ball rolling in a somewhat more organized way. Somebody had to start it. CRT as an academic concept has been around over 40 years.... and just NOW it is an issue? That was clever marketing and he hit a nerve.
I see the whole things a pop culture reaction on the right in answer to the success of anti-racism books in pop culture in 2020 as a reaction to Floyd. Most notably - Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility" and Kendi's "How to Be an Anti-Racist." Yeah, there's some CRT in that stuff. Moreso in DiAngelo, she's more of huckster, while she also comes from academia it's somewhat more fringe for her. Before her book she made her career in corporate trainings as a "consultant."
Kendi is more of a legitimate academic and has risen up its ranks; it just so happened that his research and publishing was on the stuff that people all of a sudden got excited about in 2020.
So what IS the whole thing about? That's the part I don't get.
It's okay to discuss past racism. Got it. It's okay to discuss current racism in terms of sociology. Got it. So it sounds like educating people about racism is not the problem.
So I'm confused WHAT is the problem, precisely?
imo, most of the whole thing for opposition is due to schools [and government and business] doing training or curriculum that rely on concepts such as shedding whiteness or becoming less white, becoming an anti-racist, the ever-expanding list of what's racist or microagressive, the characteristics of White people, the whole 'fragility' thing, the premise that the U.S. was built on and still maintains White Supremacy [as if nothing else impacted the U.S.].
Our history, which is American history, gets placed on the back burner to coddle white fragility. Because if you teach about the history of Black Wall Street and Rosewood, "Just using those as examples", and what we did when left alone with the rules given to follow, our people did well for ourselves. We thrived, and SOME bitter white folks couldn't handle that. If you taught all this stuff, it might have the effect of white kids having empathy, which they can't ****ing allow to happen. Some might say, "Well if you just left them alone and stopped playing game, they would be okay."
I'm all in favor of teaching exactly what you wrote, with the 1 word added I have bolded.
We should be teaching about Black Wall Street, Rosewood, the Wilmington Massacre, etc. We should teach that small groups of the KKK and other "white sympathizers" lynched 2,000 Black people, and did many other heinous acts of violence and intimidation. And where this happened.
Because for example the "Wilmington Massacre" affected a population in a small town (at the time) corner of North Carolina. You'll have to show us how that resonated in Detroit MI or Chicago or all over the US.
Undoubtedly, until some time in the recent past, these horrible actions were swept under the rug. I'm from NC, and never heard a thing about Wilmington until maybe a decade ago.
...
The issue is not that Jim Crow laws existed. Everyone seems fine discussing that kind of thing as long as we confine it to a study of the long dead irrelevant past, like an Egyptian heiroglyph.
The issue is what happened after Jim Crow laws went away.
It's the suggestion that racism still exists, and not just in a blatant caricature way like the KKK or something, but as something that average people are caught up in, that really gets right wing peoples' goats.
I kind of empathize. The race discussion is exhausting, and it seems to never end. It is very tempting to just say "there is no more racism. We ended it in 1964, and we elected a black president in 2008. Issue over."
I happen to believe that a study of actual practices and laws since 1965 is what's needed. Though I also believe we need to "correct" (that is, a full and truer description) of American Black history before that.
Of course it gets people's goat that it's declared "systemic racism still exists" and "white people are racist" (your average white people are racist).
Lol…it’s never been taught in any school below the college level. SMH.
Why is she just outright lying?
Yes it has. It's been taught under different names, as well as schools having activists attend webinars to speak to them.
"So when LCPS administration and board members say, “No CRT here!”, they’re not being honest about what the district is doing. The LCPS Division Superintendent announced, in June 2020, “LCPS calls for all students, staff, families, and other members of our community to engage in the disruption and dismantling of white supremacy, systemic racism, and hateful language and actions based on race, religion, country of origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or ability.” That’s activism: disrupt and dismantle.The district also paid $422,500 “on diversity training inspired by critical race theory, which claims racism is inherent in nearly every aspect of America,” reported the Washington Free Beacon. So the teachers are trained in this, but it doesn’t affect their teaching?
The district also announced that it would be teaching elementary students about “social justice.” The district partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) education program “Teaching Tolerance,” recently renamed, “Learning for Justice.” Kindergartners could now learn about “gender expression,” “gender identity,” and LGBT activist symbols like the pink triangle and the rainbow pride flag. In case you missed it, that’s more intersectionality, as well as activism."
"We found that Critical Race Theory (CRT) – or one of the many other names for CRT, like Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), equity, antiracism, woke, implicit bias, white privilege – is being taught in many school districts all across the state and is quickly on its way to fundamentally changing K12 education in Wisconsin."
They want to completely erase any mention of white americans doing bad things, specifically to black people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
show us where this has been said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6
when they say "it teaches hate" what you do you think they are refering to?
Also, why do you think people are so afraid of the 1619 project?
you didn't answer the question, which was a declarative statement you made (the first quote -"They want to erase").
But I will attempt to answer yours, since you're asking me to read their minds:
"When they say it teaches hate, what do you think it means?"
I think they mean that if we are teaching young people anything like "all whites are in a position of power and superiority to all Blacks", then that teaches the Black youth to hate the white youth.
But it certainly doesn't mean they don't want to teach any history that mentions some whites did bad things to Black people.
As to the 1619 Project, I haven't read it, but I do understand that some historians have said it's got several important inaccuracies.
Here's a lengthy, and seemingly unbiased analysis of the "issues", some of which the author say actually do favor NHJ's position
See, the idea that Lincoln wasn't some "pure figure" interested in freedom for the slaves in America - that's important historical context (cause it doesn't seem like direct fact, but I digress).
But the author says this about the other person involved in 1619:
Quote:
Matthew Desmond’s 1619 Project contribution has been at the center of the firestorm since the day it was published. The main thrust of this article holds that slavery was the primary driver of American economic growth in the 19th century, and that it infused its brutality into American capitalism today. The resulting thesis is overtly ideological and overtly anti-capitalist, seeking to enlist slavery as an explanatory mechanism for a long list of grievances he has against the Republican Party’s positions on healthcare, taxation, and labor regulation in the present day.
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims.
you didn't answer the question, which was a declarative statement you made (the first quote -"They want to erase").
But I will attempt to answer yours, since you're asking me to read their minds:
"When they say it teaches hate, what do you think it means?"
I think they mean that if we are teaching young people anything like "all whites are in a position of power and superiority to all Blacks", then that teaches the Black youth to hate the white youth.
But it certainly doesn't mean they don't want to teach any history that mentions some whites did bad things to Black people.
As to the 1619 Project, I haven't read it, but I do understand that some historians have said it's got several important inaccuracies.
Here's a lengthy, and seemingly unbiased analysis of the "issues", some of which the author say actually do favor NHJ's position
See, the idea that Lincoln wasn't some "pure figure" interested in freedom for the slaves in America - that's important historical context (cause it doesn't seem like direct fact, but I digress).
But the author says this about the other person involved in 1619:
you're definition of "teaching hate" is gaslighting. LOL. CRT does not teach black kids that whites are superior. This is gaslighting, bordering on trolling language. Black people don't read about white slave masters and think "man, i'm subhuman...whites are so much better". We learn about how things got to where they are currently.
And the 1619 project has been fact checked to death. It's accurate and factual. People like you don't like it because like i said, yall want to ERASE any mention of white people doing bad stuff to others, specifically black people in America.
Another example. We live in a place where people will argue up and down about why the confederates went to war. People, even on these forums, lie about why they went to war, then when i've presented people with direct quotes from multiple confederate leaders stating the exact reasons be about keeping blacks in slavery forever, people tell me i'm wrong. they literally arguing on behalf of historical figures yet somehow disagree with the direct sentiment of said people. this is insanity.
"CRT" as people are discussing it in 2021 isn't about CRT, it's about erasing the bad stuff white people did in american history. "It teaches hate" is a b-s argument.
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.
