What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The teaching of our history: critical race theory and The 1619 Project (2 Viewers)

It seems like most discussions of CRT tend to devolve into semantic arguments about what CRT even is.  Technically, the 1619 Project doesn't have anything to do with CRT, but they often get lumped in with one another.

 
As an old time liberal on these issues, I think I’m pretty much opposed to critical race theory as defined here: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

It doesn’t sound like it matches my understanding of what actually occurred in our history. But whether it should be allowed to be taught, how it should be taught, those are different issues. And I know I’m uncomfortable with lawmakers making such decisions (though, perhaps hypocritically, I would not be uncomfortable with lawmakers insisting that the theory of evolution be taught, for example.) 

 
As an old time liberal on these issues, I think I’m pretty much opposed to critical race theory as defined here: 
CRT is openly opposed to liberalism.  Anybody to right of, say, William Brennan is probably not going to be able to subscribe to this.  

As your link notes, though, CRT is not and does not purport to be "history."  It's a specific school of thought in legal theory.  There are probably no high schools anywhere in the US that teach real CRT.  But when people from the internet talk about "CRT" they usually mean something involving the 1619 Project, Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, which is a real thing that exists in the world but isn't really CRT either.  There needs to be another name for that thing.  

 
The 1619 Project: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

A little easier to understand than critical race theory. The goal is to place the story of slavery as central to our teaching of American history. Again I am opposed. Certainly slavery, Jim Crow, the eradication of the Native American peoples, and other terrible acts in our history should be given huge emphasis, but making any of them central would take away from the positives: the story of our Revolution, the tremendous achievements of our capitalism, our acceptance of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, etc. Our history is majestic and nuanced, and good teachers and textbooks will relay this without such guidance. 
Again, though, restrictions from government are another story...

 
CRT is openly opposed to liberalism.  Anybody to right of, say, William Brennan is probably not going to be able to subscribe to this.  

As your link notes, though, CRT is not and does not purport to be "history."  It's a specific school of thought in legal theory.  There are probably no high schools anywhere in the US that teach real CRT.  But when people from the internet talk about "CRT" they usually mean something involving the 1619 Project, Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, which is a real thing that exists in the world but isn't really CRT either.  There needs to be another name for that thing.  
Right, but the law just passed in Texas (and proposed in other states) actually prohibits the teaching of both. How this translates to the actual classroom, I have no idea. 

 
The 1619 Project: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

A little easier to understand than critical race theory. The goal is to place the story of slavery as central to our teaching of American history. Again I am opposed. Certainly slavery, Jim Crow, the eradication of the Native American peoples, and other terrible acts in our history should be given huge emphasis, but making any of them central would take away from the positives: the story of our Revolution, the tremendous achievements of our capitalism, our acceptance of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, etc. Our history is majestic and nuanced, and good teachers and textbooks will relay this without such guidance. 
Again, though, restrictions from government are another story...
There are specific problems with The 1619 Project itself, but I do disagree with you on the bolded part.  IMO it's very difficult to understand US history without having slavery front and center.  That doesn't mean that a class in US history has to be "all slavery all the time," but it should be one of the 3-4 main themes of any good course.  (You and I might actually be in agreement -- I may be over-interpreting what you mean by making slavery "central" to US history).

 
There are specific problems with The 1619 Project itself, but I do disagree with you on the bolded part.  IMO it's very difficult to understand US history without having slavery front and center.  That doesn't mean that a class in US history has to be "all slavery all the time," but it should be one of the 3-4 main themes of any good course.  (You and I might actually be in agreement -- I may be over-interpreting what you mean by making slavery "central" to US history).
Probably. I guess I mean “main focus” rather than one of 3-4 main themes. 
I think I’m also opposed because by stressing the year 1619 you’re implicitly diminishing 1776. 

 
Seems to be a pretty big topic these days: 

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/four-states-have-placed-legal-limits-on-how-teachers-can-discuss-race-more-may-follow/2021/05

What do you guys think about putting legal limits on how our history is taught? And what about these theories? 
Yep...as long as the government is making all of our other decisions for us....let's trust them with in the way we educate our own kids.
We can all agree that kids aren't born racist, they learn it.

May as well let the government teach them all about the colors of others' skin....exactly who are the oppressors and who are the victims.
You are NEVER too young to learn how to be a victim!
Give them an excuse for failure, early ... way before they give life a shot.

What could possibly go wrong?

LEARN 'EM YOUNG!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to be a pretty big topic these days: 

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/four-states-have-placed-legal-limits-on-how-teachers-can-discuss-race-more-may-follow/2021/05

What do you guys think about putting legal limits on how our history is taught? And what about these theories? 
"The legislation, passed so far in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, bans teachers from introducing certain concepts. Among them: that one race or sex is inherently superior, that any individual is consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist because of their race or sex, and that anyone should feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex."

I'm ok with all of this being banned.  Teaching 5 year old kids that they're racist even if they don't know it seems bad.  And teaching them to feel guilty also seems...bad.

 
"The legislation, passed so far in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, bans teachers from introducing certain concepts. Among them: that one race or sex is inherently superior, that any individual is consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist because of their race or sex, and that anyone should feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex."

I'm ok with all of this being banned.  Teaching 5 year old kids that they're racist even if they don't know it seems bad.  And teaching them to feel guilty also seems...bad.
No disagreement. But whenever you pass a law that restricts this sort of thing everything becomes open to interpretation- who decides what makes someone feel discomfort? I think this law could easily be abused to get rid of teachers who are accused of being too “liberal.” 

 
I think schools should be local and have local control about cirruculum and what they teach. Whether this should happen at the state or municipal level is certainly up for debate. There really shouldn't need to be state ordinances controlling what localities teach and don't teach. Admittedly, this is not a point of view I imagine will be popular among conservatives given the ease with which cities can then teach black nationalism and other such rot, but local control over school curriculum seems important enough to abide the occasional disaster, I think. 

Also, I saw Spike Lee the other night wearing a 1619 hat. Was there ever a better argument against its methodology than that, right there?

eta* Also, the substantive vagueness of the law is a huge problem, as I see tim pointing out right as I'm typing this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No disagreement. But whenever you pass a law that restricts this sort of thing everything becomes open to interpretation- who decides what makes someone feel discomfort? I think this law could easily be abused to get rid of teachers who are accused of being too “liberal.” 
I mean, reading that particular segment seems pretty cut and dry.  It says specifically you can't teach kids that they should feel guilty over their skin color or gender.  

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that exert.  

 
"The legislation, passed so far in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, bans teachers from introducing certain concepts. Among them: that one race or sex is inherently superior, that any individual is consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist because of their race or sex, and that anyone should feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex."

I'm ok with all of this being banned.  Teaching 5 year old kids that they're racist even if they don't know it seems bad.  And teaching them to feel guilty also seems...bad.
The language is too vague to be good.  Making someone "feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex" is horrible legal language.  How is it even possible to know if someone might feel discomfort?  Talk about making teachers walk on eggshells

 
Slavery as an institution, is much larger than just the what happened in America.   It should be put in context of the long history of slavery and its existence in every culture there ever was.   Otherwise you leave the impression it was an exclusive American institution .  
I think slavery in the US, while not a unique concept, was unique in its execution and lingering effects.  I think our legacy of slavery is deeper and longer reaching than Europe or even Latin America.  But I do believe the focus on US only slavery fails to paint a full picture.

 
I think slavery in the US, while not a unique concept, was unique in its execution and lingering effects.  I think our legacy of slavery is deeper and longer reaching than Europe or even Latin America.  But I do believe the focus on US only slavery fails to paint a full picture.
I agree.  Slavery IS world history and all cultures participated in it and are complicit in it. Mostly no one is free from blame: From Europe and US who made it an industry to the African nations who sold slaves to that industry.  Latin America isn't any better.

Slavery is a stain upon the world. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 1619 Project: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

A little easier to understand than critical race theory. The goal is to place the story of slavery as central to our teaching of American history. Again I am opposed. Certainly slavery, Jim Crow, the eradication of the Native American peoples, and other terrible acts in our history should be given huge emphasis, but making any of them central would take away from the positives: the story of our Revolution, the tremendous achievements of our capitalism, our acceptance of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, etc. Our history is majestic and nuanced, and good teachers and textbooks will relay this without such guidance. 
Again, though, restrictions from government are another story...
This country was not built on slavery.   Slavery ###### its growth.   

 
Slavery as an institution, is much larger than just the what happened in America.   It should be put in context of the long history of slavery and its existence in every culture there ever was.   Otherwise you leave the impression it was an exclusive American institution .  
The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD.

 
Because it ignores existing conversations and requires more repeated posts. 
 

And I just think it’s lazy and rude. :shrug:
Lazy I will own up to. But rudeness needs to be intentional and in this case it wasn’t. 
In any event, as @IvanKaramazov pointed out, the focus of the bills seems to be the 1619 project. Critical race theory is something thrown around in the arguments. I don’t see a problem with  thread devoted to the proposed laws, amd another discussing the theory. 

 
The better discussion would be why laws such as this would even be necessary.
I haven't read the laws myself, but assuming that what jm192 posts it's the bold

"The legislation, passed so far in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, bans teachers from introducing certain concepts. Among them: that one race or sex is inherently superior, that any individual is consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist because of their race or sex, and that anyone should feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex."

I'm ok with all of this being banned.  Teaching 5 year old kids that they're racist even if they don't know it seems bad.  And teaching them to feel guilty also seems...bad.
I  can only speak to what's being bantered around here in this state as they look at similar legislation and it's not "critical race theory" at all here (speaks to what IK posted above in terms of definitions etc).  They are using the term basically (as the GOP does these days) to signify "things we don't think should be taught in our history classes".  I suspect that's exactly how they are going to attempt to change the definition of the term as well and that's what it will evolve into in these "conservative" states.  Reality is, we SHOULD be teaching our kids about Tulsa.  We SHOULD be teaching them about Juneteenth.  I was taught them in school and it was sort of a revelation to me that others had never heard of them until recently.  

 
I haven't read the laws myself, but assuming that what jm192 posts it's the bold

I  can only speak to what's being bantered around here in this state as they look at similar legislation and it's not "critical race theory" at all here (speaks to what IK posted above in terms of definitions etc).  They are using the term basically (as the GOP does these days) to signify "things we don't think should be taught in our history classes".  I suspect that's exactly how they are going to attempt to change the definition of the term as well and that's what it will evolve into in these "conservative" states.  Reality is, we SHOULD be teaching our kids about Tulsa.  We SHOULD be teaching them about Juneteenth.  I was taught them in school and it was sort of a revelation to me that others had never heard of them until recently.  
I consider myself somewhat well educated on the history of race relations in America but I never heard of Juneteenth until quite recently. 

 
Ditto on both Juneteenth and Tulsa.  This year was the first time I'd heard of either of these things.

ETA:  Actually, it may have been sometime before this year, but it has been since the BLM stuff started.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I consider myself somewhat well educated on the history of race relations in America but I never heard of Juneteenth until quite recently. 


Ditto on both Juneteenth and Tulsa.  This year was the first time I'd heard of either of these things.

ETA:  Actually, it may have been sometime before this year, but it has been since the BLM stuff started.
You guys aren't alone...I've heard this a lot the last year.  In my view, that's a problem...we need to be teaching more of this kind of thing.  Any/all things to give us a clearer picture of the country's entire history is a good thing IMO.

 
I haven't read the laws myself, but assuming that what jm192 posts it's the bold

I  can only speak to what's being bantered around here in this state as they look at similar legislation and it's not "critical race theory" at all here (speaks to what IK posted above in terms of definitions etc).  They are using the term basically (as the GOP does these days) to signify "things we don't think should be taught in our history classes".  I suspect that's exactly how they are going to attempt to change the definition of the term as well and that's what it will evolve into in these "conservative" states.  Reality is, we SHOULD be teaching our kids about Tulsa.  We SHOULD be teaching them about Juneteenth.  I was taught them in school and it was sort of a revelation to me that others had never heard of them until recently.  
I certainly can't speak for other states.  I grew up in KY.   We aren't the most red state.  But we haven't gone blue in a POTUS election since 96.  We were talking about slavery, Juneteenth and the Civil rights movement in the 4th-6th grade.    We should teach those things.  We shouldn't teach kids that they should feel guilty over slavery

When I read the article, there is no advocating for "don't teach about Juneteenth."

It reads like "we don't want kids being taught they're bad because they're white.  We don't want little boys being taught they're inherently sexist even if they don't know it."

 
I certainly can't speak for other states.  I grew up in KY.   We aren't the most red state.  But we haven't gone blue in a POTUS election since 96.  We were talking about slavery, Juneteenth and the Civil rights movement in the 4th-6th grade.    We should teach those things.  We shouldn't teach kids that they should feel guilty over slavery

When I read the article, there is no advocating for "don't teach about Juneteenth."

It reads like "we don't want kids being taught they're bad because they're white.  We don't want little boys being taught they're inherently sexist even if they don't know it."
I can see this....personally, these seem like really poorly worded "laws" left vague intentionally.  Not a fan of laws like that.  I can easily see a very near future lawsuit where the complaint reads something like this:

"My child came home from school feeling guilty after being taught of the events that happened in Tulsa Oklahoma in 1921.  We don't need to be exposing our students to things like that".  And I FULLY ADMIT that is my bias as I sit here and observe what's happened in the passed with vaguely/poorly worded laws like that.  You'll have to show me that they aren't worded that way for purposes like this before I believe it.

 
I can see this....personally, these seem like really poorly worded "laws" left vague intentionally.  Not a fan of laws like that.  I can easily see a very near future lawsuit where the complaint reads something like this:

"My child came home from school feeling guilty after being taught of the events that happened in Tulsa Oklahoma in 1921.  We don't need to be exposing our students to things like that".  And I FULLY ADMIT that is my bias as I sit here and observe what's happened in the passed with vaguely/poorly worded laws like that.  You'll have to show me that they aren't worded that way for purposes like this before I believe it.
When I read it, I read "Schools can't teach kids they should feel guilty over their race or gender."  Schools can still teach the events.  Just don't tell kids they should or deserve to feel guilty.  Everyone should feel uncomfortable with the history of slavery.  There's no way around that.  And maybe the language needs to be improved.

I'm not intending to advocate for the laws.  But I certainly don't want teachers teaching my children they deserve to feel guilty because they're white and white people in the 1700/1800's were terrible.  That shouldn't be happening in schools.

 
When I read it, I read "Schools can't teach kids they should feel guilty over their race or gender."  Schools can still teach the events.  Just don't tell kids they should or deserve to feel guilty.  Everyone should feel uncomfortable with the history of slavery.  There's no way around that.  And maybe the language needs to be improved.

I'm not intending to advocate for the laws.  But I certainly don't want teachers teaching my children they deserve to feel guilty because they're white and white people in the 1700/1800's were terrible.  That shouldn't be happening in schools.
We pretty much agree.  I don't know of anyone that's ever made the assertion we should teach guilt.  That's why I have the pessimistic view of this entire thing.  As worded, they've either created a solution for a problem that doesn't exist or they are creating an out to keep specific things out of school teachings.  

 
Ditto on both Juneteenth and Tulsa.  This year was the first time I'd heard of either of these things.

ETA:  Actually, it may have been sometime before this year, but it has been since the BLM stuff started.
For me, the first time I heard about Tulsa was watching The Watchmen. That's pretty ridiculous that I hadn't learned of that previously.

 
And let's remember @jm192 that this discussion is about CRT and banning it.  If we can agree at a 10,000 foot level CRT is basically studying "the way race and racism influences politics, culture and the law."  is that addressed at all in those laws?  If not, why are they even mentioning CRT in the first place?  This is why I'm skeptical of the whole movement by theses states.  

 
And let's remember @jm192 that this discussion is about CRT and banning it.  If we can agree at a 10,000 foot level CRT is basically studying "the way race and racism influences politics, culture and the law."  is that addressed at all in those laws?  If not, why are they even mentioning CRT in the first place?  This is why I'm skeptical of the whole movement by theses states.  
I think this is probably the most important point.

I agree with you.  

But I'm not sure every advocate of CRT and every opponent agree.  And settling that definition is important. 

While not common or the norm, we have seen articles about insane teachers telling white kids to feel guilty or white shame.  And that attaches a lightning rod to the subject.  

 
I think this is probably the most important point.

I agree with you.  

But I'm not sure every advocate of CRT and every opponent agree.  And settling that definition is important. 

While not common or the norm, we have seen articles about insane teachers telling white kids to feel guilty or white shame.  And that attaches a lightning rod to the subject.  
Right....and it shouldn't because it's not CRT.  It's ##### teachers being douches.  But I think many welcome the conflation because they don't want some of that stuff taught in school so they gladly allow it all be lumped together.  

 
Right....and it shouldn't because it's not CRT.  It's ##### teachers being douches.  But I think many welcome the conflation because they don't want some of that stuff taught in school so they gladly allow it all be lumped together.  
Maybe you're right.  I'm not saying you're wrong.

But I also consider that when some who are PRO-CRT think CRT involves shaming white kids for being white--then it's hard for that not to be what the other side sees it as.  You support it, and this is what you're showing me it is.  And how many of those people are going to get into teaching white shame/guilt as CRT becomes more and more universally adopted curriculum? 

 
Maybe you're right.  I'm not saying you're wrong.

But I also consider that when some who are PRO-CRT think CRT involves shaming white kids for being white--then it's hard for that not to be what the other side sees it as.  You support it, and this is what you're showing me it is.  And how many of those people are going to get into teaching white shame/guilt as CRT becomes more and more universally adopted curriculum? 
Oh yeah....there's the other side of the coin for sure.  And if there is a teacher somewhere trying to pass off shaming and belittling and guilt as CRT we need to address that also.  And I have no idea if I'm right or wrong.  I'm dubious of any of this kind of legislation regardless of the "sides".  I've seen it abused far too often.

 
I consider myself somewhat well educated on the history of race relations in America but I never heard of Juneteenth until quite recently. 
Probably going to step in it by posting off the cuff ... but IIRC, Juneteenth was almost exclusively a local-level celebration in some Texas African-American communities until maybe 15 years ago or so. I looked into it a few years back when Blackish had an episode centered around Juneteenth. I was wondering the same as you -- "How does Juneteenth not have a higher profile?"

 
Probably going to step in it by posting off the cuff ... but IIRC, Juneteenth was almost exclusively a local-level celebration in some Texas African-American communities until maybe 15 years ago or so. I looked into it a few years back when Blackish had an episode centered around Juneteenth. I was wondering the same as you -- "How does Juneteenth not have a higher profile?"
To be clear, as this just occurred to me, I am not as concerned with the recognition part is what is being recognized...it's the later that we need to be focused on IMO and few people knew how long of a delay of freedom was for a great many in this country.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe you're right.  I'm not saying you're wrong.

But I also consider that when some who are PRO-CRT think CRT involves shaming white kids for being white--then it's hard for that not to be what the other side sees it as.  You support it, and this is what you're showing me it is.  And how many of those people are going to get into teaching white shame/guilt as CRT becomes more and more universally adopted curriculum? 
I'll have to ask my brother - he's a history/civics teacher in a white HS.  Personally i don't have a problem teaching the facts - its the agenda I have a major problem with.  In the long run, knowing there was a worldwide slave trade affects us how in everyday life?

 
Against my better judgement, I decided to dig up some US media coverage on this.  You'll be shocked to know, there is very little on this nonsense at Reuters and/or BBC.  I have a pretty good illustration of what @jm192 and I were talking about and my concern in this article from ABC News

Article starts with a general overview of what's going on and what critical race theory is.  I learned that NONE of the bills being presented mention Critical Race Theory in them, which I found interesting.  I didn't know that until now.  Then it gets into the arguments being made and the narrative attempting to be created starting with this:

Each bill would ban teachers from teaching that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously," that "a meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist, or designed by a particular race or sex to oppress members of another race or sex" and that "this state or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist."
I'm generally good with this, but NONE of this is Critical Race Theory.  The one thing I have issue with is the bold and specifically the use of the word inherently.  It completely misses the point of what CRT attempts to study IMO.  We can talk about that more, but I wanted to move on and get to the nuts/bolts of my concern.  Further down we get this rep talking out of both sides of his mouth with this:

Texas Republican state House Rep. Steve Toth is the sponsor behind House Bill 3979 and told ABC News that he encourages race to be taught in classrooms "from a diverse and contending perspective without showing deference to one side or the other."
which is much closer to CRT than what he tried to frame it as above.  So he's good with teaching it?  It's a mixed message so far.  Then we get to this part and things start to get clearer:

He said he believes the term "white privilege" blames children for actions of racism in the past and says critical race theorists believe if someone can't acknowledge white supremacy or white privilege, then they are racist. He did not answer what his definition of critical race theory is.
umm...that's not what "white privilege" is either, so maybe it's not clearer.  Then we get this:

"We should not teach that one race is superior to another," Toth said. "We should not teach that one race is inferior to another."
Ok...I'm on board with the sentiment again and agree with this comment...but that's not what CRT is.  Still confused?  Me too.  Moving on to this:

"Critical race theory says I'm a white supremacist," Toth told ABC affiliate KVUE in a recent interview. "Anyone that is not a person of color is a white supremacist. ... That's ridiculous."
ummm....no, that's not what it says.  Then the article talks about other states where reps say pretty much the same thing as Toth does:

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt HB 1775 shared similar sentiments with Toth about his state's own bill, which he recently signed into law. In a statement sent to ABC News, Stitt said that some forms of the curriculum "define and divide young Oklahomans" based on their race or sex. The Oklahoma bill has almost identical language to the Texas bill.

"We can and should teach this history without labeling a young child as an oppressor or requiring he or she feel guilt or shame based on their race or sex," Stitt said. "I refuse to tolerate otherwise during a time when we are already so polarized."
Great....back in agreement, but that's STILL not what CRT is so I don't know why it's even coming up.  Then it goes on to talk with/about educators and the importance of various topics and the like and why it's important to give an accurate depiction of what racism in this country was/is and how we can influence change in that area by understanding our full history.

 
[Texas Republican state House Rep. Steve Toth] said he believes the term "white privilege" blames children for actions of racism in the past and says critical race theorists believe if someone can't acknowledge white supremacy or white privilege, then they are racist. He did not answer what his definition of critical race theory is.
umm...that's not what "white privilege" is either, so maybe it's not clearer.
Something to think about, though: that old saw "perception is reality".

Who can rightfully define "white privilege" and who cannot? Are there real rules about this definition that all are bound (as in "constrained") to follow, or can some rightfully express a received** definition of the term? The latter is what I think Toth is doing.

IMHO, at this point, the ship has sailed on "white privilege" as a explanatory term of any use outside of a narrow slice of academia. Way, way too loaded of a term, and there's no rehabilitating the term anytime soon.

 
Something to think about, though: that old saw "perception is reality".

Who can rightfully define "white privilege" and who cannot? Are there real rules about this definition that all are bound (as in "constrained") to follow, or can some rightfully express a received** definition of the term? The latter is what I think Toth is doing.

IMHO, at this point, the ship has sailed on "white privilege" as a explanatory term of any use outside of a narrow slice of academia. Way, way too loaded of a term, and there's no rehabilitating the term anytime soon.
People can make up all the definitions they want.  We see it daily here where posters attempt to make their fringe definition the norm and present it as fact.  It doesn't really matter if he simply doesn't know what it means or is intentionally tying to it a false definition, the end result is the same.  And I don't disagree with the last thought here....that's a feature not a bug IMO

 
race always far outshadowed the other aspects of politics for me because i grew up across a major Boston boulevard from a people i was taught to fear, hate & avoid. my adventure was to get to know those among them i could and the first thing that i recognized was that the ill feeling towards them, the limiting of black people had the effect of a curse. didnt matter how actively they were persecuted or ignored or insulted, but that they woke up each day knowing that any of those things could happen for reasons they could not control.

from that realization, i have worked, sometimes hard, to help eliminate and ameliorate the curse of racism. if you asked my suburban HS (we got out of the hood when i was 12) classmates about me, most of em would probably say "oh, the guy who brought the Black Panther to school". one of the great pleasures of my life was watching my classmates recoil with horror when this fella told them he hated them, not because their ancestors had enslaved his, not because their parents wouldnt give him a job, not because they locked their car doors when he pulled alongside, but because they were white. i can hear their gasps of "You can't do that!" to this day.

as i had worked the Panther breakfast programs in a few cities as a runaway (how i got access to a Panther to bring to school), i joined the Communist Party of the USA (when that was almost a crime) because it was the only aegis under which which black & white folk of the 60s and 70s worked together on racial matters. even when i got into radio, i worked to give the Rev Houston Crayton a voice beyond the 100-watt range of the Roxbury station he preached at. a paltry CV, but how many ofays have one?

what is happening now is that black people have found a way to make white people feel the curse, to feel soiled & guilty because of the circumstances of their birth. it's pretty hilarious, like a Panther in school. dont like it - cant blame em, tho. it's clearly not the way to fix things, but nothing really matters in this time of utter silliness we are enduring thru our societal adolescence, so i wont begrudge their attempt to be the loudest voice in the room, especially considering what the last one was. while i pity the the first fool who tells me to keep my lane almost as much as the one who asks me how i think black people are doing, i dont have a problem with their day having come. the outcome's not gonna be fun, but who am i to say?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We pretty much agree.  I don't know of anyone that's ever made the assertion we should teach guilt.  That's why I have the pessimistic view of this entire thing.  As worded, they've either created a solution for a problem that doesn't exist or they are creating an out to keep specific things out of school teachings.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZdddZYKFpU

Fast forward to 16:49 where the Head of Schools says, "We're demonizing kids, we're demonizing white people for being born."

The whole listen is shocking, frankly.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZdddZYKFpU

Fast forward to 16:49 where the Head of Schools says, "We're demonizing kids, we're demonizing white people for being born."

The whole listen is shocking, frankly.
Pretty disgusting.  So this term is going to be meaningless shortly, because that's not CRT any more than:

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., added: "Democrats want to teach our children to hate each other."
"Folks, we're in a cultural warfare today," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said at a news conference alongside six other members of the all-Republican House Freedom Caucus. "Critical race theory asserts that people with white skin are inherently racist, not because of their actions, words or what they actually believe in their heart — but by virtue of the color of their skin."
Ralph was my literal nextdoor neighbor when I lived in Rock Hill.

Came to post this NPR article to show my concerns I raised above coming to light in real time.  The opposite side of that coin is equally ugly. <_<  

 
Pretty disgusting.  So this term is going to be meaningless shortly, because that's not CRT any more than:

Ralph was my literal nextdoor neighbor when I lived in Rock Hill.

Came to post this NPR article to show my concerns I raised above coming to light in real time.  The opposite side of that coin is equally ugly. <_<  
Cant even finish that article. Just a terrible piece.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top