Could Texan Dems kill Uncle Joe?

[Holly]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

[Guest]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

No that isn't what CRT is.

the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals

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

Read a little before you write, CRT should not be taught, but for a completely different reason

The problem with CRT is that it let's individual racists off the hook. The estates of slave owning families should be confiscated and their assets redistributed, the fact the evil slave owners were acting in a way believed to be right at them time shouldn't be relevant. CRT lets White racist off and lets them keep the wealth they accumulated on the backs of Blacks

[Holly]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

No that isn't what CRT is.

the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals

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

Read a little before you write, CRT should not be taught, but for a completely different reason

The problem with CRT is that it let's individual racists off the hook. The estates of slave owning families should be confiscated and their assets redistributed, the fact the evil slave owners were acting in a way believed to be right at them time shouldn't be relevant. CRT lets White racist off and lets them keep the wealth they accumulated on the backs of Blacks

Oh FFS, blah, blah, blah. There are no more slaves and haven't been in a long time, neither are there any slave owners. No people alive today had anything to do with slavery. Why don't you ask the extremely rich elite where their money came from? You know, the likes of the Rothshilds or the Rockefellers etc? Little people today have nothing to do with slavery. It's those rich bastards who still benefit in a way from slavery. Not you, not me, not CJ, but those old money bastards who are now telling us that WE little people should feel guilty and repent.

[Guest]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

No that isn't what CRT is.

the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals

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

Read a little before you write, CRT should not be taught, but for a completely different reason

The problem with CRT is that it let's individual racists off the hook. The estates of slave owning families should be confiscated and their assets redistributed, the fact the evil slave owners were acting in a way believed to be right at them time shouldn't be relevant. CRT lets White racist off and lets them keep the wealth they accumulated on the backs of Blacks

Oh FFS, blah, blah, blah. There are no more slaves and haven't been in a long time, neither are there any slave owners. No people alive today had anything to do with slavery. Why don't you ask the extremely rich elite where their money came from? You know, the likes of the Rothshilds or the Rockefellers etc? Little people today have nothing to do with slavery. It's those rich bastards who still benefit in a way from slavery. Not you, not me, not CJ, but those old money bastards who are now telling us WE little people should feel guilty and repent.

I can see you picked out the two names used antisemites.

When the other side has to resort to antisemitism I count myself the winner

[Holly]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

No that isn't what CRT is.

the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals

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

Read a little before you write, CRT should not be taught, but for a completely different reason

The problem with CRT is that it let's individual racists off the hook. The estates of slave owning families should be confiscated and their assets redistributed, the fact the evil slave owners were acting in a way believed to be right at them time shouldn't be relevant. CRT lets White racist off and lets them keep the wealth they accumulated on the backs of Blacks

Oh FFS, blah, blah, blah. There are no more slaves and haven't been in a long time, neither are there any slave owners. No people alive today had anything to do with slavery. Why don't you ask the extremely rich elite where their money came from? You know, the likes of the Rothshilds or the Rockefellers etc? Little people today have nothing to do with slavery. It's those rich bastards who still benefit in a way from slavery. Not you, not me, not CJ, but those old money bastards who are now telling us WE little people should feel guilty and repent.

I can see you picked out the two names used antisemites.

When the other side has to resort to antisemitism I count myself the winner

What???

Anyway, why don't you log in? You guest post quite a lot, It would make things easier. Or are you banned? If so, why not ask to be unbanned?

[Cactus Jack]

Teaching hate and diversity is a contradiction in terms, respecting diversity means tolerance by definition.

The fact the right wing media brainwashing has been so effective that you don't see that is worrying.

All CRT does is ask what role racial politics played in any given situation. When the KKK were in power in the south, and were sometimes both the party that wanted greater social justice for poor whites and wanted to maintain segregation, what effect did that have?

For example Richard M Nixon had a healthcare plan that was far more liberal that anything proposed since and it was talked out by the so-called Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats at the time) because they didn't want its provisions to include Blacks.

In that case CRT shows us the entire healthcare crisis of Reagan Era and beyond could have been circumvented had it not been for the role racism played in Democrat politics at the time.

CRT is teaching white little kids to be ashamed of their skin colour, their white privilege, and to feel inferiour. How can that be right in anyone's mind?
FFS, this has to stop before it gets totally out of hand. Black/brown/yellow and white should be able to live side by side with no skin colour stigma. What's being done right now is teaching hate and diversity. That's dangerous and basically evil.What needs to be taught, is no skin colour should matter, we are all equal, we are all human.

No that isn't what CRT is.

the basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals

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

Read a little before you write, CRT should not be taught, but for a completely different reason

The problem with CRT is that it let's individual racists off the hook. The estates of slave owning families should be confiscated and their assets redistributed, the fact the evil slave owners were acting in a way believed to be right at them time shouldn't be relevant. CRT lets White racist off and lets them keep the wealth they accumulated on the backs of Blacks

Oh FFS, blah, blah, blah. There are no more slaves and haven't been in a long time, neither are there any slave owners. No people alive today had anything to do with slavery. Why don't you ask the extremely rich elite where their money came from? You know, the likes of the Rothshilds or the Rockefellers etc? Little people today have nothing to do with slavery. It's those rich bastards who still benefit in a way from slavery. Not you, not me, not CJ, but those old money bastards who are now telling us that WE little people should feel guilty and repent.

Quoting only because it's fun to see someone both attacking and defending CRT in the same post.

[Holly]

Good for you CJ Not sure what you mean though. Care elaborating?
If you do, I will reply tomorrow, need to go to bed now.

[Cactus Jack]

I mean exactly what I said - within the same post you have both disavowed and accepted CRT.

[Maddog]

This is the problem with CRT and why teaching it would be a disaster. Folks can't even agree on what it is.

I doubt the Chinese are too worried about teaching this theory. They're too focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

[Cactus Jack]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

[Maddog]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

Yes, folks who developed the theory 40 years ago have been teaching it at the university level for some time.

The vast majority of folks fighting about this, don't really know. And this theory, draws some unsubstantiated conclusions, that's why it's relegated to a theory in upper level sociology departments, and doesn't belong in middle school history.

[Cactus Jack]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

Yes, folks who developed the theory 40 years ago have been teaching it at the university level for some time.

The vast majority of folks fighting about this, don't really know. And this theory, draws some unsubstantiated conclusions, that's why it's relegated to a theory in upper level sociology departments, and doesn't belong in middle school history.

Entirely wrong on all counts

History should never be about reciting dates and an approved version of past events predetermined and unalterable it should be as fluid as any other academic subject. Open to new evidence and interpretation to increase understanding and help the shapers of tomorrow to understand our yesterdays.

Critical Race Theory is, as all other tools for teaching history should be, a means of shifting the lens, perspective and viewpoint in interpreting the events of the past. Viewed from the perspective of Japan, and Japan today not imperial Japan, was the use of the atom bomb a necessary 'shock and awe' tactic that brought the war to an end months sooner and ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives - which is one view and the one I share. Or was it at least in part motivated by the notions of the 'Yellow Peril' that had been prevalent in Anglo and Eurocentric cultures who saw the defeat of Japan as opening up China in the same way earlier conflicts with regional powers had opened up Africa.

Was it just to scare the Russians because Slavic peoples, that is people from Eastern Europe, were seen in the USA as inferior to Western Europeans?

The answer lies somewhere between but unless you can view events through all of those lenses and from each of those perspectives you're unlikely to reach a genuine understanding.

To use a word you seem to have learned recently it's all about being nuanced.

[Maddog]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

Yes, folks who developed the theory 40 years ago have been teaching it at the university level for some time.

The vast majority of folks fighting about this, don't really know. And this theory, draws some unsubstantiated conclusions, that's why it's relegated to a theory in upper level sociology departments, and doesn't belong in middle school history.

Entirely wrong on all counts

History should never be about reciting dates and an approved version of past events predetermined and unalterable it should be as fluid as any other academic subject. Open to new evidence and interpretation to increase understanding and help the shapers of tomorrow to understand our yesterdays.

Critical Race Theory is, as all other tools for teaching history should be, a means of shifting the lens, perspective and viewpoint in interpreting the events of the past. Viewed from the perspective of Japan, and Japan today not imperial Japan, was the use of the atom bomb a necessary 'shock and awe' tactic that brought the war to an end months sooner and ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives - which is one view and the one I share. Or was it at least in part motivated by the notions of the 'Yellow Peril' that had been prevalent in Anglo and Eurocentric cultures who saw the defeat of Japan as opening up China in the same way earlier conflicts with regional powers had opened up Africa.

Was it just to scare the Russians because Slavic peoples, that is people from Eastern Europe, were seen in the USA as inferior to Western Europeans?

The answer lies somewhere between but unless you can view events through all of those lenses and from each of those perspectives you're unlikely to reach a genuine understanding.

To use a word you seem to have learned recently it's all about being nuanced.

Your examples are theories, not conclusions.

I'm fine with theories like Malthusian theory or Eugenics being studied. Age appropriate education about all manner of "ideas" is fine and support it.

But let's be clear. CRT is not a history subject, even at the university level.

[Cactus Jack]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

Yes, folks who developed the theory 40 years ago have been teaching it at the university level for some time.

The vast majority of folks fighting about this, don't really know. And this theory, draws some unsubstantiated conclusions, that's why it's relegated to a theory in upper level sociology departments, and doesn't belong in middle school history.

Entirely wrong on all counts

History should never be about reciting dates and an approved version of past events predetermined and unalterable it should be as fluid as any other academic subject. Open to new evidence and interpretation to increase understanding and help the shapers of tomorrow to understand our yesterdays.

Critical Race Theory is, as all other tools for teaching history should be, a means of shifting the lens, perspective and viewpoint in interpreting the events of the past. Viewed from the perspective of Japan, and Japan today not imperial Japan, was the use of the atom bomb a necessary 'shock and awe' tactic that brought the war to an end months sooner and ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives - which is one view and the one I share. Or was it at least in part motivated by the notions of the 'Yellow Peril' that had been prevalent in Anglo and Eurocentric cultures who saw the defeat of Japan as opening up China in the same way earlier conflicts with regional powers had opened up Africa.

Was it just to scare the Russians because Slavic peoples, that is people from Eastern Europe, were seen in the USA as inferior to Western Europeans?

The answer lies somewhere between but unless you can view events through all of those lenses and from each of those perspectives you're unlikely to reach a genuine understanding.

To use a word you seem to have learned recently it's all about being nuanced.

Your examples are theories, not conclusions.

I'm fine with theories like Malthusian theory or Eugenics being studied. Age appropriate education about all manner of "ideas" is fine and support it.

But let's be clear. CRT is not a history subject, even at the university level.

My examples are example - which is the purpose of giving examples.

CRT is a tool with which to study history. Carbon dating, another tool used in studying history, is 'controversial' if you're one of the people who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old but teaching atomic decay rates should not be banned because of that view. A nine year old may not understand how carbon dating works but that shouldn't prevent them from being told an artefact is 10,000 years old.

[Maddog]

People who have been teaching it since the early 70s know exactly what it is.

Just because Fox News comes along an spreads misinformation it doesn't mean that educators are in any way unclear or bemused. If Fox News broadcasts that 2 + 2 =5 and insists you have to 'teach the controversy' that won't affect maths at all. In the same way insisting that evolution is 'questionable' and climate change 'isn't settle' do nothing to alter reality

Yes, folks who developed the theory 40 years ago have been teaching it at the university level for some time.

The vast majority of folks fighting about this, don't really know. And this theory, draws some unsubstantiated conclusions, that's why it's relegated to a theory in upper level sociology departments, and doesn't belong in middle school history.

Entirely wrong on all counts

History should never be about reciting dates and an approved version of past events predetermined and unalterable it should be as fluid as any other academic subject. Open to new evidence and interpretation to increase understanding and help the shapers of tomorrow to understand our yesterdays.

Critical Race Theory is, as all other tools for teaching history should be, a means of shifting the lens, perspective and viewpoint in interpreting the events of the past. Viewed from the perspective of Japan, and Japan today not imperial Japan, was the use of the atom bomb a necessary 'shock and awe' tactic that brought the war to an end months sooner and ultimately saved both Japanese and American lives - which is one view and the one I share. Or was it at least in part motivated by the notions of the 'Yellow Peril' that had been prevalent in Anglo and Eurocentric cultures who saw the defeat of Japan as opening up China in the same way earlier conflicts with regional powers had opened up Africa.

Was it just to scare the Russians because Slavic peoples, that is people from Eastern Europe, were seen in the USA as inferior to Western Europeans?

The answer lies somewhere between but unless you can view events through all of those lenses and from each of those perspectives you're unlikely to reach a genuine understanding.

To use a word you seem to have learned recently it's all about being nuanced.

Your examples are theories, not conclusions.

I'm fine with theories like Malthusian theory or Eugenics being studied. Age appropriate education about all manner of "ideas" is fine and support it.

But let's be clear. CRT is not a history subject, even at the university level.

My examples are example - which is the purpose of giving examples.

CRT is a tool with which to study history. Carbon dating, another tool used in studying history, is 'controversial' if you're one of the people who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old but teaching atomic decay rates should not be banned because of that view. A nine year old may not understand how carbon dating works but that shouldn't prevent them from being told an artefact is 10,000 years old.

CRT is not a tool for studying history.

It's an unsubstantiated theory used to try to explain current conditions in marginalized groups.

History professors don't teach that class.

It's not offered in the history department.

It's theory, not scientific fact like carbon dating.