And here we have Republicans trying to cancel a professor who teaches CRT in a military academy (i.e., to college students).
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/20...gon-gop-498806
Hope is the denial of reality
It would be good if there was some kind of, I don't know, famous English socialist who had written a book about a superpower that suppresses and rewrites history to serve the needs of state propaganda that we could use as a point of reference, but, alas, I haven't heard of anyone like that.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
This forum desperately needs a clown emoji“Disparaging the United States as a racist country should disqualify anyone from teaching at one of our country’s most prestigious institutions.”
What an extraordinary outpouring of cowardice and butthurt. I guess I understand, on some level, why civilian leaders might want military leaders to be thoughtless cowards, but it's still pretty sad.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/co...mment/h4ju6kg/
I don’t think you really get critical race theory so I’m going to explain it the way I see it. You claim that CRT ignores the true problems crippling black communities but that is the exact purpose of CRT. CRT explains disparities between racial groups through the lens of law and policies. It explains why there is still such a disparity between black and whites have been though most of these racist laws and policies were erased. Even though jim crow, segregation, and redlining are things of the past, the damage has already been done to the black community. These policies held the black community back from creating generational wealth and this affects the majority of black communities today. You may ask “what about culture?” and I would say “who created the culture”. Gang culture was originally created as a response to police brutality and it is perpetuated by poverty created by systemic racism. Almost every problem the black community faces can be traced back to this, racism. Now you might ask, “why don’t blacks just work harder to overcome this”. Let me give you an analogy. Imagine there are 2 runners. One is black and the other is white. Since CRT states that race is just a social construct, both runners run at the same speed. However at the beginning of the race, the white runner trips the black runner and gets a head start. Because both runners run at the same speed, the black runner will never catch up with the white runner. The only way the black runner can catch up is if the runner is given a boost, aka equity. CRT rejects the liberal notion that equality will erase disparities and moves towards a more radical view of equity in the form of reparations.
CRT also rejects the idea of colorblindness. This is because not all racist laws explicitly mention race. A law can target a racial group without even mentioning the name of that race. For example, recently the North Carolina supreme court determined that a voter ID law targeted black people with “surgical precision”. So if laws can be racist without mentioning race, this begs the question of what other laws might be racist that we don’t even know about. This is what CRT tries to find out. CRT looks the laws by using race and not colorblindness. Because when you look at something colorblind, you fail to recognize patterns. Even though most racist laws were erased, there still exist laws that are subtly racist. This is why CRT states that systemic racism is still active to this day.
CRT doesn’t demonize white people. It simply states that white are privileged and blacks are underprivileged due to an unbalanced power structure that has existed for all of American history and continues to exist to today. CRT doesn’t say that white people can’t be poor and black people can’t be rich. It says that the average black person is poorer than the average white person and it provides a reason for that. It focuses on broad disparities between racial groups, not the individual. Just because you can point at a rich black person and a poor white person doesn’t mean we can just ignore these huge disparities.
Not the absolute best argument, but it's short enough, and dumbed down enough, that lewk just might comprehend something.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's bad enough that they can't stop lying but do they have to be so fucking dumb too I mean come on
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So now it is CRP ? Hard to keep up...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Not only are they wrong about critical theory, but apparently this is a list of books a publisher made available, not the actual books bought by the school (let alone taught by its teachers). This is the kind of idiocy the Lewks and Enochs tolerate. For reasons that are kind of obvious.
Hope is the denial of reality
I thought this witch hunt wasn't supposed to affect universities?
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
Might shed a bit of light on some of the bullshit thats popped up here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...selves/619391/
Republican operatives have buried the actual definition of critical race theory: “a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country,” as the law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, who helped coin the term, recently defined it. Instead, the attacks on critical race theory are based on made-up definitions and descriptors. “Critical race theory says every white person is a racist,” Senator Ted Cruz has said. “It basically teaches that certain children are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin,” said the Alabama state legislator Chris Pringle.
The Republican operatives, who dismiss the expositions of critical race theorists and anti-racists in order to define critical race theory and anti-racism, and then attack those definitions, are effectively debating themselves. They have conjured an imagined monster to scare the American people and project themselves as the nation’s defenders from that fictional monster.
In other words, standard Lewk behavior.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
OG, you have good links Here are two more that mirror our "debate" here with Lewk and Enoch:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/m...mory-laws.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-yo...al-race-theory
I thought Snyder's essay was well-written, with plenty of historical references. Then Fox News comes along, citing Rich Lowry (National Review editor) suggesting Snyder either doesn't understand the anti-CRT rules, or is deliberately distorting the truth.
ps Enoch, you didn't answer my question about Psychology. That's unfortunate, because I'd love to know how people can be presented with facts but still live in delusion/denial, believing the misinformation/disinformation instead. Perhaps Snyder is right about the feel-good aspect of these revisionist "memory laws", and perverting CRT for political purposes? It'd at least explain the massive Cognitive Dissonance running wild in the (predominantly white) GOP.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/growing-a...083200531.html
Who knew it was really about race all along.
Hope is the denial of reality
There's definitely no intention to target universities.
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
These people are both stupid and disgraceful and nobody who's worth a damn believes otherwise. A lot of the energy in the debate comes from people who feel the shame of their ongoing voluntary self-debasement a little too keenly
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Sounds like Sen. Cotton doesn't understand CRT either, and that it doesn't mean "indoctrination...that compel students to believe in race essentialism, collective guilt, and racial superiority theory".
Since he has AB and JD degrees from Harvard, he knows that our laws -- and even SCOTUS decisions -- didn't meet our Constitutional ideals for hundreds of years. Dred Scott v Sandford and Plessy v Ferguson are just two examples.
There's just no way to teach or learn an accurate history of the US *and* exclude the inconvenient truth of systemic/institutional discrimination (racism, sexism, religious bigotry) that was codified into law. For generations. No idea how these "anti-CRT" political hacks think kids could learn about the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, or why there are so many Amendments....by banning any historical compare-and-contrast, or critical thought.
Oh wait, this isn't really about Education, but stoking cultural fears among white folks who feel "aggrieved" by facts and truth. ie, The Republican Party.
For example, how would/should this poem be taught to high school students?
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Source: Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden: The United States & The Philippine Islands, 1899.” Rudyard Kipling’s Verse: Definitive Edition (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1929).
“The White Man’s Burden”: Kipling’s Hymn to U.S. Imperialism
In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.” In this poem, Kipling urged the U.S. to take up the “burden” of empire, as had Britain and other European nations. Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure’s Magazine, the poem coincided with the beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty that placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control. Theodore Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was “rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view.” Not everyone was as favorably impressed as Roosevelt. The racialized notion of the “White Man’s burden” became a euphemism for imperialism, and many anti-imperialists couched their opposition in reaction to the phrase.
And how could you teach the history while ignoring the facts? (The debate was whether US Territories should have the same Constitutional Rights as US citizens.)
Last edited by GGT; 07-16-2021 at 05:36 AM.
Didn't take long for Republicans to decide they don't want anything relating to Civil Rights taught at all:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social...n-civil-rightsThe bill (S.B. 3), which was passed on a vote of 18 to 4, now is stalled because the House can’t achieve a quorum while a breakaway group of Democrats is out of the state. The special session is set to end on Aug. 6.
It would remove more than two dozen teaching requirements from a new law (H.B 3979) that bars the teaching of critical race theory, an academic framework exploring racism’s shaping of the country.
That law included a list of historic figures, events and documents required for inclusion in social studies classes. The Senate-passed bill would remove most mentions of people of color and women from those requirements, along with a requirement that students be taught about the history of white supremacy and “the ways in which it is morally wrong.”
Hope is the denial of reality
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
More economic anxiety.
Hope is the denial of reality
Imagine publicly and willingly eating this much shit in order to defend the honor of people who worship a murderous racist traitor:
Twitter Link
I mean I'm honestly kinda shocked
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely amazing buffoonery Aimless.
"Kelley and I mourn the tragic death of Jefferson Co. Deputy Sheriff Brandon Shirley. His family will be in our thoughts and prayers.
Deputy Shirley was a decorated hero of an officer."
That is the tweet, and then he adds on to the response with this:
"I call on those who direct hatred and anger toward our police to realize there will be consequences to words and actions when directed against law enforcement."
Even you are better than this.
What exactly do you think you've just shown, by including the rest of the statement?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe he got confused and meant to attack Rand for his hypocrisy considering he pushed the election lie and continues to work with those who continue to push the lie. Or maybe his hypocrisy concerning how Paul supported trump during impeachment. Or he meant to criticize himself for his years of lying and villainizing of the left?
Or maybe he thinks rand was only speaking in terms of rabble rousing, and was to stupid to see yet another one of rand Paul's attacks on democracy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Twitter Link
This is the asshole lewks dumbass is defending.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."