Critical Race Theory & Confederate Statues

[TMFT]

Critical Race Theory is the bogeyman du jour of the right, ignoring for a moment that it's been around for like 50 years with nary a peep from talk radio. VERY broadly it seeks to teach American history in part through the lens of how actions have been taken to keep minorities down.

Confederate statues went up (mostly) in the 75 years post Civil War to honor various Confederate "heroes." There's been a push to remove those statues as glorifying people who represented the absolute worst of our nation's history. The anti-removal crowd is often found to say that the "woke left is trying to erase history." I for one never went to a statue to get a history lesson, it was usually a museum or something led by a tour guide to explain the history beyond the identification of the subject of a statue and a single paragraph historical marker, but I digress.

Question: Is the history of the antebellum, Civil War, and post-reconstruction South not one of slavery, rebellion, black codes, terror, & Jim Crow where policies and actions were created to specifically and explicitly hold down minorities? If we really want to teach "our history," wouldn't that include a great deal of what Critical Race Theory is?

Discuss.......

 

[IU_Hickory]

You forget the part where they love magic erasers so they can whitewash it first

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Critical Race Theory is the bogeyman du jour of the right, ignoring for a moment that it's been around for like 50 years with nary a peep from talk radio. VERY broadly it seeks to teach American history in part through the lens of how actions have been taken to keep minorities down.

Confederate statues went up (mostly) in the 75 years post Civil War to honor various Confederate "heroes." There's been a push to remove those statues as glorifying people who represented the absolute worst of our nation's history. The anti-removal crowd is often found to say that the "woke left is trying to erase history." I for one never went to a statue to get a history lesson, it was usually a museum or something led by a tour guide to explain the history beyond the identification of the subject of a statue and a single paragraph historical marker, but I digress.

Question: Is the history of the antebellum, Civil War, and post-reconstruction South not one of slavery, rebellion, black codes, terror, & Jim Crow where policies and actions were created to specifically and explicitly hold down minorities? If we really want to teach "our history," wouldn't that include a great deal of what Critical Race Theory is?

Discuss.......

Sure, if that’s all CRT was. But it’s already been hijacked by Racism! Inc. so you’re gonna need some new branding. Read the article about elementary aged kids being taught in Evanston how Whiteness means “living on stolen lands.” Then tell me how CRT works…

 

[mcmurtry66]

Critical Race Theory is the bogeyman du jour of the right, ignoring for a moment that it's been around for like 50 years with nary a peep from talk radio. VERY broadly it seeks to teach American history in part through the lens of how actions have been taken to keep minorities down.

Confederate statues went up (mostly) in the 75 years post Civil War to honor various Confederate "heroes." There's been a push to remove those statues as glorifying people who represented the absolute worst of our nation's history. The anti-removal crowd is often found to say that the "woke left is trying to erase history." I for one never went to a statue to get a history lesson, it was usually a museum or something led by a tour guide to explain the history beyond the identification of the subject of a statue and a single paragraph historical marker, but I digress.

Question: Is the history of the antebellum, Civil War, and post-reconstruction South not one of slavery, rebellion, black codes, terror, & Jim Crow where policies and actions were created to specifically and explicitly hold down minorities? If we really want to teach "our history," wouldn't that include a great deal of what Critical Race Theory is?

Discuss.......

You are correct. It’s been around for half a century. I studied it extensively in grad school but again ages ago. Derivations of it are in other fields as well such as critical legal studies. I think it’s valuable and important to study. I also think there are issues raised that I’m not certain kids have the developmental understanding and maturity to process. While it’s been around since the 70s I don’t recall efforts to introduce it to younger students like now. I’d be interested to hear the opinion of SANE educators on all this stuff

 

[T.M.P.]

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Critical Race Theory is the bogeyman du jour of the right, ignoring for a moment that it's been around for like 50 years with nary a peep from talk radio. VERY broadly it seeks to teach American history in part through the lens of how actions have been taken to keep minorities down.

Confederate statues went up (mostly) in the 75 years post Civil War to honor various Confederate "heroes." There's been a push to remove those statues as glorifying people who represented the absolute worst of our nation's history. The anti-removal crowd is often found to say that the "woke left is trying to erase history." I for one never went to a statue to get a history lesson, it was usually a museum or something led by a tour guide to explain the history beyond the identification of the subject of a statue and a single paragraph historical marker, but I digress.

Question: Is the history of the antebellum, Civil War, and post-reconstruction South not one of slavery, rebellion, black codes, terror, & Jim Crow where policies and actions were created to specifically and explicitly hold down minorities? If we really want to teach "our history," wouldn't that include a great deal of what Critical Race Theory is?

Discuss.......

Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums.

Answering your questions:

1. Yes, all of those things are part of the history of the South. Some are part of the history of the North. They are all taught in schools, should be, and have been in northern Indiana since at least the 1980s when I attended high school.

2. No. Your "broad" definition of CRT is wrong. It need not and should not be taught (I'm not saying I'd have a legal ban, though). CRT in all of its manifestations is an illiberal theory; social justice can be taught within a liberal framework. If you'd like to educate yourself, read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.

 

[TMFT]

Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums.

Answering your questions:

1. Yes, all of those things are part of the history of the South. Some are part of the history of the North. They are all taught in schools, should be, and have been in northern Indiana since at least the 1980s when I attended high school.

2. No. Your "broad" definition of CRT is wrong. It need not and should not be taught (I'm not saying I'd have a legal ban, though). CRT in all of its manifestations is an illiberal theory; social justice can be taught within a liberal framework. If you'd like to educate yourself, read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.

Reading those two to educate myself on CRT would be like asking you to read Paul Krugman to educate yourself on Supply Side Economics.

 

[DANC]

Reading those two to educate myself on CRT would be like asking you to read Paul Krugman to educate yourself on Supply Side Economics.

Or reading Krugman as a servious economist.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Reading those two to educate myself on CRT would be like asking you to read Paul Krugman to educate yourself on Supply Side Economics.

If you'd like to discuss why Cynical Theories doesn't correctly summarize CRT (or the Social Justice movement as they've defined it), its history, or its ideas, I'd love to. Which part do you have the biggest disagreement with?

 

[TMFT]

If you'd like to discuss why Cynical Theories doesn't correctly summarize CRT (or the Social Justice movement as they've defined it), its history, or its ideas, I'd love to. Which part do you have the biggest disagreement with?

Amazon product ASIN 1634312023
From the description of their book, they're clearly coming from the side of being against CRT. That's fine and not intellectually dishonest or anything. But they've got a POV, again which is fine. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that their book is all one needs to know about CRT.

That's why I said it'd be like having Krugman explain supply side econ to you. He's a Nobel Prize winning economist. He's qualified to have that opinion. But he's against it. So it'd be a tick disingenuous for me to ask you to get educated on a topic by someone who is clearly against it, even if he might have valid points.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

View embedded media

From the description of their book, they're clearly coming from the side of being against CRT. That's fine and not intellectually dishonest or anything. But they've got a POV, again which is fine. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that their book is all one needs to know about CRT.

That's why I said it'd be like having Krugman explain supply side econ to you. He's a Nobel Prize winning economist. He's qualified to have that opinion. But he's against it. So it'd be a tick disingenuous for me to ask you to get educated on a topic by someone who is clearly against it, even if he might have valid points.

You have to have a starting point, though, don't you? I recommend their book because I think they do a nice job of trying to honestly summarize the ideas of CRT before arguing about why they are incorrect. They are not perfect, but the best I've found. If you have another suggestion, I'd love to know of it.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Take the statues down through the democratic process, not through vandalism and mobs. I'm all for that. Put them in museums.

Answering your questions:

1. Yes, all of those things are part of the history of the South. Some are part of the history of the North. They are all taught in schools, should be, and have been in northern Indiana since at least the 1980s when I attended high school.

2. No. Your "broad" definition of CRT is wrong. It need not and should not be taught (I'm not saying I'd have a legal ban, though). CRT in all of its manifestations is an illiberal theory; social justice can be taught within a liberal framework. If you'd like to educate yourself, read Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.

I took US history in high school in 1975. We had 160-ish school days. 50 minute periods. Still Covered Just enough Western Civ. To understand Pre- and Colonial America, through the Revolution and War of 1812, the impact of slavery on all of it, and through the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Civil Rights and Vietnam. Took a few days off for pep rallies, snow, quizzes and tests. People who say discrimination, Jim Crow, etc. wasn’t taught are being disingenuous. They just didn’t listen. Probably sent “do you LIKE like me” notes during class instead.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I took US history in high school in 1975. We had 160-ish school days. 50 minute periods. Still Covered Just enough Western Civ. To understand Pre- and Colonial America, through the Revolution and War of 1812, the impact of slavery on all of it, and through the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Civil Rights and Vietnam. Took a few days off for pep rallies, snow, quizzes and tests. People who say discrimination, Jim Crow, etc. wasn’t taught are being disingenuous. They just didn’t listen. Probably sent “do you LIKE like me” notes during class instead.

It was taught just well enough that millions of Americans do not think slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow, just are not that big of a deal.

 

[UncleMark]

It was taught just well enough that millions of Americans do not think slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow, just are not that big of a deal.

That's why they call it history.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It was taught just well enough that millions of Americans do not think slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow, just are not that big of a deal.

Bullshit

maybe the Democrats who caused it all felt that way to salve thier conscience

thinking people know and know better

 

[UncleMark]

Bullshit

maybe the Democrats who caused it all felt that way to salve thier conscience

thinking people know and know better

I guess they didn't teach about how the Republicans and Democrats essentially switched sides in the 60s.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess they didn't teach about how the Republicans and Democrats essentially switched sides in the 60s.

Once again, I would like to remind everyone about a particular piece of partisan history that folks like MTIOTF would like to forget. Racism in the United States, while always a national problem, at its height, was noticeably prevalent in the South. When you look at the voting break down for the Civil Rights Act and similar legislation, you find that members of Congress from the South almost invariably opposed them, while members from the North almost invariably supported them. The Civil Rights Movement was absolutely an instance of one region of the nation imposing its will on another.

But, something else sticks out. When you look at party breakdown by region, you find that Democrats were more likely to support these bills than Republicans, even in the South. In the North, almost all Democrats supported them, while merely most Republicans did. In the South, a few Democrats supported them, while virtually no Republicans did.

The parties didn't switch sides in the 60s. What really happened was that racist Southerners simply switched party allegiance.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Bullshit

maybe the Democrats who caused it all felt that way to salve thier conscience

thinking people know and know better

Let us spend a weekend at any major civil war battlefield and talk to people. Name the field and let's go.

A WHOLE lot of people will say slavery was wrong but slaves really were not mistreated. Slaves were property, owners would not damage their property.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I guess they didn't teach about how the Republicans and Democrats essentially switched sides in the 60s.

Which is exactly what Lee Atwater suggested. I have posted Atwater's quote a couple times in the last month, I notice no conservative has said Atwater was wrong. Maybe Team can take a crack at that.

 

[DANC]

That's why they call it history.

Well, those of us who stayed awake in class, which obviously many Dims didn't.

 

[DANC]

I guess they didn't teach about how the Republicans and Democrats essentially switched sides in the 60s.

Really? Who switched sides? A few people, sure. There was no mass migration to a different party.

Al Gore's dad sure didn't and he was one of the biggest racists of his time.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Really? Who switched sides? A few people, sure. There was no mass migration to a different party.

Al Gore's dad sure didn't and he was one of the biggest racists of his time.

The south was primarily democrat back then.

The south is primarily republican now.

Yup, no mass switching of political parties. Nothing to see here. Sarcasm

 

[DANC]

The south was primarily democrat back then.

The south is primarily republican now.

Yup, no mass switching of political parties. Nothing to see here. Sarcasm

Convincing. Just because you say so, I guess.

Who changed parties? Jesse Helms? Strom Thurmond? Yes, they did.

Did Robert Byrd, the Grand Kleagle of the KKK? No, he stayed Democrat until the day he died and was euolgized by the Racist In Chief, Joe Biden.

You need to see who voted for the Civil Rights bill in 1964. It passed because of Republican votes. Don't try to change history and claim credit for it now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Convincing. Just because you say so, I guess.

Who changed parties? Jesse Helms? Strom Thurmond? Yes, they did.

Did Robert Byrd, the Grand Kleagle of the KKK? No, he stayed Democrat until the day he died and was euolgized by the Racist In Chief, Joe Biden.

You need to see who voted for the Civil Rights bill in 1964. It passed because of Republican votes. Don't try to change history and claim credit for it now.

It passed because of Northern votes. Democrats and Republicans together in the North forced the Civil Rights Act on the South.

As I said above, broken down regionally, Democrats were more likely to support it, but the partisan breakdown isn't nearly as significant statistically as the regional breakdown.

 

[DANC]

It passed because of Northern votes. Democrats and Republicans together in the North forced the Civil Rights Act on the South.

As I said above, broken down regionally, Democrats were more likely to support it, but the partisan breakdown isn't nearly as significant statistically as the regional breakdown.

Parse it any way you want - Republicans were responsible for the bill passing.

If left to the Dims, it would not have passed, no matter how many northern Dims voted for it.

But nice attempt to rewrite history.

 

[DANC]

It passed because of Northern votes. Democrats and Republicans together in the North forced the Civil Rights Act on the South.

As I said above, broken down regionally, Democrats were more likely to support it, but the partisan breakdown isn't nearly as significant statistically as the regional breakdown.

And the Civil Rights Act applied to the whole country - not just the South.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Parse it any way you want - Republicans were responsible for the bill passing.

If left to the Dims, it would not have passed, no matter how many northern Dims voted for it.

But nice attempt to rewrite history.

I'm not rewriting history, you just apparently don't know it. We've been over this before. Stealing right from the Wiki:

Vote totals[edit]​

Totals are in Yea–Nay format:

• The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
• Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
• The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party[edit]​

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[30]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[29]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[29]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By region[edit]​

Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[31]

The House of Representatives:[31]

• Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
• Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)

The Senate:[31]

• Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
• Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

By party and region[edit]​

The House of Representatives:[3][31]

• Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
• Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
• Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)

Note that four Representatives voted Present while 12 did not vote.

The Senate:[31]

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin Mecham (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

 

[DANC]

I'm not rewriting history, you just apparently don't know it. We've been over this before. Stealing right from the Wiki:

Vote totals[edit]​

Totals are in Yea–Nay format:

• The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
• Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
• The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party[edit]​

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[30]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[29]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[29]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

By region[edit]​

Note that "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[31]

The House of Representatives:[31]

• Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
• Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)

The Senate:[31]

• Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
• Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) – Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only Southerner to vote in favor in the Senate

By party and region[edit]​

The House of Representatives:[3][31]

• Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
• Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)V
• Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
• Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)

Note that four Representatives voted Present while 12 did not vote.

The Senate:[31]

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin Mecham (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

Spin the numbers any way you want. I realize this source isn't as authoritative as Wiki...... (that's sarcasm for you Dims)

Verdict: True

https://checkyourfact.com/2018/12/16/fact-check-percent-republicans-vote-civil-rights-act/

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Spin the numbers any way you want. I realize this source isn't as authoritative as Wiki...... (that's sarcasm for you Dims)

Verdict: True

https://checkyourfact.com/2018/12/16/fact-check-percent-republicans-vote-civil-rights-act/

Let me ask you a question: Do you think it would add or detract from the tenor of this forum for people to refer to "Rethuglicans" or "GQP?"

 

[Crayfish57]

Lyndon Johnson,
www.azquotes.com › author › 7511-Lyndon_B_Johnson

• I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years. Lyndon B. Johnson.

Was this before or after he pulled his johnson out to show a reporter? Convienent to think Trump was so crude and gloss over good ole Lyndon

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Lyndon Johnson,
www.azquotes.com › author › 7511-Lyndon_B_Johnson

• I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years. Lyndon B. Johnson.

Was this before or after he pulled his johnson out to show a reporter? Convienent to think Trump was so crude and gloss over good ole Lyndon

There may have never been another American as proud of his own d*ck as LBJ.

 

[DANC]

Let me ask you a question: Do you think it would add or detract from the tenor of this forum for people to refer to "Rethuglicans" or "GQP?"

Well obviously you allow either one, so you must not care about the 'tenor' of this forum.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well obviously you allow either one, so you must not care about the 'tenor' of this forum.

If I were modding this forum full-time, they'd both be banned, as would "Dims." I just want to know how you justify lowering your own standards of yourself, instead of raising them while demanding that others raise theirs.

 

[DANC]

If I were modding this forum full-time, they'd both be banned, as would "Dims." I just want to know how you justify lowering your own standards of yourself, instead of raising them while demanding that others raise theirs.

Goat, when I first started posting on this forum, I tried to post reasonably. But I was attacked and called names and ridiculed for daring to defend Republicans and Trump.

It didn't help the 'tenor' of the board any, so why should only conservative be expected to act with civility? I can be civil to anyone who is civil with me.

This applies to the political arena as well. You allow leftists and criminals to run rampant, with little or no repurcussion, and then expect conservatives to just sit back and take it. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat, when I first started posting on this forum, I tried to post reasonably. But I was attacked and called names and ridiculed for daring to defend Republicans and Trump.

It didn't help the 'tenor' of the board any, so why should only conservative be expected to act with civility? I can be civil to anyone who is civil with me.

This applies to the political arena as well. You allow leftists and criminals to run rampant, with little or no repurcussion, and then expect conservatives to just sit back and take it. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

No, you didn't. You appeared and immediately took a shit on the forum.

Leftists and criminals run rampant here? Think hard about that comment and come back to me when you realize why it's stupid.

 

[DANC]

No, you didn't. You appeared and immediately took a shit on the forum.

Leftists and criminals run rampant here? Think hard about that comment and come back to me when you realize why it's stupid.

That's a lie - I stated my opinion, which you didn't like.

When did I say anyone here is a criminal?

 

[DANC]

No, you didn't. You appeared and immediately took a shit on the forum.

Leftists and criminals run rampant here? Think hard about that comment and come back to me when you realize why it's stupid.

Oh, I see. Yes, I said that, but I mean 'you' in the general sense. Not 'you' personally.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh, I see. Yes, I said that, but I mean 'you' in the general sense. Not 'you' personally.

Sure, that makes it better.

The problem isn't that I thought your bad posting was directed at me. The problem is that your posting sucks. It doesn't matter who it's directed at. It still sucks. And it sucks while you are simultaneously bitching out the other side of your mouth about others' bad posting.

Man up and be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

 

[DANC]

Sure, that makes it better.

The problem isn't that I thought your bad posting was directed at me. The problem is that your posting sucks. It doesn't matter who it's directed at. It still sucks. And it sucks while you are simultaneously bitching out the other side of your mouth about others' bad posting.

Man up and be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

LOL My posting 'sucks'. Well, that's an objective opinion.

Do your job and there won't be a problem.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

LOL My posting 'sucks'. Well, that's an objective opinion.

Do your job and there won't be a problem.

Well, yeah, it does. Everyone knows it. I daresay even you know it. I'm asking you to fix it. Be better.