Critical Race Theory & Confederate Statues
- Thread starter TMFT
- Start date
You don't know squat about the original GI Bill or any subsequent GI Bills, so quit spouting off about something you know nothing about.
Tommy, learn the difference between the Great Society, which I was refering to, and the Civil Right Act of 1965.
Learn what was in the Civil Rights Act and what was in the legislation that made up the Great Society program and get back to me.
You have your assignment.
Are you arguing that life for black Americans was better before the 'great society' (which was an antipoverty concept) which had some tenets that were made into law like the voting rights act, the civil rights act, the equal opportunity employment act along with things like medicare and Medicaid?
It outlawed things like...segregated water fountains and businesses, schools and all that classic racist stuff that even the most ardent white supremacist now admits was pretty racy.
Cuz it sounds like you believe that life was better before 1964.
Yeah, I don't think you're going to find many agreeing with you on that.
This fascination people have with trying to draw parallels between the party system of the mid-19th Century and the current one is strange. The idea that the modern GOP should get credit for Lincoln is as absurd as saying Lincoln would be a Democrat were he in politics today. We have no idea which party most people from 150 years ago would join if they suddenly appeared in today's political ecosystem.
Certainly, we can be sure of a few changes. The Radical Republicans would almost certainly be big fans of AOC and other "woke" Democrats today. The southern racist Democrats would be Republicans - as they by and large are now. But Lincoln? Who knows. The Republican party was originally founded to contain and oppose slavery. Presumably, both major parties today are opposed to slavery, so anti-slavery activists from the 1800's would find a home in either one.
Republicans 100 years ago loved legislating morality, loved supporting business on a national level, and loved tariffs. I don't think those Republicans would feel out of place among a lot of modern Republicans. Meanwhile, a lot of 19th-Century Democrats fought for the well-being of the lower working classes, especially immigrants. What reason is there to think they wouldn't still be comfortable as Democrats today?
On the other hand, what about those crazy folks who care most about, say, undoing the Federal Reserve system and going back to the gold standard? Well, Republicans liked national banking and the gold standard a century ago. Who knows how those people would feel.
Long and short of it is, the party system back then was entirely different than the party system now; it existed in an entirely different political context and fought about issues that are largely irrelevant in the modern world. It doesn't take much to show that some very specific demographics - like southern white racists - have switched, but the idea that the parties did a flip-flop is simply fantasy.
Certainly, we can be sure of a few changes. The Radical Republicans would almost certainly be big fans of AOC and other "woke" Democrats today. The southern racist Democrats would be Republicans - as they by and large are now. But Lincoln? Who knows. The Republican party was originally founded to contain and oppose slavery. Presumably, both major parties today are opposed to slavery, so anti-slavery activists from the 1800's would find a home in either one.
Republicans 100 years ago loved legislating morality, loved supporting business on a national level, and loved tariffs. I don't think those Republicans would feel out of place among a lot of modern Republicans. Meanwhile, a lot of 19th-Century Democrats fought for the well-being of the lower working classes, especially immigrants. What reason is there to think they wouldn't still be comfortable as Democrats today?
On the other hand, what about those crazy folks who care most about, say, undoing the Federal Reserve system and going back to the gold standard? Well, Republicans liked national banking and the gold standard a century ago. Who knows how those people would feel.
Long and short of it is, the party system back then was entirely different than the party system now; it existed in an entirely different political context and fought about issues that are largely irrelevant in the modern world. It doesn't take much to show that some very specific demographics - like southern white racists - have switched, but the idea that the parties did a flip-flop is simply fantasy.
Really good post Goat.
Agree completely and learned a new angle that I appreciate.
That's a good post.
Wow, seemed like you managed to just draw parallels to mostly fit your agenda! Good Job little soldier!
Well Kendi spoke in Charlotte to a group of CMS educators in June. A NC state senator and some parents raised a huge stink about his appearance without even knowing what he said. So the Charlotte Observer filed a public records request and obtained video. The Observer concluded that out of a 40 min talk CRT was discussed about two minutes...
Now I don't see anything controversial in what the Observers analysis of his talk revealed. But maybe you feel differently...
"CMS Foundation director Sonja Gantt was chosen to interview Kendi during the virtual gathering. She asked him to share his definition of Critical Race Theory.
He said: “Critical race theory was developed by legal scholars and lawyers largely in the 1980s to examine the so-called race neutral structures, laws and policies in our society that were either growing or maintaining racial inequity and injustice.
“And what’s ironic, you know, is that critical race theory is largely taught in law schools but you have local people who are sort of demonizing critical race theory in order to get (history taught differently).”
Kendi added of the current contentious political debate over what’s being taught in K-12 schools: “It is unfortunate that we are even debating or arguing about whether we should teach our young people about racism in a society where racial inequities are rampant.”
And more which I guess some view as controversial, but to me just makes sense...
Kendi responded to various questions from principals, including one unnamed leader who asked Kendi how to work with racists.
“You have people who are saying that we should not teach our white kids that they are inherently oppressors,” Kendi said, followed by: “I agree ... That’s not what we’re trying to teach.”
He went on to say: “They say we should not teach that the nation and all of its institutions are inherently and eternally racist. I’d say, I agree. That’s not what we’re trying to teach, either.”
He continued: “I would try to draw out what these people are afraid of. ... Are you stating that we should not teach students about the existence of structural racism? If you believe we shouldn’t teach students about the existence of structural racism then what should we teach them about why racial inequity exists?”
Kendi said he’s more focused on identifying which policies and practices are racist or anti-racist than labeling people as racists. “We use the terms ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ interchangeably, when we should not,” he said.
“How do you define racist? What is a racist idea? How do people respond,” said Kendi, who teaches college students and is a former K-12 educator. “They don’t even know. They can’t even define those terms they’re using to identify something in society.”
Controversy after CMS hosted Kendi. Here’s what the professor shared on anti-racism.
Critical race theory? Transcript from the speech shows little mention of it.
You failed your assignment.
Again, you confuse The Great Society - a spending program - with civil rights laws.
I spelled it out for you before. Are you slow?
I'll put you down as being ok with DukeWell Kendi spoke in Charlotte to a group of CMS educators in June. A NC state senator and some parents raised a huge stink about his appearance without even knowing what he said. So the Charlotte Observer filed a public records request and obtained video. The Observer concluded that out of a 40 min talk CRT was discussed about two minutes...
Now I don't see anything controversial in what the Observers analysis of his talk revealed. But maybe you feel differently...
"CMS Foundation director Sonja Gantt was chosen to interview Kendi during the virtual gathering. She asked him to share his definition of Critical Race Theory.
He said: “Critical race theory was developed by legal scholars and lawyers largely in the 1980s to examine the so-called race neutral structures, laws and policies in our society that were either growing or maintaining racial inequity and injustice.
“And what’s ironic, you know, is that critical race theory is largely taught in law schools but you have local people who are sort of demonizing critical race theory in order to get (history taught differently).”
Kendi added of the current contentious political debate over what’s being taught in K-12 schools: “It is unfortunate that we are even debating or arguing about whether we should teach our young people about racism in a society where racial inequities are rampant.”
And more which I guess some view as controversial, but to me just makes sense...
Kendi responded to various questions from principals, including one unnamed leader who asked Kendi how to work with racists.
“You have people who are saying that we should not teach our white kids that they are inherently oppressors,” Kendi said, followed by: “I agree ... That’s not what we’re trying to teach.”
He went on to say: “They say we should not teach that the nation and all of its institutions are inherently and eternally racist. I’d say, I agree. That’s not what we’re trying to teach, either.”
He continued: “I would try to draw out what these people are afraid of. ... Are you stating that we should not teach students about the existence of structural racism? If you believe we shouldn’t teach students about the existence of structural racism then what should we teach them about why racial inequity exists?”
Kendi said he’s more focused on identifying which policies and practices are racist or anti-racist than labeling people as racists. “We use the terms ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ interchangeably, when we should not,” he said.
“How do you define racist? What is a racist idea? How do people respond,” said Kendi, who teaches college students and is a former K-12 educator. “They don’t even know. They can’t even define those terms they’re using to identify something in society.”
Controversy after CMS hosted Kendi. Here’s what the professor shared on anti-racism.
Critical race theory? Transcript from the speech shows little mention of it.www.yahoo.com
nah it predates that. it started as critical legal studies in law schools, which was/is the more formalized movement, championed by lefty profs largely out of harvard/yale.Well Kendi spoke in Charlotte to a group of CMS educators in June. A NC state senator and some parents raised a huge stink about his appearance without even knowing what he said. So the Charlotte Observer filed a public records request and obtained video. The Observer concluded that out of a 40 min talk CRT was discussed about two minutes...
Now I don't see anything controversial in what the Observers analysis of his talk revealed. But maybe you feel differently...
"CMS Foundation director Sonja Gantt was chosen to interview Kendi during the virtual gathering. She asked him to share his definition of Critical Race Theory.
He said: “Critical race theory was developed by legal scholars and lawyers largely in the 1980s to examine the so-called race neutral structures, laws and policies in our society that were either growing or maintaining racial inequity and injustice.
“And what’s ironic, you know, is that critical race theory is largely taught in law schools but you have local people who are sort of demonizing critical race theory in order to get (history taught differently).”
Kendi added of the current contentious political debate over what’s being taught in K-12 schools: “It is unfortunate that we are even debating or arguing about whether we should teach our young people about racism in a society where racial inequities are rampant.”
And more which I guess some view as controversial, but to me just makes sense...
Kendi responded to various questions from principals, including one unnamed leader who asked Kendi how to work with racists.
“You have people who are saying that we should not teach our white kids that they are inherently oppressors,” Kendi said, followed by: “I agree ... That’s not what we’re trying to teach.”
He went on to say: “They say we should not teach that the nation and all of its institutions are inherently and eternally racist. I’d say, I agree. That’s not what we’re trying to teach, either.”
He continued: “I would try to draw out what these people are afraid of. ... Are you stating that we should not teach students about the existence of structural racism? If you believe we shouldn’t teach students about the existence of structural racism then what should we teach them about why racial inequity exists?”
Kendi said he’s more focused on identifying which policies and practices are racist or anti-racist than labeling people as racists. “We use the terms ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ interchangeably, when we should not,” he said.
“How do you define racist? What is a racist idea? How do people respond,” said Kendi, who teaches college students and is a former K-12 educator. “They don’t even know. They can’t even define those terms they’re using to identify something in society.”
Controversy after CMS hosted Kendi. Here’s what the professor shared on anti-racism.
Critical race theory? Transcript from the speech shows little mention of it.
Lol the civil rights laws came from 'The Great Society' campaign.
Like social security and unemployment insurance came from 'The New Deal' campaign.
You've had many chances to correct me but all you've done is divert it and go with the weak 'I'll just hurl insults and maybe people will think I'm right'.
So, I'll ask you again, you said that Black lives were better before the Great Society campaign (which brought in several civil rights laws).
When you made that statement, you leave the listener with the impression that black lives were better before the civil rights movement, which I find a hilarious take on the surface.
Can you go into a little more detail in that area? I'm curious what you mean.
Normally I'd assume you think the civil rights movement actually hurt the black community (while offering no alternative solutions other than the typical republican policy response of do nothing, just criticize) but you said blacks were better off in 1964 before the war on poverty/the great society concept which led to civil rights laws being passed.
Enlighten us here.
Daniel Tosh said after one of his shows an elderly lady told him he was a piece of shit who has zero respect for those around him.
His answer was 'and you made people drink out of separate water fountains because of their skin color so, STFU"
I'm guessing the 'good ol days' weren't any better
The right did not frame the left that way. You are what you are.
He's full of shit. Period.Well Kendi spoke in Charlotte to a group of CMS educators in June. A NC state senator and some parents raised a huge stink about his appearance without even knowing what he said. So the Charlotte Observer filed a public records request and obtained video. The Observer concluded that out of a 40 min talk CRT was discussed about two minutes...
Now I don't see anything controversial in what the Observers analysis of his talk revealed. But maybe you feel differently...
"CMS Foundation director Sonja Gantt was chosen to interview Kendi during the virtual gathering. She asked him to share his definition of Critical Race Theory.
He said: “Critical race theory was developed by legal scholars and lawyers largely in the 1980s to examine the so-called race neutral structures, laws and policies in our society that were either growing or maintaining racial inequity and injustice.
“And what’s ironic, you know, is that critical race theory is largely taught in law schools but you have local people who are sort of demonizing critical race theory in order to get (history taught differently).”
Kendi added of the current contentious political debate over what’s being taught in K-12 schools: “It is unfortunate that we are even debating or arguing about whether we should teach our young people about racism in a society where racial inequities are rampant.”
And more which I guess some view as controversial, but to me just makes sense...
Kendi responded to various questions from principals, including one unnamed leader who asked Kendi how to work with racists.
“You have people who are saying that we should not teach our white kids that they are inherently oppressors,” Kendi said, followed by: “I agree ... That’s not what we’re trying to teach.”
He went on to say: “They say we should not teach that the nation and all of its institutions are inherently and eternally racist. I’d say, I agree. That’s not what we’re trying to teach, either.”
He continued: “I would try to draw out what these people are afraid of. ... Are you stating that we should not teach students about the existence of structural racism? If you believe we shouldn’t teach students about the existence of structural racism then what should we teach them about why racial inequity exists?”
Kendi said he’s more focused on identifying which policies and practices are racist or anti-racist than labeling people as racists. “We use the terms ‘racism’ and ‘racist’ interchangeably, when we should not,” he said.
“How do you define racist? What is a racist idea? How do people respond,” said Kendi, who teaches college students and is a former K-12 educator. “They don’t even know. They can’t even define those terms they’re using to identify something in society.”
Controversy after CMS hosted Kendi. Here’s what the professor shared on anti-racism.
Critical race theory? Transcript from the speech shows little mention of it.
We aren't doing these things....but read my ****ing book and that is exactly what we are pushing. **** that guy.
So here's the thing, not drinking out of the same fountain, segregation, and racism were bad. No one is arguing that.
However, there were things that were better for blacks then as well. Less social upheaval at home. Less sons being put into the cemetary by other blacks. Rise of black economic power like existed in Tulsa. There are things that get missed when your sole focus is on how people that look differently react to each other.
No the right have absolutely used that as a defense mechanism as an excuse to get out of having to discuss.
Unless you are what you are as the minority party that can only muster a putrid 6% of support from the black community along with the flip side that the current right is the overwhelming choice of white supremacist groups.
Continue playing the victim and not facing hard truths.
If you go by statistics, yes, the black family is stronger now than it was before the Great Society. But any measure.
But it's useless to talk to someone who can't distinguish between a spending bill and a civil rights law.
Yup, that's why you can't discuss the accusation that you put out there.
It's not because you can't, it's because it's so far beyond everyone.
Got it.
Of course you’re a racist for thinking that. You are not allowed to criticize those haters.
