Do you believe all attacks on CRT (which I'm going to use like everybody else here as just a catch-all term for antiracism thought espoused by Kendi and the like, along with racial wokeness, not the technical academic theory that Goat refers back to) come just from members of the GOP?
Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with CRT does so because of racist attitudes?
Do you believe that if one, or several or even thousands, of the people who attack CRT are racists (in the old-school, intentional sense), that means everyone who disagree with CRT are, therefore, also racists?
I think with regards to CRT, it is a major issue/talking point for the board's biggest Trumper CoH. But I think I said in my opening post in this thread that I considered it far from anything MOST people care about, outside of the Trump base who are eager to utilize it as a wedge issue in their idea of the culture war...
I liken it to the buildup to the 2018 midterms where if you watched Fox on a daily basis you got the idea that the biggest issues facing the country were "the caravans" and the mistreatment of Kavanaugh. But in actuality, the biggest issue that seemed to drive voters in Blue/purple states to the polls was their disgust for Trump.
I base that on between 10 and 11 Million people voting more for Dem House AND Senate candidates than for GOP candidates. Pro-Trump candidates lost in every contested Blue or purple state race, although they did very well in Red states...The 3 states that basically gave Trump the 2016 election all voted exclusively for Dem candidates across the board in Congressional/Gubernatorial races in 2018, and all 3 gave Biden more % of votes in 2020 than they had given Trump in 2016. I'm talking PA, WI, and MI...
Personally, I'm not particularly invested either way in CRT- I merely added comments related to what I saw recently on the subject to a thread ABOUT CRT. I then created a post about what I saw as a PR issue the GOP has on the subject, and why along with allegiance to Trump they could end up doing far worse than they expect in the upcoming midterms, even with the built-in advantages of off-year/Presidential party losses and the upcoming Gerrymandering Trump's mangling of the census will allow. I can say that because I was a Census Field Supervisor and saw it firsthand...
On CRT,I think the Pakman video I watched today (and posted) nails it, both for the fact that people who "oppose it" often have no idea of "what it is", and also I agree with Pakman's view of it as just one lens to view things thru, in forming a world view.
As someone who lived thru the turbulent era of Segregation/Civil Rights, I certainly see merit in the academic aspects. I did a google search and found this, discussing the Right's obsession with introducing these "Red State bills"...
"Most legal scholars say that these bills impinge on the right to free speech and will likely be dismissed in court. “Of the legislative language so far, none of the bills are fully constitutional,” Joe Cohn, the legislative and policy director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told me, “and if it isn’t fully constitutional, there’s a word for that: It means it’s unconstitutional.” This does not appear to concern the bills’ sponsors, though.
The larger purpose, it seems, is to rally the Republican base—to push back against the recent reexaminations of the role that slavery and segregation have played in American history and the attempts to redress those historical offenses. The shorthand for the Republicans’ bogeyman is an idea that has until now mostly lived in academia: critical race theory.
The late Harvard law professor Derrick Bell is credited as the father of critical race theory. He began conceptualizing the idea in the 1970s as a way to understand how race and American law interact, and developed a course on the subject. In 1980, Bell resigned his position at Harvard because of what he viewed as the institution’s discriminatory hiring practices, especially its failure to hire an Asian American woman he’d recommended."
How conservative politicians and pundits became fixated on an academic approach
www.theatlantic.com
I'm sorry if I haven't answered your questions- I honestly have never thought about it...
The story I researched/posted only dealt with members of the GOP. As to my opinion, I've found that it usually makes sense for me to personally oppose positions that CoH takes. I think for someone so pompous and pretentious he usually posts nonsense.
So to the extent I actually care about the issue personally, his opposition leads me to believe that in reality, it's something I'm more inclined to deem beneficial than harmful. I do think his posts on penalizing gun manufacturers make sense, so I don't always disagree with him. But I kind of think he sees the cooler as his own personal pond to troll in, and that sort of rubs me the wrong way...
