You must not speak authentic frontier gibberish.
Daily Show on Critical Race Theory
- Thread starter TommyCracker
- Start date
I Poorly made the point that what the amendments meant in 1790’s is not much relevant to today by joking you had become a Scalia-originalist focusing on the 1790s meaning.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Thanks. I thought you were trying to take an agnostic stance with your statement about the PR for the GOP on this, but was not sure.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."
The GOP’s ‘Critical Race Theory’ Obsession
How conservative politicians and pundits became fixated on an academic approachwww.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...
On the merits of CRT/antiracism, etc., if you want to listen to some intelligent critiques, I'll throw out a suggestion: John McWhorter. He's a solid Democrat (not a conservative Republican) and a well-thought of intellectual and professor of linguistics at Columbia. He's been interviewed on several podcasts and is working on a book on this very subject. I don't think anyone listening to him could honestly portray him as a racist or reactionary (although he certainly is controversial at times), and he makes a lot of very good points about how and why this area of thought is not logically well-moored and will ultimately not solve the underlying problems that are worth solving and might make them worse. Here are two links, there are more out there--if anyone actually listens to McWhorter or has in the past, I'd love to hear your opinions and reactions to him:
PODCAST 134: John McWhorter on the Ideological Excesses of the Social-Justice Movement
Columbia University professor John McWhorter speaks with political satirist and TV presenter Josh Szeps about the transformation of radicalized progressive politics into a religious-style belief system
quillette.com
Further, real, hard-core socialists and Marxists oppose CRT. For example, the World Socialist Website first ran a series of interviews with prominent U.S. historians critiquing the 1619 Project. And it continues to publish articles critical of CRT as it creeps into education: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/20/ethn-m20.html.
It’s been 11 long months since supernova in the east IV came out. I’m getting tired of waiting.
Indeed it is. CRT is the latest orthodoxy in the long list of racial discussions throughout our history. CRT does not have the benefit of a precise and consistent meaning. A series of euphemisms have sprung up to describe it the most recent being "non-racism" and "culturally responsive teaching". I say euphemisms because CRT takes the racial discussion to a different place that proponents largely want to conceal. In the 20th century, discussions about race focused on non-discrimination and affirmative action both designed and intended include minorities in the American culture that was generally seen as a benefit to all, but to which most blacks had no access. We know that this has not worked as well as we all hoped. Along comes CRT to fix the problem. CRT isn't intended as a way to have equal access of all to the benefits of culture. The new place for CRT now is that the American culture is racist because it is white. Access is no longer important. To say it another way, whites are racist. The point of CRT is to change the culture, destroy some of it, and build it back in a ways in which blacks will find comfort. Classical music, classical literature, entertainment, traditional mathematics, and science have all been under attack as being too white. Some groups have been asked to be "less white". Adult CRT training includes exercises diminishing culture by tying it to the white slave owners of centuries ago. It includes practice in apologizing for past sins or of the current sins of classical literature and music.
Here's the problem with all of this. Our culture is pretty damned good. It has accomplished living standards and advancements in science, economics, and medicine that is the envy of the world. It has made huge strides in individual rights and freedoms that has benefited all people. Can it be better? Absolutely! But CRT as it is applied not will not make it better. CRT really isn't even an effort to make it better.
I can't speak for other Republicans about their views on CRT, but my view is that it absolutely must be kept out of public school. It's bad enough for adults. But for youngsters who already struggle with who they are, where they are going, and what will become of them absolutely must not be instructed that skin color is a determinate for them. CRT wants to prioritize skin color among the dozens and dozens of factors that go into what makes a person a distinct human being. Skin color shouldn't be relevant. I think the point of racial discussions and our common future must always be toward making it irrelevant. That was MLK's objective. CRT, on the other hand, puts skin color as the most relevant aspect of our individualism.
I'm surprised that a communist would be so adverse to CRT. CRT has a lot in common with Marxist theory. Both address class differences and exploit class envy. Marx did that with pitting the proletariat at the opposite end of the spectrum from elites and then creating chaos and conflict. CRT advocates do exactly the same thing except they use Black People and White People as the antagonists instead of the proletariat and elites. Class juxtaposition and resulting envy, chaos, and conflict is pretty common throughout world history. CRT is old hat in this regard.
I generally agree with your commentary on this topic.... but I have no clue the prevalence of this type of teaching that's occurring or purposed in public schools. My kids aren't in public schools, so I'm likely disjointed from it.
I was a public school student of the 80s/90s.... and there was no whitewashing of US history in my schooling. We all knew about the 1860s (and everything 100 years before and after) and what it was about, even in bumfuk Indiana
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Have you not heard part V???? Came out in November
Hardcore History 66 – Supernova in the East V – Dan Carlin
www.dancarlin.com
Here is an article I found explaining CRT in the classroom.
kappanonline.org
For those that do not want to read it, some relevant sections:
When we teach history there is a POV attached. What life was like in the colonies, in the antebellum, in WWII. It all has a POV attached. That POV traditionally has been universally White and traditionally people with certain means. It isn't a universal perspective of what being an American is, it has been a somewhat glorified perspective of what being a White property-owning male is. That has always been a minority of America. Let's for a moment that CRT is wrong, how do we present the perspective of ordinary Blacks, Native Americans, women?
Or better, should we present a POV of these people? I sometimes get the impression some think we only should present the POV of the elite.
The fear of multiple truths: On teaching about racism in a predominantly white school - Kappan Online
Why have so many K-12 educators been so resistant to the idea that students should understand multiple perspectives on history and current events? For its 2016 word of the year, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) chose “post-truth,” which it defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in...
kappanonline.org
For those that do not want to read it, some relevant sections:
Some critics have argued that CRT’s efforts to highlight and analyze the role of white supremacy in U.S. history, politics, and culture only serves to heighten racial divisions. However, a thoughtful use of CRT can, in fact, be a unifying force, providing opportunities for students of every race and ethnicity across the United States to wrestle with the ways in which racial oppression has held all of us back (Rose, 1996) and to understand that racism will only continue to hamper our collective progress as the world becomes more globalized and connected. Ultimately, the point of CRT isn’t to assign blame to one group of students but to enable students of all races and ethnicities to have informed, productive conversations about the forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, the society in which they live.
...
Bringing multiple historical perspectives of U.S. history into the curriculum creates important opportunities for high-level thinking and analysis. It requires students to consider differing narratives, wrestle over competing views, and come to their own conclusions about the past and its influence on the present. Ideally, the classroom offers a safe place for such public debate, one where young people can learn to make and defend arguments and, in the process, develop a healthy ”respect for the equal standing of all citizens and common recognition that reasonable people can disagree” (Justice & Macleod, 2016, p. 5).
...
Even after the course was approved, the controversy didn’t end. Over the subsequent weeks, the course gained national attention in both the news and social media. Ironically, while the course was designed to stem the polarized nature of discussions surrounding race in the U.S., it attracted intensely polarized responses. The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by civil rights activist Robert Woodson (2020), who took issue with the course for promulgating a “lethal message of despair and distortion of history.” While Woodson’s contributions to the civil rights movement cannot be overstated, it’s important to recognize that CRT is not focused on individuals and their successes but on institutions. Although individuals from marginalized groups can avoid despair and express their agency within an oppressive system, they may be less able to freely and equally do so than others. Accomplishments such as falling poverty rates among Black Americans, which Woodson cites in his article, should absolutely be celebrated, but we should also ask how the poverty rates differ between Black and white Americans and what institutional factors make it more difficult for Black Americans to accumulate wealth. It is through examining institutional policies and their effects, which CRT encourages, that productive conversations about race can occur.
...
While critics complain that CRT imposes guilt on white students and reduces their self-esteem, CRT addresses systems and structures, not individual people’s guilt. Students sitting inside classrooms today were not alive when the major institutions that shape their lives were created, and no student who identifies as white should feel guilty that those institutions exist; however, they should be empowered to understand how and why ethnic Europeans combined together to be identified as a single “race.” Rather than reducing self-esteem, I would argue that such an understanding helps students build their identity.
When we teach history there is a POV attached. What life was like in the colonies, in the antebellum, in WWII. It all has a POV attached. That POV traditionally has been universally White and traditionally people with certain means. It isn't a universal perspective of what being an American is, it has been a somewhat glorified perspective of what being a White property-owning male is. That has always been a minority of America. Let's for a moment that CRT is wrong, how do we present the perspective of ordinary Blacks, Native Americans, women?
Or better, should we present a POV of these people? I sometimes get the impression some think we only should present the POV of the elite.
CRT is bad. After many face to face conversations with MLK, COH has posted about it several times from his position of first hand experience,Here is an article I found explaining CRT in the classroom.
The fear of multiple truths: On teaching about racism in a predominantly white school - Kappan Online
Why have so many K-12 educators been so resistant to the idea that students should understand multiple perspectives on history and current events? For its 2016 word of the year, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) chose “post-truth,” which it defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in...
For those that do not want to read it, some relevant sections:
Some critics have argued that CRT’s efforts to highlight and analyze the role of white supremacy in U.S. history, politics, and culture only serves to heighten racial divisions. However, a thoughtful use of CRT can, in fact, be a unifying force, providing opportunities for students of every race and ethnicity across the United States to wrestle with the ways in which racial oppression has held all of us back (Rose, 1996) and to understand that racism will only continue to hamper our collective progress as the world becomes more globalized and connected. Ultimately, the point of CRT isn’t to assign blame to one group of students but to enable students of all races and ethnicities to have informed, productive conversations about the forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, the society in which they live.
...Bringing multiple historical perspectives of U.S. history into the curriculum creates important opportunities for high-level thinking and analysis. It requires students to consider differing narratives, wrestle over competing views, and come to their own conclusions about the past and its influence on the present. Ideally, the classroom offers a safe place for such public debate, one where young people can learn to make and defend arguments and, in the process, develop a healthy ”respect for the equal standing of all citizens and common recognition that reasonable people can disagree” (Justice & Macleod, 2016, p. 5)....Even after the course was approved, the controversy didn’t end. Over the subsequent weeks, the course gained national attention in both the news and social media. Ironically, while the course was designed to stem the polarized nature of discussions surrounding race in the U.S., it attracted intensely polarized responses. The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by civil rights activist Robert Woodson (2020), who took issue with the course for promulgating a “lethal message of despair and distortion of history.” While Woodson’s contributions to the civil rights movement cannot be overstated, it’s important to recognize that CRT is not focused on individuals and their successes but on institutions. Although individuals from marginalized groups can avoid despair and express their agency within an oppressive system, they may be less able to freely and equally do so than others. Accomplishments such as falling poverty rates among Black Americans, which Woodson cites in his article, should absolutely be celebrated, but we should also ask how the poverty rates differ between Black and white Americans and what institutional factors make it more difficult for Black Americans to accumulate wealth. It is through examining institutional policies and their effects, which CRT encourages, that productive conversations about race can occur....While critics complain that CRT imposes guilt on white students and reduces their self-esteem, CRT addresses systems and structures, not individual people’s guilt. Students sitting inside classrooms today were not alive when the major institutions that shape their lives were created, and no student who identifies as white should feel guilty that those institutions exist; however, they should be empowered to understand how and why ethnic Europeans combined together to be identified as a single “race.” Rather than reducing self-esteem, I would argue that such an understanding helps students build their identity.
When we teach history there is a POV attached. What life was like in the colonies, in the antebellum, in WWII. It all has a POV attached. That POV traditionally has been universally White and traditionally people with certain means. It isn't a universal perspective of what being an American is, it has been a somewhat glorified perspective of what being a White property-owning male is. That has always been a minority of America. Let's for a moment that CRT is wrong, how do we present the perspective of ordinary Blacks, Native Americans, women?
Or better, should we present a POV of these people? I sometimes get the impression some think we only should present the POV of the elite.
No other opinions are valid.
One thing from my article I want to lift up, racism holds everyone back. The racists themselves are held back by their racism.
I also want to reemphasize the point CRT is not about individual guilt, though it is portrayed as such. The intent is not to say YOU are responsible for slavery (with YOU being the reader not the poster).
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Regarding the Marxist opposition to CRT, CRT evolved out of postmodernism, not Marxism. (I think CRT owes more to Michel Foucault than to Marx.) Adolph Reed at UPenn who has written on the problems with current antiracism efforts proportionality goals from a Marxist perspective, for example:
Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Marx, Race and Neoliberalism"
We've noted Reed's work previously, and I've been reading more lately, since he is far and away the most penetrating writer on issues related to race currently in America. This piece is particularly interesting. An excerpt: Race is a taxonomy...
leiterreports.typepad.com
Regarding what CRT actually is, here is a definition of CRT from James Lindsay, a mathematician who was part of the grievance study affair. Brett Weinstein, a biologist, who was in some controversy at Evergreen St. is another pretty honest critic. Weinstein I believe is a political progressive; Lindsay is libertarian-leaning IIRC. Both are critics of CRT, but from what I've seen, they try to honestly capture CRT philosophy by quoting and citing their actual texts, like in this article:
What Is Critical Race Theory?
I’ve been asked a million times for a short introduction to Critical Race Theory that hits the high points in a quick, straightforward way.
newdiscourses.com
That’s nice as an abstract thought. I agree with and support this as a goal. Anybody would. But the evidence is abubtantly clear that this is not what is happening in the current racial discussions. As I said CRT has no common definition. criticism isn’t a right wing thing, no matter many on this board try to make it so. Here is criticism from the moderate left legal sphere:
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals argues that critical race theory "turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative," and that "by repudiating reasoned argumentation, (critical race theorists) reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[9]
Former Judge Alex Kozinski, who served on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizes critical race theorists for raising "insuperable barriers to mutual understanding" and thus eliminating opportunities for "meaningful dialogue."[52]
I agree with both. I also agree with what the socialists said concerning that CRT repudiates MLK in B.S.‘s link above. That is not a good thing.
Pitting classes against one another as a political movement is as old as dirt. That is what CRT really is. Maybe the language of CRT is of recent vintage but that really isn’t what we are talking about are we? We all know that we can find language which couches CRT any in terms we want.Regarding the Marxist opposition to CRT, CRT evolved out of postmodernism, not Marxism. (I think CRT owes more to Michel Foucault than to Marx.) Adolph Reed at UPenn who has written on the problems with current antiracism efforts proportionality goals from a Marxist perspective, for example:
Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Marx, Race and Neoliberalism"
We've noted Reed's work previously, and I've been reading more lately, since he is far and away the most penetrating writer on issues related to race currently in America. This piece is particularly interesting. An excerpt: Race is a taxonomy...leiterreports.typepad.com
Regarding what CRT actually is, here is a definition of CRT from James Lindsay, a mathematician who was part of the grievance study affair. Brett Weinstein, a biologist, who was in some controversy at Evergreen St. is another pretty honest critic. Weinstein I believe is a political progressive; Lindsay is libertarian-leaning IIRC. Both are critics of CRT, but from what I've seen, they try to honestly capture CRT philosophy by quoting and citing their actual texts, like in this article:
What Is Critical Race Theory?
I’ve been asked a million times for a short introduction to Critical Race Theory that hits the high points in a quick, straightforward way.
You saying there is evidence that makes it "abubtantly[sic] clear" does not constitute evidence. In your issues with public schools, curriculum guides and teacher lesson plans would be evidence...and even those would have to be looked at on a case by case basis.
And, hell, you just may be right. Let's see it.
This argument allows you to move the goalpost all over the field, doesn't it?
Sorry, I meant 6. I just glanced at the release date on Apple podcasts, not realizing I was looking at 4.Hardcore History 66 – Supernova in the East V – Dan Carlin
It just seems like it’s been a year.
Here is an article I found explaining CRT in the classroom.
The fear of multiple truths: On teaching about racism in a predominantly white school - Kappan Online
Why have so many K-12 educators been so resistant to the idea that students should understand multiple perspectives on history and current events? For its 2016 word of the year, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) chose “post-truth,” which it defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in...
For those that do not want to read it, some relevant sections:
Some critics have argued that CRT’s efforts to highlight and analyze the role of white supremacy in U.S. history, politics, and culture only serves to heighten racial divisions. However, a thoughtful use of CRT can, in fact, be a unifying force, providing opportunities for students of every race and ethnicity across the United States to wrestle with the ways in which racial oppression has held all of us back (Rose, 1996) and to understand that racism will only continue to hamper our collective progress as the world becomes more globalized and connected. Ultimately, the point of CRT isn’t to assign blame to one group of students but to enable students of all races and ethnicities to have informed, productive conversations about the forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, the society in which they live.
...Bringing multiple historical perspectives of U.S. history into the curriculum creates important opportunities for high-level thinking and analysis. It requires students to consider differing narratives, wrestle over competing views, and come to their own conclusions about the past and its influence on the present. Ideally, the classroom offers a safe place for such public debate, one where young people can learn to make and defend arguments and, in the process, develop a healthy ”respect for the equal standing of all citizens and common recognition that reasonable people can disagree” (Justice & Macleod, 2016, p. 5)....Even after the course was approved, the controversy didn’t end. Over the subsequent weeks, the course gained national attention in both the news and social media. Ironically, while the course was designed to stem the polarized nature of discussions surrounding race in the U.S., it attracted intensely polarized responses. The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by civil rights activist Robert Woodson (2020), who took issue with the course for promulgating a “lethal message of despair and distortion of history.” While Woodson’s contributions to the civil rights movement cannot be overstated, it’s important to recognize that CRT is not focused on individuals and their successes but on institutions. Although individuals from marginalized groups can avoid despair and express their agency within an oppressive system, they may be less able to freely and equally do so than others. Accomplishments such as falling poverty rates among Black Americans, which Woodson cites in his article, should absolutely be celebrated, but we should also ask how the poverty rates differ between Black and white Americans and what institutional factors make it more difficult for Black Americans to accumulate wealth. It is through examining institutional policies and their effects, which CRT encourages, that productive conversations about race can occur....While critics complain that CRT imposes guilt on white students and reduces their self-esteem, CRT addresses systems and structures, not individual people’s guilt. Students sitting inside classrooms today were not alive when the major institutions that shape their lives were created, and no student who identifies as white should feel guilty that those institutions exist; however, they should be empowered to understand how and why ethnic Europeans combined together to be identified as a single “race.” Rather than reducing self-esteem, I would argue that such an understanding helps students build their identity.
When we teach history there is a POV attached. What life was like in the colonies, in the antebellum, in WWII. It all has a POV attached. That POV traditionally has been universally White and traditionally people with certain means. It isn't a universal perspective of what being an American is, it has been a somewhat glorified perspective of what being a White property-owning male is. That has always been a minority of America. Let's for a moment that CRT is wrong, how do we present the perspective of ordinary Blacks, Native Americans, women?
Or better, should we present a POV of these people? I sometimes get the impression some think we only should present the POV of the elite.
I don't know where all these people went to school, but all the "new black history" now being "taught for the first time" were taught to me in both high school and college. But they were taught by people who also understood that most white people weren't all that "privileged" either, and were not seeking to selectively "prove" any specific political point. They just taught. They demanded that their students think for themselves and respect others.
More mindless worthless snark from you.
You just against any idea you don't undersatnd - i.e. all ideas. So you make a joke of them. Avopids the "thought" part.
Your unexamined thoughts are not worth expressing.
Do better.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I'm giggling at the notion of Posner in 1997 being part of the "moderate Left." The nice thing about Posner was that he was hard to label, though. It's a testament to his foresight that he was thinking about this stuff 25 years ago. Can't wait to read the whole article. Thanks for the link.
Go start another “clever” thread pwning the libs, Floor. That’s your raison d’être, after all.
Oh, and Happy Mother’s Day.
My issue with this discussion in general is that I believe it's being politically weaponized by the right. It's being distorted and turned into something that no one would agree with and then held up as yet another example of the crazy of the liberal mindset.
It's brilliant political positioning because it plays on so many trigger points (racism, wokeness, etc) while allowing for the accuser to easily gaslight and distort it.
That's why the common social media response is 'if someone is criticizing CRT the first thing you do is ask them to define it'.
That being said, I have zero inside knowledge on what the course entails. Zero. However as a libtard, I'm serious when I say it it's about making white people guilty to the point that it forces white people to publicly apologize for being white....that's silly.
Which is why my cynicism leads me to believe this is more a right wing distortion spun by very bright political minds designed to fire up the base.
I firmly believe a historical point of view is absolutely critical for us.
My favorite philosophical classes were listening to opening court statements and forming a point of view, then having it changed after you listened to the defense.
Hell one of my favorite you tube channels is film theory, and that simply theories that present a different point of view of films that are different from the one you get by the storyteller (like how the Jedi were really the villains of star wars or how the joker was really the hero of the dark knight).
It enriches my understanding of the story by giving me context of why characters made the decisions that they did.
To me, that's what I believe the mission of CRT, especially the more that I get multiple povs on it (like what Marv posted).
And again - nothing of substance - just a snarky insult.
Well done - sort of.
My mom's no longer alive. She was thrown out of one hospital in March 2020 while suffering dementia because she did not have Covid - and the whole medical world had bought into the panic sold by The Democrats and CNN. They were waiting for thier little regional hospital in fly-over land to be overrun like NYC. And for 2,000,000 Americans to die from Covid - like some Ivory Tower British professor predicted. (He was only wrong by 330% so far, but the gap is shrinking every day so his sycophnats can cheer for more deaths so their political shenanigans won't feel so bad on their soul.) Neither ever happened. But they couldn't get rid of her fast enough. Instead, we had to try and find care for her overnight with zero help. Couldn't. Needed a negative Covid test. But couldn't get a test unless you had Covid symptoms. Catch 22 from The Smart Guys. Had to call EMT's who took her to another hospital - where they at least had enough compassion and common sense to admit her - where she died alone - because we could not visit her - because the medical world no longer felt it had the ability to deal with viruses - like they had for nearly 100 years - even though at the specific time, The Smart People could not even decide whether it was or was not airborne - see:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvcham...ization-coronavirus-airborne/?sh=1ad95023f1c5
And the use of Covid as a political tool - despite the harm - continues to this day, carried forward even by posters on this meaningless little message board.
But thanks anyway.
Your snark is at least entertaining to your mates.
Sorry to hear about your mother. I’m sure your family misses her, especially on days like this.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
You know that study was with no mitigation. Did we conduct mitigation? Simple question, did we have mitigation?
So sorry for the loss of your mother. I lost mine in 2008 to C-diff (which was an antibiotic reaction that many elderly were getting and dying from at the time) as she was a 16 year cancer survivor that had to go in from a relapse.
Anyway, there's not a stranger feeling than losing a parent. It humbles your mortality quickly.
So sorry you lost her.
CoH, your comment about a black student suddenly feeling disadvantaged by attending a CRT class as if never before having felt different really made me think.
I asked myself if, where, and under what circumstances would a black student believe he or she lives in a place where skin color doesn't matter.
I would like to believe there are places in our country where this could happen, but have my doubts.
As to Ben Carson and the millions of black folks who have succeeded in our great country, I would like to believe they could attend a CRT type class without withering on the vine.
I say CRT "type" class because just what constitutes CRT is subject to one's definition.
I mostly agree with you. Where we disagree is I think the focus of our education about race must be on overcoming our past, not perpetuating it. I think MLK’s message did the former and “CRT type” classes does the latter.
Last edited:
So there is no common definition, which would mean no common set of beliefs which means you hate them all?
i described what I dislike several times in the past months which is: Stereotyping individuals because of skin color and believing that we must teach more about and with more intensity the evils of slavery to change the future. This history might be relevant if we were debating the end of slavery, but we aren’t. Slavery, slaves, and slave owners have been gone for more than 150 years.
Last edited:
After being de-emphasized for over a century, perhaps it's time to put slavery in its proper place in our history rather than claiming it no longer matters.
Combine this discussion with the one on the Armenian Genocide where the argument was made that recognizing truth isn't important and I see a pattern. People aren't interested in anything true, just what makes them feel good about themselves.
15 cases of COVID will soon be zero. That's what I heard from one "expert".
Similar threads
