What does Critical Race Theory teach?

I agree, and I'm glad to hear you say that Kode, but those people think of and portray themselves as "progressives".

 

I want to think of myself as a genius. But wanting isn’t enough.

 

Obviously there are discrete acts of racism. But there are people who would call another person racist merely for declining to say that xyz is racist. It's the same kind of madness that infected the mobs in the French, Chinese, Cambodian and Russian revolutions.

 

See my answer above. I won't click on links to articles by the anti defamation league.

Here's why:

https://forward.com/opinion/510848/the-adl-has-lost-sight-of-its-mission-and-turned-partisan/

 

We all saw white supremacists march and chanting “Jews … will not … replace us”.

 

And?

 

Does that explain why the patron saint of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, was the only postbellum President to segregate the civil service and was also known as the President who resurrected the KKK? The monument to White Supremacist Stephen Douglas in "Progressive" Chicago, the Senate Office Building honoring racist Richard Russell and the statue of Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd in the Capitol were untouched by the Progressive Wokesters in 2020, but the Lincoln Memorial didn't escape the wrath of Progressives.
FDR, taught well by Woodrow Wilson to hate, targeted Jewish people. He was the Progressive who turned away the MS St Louis containing 900 Jewish would-be refugees, costing hundreds of lives. FDR and Breckenridge Long cooked Jewish refugee count to deny asylum to Jews trying to escape the Holocaust. By definition, Progressives are bigots with a healthy dose of hubris. Margaret Sanger is a perfect example. Some nasty words about certain segments of our society are attributed to Sanger, but actions, placing abortion mills in black neighborhoods, says all that needs to be said.
By any objective standard, the terms "progressive" and "liberal" are misnomers when used to characterize lefties of the past, lefties of the present and, in all likelihood, lefties of the future. Nothing is more important to them than raw power. Their favorite means to achieving that end is suppression of free speech. To them, their end justifies any means, even those that fly in the face of the Bill Of Rights. We've seen them transform the FBI into their own Secret Police, enforcers whose job is to silence dissent through brutal intimidation and by conspiring with like minded fascists who have nudged their social media platforms toward being more like socialist media.

Your definition of "progressive" is not supported by the facts ,,, but in my country, you are entitled to enjoy your misguided views without fear of having your residence invaded by the secret police, though, admittedly, home invasion by the secret police has become all too common during the current "progressive" regime.

 

Exactly right.

“Probably the most bracing aspect of Ira Katznelson's new history of the New Deal, Fear Itself, is his portrait of the marriage of progressive domestic policy and white supremacy. I knew the outlines of this stuff, but for a flaming commie like me, the extent of the embrace is hard to take:

Far more enduring was the New Deal's intimate partnership with those in the South who preached white supremacy. For this whole period -- the last in American history when public racism was legitimate in speech and action -- southern representatives acted not on the fringes but as an indispensable part of the governing political party.

It actually starts much earlier with Woodrow Wilson who forged a "composite of racism and progressive liberalism" which "came to dominate the Democratic Party, and, with it, the content and boundaries of social reform."
THE ATLANTIC, A History of Liberal White Racism, How bigotry enabled progressive domestic policies of the early 20th century, By Ta-Nehisi Coates, APRIL 18, 2013.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism/275113/

 

Many progressives are aware of this history. There is common ground wherever there is suspicion of the motives of Big Government.
The two party system tends to suppress good faith discussions of these issues. Solutions cannot be implemented so long as the focus is on the defense of political parties and the corrupt ruling political class that controls them. The inconvenient truth can set us all free -- again.

 

Yeah, we have to go back almost a century.

 

So, defining speech progressives disagree with as violence to justify attacks on the first Amendment in 2020 is going back a century? FBI conspiring with socialist media companies to silence voices that could be helpful to Conservative candidates in 2020 and 2022 is going back a century?
More recently, Progressives have launched attacks against Justice Clarence Thomas because, being black, he is limited to socialist thought. I guess progressives consider white conservatives infidels ,,, while conservative blacks are even worse ,,, in the eyes of progressives conservative blacks are considered apostates.
Fascinating that a cult that is firmly planted in the 7th century proudly identifies as "progressive" in 2023.

 

Come again? "Was progressive had was say did what of too”?

Let’s see you identify a “socialist” media company and show how/why it is “socialist”. You really don’t seem to know what it is.

WTF??????? Did you look under your bed today yet?

You’re going to have to do much better with English if you want to make any sense to anyone.

 

Critical Race Theory Turning Parents Into Unlikely Activists January 16, 2023



A new book details the experiences of parents nationwide who've take to the streets and courtrooms to protest the encroachment of Critical Race Theory in the nation's classrooms....

 

I disagree completely, with your characterizations, and I'll ignore your propensity to traffic in loaded language.

Okay, the argument that Woodrow Wilson was the only postbellum President to segregate the civil service is false. In fact, segregation was widely practiced in the United States during the 19th and early 20th century, and many presidents before Wilson supported segregation. Additionally, Wilson's support for segregation was not a defining characteristic of progressivism, as many progressives were opposed to segregation and fought for civil rights.

The claim that Wilson resurrected the KKK is also misleading. While it is true that the KKK experienced a resurgence during Wilson's presidency, it was largely due to factors outside of his control, such as the release of the film "The Birth of a Nation" which portrayed the KKK as heroic. Furthermore, Wilson actually spoke out against the KKK and supported anti-lynching legislation.

The argument about statues and monuments is a red herring. The fact that some statues remain does not mean that progressives are not concerned about issues of racial justice and equality. In fact, progressives have been at the forefront of movements to remove Confederate statues and monuments, which are symbols of white supremacy and racism.

Regarding FDR's actions towards Jewish refugees, it is important to understand the context in which those decisions were made. FDR faced significant opposition from both Congress and the American public to admitting Jewish refugees, and his policies were influenced by these factors as well as concerns about national security during wartime. While we can debate the merits of FDR's decisions, it is unfair to characterize him as someone who "hated" Jewish people.

The claim that progressives are bigots is a baseless and unfounded assertion. Progressives have long fought for civil rights, social justice, and equality for marginalized groups. The actions of individuals such as Margaret Sanger do not define progressivism as a whole, and it is important to understand the context and complexities of her beliefs and actions.

You mentioned Senator Robert Byrd and insinuated he was a 'white supremacist'. This is false. Senator Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK was some 50 something years prior to his passing in 2010. He apologized for his membership numerous times and was known for his advocacy of civil rights and his efforts to improve race relations in West Virginia. Insinuating that Byrd's past membership in the KKK as evidence of contemporary progressivism's connection to white supremacy is unfair and unfounded.

"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career, and reputation," Byrd wrote in his memoir of his KKK membership, "Child of the Appalachian Coalfields"

It's also rich and wrong to associate modern democrats with the KKK, , considering that, although in the days of long ago dems backed the KKK, they weren't 'liberal' by any means, they were nationalist/populist dixiecrats the kind of folks who now vote for Trump, and speaking of which, note that the predominant party of which members of the KKK are currently are all republicans.




All your references are events which occurred a century ago, and it is far more significant to evaluate modernity, and in modernity, it's white supremacists, on the whole, who support Trump (and no, don't bother mentioning a few rogue examples who voted for Gabbard, etc)


The argument that progressives prioritize power over free speech and the Bill of Rights is also unfounded. Progressives have been at the forefront of movements to protect civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to protest. While there may be individual cases of suppression of free speech, it is not a defining characteristic of progressivism as a whole. This whole argument of banning free speech is a right wing boogeyman. There are many cases of cancel culture on both sides of the spectrum.

Finally, the claim that the FBI has been transformed into a "secret police" by progressives is a baseless conspiracy theory. The FBI is a law enforcement agency tasked with protecting the United States from threats such as terrorism and organized crime. While there may be individual cases of abuse of power, there is no evidence to suggest that the FBI is being used as a tool of political suppression by progressives.

If anything, the exact opposite is true. It was Republicans who elected the most corrupt, unfit, criminal President in history, Donald Trump who can't even utter a compound sentence.

 

Golem -- get ahold of yourself .. CRT may teach many good and correct things .. .. that doesn't change the fact that it teaches an evil idology - .. one that you have overlooked - omitted - failed to address while running around claiming othrs live in a "disinformation echo chamber"

What it does not teach is "Equality" -- as these folks are the antithisis of equality .. equality of opportunity .. anything related to merit .. individual liberty.

What this garbage can left over from the extreme Nazi Feminist movement does teach is "Equality of Outcome" .. justified on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism... something Mao and others would be proud .. the woke joke .. which is all backslap pudd pull until the thought police bang down the door ..

Time to educate the masses on the dangers of this evil "Woke Joke" - something the Riddler would be proud of .. and Goblins of all sorts.

 

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that the monuments Progressive rioters vandalized and those they left unscathed in 2020 speaks volumes:

The monument to White Supremacist Stephen Douglas in "Progressive" Chicago, the Senate Office Building honoring racist Richard Russell and the statue of Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd in the Capitol were untouched by the Progressive Wokesters in 2020, but the Lincoln Memorial didn't escape the wrath of Progressives.

I will allow Stephen Douglas to use loaded language to describe who he was and, by extension, who Progressives known for preserving his legacy in contrast to that of Abraham Lincoln are.

"Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is, what shall be done with the free negro?" ~ Stephen A. Douglas
Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, Paul M. Angle (1958. “The Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858”, p.112, University of Chicago Press

"I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever." ~ Stephen A. Douglas

Lincoln-Douglas Debates (21 August 1858.

First Debate: Ottawa, Illinois - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)[nps.gov]

I would say, by his own words, that Stephen A. Douglas was a White Supremacist and that his legacy was endorsed by the progressive rioters who, in 2020, left his Memorial in Chicago unscathed but saw fit to vandalize the Lincoln Memorial in DC.

 

And we all see the THOUSANDS of Tik-Tok videos uploaded DAILY espousing hatred and violence towards white people. It is not surprising to find that the latest Rasmussen Poll indicated that 50% of black people do not believe it is ok to be white. It correlates with the staggering rise of racially motivated violent crime specifically targeted at white people. Progressive rhetoric is getting thousands of people killed and that number is going to do nothing but rise.

Here is a video by an Asian youtuber discussing the rise of open white hatred on Tik-Tok. He says that in his own community other minorities openly speak of their hatred towards whites and that the hate is becoming ubiquitous. He even admits that he once felt the same way until he was able to break the progressive mind virus.


If whites in power are training minorities to hate other whites, what happens to progressive whites when the white share of the population falls below 40% (expected to happen in my lifetime). The days of progressive whites being able to safely propagate hate with no consequences to themselves and their communities are swiftly coming to an end.

 

A protest over fake news. CRT is not in public primary education.

 

The link discusses CRT in public secondary education.

 

If there’s a rise in racially-motivated crime targeting white people, it’s the fault of white racists and systemic racism. Or do you think such an increase is due to a genetic hatred or racism in non-whites toward whites?

 

Tsk tsk, you 'simply pointed out'.. yadda yadda. No, you referred to Senator Byrd as the 'Exalted Cyclops' a characterization that begs for qualification if there ever were a statement that begged for qualification. You also referred to progressives as 'wokesters', a coined word with no real meaning other than to disparage.

What speaks volumes is your disingenuousness, your real motive for contextual omission. Clearly, you are not interested in truthful discourse.

You assert progressives were known for preserving the legacy of Stephen Douglas in contrast to that of Abraham Lincoln

Here, you are asserting that Stephen Douglas is a 'white supremacist' and imply that Abraham Lincoln was not a white supremist. But, here, you omit the fact that most white men of the era believed whites were superior to blacks, and the charged political significance of the concept of 'white supremacist' a modern concept, didn't really exist at the time. Not saying there wasn't racism in the south, i'm referring to men of the caliber of Douglas and Lincoln. The belief, by Douglas wasn't arising out of hatred, it was a sincere belief. Moreover, you also omitted a key fact in your 'contrast' statement which is the fact that Lincoln, himself, held similar views.

Oh yes, I'm sorry to inform you it is true. But, keep in mind the prevailing attitudes of the time. I'm just pointing out that if you hurl diatribes not based on historical context at Douglas, then you must do the same for Lincoln, to wit:

https://apnews.com/article/us-news-...ice-illinois-a23f377eb924b54bb039fc734065b5ea

Just inside the Statehouse hangs another revered depiction of an Illinois legend — and longtime Douglas rival — who expressed white supremacist views: Abraham Lincoln. The immense painting in the governor’s second-floor office depicts a Sept. 18, 1858, debate between the two men that opened with these words from Lincoln, who was vying for Douglas’ Senate seat and was still two years away from running for president:

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races. ... There is a physical difference between the white and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” --Abraham Lincoln

I will note that the above quote from the article makes the same logical fallacy you are making, applying the terms 'white supremacist' to Mssrs Douglas and Lincoln.

Moreover, in a open letter to the NYTimes Abraham Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley (in response to his NYT editorial), Friday, August 22, 1862
and Lincoln exclaimed that his reason for the civil war as NOT to 'free the slaves', he specifically stated that if he could hold the union together without freeing the slaves, he would have done so. In order to preserve the union, the ONLY reason he wanted to free the slaves was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves because blacks should be free.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?st=text

"...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

And so, where is your self-righteous indignation now?

In truth, you allow yourself to use loaded language, cherry picked facts ignoring the attitudes common during the postbellum era, and thus you engage in a logical fallacy called 'presentism'. Of course you are doing this because your diatribes against historical progressives given your contextual omissions are meant to imply or at the minimum you hope that such negativity will rub off on progressives today, or even imply that prevailing attitudes of the postbellum era are still prevalent, and don't deny it, you want people to believe that because you real attempt here is to forward a right wing agenda, and you will engage in loaded language, cherry picked facts, contextual historical omissions in order to do it, and you do this from arising your wellspring of hatred towards progressives. No, you can't deny it by asserting 'you are merely pointing out', you are doing a lot more than that as your reply reeks of it. Let's not kid ourselves. You don't like progressives, we get it. You can't help yourself. You have a lot of company, by the way, I encounter it a lot on this forum and elsewhere.

Presentism is the fallacy of judging historical figures or events by the standards of our own time, rather than in the context of the era in which they lived. It's important to understand that the attitudes and beliefs of people in the past were shaped by the cultural and social norms of their time, which can differ significantly from those of the present day.

In the case of Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, it's not accurate to judge their actions and beliefs solely based on contemporary standards of progressivism or conservatism. I say this because your reply reeks of self-righteous indignation. Doing so ignores the historical context in which they lived and worked, and can lead to an oversimplified or inaccurate understanding of their legacies.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the initial statement's characterization of "Wokester progressives" as favoring Douglas over Lincoln is not supported by historical evidence. As I mentioned earlier, many progressives today celebrate Lincoln as an important figure in the fight against racism and inequality, and recognize his role in advancing civil rights.

In short, while it's important to critically evaluate historical figures and events, it's essential to do so in a way that takes into account the historical context and avoids presentism. By understanding the complexities of the past, we can gain a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the world we live in today.

But, of course, it is clear that this is not something you are interested in.

Right?

Of course I'm right

 

You sure??

From your link...

One unlikely hero is Gabs Clark, a widowed low-income African-American mother of five children who had been living in a motel in Las Vegas.
Her high school-aged son, William, was in a local charter school which required a course called Sociology of Change. According to Clark, the course included an assignment that asked students “to list your identities, your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, your religion.”

Of course, if the above is remotely true, that is not CRT.

So, why post this link?

 

Ah, but it is CRT. And high school = secondary education. I suggest you read the rest of the link.

 

It does no such thing. Unless you believe, like DeSantis does, that teaching that racism exists in our society is evil.

Other than that it's just a framework that says, as the OP describes, that racism is not a consequence of individual prejudice, but something that is embedded in the system With that framework you can do what you will: call for violence, call for peace, call for communism, call for more democracy and equality... ANYTHING. But saying that CRT "teaches an evil ideology" is like saying that Quantum Physics teaches how to kill people with nuclear bombs. They give the framework for many things. What people do with the framework is not up to the framework. .

 

It's not CRT, unless one bastardizes what CRT is.
How is CRT related to sex orientation, gender, or religion?

critical race theory (CRT), intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.
Critical race theory | Definition, Principles, & Facts | Britannica