What I think is one of the most interesting aspects of CRT is that it focuses on the US and applies standards to the US that are not applied to any other country. Therefore it ignores the fact that the US (while far from perfect, and with many failures), is not as bad as it's portrayed.
Absolutely! Indeed, the left and their BLM/CRT adherents go out of their way to over-hype and over-inflate the negative aspects of our history and culture...of course ignoring their incredibly common and egregious contributions in that regard.
It's interesting that these folks talk a lot about "actual" history, as if anyone would complain about an dispassionate retelling of actual events, yet insist of a telling of history that is slanted in the way they think best.
For example, if CRT requires us to think of all "white" people as racist oppressors, then isn't it strange that hundreds of thousands of "racist oppressors" died in a nasty war that resulted in slavery being ended.
Of course this "actual history" also ignores the reality of black slave owners, native Americans owning slaves, and various other inconvenient realities.
Marshal... "their BLM/CRT adherents go out of their way to over-hype and over-inflate the negative aspects of our history and culture.."
I'm sorry... Do you think it's possible to overplay centuries of racism, oppression, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, rapes, false imprisonments, Red lining, denying educational opportunities, denying jobs, stealing land, stealing property , demonizing... On and on and on, by matter of national policy and national will, we were involved in great evil that harmed millions of lives. That killed and raped thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.. You do recognize how strange that seems to say that we're somehow downplaying our nation's history by pointing out these very sober realities? Or that pointing these realities out is overplaying The reality of history?
And Craig, you fucking moron, no one is saying that all white people are racist oppressors. That's not what CRT teaches.
For the love of God and all that is good, If you don't understand something don't talk about it. Or at least ask questions and don't portray yourself as an ignorant ally of actual racists and KKK types.
Craig... "If crt requires us to think of all white people as racist oppressors..."
Why do you say if? Why do you bring this question up? Has someone who told you that this is what CRT teaches? Do you recognize that CRT does not teach this?
Before making a statement like this which is just passing on gossip and false narratives, why not educate yourself? Why not learn for yourself if CRT says that, if that's what someone is telling you.
Here's a hint, if it sounds Like it's probably not true, it's probably not true. In this case, it's not true.
Here. Read for yourself. Educate yourself. Look for yourself and see that CRT does not teach that. Don't believe false narratives just because someone tells you them. Especially if it's a white person or a conservative person person. Conservative people have proven themselves Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions.
"Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."
Because, like most rational people, I differentiate the ways I express myself depending on how sure I am of what I'm saying. In this case, I've heard conflicting information, and therefore I want to be clear that I was using a hypothetical. Much like you do when you say things like "If you are saying that we should rape puppies...". Although, I'm actually trying to leave open the possibility that I'm wrong.
"Why do you bring this question up? Has someone who told you that this is what CRT teaches?"
It's something I've seen from comments of folks Like Kendi and DiAngelo.
"Do you recognize that CRT does not teach this?"
Do you realize how absurd this claim is?
1. CRT is inanimate and doesn't actually "teach" anything. 2. I've seen quotes from many actual human proponents of CRT who say things like this enough times to suspect that many of the proponents of CRT do espouse something very similar to my hypothetical. 3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?
"Before making a statement like this which is just passing on gossip and false narratives, why not educate yourself?"
Before making a broad sweeping claim of fact such as the above, why not provide proof of that claim of fact.
"Why not learn for yourself if CRT says that, if that's what someone is telling you."
I'm operating from quotes by DiANgelo, Kenndi and their acolytes.
"Here's a hint, if it sounds Like it's probably not true, it's probably not true. In this case, it's not true. Here. Read for yourself. Educate yourself. Look for yourself and see that CRT does not teach that. Don't believe false narratives just because someone tells you them."
Please provide proof of the above claim (that you hypothetical is a "false narrative") or that no high profile proponent of CRT has said anything similar to my hypothetical.
"Especially if it's a white person or a conservative person person."
Well, the first qualifier knocks you out from consideration. The second is quite the unsupported broad brush of a large group of people. But, since the second is from you (a white person), I guess I should just ignore it based on your advice.
"Conservative people have proven themselves Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions."
Again with the unsupported, broad brush, claims.
"Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans." https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory"
Wow, after all your bullshit about not listening to white people, you throw out Britannica as a source.
I'll continue to ignore white folks like you, and keep listening to black voices.
"I'm sorry... Do you think it's possible to overplay centuries of racism, oppression, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, rapes, false imprisonments, Red lining, denying educational opportunities, denying jobs, stealing land, stealing property , demonizing... On and on and on, by matter of national policy and national will, we were involved in great evil that harmed millions of lives."
1. Yes. 2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view. 3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party.
"That killed and raped thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.. You do recognize how strange that seems to say that we're somehow downplaying our nation's history by pointing out these very sober realities?"
Not so much "downplaying" as taking it out of context, and ignoring the rest of te world's role in many of those actions.
"Or that pointing these realities out is overplaying The reality of history?"
Only if they're taken out of context,overemphasized relative to the balance of world history, or applied differently to different countries/societies/nations/peoples.
"And Craig, you fucking moron, no one is saying that all white people are racist oppressors."
And Dan that's quite the unsupported claim of fact. Given your lack of support and your general whiteness, I'll simply ignore what you have to say.
"That's not what CRT teaches. For the love of God and all that is good, If you don't understand something don't talk about it. Or at least ask questions and don't portray yourself as an ignorant ally of actual racists and KKK types."
I can and do ask questions of people who are more trustworthy than you, and I'm not.
Dan: "Don't listen to what people tell you especially if it's a white person."
Also Dan: Listen to me and what I tell you abut what "CRT teaches".
I posted a link to a couple of really smart black voices talking about CRT, I suspect that Dan hasn't or won't take the time to listen to those black voices. If, by some miracle he did, then I suspect that he would be unable or unwilling to seriously engage with what they've said and provide proof that they are "Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions.".
Note to Dan,
Since I'm an adult, and don't see the need to nitpick typos, I want to be clear that any typos in my quotes of your words were there in your original comment. I always copy/paste your quotes and I never edit them to correct your typos, syntax, or grammar.
Craig... "why not provide proof of that claim of fact."
"I'm operating from quotes by DiANgelo, Kenndi and their acolytes."
But, and follow closely here, they have not said this.
Let me repeat myself.
They have not said this.
You have not provided any claims any quotes from them where they said this and you won't because they have not said this.
Do you understand the point?
They. Have. Not. Said. This.
These are not their words. These are YOUR words. Do you understand the difference between what you're saying recognize that they did not say that?
Come on!
If you want to provide a "where they said this, you can clear yourself. But, once again, they have not said this period this is stupidly false. Do you understand that reality?
Now, if you want to exonerate yourself and show that I'm wrong, ALL you have to do is Provide the quote where they said this.
But you can't because they didn't.
Lord, save us from your white conservative followers!
"2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view."
WHO specifically is saying racism or slavery only applies to the US?
Factual answer: NO ONE. NOT A SINGLED person and thus, your nonsense point is a God damned lie. You can't point to anyone saying that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US, can you? Can you be honest enough to admit that?
Come on, reason like an adult and admit when you've made a ridiculous claim/suggestion.
"3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party."
Of course, that's just not factually correct. Racism, slavery, sexism, misogyny, oppression... our nation's history is full of it from all political parties. Are you seriously not aware of this?
The loose groups, however, that has most consistently stood against these things have been those oppressed and their allies amongst progressive-minded people. By definition.
Embrace a progressive, liberal, grace-full heart and mind, Craig. And begin by admitting the false claims and misrepresentations you're making. That would be a great first step.
Craig lied, saying, "Also Dan: Listen to me and what I tell you abut what "CRT teaches"."
Of course, I quite literally did the opposite. I pointed to the actual advocates of CRT AND not only that, you lying sack of shit, I pointed out the reality that YOU made up a claim that is NOT what CRT advocates say. Now, I gave you an opportunity to either provide evidence that they said that OR to be honest and admit that they have NOT said that and you made a false claim.
Instead of humbly admitting your error, you've doubled down, repeating a false claim about what I didn't say while insisting you got your idea from what they have said IN SPITE of the reality that they have never said this.
You're a liar whose been caught in your lies. There's nowhere to go but to be an adult, admit your mistake, apologize and move on.
That, or childishly and evilly continue down the road of false claims and unsupported allegations.
So, above we have links to evidence which, if not proves (it does, actually) that CRT advocates believe all white people are racist, it certainly points to that premise as being incredibly likely. Of course, I did link to two who are blatant about it, but the rest aren't much more subtle. But dim bulbs like Dan (or is he just flat out lying) pretend that if one doesn't use specific words, then one isn't saying it. Honest people don't act like Dan, nor do even marginally intelligent people. Dan's simply a white-guilted hater of his own race...which makes him a racist as much as all his support for racist groups like BLM and CRT advocates.
OK, I just spent about 30 minutes listening listening to the first part of your link in this post. I had to listen to the Podcast, because they do not write down the transcript so that I can read it. As a note, I generally prefer to read what people are saying rather than listen or watch a video. In listening or watching a video, one can miss some of what they're saying. In reading it, there it is and black-and-white. A written reference is always better for me and I think this is reasonable
I had to listen for 30 minutes before they even BEGAN to critique CRT. They spent 30 minutes talking about how they were GOING to critique it and trying to paint CRT advocates with a marxist brush to better scare stupid white people into being afraid of CRT... before they even got around to finally saying ANYTHING about CRT.
The first things they started saying about CRT was There interpretations of what motivated sea CRT advocates and what what they were advocating. They weren't saying what CRT advocates actually said. They were reading into what they think CRT advocates meant and were motivated by. I. At that point after wasting a 1/2 an hour of my life, I gave up.
If you can't cite where CRT advocates are saying what you misrepresent them to say, then admit it and withdraw the charge.
Or quote them and prove me wrong.
But you won't because you can't because they didn't.
This is slander, grade school gossip and demonization of black CRT advocates based NOT on anythingthey said but YOUR misrepresentation.
It's Not something that the CRT advocates are saying, but surely something the KKK people will appreciate and rally behind you on.
One thing I'd LOVE for you, Marshal and Stan and other allies of racists to explain is...
WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you object to in CRT and don't think should be taught to people?
Is it that we have had serious systemic problems of racism and oppression of a race of people in our history?
Is it that we should be aware of the ongoing repercussions of the systemic racism built into our policies historically?
Is it that race is a social construct, not a biological one?
Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?
Or is it you dispute the notion that racist policies were NOT part of our history? or one of these other ideas?
These ideas are solid and observable reality, so I can't imagine a rational person not recognizing them, but maybe that's the problem.
You tell me.
Or, if it's some nonsense like "I object to CRT teaching that all whites are intentionally racist oppressors..." THEN provide the quote where ANY CRT advocate is actually teaching that.
Because they aren't, contrary to what you and Stan and others say, in spite of reality, in spite of your not being able to support such nonsense claims.
But in terms of what CRT advocates are ACTUALLY saying, what do you object to? Please provide the quote.
Because what I suspect is happening here is, because you all find yourselves in conservative bubbles where nonsense false claims get passed around like cheap candy, you all are not hearing what actual CRT advocates are saying, and instead are hearing bastardized, demonized false misrepresentations of what they're saying. And then, when you DO actually read what the CRT advocates are actually saying, you are reading INTO what they said something that isn't actually there.
Like your and Stan's false claims that "crt requires us to think of all white people as racist oppressors" which, once again, they have not said.
"But, and follow closely here, they have not said this. Let me repeat myself. They have not said this. You have not provided any claims any quotes from them where they said this and you won't because they have not said this. Do you understand the point? They. Have. Not. Said. This. These are not their words. These are YOUR words. Do you understand the difference between what you're saying recognize that they did not say that? Come on! If you want to provide a "where they said this, you can clear yourself. But, once again, they have not said this period this is stupidly false. Do you understand that reality? Now, if you want to exonerate yourself and show that I'm wrong, ALL you have to do is Provide the quote where they said this. But you can't because they didn't. Lord, save us from your white conservative followers!"
1. I literally floated a hypothetical "if/then" statement. 2. I never "quoted" or claimed I was quoting anyone. 3. If you aren't going to provide quotes and links when you refer to what someone has "said", then why would anyone else? 4. You repeated yourself an absurdly ridiculous amount of times, especially since you're arguing against a straw man. 5. You're white, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Yes it does. It says that I can put history in context and balance things.
"2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view." WHO specifically is saying racism or slavery only applies to the US?"
Really, of all of the CRT proponents and disciples, which one has ever written about any country besides that US? Hell, most of them don't know that the US didn't even exist prior to @1791. Please show me the scholarly treatise that applies CRT to any other country, I'll wait.
"Factual answer: NO ONE. NOT A SINGLED person and thus, your nonsense point is a God damned lie. You can't point to anyone saying that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US, can you?"
Please provide me the quote where I said "that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US". I'll wait.
"Can you be honest enough to admit that? Come on, reason like an adult and admit when you've made a ridiculous claim/suggestion. "
I can admit that you've been arguing against a straw man. But you're welcome to answer the questions asked.
"3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party." Of course, that's just not factually correct. Racism, slavery, sexism, misogyny, oppression... our nation's history is full of it from all political parties. Are you seriously not aware of this?"
OK, let's just ignore the fact that there is one modern political party that is most closely associated with placing many of those things into law, and enforcing those laws. Of course, people from all political parties have exhibited those flaws at one point or another, but that's not what I said.
"Of course, I quite literally did the opposite. I pointed to the actual advocates of CRT AND not only that, you lying sack of shit, I pointed out the reality that YOU made up a claim that is NOT what CRT advocates say. Now, I gave you an opportunity to either provide evidence that they said that OR to be honest and admit that they have NOT said that and you made a false claim. Instead of humbly admitting your error, you've doubled down, repeating a false claim about what I didn't say while insisting you got your idea from what they have said IN SPITE of the reality that they have never said this. You're a liar whose been caught in your lies. There's nowhere to go but to be an adult, admit your mistake, apologize and move on. That, or childishly and evilly continue down the road of false claims and unsupported allegations. Save yourself. Admit your error. Repent."
More white liberal bullshit. The reality is that you've taken it upon your white, liberal, self to educate others about CRT, and you've certainly not limited your rantings to simply quoting the proponents and their acolytes.
"OK, I just spent about 30 minutes listening listening to the first part of your link in this post. I had to listen to the Podcast, because they do not write down the transcript so that I can read it. As a note, I generally prefer to read what people are saying rather than listen or watch a video. In listening or watching a video, one can miss some of what they're saying. In reading it, there it is and black-and-white."
I understand, you expect everyone else to cater to your preferences and if they don't you'll just give up. That's good to know.
"A written reference is always better for me and I think this is reasonable I had to listen for 30 minutes before they even BEGAN to critique CRT."
Again, I understand that you think it reasonable that everyone else on the planet does what's "better for you", as opposed to accommodating yourself to others.
"They spent 30 minutes talking about how they were GOING to critique it and trying to paint CRT advocates with a marxist brush to better scare stupid white people into being afraid of CRT... before they even got around to finally saying ANYTHING about CRT. The first things they started saying about CRT was There interpretations of what motivated sea CRT advocates and what what they were advocating. They weren't saying what CRT advocates actually said. They were reading into what they think CRT advocates meant and were motivated by."
Excellent, you are opposed to introductions as well as to anything not written down.
"I. At that point after wasting a 1/2 an hour of my life, I gave up. If you can't cite where CRT advocates are saying what you misrepresent them to say, then admit it and withdraw the charge. Or quote them and prove me wrong. But you won't because you can't because they didn't. This is slander, grade school gossip and demonization of black CRT advocates based NOT on anythingthey said but YOUR misrepresentation. It's Not something that the CRT advocates are saying, but surely something the KKK people will appreciate and rally behind you on."
Well done. You admit that you didn't actually listen to the entire podcast, and are prepared to pass judgement on what was done and said during the part you didn't actually listen to. All because it wasn't convenient for you.
Thanks for proving your point. I shouldn't listen to white people.
Marshal, I looked through the 1st 2 of your links. As is the case with Craig and Stan and all of your types, you're pointing to people who hate CRT and show me what they say about what CRT evidence say. I don't give a damn what your whitewashed tombs have to say.
Just provide the quotes FROM CRT advocates where they say what you claim..
Quit sending me to people who don't like CRT ERT as evidence that CRT is saying things that you cannot support. Quit making God damned false claims. Repent you damn sick you damn sin sick soul. If you can't provide the quote retract the God damned statement you damned liars.
"One thing I'd LOVE for you, Marshal and Stan and other allies of racists to explain is... WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you object to in CRT and don't think should be taught to people?"
Excellent question. Unfortunately, you've decreed that I (as a white conservative) have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic. Why would I give you an answer that you've already dismissed before it's been written?
"Is it that we have had serious systemic problems of racism and oppression of a race of people in our history?"
No.
"Is it that we should be aware of the ongoing repercussions of the systemic racism built into our policies historically?"
No.
"Is it that race is a social construct, not a biological one?"
To some degree yes. As well as the fact that all of the ills you point out have been present in all societies throughout history.
"Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?"
No, it's the fact that every work of CRT that I've seen has ignored the fact that these things have persisted throughout history, and ignore the fact that there are countries with a much more significant history of racism, than the US.
"Or is it you dispute the notion that racist policies were NOT part of our history? or one of these other ideas?"
Impressive, Dan now refuses to consider the Truth of what people that he believes "hate" CRT have to say. He's not interested in whether the objections are True, as long as he can brush them away because they "hate CRT".
Hell, he's even prepared to tell the black voices that they're wrong and he's right.
I suspect the problem here is white fragility. You' all can't hear an honest discussion of the reality of racism and not feel like you're under attack and assume that they're calling you racist. Look at how hard though you are working on the side of racists!
Craig, THIS is why I say that many modern conservatives have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to understanding people outside their little bubbles...
"Impressive, Dan now refuses to consider the Truth of what people that he believes "hate" CRT have to say. He's not interested in whether the objections are True, as long as he can brush them away because they "hate CRT".
Hell, he's even prepared to the black voices that they're wrong and he's right."
Impressive. Dan did not say ANY of that and Dan does not think ANY of that, and yet, Craig reached this conclusion IN SPITE of Dan never saying or thinking any of this.
NOW, do you see why I want you to produce the quote(s) where CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors?
It's because you read words and reach conclusions that the words don't support. You (collectively) regularly read INTO our words that which we did not say and do not think.
The point in getting you to quote PRECISELY what we/they said to make you think this is so you can see that it's literally NOT in our words and that you're literally reading INTO our words something that isn't there.
Have the integrity now to say, "I can see no words from CRT advocates who say anything like this..."
There is no shame in admitting you messed up. There IS shame in being confronted with the facts of your false claims and STILL to be too proud to admit the error.
Dan... "Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?"
Craig... "No, it's the fact that every work of CRT that I've seen has ignored the fact that these things have persisted throughout history, and ignore the fact that there are countries with a much more significant history of racism, than the US."
So, in a discussion about racism and oppression IN THE US, the advocates of CRT did not discuss racism in other places. And you find that odd? Something that would cause you to dismiss CRT, just because they did not talk about racism and oppression in OTHER countries?
(As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that this is more a case of you not ever noticing them talking about racism elsewhere, moreso than them never discussing it. But regardless, "failing" to take on points unrelated to a thesis is not a failure of the thesis.
DO you suspect that they would deny racism elsewhere? Of course, they wouldn't. It's just not part of their theory and that YOU personally WISH they had talked about racism elsewhere (which may or may not be instructive) is not in any way to discredit the points they actually ARE making.
The CRT advocates do not live to fulfill your white wishes or make you happy with their argument by changing their argument to some scope beyond their argument.
Craig... " Unfortunately, you've decreed that I (as a white conservative) have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic."
You almost certainly have nothing AUTHORITATIVE to teach on the subject, if you're as ignorant on it as you appear to be. However, it IS worthwhile for you to clarify what you THINK CRT means and WHY you think it means that and to answer the question, "Did CRT advocates say this OR is it something I think, IN SPITE of them not saying that?"
These are all reasonable clarifications for you, as a white person apparently ignorant of CRT to answer.
I think in answering it, you will see the views you hold are held NOT because of what the CRT advocates are saying, but because of what opponents of CRT are filling your head with. You appear to be the victim of a dis/misinformation campaign and getting the record straight is always a good thing.
For my part, I am not speaking FOR CRT advocates. I'm merely noting that they didn't say something that you, Stan and Marshal have all falsely claimed that they have said.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Why not make it right?
And for what it's worth, when you're a conservative on a conservative website making comments that OTHER conservatives may agree with... EVEN IF you're couching it in the "IF CRT advocates are saying...," it is still misleading with the potential intent to pass on MORE disinformation.
Rhetorical questions in the hands of the ignorant and those with an agenda can be dangerous.
A quick look at Marshal's MSN link shows that the person speaking, Hill, is saying that all white people are CONNECTED TO racism, not that all white people are racist oppressors.
There's that difference.
There's also this:
Another Twitter user asked if Hill was Marxist, to which he responded that he is "neither a Marxist nor a Critical Race Theorist."
That is, Marshal's "proof" that CRT advocates are teaching that all white people are racist oppressors is from someone who 1. Didn't say that. At all and, 2. IS NOT A CRT advocate.
"I suspect the problem here is white fragility. You' all can't hear an honest discussion of the reality of racism and not feel like you're under attack and assume that they're calling you racist. Look at how hard though you are working on the side of racists!"
I don't need to suspect that you are 100% wrong. It seems like the folks who label any disagreement as "hate", and who won't engage with those who disagree are the ones that seem fragile.
"Impressive. Dan did not say ANY of that and Dan does not think ANY of that, and yet, Craig reached this conclusion IN SPITE of Dan never saying or thinking any of this."
Really, that's quite astounding. I'm pretty sure that you decided that the black voices on the podcast that you didn't finish were wrong, and that they weren't able to do what they set out do do, despite having not listened to the entire thing. If you are willing to dismiss them, without having heard the entirety of their presentation, than you clearly don;t care if their points are True or not. Read your own words. Anyone who doesn't uncritically buy every thing the CRT acolytes (at least the few that you agree with) "hates" CRT and is "reading into" everyone else. Does that sound like someone who has investigated any of the claims made by those who question CRT, and proven those specific claims to be false? Or does it sound like someone who's pre committed to CRT and who's reflexively attacking anyone who doesn't share your zeal?
"NOW, do you see why I want you to produce the quote(s) where CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors?"
This is interesting, because I never actually said "CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors". Maybe if you read what I actually wrote, and respond to what I actually said, things would go more smoothly. But you'll stick to your straw man, because beating it makes you feel powerful.
"It's because you read words and reach conclusions that the words don't support. You (collectively) regularly read INTO our words that which we did not say and do not think. The point in getting you to quote PRECISELY what we/they said to make you think this is so you can see that it's literally NOT in our words and that you're literally reading INTO our words something that isn't there. Have the integrity now to say, "I can see no words from CRT advocates who say anything like this..." There is no shame in admitting you messed up. There IS shame in being confronted with the facts of your false claims and STILL to be too proud to admit the error."
Your confusion lies in thinking that my unwillingness to go back through months of tweets/social media posts/articles/etc by DiAngelo and Kkendi and their acolytes, means anything more than acknowledging that my job is more important than your bullshit.
"So, in a discussion about racism and oppression IN THE US, the advocates of CRT did not discuss racism in other places. And you find that odd?"
Yes, I do.
1. Because either CRT explains all racism in all cultures, or it doesn't. If it's not applied across other cultures, it hasn't been subjected to enough scrutiny to draw conclusions about it's explanatory power.
2. Because the US (as a political entity) didn't arise in a vacuum, and to try to artificially separate the US from the rest of history and apply a different standard seems absurd.
3. Everything I've seen from social scientists discussing CRT is that CRT posits race as the only/primary factor that explains differences in outcomes between "racial groups". This seems short sighted at best.
"Something that would cause you to dismiss CRT, just because they did not talk about racism and oppression in OTHER countries?"
Asking this question again, when I've already pointed out why I'm not inclined to answer seems incredibly stupid, or a great example of poor reading comprehension.
"(As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that this is more a case of you not ever noticing them talking about racism elsewhere, moreso than them never discussing it."
Why do you interject idiotic bullshit like this? It's just your prejudices spewing out of your keyboard.
"But regardless, "failing" to take on points unrelated to a thesis is not a failure of the thesis. DO you suspect that they would deny racism elsewhere?"
No, but failing to examine all of the possible evidences regarding racism or taking the US out of the context of the history of the world, is guaranteed to produce findings that are slanted. For example, attributing anything that happened on the eastern seaboard of North America prior to @ 1791 to the US is simply ridiculous.
But, let's play that game, if there is going to be an accurate study of racism, slavery, etc in the area that would later become the US between 1619 and 1791, then wouldn't it stand to Reason that there would be studies of ALL of the cultures on the landmass at that time?
"Of course, they wouldn't. It's just not part of their theory and that YOU personally WISH they had talked about racism elsewhere (which may or may not be instructive) is not in any way to discredit the points they actually ARE making. The CRT advocates do not live to fulfill your white wishes or make you happy with their argument by changing their argument to some scope beyond their argument."
It's less about my wishes, and more abut the reality that treating what happened in the US between 1619, and the late 1800's as if it's all one monolithic culture simply ignores the reality of the history of North America.
Let's try this question for you to ignore. Do you acknowledge that the practice of redlining was 100% the responsibility of that icon of the modern progressive movement FDR?
"You almost certainly have nothing AUTHORITATIVE to teach on the subject, if you're as ignorant on it as you appear to be."
1. I've never claimed to be an authority on the topic, nor have I vehemently insisted that my hunches about CRT and who speaks exclusively for CRT Orthodoxy. 2. I made one hypothetical "if/then" statement, nothing more, nothing less. 3. You also have nothing authoritative to add, which makes me wonder why you're acting like you do. 4. If you're going to insist that I not listen to white people, then stop insisting that I listen to you, and stop bitching about the black voices I do listen to.
"However, it IS worthwhile for you to clarify what you THINK CRT means and WHY you think it means that and to answer the question, "Did CRT advocates say this OR is it something I think, IN SPITE of them not saying that?" These are all reasonable clarifications for you, as a white person apparently ignorant of CRT to answer."
No, those are questions that you think I should answer, yet you've already prejudged my answers before I've given them. Therefore I see no reason to waste a bunch of time, posting something that you've already decided is wrong.
"I think in answering it, you will see the views you hold are held NOT because of what the CRT advocates are saying, but because of what opponents of CRT are filling your head with."
1. I don't care what you think when you make this sort of bullshit up. 2. Unless you can prove that "opponents of CRT" are 100% wrong in everything they say, then this makes no sense. 3. If "CRT" is "teaching" something that is objectively false, while that opponents are countering with something that is objectively True, why would I listen to falsehood over Truth? 4. Given the fact that you haven't actually addressed any specific claims being made by "opponents" or demonstrated those claims to be objectively false, I see no reason to accept your broad generalizations as anything but your prejudice.
"You appear to be the victim of a dis/misinformation campaign and getting the record straight is always a good thing."
False. I am someone who hasn't taken the time to delve deeply into the subject, and who isn't trying to speak authoritatively on the subject. You do understand what a hypothetical "if/then" statement is, don't you? But your assumptions driven by your prejudices are always amusing.
"For my part, I am not speaking FOR CRT advocates. I'm merely noting that they didn't say something that you, Stan and Marshal have all falsely claimed that they have said."
Which seems to literally define speaking for them. As for me, I haven't made any claims about what anyone has said, therefore accusing me of making "false claims" is in itself a false claim.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Why not make it right? And for what it's worth, when you're a conservative on a conservative website making comments that OTHER conservatives may agree with... EVEN IF you're couching it in the "IF CRT advocates are saying...," it is still misleading with the potential intent to pass on MORE disinformation. Rhetorical questions in the hands of the ignorant and those with an agenda can be dangerous."
If you're not going to avoid bearing false witness, why would you hold me to a standard you don't hold.
Wow, you really dug deep and provided all sorts of context there.
Or you could shut up, and I could spend my time listening to what black voices have to say on the topic. Instead I get you, a white liberal, spewing bullshit.
Craig... "Do you acknowledge that the practice of redlining was 100% the responsibility of that icon of the modern progressive movement FDR?"
No. Because that's just not the reality. FDR may have had his role in it, but red lining happened At the hand of conservative bankers and policy makers across the nation.
This IS a good example of the systemic racism put into place by white policymakers across the nation that have had long-lasting negative impacts for black people and real costs to generational wealth lasting to today. Precisely the sorts of systemic racism that CRT warns about and precisely what racists and their useful idiot allies are fighting to support when they attack CRT.
Why are you so dubious of the warriors fighting against racism and injustice?
Craig... "Which seems to literally define speaking for them. As for me, I haven't made any claims about what anyone has said, therefore accusing me of making "false claims" is in itself a false claim."
[Note: Dan saying, but they have not said that... is speaking for them, not just noting a false claim/suggestion. According to Craig.]
Also Craig... "It's interesting that these folks talk a lot about "actual" history, as if anyone would complain about an dispassionate retelling of actual events, yet insist of a telling of history that is slanted in the way they think best."
"THESE FOLKS" yet they "INSIST OF A TELLING OF HISTORY that is SLANTED..."
That sounds to me that you are PRECISELY making a literal claim about them, and a negative and unsupported claim.
ALSO Craig... "2. I've seen quotes from many actual human proponents of CRT who say things like this enough times to suspect that many of the proponents of CRT do espouse something very similar to my hypothetical."
You've "Seen quotes from ... proponents of CRT" who "say things LIKE this... " that you "suspect many proponents do espouse" it (that CRT is saying all white people must be viewed as racist oppressors.)
You ARE speaking for them and intimating - WITHOUT A SINGLE QUOTE to support your stupidly false claim - that they believe precisely what you're suggesting they believe. So, stop playing coy. We SEE that you are setting up the suggestion that CRT is advocating things that you can not support.
This is just more typical Craig, vague intimations and suggestions that you toy with the idea that "I didn't say that..." while clearly suggesting it. It is a way to slander and demonize and precisely the strategy of actual white racists. It's what they did to King and the Civil Rights movement when we were children and it's what racists and their allies are continuing to do today.
Ironically, your vague accusations and slander are precisely the evidence that many black folk see as evidence that so many white people ARE still invested in racism, by your attacks, demonizations, slander.
ALL I've been saying is that IF they didn't say it, DON'T SUGGEST that they did. IF you're going to directly hint that you suspect it's what they believe, then be a grown up adult and support your argument.
This is just lazy man's cowardly racism. A soft racism that tries to be respectable but we can see what you're doing.
Stop it. Support your claim or stop making these vague allegations.
Craig... "3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?"
It's not a paraphrase to note, "UM... they don't say that." It's literally noting the reality that THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and your accusations and slanders are just more racist-allied attacks.
Quit pretending to "listen to black voices" when you're only finding excerpts of voices that agree with your unsupported biases and unfounded opinions.
Again: ALL I'm noting is that, IN SPITE of the notion that you suspect many DO believe what you said, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and if you can't support it, then withdraw the suggestion.
"That sounds to me that you are PRECISELY making a literal claim about them, and a negative and unsupported claim."
Well, the 1619 project literally trumpets the fact that it is not actual history but a slanted version of history intended to influence people.
"You've "Seen quotes from ... proponents of CRT" who "say things LIKE this... " that you "suspect many proponents do espouse" it (that CRT is saying all white people must be viewed as racist oppressors.) You ARE speaking for them and intimating - WITHOUT A SINGLE QUOTE to support your stupidly false claim - that they believe precisely what you're suggesting they believe."
No, I'm actually not doing that at all.
1. My initial statement was a hypothetical if/then statement, it was NOT a claim of any specific person making any specific statement. 2. My follow up was that I've seen quotes that suggest or leave the impression that justify my hypothetical if/then statement. 3. I phrased my comments as I did because I didn't and don't have time to dig through mountains of material to find the quotes.
"So, stop playing coy. We SEE that you are setting up the suggestion that CRT is advocating things that you can not support. This is just more typical Craig, vague intimations and suggestions that you toy with the idea that "I didn't say that..." while clearly suggesting it. It is a way to slander and demonize and precisely the strategy of actual white racists. It's what they did to King and the Civil Rights movement when we were children and it's what racists and their allies are continuing to do today. Ironically, your vague accusations and slander are precisely the evidence that many black folk see as evidence that so many white people ARE still invested in racism, by your attacks, demonizations, slander. ALL I've been saying is that IF they didn't say it, DON'T SUGGEST that they did. IF you're going to directly hint that you suspect it's what they believe, then be a grown up adult and support your argument. This is just lazy man's cowardly racism. A soft racism that tries to be respectable but we can see what you're doing. Stop it. Support your claim or stop making these vague allegations. Craig... "3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?" It's not a paraphrase to note, "UM... they don't say that." It's literally noting the reality that THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and your accusations and slanders are just more racist-allied attacks. Quit pretending to "listen to black voices" when you're only finding excerpts of voices that agree with your unsupported biases and unfounded opinions. Again: ALL I'm noting is that, IN SPITE of the notion that you suspect many DO believe what you said, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and if you can't support it, then withdraw the suggestion."
More slanderous, ad hom, bullshit.
I said what I said, and I specifically kept in in the hypothetical if/then phrasing precisely because I didn't have the time to dig through a bunch of crap. If you want to make shit up, try to impose all sorts of nefarious motivations, and continue to lie about me, I can't stop you. But continuing to lie, doesn't help your cause in the least.
"This IS a good example of the systemic racism put into place by white policymakers across the nation that have had long-lasting negative impacts for black people and real costs to generational wealth lasting to today. Precisely the sorts of systemic racism that CRT warns about and precisely what racists and their useful idiot allies are fighting to support when they attack CRT."
Yes, except this one< like many of the other examples you use was put in by an icon of modern liberalism, and one of the most prominent democrat politicians of the 20th century.
"Why are you so dubious of the warriors fighting against racism and injustice?"
I'm not. I'm dubious of anyone who responds to questions or criticism by labeling those who disagree as "haters", "racists" and other derogatory terms, and whose solutions involve intentional race based discrimination.
"No. Because that's just not the reality. FDR may have had his role in it, but red lining happened At the hand of conservative bankers and policy makers across the nation."
No, the reality is that the Roosevelt administration intentionally, wrote redlining into the New Deal (a series of initiatives frequently lauded by liberals as having saved the US from depression). The FHA (a part of FDR's executive branch of government) was responsible for redlining becoming federal policy.
Unless you are suggesting that FDR wasn't responsible for the acts of his executive branch during his administration.
Maybe you should spend less time on partisan attacks, and more on studying history. Your attempts to dodge the reality that the DFL owns much of what is now called systemic racism, further undermines your credibility.
1. Craig... ""That racism is the single, self-evident cause of racial differences in everything from school grades to incarceration rates to income"
Would you disagree with that summary?"
Do I disagree with that? Yes, probably. I might need more context. I wouldn't think it's apt to say that racism is THE SINGLE CAUSE of racial differences in those areas. But a likely PRIMARY cause..? Sure. That's fairly self-evident.
Or are you asking if I disagree that this is what CRT advocates are saying?
Now, I'd ask you if you recognize that this quote is NOT the same - at all - as saying that all white people are racist oppressors?
I would also ask if you are aware that a lot of the time... most of the time? - when CRT advocates talk about the systemic racism implemented in policies...? As opposed to deliberate discrete actions of individuals?
"The aim of inquiry in critical research is to both critique and transform the social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender structures that constrain and exploit humankind. This focus on critiquing power structures is at the core of CRT."
Does the above quote accurately reflect the teachings of CRT?
Still dealing with your Ibram "Rogers" reference. Here's what JE is telling you and other white conservatives slanderers...
"The Republican operatives, who dismiss the expositions of critical race theorists and anti-racists in order to define critical race theory and anti-racism, and then attack those definitions, are effectively debating themselves. They have conjured an imagined monster to scare the American people and project themselves as the nation’s defenders from that fictional monster...
In the 1950s and ’60s, the conservators of racism organized to keep Black kids out of all-white schools. Today, they are trying to get critical race theory out of American schools. “Instead of helping young people discover that America is the greatest, most tolerant, and most generous nation in history, [critical race theory] teaches them that America is systemically evil and that the hearts of our people are full of hatred and malice,” Trump wrote in an op-ed on June 18...
I have been called the father of critical race theory, although I was born in 1982, and critical race theory was born in 1981. Over the past few months, I have seldom stopped to answer the critiques of critical race theory or of my own work, because the more I’ve studied these critiques, the more I’ve concluded that these critics aren’t arguing against me. They aren’t arguing against anti-racist thinkers. They aren’t arguing against critical race theorists. These critics are arguing against themselves."
While waiting to see if you'll answer my questions, here are a couple more from you, Craig...
"Would you agree that "antiracist discrimination" is an appropriate strategy?
Probably, depending upon how it's defined. For instance, we have at my agency a disproportionate number of white employees. When we're looking for new employees to hire, we have a desire to "discriminate"/be discriminating when we're hiring because we NEED to have racial minorities represented on our team. So, of course, we will want to do this to the degree we can legally.
Just like if we were all men (we're not!), we'd want to be discriminating in our choice for new employees to hire women. Having a balance and being "discriminating" FOR the purposes of justice and inclusion is a great, good moral thing and rational thing to do.
Would you disagree?
And before you say something stupid like, "No, I'd hire the most qualified candidate..." IF we value balance and full inclusion/representation, THEN hiring a person of color IS hiring the most qualified because, for instance, as a white guy, no matter HOW good an employee I am and how well I do my job, I'll never be black.
Balance is a good, bottom line value to shoot for. Because of course it is.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
"When I see racial disparities, I see racism."
Do you agree with the above quote?"
Of course. We have unjustly disproportionate numbers of black people in poverty BECAUSE we have had systemic racism in our policies built in forever in our history.
Do you seriously doubt this?
Do I think racism is the ONLY explanation for racial disparities? No. But a significant one? Well, of course it is. One would have to be a fool to say otherwise.
Craig...
"Would you say that it represents the view of those who advocate CRT?"
Probably.
Now, in addition to the clarifying questions asked of you above, I'll repeat this rather obvious and reasonable question:
Do you recognize that this is literally NOT the same as saying all white people are racist oppressors?
I've been answering your questions, I'll wait for you to catch up. (and before you lose your mind, that's NOT an accusation or a charge of dodging or not answering fast enough that I'm making towards you... I'm just acknowledging that I'll wait until you answer some of the clarifying questions asked of you before continuing, as a matter of clarity so we don't get confused in a mass of words.)
Dan pretends my links provided do not provide the proofs he demanded. It's just another case of Dan rejecting anything that does not contain the EXACT wording he demands we provide evidence of having been uttered. While "all white people are racist" is not a rare utterance by race-hustlers of all colors, that sentiment...that premise...does not require that exact wording in order for one to say race-hustlers believe it and promote it as a fact. My final link (the YouTube link which present Kendi's own words) prove the sentiment is the basis of that promoter of CRT. The links dealing with the blatant hater of white people, Derrick Bell, also provides his words which no honest person can take any other way and maintain their reputation for honesty. Just in his assertion that no white person does anything for black people unless the white person can benefit is akin to saying "all white people are racist". It's an undeniable conclusion of his statement. But Dan's a liar who's trying to whitewash CRT as something noble.
"Do I disagree with that? Yes, probably. I might need more context. I wouldn't think it's apt to say that racism is THE SINGLE CAUSE of racial differences in those areas. But a likely PRIMARY cause..? Sure. That's fairly self-evident."
So, your answer appears to be that you really don't know if that is an accurate summary or not.
"Or are you asking if I disagree that this is what CRT advocates are saying?"
No, I literally asked you if that quote (from a newspaper) was an accurate summary of what CRT "teaches". You can tell that I didn't ask you a completely different question, by reading the question that was asked.
"Now, I'd ask you if you recognize that this quote is NOT the same - at all - as saying that all white people are racist oppressors?"
Are you daft? Did I do or say ANYTHING that indicated that I was equating this particular summary of CRT with my earlier if/then hypothetical? What an idiotic "question".
"I would also ask if you are aware that a lot of the time... most of the time? - when CRT advocates talk about the systemic racism implemented in policies...? As opposed to deliberate discrete actions of individuals?"
Yes, I am aware that they are talking about policy formulated by individuals as opposed to the actions of individuals. But aren't individuals who form and implement policies engaging an actions as individuals or groups of individuals, or do non racist individuals implement racist policies...
Why not just admit that your answer is yes, instead of this mealy mouthed, shuck and jive, bullshit non answer answer.
"For instance, we have at my agency a disproportionate number of white employees."
By all means, define "disproportionate number of white employees"? Who gets to decide what's the absolute correct proportion? As a white employee who acknowledges that your represent a disproportionate number of white employees, why haven't you resigned and offered your position to a black person?
"When we're looking for new employees to hire, we have a desire to "discriminate"/be discriminating when we're hiring because we NEED to have racial minorities represented on our team. So, of course, we will want to do this to the degree we can legally. Just like if we were all men (we're not!), we'd want to be discriminating in our choice for new employees to hire women. Having a balance and being "discriminating" FOR the purposes of justice and inclusion is a great, good moral thing and rational thing to do. Would you disagree? And before you say something stupid like, "No, I'd hire the most qualified candidate..." IF we value balance and full inclusion/representation, THEN hiring a person of color IS hiring the most qualified because, for instance, as a white guy, no matter HOW good an employee I am and how well I do my job, I'll never be black. Balance is a good, bottom line value to shoot for. Because of course it is. Do you disagree? Craig..."
Balance based solely on skin color is neither good nor bad, it's simply a way to help white folks like you assuage your guilt for not steeping aside for POC.
"Of course. We have unjustly disproportionate numbers of black people in poverty BECAUSE we have had systemic racism in our policies built in forever in our history. Do you seriously doubt this? Do I think racism is the ONLY explanation for racial disparities? No. But a significant one? Well, of course it is. One would have to be a fool to say otherwise."
Interesting, so are you saying that in communities or societies where everyone is of the same "race" (skin color), that you still see racism as the primary cause of differences?
Please quantify the % that is directly and specifically only "racism", and the % that is other factors?
"Probably. Now, in addition to the clarifying questions asked of you above, I'll repeat this rather obvious and reasonable question: Do you recognize that this is literally NOT the same as saying all white people are racist oppressors?"
Do you realize that I've never said anything close to "saying that this is the same as saying ..."?
Do you realize that I've never actually said "all white people are racist oppressors"?
But excellent job trying to move the discussion away from the actual words of CRT acolytes, and toward your straw man.
"I've been answering your questions, I'll wait for you to catch up. (and before you lose your mind, that's NOT an accusation or a charge of dodging or not answering fast enough that I'm making towards you... I'm just acknowledging that I'll wait until you answer some of the clarifying questions asked of you before continuing, as a matter of clarity so we don't get confused in a mass of words.)"
Since I've answered all of the questions I've seen up to this point, and I'm answering your questions as I go, I'm not sure what this bit of passive aggressive bullshit is.
Marshal... " It's just another case of Dan rejecting anything that does not contain the EXACT wording he demands we provide evidence of having been uttered."
Of course, As always, this is not factual I have always been abundantly clear that I'm not talking about a particular phrase.. If someone says All caucasians want to enslave people who are not caucasians, that would be the same as essaying all white people are racist oppressors come over close enough. But saying that red lining is an example of systemic racism is simply not the same as saying all white people are racist. of course. The problem is not that I'm demanding a specific phrase. The problem is you are reading their words and inserting meaning INTO those words that they have not said and they do not think. You are factually mistaken. Objectively factually mistaken.
I suspect part of the problem is that you all are failing to understand the nuance between systemic racism - racism by policy that negatively impacts a race of people - Between that and discreet acts of of individual white people hating black people overtly.
Apology that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy. It doesn't need to have been created with the intention of hating black people in order to be racist.
Have you all heard the analogy of a house built 50 years ago where the builder really just didn't not like disabled people. The builder refused to put in ramps and otherwise accommodate people in wheelchairs. 50 years later, that builder is dead and gone but his children have the house. They don't hate people with disabilities. But the house's design has an impact upon those those with disabilities.. It's systemic ableism.
Systemic racism is like that. It doesn't insist upon a planned and intentional desire to harm black people, or, but it has that effect nonetheless. I think you all failing to understand that distinction is why you hear systemic racism and assume that they're saying that all white people are racist oppressors.
It's a failure on your part to understand the intent and when you fail to understand, you assign some other intent.
"I suspect part of the problem is that you all are failing to understand the nuance between systemic racism - racism by policy that negatively impacts a race of people - Between that and discreet acts of of individual white people hating black people overtly."
I know with 100% certainty that any time you start to respond to something based on what you "suspect", that you will be responding based on your biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and constructing a straw man.
"Apology that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy."
Leaving aside your laziness, and disinterest in proofreading your comments. I'll point out that every single government policy ever enacted affects a "race of people", it affects every "race of people".
"It doesn't need to have been created with the intention of hating black people in order to be racist. Have you all heard the analogy of a house built 50 years ago where the builder really just didn't not like disabled people. The builder refused to put in ramps and otherwise accommodate people in wheelchairs. 50 years later, that builder is dead and gone but his children have the house. They don't hate people with disabilities. But the house's design has an impact upon those those with disabilities.. It's systemic ableism. Systemic racism is like that. It doesn't insist upon a planned and intentional desire to harm black people, or, but it has that effect nonetheless. I think you all failing to understand that distinction is why you hear systemic racism and assume that they're saying that all white people are racist oppressors. It's a failure on your part to understand the intent and when you fail to understand, you assign some other intent."
Strangely enough, you (like Ibram Henry Rogers) like to use circular arguments.
Once again, I'll ignore the errors you make in your rush to vent, and put this where it belongs.
"I'm sorry, please clarify... if a university had zero black professors, you would OPPOSE them actively trying to recruit professors who were black (ie, "race based discrimination...")? Really?"
1. This isn't an answer to the question that was asked, or as it was asked. 2. 1 answer is that current US law would prohibit the sort of "race" based discriminatory hiring practices that you seem to be advocating. 3. There's not enough information here to really respond beyond a general platitude. 4. I'm strange in that (just like in housing and lending) I think that the color of one's skin should have no bearing on one's qualifications for a particular job.
"Is it the case that you can't understand the distinction between being discriminating in one's choices (discriminating for a better result, of course) and the overt racism of redlining and keeping gay folk out of the military and other HARM-based discrimination?"
No, I do understand the distinction. I'm pretty sure I've posted on it before.
"If not, I don't know how to help you. I'd advocate that you work on maturing your sense of morality and justice beyond a 1st grade level. Answered several of your questions. I'll give you a chance to answer mine."
As you've pointed out, I shouldn't be listening to white people on this topic. Especially white people who feel like ad hom attacks are part of rational conversation.
Craig... "1 answer is that current US law would prohibit the sort of "race" based discriminatory hiring practices that you seem to be advocating."
You're factually mistaken.
"All other things being equal between two candidates, a choice can be made to recruit, hire or promote a member of a protected class over one who is not. The issue of reverse discrimination arises when there is a difference in the qualities or qualifications of the candidates and the protected member is favored solely (or primarily) based on that person’s status as a member of a protected class."
Craig... "I'm strange in that (just like in housing and lending) I think that the color of one's skin should have no bearing on one's qualifications for a particular job..."
It may help you to know that you're not strange at all in that regard. There are huge numbers of white people who are not familiar with or connected to the deep disturbing history of systemic racism and oppression. And so for many white people, their privilege means they have a hard time comprehending the notion of positive discrimination. But, given the reality of even the reality of systemic oppression of black people, of course we should then discriminate in a positive manner. And we should be able to recognize the difference between discrimination FOR Justice as opposed to discrimination as an act of injustice.
Craig... " Especially white people who feel like ad hom attacks are part of rational conversation."
Noting that someone who can't/won't distinguish between "discriminating" on behalf of Justice as opposed to someone discriminating to cause INJUSTICE is operating at a grade school level of moral reasoning is not an ad hom attack. It's an accurate description of an undeveloped moral conscience.
Early grade schoolers are operating in the concrete operational stage (re: Piaget). They take things woodenly, literally. IF "discrimination" is bad, when we're talking about discriminating against black or gay folk or women for who they are, then "discriminating" is a bad word. That's grade school, as an apt description literally, not an ad hom attack.
Do you understand that distinction?
Now, by all means, actually answer the question: DO YOU understand the difference between being discriminating FOR just reasons as opposed to the immoral discrimination for UNjust reasons? Do you understand why one is bad and shouldn't be done and one is GOOD and SHOULD be done?
Saying, "I do understand the distinction. I THINK I've posted on it before" is not a satisfying answer, especially when you continue to act like discriminating FOR justice is bad. DO YOU think that all forms of discrimination in hiring practices are bad, even if it's being done for reasons of justice?
Wow, Craig! That Dan is so nice. He's giving you a chance to answer his strawman questions!! What a guy!!
What a...well...this isn't my blog so I'll go all Dan on you and use the appropriate expletive to describe Dan's low character. But I will say this, Dan's "mature sense of morality and justice" (a laughable notion if ever there was one) is neither moral or just, nor is it any way mature (the most laughable aspect of the laughable notion). Rather, it's the same thing the CRT morons say when asserting that negative outcomes for blacks is a sign of racism. Dan's "mature sense of morality and justice" is also based on outcome. This can be seen in his hiring nonsense, pretending that a business or organization is better because they have some unstated percentage of black people or other minorities...that the military was somehow improved by doing away with recruitment restrictions involving homosexuals and other idiocies he can't possibly prove. His argument is, it's better because it's just better.
And of course, as Craig points out, Dan hasn't thought to quit in order to open up a position for a black guy, so Dan's a hypocrite.
Indeed, Dan goes on to argue against himself, as his vaunted CRT racists pretend it's CRT critics who argue against themselves. In the meantime, he ignores the proofs my several links early on provided to support the fact that CRT advocates simply believe all white people are racist. (Certainly Beverly DiAngelo does and I've never heard a CRT proponent argue against it!) Some are more overt in their racism against whites (like Dan) and other couch their terms in order to deflect or mitigate such criticisms (Marc Lamont Hill).
Back to outcomes, Dan said, "Apology (a policy) that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy." This is untrue unless it can be confirmed the policy was meant to negatively impact a given race. That said race is negatively impacted is not even necessarily true so much as it might not provide the same level of benefit for said race. Honest people will seek factual, provable reasons for the disparity rather than attribute to the consequence the label of "racism", which Dan and his like-minded CRT racists do at the start. Dan used the absurd hypothetical analogy of a builder who hates the disabled and thus builds in a manner which denies the disabled easy access. But right away we see in this stupidity that the dude hates the disabled! Before local codes forced consideration for the disabled in how buildings are built, it would be absurd to insist that architects purposely moved to make life more difficult for the disabled.
If past situations were such that some acted with intent against black people, that has nothing to do with the situation of black people today. With extremely rare exception, the only people holding back minorities are minorities themselves. This is true unless evidence can be presented that rebuts it. CRT advocates...and certainly Dan...never do. They simply say, "black outcomes are lower, so some racist did something". Thomas Sowell, and actual black person of legitimate intelligence and wisdom, has spent the last 50 years or so demonstrating what bullshit that is.
53 comments:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-racist-countries
One wonders why CRT is only applied to one country in the world.
Because CRT requires that a myth is reality in order to achieve its desired result.
What I think is one of the most interesting aspects of CRT is that it focuses on the US and applies standards to the US that are not applied to any other country. Therefore it ignores the fact that the US (while far from perfect, and with many failures), is not as bad as it's portrayed.
Absolutely! Indeed, the left and their BLM/CRT adherents go out of their way to over-hype and over-inflate the negative aspects of our history and culture...of course ignoring their incredibly common and egregious contributions in that regard.
It's interesting that these folks talk a lot about "actual" history, as if anyone would complain about an dispassionate retelling of actual events, yet insist of a telling of history that is slanted in the way they think best.
For example, if CRT requires us to think of all "white" people as racist oppressors, then isn't it strange that hundreds of thousands of "racist oppressors" died in a nasty war that resulted in slavery being ended.
Of course this "actual history" also ignores the reality of black slave owners, native Americans owning slaves, and various other inconvenient realities.
Marshal... "their BLM/CRT adherents go out of their way to over-hype and over-inflate the negative aspects of our history and culture.."
I'm sorry... Do you think it's possible to overplay centuries of racism, oppression, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, rapes, false imprisonments, Red lining, denying educational opportunities, denying jobs, stealing land, stealing property , demonizing... On and on and on, by matter of national policy and national will, we were involved in great evil that harmed millions of lives. That killed and raped thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.. You do recognize how strange that seems to say that we're somehow downplaying our nation's history by pointing out these very sober realities? Or that pointing these realities out is overplaying The reality of history?
And Craig, you fucking moron, no one is saying that all white people are racist oppressors. That's not what CRT teaches.
For the love of God and all that is good, If you don't understand something don't talk about it. Or at least ask questions and don't portray yourself as an ignorant ally of actual racists and KKK types.
Craig... "If crt requires us to think of all white people as racist oppressors..."
Why do you say if? Why do you bring this question up? Has someone who told you that this is what CRT teaches? Do you recognize that CRT does not teach this?
Before making a statement like this which is just passing on gossip and false narratives, why not educate yourself? Why not learn for yourself if CRT says that, if that's what someone is telling you.
Here's a hint, if it sounds Like it's probably not true, it's probably not true. In this case, it's not true.
Here. Read for yourself. Educate yourself. Look for yourself and see that CRT does not teach that. Don't believe false narratives just because someone tells you them. Especially if it's a white person or a conservative person person. Conservative people have proven themselves Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions.
"Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory
"Why do you say if?"
Because, like most rational people, I differentiate the ways I express myself depending on how sure I am of what I'm saying. In this case, I've heard conflicting information, and therefore I want to be clear that I was using a hypothetical. Much like you do when you say things like "If you are saying that we should rape puppies...". Although, I'm actually trying to leave open the possibility that I'm wrong.
"Why do you bring this question up? Has someone who told you that this is what CRT teaches?"
It's something I've seen from comments of folks Like Kendi and DiAngelo.
"Do you recognize that CRT does not teach this?"
Do you realize how absurd this claim is?
1. CRT is inanimate and doesn't actually "teach" anything.
2. I've seen quotes from many actual human proponents of CRT who say things like this enough times to suspect that many of the proponents of CRT do espouse something very similar to my hypothetical.
3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?
"Before making a statement like this which is just passing on gossip and false narratives, why not educate yourself?"
Before making a broad sweeping claim of fact such as the above, why not provide proof of that claim of fact.
"Why not learn for yourself if CRT says that, if that's what someone is telling you."
I'm operating from quotes by DiANgelo, Kenndi and their acolytes.
"Here's a hint, if it sounds Like it's probably not true, it's probably not true. In this case, it's not true. Here. Read for yourself. Educate yourself. Look for yourself and see that CRT does not teach that. Don't believe false narratives just because someone tells you them."
Please provide proof of the above claim (that you hypothetical is a "false narrative") or that no high profile proponent of CRT has said anything similar to my hypothetical.
"Especially if it's a white person or a conservative person person."
Well, the first qualifier knocks you out from consideration. The second is quite the unsupported broad brush of a large group of people. But, since the second is from you (a white person), I guess I should just ignore it based on your advice.
"Conservative people have proven themselves Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions."
Again with the unsupported, broad brush, claims.
"Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans." https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory"
Wow, after all your bullshit about not listening to white people, you throw out Britannica as a source.
I'll continue to ignore white folks like you, and keep listening to black voices.
"I'm sorry... Do you think it's possible to overplay centuries of racism, oppression, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, lynchings, rapes, false imprisonments, Red lining, denying educational opportunities, denying jobs, stealing land, stealing property , demonizing... On and on and on, by matter of national policy and national will, we were involved in great evil that harmed millions of lives."
1. Yes.
2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view.
3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party.
"That killed and raped thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.. You do recognize how strange that seems to say that we're somehow downplaying our nation's history by pointing out these very sober realities?"
Not so much "downplaying" as taking it out of context, and ignoring the rest of te world's role in many of those actions.
"Or that pointing these realities out is overplaying The reality of history?"
Only if they're taken out of context,overemphasized relative to the balance of world history, or applied differently to different countries/societies/nations/peoples.
"And Craig, you fucking moron, no one is saying that all white people are racist oppressors."
And Dan that's quite the unsupported claim of fact. Given your lack of support and your general whiteness, I'll simply ignore what you have to say.
"That's not what CRT teaches. For the love of God and all that is good, If you don't understand something don't talk about it. Or at least ask questions and don't portray yourself as an ignorant ally of actual racists and KKK types."
I can and do ask questions of people who are more trustworthy than you, and I'm not.
Dan: "Don't listen to what people tell you especially if it's a white person."
Also Dan: Listen to me and what I tell you abut what "CRT teaches".
I posted a link to a couple of really smart black voices talking about CRT, I suspect that Dan hasn't or won't take the time to listen to those black voices. If, by some miracle he did, then I suspect that he would be unable or unwilling to seriously engage with what they've said and provide proof that they are "Less than trustworthy arbiters of understanding progressive positions.".
Note to Dan,
Since I'm an adult, and don't see the need to nitpick typos, I want to be clear that any typos in my quotes of your words were there in your original comment. I always copy/paste your quotes and I never edit them to correct your typos, syntax, or grammar.
Craig... "why not provide proof of that claim of fact."
"I'm operating from quotes by DiANgelo, Kenndi and their acolytes."
But, and follow closely here, they have not said this.
Let me repeat myself.
They have not said this.
You have not provided any claims any quotes from them where they said this and you won't because they have not said this.
Do you understand the point?
They. Have. Not. Said. This.
These are not their words. These are YOUR words. Do you understand the difference between what you're saying recognize that they did not say that?
Come on!
If you want to provide a "where they said this, you can clear yourself. But, once again, they have not said this period this is stupidly false. Do you understand that reality?
Now, if you want to exonerate yourself and show that I'm wrong, ALL you have to do is Provide the quote where they said this.
But you can't because they didn't.
Lord, save us from your white conservative followers!
Craig...
"1. Yes."
That says a lot about you.
"2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view."
WHO specifically is saying racism or slavery only applies to the US?
Factual answer: NO ONE. NOT A SINGLED person and thus, your nonsense point is a God damned lie. You can't point to anyone saying that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US, can you? Can you be honest enough to admit that?
Come on, reason like an adult and admit when you've made a ridiculous claim/suggestion.
"3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party."
Of course, that's just not factually correct. Racism, slavery, sexism, misogyny, oppression... our nation's history is full of it from all political parties. Are you seriously not aware of this?
The loose groups, however, that has most consistently stood against these things have been those oppressed and their allies amongst progressive-minded people. By definition.
Embrace a progressive, liberal, grace-full heart and mind, Craig. And begin by admitting the false claims and misrepresentations you're making. That would be a great first step.
Craig lied, saying, "Also Dan: Listen to me and what I tell you abut what "CRT teaches"."
Of course, I quite literally did the opposite. I pointed to the actual advocates of CRT AND not only that, you lying sack of shit, I pointed out the reality that YOU made up a claim that is NOT what CRT advocates say. Now, I gave you an opportunity to either provide evidence that they said that OR to be honest and admit that they have NOT said that and you made a false claim.
Instead of humbly admitting your error, you've doubled down, repeating a false claim about what I didn't say while insisting you got your idea from what they have said IN SPITE of the reality that they have never said this.
You're a liar whose been caught in your lies. There's nowhere to go but to be an adult, admit your mistake, apologize and move on.
That, or childishly and evilly continue down the road of false claims and unsupported allegations.
Save yourself. Admit your error. Repent.
https://citizensentinelsnetwork.com/editorial/the-racist-ravings-of-derrick-bell-obamas-reverence-for-a-professor-of-hate/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/03/critical_race_theory_a_cult_of_anti-white_resentment.html
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/reasons-critical-race-theory-terrible-dealing-racism/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/temple-university-professor-claims-all-white-people-are-connected-to-racism/ar-AAM20Lc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkHfPrEKOB8
So, above we have links to evidence which, if not proves (it does, actually) that CRT advocates believe all white people are racist, it certainly points to that premise as being incredibly likely. Of course, I did link to two who are blatant about it, but the rest aren't much more subtle. But dim bulbs like Dan (or is he just flat out lying) pretend that if one doesn't use specific words, then one isn't saying it. Honest people don't act like Dan, nor do even marginally intelligent people. Dan's simply a white-guilted hater of his own race...which makes him a racist as much as all his support for racist groups like BLM and CRT advocates.
OK, I just spent about 30 minutes listening listening to the first part of your link in this post. I had to listen to the Podcast, because they do not write down the transcript so that I can read it. As a note, I generally prefer to read what people are saying rather than listen or watch a video. In listening or watching a video, one can miss some of what they're saying. In reading it, there it is and black-and-white. A written reference is always better for me and I think this is reasonable
I had to listen for 30 minutes before they even BEGAN to critique CRT. They spent 30 minutes talking about how they were GOING to critique it and trying to paint CRT advocates with a marxist brush to better scare stupid white people into being afraid of CRT... before they even got around to finally saying ANYTHING about CRT.
The first things they started saying about CRT was There interpretations of what motivated sea CRT advocates and what what they were advocating. They weren't saying what CRT advocates actually said. They were reading into what they think CRT advocates meant and were motivated by. I. At that point after wasting a 1/2 an hour of my life, I gave up.
If you can't cite where CRT advocates are saying what you misrepresent them to say, then admit it and withdraw the charge.
Or quote them and prove me wrong.
But you won't because you can't because they didn't.
This is slander, grade school gossip and demonization of black CRT advocates based NOT on anythingthey said but YOUR misrepresentation.
It's Not something that the CRT advocates are saying, but surely something the KKK people will appreciate and rally behind you on.
One thing I'd LOVE for you, Marshal and Stan and other allies of racists to explain is...
WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you object to in CRT and don't think should be taught to people?
Is it that we have had serious systemic problems of racism and oppression of a race of people in our history?
Is it that we should be aware of the ongoing repercussions of the systemic racism built into our policies historically?
Is it that race is a social construct, not a biological one?
Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?
Or is it you dispute the notion that racist policies were NOT part of our history? or one of these other ideas?
These ideas are solid and observable reality, so I can't imagine a rational person not recognizing them, but maybe that's the problem.
You tell me.
Or, if it's some nonsense like "I object to CRT teaching that all whites are intentionally racist oppressors..." THEN provide the quote where ANY CRT advocate is actually teaching that.
Because they aren't, contrary to what you and Stan and others say, in spite of reality, in spite of your not being able to support such nonsense claims.
But in terms of what CRT advocates are ACTUALLY saying, what do you object to? Please provide the quote.
Because what I suspect is happening here is, because you all find yourselves in conservative bubbles where nonsense false claims get passed around like cheap candy, you all are not hearing what actual CRT advocates are saying, and instead are hearing bastardized, demonized false misrepresentations of what they're saying. And then, when you DO actually read what the CRT advocates are actually saying, you are reading INTO what they said something that isn't actually there.
Like your and Stan's false claims that "crt requires us to think of all white people as racist oppressors" which, once again, they have not said.
"But, and follow closely here, they have not said this. Let me repeat myself. They have not said this. You have not provided any claims any quotes from them where they said this and you won't because they have not said this. Do you understand the point? They. Have. Not. Said. This. These are not their words. These are YOUR words. Do you understand the difference between what you're saying recognize that they did not say that? Come on! If you want to provide a "where they said this, you can clear yourself. But, once again, they have not said this period this is stupidly false. Do you understand that reality? Now, if you want to exonerate yourself and show that I'm wrong, ALL you have to do is Provide the quote where they said this. But you can't because they didn't. Lord, save us from your white conservative followers!"
1. I literally floated a hypothetical "if/then" statement.
2. I never "quoted" or claimed I was quoting anyone.
3. If you aren't going to provide quotes and links when you refer to what someone has "said", then why would anyone else?
4. You repeated yourself an absurdly ridiculous amount of times, especially since you're arguing against a straw man.
5. You're white, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
"1. Yes." That says a lot about you."
Yes it does. It says that I can put history in context and balance things.
"2. When all of those things are taken out of context, applied only to the US, and then not applied evenhandedly, it at best presents an unbalanced view." WHO specifically is saying racism or slavery only applies to the US?"
Really, of all of the CRT proponents and disciples, which one has ever written about any country besides that US? Hell, most of them don't know that the US didn't even exist prior to @1791. Please show me the scholarly treatise that applies CRT to any other country, I'll wait.
"Factual answer: NO ONE. NOT A SINGLED person and thus, your nonsense point is a God damned lie. You can't point to anyone saying that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US, can you?"
Please provide me the quote where I said "that racism and slavery and oppression has happened only in the US". I'll wait.
"Can you be honest enough to admit that? Come on, reason like an adult and admit when you've made a ridiculous claim/suggestion. "
I can admit that you've been arguing against a straw man. But you're welcome to answer the questions asked.
"3. Interesting that many of those policies go hand in hand with one political party." Of course, that's just not factually correct. Racism, slavery, sexism, misogyny, oppression... our nation's history is full of it from all political parties. Are you seriously not aware of this?"
OK, let's just ignore the fact that there is one modern political party that is most closely associated with placing many of those things into law, and enforcing those laws. Of course, people from all political parties have exhibited those flaws at one point or another, but that's not what I said.
"Of course, I quite literally did the opposite. I pointed to the actual advocates of CRT AND not only that, you lying sack of shit, I pointed out the reality that YOU made up a claim that is NOT what CRT advocates say. Now, I gave you an opportunity to either provide evidence that they said that OR to be honest and admit that they have NOT said that and you made a false claim. Instead of humbly admitting your error, you've doubled down, repeating a false claim about what I didn't say while insisting you got your idea from what they have said IN SPITE of the reality that they have never said this. You're a liar whose been caught in your lies. There's nowhere to go but to be an adult, admit your mistake, apologize and move on. That, or childishly and evilly continue down the road of false claims and unsupported allegations. Save yourself. Admit your error. Repent."
More white liberal bullshit. The reality is that you've taken it upon your white, liberal, self to educate others about CRT, and you've certainly not limited your rantings to simply quoting the proponents and their acolytes.
More WL drivel.
"OK, I just spent about 30 minutes listening listening to the first part of your link in this post. I had to listen to the Podcast, because they do not write down the transcript so that I can read it. As a note, I generally prefer to read what people are saying rather than listen or watch a video. In listening or watching a video, one can miss some of what they're saying. In reading it, there it is and black-and-white."
I understand, you expect everyone else to cater to your preferences and if they don't you'll just give up. That's good to know.
"A written reference is always better for me and I think this is reasonable I had to listen for 30 minutes before they even BEGAN to critique CRT."
Again, I understand that you think it reasonable that everyone else on the planet does what's "better for you", as opposed to accommodating yourself to others.
"They spent 30 minutes talking about how they were GOING to critique it and trying to paint CRT advocates with a marxist brush to better scare stupid white people into being afraid of CRT... before they even got around to finally saying ANYTHING about CRT. The first things they started saying about CRT was There interpretations of what motivated sea CRT advocates and what what they were advocating. They weren't saying what CRT advocates actually said. They were reading into what they think CRT advocates meant and were motivated by."
Excellent, you are opposed to introductions as well as to anything not written down.
"I. At that point after wasting a 1/2 an hour of my life, I gave up. If you can't cite where CRT advocates are saying what you misrepresent them to say, then admit it and withdraw the charge. Or quote them and prove me wrong. But you won't because you can't because they didn't. This is slander, grade school gossip and demonization of black CRT advocates based NOT on anythingthey said but YOUR misrepresentation. It's Not something that the CRT advocates are saying, but surely something the KKK people will appreciate and rally behind you on."
Well done. You admit that you didn't actually listen to the entire podcast, and are prepared to pass judgement on what was done and said during the part you didn't actually listen to. All because it wasn't convenient for you.
Thanks for proving your point. I shouldn't listen to white people.
Marshal, I looked through the 1st 2 of your links. As is the case with Craig and Stan and all of your types, you're pointing to people who hate CRT and show me what they say about what CRT evidence say. I don't give a damn what your whitewashed tombs have to say.
Just provide the quotes FROM CRT advocates where they say what you claim..
Quit sending me to people who don't like CRT ERT as evidence that CRT is saying things that you cannot support. Quit making God damned false claims. Repent you damn sick you damn sin sick soul. If you can't provide the quote retract the God damned statement you damned liars.
Repent.
"One thing I'd LOVE for you, Marshal and Stan and other allies of racists to explain is... WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you object to in CRT and don't think should be taught to people?"
Excellent question. Unfortunately, you've decreed that I (as a white conservative) have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic. Why would I give you an answer that you've already dismissed before it's been written?
"Is it that we have had serious systemic problems of racism and oppression of a race of people in our history?"
No.
"Is it that we should be aware of the ongoing repercussions of the systemic racism built into our policies historically?"
No.
"Is it that race is a social construct, not a biological one?"
To some degree yes. As well as the fact that all of the ills you point out have been present in all societies throughout history.
"Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?"
No, it's the fact that every work of CRT that I've seen has ignored the fact that these things have persisted throughout history, and ignore the fact that there are countries with a much more significant history of racism, than the US.
"Or is it you dispute the notion that racist policies were NOT part of our history? or one of these other ideas?"
No.
Impressive, Dan now refuses to consider the Truth of what people that he believes "hate" CRT have to say. He's not interested in whether the objections are True, as long as he can brush them away because they "hate CRT".
Hell, he's even prepared to tell the black voices that they're wrong and he's right.
I suspect the problem here is white fragility. You' all can't hear an honest discussion of the reality of racism and not feel like you're under attack and assume that they're calling you racist. Look at how hard though you are working on the side of racists!
Craig, THIS is why I say that many modern conservatives have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to understanding people outside their little bubbles...
"Impressive, Dan now refuses to consider the Truth of what people that he believes "hate" CRT have to say. He's not interested in whether the objections are True, as long as he can brush them away because they "hate CRT".
Hell, he's even prepared to the black voices that they're wrong and he's right."
Impressive. Dan did not say ANY of that and Dan does not think ANY of that, and yet, Craig reached this conclusion IN SPITE of Dan never saying or thinking any of this.
NOW, do you see why I want you to produce the quote(s) where CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors?
It's because you read words and reach conclusions that the words don't support. You (collectively) regularly read INTO our words that which we did not say and do not think.
The point in getting you to quote PRECISELY what we/they said to make you think this is so you can see that it's literally NOT in our words and that you're literally reading INTO our words something that isn't there.
Have the integrity now to say, "I can see no words from CRT advocates who say anything like this..."
There is no shame in admitting you messed up. There IS shame in being confronted with the facts of your false claims and STILL to be too proud to admit the error.
Dan... "Is it that racism has been normative in our nation's (and world's) history?"
Craig... "No, it's the fact that every work of CRT that I've seen has ignored the fact that these things have persisted throughout history, and ignore the fact that there are countries with a much more significant history of racism, than the US."
So, in a discussion about racism and oppression IN THE US, the advocates of CRT did not discuss racism in other places. And you find that odd? Something that would cause you to dismiss CRT, just because they did not talk about racism and oppression in OTHER countries?
(As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that this is more a case of you not ever noticing them talking about racism elsewhere, moreso than them never discussing it. But regardless, "failing" to take on points unrelated to a thesis is not a failure of the thesis.
DO you suspect that they would deny racism elsewhere? Of course, they wouldn't. It's just not part of their theory and that YOU personally WISH they had talked about racism elsewhere (which may or may not be instructive) is not in any way to discredit the points they actually ARE making.
The CRT advocates do not live to fulfill your white wishes or make you happy with their argument by changing their argument to some scope beyond their argument.
Craig... " Unfortunately, you've decreed that I (as a white conservative) have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic."
You almost certainly have nothing AUTHORITATIVE to teach on the subject, if you're as ignorant on it as you appear to be. However, it IS worthwhile for you to clarify what you THINK CRT means and WHY you think it means that and to answer the question, "Did CRT advocates say this OR is it something I think, IN SPITE of them not saying that?"
These are all reasonable clarifications for you, as a white person apparently ignorant of CRT to answer.
I think in answering it, you will see the views you hold are held NOT because of what the CRT advocates are saying, but because of what opponents of CRT are filling your head with. You appear to be the victim of a dis/misinformation campaign and getting the record straight is always a good thing.
For my part, I am not speaking FOR CRT advocates. I'm merely noting that they didn't say something that you, Stan and Marshal have all falsely claimed that they have said.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Why not make it right?
And for what it's worth, when you're a conservative on a conservative website making comments that OTHER conservatives may agree with... EVEN IF you're couching it in the "IF CRT advocates are saying...," it is still misleading with the potential intent to pass on MORE disinformation.
Rhetorical questions in the hands of the ignorant and those with an agenda can be dangerous.
A quick look at Marshal's MSN link shows that the person speaking, Hill, is saying that all white people are CONNECTED TO racism, not that all white people are racist oppressors.
There's that difference.
There's also this:
Another Twitter user asked if Hill was Marxist,
to which he responded that he is
"neither a Marxist nor a Critical Race Theorist."
That is, Marshal's "proof" that CRT advocates are teaching that all white people are racist oppressors is from someone who 1. Didn't say that. At all and, 2. IS NOT A CRT advocate.
Geez.
"I suspect the problem here is white fragility. You' all can't hear an honest discussion of the reality of racism and not feel like you're under attack and assume that they're calling you racist. Look at how hard though you are working on the side of racists!"
I don't need to suspect that you are 100% wrong. It seems like the folks who label any disagreement as "hate", and who won't engage with those who disagree are the ones that seem fragile.
"Impressive. Dan did not say ANY of that and Dan does not think ANY of that, and yet, Craig reached this conclusion IN SPITE of Dan never saying or thinking any of this."
Really, that's quite astounding. I'm pretty sure that you decided that the black voices on the podcast that you didn't finish were wrong, and that they weren't able to do what they set out do do, despite having not listened to the entire thing. If you are willing to dismiss them, without having heard the entirety of their presentation, than you clearly don;t care if their points are True or not. Read your own words. Anyone who doesn't uncritically buy every thing the CRT acolytes (at least the few that you agree with) "hates" CRT and is "reading into" everyone else. Does that sound like someone who has investigated any of the claims made by those who question CRT, and proven those specific claims to be false? Or does it sound like someone who's pre committed to CRT and who's reflexively attacking anyone who doesn't share your zeal?
"NOW, do you see why I want you to produce the quote(s) where CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors?"
This is interesting, because I never actually said "CRT advocates say that white people should all be considered as racist oppressors". Maybe if you read what I actually wrote, and respond to what I actually said, things would go more smoothly. But you'll stick to your straw man, because beating it makes you feel powerful.
"It's because you read words and reach conclusions that the words don't support. You (collectively) regularly read INTO our words that which we did not say and do not think. The point in getting you to quote PRECISELY what we/they said to make you think this is so you can see that it's literally NOT in our words and that you're literally reading INTO our words something that isn't there. Have the integrity now to say, "I can see no words from CRT advocates who say anything like this..." There is no shame in admitting you messed up. There IS shame in being confronted with the facts of your false claims and STILL to be too proud to admit the error."
Your confusion lies in thinking that my unwillingness to go back through months of tweets/social media posts/articles/etc by DiAngelo and Kkendi and their acolytes, means anything more than acknowledging that my job is more important than your bullshit.
"So, in a discussion about racism and oppression IN THE US, the advocates of CRT did not discuss racism in other places. And you find that odd?"
Yes, I do.
1. Because either CRT explains all racism in all cultures, or it doesn't. If it's not applied across other cultures, it hasn't been subjected to enough scrutiny to draw conclusions about it's explanatory power.
2. Because the US (as a political entity) didn't arise in a vacuum, and to try to artificially separate the US from the rest of history and apply a different standard seems absurd.
3. Everything I've seen from social scientists discussing CRT is that CRT posits race as the only/primary factor that explains differences in outcomes between "racial groups". This seems short sighted at best.
"Something that would cause you to dismiss CRT, just because they did not talk about racism and oppression in OTHER countries?"
Asking this question again, when I've already pointed out why I'm not inclined to answer seems incredibly stupid, or a great example of poor reading comprehension.
"(As an aside, I'd be willing to bet that this is more a case of you not ever noticing them talking about racism elsewhere, moreso than them never discussing it."
Why do you interject idiotic bullshit like this? It's just your prejudices spewing out of your keyboard.
"But regardless, "failing" to take on points unrelated to a thesis is not a failure of the thesis. DO you suspect that they would deny racism elsewhere?"
No, but failing to examine all of the possible evidences regarding racism or taking the US out of the context of the history of the world, is guaranteed to produce findings that are slanted. For example, attributing anything that happened on the eastern seaboard of North America prior to @ 1791 to the US is simply ridiculous.
But, let's play that game, if there is going to be an accurate study of racism, slavery, etc in the area that would later become the US between 1619 and 1791, then wouldn't it stand to Reason that there would be studies of ALL of the cultures on the landmass at that time?
"Of course, they wouldn't. It's just not part of their theory and that YOU personally WISH they had talked about racism elsewhere (which may or may not be instructive) is not in any way to discredit the points they actually ARE making. The CRT advocates do not live to fulfill your white wishes or make you happy with their argument by changing their argument to some scope beyond their argument."
It's less about my wishes, and more abut the reality that treating what happened in the US between 1619, and the late 1800's as if it's all one monolithic culture simply ignores the reality of the history of North America.
Let's try this question for you to ignore. Do you acknowledge that the practice of redlining was 100% the responsibility of that icon of the modern progressive movement FDR?
"You almost certainly have nothing AUTHORITATIVE to teach on the subject, if you're as ignorant on it as you appear to be."
1. I've never claimed to be an authority on the topic, nor have I vehemently insisted that my hunches about CRT and who speaks exclusively for CRT Orthodoxy.
2. I made one hypothetical "if/then" statement, nothing more, nothing less.
3. You also have nothing authoritative to add, which makes me wonder why you're acting like you do.
4. If you're going to insist that I not listen to white people, then stop insisting that I listen to you, and stop bitching about the black voices I do listen to.
"However, it IS worthwhile for you to clarify what you THINK CRT means and WHY you think it means that and to answer the question, "Did CRT advocates say this OR is it something I think, IN SPITE of them not saying that?" These are all reasonable clarifications for you, as a white person apparently ignorant of CRT to answer."
No, those are questions that you think I should answer, yet you've already prejudged my answers before I've given them. Therefore I see no reason to waste a bunch of time, posting something that you've already decided is wrong.
"I think in answering it, you will see the views you hold are held NOT because of what the CRT advocates are saying, but because of what opponents of CRT are filling your head with."
1. I don't care what you think when you make this sort of bullshit up.
2. Unless you can prove that "opponents of CRT" are 100% wrong in everything they say, then this makes no sense.
3. If "CRT" is "teaching" something that is objectively false, while that opponents are countering with something that is objectively True, why would I listen to falsehood over Truth?
4. Given the fact that you haven't actually addressed any specific claims being made by "opponents" or demonstrated those claims to be objectively false, I see no reason to accept your broad generalizations as anything but your prejudice.
"You appear to be the victim of a dis/misinformation campaign and getting the record straight is always a good thing."
False. I am someone who hasn't taken the time to delve deeply into the subject, and who isn't trying to speak authoritatively on the subject. You do understand what a hypothetical "if/then" statement is, don't you? But your assumptions driven by your prejudices are always amusing.
"For my part, I am not speaking FOR CRT advocates. I'm merely noting that they didn't say something that you, Stan and Marshal have all falsely claimed that they have said."
Which seems to literally define speaking for them. As for me, I haven't made any claims about what anyone has said, therefore accusing me of making "false claims" is in itself a false claim.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness, Craig. Why not make it right? And for what it's worth, when you're a conservative on a conservative website making comments that OTHER conservatives may agree with... EVEN IF you're couching it in the "IF CRT advocates are saying...," it is still misleading with the potential intent to pass on MORE disinformation. Rhetorical questions in the hands of the ignorant and those with an agenda can be dangerous."
If you're not going to avoid bearing false witness, why would you hold me to a standard you don't hold.
Wow, you really dug deep and provided all sorts of context there.
Or you could shut up, and I could spend my time listening to what black voices have to say on the topic. Instead I get you, a white liberal, spewing bullshit.
Craig... "Do you acknowledge that the practice of redlining was 100% the responsibility of that icon of the modern progressive movement FDR?"
No. Because that's just not the reality. FDR may have had his role in it, but red lining happened At the hand of conservative bankers and policy makers across the nation.
Re: redlining and FDR.
This IS a good example of the systemic racism put into place by white policymakers across the nation that have had long-lasting negative impacts for black people and real costs to generational wealth lasting to today. Precisely the sorts of systemic racism that CRT warns about and precisely what racists and their useful idiot allies are fighting to support when they attack CRT.
Why are you so dubious of the warriors fighting against racism and injustice?
Craig... "Which seems to literally define speaking for them. As for me, I haven't made any claims about what anyone has said, therefore accusing me of making "false claims" is in itself a false claim."
[Note: Dan saying, but they have not said that... is speaking for them, not just noting a false claim/suggestion. According to Craig.]
Also Craig... "It's interesting that these folks talk a lot about "actual" history, as if anyone would complain about an dispassionate retelling of actual events, yet insist of a telling of history that is slanted in the way they think best."
"THESE FOLKS" yet they "INSIST OF A TELLING OF HISTORY that is SLANTED..."
That sounds to me that you are PRECISELY making a literal claim about them, and a negative and unsupported claim.
ALSO Craig... "2. I've seen quotes from many actual human proponents of CRT who say things like this enough times to suspect that many of the proponents of CRT do espouse something very similar to my hypothetical."
You've "Seen quotes from ... proponents of CRT" who "say things LIKE this... " that you "suspect many proponents do espouse" it (that CRT is saying all white people must be viewed as racist oppressors.)
You ARE speaking for them and intimating - WITHOUT A SINGLE QUOTE to support your stupidly false claim - that they believe precisely what you're suggesting they believe. So, stop playing coy. We SEE that you are setting up the suggestion that CRT is advocating things that you can not support.
This is just more typical Craig, vague intimations and suggestions that you toy with the idea that "I didn't say that..." while clearly suggesting it. It is a way to slander and demonize and precisely the strategy of actual white racists. It's what they did to King and the Civil Rights movement when we were children and it's what racists and their allies are continuing to do today.
Ironically, your vague accusations and slander are precisely the evidence that many black folk see as evidence that so many white people ARE still invested in racism, by your attacks, demonizations, slander.
ALL I've been saying is that IF they didn't say it, DON'T SUGGEST that they did. IF you're going to directly hint that you suspect it's what they believe, then be a grown up adult and support your argument.
This is just lazy man's cowardly racism. A soft racism that tries to be respectable but we can see what you're doing.
Stop it. Support your claim or stop making these vague allegations.
Craig... "3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?"
It's not a paraphrase to note, "UM... they don't say that." It's literally noting the reality that THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and your accusations and slanders are just more racist-allied attacks.
Quit pretending to "listen to black voices" when you're only finding excerpts of voices that agree with your unsupported biases and unfounded opinions.
Again: ALL I'm noting is that, IN SPITE of the notion that you suspect many DO believe what you said, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and if you can't support it, then withdraw the suggestion.
"That sounds to me that you are PRECISELY making a literal claim about them, and a negative and unsupported claim."
Well, the 1619 project literally trumpets the fact that it is not actual history but a slanted version of history intended to influence people.
"You've "Seen quotes from ... proponents of CRT" who "say things LIKE this... " that you "suspect many proponents do espouse" it (that CRT is saying all white people must be viewed as racist oppressors.) You ARE speaking for them and intimating - WITHOUT A SINGLE QUOTE to support your stupidly false claim - that they believe precisely what you're suggesting they believe."
No, I'm actually not doing that at all.
1. My initial statement was a hypothetical if/then statement, it was NOT a claim of any specific person making any specific statement.
2. My follow up was that I've seen quotes that suggest or leave the impression that justify my hypothetical if/then statement.
3. I phrased my comments as I did because I didn't and don't have time to dig through mountains of material to find the quotes.
"So, stop playing coy. We SEE that you are setting up the suggestion that CRT is advocating things that you can not support. This is just more typical Craig, vague intimations and suggestions that you toy with the idea that "I didn't say that..." while clearly suggesting it. It is a way to slander and demonize and precisely the strategy of actual white racists. It's what they did to King and the Civil Rights movement when we were children and it's what racists and their allies are continuing to do today. Ironically, your vague accusations and slander are precisely the evidence that many black folk see as evidence that so many white people ARE still invested in racism, by your attacks, demonizations, slander. ALL I've been saying is that IF they didn't say it, DON'T SUGGEST that they did. IF you're going to directly hint that you suspect it's what they believe, then be a grown up adult and support your argument. This is just lazy man's cowardly racism. A soft racism that tries to be respectable but we can see what you're doing. Stop it. Support your claim or stop making these vague allegations. Craig... "3. Do you realize that I tend to get my information about CRT from black folks, and that I'm not inclined to take your biased paraphrases seriously?" It's not a paraphrase to note, "UM... they don't say that." It's literally noting the reality that THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and your accusations and slanders are just more racist-allied attacks. Quit pretending to "listen to black voices" when you're only finding excerpts of voices that agree with your unsupported biases and unfounded opinions. Again: ALL I'm noting is that, IN SPITE of the notion that you suspect many DO believe what you said, THEY DID NOT SAY THAT and if you can't support it, then withdraw the suggestion."
More slanderous, ad hom, bullshit.
I said what I said, and I specifically kept in in the hypothetical if/then phrasing precisely because I didn't have the time to dig through a bunch of crap. If you want to make shit up, try to impose all sorts of nefarious motivations, and continue to lie about me, I can't stop you. But continuing to lie, doesn't help your cause in the least.
"This IS a good example of the systemic racism put into place by white policymakers across the nation that have had long-lasting negative impacts for black people and real costs to generational wealth lasting to today. Precisely the sorts of systemic racism that CRT warns about and precisely what racists and their useful idiot allies are fighting to support when they attack CRT."
Yes, except this one< like many of the other examples you use was put in by an icon of modern liberalism, and one of the most prominent democrat politicians of the 20th century.
"Why are you so dubious of the warriors fighting against racism and injustice?"
I'm not. I'm dubious of anyone who responds to questions or criticism by labeling those who disagree as "haters", "racists" and other derogatory terms, and whose solutions involve intentional race based discrimination.
"No. Because that's just not the reality. FDR may have had his role in it, but red lining happened At the hand of conservative bankers and policy makers across the nation."
No, the reality is that the Roosevelt administration intentionally, wrote redlining into the New Deal (a series of initiatives frequently lauded by liberals as having saved the US from depression). The FHA (a part of FDR's executive branch of government) was responsible for redlining becoming federal policy.
Unless you are suggesting that FDR wasn't responsible for the acts of his executive branch during his administration.
Maybe you should spend less time on partisan attacks, and more on studying history. Your attempts to dodge the reality that the DFL owns much of what is now called systemic racism, further undermines your credibility.
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
Since you've bitched about my lack of quotes, I'm sure you will promptly rush to answer the questions below related to quotes from CRT disciples.
I've seen Ibram Henry Rogers summary of CRT phrased like this.
"That racism is the single, self-evident cause of racial differences in everything from school grades to incarceration rates to income"
Would you disagree with that summary?
Would you agree that "antiracist discrimination" is an appropriate strategy?
"When I see racial disparities, I see racism."
Do you agree with the above quote? Would you say that it represents the view of those who advocate CRT?
"Would you agree that if someone uses a term to define that term that their definition is problematic at best, useless at worst?
"The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism, in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to be anti-capitalist"
Do you agree that the above quote accurately reflects the views of disciple(s) of CRT?
If it does, then what is the alternative to capitalism that is being proposed?
1. Craig... ""That racism is the single, self-evident cause of racial differences in everything from school grades to incarceration rates to income"
Would you disagree with that summary?"
Do I disagree with that? Yes, probably. I might need more context. I wouldn't think it's apt to say that racism is THE SINGLE CAUSE of racial differences in those areas. But a likely PRIMARY cause..? Sure. That's fairly self-evident.
Or are you asking if I disagree that this is what CRT advocates are saying?
Now, I'd ask you if you recognize that this quote is NOT the same - at all - as saying that all white people are racist oppressors?
I would also ask if you are aware that a lot of the time... most of the time? - when CRT advocates talk about the systemic racism implemented in policies...? As opposed to deliberate discrete actions of individuals?
"The aim of inquiry in critical research is to both critique and transform the social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender structures that constrain and exploit humankind. This focus on critiquing power structures is at the core of CRT."
Does the above quote accurately reflect the teachings of CRT?
Still dealing with your Ibram "Rogers" reference. Here's what JE is telling you and other white conservatives slanderers...
"The Republican operatives, who dismiss the expositions of critical race theorists and anti-racists in order to define critical race theory and anti-racism, and then attack those definitions, are effectively debating themselves. They have conjured an imagined monster to scare the American people and project themselves as the nation’s defenders from that fictional monster...
In the 1950s and ’60s, the conservators of racism organized to keep Black kids out of all-white schools. Today, they are trying to get critical race theory out of American schools. “Instead of helping young people discover that America is the greatest, most tolerant, and most generous nation in history, [critical race theory] teaches them that America is systemically evil and that the hearts of our people are full of hatred and malice,” Trump wrote in an op-ed on June 18...
I have been called the father of critical race theory, although I was born in 1982, and critical race theory was born in 1981. Over the past few months, I have seldom stopped to answer the critiques of critical race theory or of my own work, because the more I’ve studied these critiques, the more I’ve concluded that these critics aren’t arguing against me. They aren’t arguing against anti-racist thinkers. They aren’t arguing against critical race theorists. These critics are arguing against themselves."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619391/
While waiting to see if you'll answer my questions, here are a couple more from you, Craig...
"Would you agree that "antiracist discrimination" is an appropriate strategy?
Probably, depending upon how it's defined. For instance, we have at my agency a disproportionate number of white employees. When we're looking for new employees to hire, we have a desire to "discriminate"/be discriminating when we're hiring because we NEED to have racial minorities represented on our team. So, of course, we will want to do this to the degree we can legally.
Just like if we were all men (we're not!), we'd want to be discriminating in our choice for new employees to hire women. Having a balance and being "discriminating" FOR the purposes of justice and inclusion is a great, good moral thing and rational thing to do.
Would you disagree?
And before you say something stupid like, "No, I'd hire the most qualified candidate..." IF we value balance and full inclusion/representation, THEN hiring a person of color IS hiring the most qualified because, for instance, as a white guy, no matter HOW good an employee I am and how well I do my job, I'll never be black.
Balance is a good, bottom line value to shoot for. Because of course it is.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
"When I see racial disparities, I see racism."
Do you agree with the above quote?"
Of course. We have unjustly disproportionate numbers of black people in poverty BECAUSE we have had systemic racism in our policies built in forever in our history.
Do you seriously doubt this?
Do I think racism is the ONLY explanation for racial disparities? No. But a significant one? Well, of course it is. One would have to be a fool to say otherwise.
Craig...
"Would you say that it represents the view of those who advocate CRT?"
Probably.
Now, in addition to the clarifying questions asked of you above, I'll repeat this rather obvious and reasonable question:
Do you recognize that this is literally NOT the same as saying all white people are racist oppressors?
I've been answering your questions, I'll wait for you to catch up. (and before you lose your mind, that's NOT an accusation or a charge of dodging or not answering fast enough that I'm making towards you... I'm just acknowledging that I'll wait until you answer some of the clarifying questions asked of you before continuing, as a matter of clarity so we don't get confused in a mass of words.)
Dan pretends my links provided do not provide the proofs he demanded. It's just another case of Dan rejecting anything that does not contain the EXACT wording he demands we provide evidence of having been uttered. While "all white people are racist" is not a rare utterance by race-hustlers of all colors, that sentiment...that premise...does not require that exact wording in order for one to say race-hustlers believe it and promote it as a fact. My final link (the YouTube link which present Kendi's own words) prove the sentiment is the basis of that promoter of CRT. The links dealing with the blatant hater of white people, Derrick Bell, also provides his words which no honest person can take any other way and maintain their reputation for honesty. Just in his assertion that no white person does anything for black people unless the white person can benefit is akin to saying "all white people are racist". It's an undeniable conclusion of his statement. But Dan's a liar who's trying to whitewash CRT as something noble.
"Do I disagree with that? Yes, probably. I might need more context. I wouldn't think it's apt to say that racism is THE SINGLE CAUSE of racial differences in those areas. But a likely PRIMARY cause..? Sure. That's fairly self-evident."
So, your answer appears to be that you really don't know if that is an accurate summary or not.
"Or are you asking if I disagree that this is what CRT advocates are saying?"
No, I literally asked you if that quote (from a newspaper) was an accurate summary of what CRT "teaches". You can tell that I didn't ask you a completely different question, by reading the question that was asked.
"Now, I'd ask you if you recognize that this quote is NOT the same - at all - as saying that all white people are racist oppressors?"
Are you daft? Did I do or say ANYTHING that indicated that I was equating this particular summary of CRT with my earlier if/then hypothetical? What an idiotic "question".
"I would also ask if you are aware that a lot of the time... most of the time? - when CRT advocates talk about the systemic racism implemented in policies...? As opposed to deliberate discrete actions of individuals?"
Yes, I am aware that they are talking about policy formulated by individuals as opposed to the actions of individuals. But aren't individuals who form and implement policies engaging an actions as individuals or groups of individuals, or do non racist individuals implement racist policies...
"Probably, depending upon how it's defined."
Why not just admit that your answer is yes, instead of this mealy mouthed, shuck and jive, bullshit non answer answer.
"For instance, we have at my agency a disproportionate number of white employees."
By all means, define "disproportionate number of white employees"? Who gets to decide what's the absolute correct proportion? As a white employee who acknowledges that your represent a disproportionate number of white employees, why haven't you resigned and offered your position to a black person?
"When we're looking for new employees to hire, we have a desire to "discriminate"/be discriminating when we're hiring because we NEED to have racial minorities represented on our team. So, of course, we will want to do this to the degree we can legally. Just like if we were all men (we're not!), we'd want to be discriminating in our choice for new employees to hire women. Having a balance and being "discriminating" FOR the purposes of justice and inclusion is a great, good moral thing and rational thing to do. Would you disagree? And before you say something stupid like, "No, I'd hire the most qualified candidate..." IF we value balance and full inclusion/representation, THEN hiring a person of color IS hiring the most qualified because, for instance, as a white guy, no matter HOW good an employee I am and how well I do my job, I'll never be black. Balance is a good, bottom line value to shoot for. Because of course it is. Do you disagree? Craig..."
Balance based solely on skin color is neither good nor bad, it's simply a way to help white folks like you assuage your guilt for not steeping aside for POC.
"Of course. We have unjustly disproportionate numbers of black people in poverty BECAUSE we have had systemic racism in our policies built in forever in our history. Do you seriously doubt this? Do I think racism is the ONLY explanation for racial disparities? No. But a significant one? Well, of course it is. One would have to be a fool to say otherwise."
Interesting, so are you saying that in communities or societies where everyone is of the same "race" (skin color), that you still see racism as the primary cause of differences?
Please quantify the % that is directly and specifically only "racism", and the % that is other factors?
"Probably. Now, in addition to the clarifying questions asked of you above, I'll repeat this rather obvious and reasonable question: Do you recognize that this is literally NOT the same as saying all white people are racist oppressors?"
Do you realize that I've never said anything close to "saying that this is the same as saying ..."?
Do you realize that I've never actually said "all white people are racist oppressors"?
But excellent job trying to move the discussion away from the actual words of CRT acolytes, and toward your straw man.
"I've been answering your questions, I'll wait for you to catch up. (and before you lose your mind, that's NOT an accusation or a charge of dodging or not answering fast enough that I'm making towards you... I'm just acknowledging that I'll wait until you answer some of the clarifying questions asked of you before continuing, as a matter of clarity so we don't get confused in a mass of words.)"
Since I've answered all of the questions I've seen up to this point, and I'm answering your questions as I go, I'm not sure what this bit of passive aggressive bullshit is.
Marshal... " It's just another case of Dan rejecting anything that does not contain the EXACT wording he demands we provide evidence of having been uttered."
Of course, As always, this is not factual I have always been abundantly clear that I'm not talking about a particular phrase.. If someone says All caucasians want to enslave people who are not caucasians, that would be the same as essaying all white people are racist oppressors come over close enough. But saying that red lining is an example of systemic racism is simply not the same as saying all white people are racist. of course. The problem is not that I'm demanding a specific phrase. The problem is you are reading their words and inserting meaning INTO those words that they have not said and they do not think. You are factually mistaken. Objectively factually mistaken.
I suspect part of the problem is that you all are failing to understand the nuance between systemic racism - racism by policy that negatively impacts a race of people - Between that and discreet acts of of individual white people hating black people overtly.
Apology that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy. It doesn't need to have been created with the intention of hating black people in order to be racist.
Have you all heard the analogy of a house built 50 years ago where the builder really just didn't not like disabled people. The builder refused to put in ramps and otherwise accommodate people in wheelchairs. 50 years later, that builder is dead and gone but his children have the house. They don't hate people with disabilities. But the house's design has an impact upon those those with disabilities.. It's systemic ableism.
Systemic racism is like that. It doesn't insist upon a planned and intentional desire to harm black people, or, but it has that effect nonetheless. I think you all failing to understand that distinction is why you hear systemic racism and assume that they're saying that all white people are racist oppressors.
It's a failure on your part to understand the intent and when you fail to understand, you assign some other intent.
"I suspect part of the problem is that you all are failing to understand the nuance between systemic racism - racism by policy that negatively impacts a race of people - Between that and discreet acts of of individual white people hating black people overtly."
I know with 100% certainty that any time you start to respond to something based on what you "suspect", that you will be responding based on your biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and constructing a straw man.
"Apology that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy."
Leaving aside your laziness, and disinterest in proofreading your comments. I'll point out that every single government policy ever enacted affects a "race of people", it affects every "race of people".
"It doesn't need to have been created with the intention of hating black people in order to be racist. Have you all heard the analogy of a house built 50 years ago where the builder really just didn't not like disabled people. The builder refused to put in ramps and otherwise accommodate people in wheelchairs. 50 years later, that builder is dead and gone but his children have the house. They don't hate people with disabilities. But the house's design has an impact upon those those with disabilities.. It's systemic ableism. Systemic racism is like that. It doesn't insist upon a planned and intentional desire to harm black people, or, but it has that effect nonetheless. I think you all failing to understand that distinction is why you hear systemic racism and assume that they're saying that all white people are racist oppressors. It's a failure on your part to understand the intent and when you fail to understand, you assign some other intent."
Strangely enough, you (like Ibram Henry Rogers) like to use circular arguments.
Once again, I'll ignore the errors you make in your rush to vent, and put this where it belongs.
"I'm sorry, please clarify... if a university had zero black professors, you would OPPOSE them actively trying to recruit professors who were black (ie, "race based discrimination...")? Really?"
1. This isn't an answer to the question that was asked, or as it was asked.
2. 1 answer is that current US law would prohibit the sort of "race" based discriminatory hiring practices that you seem to be advocating.
3. There's not enough information here to really respond beyond a general platitude.
4. I'm strange in that (just like in housing and lending) I think that the color of one's skin should have no bearing on one's qualifications for a particular job.
"Is it the case that you can't understand the distinction between being discriminating in one's choices (discriminating for a better result, of course) and the overt racism of redlining and keeping gay folk out of the military and other HARM-based discrimination?"
No, I do understand the distinction. I'm pretty sure I've posted on it before.
"If not, I don't know how to help you. I'd advocate that you work on maturing your sense of morality and justice beyond a 1st grade level. Answered several of your questions. I'll give you a chance to answer mine."
As you've pointed out, I shouldn't be listening to white people on this topic. Especially white people who feel like ad hom attacks are part of rational conversation.
Craig... "1 answer is that current US law would prohibit the sort of "race" based discriminatory hiring practices that you seem to be advocating."
You're factually mistaken.
"All other things being equal between two candidates, a choice can be made to recruit, hire or promote a member of a protected class over one who is not. The issue of reverse discrimination arises when there is a difference in the qualities or qualifications of the candidates and the protected member is favored solely (or primarily) based on that person’s status as a member of a protected class."
https://www.kcsourcelink.com/blog/post/blog/2018/05/01/how-to-recruit-and-hire-for-diversity-legally
Craig... "I'm strange in that (just like in housing and lending) I think that the color of one's skin should have no bearing on one's qualifications for a particular job..."
It may help you to know that you're not strange at all in that regard. There are huge numbers of white people who are not familiar with or connected to the deep disturbing history of systemic racism and oppression. And so for many white people, their privilege means they have a hard time comprehending the notion of positive discrimination. But, given the reality of even the reality of systemic oppression of black people, of course we should then discriminate in a positive manner. And we should be able to recognize the difference between discrimination FOR Justice as opposed to discrimination as an act of injustice.
Can you?
Craig... " Especially white people who feel like ad hom attacks are part of rational conversation."
Noting that someone who can't/won't distinguish between "discriminating" on behalf of Justice as opposed to someone discriminating to cause INJUSTICE is operating at a grade school level of moral reasoning is not an ad hom attack. It's an accurate description of an undeveloped moral conscience.
Early grade schoolers are operating in the concrete operational stage (re: Piaget). They take things woodenly, literally. IF "discrimination" is bad, when we're talking about discriminating against black or gay folk or women for who they are, then "discriminating" is a bad word. That's grade school, as an apt description literally, not an ad hom attack.
Do you understand that distinction?
Now, by all means, actually answer the question: DO YOU understand the difference between being discriminating FOR just reasons as opposed to the immoral discrimination for UNjust reasons? Do you understand why one is bad and shouldn't be done and one is GOOD and SHOULD be done?
Saying, "I do understand the distinction. I THINK I've posted on it before" is not a satisfying answer, especially when you continue to act like discriminating FOR justice is bad. DO YOU think that all forms of discrimination in hiring practices are bad, even if it's being done for reasons of justice?
Wow, Craig! That Dan is so nice. He's giving you a chance to answer his strawman questions!! What a guy!!
What a...well...this isn't my blog so I'll go all Dan on you and use the appropriate expletive to describe Dan's low character. But I will say this, Dan's "mature sense of morality and justice" (a laughable notion if ever there was one) is neither moral or just, nor is it any way mature (the most laughable aspect of the laughable notion). Rather, it's the same thing the CRT morons say when asserting that negative outcomes for blacks is a sign of racism. Dan's "mature sense of morality and justice" is also based on outcome. This can be seen in his hiring nonsense, pretending that a business or organization is better because they have some unstated percentage of black people or other minorities...that the military was somehow improved by doing away with recruitment restrictions involving homosexuals and other idiocies he can't possibly prove. His argument is, it's better because it's just better.
And of course, as Craig points out, Dan hasn't thought to quit in order to open up a position for a black guy, so Dan's a hypocrite.
Indeed, Dan goes on to argue against himself, as his vaunted CRT racists pretend it's CRT critics who argue against themselves. In the meantime, he ignores the proofs my several links early on provided to support the fact that CRT advocates simply believe all white people are racist. (Certainly Beverly DiAngelo does and I've never heard a CRT proponent argue against it!) Some are more overt in their racism against whites (like Dan) and other couch their terms in order to deflect or mitigate such criticisms (Marc Lamont Hill).
Back to outcomes, Dan said, "Apology (a policy) that negatively impacts a race of people is a racist policy." This is untrue unless it can be confirmed the policy was meant to negatively impact a given race. That said race is negatively impacted is not even necessarily true so much as it might not provide the same level of benefit for said race. Honest people will seek factual, provable reasons for the disparity rather than attribute to the consequence the label of "racism", which Dan and his like-minded CRT racists do at the start. Dan used the absurd hypothetical analogy of a builder who hates the disabled and thus builds in a manner which denies the disabled easy access. But right away we see in this stupidity that the dude hates the disabled! Before local codes forced consideration for the disabled in how buildings are built, it would be absurd to insist that architects purposely moved to make life more difficult for the disabled.
If past situations were such that some acted with intent against black people, that has nothing to do with the situation of black people today. With extremely rare exception, the only people holding back minorities are minorities themselves. This is true unless evidence can be presented that rebuts it. CRT advocates...and certainly Dan...never do. They simply say, "black outcomes are lower, so some racist did something". Thomas Sowell, and actual black person of legitimate intelligence and wisdom, has spent the last 50 years or so demonstrating what bullshit that is.
Dan wallows in bullshit.
Post a Comment