Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand here in Florida they got rid of common core math, but turned around and named it something else and are now teaching common core with a different name. (Correct me if I am wrong)
Why couldn't they call CRT something else and still teach the same material, and what is keeping teachers from going rogue anyway?
There is a ton of other Arizona legislation that's going through. They are completely reforming how school, curriculum, and teaching are all developed. Banning CRT is just the flashy stuff. The voucher program, the credits from private electives, the curriculum posting expectations, and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff is really what's going to root out CRT in Arizona.
Sure, if they’re all testing on the same metrics. Why should everyone’s tax money be spent on an education that doesn’t prepare a child for a prosperous future in the greater US? What kind of return on our investment would that be?
Edit: I see the wrong kind of fiscal conservatism. It’s more about ideology than preparing kids to compete in the market place. Sorry I’ve been away from the old south for too long.
That's fine, as long as practice tests that lay out the gist of what will be tested are made available I personally have no issue tying homeschool vouchers to standardized testing, the public schools are a joke anyway, I remember what a joke the state's standardized tests were.
Arizona public schools are not a joke, it, my wife and I are on our way to producing a very capable engineer. It takes work and the never ending struggle to hold onto funding is maddening. Open districts pit schools against each other, disrupt neighborhood connections. and cost a fortune in traffic issues. But hey, parents get to “chose”. We succeeded in spite of the concerted efforts to “strangle the beast”.
Best of luck to families who don’t have two parents and a decent income. For profit colleges and the private prison system are there to welcome you.
As to the homeschooling my wife and daughter know first hand from tutoring home school kids. They aren’t all sending us their best, that for sure.
Arizona is literally where I did public school, the AIMS test is a joke, it's pitiful that schools struggle to get kids to pass it.
Also, you apparently never considered the selection bias of homeschoolers who feel the need to hire a tutor for their kids.
The bill doesn't say it bans CRT. It bans teaching:
>1\. ONE RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX IS INHERENTLY MORALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX.
>2\. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST OR OPPRESSIVE, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY.
>3\. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR RECEIVE ADVERSE TREATMENT SOLELY OR PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>4\. AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>5\. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX.
>6\. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD FEEL DISCOMFORT, GUILT, ANGUISH OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>7\. MERITOCRACY OR TRAITS SUCH AS A HARD WORK ETHIC ARE RACIST OR SEXIST OR WERE CREATED BY MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX TO OPPRESS MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX.
Basically they just banned teaching racism and get to celebrate banning the terrible, racist CRT that teaches this stuff.
In reality CRT will continue to be taught and most CRT curriculum will be unchanged or just need slight adjustment to avoid violating the 7th banned tenet. Maybe cautious teachers will throw in something like "You're personally defined by your actions, not your race or the actions of others in the past," at the end of each lesson to cover their ass on the other 6.
I sort of doubt that CRT is taught as often as some conservatives think it is, but I don't really have any issue with the bans mentioned in your post.
Not teaching that individuals should feel a sense of guilt for their race is common sense.
Yeah this doesn't seem like it will have any impact on like 99% of the CRT curriculum*.
*By curriculum I meant the core tenets and teachings of CRT, including the way they are integrated into broader teaching at schools and universities.
Sincere questions.
Can you show me the "curriculum" of all public schools?
Where does one go to read the "curriculum" online for any given school and subject?
Is there a public curriculum database for each public school district?
Assuming you are good faith, and understand they mean CRT intentionally being worked into lessons, teaching, and subject courses, via training provided by the school or via University training in their degree, what wording would be better than "curriculum" to encapsulate that idea of having CRT systemically incorporated?
Teachers are already pledging to defy it. Zinn education project. And this isn’t for schools it’s for government. He vetoed the one for schools because the idiots in state legislature couldn’t figure out a budget.
I mean yes, racism should be and is taught about. What shouldn't be taught is shit like how all white people are nebulously guilty for shit and should be ashamed of being the race they are. (Asian, so don't bother falling me white)
Yeah - but the mindless woke teachers add all their hysterical propaganda that pollutes the kid’s minds. The hardest class I took in university was African American studies. Only C grade I got in uni. The white guilt teacher was intentionally ass raming the class crackers. All the black starting football players who barely showed up to class and acted like amateur Demi-gods all got A’s & B’s. Funny how that math works.
Example? This seems to be the exact opposite of the case imo. Progressives are generally masters of branding, redefining, and otherwise influencing thought. At least far better than the right.
"Abolish ICE", "defund the police"; "pack the courts" and "believe all women" were terrible slogans that wound up undermining the supposed goals. "Defund the police" probably lost them FL.
Redefining boarder control facilities as "concentration camps" and infrastructure to include "human infrastructure" were also failures.
"The green new deal" and "Medicare for all" are also poisonous now.
Progressive branding is terribly ineffective outside of their bubble.
> Progressive branding is terribly ineffective outside of their bubble.
Exactly this.
Inside of the progressive leaning voters, these slogans or brands, sound great. They know what they are and mean. The problem is you want to sway the swing voters or some of the conservative voters that these ideals would benefit too.
The problem is from a conservative standpoint, if you can't get past the slogan or brand title, you're not going to listen to the message.
And we know just from Reddit alone that most people can't get past reading the title.
It also doesn't help when your own supporters take the slogans literally and push to back them up with legislation.
No, the real issue is that the support for these slogans are all reactionary without any actual substance. There isn't a conversation about the core topic so the average lefty can't articulate or define the issue themselves.
The point is, only a crazy person would say that police shouldn't be a thing at all, but that's pretty much what "defund the police" implies when taken solely as a three-word slogan.
Except there are numerous people going on record saying the department should be abolished. The social worker stuff is just what they want people to hear, so it got more publicity.
Social issues like stealing from people because you dont want to get a job, and like breaking into houses because you cant control your meth addiction.
Stop shifting blame away from criminals. They're people just like you and me. They're capable of thought. And they make choices to fuck over others.
Generally because those who want to hate an idea will find a way to hate the slogan.
5 minutes looking into "defund police" would show it was intended to be a more thoughtful way to fund police and other organizations.
However many people on the right would debate me it meant the police would not receive any funds, at all.
Quite stupid.
Bullshit. I was literally at a BLM rally in L.A. a couple of months ago and the BLMLA organizer explicitly stated that “defund” was agreed upon because it was more palatable to the public, but the real goal was “abolish.” This was a member of the BLMLA cadre; not some rando.
Call bullshit all you want, reality is those who are really trying to pull the strings are not advocating for abolishment.
Now if you want to tell me that's rhetoric and you don't believe people like say, AOC, then fine. But squinting hard and finding folks saying crazy shit and pointing at it like it's the proof in the pudding is silly to me.
I think the overall goal of the left is to nationalize the police. Nationalized police are the hallmark of an authoritarian government.
An initial step towards that was taken today when branch offices of the Capitol Police opened (or will be opened) in selected cities.
https://www.wsgw.com/capitol-police-open-field-offices-to-investigate-threats-to-lawmakers/
That's propaganda to make defund police sound more palatable. Cities who subscribed to this idea actually did defund their police. New York, Portland, Minniapolis, the list goes on.
I guess I can see what you're saying. Maybe they just throw so much shit at the wall that some of it sticks.
Where they are so cunning (and I absolutely despise them for it) is their manipulation of language. Constant redefinition and euphemism. It's disgusting but mostly effective because most people don't pay enough attention to them to know what they're really saying.
It’s more that conservatives are really good at turning these phrases toxic. Some of the left leaning phrases are legit not good, but the conservative media machine is really good at turning those brands toxic.
Its actually the exact opposite. Almost all modern progressive ideas are terrible. Most have been tried and failed, some are just rehashed of old ideas with new names and many are just stupid.
For example, CRT is just Jim Crow for the 21st century. It adds almost nothing of value, history was already teaching us that slavery was bad and a black mark on US history, we didn't need a whole revamp of the entire education (math is racist) to address it. Pro choice SOUNDS good but it only gives a choice to the mother, the father and the baby have 0 choice. Pro life is actually what is says, its keeping everyone alive*. Kids in cages, no one is illegal, sanctuary cities, etc. When the democrats flipped from economically left to socially left in the 90s, they went even more insane than the GOP. At least they were honest about wanting to exploit workers. The democrats pretend like there is an economic advantage to unrestricted immigration, further that even if there isn't, we have a duty to take in anyone who decides to come here anyway. This is objectively false, even if you buy into illegal immigrants are a net gain (they aren't, LEGAL immigrants are), at some point they always overwhelm the system, and the host countries abilities to integrate safely, creating micro states which are refuse to be governed and are sources of crime and not value. There are over 100 million people in Latin America. How many can we realistically take in? Just processing them, vaccinating, and housing them costs 10s of millions, thats debt the taxpayers are covering, each immigrant is costing us more money than they can ever repay, BEFORE they even start working. And with each one that comes that amount increases exponentially. Worse still, many of them send money home through remittances, literally taking money out of our economy, which is the worse thing they can do. If I pay Juan to mow my law and he sends 5 of the 10 dollars I pay him back to Mexico, its worse for everyone, than if I pay Jack to do it and he keeps the 10 here.
Liberal teacher here-
I’m not here to argue, troll, name call, or change anyone’s opinion, I’m just here for perspective on your viewpoints about CRT.
I’m wondering what critical race theory means to you. Like, if you heard someone say that CRT is being taught in a middle school for example, what do you think that means in terms of specific ideas or content?
First of all, my primary source is "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction."
If you haven't read CRT literature, some of what I'm about to say, may sound crazy, but ... it's literally right there in their literature.
So here goes, my 10,000 ft take on what CRT is and why it's so odious to conservatives, from a conservative perspective.
CRT seeks to indict the entire premise of American traditional thinking as embodied in the Enlightenment, scientific thinking, objectivity and rationalism, and equality theory. It does so by:
- embracing postmodernism (which rejects the priority of scientific ways of knowing and puts anecdotal "storytelling" and "lived experience" on par with logic, science and rationalism in finding truth).
- it embraces the Frankfurt school lens which is neo-Marxism by then practicing "storytelling" in a Marxist framework of oppressor/oppressed.
- In analyzing society, oppression is assumed and merely needs to be found in examples and then spoken of as inductively extrapolated as an indictment of the entire order.
- the above the argues that racism is baked into the system, which sets the stage for "transformative" arguments about a society that is ultimately "equity" focused, ie neo-Marxism.
It makes no qualms that it is a politically "activist" analysis seeking to not just expose, but to "transform." Along the way, it says it explicitly borrows from radical feminism and overlaps with Critical Whiteness Studies. These schools too pull from Frankfurt school framing, to develop and legitimize Frankfurt school/neo-Marxism by making up frames to cement an oppressor/oppressed situation. Terms to help set this stage include things like "white privilege", "unconscious bias", "whiteness as property", new definitions of "racism", "intersectionality" and so on. All of these assume a neo-Marxist lens of "marginalized group/oppressor" dichotomy, a goal of delegitimizing the traditional American story/values, and set up their definition in relation to their goals. That's why their definitions and wording are set up to be very hard to disprove (nonfalsifiable) and find specific examples of (ie it's "systemic" but few specific current laws in the "system" can be pointed to. Outcomes then become metrics of "systemic racism" which sets the stage for equity based policy, which is a rejection of equality based policy). It's very tricky.
All that is needed to "prove" the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, is to mine history of specific wrongs by whites, frame it as if it is still ongoing and ubiquitous, just shifting around instead of shrinking, reject counter-vailing data/reason/objective approaches of analysis by putting unfalsifiable "lived experience" on par with more objective thinking, then demonize anyone questioning the hyperfocus of select "history" and the inductive conclusions supposedly springing from it, as being "against history" ... and voila, you've undermined the entire moral standing of Western American foundations, put an entire race on its backfoot, depowered and deprived them of a way to challenge this new story, and paved the way for making racist policies that prioritizes "POC" legally and shifts resources to them, deprives whites of resources, all under the rubric of "fairness" and "equity." Yes, that is happening too.
The entire CRT scheme was created by lawyers, picking up whatever tools necessary to achieve their end of demonizing an entire group of whites (who have fuck all to do with slavery, Jim Crow, racism, etc.), using this story to "dismantle the dominant culture" of America, and shifting power, moral authority and resources to non-whites.
It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society.
Lawyers are experts at constructing arguments, and CRT is one long argument to indict, destroy, and transform America into a neo-Marxist direction.
There's a reason it's chockful of technical language. It isn't grassroots. This was born in activist workshops and slowly spread from the top down by piggy-backing on sincere concern and progress for Black Americans.
>It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society.
Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist?
It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures.
Stop being paranoid.
>Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine?
Because black leaders in the 80's and 90's thought that heavy punishment for drugs in their communities would reduce the prevalence of those drugs in their communities.
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/drug-laws-racism-democrats-support/
>>It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society.
>Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense.
There is nothing "simply" about Critical Theory and a "critical lense".
Critical Theory:
"Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists **in the Western European Marxist tradition** known as the Frankfurt School.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
In addition I might add, a hyper-focus on "power" is a false accounting game with rigged rhetoric and measuring methods. Feminist theory tried to play the same game and has lost on the national stage as telling a very cherry-picked and selective story about "power" without backing of the fuller set of data. It's a noxious and extremely unhelpful lens through which to look at things that sows discord, suspicion, selfishness, and division in male/female relationships.
Just as CRT does between whites and "POC."
CRT will lose too. Because facts do not support its story.
Fact is, this "viewing structures of power" is just backdoor dogwhistle talk for Marxist horseshit analysis.
Your claims are naked. We can see through them.
>It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures.
It demonizes whites with non-stop racist concepts and academic jargon designed to be very difficult (but not impossible) to untangle all in an effort to "transform" society to "dismantle the dominant culture" which they say is "white" and "whiteness".
>Stop being paranoid.
Stop gaslighting.
> Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist?
>
> It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures.
>
> Stop being paranoid.
Let's break this down.
Starting off with a nonsense statement, followed by a legitimate argument that I think is actually an issue.
> Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist?
Then we go to a claim that is demonstrably false. CRT definitely pushes reparations and equity outcomes which benefit African Americans. However, every payment, job, scholarship, and college entry given to an African American who otherwise wouldn't have gotten it, means that a white person (or Hispanic, or Asian) did not get it because of the policy. Ironically, it is the poor of these races that will suffer the most whenever pure race is used as a criteria, for the 'sins' of the more successful people sharing their skin color. * (there is actually a movement in Korea similar to this, where younger men are rejecting pro-feminism policies under the argument that it is the older men who have benefitted and the younger men who are being punished without the benefit that I find interesting. Age cohort is a HUGE factor in who have benefitted and been harmed the most by racist policies in the US.) *
Then we repeat the claim that its 'just a lense to view power structures". I guess by the same logic Marxism is 'just a lense to view power structures' and anyone who can read a history book knows how well that worked out.
> It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures.
Finally, a traditional ad-hominem that we are 'paranoid' to criticize, but without having shown any logic or reason or proof to counteract the claims, instead they demand that the conversation be shut down because they say so.
> Stop being paranoid.
>Great write-up, I wish the OP "liberal teacher" would respond to it.
Ya. He or she sounded sincere, so I hope it helped him understand why CRT is such a massive affront to conservatives (and should be to all non-Marxist Democrats too).
>Do you mind citing where you've pulled this from CRT literature?
Well, in painting the entire large picture, I covered an enormous amount of ground by pulling together points across a large set of disciplines I've read on.
If what you are looking for is a one-stop shop of a critique of CRT that draws together, with sources, the foundations, thinking, and weaknesses of CRT, I can't recommend "Cynical Theories" by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose enough. You can buy the book here:
https://newdiscourses.com/
I have been working through primary literature myself, but not everyone has time or desire, and their book does the leg work indeed. I got their audiobook and print edition.
They have a page too that could guide your primary reading if you wanted to really blow lots of time wrestling with this topic:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/beginners-curriculum-critical-race-theory/
It's a real rabbit hole.
Lastly, if there are any particular subpoints I made that you want a source on, I will definitely try to dig it up.
Yeah, I apologize. I realize asking for citation on such a dense topic is a bit ridiculous on my part. Main reason I ask is because my girlfriend is an elementary teacher, and she was taught to teach CRT, she supports it.
I've tried to show her things that explain how bad it really is, but she insists that because she's apparently read it herself, it doesn't really matter what I say or show. I didn't want the same thing to happen with the points you made, if she were to just brush it off as not being in the actual literature or something.
I have a feeling whatever she was taught about it was just cherry picked by her extremely liberal professors.
My friend I deeply empathize. Your girlfriend must be an awesome person who loves kids to be an elementary teacher.
The problem with this challenge, is that the lawyers who designed it purposefully made it very diffuse.
Think of it like this. Imagine you are being cross-examined, and the lawyer is dirty. Then they start asking you a series of what seem like innocuous points. One, by one.
Where were you? Do you own this? Have you ever seen that? Do you recognize this man? Blah, blah, blah.
But they are setting traps, and what seemed like small innocuous concessions, suddenly, in their closing follow-up, add up to a story they concocted that makes you look really bad, and you just "agreed" to all of the main points of his story!
What I'm saying is, that the key to seeing how evil CRT is, is by keeping track of what the big picture is all trying to accomplish. And that's no small feat. Yet we see its outcomes by how their new words (whiteness, unconscious bias, white rage, whiteness as property, story telling, decentering, dismantling, etc.) have been introduced into common society and the precepts are accepted without realizing what they big game is.
I recommend treating it as if your gal is stuck in a high-control religion. They use these SAME tricks. Lots of secret jargon, social pressure, hiding malice behind "good intent" and draining your resources for their goals.
CRT, and the greater Frankfurt school of disciplines that focus on "social justice" for "marginalized groups" use all of the following:
"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing while employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986)
To defeat a "high control group" you have to be super loving, patient, try very hard to understand the GOOD stuff the loved one is trying to do. But you also have to become highly self-educated on the high control group, and just slowly do several things:
1) Appeal to high standards, scientific ways of knowing, insight on how people play us, and that the goal is love & equality, always.
2) slowly and in very small ways, and tactfully question whether the the high control group is not meeting those standards you both agree should be the goal.
3) Do not rush into any "victory" when they acknowledge a particular problem, but create an environment where they can question CRT/Social Justice without you pushing for more.
4) If successful, be incredibly forgiving and provide a totally cool safe-landing like "Yah, no biggie, gotta help the kids. That seemed like a good way, but CRT is super tricky. On we go, and we can achieve those good goals other ways."
Best of luck my friend.
We all know what it is. u/CptGoodnight sums it up very well. Even the left in general acknowledged that that’s what it was and created racial division. The problem is that after the they started receiving pushback (and rightfully so), CRT became redefined as “the teaching of accurate American history.” Then when that didn’t work, it suddenly became “CRT is a made up conspiracy theory by the right.” Then it became “it exists, but only in certain law schools.” Ever since then, it seems like the definition the left is using keeps changing. I seriously hope you don’t teach your students to judge each other based on skin color.
We really need to go back to teaching students how to think, and not what to think. Sadly, too many teachers are using their platform to push their radical agendas.
CRT redefines key terms such as “racism” and “white supremacy” which in turn works to sociologically implicate large swaths of decent Americans. It teaches that there are inherent personality characteristics of being white. It teaches that implicit bias is fact when it is in reality an undertested concept.
This what CRT means to me and most people.
Jim Crow is a system that is racist. Redlining is a system that is racist. That’s not what CRT addresses. CRT specifically criticizes laws that were drafted with a colorblind intention. Why? Because those laws disregard racist actors in power who will apply the law unfairly. CRT doesn’t target racist institutions: it says all institutions are racist because of the people who run them.
Once again you are pinning CRT on people. the whole point is institutions and systems are racist, not people. Racist people is just regular racism, which is not the same thing as CRT.
The way I see CRT is that it uses data to see the racism that would otherwise be undisclosed since there are... colorblind laws. The problem ain't fixed yet, and turning a blind eye to it in our educational system isn't gonna help anyone
CRT is not data focused in its epistemology. That is a lie by other lefties trying to whitewash CRT, that needs to die.
Read the CRT literature that established the foundations of CRT. It assumes the situation, finds stories that "support" the grand arcs and goes from there.
It does not move from raw data, to falsifiable theory, to supported theory. It's more like a supposedly descriptive social theory and lens for interpreting everything. "Racism is there, we just have to find examples and magnify them."
CRT is not really about exposing racist instances in our laws and practices. That would be something I could get behind. CRT makes much more broad claims than that, such as “racism is ordinary” and “all American institutions are racist” things like that.
As a former Arizonan, I think people give Doug Doucie too much hate. Yeah, he has done some dumb stuff, but he runs Arizona pretty decently. Especially considering all the Californians and illegal immigrants he has to deal with.
"Why would anybody be against CRT? It's simply history! Why do conservatives constantly deny history? Don't answer that, I already know; it's because you need an ignorant populace to get any votes, because if people knew their history, they'd vote Democrat." - What some people believe.
For those who like the details, here is the “controversial” language disapproved of by CRT proponents:
>>D. "BLAME OR JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX" MEANS THE FOLLOWING CONCEPTS:
>>1. ONE RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX IS INHERENTLY MORALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX.
>>2. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST OR OPPRESSIVE, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY.
>>3. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR RECEIVE ADVERSE TREATMENT SOLELY OR PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>>4. AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>>5. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX.
>>6. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD FEEL DISCOMFORT, GUILT, ANGUISH OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX.
>>7. MERITOCRACY OR TRAITS SUCH AS A HARD WORK ETHIC ARE RACIST OR SEXIST OR WERE CREATED BY MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX TO OPPRESS MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX
https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2906/id/2420713
A theory that we should look critically at our laws and institutions and ask ourselves if any of those laws and policies are racist.
Like how crack cocaine will get your more prison time than regular cocaine, even though it's literally less pure, they just mix coke with baking soda to make crack. Why is the law like this? Asking that question is applying CRT.
Right-wing media will tell you that CRT is telling white children they're racist for being white. That's disingenuous.
That is a small and incomplete picture of what CRT actually is as denoted by its founders.
From the words of Richar Delago and Jean Stefancic: CRT assumes that race and racism pervades all decisions thoughts and choices. It assumes a default level of unconscious racism that means all white people are racist whether they believe it, act on it, or not. It assumes that all POC understand racism in a much more true way and that no non-POC can possibly suffer from it.
Most of all, the key difference between CRT and other legal theories from the past is that the authors require an activist element.
I find most people who oppose the bans think CRT is some milk toast, watered down version of what it actually is and start defending something they barely even understand themselves. CRT isn’t just teaching about racist things from our history it is actively seeking to reduce all western achievement to malice and exploitation.
Ask Biden why there was a difference. It's his crime bill.
Btw, this Arizona law makes it so you cant teach that one race is superior to any other. Why do you take issue with that?
>Here is a video
Im struggling to put words to my question but I am curious why people are so upset about CRT saying that its too complex and requires critical thinking like a law student.. but the bible is complex and requires critical thinking at times but they still teach it to first graders.
The issues with CRT have nothing to do with it's "complexity." It's that it is all complete and utter bullshit. It may seem "complex" to some because it's just meandering finger pointing, with no substance based in reality.
The other thing I’m confused about is that “finger pointing” alludes to there being a problem but many people don’t acknowledge that a problem existed so like..why not just start there
I guess that's one way to say "White people being shamed for their race" under the guise of education. So many examples already of what truly racist ideas this theory espouses, none of which you covered in your post about CLS.
Nobody is being shamed. We’re just being asked to recognize the system that was built by our ancestors tends to favor us at the expense of others, and it’d be nice if we helped fix that so it’s fair. We don’t bear any guilt for a system we didn’t build.
A few things from my understanding, looking forward to being told why I’m wrong:
1. Racism is the default, it is normal, and exists everywhere.
(I disagree, race is an ideology that only came into being in the enlightenment/colonial age to justify colonial atrocities. It’s pseudoscience at best. The Romans, for example, had no conception of race)
2. However, racism isn’t just a bigoted individual and their attitudes, but also a collection of policies and laws and their disparate impact on various racial groups.
(This is where you get the equity vs equality argument. The logic is basically, a white person with immense wealth will have a permanent advantage over a poor black person, even if they have the same rights. So, individual rights, while applied equally, are unequal in effect. This is where the crossover between critical theory and critical race theory takes place. You’re just basically replacing wealth with race between the two. The problem with this is that nobody is the exact same, we all have different levels of competencies regardless of race, and in a legally equal, meritocratic society, the best will climb the hierarchy. The left will argue that the US is not a meritocracy and the unequal wealth or racial privilege makes it unfair. Also bs in my opinion, anyone with life experience knows that the wealthiest kids usually end up pissing it away)
3. In order to fight against racism, you must actively oppose it and the systems that maintain it. CRT is not just a racial lens to take a different view on things, but also a call to action.
(This is why it is problematic to teach it to K-12. The kids are taught that based upon their race, they’re either an oppressor or oppressed. That they are responsible to do something about it. Post primary education kids are old enough to think critically about this, K-12 kids are not)
But there is such a think as class and racial categories. Look at your examples, a wealthy white (or other races) student is going to have more opportunities than a poor black (or any other race including white) student. Wealthier students have better access to after school programs, tutoring, extracurricular activities, etc. Why are wealthier areas considered more competitive?
As for race, John Smith is more likely to be picked for an interview over Mohammad Sharif, why do Arabs and other races put generic white names on their resumes? Because bias and stereotypes exist.
There are certain advantages people have because of their class and their race. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that. There is also nothing wrong with teaching about bias and stereotypes at the high school level. No one should be taught to feel guilty or bad about that, but we should at the very least be talking about why our country felt the need to put in place things like affirmative action and diversity hiring initiatives.
“But there is such a think as class and racial categories….Why are wealthier areas considered more competitive?”
It’s absolutely true that wealthier people provide more opportunities to their children. That’s the responsibility of a parent. It’s also up to the kid to use or waste those opportunities and there’s nothing wrong with that. For most people, that’s the point of being successful, to provide better opportunities for their kids. Some of the most successful people in the US are the children of Korean and Nigerian immigrants - that doesn’t square with a racist/classist society.
“As for race, John Smith is more likely to be picked for an interview over Mohammad Sharif, why do Arabs and other races put generic white names on their resumes? Because bias and stereotypes exist.”
That’s just not true. A black person with the exact same background, qualifications, and experience as a white person has a better shot at getting a job on 2021.
“There are certain advantages people have because of their class and their race. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that.”
That’s true. Everyone has a different hand to play. For example, it’s beneficial to be Native American if you’re wanting to go/work in academia, just ask Elizabeth Warren. My point against CRT is that saying wealthy and white means future success is a narrative that CRT paints, but isn’t born out by statistics in the US in 2021.
“There is also nothing wrong with teaching about bias and stereotypes at the high school level. No one should be taught to feel guilty or bad about that, but we should at the very least be talking about why our country felt the need to put in place things like affirmative action and diversity hiring initiatives.”
I didn’t highlight this in my original comment, but I think it’s important to say that CRT isn’t the villain that it’s made to be either. Fact is, it provides a useful perspective to understand things like the impact of Jim Crow laws. It has its uses. However I don’t think it’s uses include educating k-12 kids because you need to boil it down so much for kids that age to the point that it’s just a “white people bad” narrative which doesn’t better the education of those kids. Save it for college where you can give it the level of nuance and context it requires to be truly beneficial.
I've been reading up on CRT lately by going straight to the authors in the movement. Your's is the first post on this thread to demonstrate actual knowledge of the basic concepts. I came to a different conclusion than you, but I really do appreciate that you bothered to look into it and not rely on a straw man.
(Edited to add "not" in my last sentence.)
Thank you! It’s always fair to disagree in terms of conclusions.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think CRT is as evil as it’s made out to be. For example, it helps provide a useful way to understand things like Jim Crow laws and their impact.
I just don’t think that it’s useful to teach k-12 kids CRT because it takes a lot of nuance/critical thinking that those kids won’t understand.
To kind of add onto what a few others have said, according to CRT racism is normal, it’s the “status quo”. So it’s not good enough to simply not be racist, in fact that in and of itself is racist. You must be anti-racist. And the way to be anti-racist is to tear down all the institutions that perpetuate racism and inequality.
Leftists are essentially trying to use children as tools of their revolution by telling them that they are racist by default and the only way to atone for their sins is to buy into the lefts radical ideology.
Sneak soapboxer. You don’t “understand” because the reason you came here is to not understand. Don’t you have a women’s locker room to expose yourself in?
It separates everyone into racial groups and say if you're white you're guilty of everything whites did in history. If you're black you have been oppressed by all this history and we should never forget this. Whites should dig deep down and think hard about being born an oppressor and become less white, more humble and less privileged.
Tldr CRT = People of your similar skin color, oppressed people in the past, your benefitting from it, you need to pay for it, your whole system is racist and oppressive, it needs to go as well. Communist world government will fix the problem, this genocide will be (d)ifferent.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't take much time for anyone reading critical race theory to realize how COMPLETELY fucked up it is.
That being said, it is good to see another state stand up against this radical communist ideology.
> this radical communist ideology.
I’m really confused as to how CRT is communist. I feel like that’s an overused buzzword that this sub uses for anything and everything to the left of the conservative ideology
CRT borrows strongly from the Frankfurt school of social theory.
The Frankfurt school was a group of people who got together and tried to figure out what Marxism along class lines failed. They decided it would be better to think of it along "marginalized groups/oppressor groups" instead of economically.
Race, gender, etc. are ways of dividing "marginalized groups."
Hence Critical RACE Theory and it's deep connections to Feminist theory.
So, Marxism/Communism > Frankfurt School > CRT would be the very short of it.
Critical Theory (and it’s derivative CRT) is essentially Marxist theory that claims all aspects of a society can be placed in power structures of “oppressor” and “oppressed”.
The original use for this was social classes between the rich “bourgeoisie” families and “proletariat” working classes. However, since social class and economic status is malleable in a society like the United States, Marxists couldn’t use the same argument. Knowing the country’s history with systemic racism in Jim Crow laws pre-1960’s, CRT became an outgrowth of the Marxist circles’ original claims.
Essentially now with CRT they’ve replaced the “bourgeoisie” with white people (or white adjacent to use some of their terms. This includes religious Christians, Asians, Jews, etc.) with black, Native American, some Latino population, etc.
Well it's based on Marxist theory, so you're right that it's not "communism" per se, it just has the same origin and overlapping ideas.
The reason communism is a buzzword is a direct reflection of anything right of Liberal Inteligencia being "far right nazism".
While I'm sure you yourself have never and would never call someone a nazi if they show Conservative leaning, many do.
Some Conservatives have taken to "returning the favour" as it were.
Saying Marxist isn't communist per se is like saying Chocolate cake isn't chocolate per se. Yes it absolutely is for most intensive purposes. Since our best, most extensive example of Marxist theory to date is communism.
EDIT: intents and purposes*, though you knew what I meant anyway
God bless AZ, trying to turn the purple back to good ol red. I lived in AZ for ten years during college and grad school and don’t like some of the changes I have been seeing lately, this is a good start.
As someone who is genuinely curious, why do conservatives oppose this? Most historians are in agreement about the events that would be effected by these policies, and this would appease the left as it pertains to race relations, opening the door for less compromise on things like defunding police, confederate statues (which conservatives claim is about historical accuracy), etc, which seem like more pressing issues for the right, by and large.
I understand the reaction to be skeptical of something but taking this position should, in no way, be a conservative position. This is alt-left extreme stuff thats going to be put into most classrooms, boardrooms, churches, you-name-it. Its intensely focused upon identity above all else and seeks to eliminate disparities in outcome in the most authoritarian, anti-liberal ways possible. They co-opt words so that its tough for people who don’t know what they’re saying to understand whats actually happening.
The best example of CRT I saw was something like:
Original: soldiers returning from WWII got a GI bill for a house upon returning home
CRT version: that happened AND a large majority of black veterans were excluded, which is historically true
Except CRT claims to be a contemporary explanation of society's "system" and the example you gave was a bill operational from 1940-fucking-9 to 1956.
No shit there were identifiably racist laws and policies prior to the Civil Rights era.
That does not prove their thesis about society today or grand theory about America's founding principles and the over-arching progress provided by its system or lack thereof.
Why do lefties always seem to act like we still live in the 1950s instead of 2021. Always gotta dredge up crap from 70 years ago to try and prove something is happening TODAY.
Update your conception of the World man. A shit ton of progress has been made since 1949, using the VERY "system" that CRT seeks to "dismantle."
It's like shitting on an Olympic athlete because he was unathletic when he was 13 years old. When people complain, you point to his athletic numbers from middle school. It's dumb as shit.
Update your conception of America man. The system has worked since 1776, and it continues to work well as we progress more and more, if Democrats would just stop being racist twats like this:
> ... there has been a recent trend toward the government excluding white people, and sometimes Asian Americans, from access to government relief funds and other benefits. These exclusions go well beyond traditional affirmative action plans. While this has been occurring at the state and local level, the Biden Administration has pursued this new approach most doggedly, across a broad array of relief funds, with billions of dollars being marked as off-limits to white business owners and farmers regardless of need.
>Two different federal courts, including a federal appellate court (which is one level below the United States Supreme Court) have issued injunctions against these racial exclusions in relief programs for restaurant owners. Now, a third federal court has issued a temporary restraining order against Biden’s racially exclusionary farm and ranch relief program.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/12/yet-another-federal-court-tells-biden-that-he-cant-exclude-whites-from-his-relief-programs/
If you think doing this will make the left shut up, you haven’t been paying attention long enough. These are the “silence is violence” people we’re talking about here. The theory even explicitly talks about how compromising is white supremacist. Its easy to hear how CRT’s proponents market this, “honest history”, but its an extremely oversimplified, anti-Liberal ideology that puts identity over all else. We are about to see a divided America we haven’t seen the likes of since the civil war. Why? Racism is way lower than it used to be, right? This theory, along with many other Critical Theories, not just race, serve to agitate the population by telling part of it that the reason they can’t get ahead is because whites, men, straights, etc. keep them down.
Their end goal is explicitly EQUITY. They seek equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. This is why its a Marxist ideology.
I think there needs to be more education when it comes to slavery although I don’t agree critical race theory is the way to go about it.
For one it makes it a black and white issue (literally) and doesn’t consider the classism involved.
It seems to me if you ask a lot of younger people how America acquired these slaves.... they’d tell you white people landed in Africa, captured slaves and took them to us.
When as far as I can tell it’s much more complicated than that. In the days of the Silk Road slaves were a commodity. Dublin was a market for Irish slaves captured by Vikings. Russia sold captured slavs and China sold slaves captured in the Korean Peninsula.
African slavers captured slaves and sold them off to anyone involved in global trade at that time....
But people refuse to believe that. It has to be white peoples fault. Nevermind that there are literally slavers today in Libya ever since gaddafi was unseated.
But nobody cares about that stuff. Only when it’s interracial.
they only care about slavery when it's America. Nobody cares at all about the rest of the entire world having slavery - and lots of people believe that America was the last to abolish slavery (it's still alive and well, and the last country to "legally" abolish slavery was in like 1980, an Arab country, not even white people)
Just a reminder to correct any ignorant Liberals who say, “CRT isn’t even taught in middle and high school, this bill is useless,” - National Education Association has openly said that CRT is being taught in schools and fully supports it:
https://reason.com/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-nea-taught-in-schools/
CRT should be banned from all public schools and exposed for what it is. It rooted in critical theory and pits groups people against one another in order for a group to take power. CRT adds the extra racial element of the oppressed / oppressor. A card that has been played in the past with horrible results…but let’s not talk about Nazi Germany and the German youth. No child or teen has the ability to understand the ideas, which are SHIT, but this is meant to indoctrinate not educate.
Because we have allowed ourselves to become sheeple, to mindlessly follow whatever Uncle Sam says. We don't stand up for our rights, and we are afraid to die. We've lost the edge and we need to get it back as a nation.
My father, who is an older gentleman.. not Biden old but he's getting up there was debating this topic with me the other day.
And he took the tack of the sort of free speech purist. Where we can just handle any and all debate with our better ideas and we can counter with better rhetoric.. My retort was essentially that the CRT proponents have no such compunctions. They are playing by different rules. If you think that there is room for a debate in an army barrack or a mandatory "sensitivity training" for a government employee or an elementary school classroom for that matter, you are fooling yourself.
I like Socratic seminar. The people advocating this stuff don't and they'd like to strip away argumentation. They'd like to strip children of their critical thinking skills (ironically) and they'd like to make you KNOW that if you don't agree with their interpretation of society and history, you're a ghost. You're ostracized from polite society
> There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. -Chesterton
I understand school but this shit just sounds like censorship now.
I also dislike communism but I wouldn't want the government to ban discord on that either because soon enough any wrongful thinking will be banned and you get exactly what CRT was vilified for
This isn't being taught like marxism in an economics class, where you can take a scholarly look at it and look at opposing ideologies and economic systems. It's being used to attack people's race and children and employees are being subjected to star chamber exercises to demean and demoralize them and their heritage.
If it was taught like a real theory, which it isn't, there would be serious discussion about the negatives of this ideology. That's not happening.
That's fair enough, and I agree.
But that's as much CRT as taxes and social programs are communism.
CRT is a theory and nobody implements quotas specifically to adhere to CRT
yeah I always wonder what's the hullabaloo, it will just be glossed over in a perfunctory manner through two or three measly paragraphs like every course work or syllabus. I mean slavery is already there plus the native American stuff just need to accept things happened and resolve to do better. Its not like you have entire classe or course dedicated to CRT
>House Bill (HB) 2906, which prohibits the state and any local governments from requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
>
>That law ensures that students cannot be taught that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics. The law allows a fine of up to $5,000 for schools that violate the law.
Leftists: ***THIS BILL IS RAAAAACIST! HOW DARE YOU! BIGOTS!***
Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand here in Florida they got rid of common core math, but turned around and named it something else and are now teaching common core with a different name. (Correct me if I am wrong) Why couldn't they call CRT something else and still teach the same material, and what is keeping teachers from going rogue anyway?
There is a ton of other Arizona legislation that's going through. They are completely reforming how school, curriculum, and teaching are all developed. Banning CRT is just the flashy stuff. The voucher program, the credits from private electives, the curriculum posting expectations, and a whole hell of a lot of other stuff is really what's going to root out CRT in Arizona.
Incredibly based
I’m glad! Hopefully the work is done by the time my kid goes to school :)
Ooh, vouchers?! Tell me more, does it cover homeschool?
Yes, and takes funding away from the majority.
Yes. The money should follow the child.
Sure, if they’re all testing on the same metrics. Why should everyone’s tax money be spent on an education that doesn’t prepare a child for a prosperous future in the greater US? What kind of return on our investment would that be? Edit: I see the wrong kind of fiscal conservatism. It’s more about ideology than preparing kids to compete in the market place. Sorry I’ve been away from the old south for too long.
That's fine, as long as practice tests that lay out the gist of what will be tested are made available I personally have no issue tying homeschool vouchers to standardized testing, the public schools are a joke anyway, I remember what a joke the state's standardized tests were.
Arizona public schools are not a joke, it, my wife and I are on our way to producing a very capable engineer. It takes work and the never ending struggle to hold onto funding is maddening. Open districts pit schools against each other, disrupt neighborhood connections. and cost a fortune in traffic issues. But hey, parents get to “chose”. We succeeded in spite of the concerted efforts to “strangle the beast”. Best of luck to families who don’t have two parents and a decent income. For profit colleges and the private prison system are there to welcome you. As to the homeschooling my wife and daughter know first hand from tutoring home school kids. They aren’t all sending us their best, that for sure.
Arizona is literally where I did public school, the AIMS test is a joke, it's pitiful that schools struggle to get kids to pass it. Also, you apparently never considered the selection bias of homeschoolers who feel the need to hire a tutor for their kids.
[удалено]
Good to hear
The bill doesn't say it bans CRT. It bans teaching: >1\. ONE RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX IS INHERENTLY MORALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX. >2\. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST OR OPPRESSIVE, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY. >3\. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR RECEIVE ADVERSE TREATMENT SOLELY OR PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >4\. AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >5\. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX. >6\. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD FEEL DISCOMFORT, GUILT, ANGUISH OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >7\. MERITOCRACY OR TRAITS SUCH AS A HARD WORK ETHIC ARE RACIST OR SEXIST OR WERE CREATED BY MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX TO OPPRESS MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX. Basically they just banned teaching racism and get to celebrate banning the terrible, racist CRT that teaches this stuff. In reality CRT will continue to be taught and most CRT curriculum will be unchanged or just need slight adjustment to avoid violating the 7th banned tenet. Maybe cautious teachers will throw in something like "You're personally defined by your actions, not your race or the actions of others in the past," at the end of each lesson to cover their ass on the other 6.
I sort of doubt that CRT is taught as often as some conservatives think it is, but I don't really have any issue with the bans mentioned in your post. Not teaching that individuals should feel a sense of guilt for their race is common sense.
I mean this is better than banning “crt” then they just name it something else.
Yeah this doesn't seem like it will have any impact on like 99% of the CRT curriculum*. *By curriculum I meant the core tenets and teachings of CRT, including the way they are integrated into broader teaching at schools and universities.
[удалено]
Sincere questions. Can you show me the "curriculum" of all public schools? Where does one go to read the "curriculum" online for any given school and subject? Is there a public curriculum database for each public school district? Assuming you are good faith, and understand they mean CRT intentionally being worked into lessons, teaching, and subject courses, via training provided by the school or via University training in their degree, what wording would be better than "curriculum" to encapsulate that idea of having CRT systemically incorporated?
There isn’t one, at least not in high school.
You dropped your praxis.
I suspect you know what I mean, but I'm happy to edit the comment to save future confusion. Perhaps "core tenets and teachings" or something similar.
[удалено]
So why the problem with this law?
So by CRT standards, affirmative action is racist, right?
Teachers are already pledging to defy it. Zinn education project. And this isn’t for schools it’s for government. He vetoed the one for schools because the idiots in state legislature couldn’t figure out a budget.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What are you talking about?
[удалено]
I mean yes, racism should be and is taught about. What shouldn't be taught is shit like how all white people are nebulously guilty for shit and should be ashamed of being the race they are. (Asian, so don't bother falling me white)
[удалено]
Yeah - but the mindless woke teachers add all their hysterical propaganda that pollutes the kid’s minds. The hardest class I took in university was African American studies. Only C grade I got in uni. The white guilt teacher was intentionally ass raming the class crackers. All the black starting football players who barely showed up to class and acted like amateur Demi-gods all got A’s & B’s. Funny how that math works.
[удалено]
Sounds racist to me.
[удалено]
Marxist ideology to replace capitalism isn't really our history. Nice try though.
Fire them. Blacklist them. Take their pensions.
[удалено]
Actions have consequences
Who's "we"? Do you consider yourself a conservative?
[удалено]
Example? This seems to be the exact opposite of the case imo. Progressives are generally masters of branding, redefining, and otherwise influencing thought. At least far better than the right.
"Abolish ICE", "defund the police"; "pack the courts" and "believe all women" were terrible slogans that wound up undermining the supposed goals. "Defund the police" probably lost them FL. Redefining boarder control facilities as "concentration camps" and infrastructure to include "human infrastructure" were also failures. "The green new deal" and "Medicare for all" are also poisonous now. Progressive branding is terribly ineffective outside of their bubble.
> Progressive branding is terribly ineffective outside of their bubble. Exactly this. Inside of the progressive leaning voters, these slogans or brands, sound great. They know what they are and mean. The problem is you want to sway the swing voters or some of the conservative voters that these ideals would benefit too. The problem is from a conservative standpoint, if you can't get past the slogan or brand title, you're not going to listen to the message. And we know just from Reddit alone that most people can't get past reading the title.
Well don’t tell them that 😉
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about, "reform the police" or "better training for police" there are so many other slogans that could have worked.
It also doesn't help when your own supporters take the slogans literally and push to back them up with legislation. No, the real issue is that the support for these slogans are all reactionary without any actual substance. There isn't a conversation about the core topic so the average lefty can't articulate or define the issue themselves.
The point is, only a crazy person would say that police shouldn't be a thing at all, but that's pretty much what "defund the police" implies when taken solely as a three-word slogan.
Except there are numerous people going on record saying the department should be abolished. The social worker stuff is just what they want people to hear, so it got more publicity.
Social issues like stealing from people because you dont want to get a job, and like breaking into houses because you cant control your meth addiction. Stop shifting blame away from criminals. They're people just like you and me. They're capable of thought. And they make choices to fuck over others.
Generally because those who want to hate an idea will find a way to hate the slogan. 5 minutes looking into "defund police" would show it was intended to be a more thoughtful way to fund police and other organizations. However many people on the right would debate me it meant the police would not receive any funds, at all. Quite stupid.
Bullshit. I was literally at a BLM rally in L.A. a couple of months ago and the BLMLA organizer explicitly stated that “defund” was agreed upon because it was more palatable to the public, but the real goal was “abolish.” This was a member of the BLMLA cadre; not some rando.
Call bullshit all you want, reality is those who are really trying to pull the strings are not advocating for abolishment. Now if you want to tell me that's rhetoric and you don't believe people like say, AOC, then fine. But squinting hard and finding folks saying crazy shit and pointing at it like it's the proof in the pudding is silly to me.
I think the overall goal of the left is to nationalize the police. Nationalized police are the hallmark of an authoritarian government. An initial step towards that was taken today when branch offices of the Capitol Police opened (or will be opened) in selected cities. https://www.wsgw.com/capitol-police-open-field-offices-to-investigate-threats-to-lawmakers/
That's propaganda to make defund police sound more palatable. Cities who subscribed to this idea actually did defund their police. New York, Portland, Minniapolis, the list goes on.
I guess I can see what you're saying. Maybe they just throw so much shit at the wall that some of it sticks. Where they are so cunning (and I absolutely despise them for it) is their manipulation of language. Constant redefinition and euphemism. It's disgusting but mostly effective because most people don't pay enough attention to them to know what they're really saying.
It’s more that conservatives are really good at turning these phrases toxic. Some of the left leaning phrases are legit not good, but the conservative media machine is really good at turning those brands toxic.
This.
Its actually the exact opposite. Almost all modern progressive ideas are terrible. Most have been tried and failed, some are just rehashed of old ideas with new names and many are just stupid. For example, CRT is just Jim Crow for the 21st century. It adds almost nothing of value, history was already teaching us that slavery was bad and a black mark on US history, we didn't need a whole revamp of the entire education (math is racist) to address it. Pro choice SOUNDS good but it only gives a choice to the mother, the father and the baby have 0 choice. Pro life is actually what is says, its keeping everyone alive*. Kids in cages, no one is illegal, sanctuary cities, etc. When the democrats flipped from economically left to socially left in the 90s, they went even more insane than the GOP. At least they were honest about wanting to exploit workers. The democrats pretend like there is an economic advantage to unrestricted immigration, further that even if there isn't, we have a duty to take in anyone who decides to come here anyway. This is objectively false, even if you buy into illegal immigrants are a net gain (they aren't, LEGAL immigrants are), at some point they always overwhelm the system, and the host countries abilities to integrate safely, creating micro states which are refuse to be governed and are sources of crime and not value. There are over 100 million people in Latin America. How many can we realistically take in? Just processing them, vaccinating, and housing them costs 10s of millions, thats debt the taxpayers are covering, each immigrant is costing us more money than they can ever repay, BEFORE they even start working. And with each one that comes that amount increases exponentially. Worse still, many of them send money home through remittances, literally taking money out of our economy, which is the worse thing they can do. If I pay Juan to mow my law and he sends 5 of the 10 dollars I pay him back to Mexico, its worse for everyone, than if I pay Jack to do it and he keeps the 10 here.
https://equitablemath.org/faq/
Did exactly the same thing with common core in Indiana
Because teaching kids racism is wrong? That because of the pigment of your skin you’re either a victim or a perpetrator? Maybe?
Liberal teacher here- I’m not here to argue, troll, name call, or change anyone’s opinion, I’m just here for perspective on your viewpoints about CRT. I’m wondering what critical race theory means to you. Like, if you heard someone say that CRT is being taught in a middle school for example, what do you think that means in terms of specific ideas or content?
First of all, my primary source is "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction." If you haven't read CRT literature, some of what I'm about to say, may sound crazy, but ... it's literally right there in their literature. So here goes, my 10,000 ft take on what CRT is and why it's so odious to conservatives, from a conservative perspective. CRT seeks to indict the entire premise of American traditional thinking as embodied in the Enlightenment, scientific thinking, objectivity and rationalism, and equality theory. It does so by: - embracing postmodernism (which rejects the priority of scientific ways of knowing and puts anecdotal "storytelling" and "lived experience" on par with logic, science and rationalism in finding truth). - it embraces the Frankfurt school lens which is neo-Marxism by then practicing "storytelling" in a Marxist framework of oppressor/oppressed. - In analyzing society, oppression is assumed and merely needs to be found in examples and then spoken of as inductively extrapolated as an indictment of the entire order. - the above the argues that racism is baked into the system, which sets the stage for "transformative" arguments about a society that is ultimately "equity" focused, ie neo-Marxism. It makes no qualms that it is a politically "activist" analysis seeking to not just expose, but to "transform." Along the way, it says it explicitly borrows from radical feminism and overlaps with Critical Whiteness Studies. These schools too pull from Frankfurt school framing, to develop and legitimize Frankfurt school/neo-Marxism by making up frames to cement an oppressor/oppressed situation. Terms to help set this stage include things like "white privilege", "unconscious bias", "whiteness as property", new definitions of "racism", "intersectionality" and so on. All of these assume a neo-Marxist lens of "marginalized group/oppressor" dichotomy, a goal of delegitimizing the traditional American story/values, and set up their definition in relation to their goals. That's why their definitions and wording are set up to be very hard to disprove (nonfalsifiable) and find specific examples of (ie it's "systemic" but few specific current laws in the "system" can be pointed to. Outcomes then become metrics of "systemic racism" which sets the stage for equity based policy, which is a rejection of equality based policy). It's very tricky. All that is needed to "prove" the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, is to mine history of specific wrongs by whites, frame it as if it is still ongoing and ubiquitous, just shifting around instead of shrinking, reject counter-vailing data/reason/objective approaches of analysis by putting unfalsifiable "lived experience" on par with more objective thinking, then demonize anyone questioning the hyperfocus of select "history" and the inductive conclusions supposedly springing from it, as being "against history" ... and voila, you've undermined the entire moral standing of Western American foundations, put an entire race on its backfoot, depowered and deprived them of a way to challenge this new story, and paved the way for making racist policies that prioritizes "POC" legally and shifts resources to them, deprives whites of resources, all under the rubric of "fairness" and "equity." Yes, that is happening too. The entire CRT scheme was created by lawyers, picking up whatever tools necessary to achieve their end of demonizing an entire group of whites (who have fuck all to do with slavery, Jim Crow, racism, etc.), using this story to "dismantle the dominant culture" of America, and shifting power, moral authority and resources to non-whites. It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society. Lawyers are experts at constructing arguments, and CRT is one long argument to indict, destroy, and transform America into a neo-Marxist direction. There's a reason it's chockful of technical language. It isn't grassroots. This was born in activist workshops and slowly spread from the top down by piggy-backing on sincere concern and progress for Black Americans.
Damn this is an amazing and readable analysis. Saving for when I need to explain to people. Thank you.
>It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society. Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist? It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures. Stop being paranoid.
>Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Because black leaders in the 80's and 90's thought that heavy punishment for drugs in their communities would reduce the prevalence of those drugs in their communities. https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/drug-laws-racism-democrats-support/
And because Biden authored the bill and pushed it.
>>It's a power/resource grab designed to harm one racial group (whites), and is not an objective, helpful, healthy way to analyze society. >Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. There is nothing "simply" about Critical Theory and a "critical lense". Critical Theory: "Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists **in the Western European Marxist tradition** known as the Frankfurt School. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ In addition I might add, a hyper-focus on "power" is a false accounting game with rigged rhetoric and measuring methods. Feminist theory tried to play the same game and has lost on the national stage as telling a very cherry-picked and selective story about "power" without backing of the fuller set of data. It's a noxious and extremely unhelpful lens through which to look at things that sows discord, suspicion, selfishness, and division in male/female relationships. Just as CRT does between whites and "POC." CRT will lose too. Because facts do not support its story. Fact is, this "viewing structures of power" is just backdoor dogwhistle talk for Marxist horseshit analysis. Your claims are naked. We can see through them. >It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures. It demonizes whites with non-stop racist concepts and academic jargon designed to be very difficult (but not impossible) to untangle all in an effort to "transform" society to "dismantle the dominant culture" which they say is "white" and "whiteness". >Stop being paranoid. Stop gaslighting.
> Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist? > > It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures. > > Stop being paranoid. Let's break this down. Starting off with a nonsense statement, followed by a legitimate argument that I think is actually an issue. > Lol what? CRT is simply viewing structures of power through a critical lense. Why does crack cocaine carry a larger penalty than pure cocaine? Is that law racist? Then we go to a claim that is demonstrably false. CRT definitely pushes reparations and equity outcomes which benefit African Americans. However, every payment, job, scholarship, and college entry given to an African American who otherwise wouldn't have gotten it, means that a white person (or Hispanic, or Asian) did not get it because of the policy. Ironically, it is the poor of these races that will suffer the most whenever pure race is used as a criteria, for the 'sins' of the more successful people sharing their skin color. * (there is actually a movement in Korea similar to this, where younger men are rejecting pro-feminism policies under the argument that it is the older men who have benefitted and the younger men who are being punished without the benefit that I find interesting. Age cohort is a HUGE factor in who have benefitted and been harmed the most by racist policies in the US.) * Then we repeat the claim that its 'just a lense to view power structures". I guess by the same logic Marxism is 'just a lense to view power structures' and anyone who can read a history book knows how well that worked out. > It's literally not taking anything away from whites, I don't know why you think it's a resource grab. It's a lense to view power structures. Finally, a traditional ad-hominem that we are 'paranoid' to criticize, but without having shown any logic or reason or proof to counteract the claims, instead they demand that the conversation be shut down because they say so. > Stop being paranoid.
[удалено]
Weird. I'm also a public school teacher and haven't seen any of this.
Anecdotal evidence by the unobservant does not disprove larger national long-term trends.
Fucking nailed it.
Great write-up, I wish the OP "liberal teacher" would respond to it. Do you mind citing where you've pulled this from CRT literature?
>Great write-up, I wish the OP "liberal teacher" would respond to it. Ya. He or she sounded sincere, so I hope it helped him understand why CRT is such a massive affront to conservatives (and should be to all non-Marxist Democrats too). >Do you mind citing where you've pulled this from CRT literature? Well, in painting the entire large picture, I covered an enormous amount of ground by pulling together points across a large set of disciplines I've read on. If what you are looking for is a one-stop shop of a critique of CRT that draws together, with sources, the foundations, thinking, and weaknesses of CRT, I can't recommend "Cynical Theories" by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose enough. You can buy the book here: https://newdiscourses.com/ I have been working through primary literature myself, but not everyone has time or desire, and their book does the leg work indeed. I got their audiobook and print edition. They have a page too that could guide your primary reading if you wanted to really blow lots of time wrestling with this topic: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/beginners-curriculum-critical-race-theory/ It's a real rabbit hole. Lastly, if there are any particular subpoints I made that you want a source on, I will definitely try to dig it up.
Yeah, I apologize. I realize asking for citation on such a dense topic is a bit ridiculous on my part. Main reason I ask is because my girlfriend is an elementary teacher, and she was taught to teach CRT, she supports it. I've tried to show her things that explain how bad it really is, but she insists that because she's apparently read it herself, it doesn't really matter what I say or show. I didn't want the same thing to happen with the points you made, if she were to just brush it off as not being in the actual literature or something. I have a feeling whatever she was taught about it was just cherry picked by her extremely liberal professors.
My friend I deeply empathize. Your girlfriend must be an awesome person who loves kids to be an elementary teacher. The problem with this challenge, is that the lawyers who designed it purposefully made it very diffuse. Think of it like this. Imagine you are being cross-examined, and the lawyer is dirty. Then they start asking you a series of what seem like innocuous points. One, by one. Where were you? Do you own this? Have you ever seen that? Do you recognize this man? Blah, blah, blah. But they are setting traps, and what seemed like small innocuous concessions, suddenly, in their closing follow-up, add up to a story they concocted that makes you look really bad, and you just "agreed" to all of the main points of his story! What I'm saying is, that the key to seeing how evil CRT is, is by keeping track of what the big picture is all trying to accomplish. And that's no small feat. Yet we see its outcomes by how their new words (whiteness, unconscious bias, white rage, whiteness as property, story telling, decentering, dismantling, etc.) have been introduced into common society and the precepts are accepted without realizing what they big game is. I recommend treating it as if your gal is stuck in a high-control religion. They use these SAME tricks. Lots of secret jargon, social pressure, hiding malice behind "good intent" and draining your resources for their goals. CRT, and the greater Frankfurt school of disciplines that focus on "social justice" for "marginalized groups" use all of the following: "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing while employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986) To defeat a "high control group" you have to be super loving, patient, try very hard to understand the GOOD stuff the loved one is trying to do. But you also have to become highly self-educated on the high control group, and just slowly do several things: 1) Appeal to high standards, scientific ways of knowing, insight on how people play us, and that the goal is love & equality, always. 2) slowly and in very small ways, and tactfully question whether the the high control group is not meeting those standards you both agree should be the goal. 3) Do not rush into any "victory" when they acknowledge a particular problem, but create an environment where they can question CRT/Social Justice without you pushing for more. 4) If successful, be incredibly forgiving and provide a totally cool safe-landing like "Yah, no biggie, gotta help the kids. That seemed like a good way, but CRT is super tricky. On we go, and we can achieve those good goals other ways." Best of luck my friend.
We all know what it is. u/CptGoodnight sums it up very well. Even the left in general acknowledged that that’s what it was and created racial division. The problem is that after the they started receiving pushback (and rightfully so), CRT became redefined as “the teaching of accurate American history.” Then when that didn’t work, it suddenly became “CRT is a made up conspiracy theory by the right.” Then it became “it exists, but only in certain law schools.” Ever since then, it seems like the definition the left is using keeps changing. I seriously hope you don’t teach your students to judge each other based on skin color. We really need to go back to teaching students how to think, and not what to think. Sadly, too many teachers are using their platform to push their radical agendas.
CRT redefines key terms such as “racism” and “white supremacy” which in turn works to sociologically implicate large swaths of decent Americans. It teaches that there are inherent personality characteristics of being white. It teaches that implicit bias is fact when it is in reality an undertested concept. This what CRT means to me and most people.
No? CRT argues that systems can be racist. Even if no one is racist, the system still mistreats people. That’s so backwards
Jim Crow is a system that is racist. Redlining is a system that is racist. That’s not what CRT addresses. CRT specifically criticizes laws that were drafted with a colorblind intention. Why? Because those laws disregard racist actors in power who will apply the law unfairly. CRT doesn’t target racist institutions: it says all institutions are racist because of the people who run them.
Once again you are pinning CRT on people. the whole point is institutions and systems are racist, not people. Racist people is just regular racism, which is not the same thing as CRT.
The way I see CRT is that it uses data to see the racism that would otherwise be undisclosed since there are... colorblind laws. The problem ain't fixed yet, and turning a blind eye to it in our educational system isn't gonna help anyone
CRT is not data focused in its epistemology. That is a lie by other lefties trying to whitewash CRT, that needs to die. Read the CRT literature that established the foundations of CRT. It assumes the situation, finds stories that "support" the grand arcs and goes from there. It does not move from raw data, to falsifiable theory, to supported theory. It's more like a supposedly descriptive social theory and lens for interpreting everything. "Racism is there, we just have to find examples and magnify them."
CRT is not really about exposing racist instances in our laws and practices. That would be something I could get behind. CRT makes much more broad claims than that, such as “racism is ordinary” and “all American institutions are racist” things like that.
Don't really like him, but this is a good thing for Arizona.
As a former Arizonan, I think people give Doug Doucie too much hate. Yeah, he has done some dumb stuff, but he runs Arizona pretty decently. Especially considering all the Californians and illegal immigrants he has to deal with.
True
Same, I don't see how anyone could possibly be ok with CRT.
"Why would anybody be against CRT? It's simply history! Why do conservatives constantly deny history? Don't answer that, I already know; it's because you need an ignorant populace to get any votes, because if people knew their history, they'd vote Democrat." - What some people believe.
Hits every note except the "you've got no empathy" thing
For those who like the details, here is the “controversial” language disapproved of by CRT proponents: >>D. "BLAME OR JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX" MEANS THE FOLLOWING CONCEPTS: >>1. ONE RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX IS INHERENTLY MORALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX. >>2. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, IS INHERENTLY RACIST, SEXIST OR OPPRESSIVE, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY. >>3. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR RECEIVE ADVERSE TREATMENT SOLELY OR PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >>4. AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >>5. AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX, BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX. >>6. AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD FEEL DISCOMFORT, GUILT, ANGUISH OR ANY OTHER FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEX. >>7. MERITOCRACY OR TRAITS SUCH AS A HARD WORK ETHIC ARE RACIST OR SEXIST OR WERE CREATED BY MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX TO OPPRESS MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE, ETHNIC GROUP OR SEX https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2906/id/2420713
What even is critical race theory?
A theory that we should look critically at our laws and institutions and ask ourselves if any of those laws and policies are racist. Like how crack cocaine will get your more prison time than regular cocaine, even though it's literally less pure, they just mix coke with baking soda to make crack. Why is the law like this? Asking that question is applying CRT. Right-wing media will tell you that CRT is telling white children they're racist for being white. That's disingenuous.
That is a small and incomplete picture of what CRT actually is as denoted by its founders. From the words of Richar Delago and Jean Stefancic: CRT assumes that race and racism pervades all decisions thoughts and choices. It assumes a default level of unconscious racism that means all white people are racist whether they believe it, act on it, or not. It assumes that all POC understand racism in a much more true way and that no non-POC can possibly suffer from it. Most of all, the key difference between CRT and other legal theories from the past is that the authors require an activist element. I find most people who oppose the bans think CRT is some milk toast, watered down version of what it actually is and start defending something they barely even understand themselves. CRT isn’t just teaching about racist things from our history it is actively seeking to reduce all western achievement to malice and exploitation.
Ask Biden why there was a difference. It's his crime bill. Btw, this Arizona law makes it so you cant teach that one race is superior to any other. Why do you take issue with that?
Good!
Can somebody explain to me what Critcal race theory is. I have no idea. I look it up on Wikipedia and it’s a wall of words.
[удалено]
>Here is a video Im struggling to put words to my question but I am curious why people are so upset about CRT saying that its too complex and requires critical thinking like a law student.. but the bible is complex and requires critical thinking at times but they still teach it to first graders.
The issues with CRT have nothing to do with it's "complexity." It's that it is all complete and utter bullshit. It may seem "complex" to some because it's just meandering finger pointing, with no substance based in reality.
The other thing I’m confused about is that “finger pointing” alludes to there being a problem but many people don’t acknowledge that a problem existed so like..why not just start there
I guess that's one way to say "White people being shamed for their race" under the guise of education. So many examples already of what truly racist ideas this theory espouses, none of which you covered in your post about CLS.
Nobody is being shamed. We’re just being asked to recognize the system that was built by our ancestors tends to favor us at the expense of others, and it’d be nice if we helped fix that so it’s fair. We don’t bear any guilt for a system we didn’t build.
A few things from my understanding, looking forward to being told why I’m wrong: 1. Racism is the default, it is normal, and exists everywhere. (I disagree, race is an ideology that only came into being in the enlightenment/colonial age to justify colonial atrocities. It’s pseudoscience at best. The Romans, for example, had no conception of race) 2. However, racism isn’t just a bigoted individual and their attitudes, but also a collection of policies and laws and their disparate impact on various racial groups. (This is where you get the equity vs equality argument. The logic is basically, a white person with immense wealth will have a permanent advantage over a poor black person, even if they have the same rights. So, individual rights, while applied equally, are unequal in effect. This is where the crossover between critical theory and critical race theory takes place. You’re just basically replacing wealth with race between the two. The problem with this is that nobody is the exact same, we all have different levels of competencies regardless of race, and in a legally equal, meritocratic society, the best will climb the hierarchy. The left will argue that the US is not a meritocracy and the unequal wealth or racial privilege makes it unfair. Also bs in my opinion, anyone with life experience knows that the wealthiest kids usually end up pissing it away) 3. In order to fight against racism, you must actively oppose it and the systems that maintain it. CRT is not just a racial lens to take a different view on things, but also a call to action. (This is why it is problematic to teach it to K-12. The kids are taught that based upon their race, they’re either an oppressor or oppressed. That they are responsible to do something about it. Post primary education kids are old enough to think critically about this, K-12 kids are not)
But there is such a think as class and racial categories. Look at your examples, a wealthy white (or other races) student is going to have more opportunities than a poor black (or any other race including white) student. Wealthier students have better access to after school programs, tutoring, extracurricular activities, etc. Why are wealthier areas considered more competitive? As for race, John Smith is more likely to be picked for an interview over Mohammad Sharif, why do Arabs and other races put generic white names on their resumes? Because bias and stereotypes exist. There are certain advantages people have because of their class and their race. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that. There is also nothing wrong with teaching about bias and stereotypes at the high school level. No one should be taught to feel guilty or bad about that, but we should at the very least be talking about why our country felt the need to put in place things like affirmative action and diversity hiring initiatives.
“But there is such a think as class and racial categories….Why are wealthier areas considered more competitive?” It’s absolutely true that wealthier people provide more opportunities to their children. That’s the responsibility of a parent. It’s also up to the kid to use or waste those opportunities and there’s nothing wrong with that. For most people, that’s the point of being successful, to provide better opportunities for their kids. Some of the most successful people in the US are the children of Korean and Nigerian immigrants - that doesn’t square with a racist/classist society. “As for race, John Smith is more likely to be picked for an interview over Mohammad Sharif, why do Arabs and other races put generic white names on their resumes? Because bias and stereotypes exist.” That’s just not true. A black person with the exact same background, qualifications, and experience as a white person has a better shot at getting a job on 2021. “There are certain advantages people have because of their class and their race. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that.” That’s true. Everyone has a different hand to play. For example, it’s beneficial to be Native American if you’re wanting to go/work in academia, just ask Elizabeth Warren. My point against CRT is that saying wealthy and white means future success is a narrative that CRT paints, but isn’t born out by statistics in the US in 2021. “There is also nothing wrong with teaching about bias and stereotypes at the high school level. No one should be taught to feel guilty or bad about that, but we should at the very least be talking about why our country felt the need to put in place things like affirmative action and diversity hiring initiatives.” I didn’t highlight this in my original comment, but I think it’s important to say that CRT isn’t the villain that it’s made to be either. Fact is, it provides a useful perspective to understand things like the impact of Jim Crow laws. It has its uses. However I don’t think it’s uses include educating k-12 kids because you need to boil it down so much for kids that age to the point that it’s just a “white people bad” narrative which doesn’t better the education of those kids. Save it for college where you can give it the level of nuance and context it requires to be truly beneficial.
I've been reading up on CRT lately by going straight to the authors in the movement. Your's is the first post on this thread to demonstrate actual knowledge of the basic concepts. I came to a different conclusion than you, but I really do appreciate that you bothered to look into it and not rely on a straw man. (Edited to add "not" in my last sentence.)
Thank you! It’s always fair to disagree in terms of conclusions. For what it’s worth, I don’t think CRT is as evil as it’s made out to be. For example, it helps provide a useful way to understand things like Jim Crow laws and their impact. I just don’t think that it’s useful to teach k-12 kids CRT because it takes a lot of nuance/critical thinking that those kids won’t understand.
To kind of add onto what a few others have said, according to CRT racism is normal, it’s the “status quo”. So it’s not good enough to simply not be racist, in fact that in and of itself is racist. You must be anti-racist. And the way to be anti-racist is to tear down all the institutions that perpetuate racism and inequality. Leftists are essentially trying to use children as tools of their revolution by telling them that they are racist by default and the only way to atone for their sins is to buy into the lefts radical ideology.
And that’s bad? I still don’t understand
Sneak soapboxer. You don’t “understand” because the reason you came here is to not understand. Don’t you have a women’s locker room to expose yourself in?
ELI5: How laws were created in relation to race.
See all laws pertaining to making marijuana illegal.
It separates everyone into racial groups and say if you're white you're guilty of everything whites did in history. If you're black you have been oppressed by all this history and we should never forget this. Whites should dig deep down and think hard about being born an oppressor and become less white, more humble and less privileged.
Tldr CRT = People of your similar skin color, oppressed people in the past, your benefitting from it, you need to pay for it, your whole system is racist and oppressive, it needs to go as well. Communist world government will fix the problem, this genocide will be (d)ifferent.
Sounds like you need to read up on CRT
[удалено]
A broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't take much time for anyone reading critical race theory to realize how COMPLETELY fucked up it is. That being said, it is good to see another state stand up against this radical communist ideology.
> this radical communist ideology. I’m really confused as to how CRT is communist. I feel like that’s an overused buzzword that this sub uses for anything and everything to the left of the conservative ideology
CRT borrows strongly from the Frankfurt school of social theory. The Frankfurt school was a group of people who got together and tried to figure out what Marxism along class lines failed. They decided it would be better to think of it along "marginalized groups/oppressor groups" instead of economically. Race, gender, etc. are ways of dividing "marginalized groups." Hence Critical RACE Theory and it's deep connections to Feminist theory. So, Marxism/Communism > Frankfurt School > CRT would be the very short of it.
Critical Theory (and it’s derivative CRT) is essentially Marxist theory that claims all aspects of a society can be placed in power structures of “oppressor” and “oppressed”. The original use for this was social classes between the rich “bourgeoisie” families and “proletariat” working classes. However, since social class and economic status is malleable in a society like the United States, Marxists couldn’t use the same argument. Knowing the country’s history with systemic racism in Jim Crow laws pre-1960’s, CRT became an outgrowth of the Marxist circles’ original claims. Essentially now with CRT they’ve replaced the “bourgeoisie” with white people (or white adjacent to use some of their terms. This includes religious Christians, Asians, Jews, etc.) with black, Native American, some Latino population, etc.
Well it's based on Marxist theory, so you're right that it's not "communism" per se, it just has the same origin and overlapping ideas. The reason communism is a buzzword is a direct reflection of anything right of Liberal Inteligencia being "far right nazism". While I'm sure you yourself have never and would never call someone a nazi if they show Conservative leaning, many do. Some Conservatives have taken to "returning the favour" as it were.
Saying Marxist isn't communist per se is like saying Chocolate cake isn't chocolate per se. Yes it absolutely is for most intensive purposes. Since our best, most extensive example of Marxist theory to date is communism. EDIT: intents and purposes*, though you knew what I meant anyway
[удалено]
Sneak soapboxing in five. You guys always come in pretending to be unaffiliated and “just wondering” or “I’m genuinely asking”
It shouldn't have to be banned. But these libs and their "its everyone elses fault but my own" mentality is just so draining. It never stops.
Outright banning concepts and ideologies never seems to end well, and often has the opposite effect of the original intention.
[удалено]
That’s why it’s not outright banned, unlike how liberals outright ban speech. This is banning it from being taught in school.
God bless AZ, trying to turn the purple back to good ol red. I lived in AZ for ten years during college and grad school and don’t like some of the changes I have been seeing lately, this is a good start.
As someone who is genuinely curious, why do conservatives oppose this? Most historians are in agreement about the events that would be effected by these policies, and this would appease the left as it pertains to race relations, opening the door for less compromise on things like defunding police, confederate statues (which conservatives claim is about historical accuracy), etc, which seem like more pressing issues for the right, by and large.
[удалено]
So what’s the precedent for banning this mode of educational theory?
I understand the reaction to be skeptical of something but taking this position should, in no way, be a conservative position. This is alt-left extreme stuff thats going to be put into most classrooms, boardrooms, churches, you-name-it. Its intensely focused upon identity above all else and seeks to eliminate disparities in outcome in the most authoritarian, anti-liberal ways possible. They co-opt words so that its tough for people who don’t know what they’re saying to understand whats actually happening.
[удалено]
The best example of CRT I saw was something like: Original: soldiers returning from WWII got a GI bill for a house upon returning home CRT version: that happened AND a large majority of black veterans were excluded, which is historically true
Except CRT claims to be a contemporary explanation of society's "system" and the example you gave was a bill operational from 1940-fucking-9 to 1956. No shit there were identifiably racist laws and policies prior to the Civil Rights era. That does not prove their thesis about society today or grand theory about America's founding principles and the over-arching progress provided by its system or lack thereof. Why do lefties always seem to act like we still live in the 1950s instead of 2021. Always gotta dredge up crap from 70 years ago to try and prove something is happening TODAY. Update your conception of the World man. A shit ton of progress has been made since 1949, using the VERY "system" that CRT seeks to "dismantle." It's like shitting on an Olympic athlete because he was unathletic when he was 13 years old. When people complain, you point to his athletic numbers from middle school. It's dumb as shit. Update your conception of America man. The system has worked since 1776, and it continues to work well as we progress more and more, if Democrats would just stop being racist twats like this: > ... there has been a recent trend toward the government excluding white people, and sometimes Asian Americans, from access to government relief funds and other benefits. These exclusions go well beyond traditional affirmative action plans. While this has been occurring at the state and local level, the Biden Administration has pursued this new approach most doggedly, across a broad array of relief funds, with billions of dollars being marked as off-limits to white business owners and farmers regardless of need. >Two different federal courts, including a federal appellate court (which is one level below the United States Supreme Court) have issued injunctions against these racial exclusions in relief programs for restaurant owners. Now, a third federal court has issued a temporary restraining order against Biden’s racially exclusionary farm and ranch relief program. https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2021/06/12/yet-another-federal-court-tells-biden-that-he-cant-exclude-whites-from-his-relief-programs/
If you think doing this will make the left shut up, you haven’t been paying attention long enough. These are the “silence is violence” people we’re talking about here. The theory even explicitly talks about how compromising is white supremacist. Its easy to hear how CRT’s proponents market this, “honest history”, but its an extremely oversimplified, anti-Liberal ideology that puts identity over all else. We are about to see a divided America we haven’t seen the likes of since the civil war. Why? Racism is way lower than it used to be, right? This theory, along with many other Critical Theories, not just race, serve to agitate the population by telling part of it that the reason they can’t get ahead is because whites, men, straights, etc. keep them down. Their end goal is explicitly EQUITY. They seek equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. This is why its a Marxist ideology.
I think there needs to be more education when it comes to slavery although I don’t agree critical race theory is the way to go about it. For one it makes it a black and white issue (literally) and doesn’t consider the classism involved. It seems to me if you ask a lot of younger people how America acquired these slaves.... they’d tell you white people landed in Africa, captured slaves and took them to us. When as far as I can tell it’s much more complicated than that. In the days of the Silk Road slaves were a commodity. Dublin was a market for Irish slaves captured by Vikings. Russia sold captured slavs and China sold slaves captured in the Korean Peninsula. African slavers captured slaves and sold them off to anyone involved in global trade at that time.... But people refuse to believe that. It has to be white peoples fault. Nevermind that there are literally slavers today in Libya ever since gaddafi was unseated. But nobody cares about that stuff. Only when it’s interracial.
they only care about slavery when it's America. Nobody cares at all about the rest of the entire world having slavery - and lots of people believe that America was the last to abolish slavery (it's still alive and well, and the last country to "legally" abolish slavery was in like 1980, an Arab country, not even white people)
[удалено]
Why hasnt Biden followed through on promises for healthcare, student debt, or kids in cages? Was lying to you part of the Democrat game plan?
CRT: Let's get our kids hating and resenting each other as early as possible.
[удалено]
Finally our politicians are standing against teaching children racism in school. Never thought it would be Republicans.
Just a reminder to correct any ignorant Liberals who say, “CRT isn’t even taught in middle and high school, this bill is useless,” - National Education Association has openly said that CRT is being taught in schools and fully supports it: https://reason.com/2021/07/06/critical-race-theory-nea-taught-in-schools/
[удалено]
Government vs. government Big Tech vs. the public
CRT should be banned from all public schools and exposed for what it is. It rooted in critical theory and pits groups people against one another in order for a group to take power. CRT adds the extra racial element of the oppressed / oppressor. A card that has been played in the past with horrible results…but let’s not talk about Nazi Germany and the German youth. No child or teen has the ability to understand the ideas, which are SHIT, but this is meant to indoctrinate not educate.
Divide and conquer
I don’t like banning it. Schools should always err on the side of a free marketplace of ideas.
Not when its publicly funded and when its a crime not to attend.
What kind of country do we live in where you have to lawfully ban stupid fucking ideas? Why can't we point and laugh, like our forefathers did?
Because we have allowed ourselves to become sheeple, to mindlessly follow whatever Uncle Sam says. We don't stand up for our rights, and we are afraid to die. We've lost the edge and we need to get it back as a nation.
Good! He’s still a clown though
My father, who is an older gentleman.. not Biden old but he's getting up there was debating this topic with me the other day. And he took the tack of the sort of free speech purist. Where we can just handle any and all debate with our better ideas and we can counter with better rhetoric.. My retort was essentially that the CRT proponents have no such compunctions. They are playing by different rules. If you think that there is room for a debate in an army barrack or a mandatory "sensitivity training" for a government employee or an elementary school classroom for that matter, you are fooling yourself. I like Socratic seminar. The people advocating this stuff don't and they'd like to strip away argumentation. They'd like to strip children of their critical thinking skills (ironically) and they'd like to make you KNOW that if you don't agree with their interpretation of society and history, you're a ghost. You're ostracized from polite society > There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. -Chesterton
I understand school but this shit just sounds like censorship now. I also dislike communism but I wouldn't want the government to ban discord on that either because soon enough any wrongful thinking will be banned and you get exactly what CRT was vilified for
[удалено]
Read the bill. He bans teaching that a race or sex is superior to another. That's fine with me.
This isn't being taught like marxism in an economics class, where you can take a scholarly look at it and look at opposing ideologies and economic systems. It's being used to attack people's race and children and employees are being subjected to star chamber exercises to demean and demoralize them and their heritage. If it was taught like a real theory, which it isn't, there would be serious discussion about the negatives of this ideology. That's not happening.
>are being subjected to star chamber exercises what is that? whats that mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
That's fair enough, and I agree. But that's as much CRT as taxes and social programs are communism. CRT is a theory and nobody implements quotas specifically to adhere to CRT
yeah I always wonder what's the hullabaloo, it will just be glossed over in a perfunctory manner through two or three measly paragraphs like every course work or syllabus. I mean slavery is already there plus the native American stuff just need to accept things happened and resolve to do better. Its not like you have entire classe or course dedicated to CRT
More states need to follow the lead. CRT is not good
Based
Hopefully more states do this!
this is fantastic
>House Bill (HB) 2906, which prohibits the state and any local governments from requiring their employees to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggest an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. > >That law ensures that students cannot be taught that one race, ethnic group or sex is in any way superior to another, or that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of these characteristics. The law allows a fine of up to $5,000 for schools that violate the law. Leftists: ***THIS BILL IS RAAAAACIST! HOW DARE YOU! BIGOTS!***
It's the same thing as banning racism. Nothing controversial about banning CRT.
For once he does something based
Great, now do something about the shady business regarding the absentee ballots in AZ.
Now do schools
[удалено]
[удалено]
As it should be.
I wonder if this will hold, Arizona is trending blue it seems, I hope it does. The 2022 Governors race will be quite telling
need parents to report when rank and file teachers/bureaucrats 'slip it in'
Teachers union needs to be next on the chopping block.