Why Are Conservatives So Afraid of Critical Race Theory? | Time
By: Time
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rev. Jones is president of Union Theological Seminary, a globally recognized graduate school of religion devoted to putting faith into practice for the common good. Rev. Davie is Senior Strategic Advisor to the President at Union Theological Seminary, where he has served as Executive Vice President for a decade.
Republican legislators nationwide are waging a fierce battle to prevent educators from teaching critical race theory—and they're being helped by conservative Christian leaders willing to intentionally misrepresent their faith for political gain.
Take the Conservative Baptist Network, a major partnership of Southern Baptists across states, which called CRT "anti-gospel" and "divisive" and incompatible with efforts to oppose racism. Meanwhile, the far-right religious Center for Renewing America claims CRT seeks to eliminate the idea that "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And in a new book, theologian Dr. Voddie Baucham argues that CRT falsely creates its own version of Original Sin—racism—and gives no hope for forgiveness. Their theology proclaims antiracist education a greater evil than racism itself.
As ministers and leaders of a proudly progressive religious institution, we are dismayed by how people of faith are warping scripture to condemn CRT. CRT, a framework used in some legal scholarship and rarely actually taught at the grade-school level, has become a shorthand for any curriculum that attempts to grapple with the effects of racism on American history and society. The theory is not designed to create racial division, force us to treat any group better than another, or make white children hate themselves.
At its core, CRT—and, more generally, the inclusive education that its opponents dub CRT—simply calls upon us to acknowledge the realities and horrors of slavery and its lingering impacts on our nation. It demands that we look at ourselves, and our country, honestly and try to learn from past wrongs. This doesn't just uphold God's calls for truth; it is also a core message of our most sacred text—the Bible.
Slavery is at the heart of a crucial biblical tale: the story of Moses. The book of Exodus opens by describing a new Egyptian pharaoh who has forced the Israelites into slavery. To prevent them from becoming too powerful, he orders every newborn male to be drowned in the river. But Moses survives, and is later called on by God to free the Hebrews. Eventually, God sends ten plagues to punish pharaoh and Moses leads his once enslaved people to freedom.
Would we say that this story undermines equality because it exposes the plight of a particular group of people? Of course not. But that's exactly what anti-CRT activists are doing.
There's another under-appreciated connection between the Old Testament and CRT: Both focus on the experiences and perspectives of those who were oppressed, not of the ones who did the oppressing. The story of Moses centers the story of the enslaved, not the enslavers; CRT studies the impact of systemic racism, not those who put those systems into place.
Now, imagine the story of Moses was removed from the Bible to avoid studying a painful past. It sounds ridiculous, almost inconceivable. But centuries ago, that's precisely what happened.
Back in the 1800s, British missionaries made special bibles to convert and educate enslaved people. These bibles—which excluded the vast majority of a traditional bible—purposely excised any passages that could encourage enslaved people to seek freedom, including the story of Moses. These bibles, instead, offered sections that could be interpreted to support slavery. For example, they incorporated a passage from Ephesians that read, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."
Make no mistake: all people are equal under God. But CRT does nothing to undermine that fundamental truth. It simply acknowledges the facts: systemic racism is a pervasive part of our nation's history, one that is worthy of serious study and tangible steps to address.
And yet, conservative policymakers are committed to preventing that reality from ever entering the classroom. And they're not just barring CRT specifically—they're banning broad teachings about systemic discrimination. Lawmakers in at least eight states have passed legislation that prevents teachers from educating students about the country's legacy of racism and discussing topics like unconscious bias. For example, Tennessee's recently passed law prevents educators from teaching that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously." Iowa's law prohibits educators from teaching that the state or country is fundamentally or systemically racist. About 20 additional states have proposed similar legislation or are preparing to.
From an educational standpoint, it is deeply disturbing that teachers would be barred from sharing such critical subject material with the future generation of leaders. An educator's job is to expose students to diverse viewpoints, not create a false, one-track narrative.
As Christians, anti-CRT legislation is entirely incompatible with our core religious beliefs. Our religion compels us to confront our world's history of slavery. It demands we acknowledge the horrors of our past, so we might repent and chart a path for a better tomorrow.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
"Republican legislators nationwide are waging a fierce battle to prevent educators from teaching critical race theory—and they're being helped by conservative Christian leaders willing to intentionally misrepresent their faith for political gain." - Article.
No way, we are frequently told that CRT isn’t part of K-12 curriculum.
Do you have definite proof that it is? And to what degree?
That wasn't his comment. DW stated that we are
If CRT is not part of the K-12 curriculum then this article is invalid in it's premise and is not needed at all.
I've always wondered why the left gets so triggered when conservatives state they don't want CRT taught in primary schools, stating that it is NOT taught.
Why get so upset over something that is not happening, right, leftists?
The writer writes in the affirmative for Critical Race Theory being taught at multiple school levels-publicly. Not from its existing status or statuses.
And the writer is arguing CRT for using a Christian perspective!
Then one would honestly have to question why so many Republican State
legislators have or, according to the article are planning to have similar laws
forbidding something that isn't happening?
Sounds like all of the over reactive laws about bathrooms and voter fraud.
On the other hand, Republican legislators are not at all interested
in the daily deaths of 125 Americans from firearms violence
or the average of three daily train derailment accidents which
could be prevented.
Because if CRT is being taught at higher levels of education and not at K-12 education levels, then there is some 'perpetual' lie being told somewhere. If a lie is the case, then it is rightly upsetting, because it has been given some 'perpetual' characterization. And that, bugsy, is wrong!
"At its core, CRT—and, more generally, the inclusive education that its opponents dub CRT—simply calls upon us to acknowledge the realities and horrors of slavery and its lingering impacts on our nation. It demands that we look at ourselves, and our country, honestly and try to learn from past wrongs"
What in the world do you think we've been doing as a nation for the last ~150+ years. Over and over and over again?
Neither slavery or systemic racism exist today. The racism of isolated groups or by individuals will never go entirely away. It's inherent in human nature....the "fear or distrust of the other"
It would appear to a reasonable and sane person that all this attention and paranoia about racism and supposed "white supremacy" by the radical left is just a ploy to stir up hatred and violence against white people and conservatism....or anyone who thinks differently than the regressive progressives.
Greg, you should not delude yourself into thinking that some conservatives want the best for Blacks or Liberals, because there is too much evidence left out and about that demonstrates the opposite. Another fact is conservatives don't care to change. Thus, many of the major changes in race relations have not come through conservative policy-making. The conservatives have seen change and progress as being set upon and 'attacked.' Even requiring a civil war. Even regressing to Reconstruction. Even establishing Jim Crow. And, even now: Jim Crow 2.0.
Conservatives are not the ones to explain what a sane and reasonable person should think about critically. After all, in your comment -you have the gall to place quotes around: white supremacy as if the republican party does not presently cater to this nation's social dominance led and directed by WASP-Christians to the disadvantage of liberals of all stripes.
It doesn't. The allegation is not true. Period!
Denial is not an option, Greg Jones. Republicans and conservatives have been infiltrated by white supremacists, it's well-documented. And do not say to me that the republican party does not acknowledge their presence in the party, for that matter the republican party does not acknowledge Log Cabin Republicans who exist inside the party as homosexual 'caucus.' Members, all, of a 'silent' republican minority.
...because they don't want to admit to their racist past.
I agree...the Democrats don't want to admit to their racist past...which continues into the present..
Some idiot will come along and tell you they all became republicans, But they won't be able to name them.
Clinton stayed a democrat.
Biden stayed a democrat
Wallace same.
Byrd the same.
George, are there white supremacists partnering with the republican party at this time? Yes or No.
We know about the past racists conservatives in the South and we talk about them too. Now, answer the question asked, please.
Demanding answers again, I see.
It is obvious you have no interest in serious discussion. Do not derail this now. Final warning.
deleted
Very much so.
Ask any minority about the racism they receive when they announce their escape from the democratic plantation.
They become Uncle Tom's and Aunt Jemima's.
Exactly!!
Minorities do not have to forget their past histories as people in this country.We can be wherever we choose as long as it is a largely free country. Moreover, people like you should be asking yourselves why conservatives can't hold any sway with MAGA conservatives! Right now, conservatives are bad-mouthed and thrown out of the republican/conservative wing of the party!
Conservatism exists to protect the status quo of wealth. An honest unbiased study of race relations in the structure of American society threatens the very foundation of conservative thought and ideals. Which fosters an immediate reaction by conservatives of fear and division.
What system exists in Russia to protect the status quo of wealth?
What explains the structural racism in the urban, blue areas of our Northeast, Upper Midwest and Western Coasts?
1. Your first question. Russia is governed by an autocratic dictatorship.
2. Your second question. The nation as a whole suffers or benefits through the parameters determined through the courts.
But you seem to have no evidence or examples of these false allegations.
Why not?
Nor do you have any evidence to refute them.
Why are progressives so intent on falsely characterizing objections to teaching CRT in schools?
To try to cleanse themselves of their racist slave owning, KKK cross burning, "Solid South" segregationist, resisting passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 past.
A modern day version of the Tar Baby.
Do they also teach that 0 democrats voted to give African Americans citizenship after they were freed? they still wanted them to be second class non-citizens.
Or 0 democrats voted to give them the right to vote?
Please show us a "progressive" who did any of those things. Your comment is jackassery at the highest level.
Racial discrimination is a conservative trait, not a progressive one.
There was a time long ago when the Democrats were the conservative party in America, but they werent progressive.
[Deleted]
Now this is what bad, distorted history looks like. Or its a Stalinist attempt to simply rewrite history to suit the present needs. "we've always been at war with East Asia." Either way, it's indisputable the first progressive Democratic President was a staunch racist. In fact, he might have been the most racist President outside of Andrew Johnson. And of course, the Eugenics movement in America was a progressive cause pushed by progressives still honored by 21st century progressives, like Margaret Sanger.
Progressivism and racism have always gone hand in hand.
Ah....your usual personal insult when you can't refute what I said. You're in denial of the real history
Woodrow Wilson had a private screening of Birth of a Nation in the White House. Afterwards he was quoted as saying, "It's like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true."
Woodrow Wilson is a largely discredited figure today. Conservatives call him the equivalent of a modern progressive, but progressives dont.
Periodically polling organizations poll on racial issues. No matter what the particular topic is, conservatives and Republicans always poll much higher with the belief that whites are victims of racism.
The fact that people still want to dispute whether conservatism or progressivism is more racist is very telling. And ridiculous.
Of course. The right is well invested in denying the obvious though.
Wilson was undoubtedly, by any standard, a progressive. Funny how frequently you claim Americans don't want to be taught "true history" but are so quick to distort the history of progressivism.
But that's what progressives do. They just rewrite history so progressivism is one the "right side" of today's progressive orthodoxy.
Wilson is discredited?, than he's suddenly not a true progressive and he can be erased from progressive history so the ideology remains pure.
It is. Only one of those movements is predicated on obtaining equality of results based on race, which can only be obtained by racism.
Why do you deny that conservatism is more racist that progressivism in modern America?
Mr Frost had a good point. It was not liberals or Democrats protesting the removal of confederate statues.
If progressives are racist, why dont they oppose critical race theory?
He clearly was a progressive, look at his:
Is it time to remove his nam from public structures?
Why does NYC and Boston have extreme segregation?
Is white grievance today a liberal or a conservative viewpoint and activity?
Because conservatives favor less racial discrimination, progressives more.
If progressives are racist, why dont they oppose critical race theory?
Because CRT justifies their racism. As Kendi said, The only remedy for past discrimination is discrimination.
As he should be.
He was a democrat.
No, it was a stupid meme...not a point.
Conservatives believe in preserving history, no matter the origin.
Liberals are trying to hide their heritage by tearing down statues of their ancestors.
So they should keep up statues of confederate slaveholding traitors because they are someone's heritage? Do you even know what you sound like?
utter fantasy nonsense
Here in the nation's capital, we have the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Yep because no matter how much you don't like it, it is part of American history.
Leftists are putting up statues of their new modern day heroes like George Floyd, who inevitably, someone will come to their sanity and see how he was nothing more than a druggie, criminal fuck up, and demand his statues come down.
Liberals will shit their minds and go on another summer of 2020 rampage.
Were the people who hung the confederate flag atop the Mississippi state capitol in the early 1960's in response to the civil right movement conservatives or liberals?
They were certainly Dems.
So being racist traitors is a noteworthy part of heritage worth commemorating. Nice mind set you've got there.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was almost entirely opposed by conservatives.
I dont give a damn if they were Republicans or Democrats.
Barry Goldwater was the GOP nominee for president in 1964, and one of the most well known conservatives in American history. He opposed the Civil Rights Act.
William F Buckley was another one of the most famous conservatives in history. In the late 1950's he wrote a magazine article berating blacks and calling for the continuation of segregation. Would you like me to post it for you?
Do whatever turns you on.
I was to young to vote.
I don’t give a damn about what you don’t give a damn about.
It's history. No one cares that YOU don't like it.
In 1960, JFK picked a racist as his running mate.
In 1992 and 2010, democrats picked racists as their president.
Your pronouncement has the value of the crap Marge Greene and Loren Bobert say!
Yet LBJ bravery cemented JFK's legacy by signing The Civil Rights Act of 1964 knowing, "Democrats will lose the white southern vote for the next fifty years"...
Bravery or a desire for millions of votes?
I have about 10 racists in my extended family and some friends. Every last one of them is a Trump supporter and identifies as conservative.
This is a closed case to thinking people. The fact that the right keeps denying it means they have no intention of changing.
There was no presidential election in 2010. You sure are on top of stuff.
He had no choice but to. And yet they didn't....
Ironic..
Lets have more fun
Oh, oh, oh my...I made a mistake that John called me out on. Shame on me, I am so embarrassed s/
So I name a year of inauguration of said racist president and not the election year.
Funny thing is, no leftist has said that I was wrong about those two being racists.
They know.
[Deleted]
And that "n****rs will vote democrat for 200 years"
Yea...that's a real good civil rights hero to the left.
Thanks for once again proving my point!
Your problem is you made no point, but, hey,...
You're welcome anyway
That is wrong too. I suggest giving up while you are behind.
Bravery knowing he lost 10 million votes.
You know both the context and history...
Which is why nobody takes you seriously!
So?
My point was clear. Your pronouncement had the intellectual weight of flatulence!
How do you figure?
Like serial killers, MAGA have a profile...
I’m glad that you found fun.
How can you not know or admit it?
What do you think the serial killer profile is?
Know know and admit it?
Pretty much the same as The Proud Boys!
Your statement is 100% correct taking into consideration of the time period. It is also a fact that the Ku Klux Klan was born in the democratic party of that period. However, that was then and this is now. Things change.
That is untrue. The fact is conservatives are seeking to remain relative in a nation/world that is changing around them, while not changing to meet the needs of the times. And, liberals place no demand on conservatives to be somebody they are not. Liberals simply won't become conservative to aid in their own alienation.
Partial attribution to a 'lesser' known writer does not do justice to that writer. Again, I will stress supplying a proper link to information and words authored by someone other than oneself!
Huh?
Oh, the irony: Why are MAGA conservatives talking about terminating CRT if all history "matters"? You can't do both equally. Pick one and only one (position) please.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it being: Both. In any case, LBJ did not seek a second term for private reasons.
Nothing private about the Tet Offensive or Teddy Kennedy's comment, "Our enemy, savagely striking at will across all of South Vietnam, has finally shattered the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances, even from ourselves,”and that the US was “unable to defeat our enemy or break his will—at least without a huge, long and ever more costly effort.”
Both.
Signers of the southern manifesto voted for LBJ's Great Society. There were plenty of progressives who were hardcore racists.
This information is not relevant to this discussion about CRT in any way. Stick to our shore, please.
You brought up LBJ's decision not to run in 68.
Ahhh so that's the answer? Well, the more things change the more they remain the same....
For sure,
What's hilarious is that you focus on a typo and not the point of the post. You cannot defend Obama and Clinton with their racist livelihoods, both before and after their presidencies.
Most other liberals can't, either.
YES and right wing extemists are responsible for the last 25 shootings/serial killings/deaths!
You like making shit up, keeps your imagination active.
Explain false objection/s so we can look at it together with you.
Calling opponents of teaching CRT in our schools, racists.
"Our schools"-Which schools are you concerned/referring?
K-12, but I’m not concerned, others are.
Present your proof/evidence of K-12 students directly being taught CRT.
I don't have proof and haven't asserted that it is. This thread started with,
You asked for an example, and I provided one.
For starters, this:
and, more generally, the inclusive education that its opponents dub CRT—simply calls upon us to acknowledge the realities and horrors of slavery and its lingering impacts on our nation
Contra the Andrea Mitchells of the world, no one objects to teaching kids about slavery or its aftermath.
You did not respond t o the initial comment or the commenter (Sean Treacy), but to me: WHY?!
Moreover, an example that is factually an unproven error, lie, or tool of propaganda is not a useful or helpful to discussion. It just sits there being an error/lie/propaganda.
You asked for an explanation 4.2
The proof is in your posting of this article, where you admit that the teaching of CRT is happening.
That "Rufo" documents shows that discussion/s about race were/are available in a well-thought out format— I don't see where it has been established "false objections" have been brought into this discussion by Sean Treacy; do you?
Of course, CRT is being taught somewhere or it would not bear mentioning. Present proof of K-12 teaching of it, please.
I have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Don't worry about it.
I was not addressing you in the original anyway. Sean Treacy (disappeared: "drive-by") may know.
You were addressing me in 4.2.11 which is what I replied to.
CRT is not being taught in schools from K-12. IT IS A COLLEGE COURSE.
They're not.
Some conservatives have motivated agendas; they will continue to repeat the propaganda-because for propaganda to work it must be often repeated!
Do you deny that CRT has informed programs of instruction and teaching materials and teacher training?
I read those sources likely with the same jaundice approach you do with some liberal references. That is, I can not ignore the loaded words popping up through each piece slanting anything that is hoped to be gleaned with its 'color-commentary.'
Frankly, I am sick of truth 'decay' and is that wrong? No, it's not wrong.
My understanding is CRT is a curriculum: so yes, I agree.
But they do show that CRT is partially ingrained into teaching materials, teacher training and instruction.
Afraid there is no slant-free reporting anymore, it's all colored with what they want to push. IMO there's no hope for a truthful reporting because they would not be able to keep an audience so they would not be able to keep advertisers and the dollars spent. People don't seem to want the truth, they want confirmation of their bias.
But just because there is some bias there doesn't mean it's all false reporting. Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole.
Your reply to this really isn't clear. When you say "so yes, I agree", are you agreeing that CRT has informed programs of instruction, teaching materials and teacher training or are you agreeing to deny that CRT is in the teaching materials and teacher training for primary and secondary education?
In college maybe, definitely NOT in grades K-12.
My reply hints at my not being a subject matter 'expert' on CRT. I agree that a curriculum (if CRT is one) has an "informed' (formal) program of instruction, teaching materials, and likely teacher training. That said, I don't pretend to be an expert on CRT so I am open to facts about it when and where "they" can be found!
As a result of the above, my answer to your question: CRT has informed programs of instruction, teaching materials and teacher training
As near as I can tell from all the facts and distortions passing back and forth in the marketplace of ideas.
Please actually read this link. It shows a high school English teacher from a school in California who lays out how CRT is ingrained in their teacher training and their lesson planning. While they are not teaching CRT as defined in primary and secondary education, they are definitely ingraining portions of it in teacher training and lesson planning.
Sidebar: (LOL! I remember when I became a news "junkie" around 44 years of age. CNN was already around and (Headline News -its sister network) it was being joined by cable channels popping up like 'candies' and we were SUPPOSED to get great service as a public from all the journalists and news accounts. But then, something horrible happened on the way to growth and development (maturity) for these cable news channels. Truth became swapp-able for agendas (emotional tribalism). Those who could not get their way (on both sides) saw one network door shut in his/her face as a sells opportunity to go 'down the hall' to the next network and get made a job offer. Something good, so many outlets for news, has deliberately corrupted itself. Now it fights for its good name against all the error the industry itself can generate to compete for hearts and minds.)
Let me digress, briefly. This article is written from a Christian/faith point of view. It, like me, wonders what the church has to do with proliferating and shading the truth when as a people of faith-goodwill and truth is all we have to make us distinct in a world looking after itself.
If CRT is not truthful then it will fail as a school choice, as schools have critical means they deploy to eradicate gross waste of course time and materials. This issue of politicians setting the "agenda" for educational programs and campuses is disturbing and dangerous. Politicians, by definition, generally are not subject matter experts on education curriculum and politicians are heavily given to motivational reasoning, that is they favor one thing over another for purely 'partisan' reasons.
Education has to be open to truth for truth sake if we are to survive as an informed nation. Otherwise, we will divide and fall, because ignorance of the past will cause future generations to retry proven failures of the past anew.
And, how is it possible to teach history or some other subject matter without it 'waffling' over into facts and figures about other 'things'? Why 'fear' it? Why put up artificial barriers to hide truth from students? Student of all ages?
That is what this article is conveying across to the Church; Jesus did not approve of 'whitewashing' in the church and neither should conservative Christians!
You agree with what?
The question was, "Do you deny that CRT has informed programs of instruction and teaching materials and teacher training?"
I have supplied you with my response. Now I need to ask you something: Do you know how credentialed educational insititutions set their curriculums? Because if you do, then why are you asking me what I mean when I agree to it being a curriculum?!!
If you need some nuanced answer to a 'loaded' question: I ain't into it.
I'm not looking for nuanced and the question wasn't loaded. I wasn't looking for a simple:
I answered the question my way. If you have the ability to discern a positive/negative answer from my comment on the question: Now is the time to put it to use! No more back and forth on this. And, I hope I don't detect an attempt to have psychological 'sway' over me, because you do not and will not have any such thing!
In fact, with this comment, I am done with this.
I have no idea what that means.
Wow!
Read the comment again.
Yes, time really clarified your thoughts.
And yet we continue to see/read articles about how this is exactly being done including having white children bow to black children, white children going home and being upset over being an oppressor. What is being gained by this teaching?
Isn't teaching that an individual by virtue of their race or sex is inherently privileged, racist, sexist or oppressive all in itself a racist teaching? Does this not single out the individual solely on the basis of their race or sex? Is this really any different than saying blondes are dumb or redheads will steal your soul?
Why do we continually have this discussion where one side continues to talk past the other. Schools are already teaching the truth of what happened, why is the push to add the flourish in to make a group of children ashamed of themselves due to the behaviors of people who may not even be in their family tree?
Why would some conservative whites be ASHAMED of people, as you say, whom are not in their families' past?
Who is making conservative children feel ASHAMED?
Listen: Do you imagine Black kids and minorities feel ASHAMED of what happened to them on a cyclic basis in the past? Do you bother to concern yourself with minority children feelings of shame about learning the truth of the past?
Is it appropriate or suitable to LIE to kids and let them live in a world packed with lies and omissions about the past?
Do you realize, understand, and accept that LYING and omitting the truth (or letting it 'decay') will only make it that much harder to face up to when somebody-say from outside the bubble (or in an international setting) calls out the facts of U.S. history?
This is not about making children feel bad, that is a ploy by the Right to show up and shut down discussion. On the other hand, telling the truth to succeeding generations is not always about feelings, anyway.
Are you saying this does not happen and has not happened in either primary or secondary education anywhere in this country? Is that what you are saying?
What lies and omissions are you concerned with? Why can't you support an honest education about slavery and the black experience in this country without educators making it racist by dividing classes into oppressors and oppressed solely based on race and sex? I have no problems with the facts being taught, where I object is when some try to correct the wrong in their teaching. You cannot correct the past, you can only learn from it and work to make the future better. But this constant division by race IMO only impedes that future rather than helps.
Some believe, depending on how it is taught, that:
Okay, I missed this when I returned home Saturday. "Some people" is not all people. And no all whites have never agreed on slavery, as white abolitionists, have distinquished themselves by not owning or 'perpetually' supporting others keeping slaves.
And yes, conservatives have a moral responsibility (especially if they want to be considered the moral 'standard-bearers) to do a great deal about how racism impacts people today, such as stop their propaganda to minimize and diminish minority and liberal roles and goals in today's world.
Youth today, understand and are 'immersed' in a great deal of social 'arenas' at an early age through their 'ear-gates' and 'eye-gates' - that is, through what 'breaks through' on daily news and television shows. Kids, are adaptable. And they are not given to feeling bad after seeing something somebody who is of the same ethnic or skin color has done (of any ethnic group or color).
I missed this yesterday. I don't know what is 'happening' around the country about CRT. There may be the exception to the rule, there may even be K-12 students taught CRT on a regular basis. I don't know that to be certain: Do you know if there is an exception or a 'regular basis' of CRT or "CRT-lite" being taught to K-12 graders?
No shit, is there one answer for all people?
You don't know your CRT, how did structural racism get into the laws and process of the North? Who built the slave ships, insured the slaves. loaned money to buy slaves, turned cotton into cloth, molasses into rum, etc.\
Just not so much in math and science.
Well Snuffy, all I can tell you is this: If the 'smart-alecks' did not take into account that one day people would look back on what they wrought with curiosity, concern, and in places regret that is on the 'alecks' not those instructed to inform and educate.
Covering it up won't help. For all you will have is an under-informed society, whereas those who know will know something about 'Americans' that they don't know (won't bother to learn) about ourselves/themselves.
Today's kids want an "honest" education: Don't whitewash the past! Deal with it honestly.
Even today, people are pointing to future historians and what they will 'report' about our time in this nation. And yet, conservatives still 'run' headlong into the buzz-saw of the future (today) by investing themselves in literally destroying the lives of minorities and others simply because they don't think conservatively.
That is a problem! If conservatives don't want to be judged in the future (for the past is prologue) for misinformation, disinformation, racial misdeeds, and bad moral/policy decisions they work to foist upon others-then simply put: Stop what they are doing in those areas.
Well, CRT is certainly not why students are failing/lowering in math and science, that's a distraction and a 'right-wing talking point.' CRT can't be the aforementioned cause and effect, especially if its not being taught there!
Let’s cram more into the curriculum.
Let's. Consider it like, 'walking, chewing gum, and rubbing a circle on the 'tummy' all at the same time!
Nah, let's take some out. Haven't you heard? Math is racist....
Yea, that will do it. Why didn’t our teachers think of that?
Well, I am sharing it with you: Perhaps, at a next local school board meeting you can share it!
What do you think that you’re sharing?
There is a sizable portion of the white American people who do not want their children being taught that America has historically been a racist nation. But it has. There is the rub.
The authors of Critical Race Theory, An Introduction , go beyond our racial history.
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic wrote: “ Unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which stress incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law .”
Richard Delgado must not have the first clue what CRT is about. I've been assured by the good folks of NT that CRT just means teaching kids slavery and Jim Crow existed.
Racist history in some areas....yes.
National racism.... absolutely not. It's delusional to think otherwise.
There is no doubt whatsoever, none, that America has historically been a racist nation , in practice if not always in principle. Why we have people who continue to deny this is a great mystery.
Countries with little racism in their history tend to be counties that have little racial diversity.
Because you can't prove what you offer as the truth.
Lots of white democrats in that picture.
They look as angry then as they are now.
With the exception of their Civil War ancestors when they found out they had to free their slaves, today's democrats are far more destructive and angry. With the exception of a lynching every now and again, the democrats of the 60s usually just yelled and screamed and spit in the faces of returning military and blacks.
How many are Democrats in this picture?
Probably all of them, but similar to the number of sane democrats, there are very few of them.
You don't even believe your own bullshit!
Oh, I believe everything I type.... especially the part about the sane democrats.
[[Meta.]]
Not in reality outside your MAGAVERSE...
Sane people do not take your hyperbolic nonsense seriously any more than insane lunatics making wild pronouncements on the streets. "THE END IS NEAR, MARS HAS ATTACKED, THE US NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON, ELIVIS IS ALIVE AND SO IS JFK JUNIOR, TRUMP REALLY WON IN 2020!"
Also ironic....
The only one proclaiming these things is you.
My point has once again been made....thanks to you.
I have to be away for several hours, enjoy. Do yourselves, me, and NT proud with this "hot topic" and I will appreciate you all on my return.
Why only teach the part of Exodus involving slavery? Why not teach the whole of Exodus? By only teaching about the slavery of Exodus, important parts of the story are lost.
The Israelites were enslaved but did not free themselves. Freedom did not mean that the Israelites could do as they pleased. Laws were imposed upon the Israelites and the Israelites were punished for ignoring those laws. The Israelites had to earn entry into the promised land. Moses was not allowed to enter that promised land to become ruler of Israel. The seven tribes of Israel were separate and had their own place in society; the promised land was based upon equality and not equity. Any theologian should understand the ramifications of the whole story of Exodus. A selective telling of the story of Exodus is incomplete. The Israelites never enter the promised land because the story stops with the teaching of slavery.
The problem with CRT, the 1619 project, and the current curriculum in primary education is the selective telling of history. By only teaching the slavery part of history, important parts of the story are lost. The promised land is out of reach because we're stuck in slavery.
Is this the 'account' from which you drew your comment? If so, it would have been nice for you to supply it in your comment! If not, can you inform thread readers where they can read the context of your (Egypt) comment? We might can continue once you do so. And it would be helpful if you pick one point to make which can be 'deepened' here through discussion.
I am addressing the entirety of the seeded article. This passage from the seed illustrates the overall theme:
Slavery is NOT at the heart of the story of Exodus. Slavery provides a beginning but the story of Exodus is more about the reality of freedom than the reality of slavery. By portraying Exodus only as a story of slavery, the key importance of story of Exodus is lost. Telling the story of Exodus as only a story of slavery means the Israelites never reach the promised land.
The writer clearly states:
Please Nerm, do explain how you concluded: ". . . Exodus only. . .a story of slavery." The author did not even hint at such.
Moses was a son of Pharaoh and the master of slaves. Moses was born Hebrew but Moses was never a slave. When it was revealed that Moses was Hebrew, Moses was forced out of Egypt and not into slavery. The 'story of Moses' is NOT a story of slavery. That's an important reason why slavery is not at the heart of the story of Moses or the story of Exodus.
Meh. No one (who can read) mistakes the 'son' raised in Pharaoh's house as a slave. This is superfluous information sharing. You should 'STOP.' The book is called: EXODUS for a reason.
For sure, CB, for sure:
So, are we discussing the story of Moses or the story of Exodus? The rebuttals to my comments seem to shift back and forth to avoid addressing those comments.
Clearly the authors, Serene Jones and Fred Davie, have focused on slavery in the story of Exodus. But the story of Exodus tells us that God did not choose a slave to free the Israelites and lead them out of bondage. And no where in the story of Exodus did the oppressed Israelites rise up and throw off their oppressors. In fact, Exodus does not portray the enslaved and freed Israelites as a good and noble people. The slaves in Exodus are portrayed as being helpless, weak of faith, feckless, and driven to pursue selfish desires.
The selective telling of history is what is at the core of the problem...
By glossing over the slavery part of history or ignoring it all together, important parts of the story
were lost for many generations of public school kids, especially in the South where the victim
mentality lives on.
There are now conservatives in the South still defending their "cruel and usual punishment-styled' deceased predecessors right to hold a single race for perpetuity as slaves and literally say that the North invaded them (Why?!) and destroyed their lives, liberties, and prosperity.
Huh? And as you like to say, "Present your proof/evidence".
There was a two hour documentary last Saturday that was very brave journalism.
Interviewed current black teens in Georgia who never had slavery in any classes.
(similar to my experience with the public school system in SC in the mid 90's)
In one County there was the white school and there was the black school.
The smartest black female student says she never has shared a class with a
white person other than a rare teacher or two, and had no white friends. Asked
if she knew where wps lived in her rural county she said "Oh yeah, they hang
that big CSA battle flag on the front porch, little ones on the mail box and
medium ones on their pick up trucks".
One girl was shocked to learn that her family's last name was likely the last
name of the slaver who owned her ancestors.
Kids from both schools took a tour to Wash D.C. to the small museum
dedicated to the 179,000 black troops that made it possible for the Union to turn
the tide of the Civil War.
The black students had no clue that blacks had fought in the Civil
War. The white kids rolled their eyes or feigned sleep during the docent's presentations.
The white County solicitor took the typical approach. He wasn't alive during the CW and as far as he knew, his family never owned slaves, so he doesn't owe blacks a thing. He is against all reparations and threatening the black school funding because they sing additional songs in addition to the national anthem before school events (This Land is your Land...)
"Journalism" that panders to the prejudices cultural gatekeepers is not brave, it's how you make a profit.
They are either lying or illiterate. There is no history textbook in America that doesn't cover slavery.
Georgia state standards require slavery to be covered starting no later than 4th grade.
I thought that Gettysburg represented the turning tide in our Civil War and that few if any Black soldiers fought there.
October 1705 -CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves within this dominion, to be real estate.
[The legislators defined enslaved men, women, and children as real property in this act. See also the 1669 statute entitled An act about the casuall killing of slaves for another example of masters treating slaves as property.]
I. FOR the better settling and preservation of estates within this dominion,
II. Be it enacted, by the governor, council and burgesses of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this act, all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be reat estate (and not chattels) and shall descend unto the heirs and widows of persons departing this life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.
IV. Provided also, That all such slaves shall be liable to the paiment of debts, and may be taken by execution, for that end, as other chattels or personal estate may be.
V. Provided also, That no such slaves shall be liable to be escheated, by reason of the decease pf the proprietor of the same, without lawful heirs: But all such slaves shall, in that case, be accounted and go as chattels, and other estate personal.
I was temporarily transferred to texas almost 30 years ago and had 2 kids in elementary school. I come home to my kids in tears because in addition to their homework, both were now on an accelerated learning program to catch up to their classmates in required texas history and were loaded down with additional homework. after helping with the homework, I spent the rest of the evening going thru the text book and putting in bookmarks.
I went to their school the next afternoon and attempted to reason with both teachers about excusing my kids from this class because we would be moving back to colorado in 10 months. no dice. I made an appointment with the principle for the next afternoon and took my son's bookmarked text book. I met with the principle and again made my plea for exemptions from the subject. the principal was very hesitant until I pointed out some problem areas with facts in the textbook. again, she was hesitant to be flexible and offered that they wouldn't have to attend the class, but they would be given incompletes, or something, for the class. I told her I would call her the next day after talking to the mrs.
instead I called my cousin who was a high school principle in colorado, who became quite amused about my dilemma, but offered me some great advice. "school districts (ISD's in texas) are scared shitless of bad publicity and being sued". the next day after a short meeting with the principal, both of my kids were excused from attending texas history classes.
US students trail in math and science as compared to others countries, not surprising then that our students are also ignorant of US history.
Slavery - Crash Course US History #13
Damn those Brits.
[Deleted]
Was this new information for you?
Was the show, Civil War on MSNBC last week?
So let's teach it and get it over: rib off the bandage. Black people and other minorities are 'continuously bleeding' because conservatives won't let the toxins drain out of the seething 'wound' of past and present racial politics. Things are 'backed-up' still. Even other courses (math/science) will do better if this nation stops 'stunning' itself through its politics.
So go ahead and teach us CB.
There the wicked
Carried us away in captivity
Slavery - Ancient
[Deleted]
Actually, it's pretty sad that you felt like your kids should not have to learn the curriculum of the school system you volunteered to get transferred to.
Thirty years ago was the beginning of "every child gets a trophy" generation, leading to the illiterates we have in schools today.
I wasn't going to let my kids minds get twisted with a warped version of goober history.
Then it's good to know your kids got their education in good, red states.
What does that mean, bugsy? Take your time and be clear.
Back to the topic, with your 'permission.' Why are conservatives so afraid of critical race theory?
Yes, that's the one !
[Deleted]
It was a deeply intense documentary from which I gleaned a great deal—especially as it relates to some southern whites viewings of the Civil War and 'The Lost Cause'!
My son got into a fix in SC.
His English teacher was from Peru.
I went to the Principal and asker her to explain to the
the English teacher the correct pronunciation of hyperbole and a simile.
We eventually made her see the light.
That is an unsupported ad-hominem attack; while claiming moral superiority. And yes, I detect nuance of negating a majority Black Atlanta through its affiliation largely with democrats.
We were not talking about Fox News...
A distant possibility...
The previous comments about Texas ISD's was accurate then and surprisingly still an issue today. Removing Slavery from Textbooks - Prindle Institute
And we all know that "separate but equal" is a thing of the past and all school districts abide by state laws each and every day, like the speed limit laws, right?
I gave you one possible answer in 5.1.2
Those troops were doing good work elsewhere and in many cases not federalized yet or even organized militias yet. Gettysburg indeed changed that as well. Up until Gettysburg blacks had mostly served or fought on the southern side.
It strike me as weird that I ended up taking more US History courses with the Jesuits and Christian Brothers than are required at West Point...
Ah yes, those known confederate sympathizers at McGraw Hill have removed slavery from schools by printing : “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations" in a geography textbook.
Someone reading that would never know slavery existed!.
Texas Law requires slavery
Another coverup!
know that "separate but equal" is a thing of the past and all school districts abide by state laws each and every day, like the speed limit laws, right?
Sure, there's a massive conspiracy in the famously conservative area of education to ignore the law. Teachers, administrators etc from all over a state full of northern transplants happily risk their employment, pension etc to pretend slavery didn't exist. Parents, who never care about their kids trying to get into colleges and receive college credit, all happily engage in the coverup and keep the conspiracy secret in a state that has two democratic senators and voted for Biden.
Well not only is it way out of order,,,it really didn't address the question very well.
Well maybe in your head it made more sense?
Lee's objectives in Pennsylvania were:
Their horse thieven pales to the scorched earth tactics used by the North.
Well we were talking about free black men & women being captured & enslaved,
not horses being stolen, although the CSA were reportedly interested in the
large shoe industry in Gettysburg to alleviate their "shoe problem".
The scorched earth tactics of the North came later under Sherman.
As you already admitted, the South was winning the war prior to Gettysburg.
Lee was emulating Washington very successfully up to that point.
Very pointlessly wordy?
School districts control what their kids see and hear in school.
I been told on several occasions that since my family was "there temporarily"
they weren't interested in how we did it up North.
They could care less what those imaginary northern transplants think at the State level.
In spite of firing the first shots, the South still refers to the Civil War as the
War of Northern Aggression, The Lost Cause or
the Second American Revolution.
Correct. But the remedy is not to change the criteria for selection to conform with a different bias.
By focusing on the slavery part of history we've glossed over the story of abolition. Very large segments of the United States prohibited slavery. Yet, those segments of the country were required to accommodate slavery. The 'run away slave' laws were imposed on parts of the country where there never was slavery. Are we to believe that everyone agreed with the Dred Scott decision?
By glossing over the part of history where there wasn't slavery we've lost an important part of our history. The lessons from that history are not available to us.
These are representations of "stinkin thinkin." Your mention of 'bias' in this case is fatalistic. Contrary to your statement; pulling out slavery in the past for closer observation and information does not give it favor. It leads to a proper and better understanding of what occurred and how it came to be.
No one is "glossing over" abolitionism by discussing slavery in detail.
Nerm it strikes me, you are 'desperately' working in a series of comments to REFRAME this discussion away from critical race theory. Why?
The Black population focuses attention on the south because that's where the overwhelming bulk of the Black population was located; mostly as slaves and a very small number of free Black people. Black history in the United States is pretty much southern history until the 20th century.
There were 33 states in 1860. Slavery was legal in only 15 of those 33 states. And slavery had been abolished before the remaining 17 states were created. In 1860 only a third of the US population lived in those 15 states where slavery was legal (including the slave population). The United States was much larger than the south. And much more of the US population lived where there wasn't slavery than where there was slavery.
Why do Iowa children need to learn about southern plantations? Why do Nebraska children need to learn about slave auctions? Why shouldn't Kansas children learn about abolition instead of slavery?
The bulk of the Black population may be able to trace its ancestry to the south. But the bulk of the white population does not trace its ancestry to the south. Southern history is not that relevant or important to the bulk of the white population.
and yet somehow the Jesuits and Christian Brothers
were teaching these things in the 6o's and 70's.
I guess we were just "lucky".
and yet, racial prejudice thrived and still thrives in some of those last 17 states.
“There were 33 states in 1860”
So by your logic, states that joined the union after the Civil War have no need to be taught about that war, what proceeded it, what led up to it, nor the outcome?
Truly you are a bot.
CRT teaches us that it continues in the first 33 states as well.
So by your logic, the history of slavery should be taught from a Black perspective or not taught at all? Isn't that a bigoted point of view?
The history (and heritage) of slavery for most of the country is that of abolition. That's not southern history and that's not Black history. The relevant history for the bulk of the white population is abolition.
They made some good wine back in the day as well. Jesuits still do.
I didn't need to be taught that at all and like yours, my education came before the legal construct was published and/or it's current corruption.
I had blood relatives who were residents of Levittown PA who were vocally confidant in the long term race protection provided in their legal deeds to their property.
One doesn't need a theory to teach what is obvious in everyday news and politics.
and Brandy, lol.
Isn't that a bigoted point of view?
Bs. The Abolitionist movement started during colonial times and ended at the end of the Civil War having at most less than 200,000 proponents.
Much like the pro life movement, they walked away after the birth.
All 50 states inherited the mess left behind when Reconstruction was ended by compromise in 1877.
There is much to be learned. Just teach it all.
Reconstruction is more southern history. And the abolitionist movement did not start in the south at any time. Abolition is not southern history. Is that why the history of abolition has been forgotten and is not being taught?
When the abolitionist movement ended, the civil rights movement began. The Constitution was amended to end slavery so abolition was no longer needed. But the Constitutional amendments marked the beginning of civil rights. That's not southern history.
Why do we learn about any state(s) we are not participating in, Nerm? How would we NOT learn what the nation once upon a time was a participant in creating (racial classifications) and is participating in today through congress, courts, and presidents? Your question is 'over-worked.'
I suggest we teach kids 'American' history, inclusive of slavery and abolitionist. Can you be 'OK' with that right there?
ChatGPT, possibly?
That is some 'deep' sharing there, SP. Keep it real! (I feel strongly that you always do!)
Civil rights. . . for minorities. . . care to take a stab at why minorities and N/A needed laws (and revisions) to be granted rights afforded whites inherently? Afterward, I want to continue on about that 'confident strut' white men have through this land. . . as I wonder if it has something to do with not having to defend themselves severely throughout many generations of their time here.
When did civil rights not mean civil rights for all in this country, Nerm?
They may have meant it but it was an exclusive group, white male landowners.
Minorities were considered less than humans.
As Teddy Rosevelt once said:
A horrible thing to say!
Learned something about you recently: You have great taste in music selection. Glad to see you 'letting it loose'!
Thanks. When is see a phrase like "confident strut", my mind goes to a lyric.
I can't remember what I walked into a room for or what I did yesterday, but I'll remember lyrics from 55 years ago and I always listened to a diverse mix of music.
And, I can 'dig' it!
I know what you mean, at times same here. (Long-term memory versus short-term memory: Gotta love 'em!)
Once upon a time, each state required teaching the history of their state. I don't know if that is still a requirement. The point is that schools taught history that was relevant to where the school was located and where the students lived.
The nation, as a whole, did not participate in creating racial classifications. Racial classifications can be traced to political parties attempting to obtain political control over government and the country. Only one political party from that era remains intact. And racial politics is still deeply entrenched in that party's politics.
You are not calling for the teaching American history; you are calling for the teaching of Black history. Black history is southern history. The history of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation is southern history. The Black population in the United States has no other history than southern slavery. Black history is southern history from the point of view of Black people. That point of view makes the telling of history incomplete.
By embracing that southern history as the only history available for the Black population, the Black population is trapped in slavery and oppression. That is Black history and there is no other history for Black people.
One more, see I can't help myself.
Wasn't that the point of abolition? Can you explain why it is less important to teach about abolition than about slavery?
It's American History.
There were no abolitionists in the South?
Of course it is. Religious leaders, freed blacks and others inundated the South with anti slavery literature from 1830 to the start of the CW.
That's a mighty large opinion.
Too simplistic. The seeds of the Civil Rights movement began when Reconstruction ended in a backroom Washington deal to put another liberal Republican in the WH. (1877)
Yes, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments attempted to establish black Americans as equal to their white counterparts. Unfortunately that gave rise to conservative Democrats creating Jim Crow to defeat those Amendments
It's American History Nerm. It's really a simple concept, just ask any black person, in any state of the Union, if
they feel that they have equal protection under the Constitution or the law.
Only one of many by presidents.
Nerm, . . . (Sigh.)
Keep this up . . . and I might like to have a beer with you, too!
You know, I remember this song as a child growing up and knew the words too. However, I have never seen printed lyrics for the song: especially here:
I can dig it, he can dig it
She can dig it, we can dig it
They can dig it, you can dig it
Oh let's dig it . . . can you dig it baby?
Back then, I never processed that so much was being spoken at the bridge! I would just get 'lost' in the melody/harmonies. Great song/presentation!
You did not answer the question: Look at it again and try processing it before you write
As for abolition it is not the topic of discussion, per se. And you have droned on and on about it long enough. Decency demands you stop now.
Way out of order, how so, I saw it as a thoughtful response.
I could have gone the easy way and said proponents of CRT to the question, "Who is making conservative children feel ASHAMED?" Does that make more sense in your head?
Proponents of CRT want to talk about racial hierarchies and racial structures in society; it is not racist or divisive to talk about racial issues and problems. Silence over racial matters only lends itself to ignorance of race matters/problems.
Ok, let's talk about racial hierarchies and racial structures in America.
Go ahead: State your view.
I’m not the proponent, you are.
Nope, I don't fully understand CRT to be a proponent of it. I just don't see why people can't be allowed to talk about race/relations/problems out in the open; in church, or in education.
I pass to your "championing" of anti-CRT right? You start us 'up'! (I am going to keep it pithy, for now.) If not, then we can forget about it.
CRT started out as a legal construct addressing mortgage red lining as an accepted practice that was fought all the way to the SCOTUS in 1982,
which ducked the issues, stating that such business practices were already illegal and "Levittown clauses" were therefore unenforcible.
Today's CRT has morphed into a conservative bogeyman for reverse racial injustice, a cover for the current living white people to disavow the sins of their ancestors against all manner of non whites, a denial of atrocities against NAs or slavery in this country.
CRT can be construed to be just teaching the unpleasant truth about racial division in North America since Jonestown, but many whites simply don't want to hear it.
It would be nice to put it behind us in another hundred years...
Too optimistic?
Thank you for pulling the cover 'off' and letting truth go free. Now, if we can just get some conservatives to discuss matters honestly (too optimistic?) we can get on with this sorry 'business' of unifying hearts and minds. One hundred percent unification of mind and spirit. . .that will take some time. But it can began a 'fresh start' or dare I ask what might minorities learn that has not yet been told if we 'do'?
Thanks SP! You are helping to turn the tide in this country towards benefiting all of us, individually and collectively!
You must have not been paying attention. I haven't championed anti-CRT, I answered one of you many questions.
Too bad, maybe your not really a proponent of CRT or want to talk about racial hierarchies and racial structures in society;. Maybe you didn't really mean it when you wrote, "Silence over racial matters only lends itself to ignorance of race matters/problems."
Maybe you didn't really want to discuss as much as 'jab'?