John Oliver Talks Critical Race Theory on Last Week Tonight
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Leia IdlibyFeb 21st, 2022, 8:59 am Twitter share button
John Oliver's Last Week Tonight returned Sunday for its season 9 premiere, in which the host took aim at the conservative panic surrounding critical race theory.
"A lot of people are getting very mad about critical race theory right now, and instinctively, you probably know it's a manufactured panic, but the fact is the fear around it is having real effects," Oliver said Sunday following the series three-month hiatus.
The host went on to point to Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA), highlighting that he won Virginia's governor's race after promising that he would ban critical race theory from being taught in schools on his first day in office.
"Multiple states have passed laws outlawing the teaching of it, and Republicans are likely to make it a major focus of the midterms," Oliver added.
He then pointed to another critical race theory detractor — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), playing a clip of him claiming, "Let me tell you right now: critical race theory is bigoted, it is a lie, and it is every bit as racist as the Klansman in white sheets."
"I do not like that Ted Cruz man. I do not like him shouting Klan," Oliver rhymed in response, likely mocking Cruz for recitingDr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor.
"I do not like him in a room. I do not like him in Cancun. I do not like him playing ball. I do not like his face at all. I wish he'd lose his cushy job. That man Ted Cruz is a fucking knob."
According to Oliver, Fox News mentioned the theory 4,707 times in 2021 alone, largely thanks to Tucker Carlson who consistently disparages it despite once admitting, "I've never figured out what critical race theory is, to be totally honest, after a year of talking about it."
"They're teaching that some races are morally superior to others—that some are inherently sinful, and some are inherently saintly, and that's immoral to teach that because it's wrong," Carlson continued.
Oliver noted that definition is incorrect, offering one of his own:
It's the name given to a body of legal scholarship that began in the 1970s that attempted to understand why racism and inequality persisted after the civil rights movement. The core idea is that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something that is embedded in legal systems and policies. As for Tucker's notion that it teaches some races are superior to others, or that parent's claim that it teaches kids to hate America, none of that is remotely true.
He then aired a clip of Kimberle Crenshaw, one of critical race theory's leading scholars, who said, "Critical race theory just says, let's pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes, so we can become that country we say we are."
"So, critical race theory is not anti-patriotic," she added. "In fact, it is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it, because we believe in the 13th and the 14th and the 15th Amendment, we believe in the promises of equality, and we know we can't get there if we can't confront and talk honestly about inequality."
Another reason Fox News has mentioned the theory so many times is Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who has appeared on the network several times to argue against it.
"What Rufo has been cleverly doing is cherry-picking the worst examples that he can find of lessons in classrooms or training materials for teachers and saying, that is CRT," Oliver explained.
"And he's openly admitted that he's been engaged in a deliberate rebranding exercise, tweeting, 'We have successfully frozen their brand—"critical race theory"—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions … The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.'"
Oliver went on to lament that Rufo's plan "fucking worked," noting that whenever one hears "critical race theory," they do not think of the academic discipline, but "about a category so broad it encompasses both 'the craziest thing in the newspaper' and also, crucially, any conversation about race that someone does not want to have."
"Since January of last year, 37 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism, and the justification for these has often been more than a little flimsy," Oliver noted, pointing to the impact of Rufo's campaign against the theory.
The host also highlighted that despite the claim that the theory is being taught in schools, it's actually a graduate-level discipline.
"Unless your five-year-old is currently pursuing a law degree, they're not reading Kimberle Crenshaw," he cracked.
"The debate around critical race theory is both very loud and very, very dumb," Oliver concluded. "But unfortunately it is important to engage with it because if we don't, the endpoint that we are heading toward is that honest discussions of race will be shut out of public schools even as some parents fuck off to voucher academies where their kids can learn a version of history that is basically antebellum fan fiction."
Watch above, via YouTube.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: critical race theoryJohn OliverLast Week Tonightlate night Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
At the end of this segment John Oliver points out examples of racism in Loudon County Virginia, the area with the school district that did a great deal of whining about critical race theory.
no surprise that CRT is such a big issue in white supremacist enclaves...
John Oliver .... comedian and English major ....... yawn!
Usual fair, down-play and diminish instead of "processing" and reflection.
They don't call it CRT in the lower grades, but the same revisionist lies are being taught
CRT, indoctrination..... potato, potahto
What we see here are people who cannot discuss critical race theory in any concrete terms whatsoever.
Having 'won' the CRT War, they don't need to. The modern mantra of politics is: 'Fear sells everything else that sex does not'.
They've won nothing. Loudmouths try to obstruct and diminish everything. But, truth is not exhausted that way. The struggle continues. . . Some conservatives have found the means to stick their minds into the ground -but when ever has being stupid for stupid sake been a plus? They will fail. Why? Because if they are successful in destroying every thread of data on systemic racism in the United States. . . a diverse variety of data can be found off-shore, and in foreign countries. The larger question is why be a bunch of cockamamie liars? Why race ignorant, dumbed-down children and call it 'smart'?
Systemic racism doesn't exist in the US, it's doubtful it ever did
Oh my. . . . I will have to get back to you, my friend: after my shock! Let me ask leave you with this ('opening'):
Housing Discrimination: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
This would be because CRT isn't a concrete theory. The definition is usually something like:
CRT puts the cart before the horse. It assumes racism is inherent in every facet of American life and then goes about figuring out how to prove it in a way that seems convincing. It evolves not because new truths are discovered but, instead, in order to overcome opposition to its ideology. It's why CRT is so hard for most people to actually define what CRT purports to be beyond some stock definition.
Actually, what we have here is two competing versions of CRT, one the academic theory, and one the lies and untruths pushed by a malicious little twit and anyone else who has swallowed or is propagating his bullshit. It is a strawman, a boogie man that they can call out to crucify because it has no definition but "something bad" and attached somehow to race. Beyond that, just yell,'CRT!" and the crusaders will be there to roust out the godless liberal communist perversion, or something like that.
Academic CRT is not the same as the polluted twit version, yet the definitions are used interchangeably. Hence, the characterization below (comment threads 8 and 9 ) where the the different definitions are used, crossing with fluidity back and forth to claim that CRT is definitely taught in K-12 education. Unfortunately, the people who do this do not recognize the fact that they are doing it, no matter that attention was drawn to it.
Seems like we could be talking about how to improve our schools without resorting to lies and disinformation. I mean, teaching them that they can "win" if they just lie and decieve enough does not seem like a very good place to start.
What have here ..... is failure to communicate....... that the hateful message presented by CRT and being pushing by radical teacher unions throughout the country is omnipresent.
An unforeseen benefit of the pandemic. Parents finally got more involved in their kids education and found indoctrination instead of education.
A Covid-19 silver lining if you will .....
ROFL. Omnipresent?! Most people can’t even describe it consistently, and Tucker Carlson openly admits that he doesn’t even know what it is, while he is bashing every night on Faux News. “I don’t know what it is, but it’s everywhere.”
According to John Oliver , Fox News mentioned critical race theory over 4700 times during 2021. That's about 13 times a day 365 days a year.
Well then, keeping rolling and gaslighting and .......
Has should have counted how many times it was even mentioned in all of the liberal mass media ..... he would have been done counting much quicker.
MUCH quicker!
Who counted?
Seriously. Liberals are famous for making up numbers because they know other liberals are won't check. Why on earth would anybody believe John Oliver...who is already famous for not understanding numbers?
its not who counted its the fact someone was actually paid to do so ......on something no one really cares about .
"Woof"
Zap
Bing
Indoctrination is lying about the facts of history. Oh, and watching and listening to Fox News.
Nah, it is trying to push a woke guilt trip on the impressionable though.
Gigs up though ..... busted!
Tell it to FOX NEWS. I observe some conservatives getting their narratives there. Wake up; it's morning in the U.S.A. Wipe the 'sleep' from your brow!
Tell it to the liberal hive, buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz .....
Critical Race Theory: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
This is 21 plus minutes of great 'explaining' that most some conservatives will NEVER hear because it will be DISCORDANT to alternative reality of FOX NEWS. For my 'bestie' Trout Giggles- there is a "Tennessee moment" which is very telling @16:21 in this video. So TG if you arrive here: Check it out!
If Elvis was looking for a small schoolgirl....
"Poetic."
When this whole made up controversy started, I actually did some investigation into Critical Race Theory. I found it basically to be looking at the structural ways in which racism can persist in this society that is "not racist". Then I tried talking about what I had found out. People did not want to hear anything about what it actually was, they wanted to self define the term. It was quite an ugly strawman which they built.
As is stated in the video, the brand of CRT has been co opted and corrupted into something which does not even remotely resemble what it actually was. What is agonizing is the buy in from the public. Do we want to be lied to? Because, that is what the antagonists to CRT (whatever they mean by that) are doing or have had done to them.
It's an old tired trick conservatives, now some conservatives, have been proliferating all our lies! Remember when they would not educate Blacks because we were to be considered in their eyes as 'beast' in the 1800s. Whites of the era, grew their children up to actually believe (remember all children are told what is real and what is not reality from infancy) black Africans could not be taught to read and write—so there was no reason to bother trying to do so. This and a myriad of other dirty tricks have been done in the name of oppressing and repressing and keeping blacks and other people of color "otherized."
Now, true to form, some conservatives can't let their children know about what's in their dirty laundry-because people of color, are finally able to have a truly independent voice to tell their accounts from history. That is, the dead blacks and people of color are speaking through the living: and, some conservatives are 'gnashing teeth' to shut 'em down!
They want to shut their ears from the 'dirty' they have done. But it can not be so! Truth will fine them out like disinfectants dealing with germs.
The best thing to do is to own the truth, APOLOGIZE, and REPENT (change) and do better. But, when have you ever heard a 'Trumpist' apologize? They think 'combat' for combat sake can overwhelm everything!
More can be said, but COFFEE!
Of course. That's the common practice on any political controversy that gets any attention. It's like when people say "the 1%". The actual "1%" includes your dentist, your cardiologist, the local McDonald's franchisee, a bunch of real estate agents, and most small business owners with 25 or more employees. What people really mean is "the 0.001%" and they have no clue how most of those people make their money anyway.
"CRT" is being used as a catch-all phrase to represent the concept of white liberal guilt as a curricular theme.
Well, lets see, it's not being taught, it's not being taught, it's not being taught.... On ad infinitum.....
LIES....
Would you believe
Co-Founder of justiceleaderscollaborative ,
Author of Those Kids, Our Schools & Race Dialogues,
Mother of 3,
medium.com/@shaylargriffin
scribd
You can't get around that one.. CRT is being used as the foundation for all education in the nation... That is no accident, it is being vehemently argued that it is not being taught when it actually is being used as the framework for education and it's being codified into law that mandates it be used that way...
Since it's progenitors and advocates are saying that it is...
There isn't an argument that can be made claiming it that isn't being taught which isn't patently false on it's face...
None of you can escape this fact....
Are those (words in red) 'dark and dangerous' words to some conservatives? Why? Why do some conservatives hate mixing with other humans (and liberals) so much?!!!
I support every single one of those words and the precepts they currently stand for...
I do not support a bunch of political racists driving their version of what they mean into my child's head, or anyone's child's head...
It's political indoctrination pure and simple... Liberal progressive racist hate filled propaganda...
I find it really sad that you believe these words. See what the country has come to from listening to the lies and distortions of Fox News and Trump and all the others who have co opted and corrupted CRT from its original academic disciplines to something unrecognizable, almost inverted from what the originators of the idea had in mind.
Truly "...a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
You support these since when? And if so, why do support some conservatives who are desperately attempting to get everybody to look pass these factors? Why do some conservatives hate mixing with other humans (and liberals) so much?!!!
And Nowhere Man do not ever try to tell others about people re-defining words and ideas into an alternative reality when FOX NEWS is projecting lies and misinformation straight into the conservative stream of consciousness. And I know this because when I peek into FOX News channel I hear verbatim the same concocted statements permeating through the anchors and graphics that are shared here (by people who SWEAR their ideas and statements are their own ideas and statements). Untrue.
Nah, all those words are code words for racism.
Untrue. Some conservatives can live in an alternative reality all they wish, but it won't change a damn thing that is real. Come back when y'all can: we will be here waiting at the 'threshold.'
Speak for yourself. Tell us your game.
No time for your usual bull patty. Okay.
I suggest stop trolling. We're done here. I will ignore you from here on out if you continue to diminish and deconstruct this discussion.
diversity, inclusion, equity, social justice
Only to a racist.
Tsk tsk tsk...
You can't teach something if you don't know it first.
I'm curious how one teaches algebra from a "social justice" perspective.
The harm comes in both teaching kids that social justice matters at all in mathematics or the hard sciences, and then again when you force teachers to alter pedagogy in those areas to focus on politics.
The 'trick' comes in you offering up nonsense simply for discussion sake.
Out of curiosity, do the comments I quote not appear in your browser?
To be honest, I do not know. But, I could not find the legislation that Nowhere Man was referring to. I did find SB 5044 , but that has to do with training for teachers, not curricular material.
I have taught (Geology) in the State of Washington before. I was not impressed with the WA educational system, at all.
CRT, as defined by the right wing media, is in my estimation a false flag operation: A strawman built for legislators to dance around with rocks and spears and torches so that they can say, "Look! I have killed the beast!" when there was not really any beast there. As a political topic, CRT, as defined by the right wing media, has been wonderful for drawing all of the crazies out of the woodwork, and giving the posers something to crow about, but as far as actually doing something to affect education in a positive manner, I feel that all of the attention to the false CRT has impaired educators, making them less likely to raise issues that perhaps should be addressed.
I think that, regardless of political bent, we can all agree that we should teach our children when they are young to be courteous to all, curious, and the importance of facts. Those, combined with critical thinking, are the bedrock upon which our knowledge should be built, hopefully gaining wisdom along the way. As this conversation points out, we are not doing as good of a job as we ought to. Thank goodness children are, to a very large degree, self correcting.
Refreshing answer. *thumbsup*
OK, so the whole "every class" thing may not actually be the case. Let's hope.
Public education in general may be the worst managed situation in America.
I'm inclined to agree. In Texas, we say "it's a solution looking for a problem". We had a similar situation throughout the Bible Belt a few years ago where we had a raft of "anti-Sharia Law" legislation.
I understand, but I don't think I see it that way. I just don't think it's going to matter much. I see it as a tempest in a teapot.
Exactly.
There WAS a time when even the right viewed 'social justice' from an ethical and/or religious 'perspective', not a political one.
Gaslight ....... gaslight and spin like a whirl dervish.
The canned progressive playbook.
Pretty weak!
From the Scribd Article you linked:
I have long mentioned that conservatives, and now Trump conservatives (some conservatives), have interfered with Blacks and People of Color every sense we have been in this country. Frankly, I have heard their "shit" all my life. I have "felt" their shit all my life in one way or another.
Can you imagine being black-male-homosexual and spending your whole life trying to figure out which 'component' of you conservatives and some conservatives are complaining about on any given day?
Some conservatives think they are tired of being called racists?!!! How about us-the object of centuries of racist, meddlesome, direct and indirect, bigotry and hatred!
As I look back over my life, I can now see it all in 'relief' - conservatives have never changed. They have only 'bided till they can stir up the same relics in each new generation.
And so, here they are doing it yet again (in my old age).
Excuse my bluntness: But what RIGHT-PRIVILEGE does a conservative, any conservative, 'bastards!,' have to upset the 'cart' of my life for its completeness?! And worse, continue to set the stage for a new generation of otherizing blacks, people of color, and liberals?
I can take a stab at this , but it wont be liked .
Everyone has the right and or privilege to decide for themselves whom they choose to associate and interact with , and pretty much for whatever reasons they deem , now some of those reasons are patently wrong headed , others are completely understandable .
And that right -privilege, the right to associate with whom one chooses will never be going away .
And that right is part of our freedoms
personally it is a basic HUMAN right /privilege , that existed long before the constitution of this country was a gleem in anyones eye.
Otherizing people? Do I have to clarify what otherizing is or do you know already?
FREEDOM to be and do what? Be perpetual 'dicks' to liberals? Start one culture war after another because a liberal policy 'won' and conservatives 'lost'? How selfish can a group of people be? (And then some conservatives cry foul over the truth of their meddling and wish to 'hide' facts in plain sight.)
Nope , your words is explanation enough .
the right to choose whom one associates with requires that both parties agree to associate.
It is not a one sided deal that only one party gets to say we will associate.
If one side decides against it , THAT is their right , and if it hurts the others feelings or up ends their life , its likely best they seek associations somewhere else .
The impasse on this site is a good example , the parties get to decide to associate or not during discussions and they get to choose when to end the discussion ( association ). Its the same principle and thing to me .
if you wish an example of someone i choose NOT to associate with , i can give you one or two , pedophiles and rapists.
now should anyone blame me for staying away from such people ?
Most of us can not justify pedophiles and rapists (crimes in our country). Now tell me how that justifies what is happening to INNOCENT people attempting to follow the laws of our country, but keep getting slighted, maligned, and 'dicked' over by some conservatives who won't leave us alone to our freedoms? Go ahead, please.
You may have to expand on those things your mentioning, it leaves a pretty broad area for discussion to even take a semi educated guess.
though my curiosity is peeked at the leave us alone to our freedoms part.
Who is us and what freedoms are not being left alone?
keep in mind , i speak only for myself and my opinion . not the whole of conservative or moderate or liberals of society .
The racial history of neglect, abuse, 'repair,' and steady 'drumbeat' to offense in this country? I am not going to dignify that. I suggest you study on "the opposition" and discussions of problem issues in this country before you tell blacks and people of color how they should (in so many words) "go alone to get alone." We've been there - done that - got all the t-shirts to quote the phrase.
I don't mean to take that tone with you, but I simply have no interest in making the case from 'scratch" in here. (Moderates are not the problem, per se.) Extremists are 'driving' the issues down into the ground for now.
Maybe start with the two John Oliver videos in this comment section. They will take some time and they are a small slice of what is problematic for our country, but it is a good start!
First , i take it you meant ALONG and not ALONE, and yep we have ALL been there .
Second , NOWHERE did i mention RACE, Thats YOUR thing ,
Not mine , I treat people as individuals not based on their race but the content and character and how they express themselves on issues .
Third , you likely realized i am not part of that "Some " group you like to differentiate, but mean most , no one can or will deny that there are some conservatives that are behind the curve to use an euphemism ,
In otherwords you wont dignify because you realized it was a losing discussion and you backed out hoping to keep dignity .
LASTLY , i will exersize MY privilege to end the association (discussion ) but you are still free to mount your soap box and express your views through your own particular Lense of life . and tilt wind mills .
That is part of your right of free speech and i will not infringe on that , but making others listen to or believe you is not part of that right .
have a good night , i am out I have had enough of the racist blathering on this site for one day .
What freedoms are you being denied?
Are you a republican? Actually, scratch that. You are a republican. End of story.
"Are you a republican? Actually, scratch that. You are a republican. End of story."
wrong ....again
Not a repub , but unfortunately i am also not what passes for dem these days either , i think for myself too much .
Read up on it. You can watch the videos in this comment section too. Too long a day to be listing and repeating materials you will simply blow through without any sincerity at all! Bye for now.
Bullshit. You said "us". First person. If you are being denied freedoms, then tell us.
Or...because you don't have anything to list. Which is what always happens whenever somebody asks you for a concrete example of anything.
i will let the addition and edit slide , that was not there when i replied .
So, you should not be free to pick your friends?
Not be able to Join with others who share same interests, hobbies, opinions, sports, religion or lack of, or politicial opinions, ect, ect ?
It is not my JOB to educate you (any more than I write and offer) or 'hold your hand' Jack_TX. But it that makes you feel like you 'own' me-do you 'boo." See how it works for you or not. I am not digressing for some conservatives as it is a gross waste of time.
Okay. Now what? Maybe wait until the 10 minutes of edit time is ended? Or is it my 'fault' and should I be held responsible for whatever reason you are writing me now about it? /s
Of course you should. It's a fundamental right. It's called, "Freedom of Association." Democrat Lester Maddox, was a segregationist businessman who eventually became a democrat Governor of Georgia. (He was a racist.) He explained the aforementioned association this way:
Maddow's perspective of looking at freedom of association is one way to look at it. BTW, he lost his court case (any way) because you can not open a restaurant and decide to ASSOCIATE WITH WHITE PEOPLE ONLY in Georgia during the era of integration.
Maddox's 'take' on freedom of association is 'smart,' but was ruled out of step with the times changing around him.
So do you mean you wish to choose your friends and associates and leave whole blocs of the citizenry 'out'? Can you clearly see why courts could no longer support policies which left out whole swaths of the citizenry and categorized them as second-class citizens?
Just sayin.
So that's zero freedoms being denied then.
Good. Glad we settled that.
Nope. You assume too much. My freedoms are protected by the location I live in: California. Here, unlike some conservatives want in Redding, California for instance, we do not allow some conservatives "free-ranch" to STIFLE freedoms and liberties of people of color and liberals. Another for instance, our whole state is encouraged to vote-probably you have 'control-valves" installed on voters where you live? Assuming you live in Texas: Harrison County, Texas comes to mind.
Again, all you have to do is look to Texas, a so-called red-state, to see presently girls and women without freedom to privacy and control over their own sexual organs and wombs.
As I said, I am not going to "hold your hand" Jack_Tx. The information is out there and while you think you can ask clever questions I suggest you READ and get off Fox News and its "batches" of conservative talking points.
Your freedoms are protected by the location you live in: the United States.
So to confirm....that's still zero (0) freedoms being denied. Outstanding. Everything is as it should be.
Who's assuming now? Incorrectly. Again. Our polls have been open for over a week already for the March 1 primaries. There are 37 early voting locations in my county alone.
Do you just believe any leftist nonsense you read if it confirms your racism bias?
It's Harris County, and no, I'm not anywhere near there.
Please cite the law that restricts "sexual organs".
So to confirm, you have been denied zero freedoms, and if you lived in Texas, you would still be denied zero freedoms. Excellent. The founding fathers would be proud.
Do I really have to explain this? If girls and women don't want to have unwanted babies then they should not let their sex organs be used to put unwanted babies in. Does that help you?
And Jack_Tx you get no credit for California icking Texas and red-states meddlesomeness. How ridiculous!
Bull patty. We have meddlesome some conservatives here who are striving to take over the whole nation! Given the chance, some conservatives would have every liberal in "sackcloth and ash" weeping over their losses of freedoms. Next!
CAN you really explain this? Given that you're making outrageous and still unfounded assertions, and that about 30% of the time your posts are incomprehensible, yeah, you do.
Dude...what???? "they should not let their sex organs be used to put babies in"???? WTF?
You literally just said that if women do not want to have babies they should keep their legs crossed. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say. Do you want to have another go at it?
BTW, you do realize that "Handmaid's Tale" show is not a documentary, right?
I'm sure you thought that made sense when you typed it. We'll put this one in the 30% bucket.
You're already doing that. Over the supposed loss of freedoms you cannot actually name.
Again.... what freedoms have you been denied? It's a simple question.
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I never thought I would live to see such 'ignorance' roaming through our country's conservative party. Or maybe I just hoped I would never see it! I'm actually disgusted. Complete communication failure.
And the complete answer (by Shayla R. Griffin) partially given above by NWM, with context.
And here are some more of her misanthropic ideas (/s), characterized as such by NWM in post 8
Great post, but I imagine you can't see what's wrong with it. There are two issues being discussed. One is the bad ideology CRT fronts for and how to sell this bad idea. That is what you've posted here, how to gaslight people into accepting a bad idea.
Great. Then we're all in agreement to oppose that idea.
Except that Mrs Griffith choses to defend rather than expose the usurpation... Strange for someone arguing that what is being passed in the legislatures isn't what was intended... Rings very very hollow doesn't it...
To me there was never any question about it. To others, it is part and parcel of CRT. It is those people whom I have the biggest problem with.
Yes, these are all bad ideas.... s/
Again, you're simply relying on a superficial argument. No one would argue against these principles. What people are arguing about is the narrative things like CRT impose. And you continue the disingenuous practice by simply stating such goals. In other words, because CRT claims these things as goals its ideology must therefore be moral. That doesn't follow. That CRT, or anything associated with it, claims these goals does not in itself validate the ideology.
Game, set, match
Absurd
Why on earth would you object to teaching diversity social justice and inclusion even if it was in every classroom in the state?
Maybe because you don't want to teach kids to be racial essentialists.
Slavery legally ended in the United States in 1865 but the racism that race-based slavery created did not end in 1865 nor has it ended up until today. Yes things are better, but they are not the best they could be. When slavery ended in 1865 it was to be another 100 years or more before blacks achieved civil rights. This torturously lengthy time frame is what has created ongoing racial issues that have to be dealt with.
If America has always been a noble country why did racial prejudice segregation and laws against civil rights all exist for 100 years after the end of slavery?
When you can comprehend that you can begin on your way to understand the problems
Some conservatives intend to further benefit form willful (delusional) ignorance. They think to waste yet another generation on 'talking it out' with them. Trying to convince them to stop slow-walking this nation forward (at a turtle's pace). Each new generation gets accustomed to conservative 'pacing' and this bull patty never ends. Why? Because conservatives and some conservatives (the worst), are getting all the mileage they can from repressing and otherizing their fellow citizens.
JohnR, I know you think about it because you do reflect deeply on issues, conservatives and some conservatives have not let go of possibly a single issue that has ever been on their 'kill' list. They have hemmed and hawed and 'bided their time, but at the end of the day they have conceded nothing to making lasting freedom possible and unburdening people of color of a second-class status (under their 'boots') in this country.
Not. A. Damn. Issue. They. Started. Out. Since. The. 18th century.
And now they want us to accept that they are shameless. To afraid to look themselves in the 'eye' for all the shitty deals they have caused this country, this world.
It isn't that anyone would object to those terms. Rather, what those terms refer to and what they look like in practice have very different meanings to either side. For instance, allowing a biological male to use a female bathroom in schools is not my idea of diversity, social justice or inclusion. Just because you might doesn't mean I have to accept it as those things.
What bathroom should a biological male use if he is dressed like a female? Or if he is what you might call a "Sissie"? Should schools 'develop' a third facility for a protected class? Because we can all agree some conservatives do not wish their "peeing" to be observed by 'those' guys.
Give a solution to the 'pressing' issue, because telling a Sissie to be a boy ain't ever going to work. That boy is going to be sissified until the day he dies. I know, because I am a Christian who lives with a love for men long enough to know that the feeling is "for life!" (Whether I act on it or not!)
Real talk. Less abstract bull patty!
It's neither necessary nor needed.
It would appear that the American people don't think that inserting liberal racist identity politics into the curriculum is how those issues should be "dealt with".
I am confident that you mean: Trump conservative people. Now carry on.
It is political hacks, seeking greater political power for themselves, far beyond their representation in the population that not only have created this issue, they find everyway they can to exacerbate it and make it an insurmountable political fight...
A cold war over race hatred, those that use it to oppress and destroy and those that want them to stop...
I know what side I'm on... and it needs to stop...
I was a high school math teacher.
I'm trying to imagine how one teaches trig functions with a "social justice" perspective.
I'm imagining a conversation with my principal.
Him: "How are you incorporating inclusion into your trig lessons?"
Me: "I'm including all the kids."
What the actual fuck goes on in these people's minds?
This whole story is horrifying, but this is how math was treated in Seatlle:
.” Under her leadership, the Seattle school system — located in an area with two of America’s largest high-tech companies, Amazon and Microsoft — decided to partially replace the math curriculum of every grade with “math ethnic studies.” To pass, students must explain how math is “used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.” They must “explain how math dictates economic oppression,” and answer “Why/how does [sic] data-driven processes prevent liberation?”
Why in the heaven would anybody wish to teach 'trig' with a social justice perspective? That's a waste of your efforts to be funny. Deflection fail! (Just hurling 'stuff' for hurling sake.)
My question exactly.
Didn't read the entire comment (again), I see. Look at the part I quoted and notice this:
Every. Classroom.
Even if the subject has nothing to do with race. So not a deflection, then.
Now apparently we agree that there is no place for social justice curriculum in a trigonometry class. Can we agree to the same on algebra, geometry and calculus? Statistics? How about physics? Botany? Chemistry? How about accounting?
We can, unless the professor determines there is a PROPER comparison to be made! In general usage. Riddle me this: Why do some conservatives get to set what comparisons can be made in classrooms. AGAIN, if it is true history or facts as they happened, are you IN DENIAL of truth being shared? Why does it have to meet your specific 'bent'? Just how deep do you intend to 'penetrate' with your aversion to facts being shared in a classroom?
SHOULD THE WHOLE PUBLIC SCHOOL COMPLEX disintegrate leaving "whiteness" conservative schools alone to teach everybody--what exactly?
I am not now a teacher and neither do I play one on-line, so I won't be directly dealing with 'situations' where race is a factor (teaching tool) in the education of statistics or economics or any such thing for that matter. But, what if it does? Why do you get to willy-nilly write laws against free "expression" of facts and figures with which you disagree?
Fair enough. Can you think of any examples of such a situation as they might appear in a math class?
Why do you think it's conservatives? San Francisco just recalled three school board members over this.
What facts are being ignored/denied? I'm not aware of that being part of any bill, law or exec order.
Again, what facts, specifically? And what law prohibits them from being taught?
[deleted]
Nowhere Man said:
You did, but apparently didn't realize it. The key is in Section 2 of SB5044 which defines terms.
The rest of the bill concerns making mandatory the indoctrination of what these terms mean among educators for the purpose of, as the first line of the bill states:
CRT assumes from the beginning that all institutions, both public and private, have racist underpinnings. This bill, without giving examples of what is actually racist in the current educational system in Washington state, assumes this underpinning without question. It needs to be understood that the definitions are not actually defining but, rather, identify subjects that are not themselves specifically defined. In other words, it doesn't actually tell us what cultural competency, diversity, equity or inclusion actually looks like in practice within the classroom.
And therein lies Nowhere Man's point. What is actually defining those terms in section 2 in Washington state and in other progressive school systems is CRT. CRT is one of the things driving what the implementation of this bill looks like in the classroom. What is pissing parents off is that ivory tower academics, radicals with post-modernist/neo-Marxist agendas and the LGBTQ movement are unilaterally indoctrinating our children into their ideology without their consent. No public debate occurred concerning these issues or how they might be included in a potential curriculum. They just did it. Worse, the public education system seems to have the attitude that parents have no right to object. They were wrong. What's left is to see if parents have the power to do anything about it.
Thank god I'm on the side that still believes in truth and freedom... those that are get it, it's a simple thing...
Those that aren't are whining and crying complaining about this huge republican conspiracy to not teach their real "TRUE" version of history they want to impose on our children...
Thank you...
No problem.
Where to start...
Inclusion, Equity and Diversity (IED) is being confused with CRT. They are not the same thing, though some have polluted and watered down the term so that to it is no longer functional. CRT looks at social constructs and surrounding attitudes and laws to determine why the outcomes are still so markedly different many years after the "Civil Rights Era". Here is a good article from the ABA. Neither CRT nor IDE states that any race is inherently racist or superior/inferior to any other, precisely because they hold race to be a social construct.
Eight hours a year does not seem to be enough to indoctrinate anyone. That is what the law mandates.
You left out section 1, which says that the state should
So they have to identify the standards, that is, go through the process of identifying what works. If you read through the rest of the law, it is a lather, rinse and repeat process with control variables. They cannot say what exactly is going to work, so instead of trying to define specific actions, it is more of a process control loop.
So what does all this mean? Know the kids and their backgrounds and, knowing that, provide the best environment possible so they can learn.
Really, I think that people in general need to step back a couple of paces because the whole CRT issue is largely a manufactured issue to garner votes by stirring people up. The whole thing seems remarkably disingenuous to me. Kids are smart. Their whole existence has been one big, steep learning curve and they excel at it. They have to. It is what they do. While parental involvement in schooling is good, IMO there comes a point when parents need to back off and let the kids run with it.
Now, to the heart of your statement:
So sorry for them. Welcome to the 21st century where all students are supposed to be treated with respect, regardless of "race and ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, age, educational status, religion, geography, primary language, culture, and other characteristics and experiences." To not do so would be negligent. Frankly, with the recognition of the LGBTQ movement by the courts and various legislatures, the parents who object to these ideas don't have the "right" to complain because they are, in effect, discriminating against these ideas and wishing for the school to propagate their own little form of hatred.
Aren't the children of these parents in the schools also? Does that not mean that the factors mentioned above apply (from the teachers perspective) to them as well? Isn't everyone in the class, all students, taken into account? The whole goal of the law is to create an equal opportunity for all students, regardless of the circumstances that they arrive with. Will it work? I guess we will have to wait and see.
Just giving voice to an idea does not mean that others are being indoctrinated. The subtext to your comment says that some people (and presumably you) would be scandalized if even the ideas of the so called " ivory tower academics, radicals with post-modernist/neo-Marxist agendas (WTF is that anyway?) and the LGBTQ movement" are addressed.
No, they aren't the same thing. However, each informs the other and are inextricably linked. Inclusion, Equity and Diversity are empty boxes. CRT is the content they are filled with.
That isn't correct. CRT assumes, before it does anything else, that whatever it is you are referring to is because of racism. It is the foundational underpinning for the whole theory, which is why you get insane declarations such as math being racist.
I didn't read much of this article because it identifies the fault with CRT in the second paragraph.
If you can't see the problem with this I will point it out for you. This says that CRT is whatever its proponents need it to be to justify their views on society. CRT cannot be pinned down to any concrete thing and therefore is impossible to defend against, as any successful argument against it simply causes CRT to morph into something the argument can't attack. It's rather like what microaggressions are.
Yes, I've seen the claim but, inexplicably, they do the polar opposite of this claim and make everything about race. For instance, those who support the idea that all lives matter are attacked by proponents of CRT because it doesn't focus on race. If one accepts that race is a socially constructed thing then it seems to me the all lives matter position would be the more acceptable view.
Not quite. What the law does is demand that teachers show proficiency in cultural competency, diversity, equity and inclusion without defining what those concepts are. The controversy is over the fact that in most metropolitan areas, CRT is defining those things, in which Section 6(1) requires educators to be certified in.
That isn't what's happening and is what has parents so upset. They aren't trying to find out what works. They are inculcating CRT de facto.
This is a pretty good example of leftist tactics and how shallow their argument is. "We should not be opposed because our intentions are good." That is all you are saying here. Anyone would agree that everyone, let alone students, are supposed to be treated with respect and human dignity and that's all the deeper they go, presumably because to go any deeper would expose the weakness of their case. In other words, the argument is, "You don't want to be a racist, do you? Then you have to accept what we say or you're a racist," or whatever "ist" you're talking about.
It's depressing that you can't see the fault in your argument. Courts and legislatures do not dictate morality. If they did, slavery might still be a thing in this country. Parents, and by extension, people don't have a right to complain? Do you understand the concept of democracy?
This is just another version of "You don't want to be a racist, do you?" No one is arguing against equal opportunity for anyone, let alone students. The issue concerns the validity of CRT, post-modernist/neo-Marxist indoctrination in the school and in society, which is what CRT essentially is. On top of that, this law is impossible to actually implement. How, for instance, is an educator going to be culturally competent to handle the child of a Brahman immigrant raised to believe he is superior to others because of his status as a Brahman? The Muslim child that thinks women are inferior and the instigators of sin?
Let's just face the facts. This law isn't about creating a fair and just environment for students. It is an effort to indoctrinate students into a specific ideology.
Please, Thomas. Making this law is hardly "Just giving voice to an idea". It's forcing the ideology. Be honest.
As for being scandalized, hardly. And if you don't know what post-modernist/neo-Marxist agendas are, why in the heck are you even discussing this with me in the first place? Maybe you should do some research first?
I had my own Mama as 5th and 6th grade Social Studies in the late 1960s in a small town in rural Oklahoma. She taught us all about the extermination and removal of Native Americans. About the horrors of slavery. She went into great details about the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow and The Civil Rights Movement. It was all very appropriate and no children were harmed learning the bad along with the good of our history. Critical Race Theory was not even a thing yet. It is plain from your rambling rant that you would not have allowed her methods if you were empowering to do so. A whitewashed history means a dishonest telling of our shared experience. So, forgive me for calling, "BULLSHIT!"
I don't understand the relevance of your post to the discussion I'm having with Thomas. Since I don't, I don't feel comfortable in responding to his.
As far as I can tell, they are a derogatory euphemism with which you use to classify any liberal person or idea with whom or which you disagree. You are the one using the term, so I am giving you the chance to define what you actually mean. (An hour and a half and several internet searches later I am forced to say that there they, by their very nature, not readily definable because they question the very underpinnings of, well, definition. I am going to therefore stick to my initial assumption, unless you can provide me with a working definition.)
You claim that "they" are "inculcating CRT de facto." I see your assertion, but see no evidence to support your claims. Could you provide some evidence to back up your assertion?
I know they don't. They form and adjudicate laws.
Really? How?
They can complain all they want, but that makes them neither right to complain nor give them the ability to remove rights from any of the discussed groups.These groups have achieved, through the process of legislation and adjudication, these rights that you or I had the luxury of assuming. This was the meaning of my statement. I am sorry if that was not clear.
Patiently and by example.
I guess that is why it is a process, not just something that can be laid out "here is what you have to do" type of thing. We have tried the "Here, do This" thing and the results are depressing, because people are not all the same, they do not all have the same attitudes, aptitudes, learning styles and do not all react to teaching in the same manner. They never have and probably never will.
and
I disagree, and unless you have any evidence to back up your claims, I think that is where we will have to leave it. The law provides for review and correction based upon results. As far as I can tell, your main objection is to the people who created the legislation. I see no evidence to back up your claims of indoctrination.
As far as doing research, I do quite a bit just so I know that I am not talking out of my nether regions.
Ah,. . .nevermind. SMH.
They are not derogatory euphemisms. They are political and social ideologies. And it isn't my job to educate you on this. You want to know, do the work.
Here is the first thing that came up when I did a search "evidence for CRT in schools". It was written by a black college professor. If you want more, just do the same search I did and have at it.
Actually, this makes it even less clear. Who's saying anything about taking away rights? What are you talking about? What I am talking about is CRT, or what CRT produces being taught in the public school systems not being either the truth or advantageous to society.
Reading the rest of your post, I agree. We'll just have to leave it. It would be pointless to continue.
You should have gone further. You were asked to provide 'evidence' and you searched for 'evidence' yet you posted a link to an Opinion.
[Deleted]
You know when your right on point, is when they debase themselves so blatantly in baseless arguments against the proven facts... You look who votes them up and you can see the crew right here on the board... purely political in nature...
So we revisit this today, I expect every few weeks one of them will bring it up again to try and convince everyone of the massive republican conspiracy to enslave people of color...
In many ways it is good, they have come out of the closet into the full light of day where their hate can be examined in full glaring sunshine...
And they wonder why they aren't so popular around the nation today...
White people don't want CRT taught because it offends white kids, but, have no problems worshiping statues of slave owners knowing it offends Black kids..
The hypocrisy is incredible.
Seems to be a lot of snowflakes on the right.
Show me a black kid who is offended without input from an adult. You can't. Like racism, it is learned not inherent. FAIL
The same could be said about white kids. So in that perspective, your comment is a bigly fail.
Didn't say it couldn't be said about white kids. I'm saying a statue isn't going to offend anyone without them being instructed to feel so. Bigly fail right back at ya.
I guess my comment went over your head. White kids are not going to feel bad about CRT unless some white folk tell them to be...Two bigly fails for you.
Didn't dispute that at all. The point being originally made was racist in that supposedly white kids are protected and black kids would suffer. And that is what is referred to as bullshit. Strike three for you.
LOL, white kids are protected by banning CRT. Your excuse is what is called bullshit, deal with it.
So are black kids FFS. I am quite sure that they don't need the angst that goes with the teaching and feeling as though they or their ancestors were oppressed. They don't need those feelings.
Deal with that.
Amazing what you think you know about minorities and their feeling towards CRT or any discussion regarding the history of oppression in the US.
You don't think they know or discuss it? WOW, head in the sand much.
That's the point. Keep it alive and it will never go away...........................It's all about the delivery.
BULLSHIT. Racism is happening right in now as you conservatives are working to turn back the 'clock.' Who or what do you think you are talking to?!!!
Hiding it will continue to keep it alive, the light of day is the best weapon except for folks whose head is stuck in the sand.
It sure as HELL wasn't you.
Then put the fucking statues back up.............There is a reason that Auschwitz is still standing. Figure it out.
Ridiculous. Statues are not the psychological equivalent of crematoriums. Statues are there to glorify, the crematorium is there to horrify.
Didn't ask you either.
Some white people do not want their children taught that America has been a racist country in the past. Its just that simple.They would rather have the religious patriotic mythic American past.
We can put up statues of the true heroes, the Union soldiers and Generals, the black Americans who fought for their freedom, the black Americans and white Americans who worked tirelessly to help slaves escape to freedom. Putting up the shit bag confederate Generals again or leaving up the ones still standing isn't teaching anyone history, it's celebrating the confederacy in all its treasonous infamy.
There are no statues of Hitler or any of his generals or soldiers up at the Auschwitz memorial, there are no Nazi flags being waved proudly, there is no celebration of the vile aggressors in an inhumane regime, there is only memorials to those who were brutally violated and to the allies who came to eventually free them even though for 7 million plus it was already too late.
The only ones who haven't "figured it out" are those sad weak sniveling humans clinging to some fantasy confederate rebel past because they are such miserable losers in this life they have to imagine themselves as the winners of a war their ancestors lost long ago and are continually fantasizing that "The South will rise again!". Those are the only ones who want to see the statues of confederates erected or protected and continue to wave their confederate flags. It's no wonder those waving confederate flags while marching in Charlottesville had no problem marching side by side with those flying swastika flags, they are kindred spirits and share their detestable deplorable prejudiced beliefs.
I agree.
I am sincerely curious about your experiences as a black man with regard to what you see as the worst examples of racism we need to address and how you would go about that.
For those 19 words i would agree with 95 % of what is said. the one word that makes up that 5%(roughly) can be readily guessed .
And i disagree with that identifying word simply on the basis that not only "white " people can be or are racist .
With that word removed i would agree with the statement 100%
Where i think the major disagreement lies is that the children or people today , are not guilty for the actions of past generations no matter how close or far back they go in history . And if asked by my grandkids , i will not hesitate to tell them the truth of history , but will also ask them do they feel they are responsible since these things were done and they had nothing to do with them . I would bet they say they aren't .
Lol. The "some people" straw man.
Just more useless deflection. What you really want to do is paint the modern liberal Democratic party of today with all the vile racist shit the conservative Southern Democrats did in the past. You'd have to be an idiot to believe the current Democratic party is anything like the conservative Southern Democrats of the past, those conservative Southern Democrats would be spitting on the current liberal Democratic party that shares nothing in common but the word 'Democratic'.
Fact, the Northern Democrats were the ones who passed the civil rights act and it was signed into law by a Democrat.
Fact, conservatives over the last several decades abandoned the Democratic party since the Democratic party started leaning liberal. Why would those racist bigots who fly confederate flags and protect confederate statues that those Jim Crow passing confederate Democrats erected want to stay in a party that completely turned its back on them? That passed the civil rights act against their wishes? That is the most diverse party and has 80+% of black Americans support? Why would any conservative bigot want to be a part of the modern Democratic party?
Anyone with more than half a brain can see which party white Southern conservatives favor and its not the Democrats. And anyone with more than half a brain can see those are the SAME fucking families of white Southern conservatives who have lived in the south for centuries, they didn't all just get up and move or all die off without leaving large families to carry on their ideology and prejudices. You have to be a complete fucking moron to believe all the white Southern conservatives and their descendants who supported Jim Crow laws, supported segregation and tried to filibuster the civil rights act just vanished out of the South as Republicans rose to power.
I simply can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that the once huge majority of prejudiced white conservative Christian Southern Democrats in the South just up and vanished only to be replaced as the majority by supposedly non-prejudiced white conservative Christian Southern Republicans that had "nothing" to do with the confederacy, Jim Crow laws or fighting the civil rights act even though many of them still live in the same conservative Christian family houses, wave confederate flags, celebrate their confederate heritage and protect confederate monuments.
Why not? Is it true. Yes, the democratic party of 'old' was racist as well. And, it repented and changed. Funny but true: politics makes for 'strange bedfellows.' Now when will you admit that Trumpism is full of people who want to return to 'originalist' thinking of the 18th century 'America'? I'll answer that: you won't admit it. You will provide some bull patty counterpoint signifying a worthless expenditure of virtual digits. So go ahead now . . . .
So you don't think that the treatment of slaves was also horrific?
Voting Rights legislation in congress. Why are red-states 'shutting down' voting freedoms? That is, more people than ever recorded before voted in the 2020 election cycle due to the serendipitous experience of the pandemic opening up a new 'path' to the polls. It should have been a cause for national celebration- the greatest 'vessel' of diverse people in the world got its collective "shit" together to do a big thing. But, red states.
Red states' answer was to "nuh-uh" the expansion of the franchise. And quench not just the spirit of the voter expansion, but added insult to jury by calling black-populated counties liars and cheats of the system! Even counted, and recounted, and counted some more - all getting less or advanced pluses for the proceeding and still changed state laws to limit and frustrate future elections in those areas. Do this to people of color is racist activity.
I live in a major so-called blue state (the "bluest") and when you ask my experiences- I have already told you I don't experience racist stuff like the other states that are big-time complaining about the proliferation of problems in state laws. I speak out (as we all do here) on national problems, issues, dilemmas, and such matters.
Now then, I have a question: You agree that racism is happening now. I presume you mean in our country. Where do you see it happening (in your experiences)?
See? I'm a 'prophet'!
I don't know why some are allowed to troll this site. It's disgusting. To deliberately bring 'meager' flimsy, and weakness to the site is a hindrance and not a service. If I wanted to be jeered at all day long, I would just start telling jokes and then clap-back to the people in the cheap seats. Know this: There are grown-ups working here!!!
There are still plenty of them up, and you're comparing Auschwitz to the statues. Amazing admission on your part.
BTW, I was actually at Auschwitz in 1959 and am fully aware of the Holocaust.
You do understand the difference between the statues and Auschwitz don't you?
I'm comparing history to fucking history. Nothing more.
Concrete answer. I love it.
Personally, I think some of those allegations are valid and some are not. For example.... if the number of polling locations in poor neighborhoods is 30% less than the number in affluent neighborhoods, that's a problem. While it's not specifically a racism issue, it becomes a de-facto racism issue because poor neighborhoods are disproportionately black. On the other side, I'm sorry, but nobody's freedoms are being shut down just because they can't conduct a drive-by voting a 3am. That's just foolishness.
I can say here in Texas, there has been a push to make the voting rules more uniform from region to region. Much of that effort is actually expanding access dramatically but has been criticized simply because liberals view Texas sort of like the land of Mordor from Lord of the Rings. However, I agree there is probably still some work to do with regard to making sure there is plenty of access both for early voting and on election day.
Those things were largely instituted by southern conservatives
To suggest that the modern-day Democratic Party is responsible for Jim Crow and all the other racism post Civil War is ludicrous
o suggest that the modern-day Democratic Party is responsible for Jim Crow and all the other racism post Civil War is ludicrous
Yet somehow you believe its not ludicrous to blame modern day white people for those things.
Wanted to save this for its own post.....
Absolutely in our country. It's pervasive, and the statistical evidence is overwhelming.
A big issue is that in white society we're always very careful to define racism as behaviors we personally are not doing so....here is the most important thing to understand.... we don't have to change. Pay close attention even to the white liberals here on NT who blather on incessantly about race. It's always something somebody ELSE is doing or has done and always something somebody ELSE should do something about.
Racism in America (IMO) exists in three main tiers. The first is the "shiny object" racism, like somebody using a racial slur or blackface or doing something ridiculous like that.
Then there is always the surface stuff that most white racists have learned to disguise, even from themselves. Like when they move their kids to schools with fewer "apartment kids" instead of fewer "black kids". We (white people) all know what "apartment kids" means, but we all pretend like nothing racist just happened.
The really more damaging racism is the stuff so woven into the American experience that even the victims don't notice or question it.
For example... I assume we agree that low density of polling locations in poor neighborhoods makes it more difficult for black people to vote. So people convince themselves that's the racial issue. It isn't. The real racial issue is that those poor neighborhoods are still so disproportionately black, even 55 years after the Civil Rights Act. That shouldn't be happening.
In public schools, black kids underperform white kids by every statistical measure. That's not a criticism of black kids, but the institutions, whose JOB it is to make sure that shit doesn't happen. So what do we do? We rename a school and pretend it somehow doesn't suck anymore. Because "magic". Under no circumstances do we hold that school or those teachers accountable.... because then change would be required.
Black people are massively under-represented in blue-collar skilled labor fields, where 6 figure salaries are not uncommon. My son works for a commercial electrical contractor. They've had one (1) black applicant in the last 5 years. (They hired him.) The unemployment rate for black people is routinely 60% higher than it is for white people, yet we consider it some sort of achievement if a black person manages to get a job that will keep them in poverty. Meanwhile we're hiring Latino tradesman at $35/hr every day.
The underlying current that drives all of this is the unspoken belief that black people will always be the underclass because they are fundamentally less capable. White liberals will deny that with the fury of 10,000 suns, but their actions betray them.
If they really believed black people were capable, they'd FIX the damned schools. They would be steering black people into being electricians or plumbers or mechanics instead of folding sweaters at Walmart or flipping burgers for $12/hr. There would be programs to help black-owned businesses survive and compete instead of watching 80% fail in the first 18 months. But they don't, so nothing happens.
Absolutely!
Modern white people today are the racists from hell, (unless your a democrat, especially if your a republican)
Guilty of institutionalizing racism in every aspect of society since the moment we stepped off the boat...
But modern democrats are not responsible for their horrid horrid racist past... They have no part of it or in it...
Every white person in America is a racist unless you belong to the democrat party... once you join the democrats your washed in the blood and absolved of every racial sin of your forebears politically hate filled past...
That is the logic they want us all to swallow.... They are special people....
I don't know or am I sure I need to know the nuances of voting in Texas in 'expert' fashion. The general overview is where us, outsiders, focus. That is, we, outsiders EVALUATE the complaints laid out in the news for individual WORTHINESS. That is, do these complainers have a real, defensible, and reasonable concern.
Moving forward—
The framing liberals are using is this (in my opinion): We have found a way to get more of 'our' voters (in U.S. history) to actually vote - let's magnify and use it. Conservatives can do the same with their voters. (The method/s are approved by states ahead of time.)
That is, treat the REACTION as a positive and not as a derision. There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding to the voting franchise equitably-as long the methods are available to liberals and conservatives and others to use (or not use).
Truth: Voting should be made people-centric; not people should be made voter-centric.
That is, make rules with people 'ease' in mind, not rules cramming people in to complex modes.
It is and remarkably intellectually dishonest. Which speaks volumes that when corrected; it still is uttered by the usual suspects.
No one is blaming modern day 'whites' as a group for anything. Surely you know this. The problem is some CONSERVATIVES who are perpetually the 'problem children' of this great country who will not freely allow this country to advance and develop without 'stunning its growth!
There are good, great, and 'well-wishing' white people who want to see everybody here succeed, and then there are 'digressors' like Trump and Trumpists who are selfishly trying to narrow success for whole swaths of our shared 'American identity.'
"Taking our country back!" Is stupid nonsense. This country belongs to "many becoming one." Not just a set of 'Prima donnas' running around claiming everything and everybody as "possessions" of conservative consciousness and dictates!
Keep sticking to your talking point. It is good to be 'narrow' when it counts. Keep holding southern democrats feet to the fire as if it can help explain where the mindset is today. (Not in the democratic party-racists whites would not be caught 'dead' integrated with so many minorities.)
I guess. As to the rest of us: What have republicans and conservatives done for (Us) LATELY?!
Thank you for opening up with something substantive. Why is it White Liberals you feel are the problem? White liberals have tried hard to even the playing field, but it is conservatives who keep sitting on their hands obfuscating, out-right lying, and passing obstructionist bills into state and federal laws. For example, LBJ tried to fix voting rights, civil rights, and housing rights, and he lost southern democratic conservatives for doing so. Today, it is President Biden who is appointing a black woman to the supreme courts and the thinking is conservatives will bemoan and diminish her qualifications and experiences. (Only time will tell on that last.)
We, blacks, are fully aware that some white people code talk. Indeed, all people of color are fully aware of it. (For example, we fully understood the role of projects as "housing" to keep blacks who were to be sub-standard workers without access to proper wages (when, where, and as long as possible). Though, it was understood that we needed a roof over our heads and a place to 'refresh' before going and coming to white people's houses and work places. You know, hold down the stench.
We, blacks, understood what the role of "sharecropper" was instead of providing ownership (or providing land ownership) and then not providing sufficient funding to help build land 'vitality.'
We, blacks, understood what integration is in schools- and why whites clamor for "school choice" to get away from sharing with us.
We, blacks, understood why some whites do not want minimum wages laws on the books, because they wish to pay "catch as catch can." Thus, hiding the fact that without any uniformity a white majority employer can legally pay other whites more than they pay any black - doing the same employment. (It's also why conservatives do not wish to publicize payrolls.)
I can go on and on. But I think you can get the picture. We deal with this all the time in the 'set-back' community. And frankly, we are tired, but not allowed to be tired!
Jack_Tx, it is. . .refreshing to see you strike deep into the breadth of this subject matter and not just skim or 'bounce off' its surface. Thank you!
Let's talk honestly. Let's try to fix something at least here if no where else!
Not at all, as long as you're being honest and including what everyone with more than half a brain knows, the part about them being conservative Christian Southern Democrats. The identifiers "Conservative Christian" say far more about a persons ideology and politics than "Democrat" or "Republican" as both parties have changed much over the last 200 years.
Your intentions were clear as day, whining about being seen through now won't change your intent.
Once again dishonesty in the form of omission. Someone whose clear intention is to try and dishonestly paint the modern liberal Democratic party with the racist past of white Christian Conservative Southern Democrats would of course leave out the most important identifiers of their ideology and prejudice, that being "Southern Christian Conservative". That was clearly intentional because everyone knows which party current "Southern Christian Conservatives" adhere to and were welcomed by and it's certainly not their ideological antithesis in modern liberal Democrats.
You clearly wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. You're going out of your way to obfuscate the truth by using half truths and conjecture to attack diverse equality loving liberals of today with the acts of prejudiced Christian conservatives who today wouldn't set foot inside the DNC, they are all tried and true conservative Christian Republicans by now or at best conservative independents or libertarians.
If some university or college wants to teach it that's fine, it's not currently being taught in K-12 and anyone claiming it is is lying to you because they're either really stupid or they're trying to sell some right wing bullshit narrative for political gain.
Absolutely, as long as they make clear they were "white Christian Conservative Southern Democrats" in the description of those who "perpetrated the gross abuses of people of color". Trying to hide their ideology behind a party name to shift the blame to a modern party that shares nothing but the word "Democratic" is beyond dishonest.
Just admit it already, the white Christian Conservative Southern Democrats of 60+ years ago, besides never wanting to be a current Democrat, would not be welcomed into the modern diverse liberal Democratic party, they are the complete opposite ideologically, politically and socially.
" The Republican and Democratic political parties of the United States didn't always stand for what they do today . The more liberal Democrats, traditionally represented by the color blue, and the right-wing Republicans, by the color red , each have a defined set of belief systems, but these were once very different."
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, described by the Free Dictionary as "a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." This helped to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. The Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures . Indeed, according to the author George McCoy Blackburn (" French Newspaper Opinion on the American Civil War , " (Greenwood Press, 1997) the French newspaper Presse stated that the Republican Doctrine at this time was "The most Liberal in its goals but the most dictatorial in its means."
After the United States triumphed over the Confederate States at the end of the Civil Wa r , and under President Abraham Lincoln , Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice (for example the Civil Rights Act of 1866 though this failed to end slavery). Again Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.
Sounds like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal. This was a set of reforms designed to help remedy the effects of the Great Depression, which the FDR Presidential Library and Museum described as: "a severe, world -wide economic disintegration symbolized in the United States by the stock market crash on "Black Thursday," October 24, 1929." The reforms included regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. It was these measures that ensured Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government (conservatives) became the party of big government (liberals), and the (Republican) party of big government (liberals) became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power (conservatives).
Eric Rauchway , professor of American history at the University of California , Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan (best known for negotiating a number of peace treaties at the end of the First World War, according to the Office of the Historian) blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.
But Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.
"Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education . Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift toward the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal.
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses ; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
I have no idea what that comment is useful for. Dismissed.
No invention needed, your post 12.2.39:
So you clearly intentionally left out the most important descriptive for those white racist conservative Christian Democrats.
If someone said they considered themselves a devout Christian conservative who opposes the removal of confederate monuments, flies a confederate flag in their yard, favors small government and individual freedoms and vehemently opposes social programs that are used to help often diverse poor and minority Americans out of poverty and who refuses to even acknowledge there's any problem with systemic racism in America, which political party do you think they belong to?
An accurate answer, of course, would be impossible without giving you the date the person is speaking. If that was back in the 1930's they are more than likely a white Christian Conservative Democrat. If this was anytime after the early 1990's then it's a good bet they're a Christian Conservative Republican.
Well that's clearly not true, the cornucopia of ignorance in this threads primary source are your posts that continue to reject reason and logic in any form only. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you're just trolling.
If that is so you certainly need remedial history lessons.
So which didn't happen in the past? You know. History.
We know both happened but only someone with little historical knowledge would try to equate the two. Unless you're saying that the statues represent the same thing the Holocaust did and that the confederacy was a genocidal white regime intent on wiping out a whole race of people that is still celebrated in some states. That I would agree with.
I am only equating because the both happened in the past. In NO way am I equating one to the other as far as horrific. It's the old "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" thing
Because they dominate the dialogue while failing to accomplish anything useful, and have done so for decades.
The important thing to notice here is that this is all about THEM, not about you. The militant religious zealot types are looking for a fight, so they make outrageous and idiotic demands (like defunding the police) so they'll always have a windmill to joust.
The "make a statement" types just want to feel fluffy inside, so everything they do is symbolic. They paint 'Black Lives Matter' in the middle of the street, watch Hidden Figures on Netflix and then virtue signal to their 900 Facebook friends....two of whom are actually black. They convince themselves they've "achieved" something for equality or equity or whatever catchphrase they're embracing at the time, and then go back to their safe, entitled white lives leaving back families to wallow in generational poverty and lack of opportunity.
Have they? What have they actually accomplished in the last 50 years? If they are actually trying, that's just sad and pathetic.
Or... is their focus really just the emotional validation they get from feeling like "the great white hope"?
LBJ was one of the greatest racists to hold the presidency since the Civil War.
I think the word you're looking for may be obstructing, but that's a fair assessment. But no, they're not going to agree to abolish the police or other stupid, harmful ideas.
This is a perfect example of how I think we need a wholesale change of thought process.
It doesn't matter what minimum wage is, people in minimum wage jobs will always be poor. If minimum wage was $100/hr, it would still be what the poorest people earn, and everything would cost so much that $100/hr wouldn't go much farther than it does now.
What we should be doing is helping people get out of minimum wage jobs. If we really believed black people were capable, we wouldn't be considering anything less. But as a nation, we've accepted the idea that "black" and "poor" are synonymous. It's an outrageously racist mindset, and many people will absolutely violently deny holding it, but their actions tell the real story.
STOP. RIGHT. THERE. Is that all LBJ was (a racist)?
Did President LBJ sat with Dr. King and did Dr. King throw his support to this president in getting bills passed and signed into law? (I actually tried to 'clue you in' by listing: voting rights, civil rights, and housing rights - bills passed by congress of the era and signed into law by President LBJ forward-facing and lifting black Americans in a society which they were discounted throughout.)
Did President LBJ 'give up' all hopes of southern (racist/segregationists) democrats support when he signed legislation in to law that would grant blacks a measure of richer participation in 'American' society?
When a person like LBJ changes and good come of the man; when a man washes away the 'stench' of their past-why do you insist on not acknowledging the change in attitude and disposition?
President Johnson self-corrected. If you understand this, and fail to accept it, then you are morally wrong! Black people know who their friends are and more so who their friends are not!
I never mentioned "defunding police." Apparently, it easily comes to the front of your mind. Be that as it may, obfuscation and obstruction, both, along with projections, and more verbs are in play on the republican/conservative side. It is a fair assessment. Spot on!
This is a concept many linear thinkers have trouble with.
A person can be a civil rights “hero” and a racist at the same time and LBJ was a well known racist before and after the Civil rights act.
He was also a womanizing pig that would make many of you who relentlessly bag on Trump for the same thing today, blush like little school girls scorned.
That they do. That is the struggle to get people, whatever you and I consider these people to be, to let go of their tired racists attitudes. Because another generation has endured lives full of obstruction, obfuscation, set-backs, claw-backs, regressions, digressions, repression, and suppression, and I could go on. All that really needs to have is for our nation to live up to its stated aspiration. Liberty and Justice for all. Not just liberty and justice for Whites and "honorary 'whites.'"
PLEASE. Can we not 'rag' on the dead gratuitously? What does it serve? I repeat, when an individual 'repents' and turns and goes in the other direction: Say so! The fact is Lydon Blaine Johnson did something that republicans are not doing this very day: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Republicans and conservatives are SILENT on renewing the relevant portions of this act! (Why it is needful in the first place or as a continuation speaks to the pathetic CHARACTER of some people.)
Deal with the understanding that Black people can be grateful to a man who saw their despairs and reached down into the muck and mire to do something about it-at great cost to himself. History remembers him better because of it. Now, all the people who choose to diminish the 'hand' that LBJ extended to Black America have to ask themselves a question:
What's wrong (with them)? Why not speak good of a man who did serve his constituents?
I would ask you why you put "hero" in quotes - but I'm just not going to do so. I will just guess.
I can't imagine how these believers in structural racism (who are overwhelmingly Marxists) will handle learning of Marx's virulent racism, which for some reason isn't relevant when discussing Marx.
I wasn't referring to you. But those kinds of things drive mainstream Americans away from productive discussions.
I'm absolutely 100% positive that Lyndon Baines Johnson, (you probably should get your god like hero's name right) absolved all democrat racist guilt by signing the CRA...
The reality is he signed it to execute his election stratgey of "Having all those niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years"
You said...
BULLSHIT! He saw a political opportunity to take a historically conservative voting block away from the republicans by characterizing it as the saving of the black race...
LBJ did nothing that didn't have a political aim to it... He saved nobody, had no intention of saving anyone, just gaining power for the democrat party...
His intention was having what he considered the ignorant people vote for remaining in their own ignorance for the next 200 years...
LBJ was a hard core racist texan, he was selected as Jacks vice president to keep the southern racists in line with a northern catholic president...
He saw the CRA as a political tool and only a political tool...
You glorify him all you want, I prefer the real history of the man rather than your glorified savior one...
I'm not sure how that's in question.
I knew what you meant. It's the same reason all liberals remember LBJ fondly.
Most choose not to remember that the only reason he supported the Civil Rights Act was "to win the n***** vote for the next 100 years" (his words).
On a broader basis, it's also worth remembering that the liberals of his day ran him out of the party. Modern liberal propaganda has attempted to re-write his legacy, but they hated him.
A primary theme of this conversation is that I think that loyalty is misplaced, and has been for at least 50 years.
Beg if you want but it isn’t going to change the truth of my words.
Lol
"In 1940, 60 percent of employed black women worked as domestic servants; today the number is down to 2.2 percent, while 60 percent hold white- collar jobs."
" In 1958, 44 percent of whites said they would move if a black family became their next door neighbor; today the figure is 1 percent."
" In 1971, the average African-American 17-year-old could read no better than the typical white child who was six years younger. The racial gap in math in 1973 was 4.3 years; in science it was 4.7 years in 1970. By the late 1980s, however, the picture was notably brighter. Black students in their final year of high school were only 2.5 years behind whites in both reading and math and 2.1 years behind on tests of writing skills."
" Had the trends of those years continued, by today black pupils would be performing about as well as their white classmates. Instead, black progress came to a halt, and serious backsliding began. Between 1988 and 1994, the racial gap in reading grew from 2.5 to 3.9 years"
That was from 1998.
The fact is a lot of progress has been made by both black civil rights activists and 'white liberal' civil rights activists since the 1960's but that progress has slowed.
"In 2019, the latest data available, the average wealth of a white family was almost seven times more than a black family in the US.
The black-white wealth gap was larger in 2019 than it was in 1983, when black family wealth data was first collected."
Although the wealth disparity remains significant, African Americans have become economically better off since the 1960s.
More African Americans had completed four years of higher education by 2019 than ever before - 26% compared with just 4% in 1962.
There hasn't been much movement in the disparity between the wages of black and white Americans either.
The average income of black households is around 65% that of white households, with this disparity barely changing over the past 50 years.
Progress has been made in black representation in politics, with today's US Congress being the most diverse ever.
So a lot of progress has been made but we've still got a long way to go. The reality is that even though the progress in regards to civil rights has slowed at times, it seems only the black civil rights activists and white liberal civil rights activists are even willing to admit there is still a problem. White conservative Christian Republicans seem determined to ignore and reject any evidence of systemic racism found in America. They seem to believe that if they just close their eyes to racial injustice it will just go away. They often claim there aren't really as many white conservative Christian racists as the rest of America believes regardless of how many we see marching in the streets waving confederate flags or swastika flags.
If you were born a race or culture that was historically discriminated against by the regional racial majority and you still felt the effects of that racism in your daily life even though the government had on paper banned racial discrimination, who would you rather have in your corner, the members of the racial majority who recognized the discrimination and proposed ways to fix it or those that refused to even accept it was happening and basically told you to suck it up or even worse, called your attempt to be treated fairly was an attack on their rights?
It's clear today why over 80% of black Americans vote Democratic, because even if progress has slowed only their 'white liberal' friends are listening to them and working to address the disparities found. Yet it seems white conservative Christians continue to collectively tell black Americans to "behave!". They have "shooshed" black Americans and tell them they're already fine and that they just need to shut up and sit down, and occasionally they'll point to the few black conservatives, sometimes calling out “Look at my African American over here!”, just to try to show they're not really racist, and you'll rarely hear the black Americans conservatives have embraced shouting about injustice or inequality because conservatives don't like boat rockers.
Many white conservatives regularly malign and disparage all BLM members and all protests for equal rights because roughly 7% of them in 2020 turned into riots completely ignoring the 93% that were peaceful protests. They do this because if they can find an excuse to ignore the 93% of peaceful protests for racial equality they can continue to ignore the racial inequality in society.
The fact is the vast majority of Americans, including Democrats and black Americans, never supported the idea of defunding the police. It was never really going to happen except for a handful of small communities that never got rid of their police, they simply moved some of the police budget to pay for other civil jobs like mental health professionals to deal with mental health calls instead of sending law enforcement.
" Only 18% of respondents supported the movement known as "defund the police," and 58% said they opposed it."
The calls to "defund the police" were actually fewer than the conservative voices shouting about how all liberals wanted to defund the police. It was just more partisan rhetoric with no real substance.
I agree, but that takes first accepting there is a problem, then investing in a solution like education, training, and sometimes just setting an example through the media so that not only can black Americans see themselves filling those high paid jobs but so white people can see it as normal as well which hopefully will get many of them over their prejudices and only seeing, as you said," "black" and "poor" as synonymous". With all that said, ignoring the problem as many conservatives seem determined to do will simply continue the status quo of systemic racism throughout American society.
Would you accept Snopes? they refuse to confirm it but they do quote one of the people he said it to...
Snopes on LBJ's Nigger quote...
He was and always will be a racist hater he referred to the CRA as "the nigger bill"
you can't get around this fact or his intent with getting it passed...
Lol .... every time I see someone with one of those Che t-shirts I ask them why they are wearing a shirt with the picture of a sociopathic POS on it.
It rarely goes well ...... I guess they all revere evil POS.
And can be a distraction in discussion of this type. I get it. My point being I can not speak to every thought held in our free 'thought' diversity conscious culture. Largely, because I do form my own viewpoints about life, situations, and issues.
How intentional of you to miss the point and going after the dig. I am going to chalk this one up to pettiness and leave it at that.
You can believe what you want, Nowhere Man. It's easy for you since you have considerable "whiteness" that's 'bankable.' We, blacks, take what we can get at the time and keep on truckin.' Like Martin L. King I liked Johnson for varied reasons and I disliked one thing about him that I only found out later in life about: his activities in Viet Nam for which Dr. King unbraided him in a speak, thus causing a 'rift' in the political stream to separate the close ties they drew together.
As for the LBJ quote you thrust into the center of this: This 'n-word' could wish more former racist and segregationist politicians would draft and sign helpful legislation into law for diversity in the United States of America.
I never miss the point when you want to talk about things I was involved in back then.... LBJ was the cause of me leaving the democrat party cause he was a racist pure and simple... Yes he talked with Dr King, and promised Dr King that he wouldn't be arrested or harrassed anymore if he would only get his followers to vote democrat... WE all believed him at first, but Dr King was having second thoughts after seeing what the democrats were doing with CRA...
My own personal opinion, it that is why Dr King was shot, he was having second thoughts about the deal....
Don't re-write known and proven history to suit your diatribe...
It is you who intentionally missed the point, or, was it deliberately ignored the point...
That's bullshit. However, this line of discussion is beyond the scope of this article (I'm sure). Write an article about it. And I will join you. One more thing, I would like you to display evidence (must have momentos and documents public or private) that can be 'scanned' for validity. Because at this point, you are 'cross' with history or at least bending it to suit some purposes.
Right like calling me a white priviledge racist is going to change the facts.... Thanks for showing your racism though, not like anyone didn't already know...
You brought him up as the god every black democrat bows to in the morning to thank for what they have... painful to see that factually that isn't the truth isn't it...
The day I need a conservative to tell me how to feel or 'rate' a racist white man has not arrived yet; Nowhere Man. Bet that!
I don't see anywhere that CB called you a ''white privilege racist''. He said ''It's easy for you since you have considerable "whiteness" that's 'bankable.' That is a true statement and there is nothing racist about it. Insinuating that CB is a racist is a pretty weak argument especially since he never said anything about you being a racist, that is something that you invented and it is not true.
Regarding LBJ, yes, he was a racist and a womanizer, yet he passed the most significant civil rights legislation since Lincoln. It's as simple as that.
A man of his times is something that I see quoted on NT on a regular basis.
I have a racist white man on my street for decades now (several homes up from me). In fact, he owned his dwelling first! Years ago, he let it be known he does not talk to black people: Thus, true to form: we do not talk. My neighborhood street is a 'mix' of races and ethnic families. This one man seriously speaks to no one on the street: Ever. In turn, we leave him to his 'peace.' He drives in and out from his shrubbery-high bordered grounds. He loves cats (they are 'many' and he cares for them daily: so do I (?)) as they crap everywhere on my property front and back!) Ugh. Cats are what we have in-common.
I know nearly everybody on my 'end' of our block and have lasting friendships built over decades. Some come and go. Like us, others are permanent residents.
Racist people don't control me or my attitude. I will tell 'em about themselves, nevertheless if need be and let the chips fall where they may. Bet that!
Not sure why I wrote this comment, but something triggered him to come to mind.
And speaking of Lincoln. There are conservatives who 'love' to admonish blacks that Lincoln was not 'all that" because he did not rush to free the slaves, but was opportunistic through an act of expediency to free Africans he did not quite know what or where to deal with them once completed. These conservatives think we are concerned with Lincoln's motives more than his actions (which was overdue as far as Blacks where concerned!) Black Americans, don't have a problem with a lack of love or the 'mechanics' of getting free of brutal ownership. Lincoln did it! That is what matters and all other 'complexities' recede into the noise of the background!
(I have actually read Lincoln speeches and letters on how he pondered what to do with (or where to send) freed slaves amongst white people who he felt did not want them here. Changes nothing in my attitude about Lincoln.)
I know they like to claim that. But the data says otherwise.
Let's look at what you cited, convincing yourself it matters....
What a ridiculous, cherry-picked statistic. "Employed" black women?? Are we pretending the unemployment rate for black women isn't 40% higher than it is for white women, even after one of the strongest months in history (Oct 2021)?
And I assume we're just going to ignore the fact that the unemployment rate for black men is more than double that of white men and 60% higher than it is for Latinos.
And "white-collar"? Just stop. Fine - so they make no money working at a desk in an office instead of making no money cleaning it. Meanwhile, the journeyman plumber sweating his ass off makes $35/hr.
What difference does it make how you feel about a black family moving next door if none of them can afford to do it anyway?
In 2019, the average SAT score for white students was 1114. For black students, it was 933. For those with mathematical challenges, that's white kids scoring 19.3% higher. We had similar gaps in 1990, 2000, and 2010. We've made zero progress in 30 years.
I know, right. Now we're getting the picture.
So let's don't pretend liberal activists are accomplishing anything unrelated to their own feelings.
No, they simply reject liberal stupidity on the subject, with regard to both misidentified sources of racism and brainless, idiotic non-solutions.
Sure. Because you do a good job selling your non-solutions.
So we're back to white people's feelings again. Who, precisely, are you accusing of prejudice? Who, precisely, do you believe does not see a black plumber as "normal"?