Outrage as Republican says 1921 Tulsa massacre not motivated by race
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
T he state official in charge of Oklahoma’s schools is facing calls for impeachment, after he said teachers should tell students that the Tulsa race massacre was not racially motivated.
In a public forum on Thursday, Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, said teachers could cover the 1921 massacre, in which white Tulsans murdered an estimated 300 Black people, but teachers should not “say that the skin color determined it.
Walters is a pro-Trump Republican who was elected to oversee Oklahoma education in November. He has consistently indulged in rightwing talking points including “woke ideology” and has said critical race theory should not be taught in classrooms. Republicans have frequently conflated banning critical race theory with banning any discussion of racial history in classrooms.
At the forum in Norman, Oklahoma, Walters was asked how the massacre could “not fall” under his broad definition of CRT.
“I would never tell a kid that because of your race, because of your color of your skin, or your gender or anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist.
“That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals. Oh, you can, absolutely. Historically, you should: ‘This was right. This was wrong. They did this for this reason.’
“But to say it was inherent in that … because of their skin is where I say that is critical race theory. You’re saying that race defines a person. I reject that.
“So I would say you be judgmental of the issue, of the action, of the content, of the character of the individual, absolutely. But let’s not tie it to the skin color and say that the skin color determined it.”
LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/outrage-as-republican-says-1921-tulsa-massacre-not-motivated-by-race/ar-AA1dBcl1?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=0afafcc1220f4cfa8baca467b2dfd5ab&ei=20
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Tags
Who is online
427 visitors
This person is in charge of Oklahoma schools. Scary.
How convoluted can logic get?
He seems to have set the bar quite high for that.
the words trump republican and logic don't belong in the same sentence...
He has tried to walk this back the next day with:
Walters rejected that notion while speaking with The Oklahoman on Friday. He said schools should reveal “the good, the bad and the ugly” within U.S. history, including Jim Crow laws and the Tulsa massacre.
“It’s unfortunate that some of the news media took a clip to try to turn it into something I didn’t say,” Walters said. “Because here’s the reality — we want our teachers to go in and we want them to talk about our history, events, who the people are in those events, what is the context around those events, if they were racist individuals.
I'm sure that he did try to walk it back, but the fact remains that this is what he said.
Absolutely true, I think that he was recorded.
I read that he also said on Friday, “I mean, the facts of the day really are not much of any question. Those individuals acted that day during the Tulsa Race Riot. They had evil, racist intentions and murdered people then our students should be able to learn from that history.”
CRT is an excuse conservatives use to demonstrate why they want to cover their eyes and ears when it comes to history. Dont want to know about the Tulsa Race Massacre? Just say CRT prevents it.
These people are clowns.
they think they can legislate their recent history of white supremacy away...
do a carve out of the 1st concerning unconstitutional hate speech and empower the citizenry with the 2nd.
CRT as used as a weapon by conservatives has always only been about one thing - making sure their kids dont find out that one of the white women in pictures like this may have been grandma.
[✘]
You, it seems have a need to deflect. Additionally, you seem to be unable to accept what is understood by most that the parties changed ideology starting under FDR followed by Truman de segregating the US Military and LBJ and the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.
If you have something to say regarding the article, please state it now or refrain from posting on this article.
[✘]
Your inability to focus on the article, even after a warning is quite telling. Throwing out BS in an attempt to bring some sort of credibility to your rant is at best childish.
[deleted]
I'll say one thing for you, you know how to double down on ignorant comments, thanks for that.
You, as your comments verify can't handle the truth.
If you can't stay on topic all comments will be deleted.
I think that the transition was much more incremental. Gallup polling showed more white southerners identified as Dem until the mid-80's and didn't identify as majority Repubs until 2000. As recently as 2010, Democrats still controlled 14 Southern State Houses and Senates.
Racial policies were certainly a factor along with economic/union, feminism, religious, military support, ect.
I'm well aware of those facts, Drinker. My point is that the change started under FDR, then Truman and LBJ. From there it kept going as we see today that most minorities belong to the democratic party, and in the halls of Congress, the split between the parties is around 80% dem and 20% Repub.
What does that mean? Wilson was a Progressive. Harding, who desegrated Federal government agencies, was a conservative. FDR and many of the southern racists who supported him were progressives. Republicans who opposed progressives like Wilson, FDR and LBJ were conservatives. Are you claiming Republicans are now progressives and Democrats conservatives?
I haven't disagreed with your point. My point that this swing took over 60 years and several generations and occured for many reasons with race being just one.
I know what it means and explained it so once again the change started under FDR, a bit more under Truman and of course LBJ and the civil rights act. It has kept on changing for decades until we arrive at today. I did not say that it changed overnight under FDR or Truman or even LBJ so to settle your tortured mind it was a gradual change in ideology.
Today we see minorities in Congress at around 80% Dem and 20% Rep. That should tell you which sides ideology has changed. We also see that in the minority people the majority are dems, not Republicans.
Their ideology hasn’t changed, democrats still think African Americans are inferior, so they treat them like children who have to be taken care of, and African Americans are smart enough to join the party to get ever advantage they can from someone who is willing to give it to them. Nothing has changed.
According to your post blacks started overwhelmingly voting Democrat because of the Jim Crow supporting FDR's progressive economic policies. That was not a gradual change But you claimed the party's flipped. Are Democrats not progressives now? Define the ideology that flipped.
As you point out, the massive shift of blacks towards the Democratic Party started well before "civil rights" was an issue ,with massive majorities supporting FDR. Democrats have always supported racialist politics. First Jim Crow, and now race based governmental discrimination. They simply changed who they discriminate in favor of.
.
In your opinion which at best is jaded and without facts. BTW, you are aware that blacks are not the only minority in the US, right?
I never said any such thing, you are inventing BS to support your point. The article Iinked showed a black movement to FDR in 1932 and if you don't think civil rights were in issue then you are badly mistaken.
So, who are dems discriminating against now, whites or bigots?
[✘]
That the 1932 election was decided on economics is basic historical literacy. Arguing otherwise is literal bullshit.
So, who are dems discriminating against now, whites or bigots?
White and Asians.
I think that FDR lost the Black vote in 32 but won it in 36, big time. Repubs took the Black vote for granted.
So now you're changing course, it's good to know that the Republicans didn't do a damn thing about the economy thereby losing their ass. 1932 was definitely a turning point in political and economic history.
The majority of Asians are supporters of AA as for whites being discriminated against by dems, since the majority of the US population is white I'll alert the media as to the discrimination being waged against them by other whites...The Republican party is vastly majority white so the courts should get involved to protect them from the ''other whites'' and minorities.
Who do you think you are fooling with this tripe? Why do you write obvious distortions of what's just been said that anyone who can read will understand is bullshit?
My point has been consistent and, unlike your, consistent with reality. Economics caused blacks to shift from the Republican Party to the Democratic. Blacks embraced the New Deal and voted democratic despite their ongoing support for Jim Crow. Roosevelt nominated a literal Klansman to the Supreme Court (over Republican objections) and blacks remained loyal to the Party.
e majority of Asians are supporters of AA as for whites being discriminated against by dems, since the majority of the US population is white I'll alert the media as to the discrimination being waged against them by other whites.
Whatever you think that word salad means, it doesn't change the fact that democrats support governmental discrimination against whites and asians.
Right, as Kavika's link pointed out, '32 saw the movement to Democrats begin, before the landslide in '36. The popularity of the New Deal in the black community was immense. Progressive economics were behind the shift in vote, not some imaginary support of civil rights by Democrats in the mid 30s.
Yes, when they read your comments they certainly will know what BS is.
Show me where I said that blacks moving to dems during FDR was based on his policies on race. I didn't so best stop with your BS imagination.
Sorry that you're unable to understand it, most people are. Asians support AA, simple. I believe that if you think there is governmental discrimination against you and other whites report it immediately the US has laws about that.
Now, comment on the article or all further comments will be deleted.
[✘]
If you posted a comment on the article your post wouldn't be deleted. It's very simple but seems to be beyond your pay grade.
This comment is a lie.
[deleted]
Alright, and what exactly is your point? Also, you left out the fact that they attacked them specifically because they were black, not even because of any level of intelligence or success.
What you said is semi true, it is also true that as the decades went by the democratic party's ideology evolved and the end result of that was driving white southerners who supported racial segregation out of the party.
I mean I see that you are trying to say "democrats bad!", but is there anything more to it or is your whole point seriously that simple and stupid?
The girls in the first picture would be in their 80’s now and their grandchildren probably wouldn’t recognize them in the photo.
Isn’t CRT an examination of the inadequacies of conventional civil rights approaches to addressing the need for transformational racial power in American society. How do you fit such a complex critique into K-12 class?
Doesn’t CRT reject “colorblindness” as a goal and believe that the elimination of discrimination along racial lines is insufficient in addressing the racial power that still plays a negative role in society?
He wants it to be taught as a "normal tourist day".
In 1921?
"I would never tell a kid that because of your race, because of your color of your skin, or your gender or anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist."
No wonder the left has their panties twisted and want to impeach him, he is saying your race does not define you. Many on the far left seem to think your race is the only thing that defines you.
Neither would I nor does CRT, it's pointing out, in this case, the Tulsa Race Riots and parties involved and the destruction of a good portion of ''Black Wall Street''. If you draw from that that you are inherently racist that's on you.
I don't believe our panties are twisted it would seem that yours are though. Many want to impeach him for this and of course his ''less than stellar'' performance or should we say, lack of performance with tens of thousands of dollars of federal monies.
Many on the right think that race doesn't have any bearing on what defines you.
it would seem that yours are though
Not even close.
So you say but your words belie that.
So you say but your words belie that.
Not even close.
“Many on the far left seem to think your race is the only thing that defines you.”
Your race most certainly helps defines you. And I think this is where so many miss the point. What ‘many’ on the far right seem to think is that their race is the only determinant.
That short sighted type of thinking only perpetuates their narrative and ignores that we all desire the same things in life: to raise our families, to have access to educational, judicial, medical, and vocational opportunities and to do so with autonomy and on a level playing field. But just my opinion.
That is perfectly fine, but when talking about the Tulsa Race Riots you cannot pretend that race wasn't THE motivating factor. You aren't saying any of the students are less of a person or inherently racist, but the white mob that attacked the black neighborhoods were objectively racist and driven by racial hatred.
Why is it that some people are simply unable to have a discussion about race, especially as it relates to our nation's history and historical events, without somehow seeing it as a discussion about themselves personally? IMO it is due massive personal insecurities.
They are ashamed of their ancestral treatment of others. And yet there ain't a damn thing they or any of us for that matter, can do to alter or 'fix' the past! It is what it is and thus we report the past with all its joys, sorrows, and offenses!
But, of course, conservatism looks bad when you dwell on its drawn-out history of 'warts' and so today's conservative want to talk about - get this: . . . content of character. . . all while supporting for a "repeat" to the white house a raging louse with their neo-liberalistic mind and hearts. . .belying their counternarrative.
I think that race currently has some bearing. I question CRT statements like this:
“Unlike traditional approaches to civil rights, which stress incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
And why is that a bad thing?
I have no issue with CRT examinations at the college level.
I due have issues with notions like:
"The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination."
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." - Ibram Kendi
Why is it that you have issues with a remedy to present discrimination is to discriminate against those that employ it? Do you believe that you can sit down with a racist and convert them to being non racist? If that were the case there would be no racism in the US.
How do you determine who is contributing to structural racism and how do you discriminate against them beyond you vote? From his book, "How to be an antiracist, he seems to think that any disagreement with his ideas colors you as a racist.
Sometimes, one of the more moving parts of his book was his self reflection and changed ideas on homophobia.
I see the proponents of CRT much like the other side of White Supremacy:
You did not answer my question, the vote is the single most important weapon for good or bad that a person has. Something that Indians learned a long time ago when we did not have a vote.
I don't consider anyone that has a disagreement with my ideas to be a racist nor do most people I know.
Good.
I am a proponent of CRT so to you I look like the other side of White Supremacy, perhaps you could call it Red Supremacy. Sadly if that is your belief you are missing a lot since you really don't know me or my history.
You aren’t Kendi.
As to proponents of CRT, there are exceptions to every rule, Kavika.
There are exceptions to every rule, Kavika.
This guy is fucking nuts.
This is actually on par with Florida trying to take racism out of the Rosa Parks story.
There ya go.
Honestly how do you even talk about that without talking about her skin color and racism? What do you tell the kids?
All the bus drivers just really didn't like this lady for some reason so they specifically singled her out and made her sit in the back? And then for some other reason when she decided to sit up front it was a HUGE deal and sparked millions into action to make sure bus drivers let people sit where they want? What kind of fucked up history lesson is that? Literally no part of that story makes any sense at all.
it's the general rwnj mentality that thinks if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. compare current events leading the news versus what they want to talk about...
A vast understatement, Ender.
he was probably home schooled, so he could pray between lessons...
... fish sticks and mac and cheese for lunch every friday.
... and a boner whenever he sees a preteen girl in a parochial school uniform...
... or a priest.
His comments were exceptionally stupid. Basically, he wants to teach "yep that happened but no one has any idea as to why it took place. Just a totally random thing that happened."
That would be like teaching about the Holocaust but making no mention of anti-semitism.
You hit the nail on the head.
I really hate this kind of crap, especially using children as human shields for their own insecurities. Discussing race and how it plays into the nation's history is not an attack on anyone personally or even an attack on the country, and I find it odd that so many people seem to see it that way.
Me saying that America has a SUPREMELY racist history does not mean I hate America or do not take pride in my country (to a degree that is reasonable). Pretty much every group of people in this country has been shit on because of their race/ethnicity. Some worse than others. And yes, racism was built directly into our founding institutions and documents, most obviously with slavery. Yes many of our founding fathers, hell probably all of them, were indeed racist and sexist.
At the same time the American experiment was a huge leap forward in the way people thought about government, and the citizens relationship to it. The ideas put forward and put into practice by the founders were indeed new, exciting, and we are all better off for it. We have come a long way towards living up to the ideals set forth all those years ago, and that is something to be proud of. We also have a long way yet to go and that's okay.
The founders were also human, and therefore imperfect. They did things and thought things that should be admired and did things and thought things that should not be admired. Just like literally every other person that has ever existed. We need to get away from this idea that a person is only good or bad and acknowledge that everyone is a bit of both. I think many of the founder's actions and impact warrant having statues, streets, buildings etc. named after them or made of them and many of them should be looked up to, but I also think we can be honest about them.
Acknowledging the ugly truth is part of growing and learning and trying to shield kids from it or not let them think about it is doing them a disservice.
Guys like the one in the article have this black or white version of the world and refuse to acknowledge all the grey.
I agree with that and the refrain from some that it is an attack on white kids or will make them feel bad is nonsense, it's history the good the bad, and the ugly. Deal with the truth or the country will never move forward.
We are not a perfect country nor can we move towards perfection if we hide the truth of our history both past and current.
As can be seen from the article and some of the comments every excuse in the world is used to not face the reality of the US. Perhaps someday all citizens will be open to dealing with our past the good and bad. Then and only then will we become an ''exceptional country''....
Yep. You cannot grow and improve if you don't acknowledge or learn from your mistakes. As I have said, if discussing race makes white kids or adults feel bad about themselves, then they have other problems. Can those discussions make them feel uncomfortable? Sure, but GOOD.
We should feel uncomfortable talking about the way blacks, hispanics, jews, italians, irish, chinese, natives etc. (you name it) have been treated by those in power at the time, that shouldn't be something we or our children should be okay with. Is that the same as telling those white kids that THEY are responsible and owe someone an apology just because they are white? Fuck no. Again, if a kid feels that way then they have other issues.
I am perfectly fine discussing these things and feel absolutely no sense of shame or guilt while doing so, because it wasn't me. I have nothing to be sorry about in regards to any of that.
These people doing "this" are not stupid. They are using neo-liberal politics, principles, and policies to 'white-wash' or attempt to power-wash the shame of the past which they see as being used as a club to deny them a RETURN TO THE POLICIES WHICH CAUSED THE PROBLEMS OF THE PAST.
It is deliberate. How do I know this? Ideally a conservative is someone who wants to have a constitutional standard and an avoidance of progressive change. However, when talking about racism. . . today's conservatives want to 'bargain' with history and seek to express racists governmental policies, ideas, and laws in neo-liberal terms of what is good for capitalism and individuals.
That was not what the past history of this country was about. It has long been clearly and evidentially established that racism was about oppression, suppression, and domination. This fact which today 'conflicts' with conservative "messaging" (who wants to return to that?) is why some conservatives 'run' to OVERLAY a so-called, "fresh perspective" on any mention of CRT or anything which hints at race.
Do not let some conservatives hoodwink us; they know what they are doing. It is a blatant political attempt to deny history to its face by replacing history with another NARRATIVE.
If we let them, if we are not cognizant, some conservatives will GASLIGHT us with our "eyes open" to believe the deliberate white-washing/lies they are telling.
I repeat:
By nature, one can not be a conservative if one wishes to change society from what it was in its storied past! But, ever inconsistent, here are conservatives telling the past the way the WISH it to be known - the obvious and real truth casted as illusion.
Moral to this story: Don't accept any or all conservatives' strong delusions!
And nor do I feel shame about the past.
When Nate Turner rebelled and killed innocent white people, Nate did that. He really did it. I know about it because it is recorded in history. I do not stand with the killing of innocent people - white or people of color.
I don't feel shame for black on black crime (beyond shaking my head and trying to wrap my mind around why it is so) because I have not murdered anybody in this life. I can talk about it and condemn black on black crime. Because it is.
I can condemn the recent idiocy of black men and women who shoplift in plain sight taking "stupid" armful and bags full of some businesses property but I am not ashamed because it not me doing that: I don't steal from others.