So what is Critical Race Theory?

TBH though, you really don't need a long discussion to understand. The guy who came up with the disinfo campaign is so arrogant he literally stated the plan right out in the open on Twitter. When the "leading CRT critic" admits flatly that he's arguing in bad faith, believe him


for your edification

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
And this sort of thing is not even kinda new. This has been the playbook since before Joe McCarthy. We're a victim of ill-informed and gullible portions of the population, and credulous media cowed into "both-sidesing" obvious bad faith bullshit lest they be accused of taking sides (which they then are anyway because that, too, is part of the playbook)

As has been said a couple times in this thread and elsewhere, it is an explicit premise of critical race theory (and common sense) that people can have no conscious intent to discriminate but engage in behavior or approve policies that are discriminatory in impact.

Pretty much no one thinks or argues that racially disparate outcomes inherently mean someone is consciously discriminating to obtain those racially discriminatory outcomes. At least, I have not seen anyone argue this.

I would argue that this is evidence being ignorant is being complicit and assisting in racism. Racism relies on people doing nothing while other people set direction for society.

It is sort of like physics. racism is a force that sets society in motion. Unless a force counters that motion society will continue in a racist motion because it has racist policies which are the motion of society. It is not just good enough for you to stop thinking racist thoughts, as you actually have to confront the racist motion of society to stop it. Say racism is a bowling ball and society sets it into motion towards some black pins. unless something stops the ball it is going to hit the pins. society is just flinging those balls. If you do not block the balls and stop people from flinging them, black people just keep getting mowed down.

4. The system is entirely non-racist, and the fact of different outcomes along racial lines is purely coincidental.
5. The system is entirely non-racist, and the fact of different outcomes along racial lines is due to class, geography, politics, culture, personal choices or some other group of non-racial factors.
6. The system is entirely non-racist, and the fact of different outcomes along racial lines is due to people of one race just being better or worse at the thing.
7. The system isn't designed to be racist, but because it incorporates a lot of historical assumptions and implicit bias, it is still racist and will likely deliver different outcomes based on race.

why is this suddenly a crisis issue in the last six months?

This>>>>


https://thehill.com/opinion/educati...-the-history-wars-follow-the-paper-trail?rl=1

On June 15, the campaign of a candidate for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates promised voters that his first bill “will ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project in Virginia’s Public Schools.” The candidate’s website offers no evidence that he is aware of what is actually taught in the state’s public schools. The specifics of his proposed legislation suggest he has barely a notion of what critical race theory is, and that he has not actually read the text of the 1619 Project.

As historians with a combined five decades of experience teaching in universities across the United States, we’re gratified to see so many politicians interested in what historians teach. But to legislators, we offer the same advice we’d give our own students: do your homework. Read a text, learn about a situation, before passing judgment on it. Otherwise, you might find yourself peddling a sloppily written cookie-cutter bill that has no connection to what’s actually being taught in history classrooms, all because a few politicians have decided that creating a full-on moral panic will help their party win the midterm elections.

The so-called “divisive concepts” bills now enacted in nine states and proposed in 17 others prohibit things that rarely, if ever, happen, like teachers trying to “direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to” the idea “that any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior” or “that individuals…are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin,” to quote the Idaho version of the legislation. For a fun exercise, try asking a roomful of teachers whether they’ve directed or compelled students to “personally affirm” anything; then count the eye-rolls and guffaws you receive in response.

As for the idea that historians of racism believe “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,” as the Texas bill presumes, Ibram X. Kendi, a historian frequently cited by purveyors of these myths, has made it clear that this is not at all what scholars have said. “No nation, no person, is inherently or permanently racist,” Kendi wrote last month. “The anti-racist resistance to slavery and Jim Crow is as much a part of American history as those peculiar institutions are. White people have been abolitionists and civil-rights activists, and they are among the people striving to be anti-racist today. Some institutions in the United States have been vehicles of equity and justice.”

Here’s the irony about what is and is not divisive: There’s broad consensus across partisan lines that what actually is being taught in schools — the history of racism and slavery and its impact on the development of American society — is essential content and wholly appropriate for school history classes. A survey conducted by the American Historical Association and Fairleigh Dickinson University with support from the National Endowment for the Humanities found that, regardless of political identity, age, race, gender or education level, most Americans agree on the need for an honest reckoning with their histories. “Asked whether it was acceptable to make learners uncomfortable by teaching the harm some people have done to others,” the survey authors wrote, “over three-fourths of respondents said it was.”

So, we should be clear about what’s happening here. This is the legislative equivalent of push-polling — creating division where none exists, raising fears about something that isn’t even happening to score political points. “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory,’” wrote conservative activist Christopher Rufo, one of the leading figures promoting these myths.

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget during the previous administration, appears to be the mastermind behind the bills themselves. The exact language common to many of the bills is posted on the website of an organization that Vought leads, along with “a toolkit on how to stop critical race theory and reclaim your local board.” If you’ve wondered why all the bills have the same language, this is why: they weren’t written in response to local curricula, but factory-style, by Vought and his associates. The law now pending in your state legislature was written inside the Beltway, copied word-for-word from a document so hastily written and published that it has the filename “Model-School-Board-Language-to-Ban-CRT-SD-HCS-edits-1.”

This lazy, sloppy operation is backed by serious political muscle. A Loudoun County rally that was televised was organized by Heritage Action, which is the advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with long experience with state legislative templates, is involved. Steve Bannon explained the endgame, “I look at this and say, ‘Hey, this is how we are going to win.’ I see 50 [House Republican] seats in 2022. Keep this up.”

None of this has anything to do with history education, which history educators have well in hand. There’s a reason that our organization, the American Historical Association, along with more than 130 scholarly associations, higher education accreditors, and other organizations, have signed a statement explaining that “the goal of these efforts is to suppress teaching and learning about the role of racism in the history of the United States.” That, and to win an election.

I'd argue that 4 is extremely unlikely when you reach any decent sample size.

5 is covered in 2, and many factors like class and politics would likely exist along racial lines as a legacy of formerly racist structures.

6 is a rewording of 3.

7 is covered by 2, since UA already clarified racism as "conscious or otherwise".

There is a part of me that wonders if this whole thing is backfiring on the right. Yes, there is a certain bubbled section of the right that will be riled up by this. However, the more it gets talked about, the more people end up seeing that racist crap that goes on. It seems even people in the middle see more racist actions, and that is going to start a push back against racism in actually non-racist people. It makes you check yourself more. It makes you critically think about race more. It makes you realise it is still around and even though you might not be effected by it there is still too many people being effected by it.

This road of going after schools for teaching racism exists really is not hitting where they think it is hitting. The oblivious racist saying they are not racist is so common that everyone but the oblivious racist knows it is there. This just lights it up and the separations that is being formed is necessary in most people's minds. Most white people I know are just fine with maintaining separation from the neo-nazi lane.

I was wondering how conservatives were gonna wiggle their way out of taking their medicine for January 6th.

A combination of "broad brush categories hurt my feelings " and "hey, look over there! CRT!" and "hey, look over there, trans athletes!".

Oh, and let's not forget...

"I'm not a conservative".

"Well, you care about all their stupid issues, so what the fuck else are you?".

*Runs away*

Did I or did I not fucking say "conscious OR otherwise "?

So which of bailey's options do you subscribe to?

Feel free to add to them.

FTFY

As best as I'm able to recall it at 8 in the morning, CRT is referring to the fact that the law has been designed specifically to punish minorities in general and that there can be no justice in the country until that fact is reckoned with.

With regards to the Civil Rights Act, it was a step in the right direction but the current measures to restrict voting in red states speaks for itself.

Less interested in what you blame than how you propose to correct it. If your solution is holding someone less accountable for their actions, I'm out, no matter what the specific pedigrees of those involved.

The libertarian plumber-

Now, I'm going to use these tiny glasses repair screwdrivers, and these Swiss Army Knife tweezers instead of the tools that actually work, because something, something, responsibility.

That's what its been like watching the iceberg-speed crawl of this shitty country the last 45 years.

Power mad tyrant: the end justifies the means, and dissenters must be purged.

An effective solution requires understanding the problem.

Your solution might imply the problem. What do you suggest?

Oh, that's what Trump said on January 6th?
I don't remember him being that eloquent.

Libertarians- The tyrants!! The tyrants!! The tyrants!!

Tyrant president- *Tyrannizes for 4 years*

Libertarians- *Broompt*

That everyone conduct themselves as I do, and apply that to all subjects and situations.

is he serious?

i think he's serious...

Sure. Treat everyone exactly the same, for criminal justice and the expectations of your personal conduct.

If you fucknuts had something better, you'd offer more than rep smilies.

Snoring and farting during actual tyranny, then shrieking like a bitch when we wanna tax the rich?
No thanks, that would make me into a clown shoe.

Citation needed, assclown.

Taking a Propofol coma through history, hiding in TrekBBS, tomato, tomahto.

Except that won't happen unless we clone you and kill everyone. I suspect you would end up killing yourself if we did that.

Then you should have been losing your mind on January 6th. I don't recall you being particularly vocal about that issue though.

Oh, right, someone might teach college students something you don't like. An actual attempt to overturn the US election and install a tyrant? Not a peep.

You aren't worried about tyranny. You are just worried about how you perceive shit might impact you personally.

No, you weren't asked to prove you are a trifling, petty assbag. Try again. Or don't.

I've heard worse ideas. It would be a glorious battle.