You may think it's biased but I think they present a valid argument in that many activist groups use CRT as a foundation to justify their intolerant devisive solutions.How about an unbiased explanation?
Can't anyone tell me anything without telling me why it's wrong/right?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Slavery in America
- Thread starter wtburnette
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Read the full article.How about an unbiased explanation?
Can't anyone tell me anything without telling me why it's wrong/right?
Yep. You posted the same article I was referring to before I did. I only gave a synposis for brevities sake. But it's appanently dismissed right off the bat as biased so I don't expect jetta will read the whole article.
The entire article has been linked here at least three times.
Maybe the typeface is not acceptable.
So here's a criticism of CRT. If CRT is merely about explaining how racial injustices led to the inequalities between dominant and non-dominant races, is that the only explanation? It's pretty much the only one CRT allows. For example, CRT would define racist policy as one that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.
An example Abrim X gives in How to Be an Antiracist, is that "71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx (sic) families and 41 percent of Black families. ... An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties." He goes on to say that, "there is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in ever nation is producing or sustaining either racial enequity or equity between racial groups."
Wow. So there's really no other explanation? What racist polices affect things like divorce rates. Children out of wedlock. Attitudes about education. It's not just one thing. It's never just one thing. But CRT forces the discussion to be only about one thing.
Some Black families are successful. Some are not so much. We can analyze what factors are prevalent among the successful Blacks and what are prevalent among the unsuccessful Blacks. And we can also compare that to Whites, or any other racial group. And if we dare, we might even think less racially about it and find that the same things tend to make everyone successful. So if we want real ass equality, instead of this ideologically derived notion of "equity", then the thing to do is maximize the occurrance of the behaviors that make people generally successful and minimize the behaviors that don't. And of course, make sure everyone has the equal opportunity to do those behaviors.
An example Abrim X gives in How to Be an Antiracist, is that "71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx (sic) families and 41 percent of Black families. ... An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties." He goes on to say that, "there is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in ever nation is producing or sustaining either racial enequity or equity between racial groups."
Wow. So there's really no other explanation? What racist polices affect things like divorce rates. Children out of wedlock. Attitudes about education. It's not just one thing. It's never just one thing. But CRT forces the discussion to be only about one thing.
Some Black families are successful. Some are not so much. We can analyze what factors are prevalent among the successful Blacks and what are prevalent among the unsuccessful Blacks. And we can also compare that to Whites, or any other racial group. And if we dare, we might even think less racially about it and find that the same things tend to make everyone successful. So if we want real ass equality, instead of this ideologically derived notion of "equity", then the thing to do is maximize the occurrance of the behaviors that make people generally successful and minimize the behaviors that don't. And of course, make sure everyone has the equal opportunity to do those behaviors.
Last edited:
I am very much open to a discussion of income taxation.
WHAT? I let it go when you said that before. Now that you repeated it, yes people do know what it is. The reason Kut is the only one who attemptted to explain it is because he reduced it to something that is too simple to serve as an adequate explanation. Kut made absolution no mention of power and that's the very basis of CRT, because CRT is based on CT (critical theory) which is all about power.
I don't think you could say what it is in a simple paragraph and still have the person have enough understanding of it draw any legitimate conclusions. I mean, it's not like rutabagas.
According to the article: Derrick A. Bell, the recognized godfather of the CRT movement, does not mince words in one of the essays laying out the radical aims of the theory: “As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it"
Which means that a radical assessment leads to radical solutions in order to "revolutionize a culture" which is exactly what SJW/BLM activists are engaged in.
Which means that a radical assessment leads to radical solutions in order to "revolutionize a culture" which is exactly what SJW/BLM activists are engaged in.
The idea is that all the institutions are filled with racist policies. Racist policies are any policy, whether written or just enforced by society, that results in long-term racial inequity. Since there is racial inequity, therefore all institutions have racist policies. The answer then is to dismantle all the institutions and rebuild new "antiracist" institutions.
Sure. The benefit of teaching CRT is to create Antiracist allies. It's not just a history lesson. It's a history lesson from a specific point of view to create empathy for historically marginalized groups, so that Antiracist allies will help them dismantle the racist institutions. And by institutions they mean every kind of institution in society. Sports, education, religion, entertainment, news, business, etcetera. They're all racist because races aren't all "equitable". Because, you know, there can't be any other cause to racial inequality other than racist policies.
The "theory" in critical race theory doesn't mean the same kind of theory as in, say, science. It's more of a strategy than a theory.
1619 was 157 years before the Declaration of Independence, I am at pains to discern why one taints the other. Ditto the 3/5s compromise, which came 21 years after the declaration
CRT is predicated on teaching the belief of systemic racism as the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life.
CRT divides the nation into groups. Oppressors and victims. Which typically represents white people and their white privileges as the oppressors and minorities as the victims.
CRT divides the nation into groups. Oppressors and victims. Which typically represents white people and their white privileges as the oppressors and minorities as the victims.
Last edited:
Liberalism (enlightenment principles, not left wing wackos) greatly influenced the constitution. The ideas were/are good. The implementation was incomplete. So that's not an indictment of the ideas as much as an indictment of the state of the world in that time, not having the moral maturation that developed later. There was no "original sin". The CRT academics use that phrasing a lot in their literature. It's ideological ********.
Because insistence on absolute truth (rather than lived/relative truth), accuracy, and the emphasis on the mathematically correct answer are all racist white oppression
Site Supporter
Members online
- HCALREF
- CrazyCat
- renauldo
- jrogier62
- Hatin Since 87
- Gaffer
- TacOpsGuy320
- mshogren
- Sigasaurus
- phil
- loudgroove
- led4thehed2
- bmmyers08
- Jeronimo
- Splagt
- Crash7
- jagee
- maceace
- BeDome
- Jtrain
- duff
- cosermann
- Longhair
- Dechrissen
- Magyars
- IndianaRidgeRunner
- El Conquistador
- TJay
- apache67
- 42253
- VERT
- dieselrealtor
- boosteds13cc
- death_rhino1
- Hawkeye
- sp3worker
- Snapdragon
- Bugzilla
- Plumbous
- SixSigmaLarry
- OneBadV8
- Bowman78
- bbagby13
- cundiff5535
- Turb0123
- onebadgman
- Rburney
- DoggyDaddy
- ChristianPatriot
- rabbit hunter mab
