Ah, yes, cancel culture against CRT.
Cite that ANY of this is being done?
Oh ok. Could have fooled me. Why don’t you cite the post then?
Youre using it as a cudgel. You need to say what it is if it’s so bad. How does it go beyond telling kids what history is? What assertions are offensive about it? Just bitching about it as an ad hominem?
I imagine that what he means is that “CRT,” in many of its manifestations, tells white people that they possess particular negative traits as part of their Whiteness. To the extent that this was present in the school system, these conservatives would assert it was discriminatory against white students.
Would you argue FDR made the country worse? There’s a difference between brainworms type assertions like the claim that the 2020 election was “stolen”, and “normal politics” which means making shitty unfair attacks against your opponents because politics is shitty and unfair.
Righties are trying to make all left or progressive words into ad hominems that can be judged and dismissed without critical thinking, and with a siloed media they believe they can do that. They are going to give it a big try.
I just got done telling you that I don’t understand your “explanation” and don’t think it makes sense. It might be just a simple misunderstanding where you used “CRT” to mean “conservative opposition to what they call CRT”, but I can’t really tell.
I definitely “get” that the topic of “CRT” is a political issue. But I think the main aspect of its politicization is that so many people are using the term in such a half-assed ill-defined way to mean “anything I don’t want to think about on the issue of race and race relations”.
Oh goodness, how scary. I wonder what sort of fines and/or jail time that might entail.
You know, I’m usually quite happy to answer questions other posters ask me; no threats required.
Oh, now I see what the threat was for: it was to try to force me into answering a complicated question with a one-word “Yes” or “No”.
I have an answer to your question, but it’s not reducible to “yes or no”. Do you want to hear it, or do you just want to immediately pivot to treating me “as non-responsive”, whatever that means?
I don’t know what to tell you. I linked you to an NEA site that advocates for it being taught by it’s 3M member teachers. Which lends a lie to to your statement that it isn’t being taught. I’m not interested in burning books or denying historical facts. We’re discussing whether it is or is not being taught. Not whether it’s right or wrong to teach it.
Democrats and progressives have pooched the messaging here. The latest election results seem to indicate this is an issue. The first step to fixing it admitting we have a problem.
I read your entire link, and nowhere did I see where the teachers quoted want to teach anything other than actual history. What about the link is at all objectionable? Does any part of it line up with the Conservative boogeyman of CRT?
It does not matter. Holy shit.
Are you actually unaware that Fox News, Breitbart et al. have found various incidents all over the country where teachers have had “lessons” on race, and those lessons either were age-inappropriate, or were easily portrayed as being more age inappropriate than they were? How many did they find? Not many, like I said in another thread, there’s 3.2m teachers, maybe 15-20 incidents. But when Fox News literally devoted (and this was documented) over one hundred hours of coverage to those incidents, the fact that “if we do a deep dive into these incidents, they aren’t quite what the right says they are, and they aren’t necessarily anti-white, well except maybe for one or two–but that teacher was chastised for it.” You can’t fight battles like that.
The Republicans created a narrative that schools are teaching that it’s evil to be white, and they encapsulate that by using the boogeyman term “CRT.” Since Democrats don’t actually believe it’s evil to be white, they should just say they’re against it, and move on. Just like they did with Defund the Police.
If the GOP was literally inventing it out of absolute thin air, you could ignore it. But they have some source material and a major propaganda arm that force feeds people distorted perceptions of that source material all day every day. I’ll note they had some shit they were able to raise about the 2020 election too, the response of Democrats wasn’t to just ignore the GOP. It was to point out, again and again–that in 50+ court cases the claims had been found without merit. Now, in spite of that some Republicans are always going to believe the election was stolen, but the Democrats didn’t just stand there mute not responding.
You have to fight back. But fighting back doesn’t mean you start having a fucking court case about whether a 3rd grade class in California learned that being white is bad, or did they really just learn something more reasonable–politics can’t exist at that level of detail. There’s a difference between pushing back and counterattacking, and trying to explain away. Explaining away is what SDMB Democrats always want to do, and it has no bearing on how the real world works. People in the real world often don’t take kindly to being “explained away.” They understand a simple refutation much, much better. They understand “no, we don’t believe that” much more than “umm that assertion is exaggerated and CRT is ackshually just a college-level academic theory and blah blah blah.”
See? Just like that!
It means you want to have a discussion about “issues”, and I already said I don’t find these issues interesting. I’m not interested in CRT. I’m not interested in evaluating its merits or digging into how much Republicans have lied. I’m interested in a political discussion, you aren’t. That’s what your refusal to answer means–it means we are ships passing in the night is what it means, and there’s no reason for us to discuss it further. You want to have a discussion I’m not interested in, I opt not to have that discussion. I want to discuss why Democrats lose elections and how they can do better. [I do want to emphasize–even though I have already said it, that it is very rare any one issue determines a win or a loss, and systemic issues are often the primary driver of political outcomes. I’m talking specifically about how the art of politics can operate either to enhance systemic gains, limit systemic losses, or in areas with weak systemic effects, break things your way. I’m not claiming there is some magic silver bullet that makes Democrats win every election, that isn’t how politics works.]
Is it a good thing for Conservatives to deep fry children and eat them with ketchup? WHY CAN’T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
No, it’s bad.
But it doesn’t do that. If someone believes that, then they believe lies.
And it’s not present in the school system, so these conservatives are asserting lies.
No, and I fail to see how that is relevant.
What makes the country worse is when people believe lies, and promote them as you do.
If Republicans came out against relativity, because it makes them seem small and insignificant in an uncaring universe, if they made up lies about what it actually means and how it is taught, should the Democrats deny relativity as well?
Well that isn’t how Republicans attack Democrats. They say things like “Democrats think America is an evil country.” Then when put to the question “is America an evil country?” They want to respond: We never thought that, now here is a bunch of complex stuff I’m going to talk about in terms of slavery, systemic racism and a number of other things. No–the answer is our country is not evil. End of answer. Any other answer is political malpractice. And the answer is not a lie, these answers are not lies.
Have you ever attended a training that falls under the larger CRT umbrella of diversity and organizational culture? Has anyone ever defined Whiteness for you in a classroom setting?
I have attended quite a few. It occurs to me that I must be the only one in this thread who has.
By “it”, do you mean Critical Race Theory? And by “site”, do you mean this NEA News article you linked to in your earlier post?
Because if so, ISTM that you got the wrong end of the stick there. The article mentions Critical Race Theory in the context of the importance of teaching schoolchildren “the truth about systemic racism”. Meaning, according to the article, approaches like the following:
As the article makes very clear, these historically honest fact-based approaches to history for schoolchildren are not the same thing as the comparatively esoteric field of Critical Race Theory, although right-wingers are trying to use the name “CRT” to conflate them.
The fact that you interpreted that article as NEA advocacy for Critical Race Theory being taught in schools suggests that the waters are being muddied here by the confusion that right-wing media are industriously encouraging about what’s actually meant by “CRT”.
And this is the reason why Socialism is still a bad word in the United States 60 years after McCarthy. How about instead of rolling onto our back and whimpering in fear, we stand up to intellectual dishonesty and propaganda?
The United States of America: where Martin Hyde can confidently state that facts don’t matter and believe that he has the moral high ground.
I have definitely attended trainings and other activities addressing diversity and organizational culture, the definition of Whiteness and other racial concepts, etc.
None of them have described their content as being “under the larger CRT umbrella”, or mentioned Critical Race Theory per se.
I don’t see why we as rational realists about history and social policy can’t do the same. If we want to talk and/or teach about issues of race, diversity, systemic racism, minority exclusion in traditional histories, and so on, we can do so by calling those concepts by their names.
We don’t have to get bogged down in ill-informed and ill-intentioned Republican efforts to label those topics “CRT” and then to redefine “CRT” in a deliberately vague and derogatory way to mean “bad mean reverse-racist anti-white stuff”.
“CRT”, like “Marxism”, in conservative media these days is just a Republican hivemind buzzword for “Democrats bad”. It doesn’t have any definable meaning except as a partisan label.