So, it is an argument that is being made by all these people who think that they are being judged and condemned, not just white supremacists.
They aren’t being judged, they aren’t being condemned. Their resentment has no bearing in reality. They are told that they should be offended, that they should be resentful, and they fall in line. They tell the schools not to teach about slavery and racism, as that makes them feel judged and condemned.
I’m not sure I’m up for a youtube video to understand what point you are trying to make, but if you try to say that slave owners were not oppressors, and that they were not oppressing slaves, then you are simply whitewashing history.
I think that lies and propaganda that make people feel special is great messaging that gets votes. I don’t think that the Democrats should stoop to it, as even if it means that we win elections, it means we lose.
Education is the only way to defeat decisions based on ignorance, and that is exactly what it is that the Republicans are fighting to control.
Everyone always says that the Democrats have bad messaging, but it is always about what they shouldn’t be talking about. I’ve yet to hear a way that they should be talking about the realities and challenges that we face that those against the messaging would accept.
At a certain point, it becomes obvious that it’s not about the messaging, it’s about the message itself.
Who is saying this? Nobody, except possibly active members of the Ku Klux Klan, are opposed to teaching this country’s history regarding slavery and racism. I believe that buried in your statements are “the version of slavery and racism that the left wishes to propagandize.”
No, it is disingenuous to say that CRT is being taught in schools, when the debate is really over whether it is whether the historical and contemporary effects of racism should be taught.
If the people were honest, and simply said, “I don’t want my child to learn about slavery, because I don’t want him to think that his great great grandfather was an evil man for having owned slaves”, then we could have a discussion. If they said, “I don’t want my child to learn about the effects that systemic racism has and is still having, so that they don’t feel any guilt over having been born into a position of privilege”, then we can have a discussion about that.
Intead, they call it all CRT, and claim that it is the left that is being disingenuous when they actually use the real names and terms for the things that are being taught.
And do you think that that was the only thing that was whitewashed in your education?
I think that if you polled those who are most vocal against CRT, they would disagree. They would say that teaching that the Civil War being about slavery is a part of CRT and should be silenced along with the rest of it.
It is generally up to those who promote a video to give more than a “watch this”, and to actually give some of the points that are in the video, rather than make someone actually have to go and watch it and try to figure out what the point of it was.
But, since you were very vague about when it is that you would ban the word “oppressor” or “oppressed”, I have no reason to think that you would not do so in the context of slavery.
No insult nor insinuation at all, just taking you at your word for what you said.
You shared a link to a random video to people I’ve never heard of. What are their qualifications, why should I take their word for it? What should I be taking from it that backs up your argument?
People spend uncounted hours wasting time on the most trite arguments and pedantry here. But god forbid they are pointed to a new source of information and asked to spend 10 minutes watching it.
John McWhorter, Glenn Loury and Colman Hughes are 3 generations of black intellectual (classic) liberal voices that have a lot to say on the subject of racism in America and on many of the topics we obsessively argue over.
Familiarize yourself with them or don’t. I really don’t care. But don’t pretend you have a well rounded and informed view of the subject matter you so stridently defend at every opportunity when you clearly do not.
I’m pretty sick of people dropping links to videos and expecting people to watch them to understand what their point it.
I’m at work, I don’t watch videos at work. I rarely have more than a couple minutes uninterrupted (in the course of writing this post, I took 2 phone calls, checked in a client, and checked out 2), even if I had speakers and were willing to use them.
If you gave me a synopsis of the video, and how it supports your arguments, and why I should watch it, then maybe when I get home, I may do so. I’ve had videos linked here before that were interesting enough to peruse further.
It isn’t my expectation that you drop everything to watch what I posted within minutes after I post it. It is my expectation that you don’t dismiss it out of hand just because I haven’t provided you with a sufficiently compelling summary. All I can tell you is that I find these people’s views intelligent, thoughtful and sufficiently insightful to make them worthwhile. Take my word of it or don’t.
Well, you are using them to back your argument that historical events shouldn’t be framed in terms of oppression.
The only ones that I saw using the word oppress in this thread were those arguing against teaching CRT in schools. (which it is not)
So, I not only don’t know what context it is that you don’t want the word used, I don’t even know who or what you are referring to when you say that it shouldn’t be. It really was almost a non-sequitur in the actual flow of the discussion. I have no idea how it was even slightly related to my post that you responded to with it.
No I am not. I’m using it in terms of how it’s being defined today by some on the extreme left. The “Walking Lesson” linked in the quote from the Atlantic article, provided in the response by @UltraVires is the context. It talks about how CRT is being used in the classroom to teach about privilege in modern day society. I’m not even criticizing the lesson, per se. But as the article argues, it’s not entirely wrong to claim that CRT is influencing what and how lessons are being taught in public schools. But we can’t even have that fucking conversation because your immediate reaction was a blanket accusation of white supremacy:
There is a very simple way to fix this. McDonald’s and Burger King could agree to set aside a portion of their profits and use it to pay an independent third party to check the contents of burgers sold in both restaurants, and that way this independent body could ensure that allegations of horse meat can be disproved.
The problem with this analogy is that it is an objective fact whether horse meat is in a burger. It can be verifiably shown whether this burger contains horse meat.
The implications of past and present racism and its continuing effects is a matter for social scientists and politicians and there are vast areas of disagreement, even by people with no axe to grind. The problem is with teaching one school of thought as objective fact like whether there is horse meat in a burger.
It would be like saying I am “merely” teaching the fact that tax cuts for the rich trickle down to the middle class and are good for us all. That statement doesn’t lend itself to a factual teaching, it is a political belief.
They AREN’T being judged or condemned for something they have no control over. If you’re a christian white cis man and you say “these systems suck and I support changing them” nobody has a problem with you. It’s only if you pretend these problems don’t exist, or fight to maintain them because they benefit you, that you are criticized.
The fact that the company sought verifiable proof is IN ITSELF PROOF that they are selling horsemeat to unsuspecting consumers!1 I have proved this with unassailable logic!!1!
In other words, you cannot fight crazy, illogical people who make shit up with … logical arguments.
But that is the crux of the issue. Nobody is arguing that racism is good, but those four words “I support changing them” carry a lot of weight. And the implication is that unless I support the far left wing way of change, then I don’t support change, therefore I support racism, therefore I am a racist.
That categorization is exactly the debate that people are having that you just assume as fact.