What, exactly, is CRT?

[Trausti]

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

And yet again... an absolute failure to support that anything is being editorialized at all, forget a large chunk of teaching in the classroom.

Teaching that there was slavery is fact. Teaching that the US is systemically racist is political propaganda.

 

[Trausti]

Asian American students have a target on their backs thanks to critical race theory

To understand what’s behind this conflict, look no further than the controversial ideology of critical race theory, which praises or blames members of a particular race solely because they happen to be that race and seeks to interpret all forms of perceived injustice through a racial lens. This ideology has swept through America’s educational system at every level and is erasing our different narratives as Asian Americans from different backgrounds and — to our shock — marginalizing our children and us.

Many Asian American families, like mine, have worked hard and sacrificed to prepare their children to meet the rigors of the test and the TJ curriculum. We protested this weakening of standards — in part because it was clearly aimed at reducing our numbers in the student body, but just as importantly because it would degrade TJ’s long tradition of advanced learning.

TJ leadership has dismissed those concerns and repeatedly put the focus squarely on racial balance at the school and the number of Black and brown children at TJ, somehow overlooking the fact that the many students of Indian descent are “brown.” We don't begrudge any child who is qualified and meets the previously rigorous criteria from attending TJ. Nor should our children be begrudged the opportunity simply because of their Asian heritage.

 

[laughing dog]

Which facts are to be reported? One can easily "editoralize" via the choice of facts to be reported and those that are not.

You can teach history without telling children that their race is the most important thing about them; you can teach history without asking students to identify as oppressor or oppressed; you can teach history without suggesting that some students are more privileged than others due to their skin hue; you can teach history with resentment.

Point to an era in US history where that happened. Go ahead.

I wager I could come up with a solely fact-filled curriculum that would send these Mothers for Liberty into a catatonic state.

 

[Elixir]

And during WWII, the Jewish population declined.

In the 1870s, the South expanded rights for Blacks .

On September 11, 2001, the airports closed.

A rally for "objective facts" indicates that people aren't liking the inconvenient stuff being taught. Just another rally cry, especially without any indication of what is being taught that isn't accurate or has been taken out of context.

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

And yet again... an absolute failure to support that anything is being editorialized at all, forget a large chunk of teaching in the classroom.

Reality does have an editorial bias. For instance, it keeps attacking the “no racism” fantasy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If schools spent less time talking about Robert E Lee and more time talking about Levi Coffin, there would be no reason for white children, and their parents, to be upset.

From the Harriet T and Ida B Gun Club and Sewing Circle this is me and I'm jessayin'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw this at USA Today(?).

Oklahoma has the highest mortality rate of police violence of all 50 states and the highest rate of underreporting the killings, according to estimates in a study released Thursday.

About84% of police killings in the state from 1980 to 2018 were unreported or misclassified in official government reports, according to the peer-reviewed study in The Lancet, one of the world's oldest and most renowned medical journals.

The study, which involved more than 90 collaborators, compared data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System, an inter-governmental system that collates all death certificates, to three open-source databases, which collect information on fatal police violence from news reports and public record requests.

Nationwide, more than 55% of deaths from police violence from 1980 to 2018 were misclassified or unreported, the study estimated.

Off-topic? A large portion of police killings, especially in a state like OK, are racist.

Except for a few pesky details:

1) Most police shootings are pretty clear cut. Guy points a gun at the cops. The ones that make the news are the edge cases and a few where BLM is trying to make an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue.

2) Cities do not show racial biases in shootings.

What actually is happening is cities with a higher % of blacks will on average have a higher rate of police shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

View attachment 35530

You're lumping too much. There certainly are plenty like you describe but there are also those of us who don't agree with either side in this. The racism in history is very real but that doesn't mean it's baked into our system now.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

View attachment 35530

You're lumping too much. There certainly are plenty like you describe but there are also those of us who don't agree with either side in this. The racism in history is very real but that doesn't mean it's baked into our system now.

Why?

 

[Swammerdami]

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

It might be amusing to see examples of how you would sanitize history lessons. Here's a stab: I've erased the inflammatory "activist" and "editorializing" words:

The Tulsa race massacre took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents, some of them deputized and given weapons by city officials, attacked Black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa,

 

[Bomb#20]

Asian American students have a target on their backs thanks to critical race theory

... TJ leadership has dismissed those concerns and repeatedly put the focus squarely on racial balance at the school and the number of Black and brown children at TJ, somehow overlooking the fact that the many students of Indian descent are “brown.”...

What's your issue with that? It's simple math: if you're "People Of Color", but you aren't "Black, Indigenous, People Of Color", that makes you 3/5 of a BIPOC.

Nor is the anti-Asian vilification limited to one school system. In recent months, we’ve seen similar moves to marginalize Asian American students at schools in New York City, Boston, and Washington state, where one district decided Asians no longer qualify as people of color.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can report facts without activism or editorializing.

It might be amusing to see examples of how you would sanitize history lessons. Here's a stab: I've erased the inflammatory "activist" and "editorializing" words:

The Tulsa race massacre took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents, some of them deputized and given weapons by city officials, attacked Black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa,

Yeah see, that just makes it confusing and hilights the question of WHY "residents" attacked the homes and businesses of their neighbors.

 

[Politesse]

It might be amusing to see examples of how you would sanitize history lessons. Here's a stab: I've erased the inflammatory "activist" and "editorializing" words:

Yeah see, that just makes it confusing and hilights the question of WHY "residents" attacked the homes and businesses of their neighbors.

Wow, you two are new to this game! This is a find-and-replace operation, not just a find. Because in conservative-land, you don't just edit out the parts you don't like, you figure out what the conservative press of the day said and repeat that uncritically, citing the press itself as evidence of an "alternative truth". There have always been white nationalists in US history, so there's no need to go through the trouble of inventing a counter-narrative, one almost certainly already exists for you to piggy-back onto. As it does here. Your passage should read:

Following the sexual assault of a teenaged white woman by an adult Black criminal named Dick Rowland, the event later named the Tulsa race riot took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, ending only when a coalition of Tulsa police and a citizen militia (legally deputized and given weapons by city officials as a temporary emergency measure) fought back against rioting gangs of African-Americans who did not want Rowland to be legally prosecuted for the crime he was accused of. During the riots, many homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa were destroyed, an act modern liberal historians now try to blame on the police and militia. However, reports from the time indicate that police forces were only deployed to quell the violence, and that the majority of those killed in the first round of fire were in fact Whites. It is widely believed that extravagant claims about the total death toll and material cost of the incident have been greatly exaggerated.

There, now it's "objective", and anyone who disagrees with your implied version of events (or indeed calls you out for what you're obviously implying about them) is a "hysterical Woke CRT" who wants to make innocent White children cry at the preschool. Why else would they demy history? It may not be a narrative that stands up to much scholarly scrutiny, but it doesn't need to be; you only really need to convince school children, and people who already wish to believe in a certain worldview, not those inclined to disagree with you. Their perspectives can simply made illegal..

 

[TSwizzle]

Wow, you two are new to this game! This is a find-and-replace operation, not just a find. Because in conservative-land, you don't just edit out the parts you don't like, you figure out what the conservative press of the day said and repeat that uncritically, citing the press itself as evidence of an "alternative truth". There have always been white nationalists in US history, so there's no need to go through the trouble of inventing a counter-narrative, one almost certainly already exists for you to piggy-back onto. As it does here. Your passage should read:

Following the sexual assault of a teenaged white woman by an adult Black criminal named Dick Rowland, the event later named the Tulsa race riot took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, ending only when a coalition of Tulsa police and a citizen militia (legally deputized and given weapons by city officials as a temporary emergency measure) fought back against rioting gangs of African-Americans who did not want Rowland to be legally prosecuted for the crime he was accused of. During the riots, many homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa were destroyed, an act modern liberal historians now try to blame on the police and militia. However, reports from the time indicate that police forces were only deployed to quell the violence, and that the majority of those killed in the first round of fire were in fact Whites.

There, now it's "objective", and anyone who disagrees with your implied version of events (or indeed calls you out for what you're obviously implying about them) is a "hysterical Woke CRT" who wants to make innocent White children cry at the preschool. Why else would they demy history?

It only exists when you post your fantasies on here. What a weird thing to do. Claim people are crying about stuff you make up. My only complaint is the waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[Politesse]

Wow, you two are new to this game! This is a find-and-replace operation, not just a find. Because in conservative-land, you don't just edit out the parts you don't like, you figure out what the conservative press of the day said and repeat that uncritically, citing the press itself as evidence of an "alternative truth". There have always been white nationalists in US history, so there's no need to go through the trouble of inventing a counter-narrative, one almost certainly already exists for you to piggy-back onto. As it does here. Your passage should read:

Following the sexual assault of a teenaged white woman by an adult Black criminal named Dick Rowland, the event later named the Tulsa race riot took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, ending only when a coalition of Tulsa police and a citizen militia (legally deputized and given weapons by city officials as a temporary emergency measure) fought back against rioting gangs of African-Americans who did not want Rowland to be legally prosecuted for the crime he was accused of. During the riots, many homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa were destroyed, an act modern liberal historians now try to blame on the police and militia. However, reports from the time indicate that police forces were only deployed to quell the violence, and that the majority of those killed in the first round of fire were in fact Whites.

There, now it's "objective", and anyone who disagrees with your implied version of events (or indeed calls you out for what you're obviously implying about them) is a "hysterical Woke CRT" who wants to make innocent White children cry at the preschool. Why else would they demy history?

It only exists when you post your fantasies on here. What a weird thing to do. Claim people are crying about stuff you make up. My only complaint is the waste of time and bandwidth.

Are you... denying that the narrative I'm citing exists? Most of that "information" can be found in the very same Wikipedia article. That many people still believe in the White nationalist narrative of events is easily demonstrated as well.

Actually, I'm curious: what parts of my narrative do you disagree with?

 

[KeepTalking]

Wow, you two are new to this game! This is a find-and-replace operation, not just a find. Because in conservative-land, you don't just edit out the parts you don't like, you figure out what the conservative press of the day said and repeat that uncritically, citing the press itself as evidence of an "alternative truth". There have always been white nationalists in US history, so there's no need to go through the trouble of inventing a counter-narrative, one almost certainly already exists for you to piggy-back onto. As it does here. Your passage should read:

Following the sexual assault of a teenaged white woman by an adult Black criminal named Dick Rowland, the event later named the Tulsa race riot took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, ending only when a coalition of Tulsa police and a citizen militia (legally deputized and given weapons by city officials as a temporary emergency measure) fought back against rioting gangs of African-Americans who did not want Rowland to be legally prosecuted for the crime he was accused of. During the riots, many homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa were destroyed, an act modern liberal historians now try to blame on the police and militia. However, reports from the time indicate that police forces were only deployed to quell the violence, and that the majority of those killed in the first round of fire were in fact Whites.

There, now it's "objective", and anyone who disagrees with your implied version of events (or indeed calls you out for what you're obviously implying about them) is a "hysterical Woke CRT" who wants to make innocent White children cry at the preschool. Why else would they demy history?

It only exists when you post your fantasies on here. What a weird thing to do. Claim people are crying about stuff you make up. My only complaint is the waste of time and bandwidth.

There goes another irony meter...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This accurately characterizes my feeling about white people decrying CRT.

View attachment 35530

You're lumping too much. There certainly are plenty like you describe but there are also those of us who don't agree with either side in this. The racism in history is very real but that doesn't mean it's baked into our system now.

Why?

You're the one making the assertion, prove that it is baked in.

As far as I'm concerned CRT is just another incarnation of the same old claim that disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

 

[laughing dog]

Why?

You're the one making the assertion, prove that it is baked in.

As far as I'm concerned CRT is just another incarnation of the same old claim that disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

You are welcome to cling to your religious beliefs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

You're the one making the assertion, prove that it is baked in.

As far as I'm concerned CRT is just another incarnation of the same old claim that disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

Where did I make such an assertion?

 

[ideologyhunter]

To sum up -- we are supposed to give respectful consideration to criticisms of the teaching of history from a political group that believes...
> in the Q-Anon vision of Democrat kidnappers and child sex ring operators (substantial support among GOP voters)
> that Trump won the 2020 election in what he calls a landslide (about 60% of GOP voters)
> that Trump committed no impeachable offense ever (overwhelming majority of GOP voters)
> that covid is a ginned-up liberal media hoax that was designed to destroy the Donald (enough support to keep us chained to this miserable epidemic and its medical and economic consequences)
Christ. I need to take up drinkin'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why?

You're the one making the assertion, prove that it is baked in.

As far as I'm concerned CRT is just another incarnation of the same old claim that disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

Where did I make such an assertion?

You asked why I didn't take it as a given that it is baked in.

There is no question it was in the past. These days there clearly is a socioeconomic pattern and that correlates with race but that doesn't prove racism baked into the system.