Critical Race Theory B- what is it, and why NOT teach it?

Post Reply New Topic

Hey cyberdad, you are being just as generalizing.

If America is not systematically more racist than other countries, the CRT just be taught in other countries too.

I have been waiting for the evidence that that CRT only causes division, but I have mostly only see that the people claiming that seem to assume it is the case. There are incorrect assumptions taken that CRT saying that it is more difficult for people of certain race to succeed due to systematic problem, is saying that people of those races are unable to succeed, which that is not what it means. Or that it is telling people to feel guilty for their race, which is also a fundamental missunderstanding.

Lets get some firsthand evidence that CRT does this thing. One single piece, that can be proven correct or incorrect.

Telling people to own all their failures when they are starting on uneven ground, because they are not really on uneven ground despite all the evidence, so you shouldn't question how things are, is not brainwashing?

re-read what you wrote. You said my knowledge of US history is flawed but then you went on to say "there is no un-biased review of history (or anything else). There is bias in every textbook and every education system."

Think about what you wrote as I think you will uncover what you are trying to suppress in your self. Here's a question for you. What knowledge about US history that you have access to is more reliable than what I have access to? do you have access to secret knowledge? No...

You are simply being selective about highlighting what is important to you and diminishing what is important to other Americans whom you denigrate by claiming their needs or feelings are not important.

Nobody is claiming the US was founded on anti-black racism. The US was founded by settlers from imperial European empires. Old history classes only highlighted the whitefolk but tended to jump over the killing of native inhabitants, the enslavement of blacks and their treatment over 400 years and the walls placed to prevent 70% of the planet from entering their shores as immigrants. CRT fills in the factual gaps in student's education.

CRT is i) providing more insight into periods of history in America that are not covered in previous syllabus ii) CRT highlights some of the less savoury things done to the ancestors of many modern Americans and iii) CRT links what happened to the past to the present.

It's the third point that's glaringly missing in high school curriculum, Systemic racism is real whether you like to pretend it doesn't exist. Children need to know why there are no black kids in their classroom or why there are no black people living in their neighborhood.

Hey cyberdad, you are being just as generalizing.[/quote]

Give me one thing that MAGAs believe that is based on fact?

Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election.

Geez, I don't know where to begin.....
I don't have enough duct tape to keep my head from exploding.
Not sure where your'e going with the bias thing. I probably have suppressed complexes but not germane to this discussion. But, yeah everyone is biased in some way but that does not change facts.
Check the 1619 Project about the anti-black racism stuff.
Yes you have the same access to the same info as I have but what have you read? Have you read it in context? The Constitution is an anti-slavery document by the way.
Yes, America was founded by white Europeans, which is what this is really all about. Answering perceived racism with actual racism. This is basically a racket to promote Marxist ideology in the public school system. (as if there isn't enough of that already). Rather than divide people by class, this is about dividing people by race.

I think everyone in this thread has a different definition of what CRT is. Even I don't know what it is even after reading the wiki page and the various explanations in this and the other thread.

But here are actual documents from the California Department of Education (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmc.asp)(need to VPN if outside US) and Chapter 4 & 5 have some choice material about what would actually be taught in schools:

Looking at the video link provided by the document (https://tinyurl.com/y42zhcuu), it reminded me of religious rituals or sports rituals. I don't think this has any place in any curriculum that claims to promote critical thinking.

They also probably believe steak is delicious, dogs make good pets, up is up and down is down, so long as the lying lamestream liberal media isn't reporting on it.

MAGAs don't disregard all reality, just the parts that aren't ideologically correct.

what about a curriculum that claims to promote critical thinking but instead destroys it?

regardless, that Cali stuff does sound pretty culty to the point of disturbing me a bit.

Interesting you should bring this up. Many CRT curricula DO in fact include discussions and examples of other cultures / countries / nations / etc engaging in racially or culturally biased laws or ideas.

Here's a current course syllabus from the university of central florida teaching a 3000 level course on critical race theory.

https://www.cah.ucf.edu/common/files/sy ... ll2017.pdf

"Teaching CRT only causes division!" in the same way letting your co-workers know that the boss is screwing them all only "contributes to workplace hostility!" or telling someone in an abusive relationship that their relationship is in fact abuse "only causes division!" - it's funny how people get upset when they find out they're being exploited.

Someone earlier mentioned how "cult-like!" it sounded to have kids all chant positive messages. Clearly these people have never witnessed a classroom full of 7 year olds all standing in the same pose of worship, all chanting in monotone, without really understanding what it means "I pledge allegiance to the flag..." - or been to any kind of scouting where everyone sings crap like its a small world or similar kids jingles that have been around for ages - anyone getting a group of kids doing anything in unison could be called "cult-like".

Teaching kids anything is tricky - and much of the truth we're learning isn't exactly kid-accessible or kid-friendly - but it's still important to at least stop teaching the same crap we always have, so we don't have to battle with getting people to un-learn it later. We need a more honest history taught, from the beginning. So far, CRT is not actually being taught to kids, any deeper than the typical "melting-pot" stuff that's been taught since long before I was a kid.

But "CRT says ALL white people are ALL evil racists and must PAY!" makes for a much better boogeyman than "CRT says that remnants of racism still remain, but we don't see them cos we accept them as the 'common wisdom' of our culture".

I don't get where people got the idea that CRT teaches that only the US is built on inequality or racism. If some were to pay more attention to other countries, one would know that conservatives in other countries also resent their children being taught that their homelands are not morally squeaky-clean.
You think, eg, French conservatives despise CRT for suggesting the US was built on racism? No, they're frothing at the mouth because CRT is very much critical of other countries' histories of racism. Many on the European right feel like this theory is US academia exporting radicalism because CRT dares to call a spade a spade and not treat each European country like enlightened special snowflakes when it comes to race.

Suggesting that CRT focuses only on US racism feels like another variant of the obnoxious cliche one often hears in discussions about American racism: wherein defensive Americans try to deflect attention away from their own country's racism by calling attention to that of others. It's transparent.

My understanding is that CRT is transnational (not just north America)

The universal principles from the shared document

1. The core idea is that race is a social construct due to historic developments, and that racism is not only the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. For example public policy on drugs, police and judicial powers, education and housing.

2.The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.

The only argument against CRT appears to spring not from the academic texts, but from fear among critics that students—especially white students—will be exposed to supposedly damaging or self-demoralizing ideas.

This fear (completely fabricated) is being flamed by members of the republican party who are weaponising this issue to gain support from white (and Asian) parents who might be on the fence about voting for them.

A much worse and even less credible claim is that it impedes the education of children from focusing on STEM and Literacy/numeracy etc which is completely false.

*Individualism* is how the real world works.

Boss: What can *you* do for me?
Family: *You* need to get off the couch and get a job!
Court/police: *You* need to take personal responsibility for your actions.

The real world doesn't care much for excuses.

Your links show statistical data of racial inequality.

However, racial inequality does not mean the causations were because of racism.

For example, Amazon CEO Bezos's wealth earned within the last 20 years, is likely being used to show *system racism* based on wealth inequality.

Does systematic racism via things like racial inequality need something like people being evil little racists to be a problem?

Is there a reason that the percentage of rich CEOs is not proportional to the general population?