CDZ "Critical Race Theory"

[Picaro]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDelgadoStefancic20126–7-8



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

 

[Flopper]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

CRT is about 30 years old. Considering race as a social construct is an interesting idea but I don't see any real value to it. Of course inequality springs from social constructs. It was not black skin that caused blacks to have to sit in back of bus but rather segregation laws. It was not skin color that caused job discrimination but policies and social customs.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

 

[Picaro]

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

 

[Picaro]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

CRT is about 30 years old. Considering race as a social construct is an interesting idea but I don't see any real value to it. Of course inequality springs from social constructs. It was not black skin that caused blacks to have to sit in back of bus but rather segregation laws. It was not skin color that caused job discrimination but policies and social customs.

It's alive and well, from top to bottom, in our education system. Obama made it an official government policy, and forced it on schools as a condition of receiving government funds.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just goes to show that the Democrats and the left have not changed their way of thinking for 30 years.

They have merely switched sides.

 

[oldsoul]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

I am reminded of what Morgan Freeman had to say on 60 Minutes about racism:

[Mike] WALLACE: Black History Month, you find …

[Morgan] FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I’m Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn’t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?

So, let's just stop talking about how we have different skin colors, or anything of the sort. We are ALL DIFFERENT. No two of us are exactly alike, and yet, we have oh so much in common. Why don't we focus on what unites us? Let's focus on what is the same (or at least similar) regardless of whatever differences we may have?

 

[Flopper]

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

Your ag

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

When democrats want more money for

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

Accusing academia of racism against whites means they consider blacks a superior or inferior race to whites and I really don't think that is true. The foundation of racism is not inequality of treatment, hate, or discrimination. It is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. For example, if a white man curses a black man, that in itself is no racism. However, if he uses the N word, it is racist because he's using a word widely associated with the inferiority of the race. Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

The whole concept of reverse racism is generally faulty because it is a rare situation for blacks or an institution such the government to act on the believe that one race is either inferior or superior to another race. This is a fine point but a very important one when you discuss racism.

 

[oldsoul]

Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

Maybe you can help me here. Are you suggesting that a policy that treats people differently based on race, is not necessarily racist? What it seems you are saying is that the ACT/POLICY is not necessarily racist, it's the INTENTION that makes it racist, or not. Is that accurate? If so, how can anyone, apart from God, legitimately accuse another of racism?

 

[Mac1958]

There's too much to be gained by keeping race issues alive, too much to lose by healing wounds.

 

[oldsoul]

There's too much to be gained by keeping race issues alive, too much to lose by healing wounds.

A sad, yet all too true for those in power, statement.

 

[Flopper]

Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

Maybe you can help me here. Are you suggesting that a policy that treats people differently based on race, is not necessarily racist? What it seems you are saying is that the ACT/POLICY is not necessarily racist, it's the INTENTION that makes it racist, or not. Is that accurate? If so, how can anyone, apart from God, legitimately accuse another of racism?

Treating people different because of race is not necessary racism. If you treat them differently because of a belief of superiority of a race then that is racism.
The definition of racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Blacks were held in slavery for centuries and then freed to suffer from social slavery (segregation) because whites treated them as an inferior race, limiting educational, economic, social opportunities enjoyed by whites. Today they are given some preferences, not because we believe the white race is inferior but because we are trying to balance the scales, repair the damage of centuries of racism.

For example, when colleges give preference to black candidates, it is not because they believe blacks are superior to whites. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism is not being directed at whites. They are simple giving an advantage to a race that has suffered from disadvantages in education for centuries and still has not quite caught up.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

According to your definition, I am not a racist. I don't believe that my race is superior to black people. Black people are just too fucking obnoxious to deal with. I am so done with them that I ignore them even when I know, for certain, that not all of them are obnoxious. I won't take the chance and waste my time anymore.

I should add, the level of revulsion isn't because they are black but because I assume the black person is a democrat in addition to being black.

 

[Flopper]

According to your definition, I am not a racist. I don't believe that my race is superior to black people. Black people are just too fucking obnoxious to deal with. I am so done with them that I ignore them even when I know, for certain, that not all of them are obnoxious. I won't take the chance and waste my time anymore.

I should add, the level of revulsion isn't because they are black but because I assume the black person is a democrat in addition to being black.

You said "black people are too fucking obnoxious to deal with" thus implying that white people are not. That would be a racist comment because you are implying racial superiority. To some people that would be enough to make you a racist but it's all a matter of opinion. However, enough racist comments and actions will label you a racist in the minds of most people. It's all a matter of degree.

Let me give you another example: Suppose I say blacks are stupid. That is a racist comment because it means all blacks are stupid. It leaves no room for any intelligent blacks. Now suppose I say research shows shows 70% of blacks have a normal IQ while 80% of whites have normal IQ. That is not a racist statement because you not making judgement about the black race which includes all black people. It's a fine point but an important one.

 

[MarathonMike]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

I am reminded of what Morgan Freeman had to say on 60 Minutes about racism:

[Mike] WALLACE: Black History Month, you find …

[Morgan] FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I’m Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn’t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?

So, let's just stop talking about how we have different skin colors, or anything of the sort. We are ALL DIFFERENT. No two of us are exactly alike, and yet, we have oh so much in common. Why don't we focus on what unites us? Let's focus on what is the same (or at least similar) regardless of whatever differences we may have?

Preoccupation with one's Race or one's heritage is a complete waste of time and energy. Focus on what is important. Be a good person. Educate yourself, college or trade. Work hard. Get a job and be productive. Manage your money. All of that is possible because you live in America and the year is 2019, not 1819.

 

[oldsoul]

Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

Maybe you can help me here. Are you suggesting that a policy that treats people differently based on race, is not necessarily racist? What it seems you are saying is that the ACT/POLICY is not necessarily racist, it's the INTENTION that makes it racist, or not. Is that accurate? If so, how can anyone, apart from God, legitimately accuse another of racism?

Treating people different because of race is not necessary racism. If you treat them differently because of a belief of superiority of a race then that is racism.
The definition of racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Blacks were held in slavery for centuries and then freed to suffer from social slavery (segregation) because whites treated them as an inferior race, limiting educational, economic, social opportunities enjoyed by whites. Today they are given some preferences, not because we believe the white race is inferior but because we are trying to balance the scales, repair the damage of centuries of racism.

For example, when colleges give preference to black candidates, it is not because they believe blacks are superior to whites. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism is not being directed at whites. They are simple giving an advantage to a race that has suffered from disadvantages in education for centuries and still has not quite caught up.

I must then challenge your incomplete definition of racism. You left out this definition: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." So, using your own explanation, and this definition, giving preferential treatment to blacks based on their race IS racism. To be clear, I am not attempting to show you to be wrong, merely that there is more than one way of looking at things. Which is right? I have no idea. If I were to be given a specific example, and the full TRUTH, I may be able to discern. Unfortunately, as I am not God, I cannot know the truth of a person(s) intentions and beliefs.

 

[oldsoul]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

I am reminded of what Morgan Freeman had to say on 60 Minutes about racism:

[Mike] WALLACE: Black History Month, you find …

[Morgan] FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I’m Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn’t one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?

So, let's just stop talking about how we have different skin colors, or anything of the sort. We are ALL DIFFERENT. No two of us are exactly alike, and yet, we have oh so much in common. Why don't we focus on what unites us? Let's focus on what is the same (or at least similar) regardless of whatever differences we may have?

Preoccupation with one's Race or one's heritage is a complete waste of time and energy. Focus on what is important. Be a good person. Educate yourself, college or trade. Work hard. Get a job and be productive. Manage your money. All of that is possible because you live in America and the year is 2019, not 1819.

Touche.

 

[Correll]

Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

Maybe you can help me here. Are you suggesting that a policy that treats people differently based on race, is not necessarily racist? What it seems you are saying is that the ACT/POLICY is not necessarily racist, it's the INTENTION that makes it racist, or not. Is that accurate? If so, how can anyone, apart from God, legitimately accuse another of racism?

Treating people different because of race is not necessary racism. If you treat them differently because of a belief of superiority of a race then that is racism.
The definition of racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Blacks were held in slavery for centuries and then freed to suffer from social slavery (segregation) because whites treated them as an inferior race, limiting educational, economic, social opportunities enjoyed by whites. Today they are given some preferences, not because we believe the white race is inferior but because we are trying to balance the scales, repair the damage of centuries of racism.

For example, when colleges give preference to black candidates, it is not because they believe blacks are superior to whites. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism is not being directed at whites. They are simple giving an advantage to a race that has suffered from disadvantages in education for centuries and still has not quite caught up.

The act of discriminating in favor of the blacks indicates that you consider the blacks more morally deserving of the whites, who are at least, not deserving of special treatment, if not actually held somehow responsible for the sins of their ancestors.



Being "more morally deserving" is a form of superiority.

 

[RandomPoster]

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

Your ag

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

When democrats want more money for

I do not think it is possible to have a realistic discussion on race or racism on most message boards.

Not saying that is true about this board.

True, but it's fun, especially when the left wing racists try and deny they're in love with their own racism. Black kids literally get shot to death for 'acting white', i.e. learning to read and write, excel in school, etc., in black neighborhoods.

I was just interested in pointing out that academia is indeed engaging in active racism against whites and so is the Democratic Party, despite all the denials they make re their own racism; this 'theory takes a minor half-truth and makes whites the foil for all black shortcomings while completely ignoring black sub-cultures itself as the major culprit. The pseudo-intellectual leaps are baseless, and in fact at their core have to assume blacks are indeed intellectually inferior and require the majority of society to dumb itself down in order to make it 'fair'.

Accusing academia of racism against whites means they consider blacks a superior or inferior race to whites and I really don't think that is true. The foundation of racism is not inequality of treatment, hate, or discrimination. It is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. For example, if a white man curses a black man, that in itself is no racism. However, if he uses the N word, it is racist because he's using a word widely associated with the inferiority of the race. Likewise, if a college that gives preferential treatment to blacks in admission is not racist because there is no implication of racial superiority, only that unequal treatment due to policies in the past have disadvantaged blacks. It is unequal treatment but it is not racist.

The whole concept of reverse racism is generally faulty because it is a rare situation for blacks or an institution such the government to act on the believe that one race is either inferior or superior to another race. This is a fine point but a very important one when you discuss racism.

"The foundation of racism is not inequality of treatment, hate, or discrimination. It is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. For example, if a white man curses a black man, that in itself is no racism."

So if a white man who lives in Japan believed Asian people were more intelligent than white people and resented and hated them for it, screamed at them in public and harassed them with threats of physical violence simply because they're Asian, it's not racism because he doesn't feel superior to them?

 

[grbb]

This is all the rage in grade schools and high schools now, in case you're one of the last people on Earth who doesn't believe those stories about left wingers and Democrats advocating racism as a platform of their agendas.

Pacific Educational Group did not dream up this race-centric approach all on its own. Its practices are based on an academic discipline called "Critical Race Theory," which is so commonplace in modern academia as to no longer even be controversial. But outside a university environment, few people have even heard of it — and the few that have are usually shocked and outraged. The phrase "Critical Race Theory," for all its multi-syllabic high-mindedness, is nothing more than a faux-intellectual way of saying "Everything — and we mean everything — is white people's fault."

Much of Critical Race Theory revolves around the concept of "whiteness," which is not simply a skin color or racial identification but rather a state of moral turpitude: To have "whiteness" means that you personally share blame for all of society's ills. It doesn't matter whether or not you think prejudiced thoughts or treat anyone badly; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors owned slaves or instead were abolitionists fighting to free slaves; it doesn't matter whether or not your ancestors immigrated to the United Sates in the 20th century long after slavery was outlawed; it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing or apolitical; what matters is that all of American society is inherently racist and favors white people, so that if you "look white," you benefit from a racist system, and you are therefore part of that system, and therefore racist, and therefore (to peel away the euphemisms) evil. All "Caucasian" or pale-skinned people are genetically cursed with "whiteness," which they cannot escape or disown, but people of other skin colors and ethnicities can also possess whiteness if they conform to "white norms" and refuse to embrace anti-whiteness activism.

The average person might see this entire worldview as shockingly racist, but Critical Race Theory has that angle covered too: Racism, according to the theory, is prejudice+power; and since (according to the theory) black people have no power in society, by definition they can't be racist. The inverse of the stigma of whiteness is therefore also true: if you lack whiteness, you are immune from criticism or condemnation.

Until recently Critical Race Theory has been just that — a "theory" safely quarantined away from the real world in the pages of scholarly journals and the hallways of Ethnic Studies departments. But Pacific Educational Group is transforming Critical Race Theory into Critical Race Practice. They're implementing in real-world settings (K-12 classrooms) the notions that until now were discussed only hypothetically:

...


Back in July, President Obama launched a national initiative on this exact topic, which has now become official government policy.

Many of the school districts that hire Pacific Educational Group do so only after being pressured by the U.S. Department of Education or sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to address "disparities" in the punishment rates of black students as compared to white students. The White House is now using the coercive power of government to force districts to accept PEG's view that differing rates of school discipline for different ethnic groups are entirely due to racism on the part of teachers and administrators.

'Interrupting Whiteness': National Education Conference to Blame White Teachers and Students for School Woes

So, do you think this sort of racist rubbish should still be an official govt. policy as it was under the Democratic Party's regime? Does it appeal to you or is it the type of 'policy' that will only marginalize minorities even more, by endorsing the claims that minorities really are not as bright as whites and the best thing to do is dumb down whites so as to make minorities feel better?

One can also note this 'Theory' was first dreamed up by lawyers, with an eye to generating future big bucks in civil suits, no doubt, then picked up by sociologists as a handy hand wave for explaining the abject failures of quota systems the radicals of the 1970's got implemented under Nixon.

Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that uses critical theory to examine society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power.[2][3] It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies on race issues[4][5] and is loosely unified by two common themes: First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[6] Scholars important to the theory include Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda. By 2002, over 20 American law schools and at least three law schools in other countries offered critical race theory courses or classes which covered the issue centrally.[7] Critical race theory is taught and innovated in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, and American studies.[8]



Critical race theory - Wikipedia

I am not white. I am Chinese. And you know what? I am sick with this development. Western civilization, for all it's flaws and woos, have tons of merit. It is the most advance civilization in the world. And most of it's power comes from wealth they productively produce.

Actually controversies like this is the reason why I think governments, or at least local governments, should be run like business.

Don't like affirmative action? Go to a state without it. Like it? Go to a state with it. Then see which one is more prosperous. More prosperous state have owners and valuation. States with higher valuation can acquire shares of states with lower valuation.