CRT and Whiteness for Elementary Students.

No other race has done what whites have done. You can't replace the words and be accurate. The only way you can make an equivalence is if the histories of these races were the same as whites.
Were the Hebrews "white"? No. According to you, Egypt was all black people, correct? Pharaohs were black, correct?

Was Pol Pot "white"? Ahmad Harun? How about Omar Al Bashir? Lets not forget Rwanda. I do believe they were black/brown.

I could go on, but your black head is as thick as yonder wall.



Stick it up your racist ass.
 
Were the Hebrews "white"? No. According to you, Egypt was all black people, correct? Pharaohs were black, correct?

Was Pol Pot "white"? Ahmad Harun? How about Omar Al Bashir? Lets not forget Rwanda. I do believe they were black/brown.

I could go on, but your black head is as thick as yonder wall.



Stick it up your racist ass.
No you can't go on. Because you don't get to pull up ancient shit then tell me that I am living in the past for mentioning American slavery. How many countries did Pol Pol colonize? Omar Al Bashir/Ahmad Harun? How many countries did they colonize?Do you know what Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was?Rwanda? Do you even know the history?

None of your examples have done what whites have done. You can say they were evil men and you would get no disagreement from me, but none of them occupied a foriegn nation and forced people to be subject to their rule.

You talk about Sudan.

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Arabic: السودان الإنجليزي المصري‎ as-Sūdān al-Inglīzī al-Maṣrī) was a condominium of the United Kingdom and Egypt in the Sudans region of northern Africa between 1899 and 1956, corresponding mostly to the territory of present day Sudan, and South Sudan. Legally, sovereignty and administration were shared between both Egypt and the United Kingdom, but in practice the structure of the condominium ensured effective British control over Sudan, with Egypt having limited, local power influence in reality[clarification needed]. Following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egypt pushed for an end to the condominium, and the independence of Sudan. By agreement between Egypt and the United Kingdom in 1953, Sudan was granted independence as the Republic of the Sudan on 1 January 1956.



You talk about Rwanda

“ From 1894 until the end of World War I, Rwanda, along with Burundi and present-day Tanzania, was part of German East Africa. Belgium claimed it thereafter, becoming the administering authority from 1924 to 1962. During their colonial tenure, the Germans and Belgians ruled Rwanda indirectly through Tutsi monarchs and their chiefs. The colonialists developed the socalled Hamitic hypothesis or myth, which held that the Tutsi and everything humanly superior in Central Africa came from ancient Egypt or Abyssinia. The Europeans regarded Hutu and Twa (about 3% of the population) as inferior to Tutsi. Sixty years of such prejudicial fabrications inflated Tutsi egos inordinately and crushed Hutu feelings, which coalesced into an aggressively resentful inferiority complex.”

Rwanda and Burundi had existed for centuries without European assistance but as a result of the Berlin Conference in 1884, whites decided that Germany could have Rwanda and Burundi. In 1916 Belgian took control of Rwanda and Burundi due to a League of Nations mandate. Once Rwanda was colonized by Europeans, the colonizers invented a fake racial hierarchy whereby the Europeans deemed themselves superior, decided that the Tutsis were closer to whites than the Hutus, and in doing so gave Tutsis preference over the Hutus. Under this fake hierarchy Tutsis were deemed more intelligent and were born to rule while Hutu’s were given second class status. This European construct put in force limited the employment opportunities and educational attainment of the Hutus. Because the Tutsi were considered by the colonizers as the preferred group, Tutsis were accepted into positions Hutus were not allowed to have. To enforce this system of preference, in 1935 the Belgian colonizers introduced identity cards labeling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa, or Naturalised. Before that time it had been possible for some Hutus to become “honorary Tutsis”, but the implementation of identity cards eliminated that possibility, thereby cementing Hutu second class status. Europeans created a false history and fake racial superiority between African tribes to control a nation in order to colonize the people living there. Belgium's rule favoring the Tutsi created hatred and animosity. Tensions grew between the groups and in 1959 Rwanda had a revolution whereby the Hutus killed Tutsis, destroyed Tutsi property, and made the Tutsis flee the country. All this was the result of the colonization of Rwanda by Europeans.

To make a long story short, Rwanda was granted independence in 1962. Africans are not perfect and that over the centuries before the Berlin Conference there were wars in Africa just like there were everywhere else. However, the 58 years of colonization created periods of strife after Rwanda gained independence. Every once and awhile Tutsis living in surrounding countries would attack and were met with retaliation from Hutus until the 1990 civil war that resulted in the near genocide of the Tutsis.

You talk shit and don't even know what you're talking about. If not for whites colonizing these countries it is unlikely these atrocities would have happened. There would have been fighting just like there is among every group, but I doubt it would have come to this..

Paul Magnarella, Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide, Human Rights and Human Welfare, Volume 2:1 – Winter 2002, https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/magnarella2-1.pdf

History Of Rwanda, HISTORY OF RWANDA

Troy Riemer, How Colonialism Affected the Rwandan Genocide, August 16, 2011, How Colonialism Affected the Rwandan Genocide
 
I grew up with the reality of what really goes down in this BS. I've told you those stories before. They are not pretty.

Riddle me this.......why are the crimes rates so high in black neighborhoods ......especially where all the whites have fled due to the crime.

hmmm......statistics don't back you up bro.
Stats show that whites commit the most crimes.
 
Yawn. Black on Black have the highest rates on blacks..........Whites mostly criminalize white people.
Duh and both rates are roughly the same. So try asking

Why do whites commit 7 out of every 10 crimes and don't consider their communities high crime?
 
Duh and both rates are roughly the same. So try asking

Why do whites commit 7 out of every 10 crimes and don't consider their communities high crime?
Lol

You have been pushing how whites are attacking you..........stats don't back that up. Both sides commit crimes to their own race more. So why are we responsible for your crime rate when it is mostly Black on Black.
 

CNS News) -- For black victims of violent crime, a Department of Justice report for 2018 shows that 70.3% of their offenders were black and 10.6% of their offenders were white. In other words, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks.

The same report showed that blacks comprise the largest percentage (27.5%) of violent criminal offenders against Asian-Americans. On the flip side, less than 0.1% of Asians are involved in violent crimes against blacks.

For blacks, they were victims in 563,940 violent incidents in 2018. In those incidents, 10.6% of their offenders were white, 70.3% were black, 7.9% were Hispanic, and <0.1% were Asian.

For Hispanics, they were victims in 734,410 violent incidents and for their offenders, 28.2% were white, 15.3% were black, 45.4% were other Hispanics; and only 0.6% were Asian.
 
Lol

You have been pushing how whites are attacking you..........stats don't back that up. Both sides commit crimes to their own race more. So why are we responsible for your crime rate when it is mostly Black on Black.
I talk about racist publi policy. The stats do back me.

White racist public policy is whats being held responsible.
 
So, how should we teach these things?
With facts and the truth.

Not with misinformation and lies from conservatives – lies such as the teaching of the history of slavery, Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation is intended to portray ‘all whites’ as ‘racist’ or to make white children ‘feel bad.’

It’s understood that teaching facts and the truth about the history of enslaved Americans undermines the conservative narrative as expressed by white grievance politics and replacement theory, but the fact remains that the legacy and consequence of slavery, Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation continues to adversely effect Americans of color today, that racism is a current and ongoing problem, and that the teaching of slavery, Jim Crow, black codes, and segregation in public schools is perfectly appropriate and warranted.
 
  • Love
Reactions: IM2
They have ALWAYS been a violent race of people. Against their own, against everyone else. Black, white, brown, yellow...doesn't matter. They are flat out violent. Period.
I lived it..........Yup..........Mother N Law was the last white in that area........she refused to leave saying this has been my home forever.......I will not run.........After several break ins.......the thugs killed her neighbor in his own bed for prescription drugs............The one who killed him dropped some of them in her back yard as he ran away.

We moved her........then the place was vandalized.......destroyed bathrooms.....kitchen.....knocked holes in the ceiling....broke all the windows.........later they burned the place to the ground.
 
Of course there's only so much "theory" you can teach to 8 - 12 yr olds. But that won't stop some dedicated prejudicial black authors from condensing the elements of CRT and whiteness down to their basic elements and weaving a "storyline" into it..

From a listing at Barnes & Noble with the industry reviews ---
Not My Idea
Children's Book
60th in book sales for children

An honest explanation about how power and privilege factor into the lives of white children, at the expense of other groups, and how they can help seek justice. —THE NEW YORK TIMES
**A WHITE RAVEN 2019 SELECTION**

NAMED ONE OF SCHOOL LIBRARY JOURNAL'S BEST BOOKS OF 2018

Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness is a picture book about racism and racial justice, inviting white children and parents to become curious about racism, accept that it's real, and cultivate justice.

This book does a phenomenal job of explaining how power and privilege affect us from birth, and how we can educate ourselves...Not My Idea is an incredibly important book, one that we should all be using as a catalyst for our anti-racist education. —THE TINY ACTIVIST

Quite frankly, the first book I’ve seen that provides an honest explanation for kids about the state of race in America today. —ELIZABETH BIRD, librarian

“It’s that exact mix of true-to-life humor and unflinching honesty that makes Higginbotham’s book work so well…”—PUBLISHERS WEEKLY (*Starred Review)
A much-needed title that provides a strong foundation for critical discussions of white people and racism, particularly for young audiences. Recommended for all collections. —SCHOOL LIBRARY JOURNAL (*Starred Review)

A necessary children's book about whiteness, white supremacy, and resistance… Important, accessible, needed. —KIRKUS REVIEWS

A timely story that addresses racism, civic responsibility, and the concept of whiteness. —FOREWORD REVIEWS

For white folks who aren’t sure how to talk to their kids about race, this book is the perfect beginning. —O MAGAZINE

About the Author
ANASTASIA HIGGINBOTHAM is the author and illustrator of Divorce Is the Worst, Death Is Stupid, and Tell Me About Sex, Grandma—all part of the Ordinary Terrible Things series. She lives in Brooklyn.
Librarians love her, but not as much as she loves them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Best pages of this work.. The DEVIL makes a white kid sign the contract.

View attachment 560130


------------------------------

A private Manhattan elementary school which charges $55,000-a-year tuition is among dozens of schools across the US teaching from children's book that features a shadowy devil figure that offers the reader a 'whiteness contract.'

Rufo says the book, 'traffics in the noxious principles of race essentialism, collective guilt and anti-whiteness.'

Also according to the book: 'Skin color makes a difference in how the world sees you and in how you see the world,' and 'your skin color affects the most ordinary daily experiences.'

The suit alleges Illinois' Evanston-Skokie district was treating students and employees differently based on race.

In one instance, for example, suit says the district asked teachers to take part in racially segregated 'affinity groups' for an exercise.


It also alleges that teachers were forced to undergo 'antiracist training,' and uses the teaching of Not My Idea in the district as one of the examples of ways the district is discriminating against white people.

This is how I WISH this thread will go.. It's a debate covered in the Atlantic between the AUTHOR and a lefty staff writer for the Atlantic who disagrees with the author's way of introducing young children to the race issue.. It's CIVIL and CORDIAL and useful.. Just like the members of USMB are use to hearing.. I've heavily snipped it. Go READ IT before you comment..


Clearly we had deep disagreements over an issue families and educators all over America are grappling with: What exactly should we teach children about race, police killings, and the relationship between the two? I suggested to Higginbotham that we air our differences through an email exchange, and she agreed.

Read: How to talk to kids about racism and police

She argues that, at the earliest possible age, white kids should be taught to identify whiteness as the root of racial injustice so that they can reject the pervasive racism that they would otherwise embody. I think her account of what causes police killings is too monocausal and that her zeal for uprooting racism sometimes strays into overgeneralization based in racial stereotyping. Regardless, her message that kids can choose to reject racism is laudable, and many school districts find it valuable. What follows is an edited and condensed version of our discussion.

Higginbotham: The book I made teaches young children about whiteness—it is not about police brutality. The problem in the book is not that police kill innocent people; it’s that the child’s white family refuses to discuss the significance of these killings with the child, who is left alone in confusion and self-doubt. No matter the crisis, my focus is on growing up by knowing yourself and your world. My books guide a child toward the resources of their own instincts and imagination, as well as family members who can offer support. In Not My Idea, white family members turn away from the child’s pain in the face of racist violence, and so my book points them to the library.


You call my assertion that violent white supremacy is embedded into all of our systems too “complex” for children to evaluate. But racism is not complex; the human beings who perpetuate it are. I have perpetuated racism without believing in it—that is complicated. Racism itself is ridiculous. Elevating a people’s worthiness, morality, intelligence, cleanliness, aptitude, and dignity based on skin tone—that is a terrible idea, it was not my idea, and I will spend my life revealing and unlearning that nonsense and making sure kids can, too, as young as possible.

You write, “Many systems in America are clearly neither violent nor white supremacist.” But that’s not how whiteness works. Any place where there are white people has violent white supremacy embedded into it because it is embedded in us. Do I kill people? No. Does my call to 911? It might. So long as we give the lies and distortions of whiteness space inside our bodies and minds, we are its hosts. We bring it into every room, interaction, classroom, and child we raise unprepared to question it.

You write, “Many systems in America are clearly neither violent nor white supremacist.” But that’s not how whiteness works. Any place where there are white people has violent white supremacy embedded into it because it is embedded in us. Do I kill people? No. Does my call to 911? It might. So long as we give the lies and distortions of whiteness space inside our bodies and minds, we are its hosts. We bring it into every room, interaction, classroom, and child we raise unprepared to question it.
This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

Clearly the dishonest right is determined to continue to misrepresent, politicize, and lie about CRT and how the subject of slavery and its legacy of racism is taught in public schools.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2

CNS News) -- For black victims of violent crime, a Department of Justice report for 2018 shows that 70.3% of their offenders were black and 10.6% of their offenders were white. In other words, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks.

The same report showed that blacks comprise the largest percentage (27.5%) of violent criminal offenders against Asian-Americans. On the flip side, less than 0.1% of Asians are involved in violent crimes against blacks.

For blacks, they were victims in 563,940 violent incidents in 2018. In those incidents, 10.6% of their offenders were white, 70.3% were black, 7.9% were Hispanic, and <0.1% were Asian.

For Hispanics, they were victims in 734,410 violent incidents and for their offenders, 28.2% were white, 15.3% were black, 45.4% were other Hispanics; and only 0.6% were Asian.
Lets try not using conservative network news to quote statistics. Because if black are responsible for 27.5 percent of attacks on Asians who is respnsible for the other 72.5 percent.

You show black and hispanic numbers but not whites.

In 2018 whites had over 4.2 million violent victimizations. And if all 563,940 incidents were against whites 87 percent of thost victimizations would be white on white. If we use the racist excuse that blames hispanics and include them with blacks, it leaves 70 percent white on white. So try looking at the problems in youtr own community then ask why is this so when public policies have been to the favor of whites?

"Based on data collected by the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2005-2019, this report addresses trends in the number and rate of violent victimization by victim race or ethnicity.

The overall number of violent victimizations decreased over this period by 1.1 million (16 percent). The number of violent victimizations of Black persons decreased 32 percent, from 913,000 to 623,000. The number of violent victimizations against White persons declined 24 percent, from 4.8 million to 3.6 million. Regarding the rate of violent victimizations from 2005 to 2019, the overall decline was 26 percent, from 28.4 to 21.0 victimizations per 1,000 U.S. residents age 12 or older. The rate of violent victimizations of Black persons fell 43 percent, from 32.7 to 18.7 violent victimizations per 1,000 Black persons age 12 or older. The rate of violent victimization of White persons fell 24 percent, from 22.7 to 21.0 victimizations per 1,000 White persons age 12 or older. 2 tables"


 
They have ALWAYS been a violent race of people. Against their own, against everyone else. Black, white, brown, yellow...doesn't matter. They are flat out violent. Period.
If blacks were so violent Africans would have wiped out the whites who entered Africa. The fact is that whites in America have been the most violent. And we have had 2 world wars thanks to whites. So you're little racist opinion is incorrect
 
No you can't go on. Because you don't get to pull up ancient shit then tell me that I am living in the past for mentioning American slavery. How many countries did Pol Pol colonize? Omar Al Bashir/Ahmad Harun? How many countries did they colonize?Do you know what Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was?Rwanda? Do you even know the history?

None of your examples have done what whites have done. You can say they were evil men and you would get no disagreement from me, but none of them occupied a foriegn nation and forced people to be subject to their rule.

You talk about Sudan.

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Arabic: السودان الإنجليزي المصري‎ as-Sūdān al-Inglīzī al-Maṣrī) was a condominium of the United Kingdom and Egypt in the Sudans region of northern Africa between 1899 and 1956, corresponding mostly to the territory of present day Sudan, and South Sudan. Legally, sovereignty and administration were shared between both Egypt and the United Kingdom, but in practice the structure of the condominium ensured effective British control over Sudan, with Egypt having limited, local power influence in reality[clarification needed]. Following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egypt pushed for an end to the condominium, and the independence of Sudan. By agreement between Egypt and the United Kingdom in 1953, Sudan was granted independence as the Republic of the Sudan on 1 January 1956.



You talk about Rwanda

“ From 1894 until the end of World War I, Rwanda, along with Burundi and present-day Tanzania, was part of German East Africa. Belgium claimed it thereafter, becoming the administering authority from 1924 to 1962. During their colonial tenure, the Germans and Belgians ruled Rwanda indirectly through Tutsi monarchs and their chiefs. The colonialists developed the socalled Hamitic hypothesis or myth, which held that the Tutsi and everything humanly superior in Central Africa came from ancient Egypt or Abyssinia. The Europeans regarded Hutu and Twa (about 3% of the population) as inferior to Tutsi. Sixty years of such prejudicial fabrications inflated Tutsi egos inordinately and crushed Hutu feelings, which coalesced into an aggressively resentful inferiority complex.”

Rwanda and Burundi had existed for centuries without European assistance but as a result of the Berlin Conference in 1884, whites decided that Germany could have Rwanda and Burundi. In 1916 Belgian took control of Rwanda and Burundi due to a League of Nations mandate. Once Rwanda was colonized by Europeans, the colonizers invented a fake racial hierarchy whereby the Europeans deemed themselves superior, decided that the Tutsis were closer to whites than the Hutus, and in doing so gave Tutsis preference over the Hutus. Under this fake hierarchy Tutsis were deemed more intelligent and were born to rule while Hutu’s were given second class status. This European construct put in force limited the employment opportunities and educational attainment of the Hutus. Because the Tutsi were considered by the colonizers as the preferred group, Tutsis were accepted into positions Hutus were not allowed to have. To enforce this system of preference, in 1935 the Belgian colonizers introduced identity cards labeling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa, or Naturalised. Before that time it had been possible for some Hutus to become “honorary Tutsis”, but the implementation of identity cards eliminated that possibility, thereby cementing Hutu second class status. Europeans created a false history and fake racial superiority between African tribes to control a nation in order to colonize the people living there. Belgium's rule favoring the Tutsi created hatred and animosity. Tensions grew between the groups and in 1959 Rwanda had a revolution whereby the Hutus killed Tutsis, destroyed Tutsi property, and made the Tutsis flee the country. All this was the result of the colonization of Rwanda by Europeans.

To make a long story short, Rwanda was granted independence in 1962. Africans are not perfect and that over the centuries before the Berlin Conference there were wars in Africa just like there were everywhere else. However, the 58 years of colonization created periods of strife after Rwanda gained independence. Every once and awhile Tutsis living in surrounding countries would attack and were met with retaliation from Hutus until the 1990 civil war that resulted in the near genocide of the Tutsis.

You talk shit and don't even know what you're talking about. If not for whites colonizing these countries it is unlikely these atrocities would have happened. There would have been fighting just like there is among every group, but I doubt it would have come to this..

Paul Magnarella, Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide, Human Rights and Human Welfare, Volume 2:1 – Winter 2002, https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/magnarella2-1.pdf

History Of Rwanda, HISTORY OF RWANDA

Troy Riemer, How Colonialism Affected the Rwandan Genocide, August 16, 2011, How Colonialism Affected the Rwandan Genocide
Gracie, these are documented historical fact. There is nothing to disagree with. Your opinion doesn't count against this.
 
Systems that perpetuate unequal or racist outcomes DO exist, but if I understand what CRT is SUPPOSED to be, it isn’t individuals who are racist now or whites, it is the result of systems put in place under racist laws of the era that even now the laws are gone still continue. One example would be the criminal justice system. Another, the real estate system.
This is what CRT is – an examination of the current affects of slavery, segregation, and racism.

This runs counter to the conservative narrative that racism no longer exists; or what racism might remain is insignificant, marginal, and not worthy of political consideration.

Hence the lies conservatives have contrived about CRT: that it’s ‘anti-white’ and maintains that ‘all whites’ are ‘racist.’
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top