Are you okay with students learning abou CRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

of course you were taught zero about it because it's complete crock.
And I can accept "interesting," but how is it "helpful"? That's a sincere question. Doesn't it just make CRT advocates look foolish?

That is the thing. Unless you were there and were in the minds of those present, it is only crock in your opinion. There is documentary evidence in the form of letters and oublished works at the time, that make this a supportable argument that is open for discussion. That doesn't make it "right" but the whole point is to further discuss and debate to find the truth. Just because YOU haven't found evidence to support it doesn't make it a crock, since others HAVE found evidence and are putting it out there for debate.

The fact that your uninformed opinion calls is a crock in such a dismissive manner is a tell, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

We can’t start a good faith conversation until the GOP acknowledges we have a problem - systemic racism & injustices do exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, because it's obvious what it is. And whatever time is spent on it replaces something else on the currciulum.

it's obvious that some people who are vehemently against it don't know what it is.

Time spent replacing something else.... I guess they shouldn't bother teaching about slavery or segregation in this country's history. It's time spent away from teaching how the US single handedly won WWII (that was sarcasm btw).

40 years ago in college we were required to take black history in my major. But I'm ok with that. CRT seems something a bit different. O.k. if it is an elective and not a requirement.

What do you think CRT is?

I have not seen anyone who opposes CRT on here define what about CRT that they find so objectionable.

If you are ok with everyone studying Black history, then what exactly is so objectionable about CRT? Don't you realize that you probably learned some CRT when you were studying black history?

IMO, people are just triggered by the CRT label. If you called it "black history in America and the impacts of that history today", there would probably be less objections.

I don't understand why people don't make more of an effort to understand the basis for concerns before spouting off. Is it really ignorance, or is it a belief that the best way to accomplish one's objectives is to obfuscate.

At its core, CRT reflects the belief that race is a social construct (no basis in science) but that, once constructed by Whites to serve their economic interest, racism is an overarching prism through which to engage in academic study, analyze current conditions, and make decisions about future policy.

While some of it is political theory, it also reflects legal concepts, such as the idea of torts (intentional wrongs) that result in damages to certain groups (just like a class in a class-action lawsuit), and warrant remedies (damages and other forms of court or government-ordered relief to place victims in the position they theoretically would have enjoyed but for the wrongdoing).

The part that very few object to in 2021 is studying historical events and acknowledging their racial foundation or impact. No one can study slavery, immigration laws, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, or resistance to school integration without acknowledging the systemic racism at play.

Where more people start to get concerned is when every disparity that currently exists in society is somehow attributed to past, systemic racism, when people argue that past racism justifies ongoing and future discrimination against Whites and "White-adjacent" cohorts, or when academics suggest that race is the prism through which everything should be evaluated. That's the case for a host of reasons, including the further down the road one goes the more difficult it becomes to quantify the present-day effects of racism, the fact that it promotes looking at people not as individuals but as members of particular racial groups, and it ultimately envisions coercive measures by the Federal Government to effect a transfer of wealth, resources, and societal opportunities from Whites and White-adjacent groups (presumed to have been unjustly enriched by past racism) to Blacks (presumed to have been damaged by past racism). If you think that's hyperbole, read a bit of Ibram Kendi, who has called for both a Constitutional amendment that would make "racist ideas" by public officials unconstitutional and the creation of a Department of Anti-Racism, which would evaluate all "local, state, and federal" policies to determine whether they would promote greater equity or not contribute to greater inequity (in which case they would be OK) or have the opposite effect (in which case they would be struck down).

So, personally, I'd have no problem with students learning about CRT in college, but I'd hope that my kid had a strong enough foundation to be able to appreciate its foundation and its shortcomings. At the end of the day, an awful lot of it feels like a giant bluff designed simply to pressure officials to provide additional government benefits to historically disadvantaged communities. Relatedly, what worries people in K-12 education isn't that students in elementary or middle school are going to be tutored in CRT, so much as the ongoing training of teachers and development of K-12 pedagogy that starts to spoon-feed tenets of CRT (racism is systemic and pervasive, the group is more important than the individual, and that discrimination against some groups is necessarily to improve the standing of other groups) without providing any larger framework for that content.

+1 very well said, best summary of my position too.

[Anonymous]

100% on board. It should be thought in undergrad studies, not in grad school.
How will our young generation ever reach racial quality and justice if they don't know what racial dissemination is and was in our society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:100% on board. It should be thought in undergrad studies, not in grad school.
How will our young generation ever reach racial quality and justice if they don't know what racial dissemination is and was in our society?

Agreed. I want my kids to to educated not ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

We can’t start a good faith conversation until the GOP acknowledges we have a problem - systemic racism & injustices do exist.

How naïve are you or are you just brain dead from screaming injustice? Why on earth GOP will do anything differently instead of doubling down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

We can’t start a good faith conversation until the GOP acknowledges we have a problem - systemic racism & injustices do exist.

How naïve are you or are you just brain dead from screaming injustice? Why on earth GOP will do anything differently instead of doubling down?

Of course they will. But once trump gets his fat mouth in on the conversation with a candidate that is not smart or powerful enough to keep trump away.....will it backfire?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

We can’t start a good faith conversation until the GOP acknowledges we have a problem - systemic racism & injustices do exist.

How naïve are you or are you just brain dead from screaming injustice? Why on earth GOP will do anything differently instead of doubling down?

Doubling down happened in 1964 when the migration of the Southern Strategy started in response to the Civil Rights Act. At this point, we are at 16 or 32 down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

The actual statement was “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies”

The fact checker disagreed was that statement and wanted it edited to one of these two statements…

One reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (remove word critical)

Colonies were diverse in their view in slavery, One critical reason some colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (showing not all colonies thought it a critical reason only some)

Trying to fix typos

Was the fact checker aware of the existence of Jamaica? Perhaps Barbados? It wasn’t until long after the revolution that the British decided to abolish slavery or even began to seriously debate the issue

Yes. All he was saying is that some colonies wanted to abolish slavery but still supported the Revolutionary War for other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Please be aware that the "criticalrace.org" site referenced about is "Critical Race Training," a site dedicated to encouraging Fragile White Panic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please be aware that the "criticalrace.org" site referenced about is "Critical Race Training," a site dedicated to encouraging Fragile White Panic.

but I'd read about the assertion the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery elsewhere too. Are you saying that's not part of CRT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t know what CRT is. It is not learning about the history of racism and discrimination. That is something pretty much everyone agrees we SHOULD do. We need to learn
about our true history, even the hard parts. CRT has become the term used for the idea that everything can be viewed in terms of race and power and that because of our history, white people are implicitly racist and this can’t be changed. CRT is not history, in fact it can be used to look at any number of subjects and topics. It is a dangerous way of seeing the world because it’s divisive.

LOL, nope, GOP across the country is trying to cancel slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. Google it.

True. That is because ppl like you have their heads so far up your own …ss that you can’t hear what people are asking and articulate a clear answer instead keep screaming ‘injustice’….great way to lose voters and elections.

We can’t start a good faith conversation until the GOP acknowledges we have a problem - systemic racism & injustices do exist.

How naïve are you or are you just brain dead from screaming injustice? Why on earth GOP will do anything differently instead of doubling down?

Of course they will. But once trump gets his fat mouth in on the conversation with a candidate that is not smart or powerful enough to keep trump away.....will it backfire?

You're assuming that white voters don't actually know there is a problem. Knowing there is a problem and caring are two very different things. The GOP has lost the black vote, but they can win without it. Meanwhile Greenbelt voted to create a repartitions commission. I'd expect that to be picked up by political ads in the next cycle and used to fuel red turnout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:still confused if OP means learning about CRT, i.e., the theory. Or are we talking about learning the viewpoint of history that comes from it. Like Marx believed history was seen through the lens of class struggle, fine, but some of his conclusions were more than just a bit off.

For example: https://criticalrace.org/the-1619-project/

now that is CRT correct?

But does any reasonable person honestly believe this conclusion:

"The central premise is that America was not founded in 1776, or in the early colonies, or when the Constitution was ratified. According to this new interpretation, the functional founding of America occurred when the first enslaved Africans arrived on the North American continent. Further, the authors claim, the colonists fought the Revolutionary War primarily to protect the slave trade. .

This conclusion seems very unacademic and totally unsupported to me. In fact, it hurts the whole idea of teaching CRT if it yields conclusions like that.

So what if it was actually a secondary issue? Or if it was a primary issue for some but not most?

Isn't that a really interesting way to look at the American Revolution that, at least I, was taught zero about? I find it very helpful.

The actual statement was “ One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies”

The fact checker disagreed was that statement and wanted it edited to one of these two statements…

One reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (remove word critical)

Colonies were diverse in their view in slavery, One critical reason some colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies (showing not all colonies thought it a critical reason only some)

Trying to fix typos

Was the fact checker aware of the existence of Jamaica? Perhaps Barbados? It wasn’t until long after the revolution that the British decided to abolish slavery or even began to seriously debate the issue

Yes. All he was saying is that some colonies wanted to abolish slavery but still supported the Revolutionary War for other reasons.

Ok. Can you name 1 colony that actually feared the abolition of Slavery at the start of the Revolution? Towards the end when the British freed slaves fighting for them, some states feared it, but slavery was a non-issue in the Revolution with the exception of Jefferson randomly trying to blame it on England.