CRT clubs in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

What % of white people voted for Youngkin because of “CRT”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

DP.

You did not know this?

A BIPOC person is incapable of racism. This is because they are divested of institutional power due to systemic racism.

Did you not attend university in the last 10-15 years?

[Anonymous]

^^^ yes exactly. This is why we need CRT / strong antiracism taught in every school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

I think you're conflating prejudice with racism.

[Anonymous]

E.g. a quick Google:

Key Takeaways: The Difference Between Prejudice and Racism

- Prejudice refers to a preconceived idea about a particular group, while racism involves an unequal distribution of power on the basis of race.
- Sociologists have found that racism has led to a wide range of detrimental outcomes for people of color, including unequal access to jobs and housing, as well as an increased risk of being a victim of police brutality.
- According to the sociological perspective, members of privileged groups can experience prejudice, but their experience will be different than the experience of someone who experiences systemic racism.

The above is entirely inline with how I recall racism being discussed in college ~25 years ago, when I took my HS-based "not seeing color is sufficient" blinders off. This is nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

DP.

You did not know this?

A BIPOC person is incapable of racism. This is because they are divested of institutional power due to systemic racism.

Did you not attend university in the last 10-15 years?

Haha. Nope. I'm an old timer. Graduated college 30 years ago. That's silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

That's not a redefinition. That you misunderstood the term previously doesn't mean it has been redefined.

What? A person treating another person negatively because of that person's race is racism. Full stop. What do you think it means?

I think you're conflating prejudice with racism.

Nope. Racism is a subset of prejudice. Racism is prejudice based on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So because acknowledging the problem will not produce concrete action, let's not acknowledge the problem? But let's also not acknowledge the problem because it might lead to actions we don't like?

Look, it's ok to say that we don't care about the problem and leave it at that.

Problem acknowledged. Good work everyone. We did it!

Really? Lots of Youngkin voters would tend to disagree.

Ask them, "is racism still a problem in the United States?" and I'll bet most of them would agree that it is.

And then they would say that white people are the victim.

White people are the worst.

But there is no racism against white people

Nope, we redefined racism at the last meeting. Racism is impossible against a dominant racial group. Also, non-white people are rubber and white people are glue.

But in some states (Cal for example) white is no longer the dominant group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:E.g. a quick Google:

Key Takeaways: The Difference Between Prejudice and Racism

- Prejudice refers to a preconceived idea about a particular group, while racism involves an unequal distribution of power on the basis of race.
- Sociologists have found that racism has led to a wide range of detrimental outcomes for people of color, including unequal access to jobs and housing, as well as an increased risk of being a victim of police brutality.
- According to the sociological perspective, members of privileged groups can experience prejudice, but their experience will be different than the experience of someone who experiences systemic racism.

The above is entirely inline with how I recall racism being discussed in college ~25 years ago, when I took my HS-based "not seeing color is sufficient" blinders off. This is nothing new.

Correct.

This is also why it is never ok to use, say, or write the “n”‘word, because that is blatantly racist (and also a hate-crime in most jurisdictions).

But since whites are privileged and do not suffer systemic racism (on the contrary: they perpetuate it), it is not racist to call them cracker, honkey, white bread, blue eyed devil, etc. because these are not racist.

[Anonymous]

Think of it in terms of the school yard:

- if a BIPOC child is beaten up by a group of whites, that would be a racist hate-crime.

- if, however, a white child is beaten on the basis of his skin color by a group of BIPOC boys, it would merely constitute prejudice, at most. Moreover, restorative justice would require decreased, or no punishment for the BIPOC boys, since they have been deprived of institutional power by systemic racism.

It is no wonder so many of you oppose CRT; you clearly do not understand these basic truths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E.g. a quick Google:

Key Takeaways: The Difference Between Prejudice and Racism

- Prejudice refers to a preconceived idea about a particular group, while racism involves an unequal distribution of power on the basis of race.
- Sociologists have found that racism has led to a wide range of detrimental outcomes for people of color, including unequal access to jobs and housing, as well as an increased risk of being a victim of police brutality.
- According to the sociological perspective, members of privileged groups can experience prejudice, but their experience will be different than the experience of someone who experiences systemic racism.

The above is entirely inline with how I recall racism being discussed in college ~25 years ago, when I took my HS-based "not seeing color is sufficient" blinders off. This is nothing new.

Correct.

This is also why it is never ok to use, say, or write the “n”‘word, because that is blatantly racist (and also a hate-crime in most jurisdictions).

But since whites are privileged and do not suffer systemic racism (on the contrary: they perpetuate it), it is not racist to call them cracker, honkey, white bread, blue eyed devil, etc. because these are not racist.

You're just wrong. It is racist to call white people those things. Because of the systemic issues, the n word causes more damage than those other words. That's why we strongly condemn at the n word and shrug at the other words. But it's not because cracker etc. isn't racist.