That was my biggest reason for voting for him last year. I voted for a number of newcomers from both parties.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Critical Race Theory?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Which is why people should always check out multiple sources, even including some they may not like or trust as even a blind chicken gets a worm once in a while.
That's quite a false equivalence, plus it's too exaggerated to even begin with.
If you don't know the answer to that question, which should be overwhelming obvious by now, then you simply are either not doing the research or you a preferring to turn a blind eye to what happened. We now have proof per Trump's e-mails that he wanted and literally tried to overthrow the election.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And the same exact rationale was used in Italy and Germany in the 1930's, and we well know how that turned out. As a student of the Holocaust who studied it here in the States and also in Poland and Israel, what Trump campaigned on in 2015-16 scared me-- and rightfully so. I can elaborate on this if you wish.
Trump fed the hatred so many had, and some of that hatred was for good reason, btw. But his nasty and utterly demeaning rhetoric, whereas he verbally attacked even innocent people, should have been enough of a warning that he was dangerous and not accepting of even the most basic democratic and Judeo-Christian values and morals.
Not quite. It's not "I'm not to blame, the system is," mentality. That would be wrong. Everyone within the system does bear some degree of responsibility for their own actions, regardless of whether it's 'what everyone else is doing'. Systemic racism for instance doesn't exist without the individuals participating in it. Becoming aware of the system which influences us, gives us the choice to not follow it.
Legal experts disagree with you. Look at all the voting rights restrictions that are going into place which target minority populations. That's definitely racism being built right into the system right now, today. To think systemic racism doesn't exist, is at best terribly naive, and at worst willfully ignorant. This is a good brief look at how this is real from Business Insider publication:
26 simple charts to show friends and family who aren't convinced racism is still a problem in America
If you think all the differences in the charts in that article are due to "laziness", that itself would be a racist perspective which reality doesn't support.
Yet, it continues.... See the article above.
So that one voice, is good enough for you to ignore what countless experts say? What is it that the Bible says about being careful not to heap to ourselves teachers having itching ears? I'm interested in facts, not digging up one person here or there who denies what the mainstream of experts all say, like finding that one scientist who claims evolution can't be right, and dismissing all of science because you like what that one guy says.
It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of statics. What one does with that politically, is politics. But facts are just facts. They are neutral. It's like saying scientists are atheists because they don't find evidence for humans being created by God molding clay figurines in the Garden of Eden to fit the data we have. That's absolutely false that it's a political, or ideologically driven thing. Facts are just facts. What we do with them is not what makes them true or not.
You think the left controls the economic engines of society where systemic racism has its deepest roots? I wish that progressives did have that power. We wouldn't have the economic and racial divides we do now, one would expect if they were true to their beliefs.
It's hard for people to own their own sins, when they deny they exist and make excuses for them, or point fingers at others who are 'worse' than they are. "It's liberals who are more racist", for example.
Last edited:
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I agree that Trump brought a lot of people previously disillusioned by the establishment of both parties to the ballots, but he was certainly supported by the old Republican party machine and its adjacent rat tail of media and internet personalities.
We shouldn't forget that by sheer math alone, the majority of Trump voters would still have had to be traditional Republican voters informed primarily by media outlets catering to the Republican base (i.e. Fox News, Breitbart, Russia Today etc.).
One point that should be noted here is that, at least for many people, they might look at their own personal observations and what they've seen in their lives. Not just changes in government and public attitudes, but also changes in how media approach the issue, as well as noticeable generational changes (such as with family members, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers one might know throughout one's life).
When I was a kid, it was during the Civil Rights Movement when a lot of opinions and attitudes were in a state of flux. The issues of race and racism were being openly addressed in media, although perhaps treated differently than now. My grandparents' generation (long gone now) were openly racist, although there were some who were obviously nicer about it than others. My grandparents were neither violent nor seditious, though they did have some rather ignorant and outmoded views on race. My parents' generation was a bit more progressive, as they came of age during the 1950s.
I recall times when one would hear the "n word" used more frequently and openly by white people. Among a given circle of white people, there were always those who were outspoken and vocal about their disdain for people of color.
But slowly, over the years, such behavior and attitudes started to go away. Much of it died off with the older generations, while you just didn't hear it or see it as much with the younger crowd. The ideas and attitudes associated with racism became more and more socially unacceptable among whites - at their schools, work, churches. I remember this happening long before I ever heard the phrase "political correctness."
Throughout this time, issues of race and racism were also quite prevalent at the national level. Landmark rulings were made, and the color barrier was being broken throughout the country. There were numerous court cases of discrimination reported in the news, which would indicate to the general public that "the system" was correcting itself and addressing issues of racism whenever they were brought up. This even seemed true for relatively innocuous things, such as the firing of Jimmy the Greek. If CBS was firing top performers for making racist statements, as well as seeing similar decisions made at the very top of society, then those in the general public might conclude that the Powers That Be are on the job and working to eradicate racism from the system entirely.
From the public's standpoint, all branches and levels of government appeared to be working in concert with each other to eliminate racism at a systemic level. Even racist holdout governors like Faubus and Wallace were out of the picture by then, and a "New South" was emerging (such as represented by liberal Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, among others).
From the standpoint of the general public (most of which was white), how would they know otherwise? Is it really correct to say that someone is "naive" or "willfully ignorant" when every indication from the government over the past half century has been that they're against racism? Maybe the Powers That Be have been lying and the past 60 years of anti-racism and civil rights legislation have been nothing but a big ruse? I suppose anything is possible, but if people can see noticeable changes in their own personal observations and see that racism has diminished among their white peers and family members (much less now than in earlier decades), on what basis should someone be considered naive or willfully ignorant for believing that racism has been reduced? How can someone know of systemic racism when all of the powerful factions which control and operate the system claim to be foursquare against racism?
The link with the charts also points up part of the problem, because most of those charts only show "Black" and "White," as if the author believes that there are no other races in America. This is part of the problem I noted upthread. The charts also don't explain why the government and other powerful factions in society, all of whom have been ostensibly unified in their opposition to racism and support of civil rights, came to such a point of abysmal failure.
There is a reason why the racial tensions have come boiling to a head over the past year now, particularly since the George Floyd murder by a policeman. The words may be there, but the actions are not. Not much has actually changed. Think of it like Christians who say all the right words, but do all the wrong actions. "By their fruits you shall know them," not by what they claim and what they say publicly.
That's not to say that the general public itself is nearly as blind and insensitive as to use the N word, like they did when we were kids when the civil rights movement was the big thing. But still, inequality continues to exist. Those charts I linked to, is pretty strong statical proof it's alive and well, even if it is less overt and blatant. With the rise of Trump and his white evangelical supporters, that racism is becoming overt again. It's been there the whole time. All Trump did, was to expose it's been there all along, hiding behind a thin veil of civility.
Think of the near enemy in Buddhism. The far enemy is the opposite of what the desired quality is. Whites only restaurants, lynchings, segregation, etc, are all the far enemy of racial equality. But the near enemy is insidious, because it poses as if it is the desired goal, but it isn't. While some progress has been made, the near enemy, the posers, the closet-racists have been paying lip service, but doing the opposite. That's what I mean by being either naive, which we all have been to some degree, or willfully ignorant ignoring the facts. George Floyd's murder brought this to a head and made ignoring the facts, or imagining "it's all better now", no longer supportable.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
I could have sworn I have thrown my 2 cents into this. I guess not. Must have dreamed it.
As I'm sure its been stated in this thread a thousand times typically the people who are opposed to it are ones who don't know about it. Its not new. Its not racist. The only reason its even a topic right now is because some conservative pundits found a scary sounding name and spun so many lies about it a whole demographic of people are, as usual, as angry as they are woefully ignorant of what it is.
I'm not an expert by any means but thanks to the discourse I have read up on it at least a bit. I haven't heard a single criticism that wasn't based in misunderstanding and hope that somewhere in this thread either an actual criticism comes up or at the very least an interesting and hot take I haven't heard before. So far after a few pages I have found none. Very sad.
As I'm sure its been stated in this thread a thousand times typically the people who are opposed to it are ones who don't know about it. Its not new. Its not racist. The only reason its even a topic right now is because some conservative pundits found a scary sounding name and spun so many lies about it a whole demographic of people are, as usual, as angry as they are woefully ignorant of what it is.
I'm not an expert by any means but thanks to the discourse I have read up on it at least a bit. I haven't heard a single criticism that wasn't based in misunderstanding and hope that somewhere in this thread either an actual criticism comes up or at the very least an interesting and hot take I haven't heard before. So far after a few pages I have found none. Very sad.
It's not just the past year that racial tensions have risen, but yes, there are reasons for it. There have actually been numerous similar incidents which have been reported. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's been 30 years since the Rodney King beating by police, and comparing that now, it appears there has been zero progress in the past 30 years. We made great progress from the 1960s to the mid 1980s (which many of us witnessed for ourselves, firsthand), but apparently, not much after that. There's a reason for that, too.
A lot of people blame Trump - and I'm not minimizing his responsibility here. Although, I think a lot of it can be explained by how the issue of race is commonly approached, especially over the past 30-40 years.
I think the vast majority of people in the U.S. believe that racism is wrong. For more than a half century, the people have opposed the "far enemy," as you call it. They oppose the old order which existed in the U.S. and the principles by which the U.S. has been governed since its inception.
As I see it, the problem is not due to people secretly supporting the old racist order which has been long gone (and which few people alive today ever even saw firsthand). Part of it has to do with the fact that they didn't have much of a plan or any idea as to what to replace the old order with. In order to oppose an idea, the best way is with another idea - and that's where society, our politicians, the media, and academia have fallen woefully short.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The propaganda machine from the left is trying to create another narrative to protect itself from its own sins of the past. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. The Democrats were the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery in the 1860's. When the Republicans freed the slaves the Democrats threw a hissy fit and tried to divide the country. This led to a civil war .
During the civil war over 600,000 men died. Republicans and many freed slaves accounted for half that total. They died to unite the country and maintain freedom for the slaves. The other half were Democrats who double down, even to death , to divide the country and maintain slavery. That is the biggest tell in the history of American slavery, yet this is ignored by the Democrat scam theory. They blame everyone but themselves. The blood is there or proof. All whites did not to cause this problem, just the Democrat whites. White Republican paid their debt already in blood. This is called reality race theory. The Democrats doubled down in blood. This is the debt not yet paid.
The Democrat party should have been exiled and dissolved for its role in trying to divide the country and trying to perpetuate slavery . The Republican were merciful and left cancer in place. Did the Democrats learn anything from this? They used that power to develop legal means to put down the blacks. They were not giving up. The KKK was an intimidation army like ANTIFA today, but worse. Segregation and Jim Crow laws was the fruit of their efforts. Before Hitler rose to power, he and his propaganda team learned from the Democrats how to legally make any race the villain and applied it to the Jews; legal systemic racism.
The only way to make this issue go away is the Democrat party cancer needs to be dissolved. It heritage comes with its long history of inhumane behavior. A new party can form from the ashes with a clean slate and no baggage to hide with scam like critical race theory.
During the civil war over 600,000 men died. Republicans and many freed slaves accounted for half that total. They died to unite the country and maintain freedom for the slaves. The other half were Democrats who double down, even to death , to divide the country and maintain slavery. That is the biggest tell in the history of American slavery, yet this is ignored by the Democrat scam theory. They blame everyone but themselves. The blood is there or proof. All whites did not to cause this problem, just the Democrat whites. White Republican paid their debt already in blood. This is called reality race theory. The Democrats doubled down in blood. This is the debt not yet paid.
The Democrat party should have been exiled and dissolved for its role in trying to divide the country and trying to perpetuate slavery . The Republican were merciful and left cancer in place. Did the Democrats learn anything from this? They used that power to develop legal means to put down the blacks. They were not giving up. The KKK was an intimidation army like ANTIFA today, but worse. Segregation and Jim Crow laws was the fruit of their efforts. Before Hitler rose to power, he and his propaganda team learned from the Democrats how to legally make any race the villain and applied it to the Jews; legal systemic racism.
The only way to make this issue go away is the Democrat party cancer needs to be dissolved. It heritage comes with its long history of inhumane behavior. A new party can form from the ashes with a clean slate and no baggage to hide with scam like critical race theory.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And yet, most Southern conservatives, who would likely have voted Democrat in the 1860s, are now voting for the Republican party. Why do you think that might be?
Also, aren't you forgetting that little tidbit about Jim Crow and a certain Reverend that happened in the 1960s?
Where was the Republican party during the Civil Rights struggle?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
It's Ronald Reagan, isn't it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Except the Republican Party was the more liberal party in the 1800's. The switch occurred during FDR's term, but not all Democrats were on board with this change at first, especially those in the south who were called "Southern Democrats". Starting in the 1960's after the Dems passed the Civil Rights Acts, the Southern Dems left in droves, which is why most of the southern states are now "red".
It was those who lived in the South that didn't want slavery to end, whereas northern Democrats generally were opposed to slavery, but they were a minority in the party back then.
No U.S. president had divided this country more than Trump has. Even many Pubs have had enough and have left the party. And his attempt to overthrow the election is the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president tried such a traitorous act.
"Physician, heal thyself".
There are many different ways to look at and interpret U.S. history. The Democrats were the party of Andrew Jackson, although one interesting piece of history was that he was foursquare against the idea of any Southern states seceding from the Union. He said he would hang them like traitors if they ever did such a thing. The Democrats were not all of one like mind, and they had the same regional divisions which were evident in the country itself.
The Abolitionists were not all of one like mind either, even if they all agreed that slavery must end. The industrialists in the North also had economic motivations for opposing slavery. There were, essentially, two competing economic factions in play. The plantation economy of the South, which was largely agrarian and dependent upon export of a few commodities while relying on imports for manufactured goods (which is why they were also big advocates for free trade, something we see more prevalent among capitalists and Republicans these days). The Northern economy was different, as they wanted more industry and a diversified economy which would rely less and less on imports, which is why they tended to favor tariffs.
To be sure, there were some Abolitionists who were quite passionate and sincere in their desire to end slavery and promote human rights, racial equality, and justice. Many were devout Christians who believed it was a righteous cause, although there were Christians in the South who also used religion to argue for their cause, which was the opposite of that of the Abolitionist Christians. Strange how these things work out.
Both parties still advocated for expansionism and supported racist, segregationist policies - not only in the South, but also in the West with Indian Reservation system, along with racist policies which affected Latinos and Asian-Americans. The Republicans were not a party of humanitarians, and given their strong support from industrialists from the very beginning, they've been in the back pocket of big banking and corporate America ever since. Teddy Roosevelt broke that mold a bit, but even he was seen as a bit of a maverick within his own party.
After the Civil War, the Democrats were still strong in the South, but the Republicans maintained primacy over national politics. Strictly speaking, they could have sent troops back to the South to crush the KKK and enforce the Civil Rights mandates of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They could have mandated what the Democrats ended up mandating in the 1960s when they ended Jim Crow laws and passed the Civil Rights Acts (although the Southern Democrats opposed it). But other Democrats, such as JFK and LBJ, supported it. The Republicans could have done all that in the Postbellum era when it was clear what the KKK and their state/local leaders were doing. They could have reined in some of their generals out West, but instead, they ordered them to "pacify" the region. They supported the idea of "separate but equal," and they even practiced it in the Northern cities to which many freed slaves migrated to - although perhaps not quite as blatant as the Jim Crow laws of the South.
So, whenever I hear this idea that the "Democrats are the party of the KKK," that's only a half-truth. The full truth is that the atrocities of the KKK occurred under mostly Republican administrations at the national level, who pretty much did nothing about it. Moreover, there are strong indications that they themselves shared many of the same racist beliefs as the KKK, as evidenced by the racist atrocities which occurred in the Republican-dominated North and Western United States. The only real difference is that some wore blue cavalry uniforms and others wore bedsheets.
And the bottom line is that all of this was done for profit, so that capitalists could make more money. Ideas like "Manifest Destiny" were just propaganda - just a bunch of hokum to dupe and pacify the white masses into going along with it. Capitalism is the true evil here, and racism is one of many consequences emanating from that evil. Racism is very much rooted in greed as it is hatred.
That's the thing to look at: We seemed to be on a decent course towards civil rights and justice in the 60s and 70s, which also included a strong anti-war and peace movement, as well as greater attention to the plight of the poor and working classes. All this changed when Reagan came in like a whirlwind and pushed his trickle-down ultra-capitalist ideas. That's when everything started to go haywire. That's when whatever progress which had been attained stagnated and went off in a different direction. Even the Democrats pretty much gave in and sold out. Both parties were growing out of touch, while factories shut down and our economy started to rest more and more on funny money. As a result, large sections of the populace are more economically insecure, along with being somewhat disgruntled and disaffected.
It would seem so. Reagan and his crowd were not explicitly racist, as they superficially supported civil rights and the idea that America is the land of opportunity and that, with a bit of luck and pluck, anyone can succeed in the capitalist economy and achieve the American Dream. It sounds good on the surface, but one of the side effects is that America became far more corporatized.
My opinion is that, if you take any set of ideals, even if they start out as high-minded and principled - and you give them to a bunch of corporate lawyers whose primary interest is to make more money for their employers - then they're going to screw them up in very fundamental and essential ways. That's when things went wrong.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I would contest the claim that Ronald Reagan was not explicitly racist by citing his "Welfare Queen" campaign which was very strongly racially coded - in fact, the original alleged "welfare queen" the slogan was based on just so happened to be a Black single mother! What he did not do was adocate segregationism, but that may well be because a) he was from California, which had never been segregated officially, and b) that was no longer a viable policy to advocate in the political climate of the late 1970s. Going by his politics before his presidential campaign, he sounds to me like he was very much the kind of far-right maverick that people have styled Donald Trump to be, and was arguably even worse as an actual US president, as unlike Trump he had the political wherewithal to turn many of his horrible ideas into actual policy.
I mean, not any set of ideals - one thing that I find interesting about modern Western democracy is that due to extensive corporate influence and self-censorship, many radical leftist proposals are literally unthinkable in the modern political landscape, and political movements championing even such tepid social democratic talking points as universal healthcare were effectively strangled in their cribs.
Even in Europe, ostensibly more "leftist" in its politics than the US, many leftist movements of the recent years (e.g. SYRIZA, PODEMOS, Corbyn's labour movement) were effectively destroyed by an alliance of corporate interests, a hostile media establishment, and conservative EU politics before they could even dream of implementing any of their ideas.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Isn't this how the US government works? All the tax dollars go to Congress; top of the food chain, who then trickle it down. Is this also a bad idea? There are detours made by greedy politicians for their own gain; pork barrel and bad investments for quid pro quo.
If we give everyone a tax break, this is trickle up economics. The extra money now starts at the bottom and works it way to the top. it goes from consumer, to businesses to suppliers to more tax revenue. The Democrats oppose trickle up in government; tax break. They like trickle down government using lawyers to make economic decision.
The critical race theory uses half truths to mislead. It selectively picks ideas that are true, but avoids the entire truth, to help give everything the proper context. This partial truth scam can be used to lead people down the wrong path, without them realizing it. They will reason with only the truth or facts given, which is not enough for a true reality assessment. It will works on your bias and fantasy, leading to instinctive inner doubt and obsession; overcompensation.
Let me give you an example of how this works. Say we are at a neighbor's house and the homeowner is looking at her broken heirloom vase. We all try to figure out who did it. One neighbor, John, said he saw the homeowner son, Jack, enter the room about the time of the incident. This is true, and if this was the only fact we had to work with, it can lead some to conclude that Jack broke the vase.
John can see what some are thinking, so he continues his account and says Jack did indeed enter the room, but he left the door open. I could see him because the door was open. He only was the other side of the room getting his car keys. He got his keys and left to go the park. He said goodbye to me. I just added another truth and the conclusion is now different. In the pause between these two important fact, John could see those who had it out for Jack, since they were too quick to judge before getting all the truth.
Critical race theory uses this half truth scam to lead to a desired conclusion, while also triggering those who are already with the program, through previous indoctrination training. They already have a chip in their shoulder. The goal is to use half truth and this extra peer pressure to force brain wash even more children. The new inductees will have a hard time reasoning the whole truth, from the selective facts, and will be bullied for trying until they give in.
This tactic comes from the Democrat party and was used to help create the Jim Crow laws; selective truth conditioning to create brain dead bullies; KKK, who then help get others, to tow the line; trickle down racism using peer pressure.
This is why you need to kill the head of the beast and not is toes. Getting rid of the Democrats party will allow something better to form. There are good Democrats but the bad ones have evil on their side and can lead by intimidation.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
First of all, only a small amount of wealth is actually captured by taxes - only specific types of income, and only income that cannot be deducted by any corporate shenanigans such as shell companies or tax credits. Capital wealth, for example, remains largely untouched by taxation.
Second of all, I believe that in the US, only a fraction of those taxes are actually federal taxes - so a significant portion of your taxes doesn't go to a federal budget, but rather to local or state governments.
Third of all, while a substantial amount of those taxes go to programs that theoretically anybody would benefit from - healthcare, infrastructure, public services, retirement, welfare - a not insignificant portion is captured by special interests, from agricultural or corporate subsidies, to the massive budget commandeered by the US military and its adjacent industries and supporters.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Could you perhaps stop beating around the bush and actually name some of these "half truths" you believe people are championing?
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Which there will always be issues with governments the vast majority of taxes are used to fund government actions. Depending on how the government uses them they are filtered back to the people in ways that are beneficial to the society. The government itself doesn't make a profit as it isn't a business. That is the fundamental difference. As we have seen in the years since the Regan era there has been far more accumulated wealth at the top of the spectrum with very little trickling down. However when government spends money the people can at least profit from it.
But then how do we fund necessary government functions that people need? Roads, education ect? Healthcare is a great example. We have some government help now for the most needy but in societies that have single payer healthcare its far far cheaper as a nation and they tend to have better healthcare outcomes. It simply makes the most sense.
I don't see the anecdote as being representative at all. Lets cut to the chase and please provide at least 1 example of half truth's from CRT so we can discuss that.
Would you agree for the same thing with the republican party? The last republican president had the explicit support of a current KKK leader for example. They also have a near total lockdown of the southern confederate vote? Wouldn't that implicate them just as much if not more than the democrats? For the record I am in total favor of throwing out both parties and starting fresh.