CRT Divisiveness, the culprit

[Jose Fly]

Yes, the token black person who "proves" conservatives aren't racist. This completely evades all the racist things conservatives are doing in subtle ways.

Well, in addition to the guy repeating false right-wing talking points (CRT teaches white kids to hate themselves, CRT says blacks can't succeed in the US), he's guilty of some horrendous logic. He's basically saying that since he's successful, then there's no racism.

Hopefully most folks can spot the problems with that sort of "thinking".

 

[Twilight Hue]

What exactly is radical? What is propaganda?

Give us examples of this being the case, and not just right wing rhetoric that fears black people attaining equality.

Why don't you study the origins of CRT from its roots in the 70s particularly Black Power, Chicano, identity groups that are inherently racist in their own rights and get back to me on the radical front because that my answer for the moment.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why don't you study the origins of CRT from its roots in the 70s particularly Black Power, Chicano, identity groups that are inherently racist in their own rights and get back to me on the radical front because that my answer for the moment.

That is still assuming these things are being taught in classrooms. Regardless of origins, I haven't seen anything to justify the fear of widespread indoctrination. The examples I have seen appear to be connecting civil rights and diversity to CRT, which you appear to be agreeing have differences.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is still assuming these things are being taught in classrooms. Regardless of origins, I haven't seen anything to justify the fear of widespread indoctrination. The examples I have seen appear to be connecting civil rights and diversity to CRT, which you appear to be agreeing are somewhat different.

Some of CRT is reasonable. Like teaching racial systemic issues. Real-estate for example. Even things like COMPAS.

However the issue imv is asking why the radicalized activism aspect isn't being removed from it, which reinforces stereotypes and tugs on emotional triggers to get its points across that are conducent exclusively with activism, by using indoctrination tactics that states white people are essentially privileged, and black people are downtrodden victims in society that are barred from succeeding at every turn, which when looking around today, is obviously not the case anymore.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

However the issue imv is asking why the radicalized activism aspect isn't being removed from it, which reinforces stereotypes and tugs on emotional triggers to get its points across that are conducent exclusively with activism, by using indoctrination tactics that states white people are essentially privileged, and black people are downtrodden victims in society that are barred from succeeding at every turn, which when looking around today, is obviously not the case anymore.

While I am sure there may be some examples of it, I am not sure that schools are teaching kids in the way you are suggesting, certainly not at the level of indoctrination. My own lessons are based around presenting historical evidence and perspectives and teaching kids how to form their own conclusions.

Regardless, if we could logically infer that a certain amount of privilege (or perhaps better put, advantage) exists for white folks where generational wealth is concerned and a level of prejudice can be shown to still exist.

Also regardless, the opposite indoctrination has been shown in US schools, where an amount of historical mythologizing has occurred around American history. In particular, the white supremacist roots of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

 

[Kooky]

Precisely. So teach history and leave the radical activism out of the classroom.

I agree, American history teachers should stop teaching the myth that the American Civil War was about "states rights" or tariffs.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree, American history teachers should stop teaching the myth that the American Civil War was about "states rights" or tariffs.

Actually it was about states rights. Archival evidence proves that.

Slavery as well, but keep in mind everyone had slaves in those days. Even the north.

 

[Kooky]

Actually it was about states rights. Archival evidence proves that.

Slavery as well, but keep in mind everyone had slaves in those days. Even the north.

I can see how being inundiated with political propaganda in school would skew somebody's viewpoint, and since this is still a highly politicized topic in US schools, I understand that few Americans will have an objective and unbiased view on this subject, particularly in conservative areas where historical facts are not highly prized.

With that said, every single one of these statements is either outright wrong, or highly misleading at best.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can see how being inundiated with political propaganda would skew somebody's viewpoint on objective historical facts, and since this is still a highly politicized topic in US schools, I understand that few Americans will have an objective and unbiased view on this subject.

With that said, every single one of these statements is either outright wrong, or highly misleading at best.

Grow up and study real actual history from the people who actually were there instead of your spoon fed insulated propaganda chamber masquerading as history experts.

 

[Kooky]

Grow up and study real history from the people who actually were there instead of your spoon fed propaganda chamber masquerading as history.

There is no reason to get this emotional over the political propaganda Americans are being indoctrinated with; rather, we should look at this issue dispassionately and sort the facts from the myths.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no reason to get this emotional over the political propaganda Americans are being indoctrinated with; rather, we should look at this issue dispassionately and sort the facts from the myths.

I'm not emotional. Just pointing out the facts.

If you want to really know, look to people who actually lived in those times.

Not modern conceited statements that like to change things around because they feel like it.

 

[Kooky]

I'm not emotional. Just pointing out the facts.

If you want to really know, look to people who actually lived in those times.

I did. Here is what they wrote:

Declaration of Causes of Secession - South Carolina:

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Declaration of Causes of Secession - Georgia:

The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

This is, by the way, neither secret nor hard to obtain information. It is quite literally the official, publically declared reason why the Confederates seceded and attacked the Union.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I did. Here is what they wrote:

Declaration of Causes of Secession

There's more to it than just the issue of slavery.

Hint: look at the Confederate preamble.


Preamble
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereignand independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government,establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings ofliberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidanceof Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for theConfederate States of America.



https://usconstitution.net/csa.html

 

[Kooky]

There's more to it than just the issue of slavery.

And now we watch you backpedal from "Actually it was about states rights." to "It wasn't literally only about slavery and nothing else".

Hint: look at the preamble.


Preamble
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereignand independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government,establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings ofliberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidanceof Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for theConfederate States of America.

That's just a near word-for-word copy of the US Constitution. In fact, whole sections are just copied verbatim - except for one.

Hint: Look at Article 1, Section 9:

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Although I do have to concede you this - the Confederation wasn't just about slavery; it was, specifically, about the enslavement of Black people, and only them. It was specifically about racist slavery.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Although I do have to concede you this - the Confederation wasn't just about slavery; it was, specifically, about the enslavement of Black people, and only them. It was specifically about racist slavery.

And justified specifically with a belief in white supremacy:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There's more to it than just the issue of slavery.

Not according to Mississippi:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession

 

[F1fan]

Why don't you study the origins of CRT from its roots in the 70s particularly Black Power, Chicano, identity groups that are inherently racist in their own rights and get back to me on the radical front because that my answer for the moment.

I didn't ask you about origins. Who cares?

You wrote this:

It has nothing to do with banning teaching about the civil rights movement. That is already being taught anyways in the regular curriculum In schools nationwide.

The banning again, is against radicalism and propaganda that these so called theories provide.

And I asked you to back up this claim of yours with real examples of rampant radicalism (whatever that is) and propaganda. I asked before because i predicted you would not be able to. I'm betting you were bluffing, so I'm calling you out on your bluff.

 

[F1fan]

Some of CRT is reasonable. Like teaching racial systemic issues. Real-estate for example. Even things like COMPAS.

However the issue imv is asking why the radicalized activism aspect isn't being removed from it, which reinforces stereotypes and tugs on emotional triggers to get its points across that are conducent exclusively with activism, by using indoctrination tactics that states white people are essentially privileged, and black people are downtrodden victims in society that are barred from succeeding at every turn, which when looking around today, is obviously not the case anymore.

Give us real examples of radical activism. And explain how it is bad.

 

[F1fan]

And now we watch you backpedal from "Actually it was about states rights." to "It wasn't literally only about slavery and nothing else".



That's just a near word-for-word copy of the US Constitution. In fact, whole sections are just copied verbatim - except for one.

Hint: Look at Article 1, Section 9:

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Although I do have to concede you this - the Confederation wasn't just about slavery; it was, specifically, about the enslavement of Black people, and only them. It was specifically about racist slavery.

And the interesting thing was that few families had slaves in the South. So we would wonder why so many young men would join and fight to defend the South. Much of that was due to pride, their independence. They essentially got suckered in to fight for the wealthy and political elites. It is notable that slavery was crucial to the economy of the South. It was too deeply ingrained in their functional model they couldn't afford to let slaves go free or pay them. It's similar to the issue of a low minimum wage today and how businesses are too dependent on that low wage to tolerate the government raising the minimum wage very significantly.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Give us real examples of radical activism. And explain how it is bad.

You already have been provided examples including activist origins and those expressing how it's creating division and class using skin color and not content of character.

If you don't like it tough. Keep pretending you never had an answer like you always do.