pretty vile race baiting. no single argument in the first 4 paragraphs, just hissing implications of racism levelled generically towards people based on their race.
This is intentional.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
>The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
>You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-mar...
84 percent of non-white respondents said they supported requiring photo ID, along with 77 percent of white respondents
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-dems-non-white-19452985...
'Do two people, who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than one person who doesn't know what they are talking about?'
(courtesy: Click & Clack, the Tappet Brothers)
The US as a whole is the least racist nation in the world, so not "incredibly" racist by a long shot.
'Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”.
Never mind.'
It is a weird opinion piece, because its arguments are just loosely connected pieces of information ( in the fragment above, geography ). Then again, Guardian political stance is at least very consistent.
Not every part of the US is. But that one certainly is.
Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I'm sure someone might raise the point that some anti-gay/trans bigotry books are ALSO being suppressed, so I'll preemptively state that these are not the same thing.
That said, the anecdote is almost completely irrelevant. At the best, it is trying to use image of MLK and argue the following:
"MLK gave a speech here once, therefore making it a sacred ground, where 'nothing we declare bad' can happen".
That is not a very convincing argument. I do not see it as relevant even if we lower its status to an anecdote. At best, it is just something that happened.
<< Whatever overarching point you want to make about the state of race relations and debate in the United State in the 2020s, it is a fact that in the "Land of the Free", open discussion of historical injustices is being suppressed.
I am not big on overarching statements, but I will address the one quoted above. If open discussion is being suppressed, we have no one to blame, but ourselves, because we let this happen. Inch by inch, some subjects became impossible to discuss without repercussions. It is absolutely wild given how free this country used to be in terms of speech. We now have kids in universities who self-censor so as not to offend.
So yeah, open debate is being suppressed, but probably not the way you want to believe it is.
Since MLK is revered, people will say that his accomplishments were ultimately successful. There are few to none legal discriminations of the races in the US - in fact anti-discrimination is protected. Yet, we realize now, with more decades of research and understanding that ending "systemic" racism isn't as simple as passing a civil rights bill or formalizing the definition of a "hate crime". So it's not that the specific place that King gave a speech is hallowed ground. But rather that his work was ultimately incomplete (at least partially because he was assassinated).
> Re: open debate suppression
The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
There are two foundational differences.
One:
Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. There is no law being passed that's preventing Dave Chapelle from doing standup comedy. Just private citizens exercising their own free speech rights and influencing private entities into deeming their free speech more important than Chapelle's.
On the other hand, "critical race theory" bans are sweeping the nation with republican legislatures introducing into LAW the requirement for teachers and librarians to err on the side of the preferences of individual parents rather than educators or academics with regards to what "facts" they teach to students.
Two:
By the paradox of intolerance, tolerance and "tolerance of intolerance" are meaningfully different concepts. While they get categorized as the same by bad faith actors, they actually have opposite goals. Arguably, intolerance of intolerance is itself in the service of tolerance. Likewise, restriction of free speech in the interest of stifling hate speech IS meaningfully different from restriction of free speech in the interest of PROMOTING hate speech. Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. These are not based on feelings or emotions - they are based on statistics with regards to hate crimes, bullying, suicides amongst marginalized groups, etc.
On the other hand, the bans on critical race theory are based on no data or scientific basis - the very term is completely mis-defined as a niche Graduate-level academic discourse is used to describe absolutely ANY open debate of the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery. The categorization of "critical race theory" as racist against whites, used to bully or discriminate against whites, or any of the sort is not backed in any evidence or research. It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. Which, incidentally, is exactly what Martin Luther King said is necessary even in a peaceful civil rights movement. The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. And they have the power to take meaningful action as part of this.
This is not true. The disputed interventions generally prohibit racially divisive ideologies, or claims that racial divisiveness is somehow "natural and inevitable", or that the United States is "inherently founded" as a country on racism or racial divisiveness.
A claim that one cannot "open[ly] debate... the past horrors of racism, discrimination, or slavery" without espousing these ludicrous ideas is simply baseless.
The Constitution includes the three-fifths compromise, where slaves count for 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation.
It seems like a pretty supportable claim. Banning readily supportable claims about history from being taught seems... ahistorical.
> includes well-known titles like the Pulitzer Prize-winning William Styron novel, “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and best-sellers that were turned into movies or television series, such as John Irving’s “The Cider House Rules,” Alan Moore’s dystopian “V For Vendetta,” and the graphic novel version of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
> The list of books also includes titles from Black writers, such as “Between the World and Me” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and “Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women that a Movement Forgot” by Mikki Kendall.
> Isabel Wilkerson’s book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” which, among other things, made the case that Nazi Germany modeled its anti-Semitic policies on the segregation of Black people in the United States, also made Krause’s list.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-ra...
> This June, a parents’ group in one Tennessee district challenged the use of an autobiography of Ruby Bridges, who in 1960 was one of the first Black children to integrate an elementary school after Brown v. Board of Education. The parents complained that in depicting the white backlash to school desegregation, the book violated the state’s new law in sending the message that all white people were bad and oppressed Black people.
All of this is possible because "Critical race theory" was not defined precisely when it was banned. And by introducing these bans, it gives parents and legislatures the ability to define any concept they feel uncomfortable with at the time that they see their children learning about as "banned CRT".
The very foundations of this movement were founded on bad faith, in many cases as part of backlash to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
An inaccurate totem of what children were learning was created, and then filed under "CRT".
Via very selective quoting.
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1483016365049004035
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”
Two sentences later in the speech, which Rubio omits:
"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned."
Yes; the hate speech being defined as speech they hate. That is not a great standard, because I can assure you the definition will expand in directions you may not find acceptable. But it is an easy rallying flag and a good political tool.
<< The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap.
This is not what I meant by self-censoring. Dave Chapelle episode is something else altogether and we can discuss it if you want, but I am not sure if this is the line of argumentation you want to take. What I referred to was a clear departure of university ethos to present kids with various POVs, expand their mind and have a healthy discussion. Instead, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction recognized by some as 'stifling'[1].
<<It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past.
I am honestly not sure what you are talking about here. What culture are you referring to? What past needs to be confronted? US openly committed genocide on Indians - it is on the books last time I checked. US imported slaves and it was a while before they were even freed on paper? Do you see anyone denying that? What exactly needs to be confronted? Lynchings? Segregation? What? None of this is hidden. If anything, you have a prime time now to call anything racist. You can call cereal racist and a clear and present indicator of white supremacy and CNN will give you a platform to spread that opinion further. Some of us just can't help but chuckle, because the backlash you are referring to is created by this weird fixation with race exemplified by 'everything is racist' movement.
<<Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this.
Does it mean it is the correct stance ( is majority automatically right on any given issue )?
<<Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred.
Yes and there are historical reasons for those you listed. US, on the other hand, was founded based on a firm rejections of those limitations as enshrined in that foundational document called a constitution.
<<the very term is completely mis-defined
Please define it then.
<<The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward.
I find this the most interesting line of the entire post. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I do not see discomfort. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of the pyramids? I have about the same discomfort about pyramids as I do about US history.
[1]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15277443/north-korean-defector...
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.
That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools.
Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today.
The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT.
This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
"an intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour"
Which doesn't sound like an inherently racist ideology to me. I highly suspect quotes like the above are being taken out of context. Unfortunately this statement appears to be pulled from somewhere inside a book on the subject, which I have not yet invested the time to track down let alone read. My assumption would be that, as is true in many such cases, a lot of the terminology is being misrepresented by leaving the reader to assume a colloquial definition of the words rather than the context laid out in the supporting text. Indeed, several articles hint that this is indeed the case:
"Kendi defines racism as “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racist inequality exists when “two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.” Racist policies are any law, rule or regulation that keeps that inequality in place.
The discrimination Kendi is talking about is not the police, politicians or teachers who believe one thing or the other, but policies that are in the system that effectively keep the power to maintain or change that policy primarily in the group that benefits from that discrimination."[0]
[0] https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necess...
I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".
I provided the exact quote from Ibram X. Kendi, if you don't accept the description from the foremost expert on CRT on how it requires racial discrimination, I'm not sure it's a truth you would ever be willing to accept.
In the interests of not turning this place into Reddit, it's probably best to take Mr. Kendi at his word, and leave the rest up to the reader :)
Yes, and I provided reasoning as to why I think that quote is taken out of context. I have provided the text of the definition of Critical Race Theory from Wikipedia, which almost word for word has lifted it from Encyclopedia Britannica.
I'm going to have to take that over one sentence that was most likely taken out of context and the interpretation apparently only backed by 'trust me bro!'.
By all means, please do so and link the context around the quote so I can properly evaluate what they're actually saying, instead of just what some random internet is implying they are saying.