US The Left is trying to redefine critical race theory because they are losing

The Left is trying to redefine critical race theory because they are losing​

Zachary Faria
Wed, June 16, 2021
https://sneed.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1rtCC1lrrxpdRootngrBjQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTM5MC42NDkzNTA2NDkzNTA2NQ--/https://sneed.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/iomc0IwxJSXPyFIyy6jdww--~B/aD05NDA7dz0xNTQwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/https://media.zenfs.com/en/washington_examiner_articles_265/be0409ae997de566fa3f7e0a59cda4d6
The Left tried to use last summer’s momentum from the Black Lives Matter movement to push its destructive ideas of so-called “anti-racism” and critical race theory. Now, they’re frantically trying to redefine the terms of the debate, as the momentum has built up against them instead.

Liberals are now asking that you pay no attention to the curriculum behind the curtain. They have taken to insisting that critical race theory isn’t actually being taught in K-12 schools, even though there are clear examples that show that it is. The New York Times even wrote in July 2020 about the “anti-racism” programs being brought to parents and staff in various school districts. Another New York Times piece published just two weeks ago noted that critical race theory is a "framework that has found its way into K-12 public education."

The controversial, Pulitzer-winning 1619 Project, which was riddled with historical inaccuracies and crafted on the false premise that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, has also been pushed into K-12 curricula. The project’s architect, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is among the many liberals trying to cast critical race theory in the narrowest terms possible.

She is trying to distance her shoddy “journalism” from critical race theory because the push against it is real and effective.

As with nonsensical definitions of "assault weapon" or weapon of war" in the gun debate, the Left constantly tries to redefine the terms of debate when they are losing an issue. Were it not for the shield of the Supreme Court, abortion would be far more restricted in the United States. That is also a losing issue for them, so much so that they must redefine the pro-life movement as “anti-choice" and abortion is a “procedure” or, more simply, a “women’s rights issue.” In recent years, they have tried hard to shift attention from abortion itself to birth control.

Now, they’re trying to erase their own connections to Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, and other racial hucksters whom they zealously promoted not long ago — people who, yes, have managed to worm their way into K-12 curricula. All of those school districts spending thousands on Kendi’s books, “anti-racism” programs, and bureaucrats with words such as “equity” in their title — now, these clowns want to make us all think that we imagined all of it.

This is obviously a good sign. It means that the push against these toxic ideas, from both Republican state governments and the concerned parents at local school board meetings, is working. Much like Hannah-Jones did in constantly moving the goalposts on the merits of the 1619 Project, she and other liberals are doing the same here because they are losing the fight to indoctrinate America’s youth with their toxic and divisive racial obsession. We are on the right path, and the push to reject these ideas must continue apace.
Article Archive
——-
I wouldn’t say the Democrat party is losing but they realize that support for critical race theory isn’t as high as they thought and now they’re backtracking.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Left is losing on this area for sure, just like the right is losing on public health care issues. The fact is both the right and left-wing in America are losing to each other on so many different issues, that losing on one issue means fuck all and it's still anyone's game when it comes to elections.

The difference is the Left did get what they want out of public health care and it turns out it's impossible to fix. Especially since the Left also supports Deathfats. Why? Because everyone involved in health insurance wants to get paid a lot, even the virtuous doctors and nurses. At that point, expensive healthcare is the way it is due to simple addition.

The thought belief called critical race theory is not a theory. A theory is set in stone because it has been tested and capable of being falsified. What is being called CRT is not even close to the realm of theory. It’s what is called pseudoscience.

More like pseudoart as it lacks even the precision of a pseudoscience.

 

[ForTheHoard]

They're full of shit about Washington state not teaching CRT. I graduated college about 4 years ago in WA and CRT and feminist lens theory were a HUGE part of the sociology and english department. Every one of my lvl 4 senior english classes were about literary criticism based totally on gender or race. If you couldn't find a way that a piece of literature hurt either women or blacks, you were gonna have a hard time passing the class.

Edit- with that in mind, we were still taught that one of the downfalls of black society was black flight caused by desegregation. During segregation, a total shitbag might live in the same building as a black doctor or attorney, putting them in an environment where they could look around and be inspired by other successful black men and women. As soon as segregation ended, all the positive black role models moved to white suburbs and the urban environment started taking on criminal/anti-hard work kind of vibe. There's at least some truth to that in my own life as I tend to make wiser decisions while being around my wealthy and successful friends vs. doing pointless time wasting shit with my hood rat friends. I've tried to make the black flight point to people and they tell me it's just white supremacist propaganda even though it was taught to me through a CRT heavy curriculum.

 

[Plague Dog]

My main problem with banning CRT is that we are banning thought. It is a theory, not anything else based on some observed facts. If we do not teach it then we do not get it refined or debated to a workable theory or removed as a theory worth even a pursuit.

I'm actually not in favor of banning it at a university level, but I think it's important to look at what level this is being taught at.

If we're talking pre-high school, I think it should be "banned" from public institutions the same way I would expect religion to be effectively "banned." I really can't think of a time it's appropriate to teach a philosophy beyond the most milquetoast "Treat others the way you'd treat yourself" you need to keep kids from hitting each other with sticks. Children at that age are often unable to question whether the information they're getting in class is true or false.

Once we're getting to high school, it's a bit less of indoctrination, but the problem comes in how you view it. I'd argue that it would be appropriate for the high school to ban a KKK recruiter coming to speak to students about how interracial relationships are wrong and how white people are inherently different (read: superior) to all other races. I do think the KKK recruiter should be allowed on the college campus if he so chooses, but I can imagine that a professor teaching students about how white people are inherently superior would likely (and rightly) lead to that professor's dismissal.

So to me, the question is, is Critical Race Theory close to a philosophy or the KKK recruiter. I put it somewhere in the middle. I think it really only has a place in universities at most, and ideally not from the professors. Again, I'm imagining what it would be like to have a white professor talk about how white people are inherently superior and how that results in their rise in the system of meritocracy, and what would be appropriate in that case, then applying that to the CRT professor equally. I'd never be okay with a high school teacher saying anything of the sort and would support a college prof being fired for that bigotry and don't really have a problem if you accuse me of "banning" that thought. The only place where it might be acceptable is basically in an exercise where the students need to 'defeat' the toxic idea.

So I guess I ask you, would you support a KKK recruiter going to high schools? Teachers who talk about how great the KKK is? If you don't (and I suspect you don't), why is CRT so different than other advocates of racism?

 

[MadStan]

One problem I have with people is that when they are wrong they've a hard time saying it. When I saw the title on this thread I didn't read the legislation and I now have. Also, my understanding of CRT was an older version and not what is currently projected as CRT by it's proponents.

So I'm going to eat shit on this thread and say my position was wrong.

That was a nice cup of shit, thank you.

 

[AnotherPleb]

One problem I have with people is that when they are wrong they've a hard time saying it. When I saw the title on this thread I didn't read the legislation and I now have. Also, my understanding of CRT was an older version and not what is currently projected as CRT by it's proponents.

So I'm going to eat shit on this thread and say my position was wrong.

That was a nice cup of shit, thank you.

There's nothing harder to do than admitting you were wrong on a position, and I commend you for having the character to do so.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Also, my understanding of CRT was an older version and not what is currently projected as CRT by it's proponents.

That's how it always is, every word in the culture wars has two definitions now. See also "racism", "feminism", "violence", and many more.

 

[TFT-A9]

That's how it always is, every word in the culture wars has two definitions now. See also "racism", "feminism", "violence", and many more.

This enables motte and bailey. Be very suspicious of anyone who tries to "correct your misconception" about things in that sphere.

 

[Mr. Skeltal]

More like pseudoart as it lacks even the precision of a pseudoscience.

Even phrenology had methodology to it.

 

[Bungdit Din]

I highly doubt most in this thread even knew what CRT was until it aired on Fox News.

Quite the thread. From, word-for-word, the most predictable post ever;

To the genuinely unexpected:

One problem I have with people is that when they are wrong they've a hard time saying it. When I saw the title on this thread I didn't read the legislation and I now have. Also, my understanding of CRT was an older version and not what is currently projected as CRT by it's proponents.

So I'm going to eat shit on this thread and say my position was wrong.

That was a nice cup of shit, thank you.

Cool.