All things Racist...USA edition (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[Optimus Prime]

The vast majority of slaves brought to the new world were sold by other African tribes that captured the individuals for the only reason to sell them into slavery? Did I see that and miss it?

Let's say that was one hundred percent correct

Do you think that fact invalidates anything that happened to the slaves and their descendants in America afterwards?

Do you think the only noteworthy thing about slavery was that some African tribes sold Africans to Europeans

 

[Farb]

The was a bureaucracy that was created when our government was formed. Congress, threw law, created a bureaucracy, that the executive branch then controlled. The bureaucracy was delegated powers by Congress to carry out its mandate. The exact same thing is happens today. You seem to have this very warped view for our governments history.

The Development of the Bureaucracy [ushistory.org]

www.ushistory.org

The bureaucracy did indeed have power to enforce laws from the very formation of our government. The also had power to make rules by which to enforce those laws.



Maybe cede wasn't the correct word, but our elected officials (again through laws) have to delegate power to the bureaucracy for it to function. That's the only way it works. But our elected officials can also take that power back, restrict the power, add to that power or do away with a specific bureaucratic function all through the laws that they pass. The Congress retains that power for itself.



No it is not. As a citizen, you still have the power to elect officials who will change or eliminate the power of any bureaucratic non-elected official. That is your power. What you're really complaining about is that there aren't enough elected represent vies who agree with your position and are willing to pass laws to change the power of the bureaucracy.



The power of the bureaucracy is held by the elected president of the US and the Secretaries he appoints and confirmed by Congress. When Trump radicalized DHS or the DOJ after he was elected president, I didn't argue for those departments to be dismantled. I know some progressive wanted to do away with ICE, but not me. What I did wan was a change in the president and leadership of those departments and a change in policy. And that happened when Biden was elected.



The bureaucracy is going to follow the policy of the President, within the mandate and laws set by Congess. That's the way it's always worked in this country.



Because somebody is always going to call you illegitimate. The point is Democrats moved on to governing. Hillary Clinton wasn't trying to martial a wave of election denial 2 years after she lost and demanding fealty form all Democrats.

You have some points. I accept that the cabinet itself is a bureaucracy by definition. I don't think an agency should be able to mandate anything to a citizen. If they want something done/not done present it to those that make the laws there by presenting to the will of the people. The problem is that the legislature part of our government is deathly afraid to do it job for fear of losing votes or money from big business or lobbyists so they rely on presidential orders and mandates from unelected officials. The only things they do tend to actually debate and pass are virtue signaling bills just to keep us 'entertained' or press home so ideological point. For example, the federal law against lynching. Why was that needed during that particular time? Red meat for their base. And yes, Rs do it as well and it is just as pathetic. For example, Grahams federal abortion ban stunt.

You are pro-bureaucracy/deep state

I am anti-bureaucracy/deep state

 

[Farb]

Let's say that was one hundred percent correct

Do you think that fact invalidates anything that happened to the slaves and their descendants in America afterwards?

Do you think the only noteworthy thing about slavery was that some African tribes sold Africans to Europeans

It is 100% correct.

Do you think the only focus should on what happened here? I don't, but absolutely, it should include what happened in the US. As well as the abolishment movement, why the civil war was fought, what the country has done and continue to do to improve as well as it's shortcomings.

Not just to Europeans. The slave trade to East Africa and the middle east was extensive and was in operation much longer than the new world slave trade. Slavery is still alive and well in Africa/middle east today.

All that to say one does not trump the other in nastiness. They are are all vile but in the quest for history, the propanoates of CRT and 1619 and all the other revisionist history forget that the West was the first to abolish and actively try and stop the slave trade, regardless of the color of the skin of the slave.

If you actually think about it, this country and this civilization has made monumental strides against slavery. In my opinion, when you are discussing the original sin or slavery on this country, you should also celebrate how resilient, kind and good Americans are as a people. But you and I both know that is not the intent.

 

[bird]

You make an assumption that it has a "meassge" which

Because it appears Rufo believes that CRT ties in with things like radical leftism and he's driving that perception.

I'm taking a more direct approach, so once again, in a nutshell, what is CRT a

So a person that doesn't like a person because of the color of there skin is not considered a racist?
If so, you owe me an apology as you called me a racist but I have no power over you. I don't even know who you are so I can't be a racist. Do you apologize?

Nope. Racism particularly in this country derives from positions of power developed by the Western Civilization. It is based on a social construct called race and was used as rationale to enslave people deemed sub-human because of skin color. Bigotry exists anywhere and everywhere.

 

[MT15]

You tell me? I didn't learn that they were sold into slavery by other African tribes in school.

I’ll bet it was in the lesson. And, it wasn’t always Africans enslaving other Africans. It was often the white slave ships that kidnapped their own slaves. It happened both ways. I just looked it up to be sure I remembered correctly. The first slaves to arrive in the colonies were from Angola and captured by Portuguese slavers.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Do you think the only focus should on what happened here?

No. Africans capturing others and selling them to buyers happened and is a critical part of the story of slavery in America because it was the first rung on the ladder to humans treating other humans as nothing more than animals. The rest of the rung was demonstrated in story of the slave in America. It tells the story of how one set of humans could treat another set of humans as something less than an animal, how one set of humans could kill another human with zero remorse simply because their skin was a different color.

I don't, but absolutely, it should include what happened in the US. As well as the abolishment movement

I agree, it should tell the story of the abolishment movement and all the millions of people who fought against the abolishment movement; the group that wanted to continue to treat humans as nothing more than livestock.

why the civil war was fought

Yes. The fact that half the country was willing to go to war with the other half, to have brothers fighting against brothers, all because one half wanted to keep the practice of treating humans as livestock because it was the driving force of their economy.

what the country has done and continue to do to improve

Agreed. That should be taught along with how ferocious the resistance to giving equal rights has been and continues to be fought. It should include specific laws that were passed and upheld that were specifically targeted at one group.

 

[MT15]

CRT is a theory that concerns this country. Why should the theory that concerns US history have to focus on European or Middle East history?

CRT doesn’t actually concern history anyway, not really. As I understand it, it is the study of how our current laws and practices are derived from the effects of slavery in this country. It’s a college level course of study, and it actually started in law school because it concerns mostly the law.

I don’t think anyone objects to teaching the entire history of slavery, but you generally have courses in either US or World History. Each part of slavery would be a valid topic for each course.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Does CRT have an intended audience or is it just leisure reading for the casual passer by?

CRT is college-level stuff. That doesn't mean there are some aspects that can't be applied to high school courses, but the teaching of actual CRT is done in college classrooms.

 

[samiam5211]

You tell me? I didn't learn that they were sold into slavery by other African tribes in school.

Are you sure you were paying attention? When i taught History, that wasn't left out of the books or the curriculum. The Trade Triangle was covered in every class where it was part of the subject.

It's not like we spend chapters on African history in our schools, so that part of the story is only a tiny part of Western History.

Who did you think they were bought from by traders traveling to Africa?

 

[Peace]

CRT is college-level stuff. That doesn't mean there are some aspects that can't be applied to high school courses, but the teaching of actual CRT is done in college classrooms.

Great.

So, who are the racists? Does CRT identify them or does it just talk about racism in general?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Great.

So, who are the racists? Does CRT identify them or does it just talk about racism in general?

Are you asking because you genuinely don't understand the definition you agreed on when talking to Brandon or because you're sealioning like a mofo?

 

[Peace]

Are you asking because you genuinely don't understand the definition you agreed on when talking to Brandon or because you're sealioning like a mofo?

This is another conversation. If you don't like the way it's going, then I suggest you shut your mouth and follow the Brandon debate.

 

[samiam5211]

Great.

So, who are the racists?

You

 

[Peace]

You

Now we're getting somewhere.

So since I am a white conservative male, is it fair to say that CRT targets me? Are you saying that it targets me, and only me, or does it target white conservative males in general?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is another conversation. If you don't like the way it's going, then I suggest you shut your mouth and follow the Brandon debate.

Why are you getting so defensive? The question you asked is answered by the very definition you agreed to. The most obvious reasons for you to keep asking are because you don't understand the definition or you are trolling. If there's another reason you are asking, I am all ears (or eyes, in this case).

 

[samiam5211]

Now we're getting somewhere.

So since I am a white conservative male, is it fair to say that CRT targets me? Are you saying that it targets me, and only me, or does it target white conservative males in general?

All i said was that in my opinion you are a racist.

 

[Peace]

Why are you getting so defensive?

I'm not getting defensive. I'm asking a simple question.

Who are the racists? Does CRT answer that question?

 

[MT15]

Great.

So, who are the racists? Does CRT identify them or does it just talk about racism in general?

Your best bet would be to read about it in its original form, but I have tried to do that. It’s a dense subject, which makes sense because it started out as a law school treatise. I haven’t read but a little bit about it in its original format.

In my limited understanding, what it does is trace the evolution of our laws from slave days forward. And it says that the system of laws in this country were set up to treat black people as property, and vestiges of that still remain today as holdovers. It isn’t done intentionally, I don’t think, it’s just that when the starting point is so completely biased, it’s hard to overcome that bias. We’ve been trying, but being opposed by folks who actually have racial biases, ever since the Civil War.

We do have an historian or two on here who could probably explain it much better than I can. They don’t post often enough.

The most commonly cited example is the cocaine/crack duality in the law. They are the same drug, just one is powdered and snorted and one is smoked. But exactly the same chemical compound as I understand it. Lengthy prison sentences were codified for crack, while cocaine use was seldom treated the same way. Mostly poorer black people used crack, while mostly more affluent white people used cocaine. Even today - a black kid caught with weed in those places where it’s still illegal is far more likely to be sent to prison than a white kid with the same amount. Even if you allow for other variables. The sentencing is far more harsh for the black kid.

CRT is an attempt to explore these differences and explain them, as well as figure out how to get rid of them. I think that often calling attention to them would probably go a long way toward eliminating these injustices.

What happened is that a R political operative, one Christopher Rufo previously mentioned, recognized in that law school theory something he could twist around and use to discredit democrats. And so he did, admittedly, rebrand CRT to mean anything that insults white people.