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

Users who are viewing this thread

    Farb

    Mostly Peaceful Poster
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    6,518
    Reaction score
    2,192
    Age
    49
    Location
    Mobile
    Offline
    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
     
    I’ve said here before I hear King’s “content of their character” quote way more from the right wing to push their own agenda

    Those who say it should also be asked if they know anything else King said
    ==============

    Sixty years on, Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech remains a rhetorical paragon, pushing the civil rights movement into the law books while transforming the rabble-rousing preacher into a global icon for freedom and equality. The speech did such a good job of capturing lofty American ideals that King’s name is regularly taken in vain.

    Vivek Ramaswamy harks back to King while making the case for dismantling critical race theory and DEI initiatives. (“What bothers the heck out of me is right when we’re close to that promised land … [we] then obsess about systemic racism and white guilt,” he told NBC earlier this month.)

    Ron DeSantis claims King would have been for book bans. (“He said he didn’t want people judged on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character,” the Florida governor said while stumping for his Stop Woke Act in 2021, stressing a responsibility to “protect our people and our kids from some very pernicious ideologies”.) Nikki Haley, slow to concede the civil war’s origins in slavery, says she was inspired by the civil rights icon.

    “It’s apparent that Dr King’s dream has been weaponized into his nightmare,” says Hajar Yazdiha, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California who studies race and equity.

    These days, King’s words are being twisted with a straight face by arch-conservatives seeking to unravel the very progressive measures King fought so hard to secure before his assassination in 1968.

    In her book The Struggle for the People’s King, Yazdiha traces this trend to the institutionalization of Martin Luther King Jr Day under Ronald Reagan.

    “He was opposed to civil rights, hated Dr King and blamed him for his own death,” she says. When Reagan realized he couldn’t stop Congress from passing the King holiday in 1983, he turned the political defeat into a legacy-making opportunity.

    “He decides that if he can link his legacy to King, he first of all can ward off claims that he’s racist, and second – and this is really critical – he makes sure that we remember a particular version of Dr King that is colorblind, a vision of American exceptionalism, of states’ rights, of the individual capacity to pull yourself up from your bootstraps,” Yazdiha says.

    “So this has been a long game for conservatives. They’ve understood that if they have to accept multicultural democracy, they’re going to for their own purposes.”

    As John Kirk, a civil rights history professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, puts it: “King as a person has become a contested site of memory.”

    The extent to which conservatives have manipulated King’s legacy is sometimes astounding. The South Dakota state representativeBrandei Schaefbauer misquoted a speech to justify her decision to vote against healthcare rights for trans teens.

    The US House majority leader, Steve Scalise, who voted twice against establishing the MLK holiday back in the day, now calls King a national hero. Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist behind the purging of the left-leaning Harvard president Claudine Gay, makes regular references to King’s “colorblindness” while raging against race-conscious policies.

    For Donald Trump’s surrogates, invoking King has become the go-to move. Kellyanne Conway said the first impeachment of Trump was not “within Dr King’s vision”, while Trump’s attorney Ken Starr cited the I Have a Dream speech in his defense of Trump on the Senate floor.

    Mike Pence is a crafty operator in this area too, referencing King in arguments for a border wall, against Black Lives Matter and in the wake of the supreme court’s gutting of affirmative action.

    Mike Huckabee is convinced King would hate the Black Lives Matter movement, while his daughter, Sarah Sanders, implied that the reverend doctor would have cheered the supreme court’s unwinding of affirmative action. In case it’s unclear, King actually marched, got beaten up and went to jail while pushing for affirmative action policies.

    But it’s no coincidence that Arkansas’ reigning political dynasty is suddenly suggesting otherwise. “Very recently, Arkansas moved from a one-party Democratic state to a one-party Republican state,” Kirk says. “And now the Republicans of today want to blame the Confederate Democrats; now they say, ‘All the civil rights stuff, the oppression – wasn’t us.’” Claiming MLK was like-minded only furthers their cause.

    It’s not just politicians who are guilty of improper allusions to King. In 2013, the conservative commentator Glenn Beck brought up King’s name while defending the TV cook Paula Deen for using the N-word.

    Late last year, the controversy-stirring podcaster Joe Rogan ranted about how King wouldn’t have wanted California schoolchildren to learn about antiracism. King’s own monument in Washington DC misquoted him when it first opened in 2011.…..

     
    Republicans may claim otherwise, but the civil rights hero was no color-blind conservative.

    Three years ago, Donald Trump celebrated the final Martin Luther King Jr. Day of his presidency by publishing the “1776 Report,” a manifesto for “patriotic education” intended to counter the “toxic propaganda” of “critical race theory.” A few months earlier, Trump had warned that CRT was “a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.”—worse, it was “child abuse in the truest sense of those words.”

    Republicans in several states quickly began to treat it as such, and an anti-CRT moral panic swept the nation. Prominent Republicans predictably followed Trump’s lead: In 2021, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy declared, “Critical race theory goes against everything Martin Luther King Jr. taught us,” and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis invoked King when he introduced the Stop W.O.K.E. Act that reenforced his earlier prohibition of CRT in public schools, which compared the view that systemic racism exists in the United States to Holocaust denial.

    It’s not just the far right—self-styled liberal pundits have repeated these talking points. In a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Bill Maher argued that King believed people should “not see race at all, anywhere, for any reason,” then compared “the woke” to the Ku Klux Klan.

    The logic behind these misinterpretations of King is easy to understand: Because King dreamed of a nation in which people would “be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he would, if he were still alive, denounce race-conscious policies like affirmative action. Because he was a champion of civil rights, proponents of a color-blind King infer that he would have rejected CRT’s central premise that the marquee legal victories of the civil rights era, like the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board, were insufficient in bringing about true racial equality in America.

    There are, however, two major problems with this reasoning. The first is that it ignores an elementary distinction between means and ends: It is perfectly consistent to dream of a world in which racial differences no longer hold social weight while insisting, as King often did, that such a world cannot come into being without race-conscious reparative policies.

    The second, more substantive problem with this interpretation of King is that it’s just not true. It is explicitly contradicted by many of King’s most acclaimed writings and speeches. It is possible that those who celebrate King as some kind of antidote to wokeness do not know this; maybe they think he sprang into existence in 1963, uttered a few sentences about his dreams at the March on Washington, and then disappeared from the political scene, having magically eliminated racism from America forever. But it’s equally possible that many of the politicians and pundits who venerate a reactionary doppelgänger of King are counting on us not to read his writings for ourselves.

    In the final chapter of his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, King endorsed race-conscious reparations “in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures.… The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.” King reinforced this position in Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? in 1967: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”

    Furthermore, King insisted that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was significant but insufficient for racial equality—an idea we now recognize as a pillar of CRT scholarship. He wrote in 1968, “White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.… Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care—each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage. Each will require billions of dollars to correct.”

    And as we celebrate King on his 95th birthday this year, we confront a bitter irony: The conservatives co-opting King’s racial justice activism while demonizing CRT as a “Marxist doctrine” are reproducing the rhetoric of white segregationists. In Black Struggle, Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the American South, 1948–1968, historian Jeff Woods chronicles Southern segregationists’ “huge legal, political, and public-relations effort” over two decades to “discredit the civil rights movement by associating it with the nation’s greatest enemy, Communism.”

    The official newspaper of the White Citizens’ Councils, which King described as “a new modern form of the Ku Klux Klan,” ran innumerable stories vilifying King and other civil rights leaders as pawns of the Communist menace. The notorious John Birch Society funded billboards depicting King sitting in a desk at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee with the caption king at communist training school, and sponsored a 1966 propaganda film depicting King as a Communist agent, which concludes that “the civil rights movement, as we know it today, is simply part of a worldwide movement, organized and directed by Communists, to enslave all mankind.”...............


     
    Republicans may claim otherwise, but the civil rights hero was no color-blind conservative.

    Three years ago, Donald Trump celebrated the final Martin Luther King Jr. Day of his presidency by publishing the “1776 Report,” a manifesto for “patriotic education” intended to counter the “toxic propaganda” of “critical race theory.” A few months earlier, Trump had warned that CRT was “a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.”—worse, it was “child abuse in the truest sense of those words.”

    Republicans in several states quickly began to treat it as such, and an anti-CRT moral panic swept the nation. Prominent Republicans predictably followed Trump’s lead: In 2021, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy declared, “Critical race theory goes against everything Martin Luther King Jr. taught us,” and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis invoked King when he introduced the Stop W.O.K.E. Act that reenforced his earlier prohibition of CRT in public schools, which compared the view that systemic racism exists in the United States to Holocaust denial.

    It’s not just the far right—self-styled liberal pundits have repeated these talking points. In a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Bill Maher argued that King believed people should “not see race at all, anywhere, for any reason,” then compared “the woke” to the Ku Klux Klan.

    The logic behind these misinterpretations of King is easy to understand: Because King dreamed of a nation in which people would “be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he would, if he were still alive, denounce race-conscious policies like affirmative action. Because he was a champion of civil rights, proponents of a color-blind King infer that he would have rejected CRT’s central premise that the marquee legal victories of the civil rights era, like the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board, were insufficient in bringing about true racial equality in America.

    There are, however, two major problems with this reasoning. The first is that it ignores an elementary distinction between means and ends: It is perfectly consistent to dream of a world in which racial differences no longer hold social weight while insisting, as King often did, that such a world cannot come into being without race-conscious reparative policies.

    The second, more substantive problem with this interpretation of King is that it’s just not true. It is explicitly contradicted by many of King’s most acclaimed writings and speeches. It is possible that those who celebrate King as some kind of antidote to wokeness do not know this; maybe they think he sprang into existence in 1963, uttered a few sentences about his dreams at the March on Washington, and then disappeared from the political scene, having magically eliminated racism from America forever. But it’s equally possible that many of the politicians and pundits who venerate a reactionary doppelgänger of King are counting on us not to read his writings for ourselves.

    In the final chapter of his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, King endorsed race-conscious reparations “in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures.… The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.” King reinforced this position in Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? in 1967: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”

    Furthermore, King insisted that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was significant but insufficient for racial equality—an idea we now recognize as a pillar of CRT scholarship. He wrote in 1968, “White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.… Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care—each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage. Each will require billions of dollars to correct.”

    And as we celebrate King on his 95th birthday this year, we confront a bitter irony: The conservatives co-opting King’s racial justice activism while demonizing CRT as a “Marxist doctrine” are reproducing the rhetoric of white segregationists. In Black Struggle, Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the American South, 1948–1968, historian Jeff Woods chronicles Southern segregationists’ “huge legal, political, and public-relations effort” over two decades to “discredit the civil rights movement by associating it with the nation’s greatest enemy, Communism.”

    The official newspaper of the White Citizens’ Councils, which King described as “a new modern form of the Ku Klux Klan,” ran innumerable stories vilifying King and other civil rights leaders as pawns of the Communist menace. The notorious John Birch Society funded billboards depicting King sitting in a desk at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee with the caption king at communist training school, and sponsored a 1966 propaganda film depicting King as a Communist agent, which concludes that “the civil rights movement, as we know it today, is simply part of a worldwide movement, organized and directed by Communists, to enslave all mankind.”...............


    I disagree and I saw that the article mentions King's: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    That is the exact opposite of CRT.
     
    I disagree and I saw that the article mentions King's: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    That is the exact opposite of CRT.
    You're doing that thing where you reply to a post without reading it again.
     
    I disagree and I saw that the article mentions King's: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    That is the exact opposite of CRT.
    Literally every article I posted today about this talks about this exact response
     
    I disagree and I saw that the article mentions King's: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    That is the exact opposite of CRT.
    No, it is a prayer that CRT or rather the white fear and loathing of “the other” will someday be gone. Of course 55 years later white fear and loathing is alive and vile.

    Of course I would like you to tell us the definition of CRT.
     
    Because I have seen this claim about Biden speaking at Byrd’s funeral made, without context, as some sort of proof that Biden was/is racist. As usual, it’s a dishonest claim.

     
    The Guardian and The Nation are far left publications.
    Um, no. The Nation varies by article. The variation is center-left to left. Show me where they support nationalization of any industry. Give details. The Guardian is actual media as compared to Fix, OAN and Newsmax or the other RWNJ media site whose name I forget. In addition, the RW media is agitprop, period.
     
    Republicans may claim otherwise, but the civil rights hero was no color-blind conservative.

    Three years ago, Donald Trump celebrated the final Martin Luther King Jr. Day of his presidency by publishing the “1776 Report,” a manifesto for “patriotic education” intended to counter the “toxic propaganda” of “critical race theory.” A few months earlier, Trump had warned that CRT was “a Marxist doctrine that rejects the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.”—worse, it was “child abuse in the truest sense of those words.”

    Republicans in several states quickly began to treat it as such, and an anti-CRT moral panic swept the nation. Prominent Republicans predictably followed Trump’s lead: In 2021, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy declared, “Critical race theory goes against everything Martin Luther King Jr. taught us,” and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis invoked King when he introduced the Stop W.O.K.E. Act that reenforced his earlier prohibition of CRT in public schools, which compared the view that systemic racism exists in the United States to Holocaust denial.

    It’s not just the far right—self-styled liberal pundits have repeated these talking points. In a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Bill Maher argued that King believed people should “not see race at all, anywhere, for any reason,” then compared “the woke” to the Ku Klux Klan.

    The logic behind these misinterpretations of King is easy to understand: Because King dreamed of a nation in which people would “be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he would, if he were still alive, denounce race-conscious policies like affirmative action. Because he was a champion of civil rights, proponents of a color-blind King infer that he would have rejected CRT’s central premise that the marquee legal victories of the civil rights era, like the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board, were insufficient in bringing about true racial equality in America.

    There are, however, two major problems with this reasoning. The first is that it ignores an elementary distinction between means and ends: It is perfectly consistent to dream of a world in which racial differences no longer hold social weight while insisting, as King often did, that such a world cannot come into being without race-conscious reparative policies.

    The second, more substantive problem with this interpretation of King is that it’s just not true. It is explicitly contradicted by many of King’s most acclaimed writings and speeches. It is possible that those who celebrate King as some kind of antidote to wokeness do not know this; maybe they think he sprang into existence in 1963, uttered a few sentences about his dreams at the March on Washington, and then disappeared from the political scene, having magically eliminated racism from America forever. But it’s equally possible that many of the politicians and pundits who venerate a reactionary doppelgänger of King are counting on us not to read his writings for ourselves.

    In the final chapter of his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, King endorsed race-conscious reparations “in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures.… The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.” King reinforced this position in Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? in 1967: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”

    Furthermore, King insisted that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was significant but insufficient for racial equality—an idea we now recognize as a pillar of CRT scholarship. He wrote in 1968, “White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.… Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care—each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage. Each will require billions of dollars to correct.”

    And as we celebrate King on his 95th birthday this year, we confront a bitter irony: The conservatives co-opting King’s racial justice activism while demonizing CRT as a “Marxist doctrine” are reproducing the rhetoric of white segregationists. In Black Struggle, Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the American South, 1948–1968, historian Jeff Woods chronicles Southern segregationists’ “huge legal, political, and public-relations effort” over two decades to “discredit the civil rights movement by associating it with the nation’s greatest enemy, Communism.”

    The official newspaper of the White Citizens’ Councils, which King described as “a new modern form of the Ku Klux Klan,” ran innumerable stories vilifying King and other civil rights leaders as pawns of the Communist menace. The notorious John Birch Society funded billboards depicting King sitting in a desk at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee with the caption king at communist training school, and sponsored a 1966 propaganda film depicting King as a Communist agent, which concludes that “the civil rights movement, as we know it today, is simply part of a worldwide movement, organized and directed by Communists, to enslave all mankind.”...............


    Further proof that the value of a martyr is vastly overrated.

    When you're dead, they can claim you said anything they want.
     
    I disagree and I saw that the article mentions King's: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

    That is the exact opposite of CRT.
    You can't possibly be this uninformed. This is deliberately playing dumb.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom