Critical race theory (10 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Frankly, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Critical Race Theory curriculum. What is it, where does it come from, and is it legitimate? Has anyone here read it and maybe give a quick summary?

If this has been covered in another thread, then I missed it.

 

[DaveXA]

"Class, open your textbooks to Chapter 9 - "KKK: Do they have a point?"

They do have a point. Just look at 'em! Lots of points!

 

[MT15]

They wear those pointed hoods to cover their pointed heads, at least that’s what I’ve always assumed.

 

[DaveXA]

They wear those pointed hoods to cover their pointed heads, at least that’s what I’ve always assumed.

I was trying to figure out who came first. The coneheads or the KKK. My vote goes to the coneheads.

 

[Paul]

You refuse to elaborate. You're the one who brought it up

You mentioned Cubans are entrepreneurial

What else? How would you describe the other 'cultural differences among nationalities"?

And this:

"It is best to judge people as individuals and not as members of a group (or nationality). The statistics describe the group, but at the individual level the story may be quite different. An individual from Honduras may earn much more than a Bolivian despite the average of both groups."

That's describing outliers, which there always are

This statement (I'm sure it's just an example) says to me that "The statistics say that on average Bolivians earn much more than Hondurans, but it's certainly possible for a Honduran to earn much more than the average Bolivian"

So since you know Latin America so well, and one of the things you know is that there are definite "cultural differences among nationalities" and since you've said there's nothing wrong with those differences let's have it

What are the cultural differences between Latin American countries?

What's the cultural difference between Peru, El Salvador and Columbia?

When I go to Latin American parties I hang out with friends from all over South America. Speaking the same language brings everybody together and there is a common warmth and fellowship that is special. What separates us at that point is the accent in the way we speak Spanish.

In these get togethers we are all 1st generation and feel kinship. I never see 2nd generation types. Lastly, it is quite obvious that the language unites us.

I would say the differences among ourselves are like the differences between Canadians and Americans.

BTW, I also hang out with a more international crowd that includes a few Americans, eastern Europeans, Jews, etc. If we are really close the cultural differences banish.

 

[Paul]

No one disagrees that there are cultural differences among nationalities, or that individual cases don't necessarily reflect the success of a group at large.

The hangup is that you have said that there are cultural differences between various ethnicities that cause one ethnicity to be successful where another may not be as successful. But you refuse to say which cultural traits would lead to this difference in success.

Here are some possible options that could be more important than culture, including:

1) Wealth vs. poverty in home country
2) Reason for leaving home country (forced vs. by choice)
3) Means of leaving the home country
4) Opportunities available in the specific location chosen in America
5) Ability vs. inability to transfer skills/credentials from home country

So these are some specific reasons that aren't related to culture that could absolutely influence the financial success of immigrants in a new country. I have supported my claim with evidence. Now you need to provide support for your claim that culture could be the reason. Provide examples of cultural differences that could lead to the success or failure of one ethnicity vs. another.

Actually, you have said it for me. However, culture remains important. East Asian parenting style produces great students. Nigerians are also big on education. That desire for educational achievement is likely cultural.

 

[zztop]

this seems a little too convenient

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article252899398.html

A Missouri legislative committee on Monday held a hearing on how educators teach K-12 students about race and racism without hearing from any Black Missourians.

No Black parents, teachers or scholars testified to the Joint Committee on Education during the invite-only hearing on critical race theory.

Aside from an official from Missouri’s education department, the only people who testified Monday were critics of critical race theory, which is a way of thinking about America’s history through the lens of racism.

Missouri NAACP President Rod Chapel called it “ridiculous” to have a conversation about inequity while “excluding the very people who are saying we’ve been treated inequitably.”

 

[V Chip]

There are cultural differences among nationalities.

People.

There are cultural differences among people. If you’re trying to say we need to avoid tribalism, stop making tribes the difference. Race, sex, national origin, whatever. Yet you have repeatedly said there are cultural differences between races (POC) and national origin. So are you for tribalism or against it? Your arguments are very contradictory.

 

[Paul]

I was trying to figure out who came first. The coneheads or the KKK. My vote goes to the coneheads.

People.

There are cultural differences among people. If you’re trying to say we need to avoid tribalism, stop making tribes the difference. Race, sex, national origin, whatever. Yet you have repeatedly said there are cultural differences between races (POC) and national origin. So are you for tribalism or against it? Your arguments are very contradictory.

Very good post mate! Thank you for making that emphatic point. I am a firm believer in individualism and certainly detest collectivism. Perhaps I was not clear in my words. Ideally groups should not be monolithic, but sometimes tribalism happens.

By the way, if we judge people as individuals then the chance for racism is very low. Once we treat a person as an individual we do not have to apply the negative Or positive stereotype that has been a ascribed to the group. In fact, it would be worth a try. I wish we had leadership at the top to promote the concept of treating people as individuals rather than as members of the group. Furthermore, this approach would not be divisive.

Having said the above, I must repeat that they are cultural differences between groups that do not apply at the individual level. An extroverted individual may belong to a shy group and another shy individual may belong to an extroverted group. The latter is not a contradiction.

 

[V Chip]

if we judge people as individuals then the chance for racism is very low.

But also according to you, if someone doesn’t treat another as an individual and treats them in a racist/xenophobic manner, we’re not supposed to say or do anything to counter their racism/xenophobia. Again to me that’s contradictory. If a child misbehaves — deliberately or not — should we not correct the misbehavior? How or why should that be different with racists/xenophobia or those who peddle racist/xenophobic ideas and messages?

I mean, did you not say multiple times that taking offense at such people or language makes things worse and those that do are more to blame than the ones making the comments or being racist/xenophobic?

 

[Paul]

But also according to you, if someone doesn’t treat another as an individual and treats them in a racist/xenophobic manner, we’re not supposed to say or do anything to counter their racism/xenophobia. Again to me that’s contradictory. If a child misbehaves — deliberately or not — should we not correct the misbehavior? How or why should that be different with racists/xenophobia or those who peddle racist/xenophobic ideas and messages?

I mean, did you not say multiple times that taking offense at such people or language makes things worse and those that do are more to blame than the ones making the comments or being racist/xenophobic?

One must battle racism when racism is palpable, clear, and causing damage. It is important to have good self-esteem, pride, a good sense of who you are. No need to have an apoplexy for unimportant issues.

I also believe that fighting racism in 2021 is not the same as fighting racism in the 1950s when the hurdles and the walls were massive and clearly visible. Today people try to fight systemic racism which at times is a bit abstract and therefore much harder to combat. Therefore, it is important to pick the right battles and to avoid diluting the message over trivial issues.

ideally in a post racial society skin color becomes unimportant, it is no different than for example height. To reach a post racial society it is important to avoid race identity politics. That does not mean that people will not fight racism, however it will send a message that is seen as less confrontational and more effective.

 

[V Chip]

One must battle racism when racism is palpable, clear, and causing damage.

So the point for you is that you think most issues called racist or racially charged are not palpable or clear? Interesting…

Therefore, it is important to pick the right battles and to avoid diluting the message over trivial issues.

So again, to you most racial issues brought up are trivial or not the right battle to fight? You have said previously that fighting some of those battles gives power to the oppressor (the one using racist language or promoting racist ideas). Trying to clarify your “logic” on these issues.

To reach a post racial society it is important to avoid race identity politics. That does not mean that people will not fight racism, however it will send a message that is seen as less confrontational and more effective.

Logically, wouldn’t the same hold true in fighting the “battle” of race identity politics? By your previous statements, you're giving power to those who engage in race identity politics by letting it get to you and not just shrugging it off. Doing so would be less confrontational and more effective according to you, if you’re picking the right battle.

Again, your arguments are contradictory. I mean unless you think racism and racist language/rhetoric is less destructive than race identity politics.

 

[Paul]

So the point for you is that you think most issues called racist or racially charged are not palpable or clear? Interesting…

Yes, systemic racism can be quite abstract and hence those that are racists are going to shrug their shoulders. Meanwhile when George Floyd die, the most racist person in the world acknowledged something it was horrible.

So again, to you most racial issues brought up are trivial or not the right battle to fight? You have said previously that fighting some of those battles gives power to the oppressor (the one using racist language or promoting racist ideas). Trying to clarify your “logic” on these issues.

If a person is hyper reactive there is a chance a bully type person make take advantage of that.

Logically, wouldn’t the same hold true in fighting the “battle” of race identity politics? By your previous statements, you're giving power to those who engage in race identity politics by letting it get to you and not just shrugging it off. Doing so would be less confrontational and more effective according to you, if you’re picking the right battle.

Again, your arguments are contradictory. I mean unless you think racism and racist language/rhetoric is less destructive than race identity politics.

I admit my words area against the established dogma, but I believe we need a new paradigm. The concept of race ID politics on the left needs to be left left behind. Why? Race ID politics energizes the racist people and causes them to justify white nationalism which is a form of eace ID politics.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, systemic racism can be quite abstract and hence those that are racists are going to shrug their shoulders. Meanwhile when George Floyd die, the most racist person in the world acknowledged something it was horrible.

If a person is hyper reactive there is a chance a bully type person make take advantage of that.

I admit my words area against the established dogma, but I believe we need a new paradigm. The concept of race ID politics on the left needs to be left left behind. Why? Race ID politics energizes the racist people and causes them to justify white nationalism which is a form of eace ID politics.

And now you're back to saying that the victims are the cause of the problem. Racist people are going to justify their racist beliefs, period. Blaming things like racial identity politics only serves to give racists cover for those justifications.

 

[Paul]

And now you're back to saying that the victims are the cause of the problem. Racist people are going to justify their racist beliefs, period. Blaming things like racial identity politics only serves to give racists cover for those justifications.

We need to get along. Left wing race ID politics is in itself racist and demonizes those that do not conform. It is also promotes race ID politics on the right.

 

[samiam5211]

We need to get along. Left wing race ID politics is in itself racist and demonizes those that do not conform. It is also promotes race ID politics on the right.

So the left wing is what drives racists on the right?

Is anything ever the fault or the racists on the right, or are they helpless victims of the left?

 

[V Chip]

Yes, systemic racism can be quite abstract and hence those that are racists are going to shrug their shoulders. Meanwhile when George Floyd die, the most racist person in the world acknowledged something it was horrible.

Who was that? Because I heard a whole hell of a lot of people saying he deserved it and that it wasn't a horrible thing -- a whole lot of "he should have complied" "he was a drug user" "he was a criminal" etc etc.

If a person is hyper reactive there is a chance a bully type person make take advantage of that.

So to you, the "hyper reactive" people are the ones making the situation worse?

I admit my words area against the established dogma, but I believe we need a new paradigm. The concept of race ID politics on the left needs to be left left behind. Why? Race ID politics energizes the racist people and causes them to justify white nationalism which is a form of eace ID politics.

Yeah, that's a ridiculous idea. I mean, yeah, sometimes when the bully gets stood up to they get worse. That absolutely does not mean one should sit down and shut up in those situations. Silence ~= assent.

 

[V Chip]

So the left wing is what drives racists on the right?

Is anything ever the fault or the racists on the right, or are they helpless victims of the left?

If only those affected by racism would just stop talking about it, racism would go away...

 

[samiam5211]

I also believe that fighting racism in 2021 is not the same as fighting racism in the 1950s when the hurdles and the walls were massive and clearly visible. Today people try to fight systemic racism which at times is a bit abstract and therefore much harder to combat. Therefore, it is important to pick the right battles and to avoid diluting the message over trivial issues.

The racism wasn't massive and clearly visible to the racists and their apologists in the 1950s, it is only obvious in hindsight. To them, MLK didn't appreciate all the progress that had been made since the days of slavery. That should sound familiar to you.

Same as today, you are just a modern day apologist.