Critical race theory (9 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.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What I think happened is the south became more industrial and in the 80 and 90s with Regan and Newt doing the whole 'contract with America' happened. The conservative appeal of patriotism, Christianity/pro-life and anti-communism (cold war) is what drove southern voters to the GOP (not at all unlike today....interesting). Especially the wealthy southerns who liked the free market selling point. You guys kept all but 2 of the dixiecrats'.

You would be wrong.

Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Or Lee Atwater in 1981:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-word, N-word, N-word." By 1968 you can't say "N-word"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-word, N-word."

 

[CoolBrees]

Ok first Newt’s Contract with America was during the Clinton years and Reagan wasn’t even aware he had been President by that point. And every one of the authors of that pile of garbage turned out to be a liar, cheater, pedophile or all of the above. Thanks for proving the point.

But the bigger historical non fact you stated is regarding the manufacturing boom. The manufacturing industry decline literally began in 1980. To the year. Who sat in the White House for all of the 80’s again?

 

[MT15]

Let’s examine Mr. Atwater’s career, from Wiki, emphasis mine:

“Atwater's aggressive tactics were first demonstrated during the 1980 Congressional campaigns. He was a campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater's tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by so-called independent pollsters to inform white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP.[8] He also sent out last-minute letters from Senator Thurmond telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm the United States, and turn it over to liberals and Communists.[9] At a press briefing, Atwater planted a fake reporter who rose and said, "We understand that Turnipseed has had psychiatric treatment". Atwater later told reporters off the record that Turnipseed "got hooked up to jumper cables", referring to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.[10] Spence went on to win the race.”

Atwater had zero problems with using race to appeal to white Southern voters. His efforts to deny that he did so are just him covering his arse later in an effort to not look like a racist. His famous quote does give reference that he didn’t feel like he had to use race to win, but he admits (off the record) that he was pushing policies that would hurt black people more than white people.

Here is the quote, with the N word redacted, cause I’m not trying to get banned, lol. Emphasis is mine:

“Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N word, N word, N word". By 1968 you can't say "N word"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N word, N word". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.[16]”

So his argument is that just because they don’t say the racist stuff explicitly, but their policies still hurt blacks more than whites, they aren’t employing a racist strategy. That’s just nonsense, IMO. That is even worse than being upfront about your racism.

 

[samiam5211]

You mean this Atwater?



Here is the transcript I found with interview:
https://www.bradford-delong.com/201...p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html

I just don't think this is an absolute as everyone thinks it is. By the interview that is often used as proof, you can see it was edited to show this while taken in the full, it kind of shows just the opposite.

If a 'troll' has a different opinion from the Democratic party, then by all means, you can call Mr. Troll.

It's weird you feel like a quote was taken out of context.

He's just explaining how to get racists to vote for you without being a racist.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You mean this Atwater?



Here is the transcript I found with interview:
https://www.bradford-delong.com/201...p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html

I just don't think this is an absolute as everyone thinks it is. By the interview that is often used as proof, you can see it was edited to show this while taken in the full, it kind of shows just the opposite.

If a 'troll' has a different opinion from the Democratic party, then by all means, you can call Mr. Troll.

Can you please provide the context that makes his statement mean something different than what everyone else knows it to mean?

 

[Farb]

Alexander Lamis: Oh, I'll have to take a look at this. He's a very interesting politician and in this interview he was very candid about the black vote. He talked about that race in South Carolina in '78 for the Governor and the use of the appeal of the Republican candidate to, I guess the black vote and how it backfired on him because it was a delicate thing, he said. He went out and ran radio ads saying, 'black people why vote for the Democrats? What have they given you, the one party system, segregation and so forth.' Well, he over-did it, and I just thought that was interesting.

Lee Atwater: Campbell first got it, I mean I managed everything but his. So we're kind of two guys who grew up together on this stuff. Well, I think in my judgment Karl Marx used to write on entitlement. Race and religion will always be there. The real issue is ultimately the economic issue. I'm not sophisticated enough to be an economic determinant or anything like that, but race will be within the framework of culture, and I feel like there's almost going to be a class struggle like that and blacks are going to be statistically be on one side of it. And I think of, for instance, the Republican party and I tell these Republican candidates, they're going to have a hard time getting masses of black voters just by pointing at blacks who are in the air force, secretaries or something like that. They're going to either have to change that entire issue or keep the same issues, forget racism, let the chips fall where they may, and you're still going to have a black-white split just because of the economics involved.

Let me tell you something I did, I did a study for graduate work of Strom which I'd backed in '78. We got about 80% of the black vote in the traditional black precincts. Then I went back and selected 300 blacks, and I've gotta take their information and put it in a statement. So I went and selected 300 blacks that were 98, 96% black. $30,000 a year club people, meaning black lawyers, black doctors, black people making $30,000 which in '78 and '79 was like making $60,000, Strom got 38% of them. So now what affirmative action and all this is going to do in the long run is create a legitimate black middle class and upper middle class. That voter, in my judgment will be more likely to vote with his economic interest than he will anything else. And that is the voter that I think of just through a very slow, but very steady process of we'll go with it.

Because I'm finding that now. The blacks that me in a few things have been doctors, lawyers and people like that, and they're very interested in getting wealth. And they're getting nothing out of the bread bowl. They get nothing. So I think that is basically what's going to happen and I think that race as such is going to dissolve as an issue, but you are going to have the race question in the sense of on one side, you're going to have a guy who's a millionaire and he's got something kind-of like the guy who's making $10,000 a year. You know, he's busting his arse and putting into the system. He's paying taxes, and somebody else is not doing anything and taking out of the system. Those two guys, the George Wallace voter and the millionaire have something in common.

And I'll tell you something else, statistically as the number of non-producers in the system move toward 50%, that makes the system more and more polarized to where the Wallace guy and the traditional Republican closer and closer together as they become threatened. As the taxes go up an inflation goes up we're causing mild production growth in the south to head south.

 

[samiam5211]

Alexander Lamis: Oh, I'll have to take a look at this. He's a very interesting politician and in this interview he was very candid about the black vote. He talked about that race in South Carolina in '78 for the Governor and the use of the appeal of the Republican candidate to, I guess the black vote and how it backfired on him because it was a delicate thing, he said. He went out and ran radio ads saying, 'black people why vote for the Democrats? What have they given you, the one party system, segregation and so forth.' Well, he over-did it, and I just thought that was interesting.

Lee Atwater: Campbell first got it, I mean I managed everything but his. So we're kind of two guys who grew up together on this stuff. Well, I think in my judgment Karl Marx used to write on entitlement. Race and religion will always be there. The real issue is ultimately the economic issue. I'm not sophisticated enough to be an economic determinant or anything like that, but race will be within the framework of culture, and I feel like there's almost going to be a class struggle like that and blacks are going to be statistically be on one side of it. And I think of, for instance, the Republican party and I tell these Republican candidates, they're going to have a hard time getting masses of black voters just by pointing at blacks who are in the air force, secretaries or something like that. They're going to either have to change that entire issue or keep the same issues, forget racism, let the chips fall where they may, and you're still going to have a black-white split just because of the economics involved.

Let me tell you something I did, I did a study for graduate work of Strom which I'd backed in '78. We got about 80% of the black vote in the traditional black precincts. Then I went back and selected 300 blacks, and I've gotta take their information and put it in a statement. So I went and selected 300 blacks that were 98, 96% black. $30,000 a year club people, meaning black lawyers, black doctors, black people making $30,000 which in '78 and '79 was like making $60,000, Strom got 38% of them. So now what affirmative action and all this is going to do in the long run is create a legitimate black middle class and upper middle class. That voter, in my judgment will be more likely to vote with his economic interest than he will anything else. And that is the voter that I think of just through a very slow, but very steady process of we'll go with it.

Because I'm finding that now. The blacks that me in a few things have been doctors, lawyers and people like that, and they're very interested in getting wealth. And they're getting nothing out of the bread bowl. They get nothing. So I think that is basically what's going to happen and I think that race as such is going to dissolve as an issue, but you are going to have the race question in the sense of on one side, you're going to have a guy who's a millionaire and he's got something kind-of like the guy who's making $10,000 a year. You know, he's busting his arse and putting into the system. He's paying taxes, and somebody else is not doing anything and taking out of the system. Those two guys, the George Wallace voter and the millionaire have something in common.

And I'll tell you something else, statistically as the number of non-producers in the system move toward 50%, that makes the system more and more polarized to where the Wallace guy and the traditional Republican closer and closer together as they become threatened. As the taxes go up an inflation goes up we're causing mild production growth in the south to head south.

You're going to have to explain how you think this shows he was taken out of context.

 

[MT15]

All that is fine, Farb, but we were actually discussing the migration of southern voters from mostly identifying as Democratic to mostly identifying as Republican. The migration, as I understand it, took place during the 60s. (This Atwater thing is a bit of a detour. Atwater knew how to appeal to white voters who weren’t happy with desegregation and Civil Rights in general, as did every other political strategist who worked the R side of the aisle. But I do appreciate the context. I wish it were written down rather than a transcript of verbal remarks, sometimes it is hard to discern what he means.)

Anyway-the southern break with the R party became apparent starting in 1964. Before that the South was solidly Democratic. Goldwater carried the Deep South, and almost nowhere else. The 1964 election is fascinating.

 

[Farb]

Atwater himself, through the whole interview keeps getting at the shift was due to economic and not race. He even says that racism in the south is pretty much gone by this (80s) time.

 

[MT15]

Well, that’s not how I take what he means. But he speaks very vaguely. I took what he said to mean that it wasn’t in politicians’ best interest to overtly make race an issue - but they could still push policies that favor white voters.

 

[V Chip]

Lee Atwater: ... Race and religion will always be there.
... but race will be within the framework of culture, and I feel like there's almost going to be a class struggle like that and blacks are going to be statistically be on one side of it.
... you're still going to have a black-white split just because of the economics involved.

... but you are going to have the race question in the sense of on one side, you're going to have a guy who's a millionaire and he's got something kind-of like the guy who's making $10,000 a year. You know, he's busting his arse and putting into the system. He's paying taxes, and somebody else is not doing anything and taking out of the system.
...
statistically as the number of non-producers in the system move toward 50%, that makes the system more and more polarized to where the Wallace guy and the traditional Republican closer and closer together as they become threatened.

I think this means something other than what you think it means.

He's basically saying... blacks will always be on the outside of the class struggle... blacks are the "takers" in the economic system... blacks are the "non-producers" who will polarize the Wallace voters. He's saying economically blacks will always be poor and anything the government does to correct this will move the Wallace voters to the same side as the rich Republicans.

He's saying the exact goal of the Southern Strategy.

 

[V Chip]

Atwater himself, through the whole interview keeps getting at the shift was due to economic and not race. He even says that racism in the south is pretty much gone by this (80s) time.

When he says that he means overt racism. That's what the whole "n...n....n..." part was about. He says that by the time Reagan was president you didn't have to appeal to Wallace voters by being overtly racist, you could do it in economic terms that had the same end result.

Sadly though, now it's come back to being much more overt.

 

[Farb]

Well, that’s not how I take what he means. But he speaks very vaguely. I took what he said to mean that it wasn’t in politicians’ best interest to overtly make race an issue - but they could still push policies that favor white voters.

I posted the entire transcript, it worth a read. It turns out that the policies for white voters were actually policies for wealthy voters.....white and black.
That is why the blue collar (black and white) remained with the Democrats up until the 90s.

 

[Farb]

I think this means something other than what you think it means.

He's basically saying... blacks will always be on the outside of the class struggle... blacks are the "takers" in the economic system... blacks are the "non-producers" who will polarize the Wallace voters. He's saying economically blacks will always be poor and anything the government does to correct this will move the Wallace voters to the same side as the rich Republicans.

He's saying the exact goal of the Southern Strategy.

I would read the whole transcript that I posted.

 

[V Chip]

I would read the whole transcript that I posted.

I have. And even better, *I* understood it.

 

[MT15]

I posted the entire transcript, it worth a read. It turns out that the policies for white voters were actually policies for wealthy voters.....white and black.
That is why the blue collar (black and white) remained with the Democrats up until the 90s.

Why then did Goldwater carry the Deep South in 1964, if white blue collar voters were still with the Democratic Party? The only other state he carried was his home state other than those Deep South states.

What little I have read said that the migration from D to R was gradual. It started first with national elections and then worked its way down to state and local. Do you have any splits that show the migration was along income rather than race?

 

[MT15]

Back to CRT, DeSantis is trying real hard to be a dictator.

 

[MT15]

I thought Rs believed in capitalism and the free market? This seems kinda socialist-y.