Looking For a Good, Short Definition of Critical Race Theory? It Doesn’t Exist. Here’s One Anyway.

[RDKirk]

I

The term "white boy," used in his post when he doesn't agree with the statements.

Which post was that where I used the term "white boy?"

 

[RDKirk]

So call me a liar, it's what you're implying

Fact is, they arrested 10 of us who were at a bus stop, nowhere near the enlisted men's club.

We were taken to jail then released without even being told why we were arrested.

Everyone knew the reason why and later MP's who came over to Okinawa, told us it was the policy.

I'm not implying that you're lying. I'm asserting that you don't know what you think you know. If you're going to insist such an insanely 'way over-the-top racial act is "military policy," that's going to require more than your personal "MP told us."

 

[miamited]

@JimR-OCDS

Morning Jim,

Is it possible you're not using the current definition of CRT which is being taught, that the nation was founded on oppressive, racist white men and still holds today ?

Well, let's parse that out. Several of the movers and shakers of the colonial era owned slaves. Paid them poorly, if at all, beyond their basic needs. Built their kingdoms on the sweat labor of their free labor pool. Today, you yourself have been a victim of, what you called racist attacks. Your relative has been victim of racist attacks, although he was strong enough in character not to let such attacks define who he is. I've described two acquaintances of mine who are greatly racist and we have the proof of people like Dylan Roof. A man who not only obviously is a racist but apparently felt justified in going out and murdering several and thinking that was alright. All of whom were and are white people. So, I'm not so sure that teaching such a thing is actually not based on factual evidence.

Yes, it makes us feel bad about ourselves, and probably should. But just because a line of facts makes one feel bad doesn't mean the line of facts is incorrect. If you talk to christian gays they will tell you that we've all misunderstood God's word in its condemnation of homosexuality. By denying the fact, then they can feel good about their activities because, in their mind, and in trying to teach us, homosexuality isn't a sin. But, their facts are wrong. Humans have a general tendency to do that. None of us like to feel bad about ourselves because deep down inside most of us want to think that we're pretty good folk. It makes us feel better.

So, my testimony is that our racist attitudes don't run quite as deep as they used to because today we do have a lot of people who are working on trying to accept that all men are created equal. Where as a few centuries ago, despite having actually written the words into the constitution, nobody even tried to think that out and put it into practice. That generation likely made themselves feel good by denying that black 'men' were men. They were some kind of African animal with tails. When they wrote those words they knew that they were referring only to 'white' men. Indians were sub-human. Blacks were sub-human. Asians were sub-human. Only good ole white Europeans were actually 'men'.

Today, while racism isn't quite so 'out there', there are still thousands upon thousands of racist people living among us. Some with very, very strong feelings on the subject if any of the hailing and proclaiming of white nationalist groups over the past few decades is to be believed. We have actually proven that racism is still practiced, though not legally, in real estate transactions. Thereby keeping 'white' neighborhoods white. So, to some degree, racism is still an issue in present day America.

Let me be clear that my issue is only as regards racism. Deviant sexual behavior is, as far as I'm concerned, a choice. It is not the way that God made anyone. Black skin is not a choice and is the way that God made some of us. Likely to see just how far we'd be able to get with the 'love one another' mantra. Just as in our constitution, 'all men are created equal' sounds nice and wonderful for us to say, but actually putting such an idea into practice has been a fight since the beginning of our nation.

The term "white boy," used in his post when he doesn't agree with the statements.

I'm not finding what you're referencing prior to my post, but is it the word 'white' or 'boy' that you're offended by. I ask because I've used the term 'white people' and 'good ole white boys' in my posts also in reference to the race of people and the attitude and concept that such terms infer. If that makes me a racist, then once again we see that there is still a problem with racism, even in your own mind.

The problem is that you seem to be turning a blind eye to how CRT is being taught today and using a definition of the past.

Yes, I will admit that my only experience and knowledge with CRT teaching, is what I've read in all the news reporting about it. I haven't actually attended a class or looked over the entire curriculum of such classes.

Cripes, what year do you life in ? This hasn't happened since the 60's and it was done in portions of the south. I never seen such in my 70 years here in MA. Did it happen ? Of course it did, but we're trying to move forward, not backwards.

Yes, those examples were, for the most part from the past. However, I'm not like you in believing that once such a practice is stopped, then nobody remembers it any longer or the practice have any effect on at least the next couple of generations. If the practices no longer have any effect on today, then why did you suffer racism? Your nephew? Why are my acquaintances still strongly racist? Answer: Because the division created by such practices 60, even 100, years ago are still supporting such divisive racial thinking in people today. The human condition and thinking and understanding does not stop or change on a dime across an entire group of people.

We're going to push back and not be bullied into trashing the actual history of the nation and replace it with some fabricated ideas from leftist.

I would ask, is it 'fabricated' or just different? Is it your claim that the historical narratives being used in CRT classes to support the training, didn't happen? Let's do keep in mine that the word fabricated means 'made up'. From what I've read on the subject, the facts and numbers used to support the claim of 'white privilege' and then current racist attitudes, aren't 'fabricated'. They are just presented more strongly and with greater effect than the current history curriculum that pretty much never mentions the issue of racism in America. Maybe if, as a nation, we really do stop and look into the mirror as to just how terrible we have been at times in our treatment of others; if we work to promote some empathy that arouses within us the feelings that such treatment caused in the victims who actually confronted the hate. Then the haters might begin to understand how wrong it is that they make people feel such fear and trepidation because of the color of their skin.

Can you imagine what a man, who is truly innocent, must feel when a group of guys hog tie him and put a noose around his neck in anticipation of hanging him till he is dead? The fear that man must be experiencing in the moment? All because his skin is black. Something that he couldn't have changed no matter how hard he might wish to try in the moment. It's not something he can cry out, "I promise I'll never do it again!!!" While I agree that's an old example, I firmly believe that there is a large part of our national community that still operates on some level of such hate for that man whose skin is darker in color.

We are moving forward. As we do, we are going to try different approaches to address the problem, at least for those who still see that the problem does still exist.

God bless,
Ted

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm not implying that you're lying. I'm asserting that you don't know what you think you know. If you're going to insist such an insanely 'way over-the-top racial act is "military policy," that's going to require more than your personal "MP told us."

It happened back in 1971. The internet didn't exist and the order was verbal, not written


But hey, you can still imply I'm lying. After all, it was my experience not yours

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Which post was that where I used the term "white boy?"

@RDKirk

I didn't know there was a name for it, although I'm not surprised. Yes, people often tend to find the one exception to a rule, and thus say the rule isn't valid. Or, a few exceptions to a rule and claim that overall the rule isn't valid 'for most people'. It's like the good ole white boy proclaiming, "I know them 'n' can do better! Heck I know one that went to Harvard, although he got his education paid for by the welfare state as a part of that racial equity legislation that them 'n' always get."


Unless miamited copied and pasted wrong, this looks like your words.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

@JimR-OCDS

Morning Jim,



Well, let's parse that out. Several of the movers and shakers of the colonial era owned slaves. Paid them poorly, if at all, beyond their basic needs. Built their kingdoms on the sweat labor of their free labor pool. Today, you yourself have been a victim of, what you called racist attacks. Your relative has been victim of racist attacks, although he was strong enough in character not to let such attacks define who he is. I've described two acquaintances of mine who are greatly racist and we have the proof of people like Dylan Roof. A man who not only obviously is a racist but apparently felt justified in going out and murdering several and thinking that was alright. All of whom were and are white people. So, I'm not so sure that teaching such a thing is actually not based on factual evidence.

Yes, it makes us feel bad about ourselves, and probably should. But just because a line of facts makes one feel bad doesn't mean the line of facts is incorrect. If you talk to christian gays they will tell you that we've all misunderstood God's word in its condemnation of homosexuality. By denying the fact, then they can feel good about their activities because, in their mind, and in trying to teach us, homosexuality isn't a sin. But, their facts are wrong. Humans have a general tendency to do that. None of us like to feel bad about ourselves because deep down inside most of us want to think that we're pretty good folk. It makes us feel better.

So, my testimony is that our racist attitudes don't run quite as deep as they used to because today we do have a lot of people who are working on trying to accept that all men are created equal. Where as a few centuries ago, despite having actually written the words into the constitution, nobody even tried to think that out and put it into practice. That generation likely made themselves feel good by denying that black 'men' were men. They were some kind of African animal with tails. When they wrote those words they knew that they were referring only to 'white' men. Indians were sub-human. Blacks were sub-human. Asians were sub-human. Only good ole white Europeans were actually 'men'.

Today, while racism isn't quite so 'out there', there are still thousands upon thousands of racist people living among us. Some with very, very strong feelings on the subject if any of the hailing and proclaiming of white nationalist groups over the past few decades is to be believed. We have actually proven that racism is still practiced, though not legally, in real estate transactions. Thereby keeping 'white' neighborhoods white. So, to some degree, racism is still an issue in present day America.

Let me be clear that my issue is only as regards racism. Deviant sexual behavior is, as far as I'm concerned, a choice. It is not the way that God made anyone. Black skin is not a choice and is the way that God made some of us. Likely to see just how far we'd be able to get with the 'love one another' mantra. Just as in our constitution, 'all men are created equal' sounds nice and wonderful for us to say, but actually putting such an idea into practice has been a fight since the beginning of our nation.



I'm not finding what you're referencing prior to my post, but is it the word 'white' or 'boy' that you're offended by. I ask because I've used the term 'white people' and 'good ole white boys' in my posts also in reference to the race of people and the attitude and concept that such terms infer. If that makes me a racist, then once again we see that there is still a problem with racism, even in your own mind.



Yes, I will admit that my only experience and knowledge with CRT teaching, is what I've read in all the news reporting about it. I haven't actually attended a class or looked over the entire curriculum of such classes.



Yes, those examples were, for the most part from the past. However, I'm not like you in believing that once such a practice is stopped, then nobody remembers it any longer or the practice have any effect on at least the next couple of generations. If the practices no longer have any effect on today, then why did you suffer racism? Your nephew? Why are my acquaintances still strongly racist? Answer: Because the division created by such practices 60, even 100, years ago are still supporting such divisive racial thinking in people today. The human condition and thinking and understanding does not stop or change on a dime across an entire group of people.



I would ask, is it 'fabricated' or just different? Is it your claim that the historical narratives being used in CRT classes to support the training, didn't happen? Let's do keep in mine that the word fabricated means 'made up'. From what I've read on the subject, the facts and numbers used to support the claim of 'white privilege' and then current racist attitudes, aren't 'fabricated'. They are just presented more strongly and with greater effect than the current history curriculum that pretty much never mentions the issue of racism in America. Maybe if, as a nation, we really do stop and look into the mirror as to just how terrible we have been at times in our treatment of others; if we work to promote some empathy that arouses within us the feelings that such treatment caused in the victims who actually confronted the hate. Then the haters might begin to understand how wrong it is that they make people feel such fear and trepidation because of the color of their skin.

Can you imagine what a man, who is truly innocent, must feel when a group of guys hog tie him and put a noose around his neck in anticipation of hanging him till he is dead? The fear that man must be experiencing in the moment? All because his skin is black. Something that he couldn't have changed no matter how hard he might wish to try in the moment. It's not something he can cry out, "I promise I'll never do it again!!!" While I agree that's an old example, I firmly believe that there is a large part of our national community that still operates on some level of such hate for that man whose skin is darker in color.

We are moving forward. As we do, we are going to try different approaches to address the problem, at least for those who still see that the problem does still exist.

God bless,
Ted

So based on your opinion, me being Acadian, should hold hatred for the British for sending my ancestors into exile in 1757. After all, they were anti-Catholic bigots.

Of course that would be foolish and unChristian.

So, continuing to point out that the founding fathers had slaves, when slavery was legal in every culture in the world, to justify black hatred of white men today is also foolish.

Yes, racism exists and is wrong, but the best we can do is, not be racist.

As Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world.

That isn't happening with the CRT indoctrination being presented to school kids today.

Justification for vengeance is the main goal of those who hate.

 

[RDKirk]

@RDKirk

I didn't know there was a name for it, although I'm not surprised. Yes, people often tend to find the one exception to a rule, and thus say the rule isn't valid. Or, a few exceptions to a rule and claim that overall the rule isn't valid 'for most people'. It's like the good ole white boy proclaiming, "I know them 'n' can do better! Heck I know one that went to Harvard, although he got his education paid for by the welfare state as a part of that racial equity legislation that them 'n' always get."


Unless miamited copied and pasted wrong, this looks like your words.

You could have gone back to my actual post to get the ground truth.

But those were Miamited's words.

 

[RDKirk]

It happened back in 1971. The internet didn't exist and the order was verbal, not written


But hey, you can still imply I'm lying. After all, it was my experience not yours

By your own testimony, it was casual hearsay--at best--from the start.

 

[miamited]

@RDKirk

I didn't know there was a name for it, although I'm not surprised. Yes, people often tend to find the one exception to a rule, and thus say the rule isn't valid. Or, a few exceptions to a rule and claim that overall the rule isn't valid 'for most people'. It's like the good ole white boy proclaiming, "I know them 'n' can do better! Heck I know one that went to Harvard, although he got his education paid for by the welfare state as a part of that racial equity legislation that them 'n' always get."


Unless miamited copied and pasted wrong, this looks like your words.

Sorry to throw you under the bus @RDKirk, but yea, those were your words. LOL

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

You could have gone back to my actual post to get the ground truth.

But those were Miamited's words.

@RDKirk

Hey, no they're not!!! They were your words!!!!!! Nah, nah, nanana.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

@JimR-OCDS

Hi Jim,

When one uses the @(followed by a CF screen name) it denotes 'who' the person is responding to, or referencing them in some other way. It does not denote a 'copy/paste' post. That is generally identified by the darker colored dialogue box with the heading so-and-so (CF screen name) said:

See examples below:

So based on your opinion, me being Acadian, should hold hatred for the British for sending my ancestors into exile in 1757. After all, they were anti-Catholic bigots.

Oh, and BTW, if it were still a thing the the British were sending people into exile because they are anti-Catholic bigots, then yes, bringing that up in a historical sense to justify some cry of complaint that such a practice is still being used or supported. While I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that anyone should 'hold hatred', certainly not a christian, remembering and referencing the practice to make some point in an argument today is perfectly acceptable.

God bless,
Ted

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You could have gone back to my actual post to get the ground truth.

But those were Miamited's words.

That's why I asked if he had copied and pasted your post. He said no

 

[JimR-OCDS]

@JimR-OCDS

Hi Jim,

When one uses the @(followed by a CF screen name) it denotes 'who' the person is responding to, or referencing them in some other way. It does not denote a 'copy/paste' post. That is generally identified by the darker colored dialogue box with the heading so-and-so (CF screen name) said:

See examples below:


God bless,
Ted

I don't know what kind of device you use. It's why I asked if you copied and pasted RDKirk's words.

Some people correspond on here using cell phones, others use computers, like me.


It's best just to use your own words rather than responding with someone else's post.

 

[RDKirk]

Sorry to throw you under the bus @RDKirk, but yea, those were your words. LOL

God bless,
Ted

Which post was that?

 

[miamited]

@JimR-OCDS

Sorry if I misread your post back then. I didn't take it as an ask. More as an accusation.

So you copied RDKirk's race baiting post ?

If I'm not mistaken, in a later post when you pointed out my own words that you attributed to @RDKirk I asked for you to clarify for me what you were referencing in that post and that's why you brought forth the post where I used the term 'white boy'. If you read that post correctly, you'd see that I was making a point as to 'how' a 'good ole white boy' type, might say...

Anyway, no since in getting our panties tied up about it. I think we've both made our point in explaining our position of the issue.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

@RDKirk

Which post was that?

Why the one where you used the term 'white boy' of course. LOL

God bless,
Ted

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Time to move on !

 

[Michie]

Critical Race Theory: Public Schools are Taking Back Civic Unity | National Review

 

[Chrystal-J]

Yes, but it would be interesting to know your opinion. Do you not find the whiteness of Catholicism oppressive?

Interesting question, I'd like to know too.

 

[RDKirk]

@RDKirk



Why the one where you used the term 'white boy' of course. LOL

God bless,
Ted

Nope, never did.

Just to put that record straight.