I gave you a quotation and a link. According to CRT, the only reason you white colonizers of Australia do anything for Aborigine people is for the sake of keeping your position of supremacy secure.
It was.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I gave you a quotation and a link. According to CRT, the only reason you white colonizers of Australia do anything for Aborigine people is for the sake of keeping your position of supremacy secure.I think we should stick with the concept of racism as being a negative. That it exhibits a negative attitude towards people who are different re ethnic background. If I suggest that we should do more for Aborigine people in Australia then using the term racist for that is nonsensical.
The position argued against was that the two examples given in the relevant post, which didn't include crt, were racist. The argument against that I just put forward above.
So 'Hey everyone, we all have to consider aspects of racist behaviour which we might not be aware' is an attempt to secure a superior position? This might be just me, but it seems that you are asking people to accept that perhaps their social position shouldn't be assumed based on their where their family originated. That it isn't relevant to their social position.
It was.If that's racist, then the word has been redefined while I wasn't paying attention.
I don't know who is claiming that, where they are claiming that or why. But we both know that it's patently absurd.According to CRT, the only reason you white colonizers of Australia do anything for Aborigine people is for the sake of keeping your position of supremacy secure.
Explains a lot.It was.
I gave you a quote and gave you a link.I don't know who is claiming that, where they are claiming that or why. But we both know that it's patently absurd.
Explains a lot.
My apologies. I should have read that. But I think we both think it's absurd, which is the point I was making. If anyone put that forward as an argument is any form of racial education in a school or business then they should be taken to task.I gave you a quote and gave you a link.
Trump says he won’t allow ‘definite anti-white feeling’ in US
The ex-president was asked in a wide-ranging interview with TIME about polls showing that a majority of his supporters believe that anti-white racism poses a greater problem in America than anti-black racism. Asked if he agreed, Trump replied, ‘Oh, I think that there is a lot to be said about that.’
'I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed either.’
When asked how he would address that, Trump said ‘it would be a very tough thing to address, frankly’.
‘But if you look right now, there’s absolutely a bias against white and that’s a problem.’
Blaming someone for supposed racist attitudes is racist?
And yet, that is CRT.My apologies. I should have read that. But I think we both think it's absurd, which is the point I was making. If anyone put that forward as an argument is any form of racial education in a school or business then they should be taken to task.
There is obvious embarrassment for any group where it is shown that they discriminate against a minority. Australian society is no different. What we have done - and haven't done, for the original inhabitants, is shameful. And we are to be held to account for it. Righting the wrongs would go some way to reconciling our stated position and our actual one. We'd obviously feel less guilty if we'd done the right thing initially. And I can imagine someone (even a government) thinking 'this doesn't reflect well on us so we need to do something'. But to suggest that we'd do it specifically to benefit ourselves is a pretty desperate interpretation.
In any case, what would be the solution? Do nothing? It's a crazy position to take.
By the old definition.If those attitudes are "supposed" (assumed) and you're assuming them because of the person's race....yes, it's racist.
It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be. If some idiot puts that forward as an honest proposal then he should be called out on it. But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong. It's not.And yet, that is CRT.
By the old definition.
But sociology must have new professors, and they have to come up with new concepts for their dissertations.
It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be.
But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong.
No dog whistles there!You come across anti-white racists once in a while... They tend to be the most unintelligent and oftentimes, the most mentally unstable of individuals. One might refer to them as being "savage".
No dog whistles there!
I'm glad you recognize that idiocy at least. Now if you could only recognize that it is one of the principles of CRT. And a reason why crt should be kept out if the schools.It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be. If some idiot puts that forward as an honest proposal then he should be called out on it. But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong. It's not.
This is why it doesn't work to say, "What if a white person said about black people what you said about white people?"We're all still using that definition though.
Ask any of those fools if the statement "All (insert racial slur) are lazy degenerate savages" would be a racist statement if it were on their blackboard, whiteboard, projection screen, TED talk background, etc....
And when they answer "yes, of course" you simply ask how they can possibly know that without any thorough examination of the power dynamics between whomever wrote it and the target of the slur?
I've never seen anyone even try to answer that....and it's pretty obvious why.
No jokes here, folks! Racism, no matter by who, is always a primitive, and savage trait. Do you disagree?
This is why it doesn't work to say, "What if a white person said about black people what you said about white people?"
This is why it doesn't work to say "What if a man said about women what you said about men?"
This even factors into the student unrest over the war in Israel as "colonizer versus natives"...and why Palestinians have vigorous LGBGTIA+ support.
This is all where Critical Theory (which is ivory tower Marxism...they explicitly say so themselves) goes. It's all about identifying an eternal Oppressor with whom there can be no treaty, compromise, or reconciliation.
Anything can be done to anyone identified as the Oppressor, and it's all righteous. That's how the Chinese Cultural Revolution got started. That's why physics professors in China could be slaughtered...because physics is a teaching of the imperialist Oppressor. And we see that starting in American universities today...science, history, philosophy... being discarded by Critical Theory as tools of the Oppressor. Professors must recant or be persecuted.
The alternative is that racism is an intelligent, enlightened trait, understood by a more learned society.
I hope that's not what you're suggesting!
It's so stupid that white people are called barbarians and brown people savages... I don't acknowledge such nonsense. To me, the two words are synonymous, and I suggest everyone here stop playing along with the historical narratives of the words - it only continues the division.
It doesn't matter what color you are. If you're a racist, you're a barbarian and a savage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?