Refreshing...If There Were Only More Black Leaders Like This One...

Oh no! Not….WOKE!

Handmaid for Jesus said:

But if their eyes are open, they would be "WOKE".

Click to expand...

Akita Suggagaki said:

"Baucham says he doesn’t believe in white privilege."

Well, you will have to tell us what he does believe.

Click to expand...

The privilege to believe other people’s problems aren’t real and charge an excessive amount of cash for a book about it.

CRT is a pure Marxist idiology. It comes from Critical Theory and Critical Law Theory. CT started in Frankfort Germany in the 1930s from an institute that was originally going to call themselves "Institute if Marxism." The whole idea was to try and destroy western thought norms and institutions. They believed that there had to be an overthrow of class, nation states, family, capitalist systems and God in order to set up this Marxist utopia. Of Course being supporters of Stalin they had to leave Germany and found a home at the Columbia University in NY. This then evolved into Critical Legal Theory. They realized that law would be the way to overturn society. One if it's main theorists Duncan Kennedy said.

For the [MPM] project, the demand for agreement and commitment on the basis of representation with the pretension to objectivity is an enemy. The specific enemies have been the central ethical/theoretical concepts of bourgeois culture, including God, the autonomous individual choosing self, conventional morality, the family, manhood and womanhood, the nation state, humanity.

Ibid.

" style="box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; font-family: "gotham a", "gotham b"; font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.6875rem; color: rgb(0, 147, 208); vertical-align: super;">19

They found a "new revolutionary base" in people of color, labor, ecological groups, women and homosexuals and used them to merge into a a new revolutionary base to accomplish their goals of removing individuality, capitalism, God, the family, accepted morality, manhood, womanhood, the nation state and humanity as a whole. This all started in the 1970s. All this for the goal of pushing Marxist ideology. And we see that action all thought the rest of the 1900s with the rise of all the various groups and calls of change due to crisis.

Enter CRT which continues this ideology of the destruction of all aspects of society through unrelenting attacks against every aspect as states above. They have become even more focused on white people alone. With the assumption that bigotry and bias are present in all society against people if color they have upped the ante and found a greater influence. They had to move away from the he civil rights movement which sought to create a color blind society and focus on individuals to a group think bias to create division among groups. They must get rid of anything that threatens the Marxist agenda. BLM is right in line with this as it's stated purpose is what the original stated purpose of CT and CLT is.

In order to accomplish this rights must b removed. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property rights, parental rights, and individual rights of ownership. All in the name of CRT. The goals are all the same. The destruction of the individual, capitalism, family, and everything else to be replaced by identity politics which then is used to continue to push toward Marxist Ideology.

As a result of CRT we have this kind of stuff out there.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/yale-...ow-she-fantasizes-about-shooting-white-people

And CRT is leading white people to cancel themselves.

White Spanish Teacher Cancels Herself for Being White

rjs330 said:

As a result of CRT we have this kind of stuff out there.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/yale-...ow-she-fantasizes-about-shooting-white-people

Click to expand...

She's pretty gross. I can't imagine what help she would be as a doctor.

Here is something I copied from Encyclopedia Britannica

In their work Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first published in 2001, the legal scholars Richard Delgado (one of the founders of CRT) and Jean Stefancic discuss several general propositions that they claim would be accepted by many critical race theorists, despite the considerable variation of belief among members of the movement. These “basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following claims:
(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.
(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.

(3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.

(4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites.

(5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on. Finally,

(6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism. This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.

A couple of key things that stand out to me are:
"considerable variation of belief among members of the movement"
Broad topic with assuredly some more conservative and progressive points of view within CRT.

"the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism."
I think people's personal experiences with racism should not be dismissed as "unusual" when in their experience it is not unusual.

Handmaid for Jesus said:

I disagree. The problem I see is people get defensive and start to take things personally when it is not meant to be that way. I think the air needs to be cleared whenever racial history is discussed. There are things that people of color contributed to American excellence that has never been acknowledged by white people in America. It is funny because while white people want people of color to forget their part in America's history, they keep promoting the part of white people.

Click to expand...

What would that be? I'm genuinely curious what has been contributed but not appreciated.

renniks said:

What would that be? I'm genuinely curious what has been contributed but not appreciated.

Click to expand...

Here ya go:

Army vet's mic cut in speech on Black people’s role in Memorial Day (usatoday.com)

Organizers of a Memorial Day ceremony turned off a speaker’s microphone when the former U.S. Army officer began talking about how freed Black slaves had honored fallen soldiers soon after the Civil War.

Retired Lt. Col. Barnard Kemter, who spent 30 years in the Army and served in the Persian Gulf War, said he included the story in his speech because he wanted to share the history of how Memorial Day originated.

Click to expand...

rturner76 said:

Here is something I copied from Encyclopedia Britannica

In their work Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, first published in 2001, the legal scholars Richard Delgado (one of the founders of CRT) and Jean Stefancic discuss several general propositions that they claim would be accepted by many critical race theorists, despite the considerable variation of belief among members of the movement. These “basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following claims:
(1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural.
(2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.

(3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people.

(4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites.

(5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on. Finally,

(6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism. This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.

A couple of key things that stand out to me are:
"considerable variation of belief among members of the movement"
Broad topic with assuredly some more conservative and progressive points of view within CRT.

"the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism."
I think people's personal experiences with racism should not be dismissed as "unusual" when in their experience it is not unusual.

Click to expand...

Posting factual information...shame on you

renniks said:

What would that be? I'm genuinely curious what has been contributed but not appreciated.

Click to expand...

A lot of things. Have you not read the thread? Read Post #149 for one example. Read the thread for more.If you are genuinely curious as you say. Read the thread.

Handmaid for Jesus said:

A lot of things. Have you not read the thread? Read Post #149 for one example. Read the thread for more.If you are genuinely curious as you say. Read the thread.

Click to expand...

A holiday we celebrate every year isn't appreciated?

Handmaid for Jesus said:

A lot of things. Have you not read the thread? Read Post #149 for one example. Read the thread for more.If you are genuinely curious as you say. Read the thread.

Click to expand...

So some people, whose ethic background we aren't aware of, didn't approve of a speech. That equals white people not appreciating black contributions?

renniks said:

So some people, whose ethic background we aren't aware of, didn't approve of a speech. That equals white people not appreciating black contributions?

Click to expand...

Those white people didn't appreciate the black contribution...and apparently thought others would approve of them cutting the mic.

But then again, the white man at the mic did appreciate the black contribution, and intended to connect to other white people who would appreciate it as well

SilverBear said:

Posting factual information...shame on you

Click to expand...

Facts are a good place to start but I prefer my preconceived notions, they are much more facty.

RDKirk said:

Those white people didn't appreciate the black contribution...and apparently thought others would approve of them cutting the mic.

But then again, the white man at the mic did appreciate the black contribution, and intended to connect to other white people who would appreciate it as well

Click to expand...

So, then, the claim that white people don't appreciate black contributions is demonstrated to be false by t a post intended to prove it true. All you are showing is that there are some racists in every race.

renniks said:

So some people, whose ethic background we aren't aware of, didn't approve of a speech. That equals white people not appreciating black contributions?

Click to expand...

Well, we have been discussing the suppression of the contributions of people of color that got left out of the history books for some reason. And how some white people (some, not all) would rather not hear about it at all. Like the incident with the people cutting the mic when a respected retired officer tried to share about how it was African Americans who started Memorial Day. I didn't know that, did you? I am grateful to the officer for sharing a bit of American History that I did not know.And there is other history that has been suppressed like that.

Handmaid for Jesus said:

Well, we have been discussing the suppression of the contributions of people of color that got left out of the history books for some reason.

Click to expand...

It didn't get left out of mine. The only thing that I recall as a surprise was when I learned in college that white people weren't running around Africa rounding up slaves. I grew up in the end of the era when they showed Roots and we all imagined these awful white slavers throwing lassos around the tribal Africans. I felt foolish learning that didn't really happen and the buying and selling of people was normal on the African continent for millenia before Europeans showed up.

There's lots we don't teach about history.

And how some white people (some, not all) would rather not hear about it at all. Like the incident with the people cutting the mic when a respected retired officer tried to share about how it was African Americans who started Memorial Day. I didn't know that, did you? I am grateful to the officer for sharing a bit of American History that I did not know.And there is other history that has been suppressed like that.

Click to expand...

Is it important? Should we remind everyone the race of the person who did something every time we do it?

Ana the Ist said:

It didn't get left out of mine. The only thing that I recall as a surprise was when I learned in college that white people weren't running around Africa rounding up slaves. I grew up in the end of the era when they showed Roots and we all imagined these awful white slavers throwing lassos around the tribal Africans. I felt foolish learning that didn't really happen and the buying and selling of people was normal on the African continent for millenia before Europeans showed up.



There's lots we don't teach about history.

Click to expand...

What you are talking about is HIS-story. They traded with African and they also kidnapped them, whatever what easiest or least expensive at the time. Until they landed enough troops to just enslave the African IN Africa. Did that also never happen? They also did things like arm one tribe with the understanding that they will bring them slaves and they paid bounty hunters to hunt for slaves.

Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"As the demand for slaves grew, the Portuguese began to enter the interior of Africa to forcibly take captives; as other Europeans became involved in the slave trade, generally they remained on the coast and purchased captives from Africans who had transported them from the interior."

It seems kidnapping did go on according to them, yes by Africans but yes also by Europeans.

rturner76 said:

What you are talking about is HIS-story. They traded with African and they also kidnapped them, whatever what easiest or least expensive at the time. Until they landed enough troops to just enslave the African IN Africa. Did that also never happen? They also did things like arm one tribe with the understanding that they will bring them slaves and they paid bounty hunters to hunt for slaves.

Encyclopedia Britannica says:

"As the demand for slaves grew, the Portuguese began to enter the interior of Africa to forcibly take captives; as other Europeans became involved in the slave trade, generally they remained on the coast and purchased captives from Africans who had transported them from the interior."

It seems kidnapping did go on according to them, yes by Africans but yes also by Europeans.

Click to expand...

Sorry, yes...there was a smaller number of slaves rounded up later in the trade but even then....any long term stay in Africa was widely considered a death sentence due to the lack of immunity to African diseases.

As much as I respect Encyclopedia Brittanica....there's better sources to get an idea of what it was like....

My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader

Now, you might read that and think "wow...that's incredibly horrible". How could they hold a man like that in such high esteem? How could they possibly treat their own tribal members this way? Buried alive? No thanks, I'd rather be hanged from a tree.

I suppose we could teach children this....but just like the Tulsa race massacre, I'd probably want to emphasize that these people were acting out of circumstances considered normal for their time and place. It's not a reflection on anyone today nor should we judge anyone by the actions of people who shared a skin tone with them from the past.