• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Banning Critical Race Theory

Good observation:

PhDeac said:
Ruby Bridges herself is only 66 years old. Her mom died at 86 only a few months ago. The shitstains in that photo are probably in their 70s now and have likely never stopped making lives hell for Black people.

People like Angus, jhmd, Junebug, and sailor are more likely to stand with them than Ruby Bridges. That's who we're dealing with. They didn't want Black people in their schools in the 1960s. They don't want Black thought in their schools now.
Click to expand...

lol @ "Black thought"

Like there is a type of thought to which all Black people must adhere. I guess you've never heard of Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, or (Uncle) Clarence Thomas? You should check them out some time. Or do they fail your "Black" litmus test?

Also, while you are at it, maybe look into Leslie Harris's views on the 1619 Project:

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America....

Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”

I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war....

Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones’ introductory essay. In addition, the paper’s characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619....

Here is the complicated picture of the Revolutionary era that the New York Times missed: White Southerners might have wanted to preserve slavery in their territory, but white Northerners were much more conflicted, with many opposing the ownership of enslaved people in the North even as they continued to benefit from investments in the slave trade and slave colonies. More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition....
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

She goes on to criticize those who would take the errors in the 1619 Report to undermine the entire enterprise, concluding by saying:

It is easy to correct facts; it is much harder to correct a worldview that consistently ignores and distorts the role of African Americans and race in our history in order to present white people as all powerful and solely in possession to the keys of equality, freedom and democracy.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement, or, more accurately, everything after the semicolon. Based on the responses on this board, however, I'm not as convinced that "it is easy to correct facts," at least among ideologues.
 
PhDeac said:
People like Angus, jhmd, Junebug, and sailor are more likely to stand with them than Ruby Bridges. That's who we're dealing with. They didn't want Black people in their schools in the 1960s. They don't want Black thought in their schools now.
Click to expand...

If you ever wonder why people don't listen to you, you should stop.
 
WokeandBroke said:
If you ever wonder why people don't listen to you, you should stop.
Click to expand...

Seriously ph, you should back down. It’s simply another amazing coincidence that Junebug finds himself defending the positions of openly racist people.
 
06deacon said:
Seriously ph, you should back down. It’s simply another amazing coincidence that Junebug finds himself defending the positions of openly racist people.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting accusation in the time when the left is "openly" advocating for de jure racial discrimination for public resources in 2021.
 
Racist conservatives for centuries have supported policies that treated people as less than

Liberals support policies that promote equality including righting the wrongs of those racist conservative policies.

Racist conservatives claim that the liberals are being racist.

Conservatives love to claim that racism is over, or would be if people stopped talking about it, knowing that many of the racist policies they enacted still exist.
 
WFFaithful said:
Racist conservatives for centuries have supported policies that treated people as less than

Liberals support policies that promote equality including righting the wrongs of those racist conservative policies.

Racist conservatives claim that the liberals are being racist.

Conservatives love to claim that racism is over, or would be if people stopped talking about it, knowing that many of the racist policies they enacted still exist.
Click to expand...

Please identify which existing public policy is more racist than Affirmative Action in 2021.
 
06deacon said:
Seriously ph, you should back down. It’s simply another amazing coincidence that Junebug finds himself defending the positions of openly racist people.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They’re too far gone at this point. That last comment takes the cake. This guy thinks the most racist policy is that you have to at least try to hire people who aren’t white men.
 
WHAT ABOUT THE ASIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. They’re too far gone at this point. That last comment takes the cake. This guy thinks the most racist policy is that you have to at least try to hire people who aren’t white men.
Click to expand...

If you ever wonder why people don't listen to you, you should stop.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Please identify which existing public policy is more racist than Affirmative Action in 2021.
Click to expand...
I know you're a troll and this is about scoring individual points for you, but if you actually see yourself as a compassionate conservative it's simple: equity and equality are not the same thing. Sure, affirmative action on paper appears to offer an "advantage" in particular contexts to individual black Americans. You call this "racism" because its practice is by definition a kind of inequality.

But this line of thinking, founded on and (ostensibly) interested in achieving *real* equality among Americans is impossible, or at least chimeric, because of how black people have been treated in this country from its foundation.

And one of the goals of CRT, as it were, is to make explicit how we as a country have not in fact achieved the "equality" that your post takes as it's logical starting point (and thus why dismantling things like the Voting Rights Act is a particularly insidious form of racism).
 
wakephan09 said:
I know you're a troll and this is about scoring individual points for you, but if you actually see yourself as a compassionate conservative it's simple: equity and equality are not the same thing. Sure, affirmative action on paper appears to offer an "advantage" in particular contexts to individual black Americans. You call this "racism" because its practice is by definition a kind of inequality.

But this line of thinking, founded on and (ostensibly) interested in achieving *real* equality among Americans is impossible, or at least chimeric, because of how black people have been treated in this country from its foundation.

And one of the goals of CRT, as it were, is to make explicit how we as a country have not in fact achieved the "equality" that your post takes as it's logical starting point (and thus why dismantling things like the Voting Rights Act is a particularly insidious form of racism).
Click to expand...

So with my expectations calibrated as low as possible (and disappointers never disappoint, s/o to Strick and Ph), I awaited an answer. Thank you for at least attempting to answer my question. Progress.

Explain how a facially neutral change to a statute is even close to de jure racial discrimination. We just had a SCOTUS ruling on this issue that might have some useful things for you to address.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Explain how a facially neutral change to a statute is even close to de jure racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

You know who has a really great take on how a facially neutral change to a statute is even close to de jure racial discrimination? I'll give you a hint. You've been whining about them for the last 61 pages.
 
wakephan09 said:
I know you're a troll and this is about scoring individual points for you, but if you actually see yourself as a compassionate conservative it's simple: equity and equality are not the same thing. Sure, affirmative action on paper appears to offer an "advantage" in particular contexts to individual black Americans. You call this "racism" because its practice is by definition a kind of inequality.

But this line of thinking, founded on and (ostensibly) interested in achieving *real* equality among Americans is impossible, or at least chimeric, because of how black people have been treated in this country from its foundation.

And one of the goals of CRT, as it were, is to make explicit how we as a country have not in fact achieved the "equality" that your post takes as it's logical starting point (and thus why dismantling things like the Voting Rights Act is a particularly insidious form of racism).
Click to expand...

And then the former president of the United States does things like cut the legs off of AFFH and we have to pretend that a desire to reinstitutionalize racial discrimination/segregation is subtle and insidious.
 
Strickland33 said:
You know who has a really great take on how a facially neutral change to a statute is even close to de jure racial discrimination? I'll give you a hint. You've been whining about them for the last 61 pages.
Click to expand...

Somebody is learning how to apply the 14th Amendment on the fly, and it isn't going well. At all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top