And then you have this that has no basis in any historical discussion. The most radical thread in the 1619 Project is not its contention that slavery’s legacy continues to shape American institutions; it’s the authors’ pessimism that a majority of white people will abandon racism and work with black Americans toward a more perfect union. Every essay tracing racial injustice from slavery to the present day speaks to the endurance of racial caste. And it is this profound pessimism about white America that many of the 1619 Project’s critics find most galling.
I agree with a lot of that but it seems counterintuitive. Especially this. CRT would be one way you could highlight the root causes of the cultural impasse we are seeing today - especially in matters of race. And by shining light on these causes it would be possible to reach some sort of consensus going forward. How does that build consensus and not just drive us deeper into a corner.? I also think using "conservatives' as a counterbalance does not address the people in the middle that have not calcified a stance either way. This basis for a good discussion and I will read it.
I do not see how that illustrates why CRT is necessary and it what would CRT have done for those individuals do you think them dying was because the people that killed them were not educated about the history of the country? Rock did not say anybody was biased about anything and the grey area he is talking about had nothing to do with that era. This is my point CRT and the 1619 can be used as a bludgeon and and a wedge and that serves nobody. Everybody that opposes CRT is not trying to whitewash history and to say that appears to be the stock approach is ludicrous. The fact that you think opposition to CRT and 1619 can't be fact based and having nothing to do with race is frankly baffling, I am black and I have huge issues and nobody has ever accused me of being a sellout.
What the hell does having a history degree have to do with not thinking that the majority of white people will not abandon racism and work with black people toward a more perfect union? But if you need historical points how about the these. The Civil War The 1960's Civil Rights struggle. Obama Georgia flipping Democratic I can go on and on. What about my responses has made you think I don't teach History or I am not certified?
It’s not the positions you hold but the way you communicate them (and answer other positions) that raised the question
Raise the question of a history degree? I don't like typing and I never proofread. So why do you think most white people are racist?
I'm not gonna lie Jiggy, some of your responses remind me of gabs here. "I teach History and I don't see the need to teach how race effected the birth of our nation" With the arguments being "I feel that we are just content to be mad and upset and people are just monetizing that anger and not actually trying to fix anything." and "I am African American I don't need perspective and I know it is easy for us to blame people or systems for the plight of our daily lives and not actively do things to change that plight and a lot of this stuff tends to be a crutch or an excuse." These seem like pretty poor arguments
I'm afraid that you missed my point entirely. It was his POV that the act of merely stating historical facts could be construed to be racist. That also happens to be the same POV of all of the so-called conservatives who are pursuing an agenda of whitewashing history for political gain and are determined to use CRT as a stalking horse. They are fundamentally opposed to anything that would heal the rifts in this country - rifts that they themselves created and continue to exploit. The prevailing viewpoint of those who oppose CRT is that the very act of taking a critical examination of this nation's racial history is somehow not worth the effort and would be in fact "dangerous" to the prevailing social order. Now I would like for you or someone else to explain just why a reasoned look at US history in the context of race isn't a worthwhile endeavor. Perhaps it would help to explain why the mere fact of having black people publicly declare that "Black Lives Matter" is met with such vitriol and anger from so-called conservatives - many of whom I'm certain can to point to their having a black "friend". Perhaps it would also explain the political objectives of Trump and his MAGA/ groupies. Perhaps it would go a long way to explain why no matter how good a person you are or how educated you are or how religious you are your life is worth less because of the color of your skin. Just ask James Byrd Jr., Ahmaud Arbery, Ronald Greene, Philando Castile or me. I would love to see these facts that would dispute our racial history. And please show me where I called you a sellout. I have too much respect for you to ever do something like that. Clarence Thomas, Allen West - those are sellouts (or worse). In my eyes you have an awfully long way to go before you're even in their zipcode. No, I understand your position far better than you think because you strike me as a thoughtful black conservative. Here's an article for you to review - it offers some good points on our discussion. Warning! It contains Bill Cosby references: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/05/-this-is-how-we-lost-to-the-white-man/306774/
What if you asked Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Tim Scott, Candace Owens, or Clarence Thomas? Do you think it is all a matter of black and white for them? Were they not born and raised as black people in this country?
"Median Value of Wealth by Race FF(03.11.2019) | Tax Policy Center" https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019 That's why data and trends are more valuable or else I could say Pakistan has solved their bad treatment of women because they had a female prime minister.
I don't think black people have lower or higher median wealth than white people because of racism or skin color. Almost all income and wealth is determined by the actions of the individuals being measured. Certainly my list of people is just as salient as the quoted list though.
Not "traditional academic type"? I wonder what constitutes "traditional academic type"? Especially because among other respected schools (like Notre Dame) she graduated from the very school denying her tenure (the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media) with a master's degree in 2003, where she was a Roy H. Park Fellow. Then consider she received a Distinguished Alumna Award from UNC-CH! (Alongside her Sidney Award, Tobenkin Award, NABJ Journo of Yr award, her Polk Award, her National Magazine Award, her PULITZER PRIZE, her MACARTHUR GENIUS FELLOWSHIP, her IFAJS fellowship... but hey, "she had a background that was not traditional academic type." Add in the previous Chair of the Board of Governors (Randy Ramsey) didnn’t have a college degree, and lied about having an associate’s degree. He got his position by being an athletics booster. I wonder how "traditional his academic background type" is? Hannah-Jones's tenure stopped because her background was not 'traditional academic-type' https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ed-because-her-background-was-not-traditional
Speaking of "traditional", the Texas senate passed this bill in the dead of night... Texas’ divisive bill limiting how students learn about current events and historic racism passed by Senate The bill aims to ban critical race theory in public and open-enrollment charter schools. Supporters say it merely ensures students aren't taught that one race or gender is superior to another. Critics say it limits how race in America is taught. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/22/texas-critical-race-theory-legislature/
Dude when did I say that, I never said that and its not what I believe. I have no issue with talking about how race affected the birth of our nation and its already taught. It seems you just misinterpreted my meaning, As african americans we don't need perspective we should already have it and we should direct our energies to change and uplift and not on blame or cause. If you don't know slavery is the root evil CRT and 1619 is not gonna change anything. I have no idea how this sounds like pgabs I am not saying we don't have systematic racism or that rap music and single family homes are the real problem.
The prevailing viewpoint of those who oppose CRT is that the very act of taking a critical examination of this nation's racial history is somehow not worth the effort and would be in fact "dangerous" to the prevailing social order. I disagree with that and I think you are interpreting Mcw in a very narrow view. I don't think the 1619 project is reasoned look at U.S. history and that's my issue and I never said you called me a sellout I was just pushing bac on you thinking if anyone that pushes back on CRT and 1619 has some underlinning agenda. Black Conservative? WTF? Why because I don't agree with CRT or the 1619 project? I will read the article when I have a chance
brother I copied and pasted your own text Im not interested in having a back in forth when you start off confused like this, have a happy Sunday bro
Brother you still misinterpreted my meaning I am not confused about anything especially the thoughts behind my own words.
