Did I say nobody should accurately define it? Would it matter to the people who are currently using CRT as a cudgel to bash the Left if it was accurately defined? The people that need to be educated on CRT don't actually care what it really is and it's just tool to get the message they want out. I just realise it's a fool's journey and it trying to define it serves no purpose. I mean you got people out here actually believing Jan 6 was nothing other than a overzealous field trip. Who is actually pushing CRT anyway for them to explain it?
George Washinton's teeth were made out of SLAVE teeth and NOT wood.....we were taught wood......that is how systemic racism begins. DD
I'd laugh or roll eyes to any politician or mouthpiece who'd say the first half when Pelosi and Co are saying and doing everything to co-opt embody the very movement that strongly resonates with CRT or whatever people think it represents. .... So is it 99.999999999990001% confidence or did I forget to carry the one somewhere?
I don't think CRT should be taught in secondary school as it is an alternative and not mainstream in acceptance - it belongs in colleges. But system racism should be taught - students should learn to understand how racism perpetuates beyond the civil rights movement. But I disagree that conservatives are trying to control what is taught. Christopher Rufu who is probably the leading activist in the fight against CRT, has admitted it's a political weapon to label anything race related to push back against.
I don't think we disagree on much if anything here. On conservatives pushing back against CRT, again, CRT is poorly defined, and there's an awful lot of stupid stuff out there being billed as "anti-racist" and/or being peddled under the rubric of CRT
or worse . . . stupid stuff that doesn't even bother acknowledging its intellectual pedigree and simply takes for granted what thoughtful critics have identified as debatable "dogmas" of CRT. An example from the Washington Post from just a few days ago:
It's not that it's poorly defined as much as it is being redefined as something else. The far right is constantly looking for these types of issues to motivate its base under a false anger that their way of life is being threatened by liberals.
maybe. or maybe it is poorly defined that may be true, but that is independent of the philosophical and political arguments over CRT as a body of theory
Don't you think that the political arguments at least are motivated by political gain? In any case, the philosophical arguments against CRT are against CRT, the political arguments are against a boogeyman.
I:m staking a claim about some newspaper articles I read - the controversial claim that they were newspaper articles.... that i read, and that is how i recall them. I don't really get what business of yours it is that my direct recollection of the 1619 project articles and essays is that... they were articles and essays, not really much different from other articles and essays that i perchance to consume on a regular basis
They are doing more than making arguments; they are taking action. Conservative lawmakers are passing laws to ban teachers from discussing CRT, and potentially any kind of modern day racism which contradicts their other crusade against cancel culture.
Have you read the actual 1619 project or just articles about it? I posted a link to the actual project. My business is that you are misrepresenting what the project actually is even if that is your recollection.
I read a special section that said 1619 project that had a bunch of articles in 2019. I didn't sign up for the 2020-21 moral panic special extended plan
