lol my goodness. How on earth is teaching people about systemic racism going to rob the souls of white children?
Don't know why you are asking OS this? Haven't you learned by now that his narcissism doesn't allow him to explain his opinions. He thinks he's above it.
Not rob but MURDER. Kids have an open mind and can understand these things better than adults that have already made up their minds a long time ago. This sounds more like these people are extending their precious fragile soul onto their kids.
He has explained to me when I have pressed him to. I accept that he is provoking people by taking certain vantage points he doesn't not necessarily agree with. You can call this trolling, you can call this playing devil's advocate. I know he is a highly intelligent individual but I don't always agree with his style of provocation.
well for what it's worth the question in question was the article title by Jason D. Hill: Critical Race Theory Aims To Murder The Souls Of White Children and I guess you'd have to read the essay to get a sense of why Hill used that provocative title. Hill is a philosophy professor at DePaul https://las.depaul.edu/academics/philosophy/faculty/Pages/jason-hill.aspx here's his faculty page info: Jason D. Hill jhill6@depaul.edu Professor, Honors Distinguished Faculty PhD Philosophy Faculty Phone: 773.325.4236 2352 N. Clifton, Suite 150, Office 11 Education PhD, Purdue University Bio Dr. Hill was educated at Purdue University. His areas of specialization are Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy, Cosmopolitanism, Philosophical Psychology, Philosophy of Education and Race Theory. Areas of Competence are: 20th Century Analytic Philosophy, Comparative Literature. Dr. Hill is a pioneer in the field of strong cosmopolitanism known widely as post-human or species cosmopolitanism. He has lectured and taught extensively on the subject in the United States, Europe and Asia. From 2010-2012, a consortium of four universities in England held a series of conferences devoted to Dr. Hill's post-human cosmopolitanism and adopted the moral vision contained therein as part of their mission statements. Dr. Hill is the author of three books: Becoming a Cosmopolitan: What it Means to be a Human Being in the New Millennium (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000; Paperback Edition, 2011); Beyond Blood Identities: Post Humanity in the 21st Century (Lexington Books, 2009); and Civil Disobedience and the Politics of Identity: When We Should Not Get Along (Palgrave MacMillan, May 2013). He was a 1999-2000 Society for the Humanities Fellow at Cornell University, and the Wicklander Fellow in Business and Professional Ethics, DePaul University 2007-2008. He is the author of a forthcoming novel called, JAMAICA BOY IN SEARCH OF AMERICA. His poetry has also been published in sundry literary journals. His scholarly articles have been published in anthologies and journals in Germany, the Czech Republic and The Netherlands. In addition, he has written for various magazines and newspapers in which he has brought the tenets of cosmopolitanism to a wide audience. He has been interviewed regularly in various media outlets from NBCs Today show, to Wisconsin, Chicago, Toronto, Atlanta, San Francisco and New York public radio. He is deeply committed to Moral Foundationalism, Moral Universalism and the absolutism of reason. Dr. Hill was recently interviewed on Why? Radio. Listen to the podcast here. Follow Dr.Hill on academia.edu. Dr. Hill's forthcoming book is WE HAVE OVERCOME: AN IMMIGRANT'S LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (Bombardier Books, April 24, 2018). He is also under contract to write three other books: Goddesses of Death: Amy Winehouse, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton and the Moral Meaning of Suicide Cosmopolitanism: A Short Introduction to World Citizenship Morality and Military Occupation Curriculum Vitae And I guess as far as my responding to questions go . . . when questions are quasi-rhetorical, which I judged Lou's to be (it was after all the title of Hill's essay), I don't feel the need to respond necessarily. When posed as gratuitous insults, on the other hand, as so many other responses posed as "questions" tend to be, I generally ignore them. Call that narcissism if you want, but for me it saves a lot of energy and wasted effort.
You seem to have a lot of energy finding articles of absurd strawmen. Apparently this professor doesn't know what a strawman is either. I mean where in the actual academic literature of critical race theory that is actually taught at the college level has anything to do with this absurd scenario that I don't even know if it is real where a teacher at a elementary school is telling white kids that if they aren't the color of a brown paper bag they are at fault for black poverty? Like where in the academic literature of critical race theory that is actually taught in college suggest that? Doesn't CRT even explicitly stated that race is a social construct even? Teaching kids about systemic racism(not blaming individual white people for the plights of Black society in America) is important because the right and conservatives in general will see this: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019 And tell their kids that it's the fault of "black culture" or "rap music" which is what ACTUALLY fuels further racism. Kids need to be taught that it isn't some inherent trait of Black people that the median white household has 1000% of the wealth as the median black household but rather systemic issues of the past like Redlining and stealing of farm land that shifted the demographics of who owns or doesn't own propetty not through individual merit but through systemic racism. Right wingers and conservatives like yourself are using extreme isolated examples many of which I'm sure are made up to gaslight Americans into believing that discussing the history of systemic racism and how it shaped the current socioeconomic divides and who owns property and who doesn't is some inherent evil that is at its core racist.
@fchowd0311 is right on this one - this is a strawman argument. Some aspects of CRT shouldn't be taught in school as they are not evidence based but anecdotal. But systematic racism is not about saying white people are inherently evil. White privilege is only to say that whites have an advantage over blacks due to systemic racism. The hard line of saying racism shouldn't even be discussed in school to me is far more disturbing that the rare activist pushing to put CRT in schools
Having finally read his article. I'm in favor of elminating his kind of whiteness and their souls, of which I'm sure he associates himself with. And no, I don't hate white people when I write that.
...are you sure about that? ...because whenever I've said something like that, the first thing that comes to some people's minds is the idea that I hate white people. ...makes me wonder, sometimes, why I ever bothered taking that online racial bias exam awhile back...which said I didn't hate white people any more or any less than I hated black people... ...if my reverse-racist cover is blown, I might have to change my moniker around here and reincarnate myself as an aggrieved Vietnamese-American who doesn't take **** from nobody...
I believe things like white privilege do exist, and was baked into our laws at a time when whites collectively held more power. But is there really a collectively white culture? I doubt it...I know there are WASP, Italian, Irish, Germanic, Slavic, and Eastern Jewish cultures that are different among other European cultures. Then you get this "real American culture" Cons want to peddle whether it be Evangelical (pro Baptist leaning) or some blue collar Middle American Joe that you get from a Clint Eastwood directed movie. I'm not buying any of that. American White Identity is so amorphous...and deliberately bland in order to compare or expose other races "deficiencies" that it exists as a construct for being the default. And that blandness has been marketed and catered into being Exceptional, as if the mere act or non-act of trying is good enough. I get that white kids and adults can feel guilt over their actions and the current zeitgeist wants them to do more to even the odds, but I'm not sure that's really a confined identity and more of a choice. Black Americans self identified Blackness out of necessity because the majority pigeonholed them into that existence through laws, rights, and employment. I kind feel a sense of projection and fear of reprisals from these Op/Eds that something similar will happen to their kids...as if once wrested from their Majority Status whites will collectively become chattel persecuted punching bags for the sake of class equality. That's not really how Americans are. We are greedy and overworked mercenaries who feel like we're due for something to the point where our troubles outweigh others. There have been more billionaires minted in the Millennial Age and I haven't seen any hippy reawakening even though Boomers were the original "hardworking", peace lovin hippies. If anything, there's hope for kids to look past the back biting provided we stop self segregating ourselves. They might think, "it's not like anything my parents did on purpose, but I can see how people undercut opportunities of other people who looked like my best friend." Oh yeah, what a soul breaking Modern-Day Marxist and potential gaylord there. I'm not paying for his gender assignment surgery! Will dump insurance if I need to, and I'll pay full price for my Regeneron!!
... The Zaks live in Mission Hills, an affluent neighborhood in San Diego that was developed in the early 20th century, at a time racial covenants were embraced and promoted by real estate agents, developers and the federal government. In 1917, the Supreme Court struck down racial zoning laws that were designed to keep cities segregated, according to Richard Brooks, visiting professor of law and senior research scholar at Yale Law School and co-author of the book “Saving the Neighborhood: Racially Restrictive Covenants, Law, and Social Norms.” Racial covenants, though, could be implemented on an individual or neighborhood level — less centralized than laws, but not necessarily less powerful. “Private action was thought to be not subject to constitutional constraints,” said Carol Rose, G. B. Tweedy professor emeritus at Yale Law School and Lohse professor of law emeritus at the University of Arizona, and Mr. Brooks’ co-author. High-end real estate developments built in the early 20th century, such as Palos Verdes Estates in Los Angeles, included racial covenants from the beginning, she said. In older areas, homeowners went door-to-door to convince neighbors to add the covenants to deeds. In 1927, the National Association of Real Estate Boards — now the National Association of Realtors — championed racial covenants, creating a model clause that was inserted into countless deeds. It read, in part: “No part of said premises shall be sold, given, conveyed or leased to any negro or negroes.” (Late last year, in the wake of the racial justice movement sparked by the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police officers, the association issued a formal apology for its past racist actions.) The Federal Housing Administration, which was created in the 1930s to insure home mortgages, also all but required racial covenants to guarantee loans, including those for developments like Levittown, a community of mass-produced tract homes on Long Island that opened in the late 1940s and where only “members of the Caucasian race” were allowed to live. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that racial covenants couldn’t be enforced — though not that they couldn’t be used. Twenty years later, the Fair Housing Act finally made racial covenants illegal. But the words and their profound effect on the housing landscape have lived on. “Enforcement in court is just one way covenants facilitated segregation, and not even the most important way,” Mr. Brooks said. “The covenant gave a signal. Who should we bring to this neighborhood? Who will get financing? Who will get insured?” Just by their presence, covenants communicated to white buyers that living in mixed neighborhoods was a risk to their home values, Mr. Brooks said. ...
Love thy neighbor...or condemn them as evil agents who want to take down free society and merit driven gains.
Sean Wilentz essay about the 1619 project https://www.opera-historica.com/pdfs/oph/2021/01/05.pdf long and thoughtful. worth a look. excerpts: . . . I began feeling uneasy a few minutes into reading the lead essay, by the project’s chief contributor, the journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, and then I read a key paragraph so fallacious and dogmatic that it hit me between the eyes. With a tone of absolute assurance, flagging the matter as crucial, the essay informed readers of what it called a "fact“ – a fact "conveniently left out of our founding mythology“ – specifically that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence“ from Britain "was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.“ By the time I had finished the entire thing, the shape and purport of the project as shaped by its editors were clear. . . . I instantly wondered how anyone even lightly informed about the history of either slavery or the American Revolution, could write that sentence. *** Instead of trying to instruct the public about the significance of the year 1619, and hence of the foundational importance of slavery and racism to American history, the project promoted a narrow, highly ideological view of the American past, according to which white supremacy has been the nation’s core principle and chief mission ever since its founding. . . . Although surprised that the New York Times would lend its name and credibility to such a crude and falsified account of American history – a history with more than enough brutality, racism, and systematic oppression to require no falsification – I put the magazine aside. Responsible historians, I assumed, would come along soon enough to praise the project’s stated goals while debunking its skewed and sometimes warped history, just as historians had done decades ago in response to the writings of Lerone Bennett and others – and seen their refutations prominently published in, among other places, the New York Times. As for the outright factual errors, I imagined that some bright young historian who could use the attention would write a letter to the editor of the Times Magazine, asking for corrections – corrections that, I thought, the Times, adhering to its longstanding professional standards, of course would make. When no letter appeared and no other historians spoke up, I decided to address the matter myself in a public lecture I delivered in November, which would later appear on-line in the New York Review of Books. Only after the lecture did I learn that four highly distinguished historians – three of them old friends and colleagues, the fourth a scholar I greatly respected – had already been giving interviews to an online forum called the World Socialist Web Site, a Trotskyist venue, taking The 1619 Project seriously to task for its false statements about the Revolution and much more. The four included Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, a distinguished scholar of the Civil War South and white resistance to the Confederacy; James Oakes of the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, the premier scholar of, among other subjects, the politics of Emancipation; as well as Gordon S. Wood of Brown and James M. McPherson of Princeton, the greatest living authorities on, respectively, the American Revolution and the American Civil War. It struck me as a little odd that these well-known historians – none of them socialists as far as I knew, let alone Trotskyists – would appear in such a relatively obscure place. Surely, I thought, one of the leading academic journals would have given them a platform. As it happened, only the intellectually honorable Trotskyists, whatever one thought about their politics, had the nerve to undertake a systematic critique of The 1619 Project. *** But it is also an open secret that many historians are simply intimidated about saying anything too loudly, too publicly, lest criticizing in any way The 1619 Projects or its offshoots invites being labelled and „mobbed“ as a racist on Twitter, thereby endangering their careers. Race relations, at least as perceived by the intelligentsia and the press, have become so embittered, and the promoters of supposedly anti-racist racialism have been so successful, that skeptics risk, or believe they risk, excommunication or being "cancelled“ if they break with the new orthodoxy. The intimidation is especially powerful, for understandable reasons, among younger professors and graduate students braving a miserable job market. . . . more at the link
joe biden and the democrats showing their true colors about where they stand on blacks. Ignored the border for 7 months when it was largely hispanic immigrants from central and southern america crossing the border, and are now only acknowledging the border now because haitians are trying to get in the country its obvious what the left thinks of african americans and all black people, but too many clowns on the left cant see it. Or refuse to call it out
