Critical race theory in Idaho

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
3,883
2,220
1,743
#1
Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
 
Last edited:

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
33,947
10,548
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#2
Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,512
17,983
1,743
#3
Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
Aren't those things already against the law?
 
May 4, 2011
2,551
1,268
1,743
Charleston, SC
#4
This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.
I've seen people interpret critical race theory this way, but I don't think that's quite accurate. The place where I'd suggest a different interpretation of the theory is that it suggests the individual behavior is a reflection of systemic racism and that it is a normative human trait to create hierarchical groups. That is distinct from saying no one has personal accountability or that it is acceptable.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,798
2,533
1,743
46
DFW
#5
I have relatives who are distraught about this penetrating into school curriculum. One is a teacher north of Dallas. She expects it to dictate what she teaches in advanced mathematics. If it comes to that, she will quit or retire. She said she won’t teach something to her kids that she doesn’t believe. I heard some of this from her husband and asked for clarification on how it would affect math. He tried to explain, but it wasn’t clear. He sent me this lengthy article from the Heritage Foundation, but I haven’t been able to make myself get past a few page scrolls.

https://www.heritage.org/civil-righ...eory-the-new-intolerance-and-its-grip-america
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,755
1,911
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#6
This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.
I like this part in particular because it's impossible to prove or disprove. Go ahead and disagree with me, racists. See? It's hilarious. :D
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,316
4,359
1,743
#9
Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
This bill is about implementing Critical Race Theory

I have two glaring issue with Critical Race Theory.

It promotes the idea that diversity and inclusion have little impact and argues that race is a creation of social thought and is not based in biological reality.

It claims that racism is a normal part of society embedded into our institutions and systems and that individual displays of racism by a person are the manifestation of system and structural racism and not their beliefs.

So if you don't think there is any systematic or institutional racism in this country, OR if you do NOT think racism should be seen as a normalized part of society, then you do NOT support the Critical Race Theory. In this theory, there is no personal racism based on belief, just outburst of racism from individuals as a normal part of society based on racism created by systematic and institutional racism.
Good summary

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,316
4,359
1,743
#10
Interesting perspective from this article. The article is about HB377 in Idaho. The article makes it seem like the below items are bad. But shouldn’t these be goals that we all can find common ground and agree?

* “The bill would prohibit public schools from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Who would disagree with this, besides David Duke? Why would we want our children to be taught a race was better or worse than another? Isn’t that the definition of racism?

* The bill also bans teachings that argue that people should be treated differently based on things like race or gender”
Same comments — how is this remotely bad? Have we become so partisan that just because someone in one party proposes something that members of the other party must disagree...even when it is an idea or goal that they also support?

Honestly interested if anyone disagrees with the above two items ...and if so, why --- am I missing something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-wants-illegal-schools-teach-043511642.html
Aren't those things already against the law?
Then why are BLM and others allowed to teach that whites are inherently racist and bad? Because that's what critical race theory does.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,248
32,400
1,743
oklahoma city
#11
Then why are BLM and others allowed to teach that whites are inherently racist and bad? Because that's what critical race theory does.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
For the same reason that conservatives are allowed to teach that black people are inherently murderers and bad. Because that is what the "who kills the most black men" theory does.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,248
32,400
1,743
oklahoma city
#17
And, even in that, there is an advantage to being white.


Interpretation: Although heart disease death rates decreased both for blacks and whites from 1968 to 2015, substantial differences in decreases were found by race and state. At the national level and in most states, blacks experienced smaller decreases in heart disease death rates than whites for the majority of the period. Overall, the black-white disparity in heart disease death rates increased from 1968 to 2005, with a modest decrease from 2005 to 2015.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6705a1.htm
 
Sep 3, 2010
353
106
1,593
#19
And, even in that, there is an advantage to being white.


Interpretation: Although heart disease death rates decreased both for blacks and whites from 1968 to 2015, substantial differences in decreases were found by race and state. At the national level and in most states, blacks experienced smaller decreases in heart disease death rates than whites for the majority of the period. Overall, the black-white disparity in heart disease death rates increased from 1968 to 2005, with a modest decrease from 2005 to 2015.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6705a1.htm
White people are killing blacks by giving them heart attacks? What will those damn white people think of next?
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,755
1,911
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#20
No. It is a common theme on this website.

Do you know of a public school system calling white people "racist and bad?"
Is that not the implied tenet of critical race theory? If not, why is it called 'race' theory?

EDIT: I'll even do you a favor. From Wikipedia:

CRT is loosely unified by two common themes:


So yeah, I feel pretty comfortable saying that CRT implies white people are racists.