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.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
Seems like you don't understand what CRT is, then. CRT states that oppression is inherent in all cases where majorities or powers exist. He's basically saying that if that's true, then he couldn't have succeeded due to his supposed impossible disadvantages. He's not directly challenging the practical expressions of systemic racism, etc....(which are real) He's challenging the theory, itself, to show that it's not the absolute, factual law that some people have started to believe.
No CRT doesn't say that oppression is inherent in ALL cases where majorities or powers exist.

It says that systematic racism was the basis and foundation of ALL the Systems that were created by the White Majority in order to protect their status.

It doesn't mean that all of those systems are still the same today or haven't changed over time. It just says that all the public, social, and economic systems were created to be inherently favorable to the white person and discriminate against the POC.

It says the basis of all our systems was racist when it was started, and MANY of those initial racist systematic things STILL exist to this day...thus making the social, public, and economic systems inherently racist until the fallacies of the unbalanced beginnings of the system can be adjusted and made fair for all races
Equity. The fight for equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
If that is accurate -- then I definitely agree with @UrbanCowboy1. And although I am generally in favor of less laws and local control, glad that states are keeping this "proposed theory" from K-12. Let people in colleges/universities study "theories" all they want -- but time should not be spent during critical learning time in elementary, middle, and high schools - and certainly not required curriculum.
Quick example of a problem that arises, can you teach or even have discussions about the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow? The idea that those systems have lingering effects is a core part of CRT, as well as other sociological and economic frameworks that have substantial evidence. Depending on how it got interpreted, those lecture and discussions could get banned.
No that's teaching history. You're not trying to teach a white child that they are inherently racist just because of the color of their skin. Which is really only a component of the stuff that's actually trying to be taught. CRT, at it's core is just racist. The fact it's being used by don't to bash whites didn't mean it's only against whites. It's just bad. Here's some tweets.

https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1403380027354386436?s=19


https://twitter.com/PanOut2/status/1405917048962650116?s=19


https://twitter.com/AdorableDashie/status/1405948470884814851?s=19


https://twitter.com/freedomfirstnet/status/1405889033323126785?s=19


https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1405889524245446664?s=19


https://twitter.com/sarahsansoni/status/1405885882113089540?s=19

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
It has been awhile since I have been in schools, but I know I learned about voting rights, slavery, Tulsa Race Massacre, and Jim Crow in high school. My assumption is that this has neither changed nor is that planned on changing. To my knowledge there is nothing, at least in the Oklahoma bill, that changes that teaching.

Your exact quote about CRT was that "all the public, social, and economic systems were created to be inherently favorable to the white person and discriminate against the POC.
It says the basis of all our systems was racist when it was started".

Teaching that ALL public, social, and economic systems were built with racism in mind is IMO beyond dubious. Again, let CRT sit in university academic circles, but hope we can all agree it doesn't below in elementary or high schools.
When a child is taught that by Law in the United States that a black person only counted as 3/5ths of a person.

And then that child ask the question.
Why is a black person only counted as 3/5ths of a person

IF we want to teach the truth, then you must teach that it was a law set up by the white majority to protect their own interest and the interest of other white slave owners to gain political power
It was actually an attempt to keep the slave owning states from gaining extra power by counting their slaves as a whole person in the census, thus giving their states greater representation.
That it wasn't a perfect compromise, is true, but please don't be disingenuous about it being a racist thing at heart.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
I would support CRT if it centered around promoting common sense discussions like this. It loses me when it starts broad brushing everyone into certain categories though. Hopefully the concept will evolve into something more productive over time.
I think at its core that CRT gets down to teaching the brutal and realistic facts of societies through the lens of the majority of race in country (yes, including Asian and Latino). Be honest...White settlers who were successful and became majorities in the areas they settled, wrote laws to protect themselves and their own interest, Spanish colonist wrote laws in South America to protect themselves and their own interest

However, as you point out..the brushes its authors paint with are still way to broad to be applied effectively .

CRT is only 40 years old, and it is still has a long way to go to where it is refined enough to be taught in public schools to children. However, I think if it continues to refine itself and hone in on these realistic discussions it can be useful
And that's the rub. These people that have been brought up in college discussing it, think it's now time to apply it. Especially after all the thousands and thousands of racist incidents against blacks last year that were all the fault of white people. Thus you get people like the Yale speaker talking about dreaming of mowing down white people with machine guns.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
May 4, 2011
2,703
1,325
1,743
Charleston, SC
No that's teaching history. You're not trying to teach a white child that they are inherently racist just because of the color of their skin. Which is really only a component of the stuff that's actually trying to be taught. CRT, at it's core is just racist. The fact it's being used by don't to bash whites didn't mean it's only against whites. It's just bad. Here's some tweets.

https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1403380027354386436?s=19


https://twitter.com/PanOut2/status/1405917048962650116?s=19


https://twitter.com/AdorableDashie/status/1405948470884814851?s=19


https://twitter.com/freedomfirstnet/status/1405889033323126785?s=19


https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1405889524245446664?s=19


https://twitter.com/sarahsansoni/status/1405885882113089540?s=19

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Quoting what critical race theory is from only wikipedia and its Twitter warrior opponents is like asking an OU fan about OSU sports. There might be some kernels of truth in there, but it's

The only thing that's really accurate there is that its origins do have ties to anti capitalism. It's original and many current proponents argued that capitalism was the vehicle for the accumulation of power that allowed racism to flourish. Many modern versions (like Ibram X. Kendi) still disavow laissez faire economics and try equate it with capitalism, but are not necessarily strident marxists, though some still are.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,350
2,717
1,743
47
DFW
It was actually an attempt to keep the slave owning states from gaining extra power by counting their slaves as a whole person in the census, thus giving their states greater representation.
That it wasn't a perfect compromise, is true, but please don't be disingenuous about it being a racist thing at heart.
And slavery wasn’t a racist thing at heart. It was cheap labor, right? Go capitalism!

Who’s being disingenuous again?
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
19,283
11,109
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
It was actually an attempt to keep the slave owning states from gaining extra power by counting their slaves as a whole person in the census, thus giving their states greater representation.
That it wasn't a perfect compromise, is true, but please don't be disingenuous about it being a racist thing at heart.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
They literally made a law that said black people were worth 60% of white people.

 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
It was actually an attempt to keep the slave owning states from gaining extra power by counting their slaves as a whole person in the census, thus giving their states greater representation.
That it wasn't a perfect compromise, is true, but please don't be disingenuous about it being a racist thing at heart.
And slavery wasn’t a racist thing at heart. It was cheap labor, right? Go capitalism!

Who’s being disingenuous again?
The states with few or no slaves were the ones that wouldn't join the union without the compromise. These were many of the same states that eventually sent their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to war to free those slaves.
The compromise was done to help create our nation and those states hoped to limit slavery's influence and to end it eventually.
At least that is what I was taught. Were you taught differently?
They didn't do it because they thought slaves were less than people. They did it because the slavers wouldn't budge on getting rid of slaves.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
The states with few or no slaves were the ones that wouldn't join the union without the compromise. These were many of the same states that eventually sent their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to war to free those slaves.
The compromise was done to help create our nation and those states hoped to limit slavery's influence and to end it eventually.
At least that is what I was taught. Were you taught differently?
They didn't do it because they thought slaves were less than people. They did it because the slavers wouldn't budge on getting rid of slaves.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
And a “compromise” that lets the slavers keep their slaves is an inherently racist act/compromise.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,348
41,560
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
It was actually an attempt to keep the slave owning states from gaining extra power by counting their slaves as a whole person in the census, thus giving their states greater representation.
That it wasn't a perfect compromise, is true, but please don't be disingenuous about it being a racist thing at heart.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
"slave owning states"... "not a racist thing at heart" - did you really just say those two things in the same sentence?
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,976
4,016
1,743
They literally made a law that said black people were worth 60% of white people.
During the formation of our country, there was a dispute over how to structure Congress. Smaller states wanted equal representation, while larger states wanted representation based off population. They decided to split Congress into 2 chambers with the Senate having equal representation and the House being based off population. This was known as the "Great Compromise."

This decision brought up an obvious issue, how would slaves in the south be counted? The southern states wanted them to be counted as a full person, while the northern states didn't want them to be counted at all. Both sides were jockeying for power in the House. This resulted in the 3/5 compromise.

So while the subject matter was obviously racist, the reasoning behind the dispute centered around political power. At least that's my basic understanding on this issue. If someone else has a better understanding, I would be interested to hear it.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
8,772
5,124
1,743
Somewhere
This is why no one talks about race. They don't want to out themselves.

When it gets talked about more, you find out that there are still quite a few people who adhere to racist ideas like we see in this thread. Its no suprise that we have problems with institutional racism with these views baked in.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,350
2,717
1,743
47
DFW
The states with few or no slaves were the ones that wouldn't join the union without the compromise. These were many of the same states that eventually sent their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to war to free those slaves.
The compromise was done to help create our nation and those states hoped to limit slavery's influence and to end it eventually.
At least that is what I was taught. Were you taught differently?
They didn't do it because they thought slaves were less than people. They did it because the slavers wouldn't budge on getting rid of slaves.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Using racism for a political purpose is racist at its heart.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,976
4,016
1,743
Using racism for a political purpose is racist at its heart.
That's a good point. As Binman noted earlier, everyone tends to make decisions that favor themselves. The North argued against and eventually abolished slavery, but they had no problems with arguing that slaves shouldn't be counted as anything when it came to congressional representation. So while the purpose of the dispute centered around politics, the stance taken by the North was obviously racist.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,348
41,560
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
The states with few or no slaves were the ones that wouldn't join the union without the compromise. These were many of the same states that eventually sent their sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands to war to free those slaves.
The compromise was done to help create our nation and those states hoped to limit slavery's influence and to end it eventually.
At least that is what I was taught. Were you taught differently?
They didn't do it because they thought slaves were less than people. They did it because the slavers wouldn't budge on getting rid of slaves.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
And a “compromise” that lets the slavers keep their slaves is an inherently racist act/compromise.
F something something something...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,618
4,406
1,743
This is why no one talks about race. They don't want to out themselves.

When it gets talked about more, you find out that there are still quite a few people who adhere to racist ideas like we see in this thread. Its no suprise that we have problems with institutional racism with these views baked in.
Wow, are you calling me racist because of my view on the compromise? That's why no one wants to discuss, because different opinions or trying to look at history through an unbiased view gets you labeled a racist. It's a moniker meant to just shut people up rather than have a discussion.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
8,772
5,124
1,743
Somewhere
Wow, are you calling me racist because of my view on the compromise? That's why no one wants to discuss, because different opinions or trying to look at history through an unbiased view gets you labeled a racist. It's a moniker meant to just shut people up rather than have a discussion.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I didn't call you a racist, but your idea that the 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with race is ironically a racist idea.

Please ask yourself: How can a law that literally calls a black person 3/5ths of a white person not be racist?
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,048
2,292
1,743
Wow, are you calling me racist because of my view on the compromise? That's why no one wants to discuss, because different opinions or trying to look at history through an unbiased view gets you labeled a racist. It's a moniker meant to just shut people up rather than have a discussion.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Too many people have little understanding of history and poorly attempt to correlate the past in today’s thinking.