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.

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
19,289
11,111
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
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
Maybe this is an opportunity for self reflection. I agree that it's important to look at history based on how the world was in that period but there are instances where anyone reasonable would say wow that was wrong even then. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are perfect examples. Both owned slaves which was common for wealthy land owners of the era. One freed his slaves on his deathbed and the other basically raped a girl 30 years younger than him starting when she was 14. It's ok to see that Washington did what was normal for the era and even say it was a little progressive of him to understand that it was wrong but not have the capability to make things right. He was a product of his time. Jefferson on the other hand, I don't know how you can justify what he did.

The 3/5 compromise is the same way. You can look at it through the lense of history but as I said earlier, it literally said slaves were less than human. At the time it was the equivalent of true bipartisan legislation but it still meant that white landowners were telling black and Native American slaves they were not people. It's ok to say that happened but it was the wrong thing to do at the time. If you wish to defend it because you think it was ok when it happened that is your call. But I am suggesting you ask yourself why you are ok with that and do some soul searching to find out why that is.

I'll say a prayer for you at church tomorrow. Hopefully you can work on it and get some answers.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,049
2,292
1,743
Is that your answer? You realize this isn’t jeopardy, right?
Seems a pretty simple question.

This thread is about CRT and that all of our systems are racist. The Constitution is a phenomenal document, in my book, and I don’t think it is pro-slavery. Do you agree/disagree?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,620
4,407
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
Maybe this is an opportunity for self reflection. I agree that it's important to look at history based on how the world was in that period but there are instances where anyone reasonable would say wow that was wrong even then. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are perfect examples. Both owned slaves which was common for wealthy land owners of the era. One freed his slaves on his deathbed and the other basically raped a girl 30 years younger than him starting when she was 14. It's ok to see that Washington did what was normal for the era and even say it was a little progressive of him to understand that it was wrong but not have the capability to make things right. He was a product of his time. Jefferson on the other hand, I don't know how you can justify what he did.

The 3/5 compromise is the same way. You can look at it through the lense of history but as I said earlier, it literally said slaves were less than human. At the time it was the equivalent of true bipartisan legislation but it still meant that white landowners were telling black and Native American slaves they were not people. It's ok to say that happened but it was the wrong thing to do at the time. If you wish to defend it because you think it was ok when it happened that is your call. But I am suggesting you ask yourself why you are ok with that and do some soul searching to find out why that is.

I'll say a prayer for you at church tomorrow. Hopefully you can work on it and get some answers.
I can say that ultimately I didn't like what they did, but I can't judge them because of it based on the way things are today. They were trying to diminish the power of the slavers while still being able to form a country to throw off British rule. I can look at it and see that they didn't think it racist and that wasn't their reason. And then I can look that many of those states, are the ones that helped the underground railroad and that sent people to die to end slavery altogether.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,370
41,565
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
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.
So, blacks being 3/5ths of a human wasn't racist then, but is only racist now in a contemporary context?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,370
41,565
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
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
Maybe this is an opportunity for self reflection. I agree that it's important to look at history based on how the world was in that period but there are instances where anyone reasonable would say wow that was wrong even then. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are perfect examples. Both owned slaves which was common for wealthy land owners of the era. One freed his slaves on his deathbed and the other basically raped a girl 30 years younger than him starting when she was 14. It's ok to see that Washington did what was normal for the era and even say it was a little progressive of him to understand that it was wrong but not have the capability to make things right. He was a product of his time. Jefferson on the other hand, I don't know how you can justify what he did.

The 3/5 compromise is the same way. You can look at it through the lense of history but as I said earlier, it literally said slaves were less than human. At the time it was the equivalent of true bipartisan legislation but it still meant that white landowners were telling black and Native American slaves they were not people. It's ok to say that happened but it was the wrong thing to do at the time. If you wish to defend it because you think it was ok when it happened that is your call. But I am suggesting you ask yourself why you are ok with that and do some soul searching to find out why that is.

I'll say a prayer for you at church tomorrow. Hopefully you can work on it and get some answers.
I can say that ultimately I didn't like what they did, but I can't judge them because of it based on the way things are today. They were trying to diminish the power of the slavers while still being able to form a country to throw off British rule. I can look at it and see that they didn't think it racist and that wasn't their reason. And then I can look that many of those states, are the ones that helped the underground railroad and that sent people to die to end slavery altogether.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
What you are arguing for is cultural relativity, it's okay in that culture even if it it isn't in ours. I'm sorry, but slavery and racism are evil in every culture and context, and excusing them is tantamount to supporting them.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,049
2,292
1,743
So, blacks being 3/5ths of a human wasn't racist then, but is only racist now in a contemporary context?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Not what I am saying. @wrenhal explained, accurately, what was occurring and order of events. He is not excusing the disgusting horrors of slavery. As he mentioned, at first the South was against counting slaves because the debate concerned how to proportion funding. Then the debate changed to representation and the South was for counting slaves. Hence compromise.

The Constitution could be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery. Remember the 3/5th apportion was for slaves deemed property and not citizens. States outlawing slavery had blacks provide full apportion of 5/5th and received 2/5th more representation.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,370
41,565
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Not what I am saying. @wrenhal explained, accurately, what was occurring and order of events. He is not excusing the disgusting horrors of slavery. As he mentioned, at first the South was against counting slaves because the debate concerned how to proportion funding. Then the debate changed to representation and the South was for counting slaves. Hence compromise.

The Constitution could be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery. Remember the 3/5th apportion was for slaves deemed property and not citizens. States outlawing slavery had blacks provide full apportion of 5/5th and received 2/5th more representation.
That wasn't what you were saying, but then that's exactly what you said.
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,191
355
713
NYT reporter claims teachers can't explain Juneteenth to students in 'fear' of 'critical race theory backlash'

New York Times reporter Astead Herndon was slammed by critics for suggesting that teachers will refrain from explaining the importance of Juneteenth "out of fear" of critical race theory opponents.
On Wednesday, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday in a 415-14 vote in the House one day after the bill passed in the Senate. Juneteenth, or June 19, commemorates the emancipation of slaves in Texas, which occurred June 19, 1865.
Herndon, a CNN political analyst, presented the apparent conundrum he said teachers will face going forward.
"its kinda amazing: juneteenth is gonna be a federal holiday for reasons teachers won't be allowed to explain to their students out of fear critical race theory backlash," Herndon tweeted.
He added, "'why do we have this day off?????' ‘uhhhhhhhhhh.'"

Critics slammed the Times reporter for suggesting that the rejection of teaching critical race theory in schools equates to the rejection of teaching slavery and the Civil Rights Movement.
"Stopping the teaching of Critical Race Theory does not prevent teachers from talking about slavery, Jim Crow, or Juneteenth... that's just a flat out lie from a very dishonest person," wrote Ryan James Girdusky, founder of the 1776 Project PAC that was formed to combat CRT on a school board level.

"This is deeply dishonest," GOP strategist Matt Whitlock similarly reacted. "If you can’t see that there are oceans between ‘don’t teach kids that America is innately racist and every second grader needs to view themself as a racial oppressor or a victim’ and ‘you can’t teach anything at all about race and civil rights’ you’re operating in bad faith."

"This is flatly false. Nothing in anti-CRT legislation prevents teaching about slavery or, for that matter, teaching against racial prejudice or racial discrimination. Several of the CRT bills, in fact, *require* teaching about these things," National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin tweeted.

So basically nothing is going to change how teachers/professors do their job in dealing with civil rights/liberties and the history of treatment of African Americans...this is being blown way out of proportion...Liberals need to realize that nothing is really going to change...and Conservatives need to realize that nothing is really going to change...
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,372
2,725
1,743
47
DFW
NYT reporter claims teachers can't explain Juneteenth to students in 'fear' of 'critical race theory backlash'

New York Times reporter Astead Herndon was slammed by critics for suggesting that teachers will refrain from explaining the importance of Juneteenth "out of fear" of critical race theory opponents.
On Wednesday, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday in a 415-14 vote in the House one day after the bill passed in the Senate. Juneteenth, or June 19, commemorates the emancipation of slaves in Texas, which occurred June 19, 1865.
Herndon, a CNN political analyst, presented the apparent conundrum he said teachers will face going forward.
"its kinda amazing: juneteenth is gonna be a federal holiday for reasons teachers won't be allowed to explain to their students out of fear critical race theory backlash," Herndon tweeted.
He added, "'why do we have this day off?????' ‘uhhhhhhhhhh.'"

Critics slammed the Times reporter for suggesting that the rejection of teaching critical race theory in schools equates to the rejection of teaching slavery and the Civil Rights Movement.
"Stopping the teaching of Critical Race Theory does not prevent teachers from talking about slavery, Jim Crow, or Juneteenth... that's just a flat out lie from a very dishonest person," wrote Ryan James Girdusky, founder of the 1776 Project PAC that was formed to combat CRT on a school board level.

"This is deeply dishonest," GOP strategist Matt Whitlock similarly reacted. "If you can’t see that there are oceans between ‘don’t teach kids that America is innately racist and every second grader needs to view themself as a racial oppressor or a victim’ and ‘you can’t teach anything at all about race and civil rights’ you’re operating in bad faith."

"This is flatly false. Nothing in anti-CRT legislation prevents teaching about slavery or, for that matter, teaching against racial prejudice or racial discrimination. Several of the CRT bills, in fact, *require* teaching about these things," National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin tweeted.

So basically nothing is going to change how teachers/professors do their job in dealing with civil rights/liberties and the history of treatment of African Americans...this is being blown way out of proportion...Liberals need to realize that nothing is really going to change...and Conservatives need to realize that nothing is really going to change...
But then what will we get mad about?
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,640
16,482
1,743
Close, very close
Once again, a (deceased) black man's thoughts on the real issues confronting black America. CRT is s#!t, pure and simple. Only arrogant, liberal, power seeking idiots would promote such an obvious affront to anyone capable of right reason imo. The stink of racist condescension by some on this thread is stifling.


Walter Williams: Is racism responsible for today's Black problems?

WALTER WILLIAMS
| Friday, July 31, 2020 7:00 p.m.


I doubt whether any American would defend the police treatment of George Floyd that led to his death. But many Americans are supporting some of the responses to Floyd’s death — rioting, looting, wanton property destruction, assaults on police and other kinds of mayhem by both whites and blacks.
The pretence that police conduct stands as the root of Black problems. According to the NAACP, from 1882-1968, there were 3,446 Black people lynched at the hands of whites. Today, being murdered by whites or policemen should be the least of Black worries. In recent times, there is an average of 9,252 Black-on-Black murders every year. Over the past 35 years, that translates into nearly 324,000 Blacks murdered at the hands of other Blacks.
Only a tiny percentage of Blacks are killed by police. For example, in Chicago this year, there were 414 homicides, with a total of 2,078 people shot. So far in 2020, three people have been killed by police and four were shot. Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald reports that “a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Crime is a major problem for many Black communities, but how much of it can be attributed to causes such as institutional racism, systemic racism and white privilege?
The most devastating problem is the very weak Black family structure. Less than a third of Black children live in two-parent households and illegitimacy stands at 75%. The “legacy of slavery” is often blamed. Such an explanation turns out to be sheer nonsense when one examines Black history. Even during slavery, where marriage was forbidden, most Black children lived in biological two-parent families.
Professor Herbert G. Gutman’s research in “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom 1750-1925” found that in three-fourths of 19th-century slave families, all the children had the same mother and father. In New York City, in 1925, 85% of black households were two-parent. In fact, “Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents.” During slavery and as late as 1920, a black teenage girl raising a child without a man present was a rarity.
An 1880 study of family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of all Black families were nuclear families. There were only slight differences in family structure between racial groups. The percentages of nuclear families were: black (75.2%), Irish (82.2%), German (84.5%) and native white Americans (73.1%). Only one-quarter of black families were female-headed. Female-headed families among Irish, German and native white Americans averaged 11%.
According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, only 11% of black children and 3% of white children were born to unwed mothers. As Thomas Sowell reported: “Going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, we find that census data of that era showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940.”
The absence of a father in the home predisposes children, especially boys, to academic failure, criminal behavior and economic hardship, not to mention an intergenerational repeating of handicaps. If today’s weak family structure is a legacy of slavery, then the people who make such a claim must tell us how it has managed to skip nearly five generations to have an effect.
There are problems such as grossly poor education, economic stagnation and poverty that impact the Black community heavily. I would like someone to explain how tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson and Confederate generals help the Black cause. Destruction of symbols of American history might help relieve the frustrations of all those white college students and their professors frustrated by the 2016 election of President Donald Trump. Problems that Black people face give white leftists cover for their anti-American agenda.

Walter Williams was a professor of economics at George Mason University.
 
Last edited:

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,744
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
I think the communities of color need to abandon the Democratic and Republican parties and form a party of their own. Neither of those parties has ever represented their best interest. They need a party that will represent their interest and will have to be lobbied to by the other parties to get a majority to pass anything.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,372
2,725
1,743
47
DFW
I think the communities of color need to abandon the Democratic and Republican parties and form a party of their own. Neither of those parties has ever represented their best interest. They need a party that will represent their interest and will have to be lobbied to by the other parties to get a majority to pass anything.
Umm… so… segregation?
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,744
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
Umm… so… segregation?
Umm no. Representation that actually represents the people in those areas. Neither the democrats or republicans have done it since the parties have come into being. If meaningful change is actually whats desired it has to start with a meaningful change in representation. Without it we can spin our wheels and talk stupid all day and nothing is going to change.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,372
2,725
1,743
47
DFW
Umm no. Representation that actually represents the people in those areas. Neither the democrats or republicans have done it since the parties have come into being. If meaningful change is actually whats desired it has to start with a meaningful change in representation. Without it we can spin our wheels and talk stupid all day and nothing is going to change.
You stated people of color should leave the established parties to create their own. This would leave the traditional parties as white.

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,372
2,725
1,743
47
DFW
This is an interesting read. I think the author let Crenshaw off the hook by letting her frame the argument around the (unjustified, in her opinion) response to CRT instead of digging into whether CRT is accurately depicted by those criticisms.

 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,744
6,738
743
Bixby-Bristow OK
You stated people of color should leave the established parties to create their own. This would leave the traditional parties as white.

No matter what PURPOSE you give for this, it doesn’t change the fact that you are proposing segregation as the METHOD.

Bottom-line: this is a bad (racist) idea.
No it wouldn't and the new party wouldn't be 100% minority representation in the end. Guess you don't understand demographics. In the end it would turn out to be more of a class based representation. The people that are the most disenfranchised will be the ones to start it if change is actually wanted. It's amazing how you turn everything racist and call everyone racist.

Stating the disenfranchised should seek representation that represents them and not the corporate interest the two major parties represent is racist. Saw that coming from a mile away.