What does Critical Race Theory teach?

Its what directly contradicts your assertion.

 

How is teaching the historical fact that "whites are the oppressor and the blacks are oppressed" teaching racism? You make it sound as though enlightenment is a bad thing.

 

Very impressive, Golem... it is refreshing to see your much-vaunted 'research' on display -- especially when it is accompanied with links which can be surveyed at length.

Question, though -- does any of your factual information cite that American Blacks commit more crimes across a broad spectrum on a per capita basis than any other identified race? You may find this article from the National Institutes of Health to be useful in your further research if for any reason you find that you may have 'missed something'....

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782848/

 

Its not historical facts when its in reference to those in the present. Especially when we are talking about grade school kids. And not factual when applied to all who are white and all who are black.

 

Of course not! Because my posts are based on facts and evidence. And there is absolutely NONE that this is so.

 

What do you attribute this to?

 

"Absolutely NONE"...? Did you visit the site at the link I provided? Here it is again: Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782848/

Or, maybe you discount the National Institutes of Health as an unreliable source for information?

 

I'm not playing the 'attribution' game, Lee... no, I have merely pointed out that statistically, American "Blacks" (I hate that demeaning term for Negro people) commit more of a variety of crimes on a per capita basis than other races, and I provided an article from the National Institutes of Health for review....

 

Did YOU?

From your link:

"To date, there is little evidence on which to base inferences about the relationship between race and criminal involvement within serious offender populations. "
...
"The analysis suggests that consistent race differences of the kind normally seen in the criminological literature are not evident in our sample of serious offenders."
...
"Overall, our analysis of the Philadelphia and Phoenix data has produced little evidence of important racial and ethnic differences in either self-reported offending (frequency or variety) or officially based arrests leading to a court referral in the year preceding study enrollment."
​

Next time I suggest you QUOTE before posting a link. Quoting is required, not just to show us what you are talking about, but also to demonstrate that you actually READ what you are using as a reference.

 

Perhaps you did not understand the Kendi quote?

 

I told you what I did not understand. What the hell it has to do with teaching kids not to be racist. And it's obvious you don't understand it either, or you would have answered the question.

 

Kendi teaches kids to be racist.

 

He has this dumb act down pat.

 

You want a QUOTE from the article at the link? Happy to help!

"Official record studies consistently show that Blacks exhibit higher levels of involvement in criminal offending than Whites do."

"Although self-report studies suggest somewhat lower levels of Black overrepresentation in criminal offending activity (especially with less serious forms of crime), there appears to be considerable evidence that Blacks are disproportionately involved in serious crime.

And, as far as so many of your stats are concerned which indicate that Blacks get a bum-rap on reports of their crime rates, "...many criminologists who (are) “loathe to speak openly on race and crime for fear of being misunderstood or labeled a racist”....

Nevertheless, the article goes on: "Although there is considerable agreement about the statistical fact of minority overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, researchers have not yet reached agreement about the validity of these competing explanations for that disparity." There may be 'competing explanations' for why Blacks end up in the Criminal Justice System -- but one thing seems certain -- IF THEY WEREN'T COMMITTING CRIMES, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THE CJS TO BEGIN WITH! (Hint: there's also table after table of factual statistical information available also.)

Now, there's some QUOTES for you from the article, Golem... and there's lots more where those came from....

 

Exactly. THAT is called a hypothesis (that's part of it). But the study concludes that evidence does not support that hypothesis.

You showed a study that proves exactly THE OPPOSITE of what you thought it proved. I understand that you might not be used to reading scientific studies. But, in any study, it's only the CONCLUSION that counts. And the conclusion is what I quoted: there is no evidence that black people actually commit more crimes.

The study offers several possible explanations as to why those "official records" have been incorrectly interpreted.

And the part you omitted following that.
"....Yet most of this evidence is based on data from broad cross-sections of the general population. To date, there is little evidence on which to base inferences about the relationship between race and criminal involvement within serious offender populations"

Look... I can understand that you didn't read the study through. Or even that you misread the conclusions. But now this is going a step too far. You are taking YOUR OWN reference out of context.

The conclusions of the study you referenced are clear. They are repeated no less than three times. It's obvious you either didn't read them or misunderstood them. I could understand a simple honest mistake. But trying to cherry-pick isolated sentences signals some underlying motivation on your part that.... well... I better not mention.

This is not an article. It's a STUDY (strictly speaking, it's an Assessment. But it's a scientific assessment that uses the scientific method. Therefore it falls within the category of "scientific study"). A study with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that black people are involved in more crimes. They apply scientific methodology, and reach a conclusion. The conclusion is that the evidence does not support the hypothesis.

"The analysis suggests that consistent race differences of the kind normally seen in the criminological literature are not evident in our sample of serious offenders."​

Simple as that.

I have been reading scientific studies since I was in College. Professionally right after I graduated, and then just as part of research for debates I engage in. And I understand that people who are not accustomed to reading them can easily misinterpret them. But I pointed out the conclusions in my previous post. So you doubling down ... to put it lightly: is not making you look good.

 

Let's try again, Golem. First, with your experience in "College" it is safe to assume that you know exactly what 'per capita' means.

You see, once we embrace the concept that it is the percentage of the total population of an isolated ethnic group that is being examined, then and only then do we get an accurate understanding of what was meant in the NIH report (not 'hypothesis') that is recorded fact:

"Official record studies consistently show that Blacks exhibit higher levels of involvement in criminal offending than Whites do."

"Although self-report studies suggest somewhat lower levels of Black overrepresentation in criminal offending activity (especially with less serious forms of crime), there appears to be considerable evidence that Blacks are disproportionately involved in serious crime. Would you prefer to read essentially the same 'hypothesis' from another source? This is from the Department of Justice -- Link: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/new...ace-and-ethnicity-violent-crime-perpetrators/

You allege that I'm 'cherry-picking' when in fact, I'm quoting directly from the original link I referenced. Think about it, Golem -- if it is said that a person is 'disproportionately involved in serious crime' does that automatically infer that the allegation, per se, is INCORRECT...?!

Now comes the sub-part where I suppose I'm supposed to display my academic credentials in an attempt to make it seem that I equal or 'outrank' you somehow (as you have done), but I will forego that kind of petty crap. So, yeah, I also went to "College", and did better than most, honestly... and then that was followed by careers that were, uh, pretty darn good... and also involving a lot (LOT) of poring over government statistical 'boilerplate'. Yee-ha! . Now... enough of that chest-thumping... OK?

In a greater sense, from that often-referred-to "forty-thousand foot-level" of consideration, are we not, indeed, FIFTY-SEVEN YEARS beyond the very beneficial addition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into "law of the land"...? What is it that 'Critical Race Theory' is trying so hard to inculcate in the thinking of Americans in the year 2021?! If these were still 'the bad old days', then there could be some justification for it -- but not today.

To put it at the 'street-level' -- DON'T COMMIT CRIMES AND YOU WON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

 

Trying to measure "criminal offending", such a broad category seems pointless. I usually just point to murder statistics. Most all murders are reported. the small percentage of unreported incidences of murder is small. While the percentage of unreported incidences of drug use, theft, assault and other incidences of "criminal offending" is large. And this study limited to juvenile offenders, based on surveys of those offenders, asking them how many incidences of "criminal offending" they were involved in, says little to nothing about what is actually occurring.
But trying to argue that the FBI statistics that show blacks committed 56% of the murders in 2020 isnt because blacks are more likely to commit murder and is instead because the police or prosecutors discriminate in their enforcement of laws against murder to disfavor blacks and favor whites is absurd. Especially in the case of murder because most murders with unknow perpetrators are in high crime areas like the bad parts of Chicago and more likely to be black and the 56% is less than the reality.

 

You are surprisingly full of yourself with no reason to be so. He didnt misinterpret anything and instead QUOTED the paper. Primarily the paper's comments on other studies findings. Because the papers study based upon surveys of juvenile offenders asking them how frequently they engage in "criminal offending" are of little value.

 

Explanations of WHAT? Marc never said, at least not in your quote. You have a non-specific, half-baked quote there, and therefore the same is true of your post.

 

Can you specify AND SUPPORT what CRT teaches? Please provide specific statements and include reliable links to prove your statement, because I think all the anti-CRT mouths are just parroting horror stories and actually have no real idea of specific teachings from CRT.

Oh, and also show with reliable links how CRT is being specifically used in high schools and/or lower grades.

 

Are you sure? I think the Constitution says Blacks are not as good in some way as Whites. After all, the Constitution was being shaped while the US had legal slavery. So I think you're wrong. Aren't you? Don't you think I'm right? Sure I'm right. Article 1, Section 2, "three fifths" of all who are not free Persons are counted. That doesn't sound to me like it's saying all races are equal.

 

No it doesn't. That is your personal, unsupported opinion. QUOTE some original, actual source of CRT to prove it.

 

CRT is circular logic. Quoting it would be like asking a serial killer if he thinks he is a bad person.

 

"When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism" Kendi

Every policy? That question was posed to Kendi by Vox cofounder Ezra Klein, who gave the hypothetical example of a capital-gains tax cut. Most of us think of the capital-gains tax, if we think about it at all, as a policy that is neutral as regards questions of race or racism. But given that blacks are underrepresented among stockowners, Klein asked, would it be racist to support a capital-gains tax cut? “Yes,” Kendi answered, without hesitation.
“How To Be An Antiracist” is Wrong on its Facts and in its Assumptions. (city-journal.org)

 

Here is what I have googled for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal...ection Clause is,equal protection of the laws".
All races are equal, Any other interpretation of U.S. Constitution is just a racial war organized by Democrat party.