What does Critical Race Theory teach?

Nobody has argued that it is about "individual acts of racism", and yet, you devote so much time to refute the claim that no one is making. And the book is titled
Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness (Ordinary Terrible Things)
Of course its CRT. Illustrations of the pointy tailed devil and his whiteness contract with white people isnt about individual acts of racism.

 

I have. @Adfundum has! Because the book IS about "individual acts of racism". NOT about CRT, like you claimed.

At least none of the parts that anybody has quoted is.

 

Which false remarks would that be?

 

The one I quoted!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-theory-teach.589535/page-42#post-1072999353

Did you post without even bothering to read what it was I was responding to?

 

The only part quoted is from the images including the "whiteness contract" with the devil. Thats not about an individual act and instead applies to white people.

 

And what if the parents are not OK with it?
One thing that raises suspicions about CRT is the shape-shifting nature of the defenses offered.

 

Yes the "whiteness contract" with the devil is a false narative. Its the books false narrative, not mine

 

Shape-shifting defenses arouse the suspicion that CRT's advocates are trying to sneak it in because they're afraid to defend it.

 

"Whiteness" (whatever that is, because you haven't quoted how the author defines it) has NOTHING to do with CRT. If you are claiming the author identifies this with CRT, you would need to quote that part.

 

Well the images speak for themselves. Just not to you. The author portrays whiteness as a contract by white people with the devil in exchange for their soul.

And again from Wikipedia
Within critical race theory, various sub-groupings have emerged that focus on issues and nuances that are unique to a particular ethno-racial and/or marginalized community. .......
CRT has spurred some scholars to call for a second wave of whiteness studies, which is now a small offshoot known as Second Wave Whiteness (SWW).[92]

 

So you're not going to quote it. That's what I thought. As I said on my first post in this debate: the reason right-wingers refuse to provide clear quotes, links and references is that context ruins their narrative.

For example. The complete quote IN CONTEXT would be

Within critical race theory, various sub-groupings have emerged that focus on issues and nuances that are unique to a particular ethno-racial and/or marginalized community. This can include issues that relate to the intersection of race with disability, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, religion and other social structures. For example, disability critical race studies (DisCrit), critical race feminism (CRF), Hebrew Crit (HebCrit), Black Critical Race Theory (Black Crit), Latino critical race studies (LatCrit),[89] Asian American critical race studies (AsianCrit), South Asian American critical race studies (DesiCrit),[90] and American Indian critical race studies (sometimes called TribalCrit). CRT methodologies have also been applied to the study of white immigrant groups.[91] CRT has spurred some scholars to call for a second wave of whiteness studies, which is now a small offshoot known as Second Wave Whiteness (SWW).[92] Critical race theory has also begun to spawn research that looks at understandings of race outside the United States.[93][94]
​

The part you OBLITERATED because it EXPLAINS what it's referring to, and makes it obvious that the whole thing has nothing to do with the book, is in bold.

 

Your postings are a joke. What do you need a quote for when you have an image of the page with the actual text?

 

Quote from the book what the hell she meant by "whiteness". Easy as that.

Because at this point you have tried to take parts of the book out of context. And when I exposed that you took Wikipedia out of context, and I also exposed it. Now you bring up a drawing that I suspect is taken out of context. But we won't know it without knowing what she means in the book by "whiteness"

What is the definition of "whiteness" in the book? I might agree with the author, or I may not agree. But if you are going to criticize a book that you haven't read, only because you are afraid children will be taught not to be racist, then say it so we don't bother taking your criticism seriously.

 

I already did. Roll your eyes up to the post you are responding to.

You havent contradicted a thing Ive said and the additional context from wikipedia doesnt change a thing.

Its a childrens book without definitions included einstein. AND like I said the author PORTRAYS whiteness as a contract between white people and the devil in exchange for their soul and states "Whiteness is a bad deal"

 

No you didn't. And you won't. Because you haven't read... or even have access to the book. You just have talking points from some right-wingnut webpage who won't say it either. Most likely because context would ruin the talking points.

So first it was "I already did", and now there isn't one. That just about says it all.

Thanks for playing.

BTW, I very much doubt the book doesn't have a definition of what the author means by "whiteness".

 

???? Actually the first thing I did when a discussion of the book came up was go through the entire book
Not My Idea - Anastasia Higginbotham
And yes I already did provide "from the book what the hell she meant by "whiteness"", which doesnt include a definition. Instead she portrays whiteness as a contract between white people and the devil in exchange for their soul.
And if you read the book like I have you would of known is doesnt include a definition of whiteness. Revealing how convinced you are regarding matters you know nothing about. Like I said, a joke.

 

Mark Twain portrayed a certain time, place, culture and people to illuminate the human condition through humor. The CRT censors' attempts to paint Twain as a racist propagandist and get his books banned are disgraceful.

 

It was a direct quote from the book. If it makes no sense then talk to the person that wrote the book.

This is directly from the article: "A Kid's Book About Racism has an exhaustive list of actions it deems harmful and racist. The book claims asking questions can be racist and issues a call to action for five- to seven-year-olds to call out and identify racism."

This too is directly from the article: "The curriculum also assigns A Kid's Book About Racism to kindergarten and first graders."

Your attempt to claim that I twisted what was said is false. You're the only one that has tried to twist what the article has said. And everyone can see that by reading the whole article. Something you either have not done or you are being dishonest in what is said in the article. Since you did quote a part of the article that was from the middle of the article then I can only assume that you have read the article.

Talk about a backhanded way of claiming I'm racist. Oh I wouldn't know any racist questions because I'm not a racist but you are so you should be able to think of many. The reason I asked is because I don't know any. But you're the one that claims to be an expert on what racism is, after all, you do your research on a subject before speaking about it....right? . Hence the question. Because I can't think of a single question that would be racist to ask of someone when you're that young.

No, your post was to twist what was said. That you double down on it only proves how dishonest you are being.

 

I don't know. Maybe they are more likely to be introverts. I know East Asians are, and they like to read even more than whites.

That is the sort of absurd and disingenuous strawman fallacy that proves you hate, and are desperately trying to obscure, the truth. You could with equal "logic" ask what there is in a Mercedes that makes Mercedes owners more educated than Chevrolet owners.

I have provided evidence. You then claimed that reports of perpetrator race by victims of and eyewitnesses to violent crime were not evidence of perpetrator race. So I ask again: if that isn't evidence of the racial distribution of violent crime perpetrators, if all the statistics on arrests and convictions, in dozens of countries all around the world including majority-black ones, are not evidence, what would be evidence? Is there even any conceivable evidence that someone could produce? Or do you just automatically know that no such evidence is possible, so you can just dismiss any that is offered?

Identification of a fact that supports a conclusion is an actual argument. You just don't like the conclusion, so you pretend the facts identified are not facts.

Because it is fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous filth, as proved above. And just to prove it again: what is there in a Mercedes that makes Mercedes owners better educated than Chevrolet owners? Answer the question, or reveal yourself as a despicable troll, propagandist, hypocrite, and waste of time. I predict you will not answer this question for the exact same reason I won't answer yours: it is dishonest, anti-logical garbage.

I am the one wasting my time with anti-logical swill like your filthy, evil, anti-truth "question" above.

 

Sorry, but your own citations show how easily white children can be told the are racists under the cover of CRT.
Thanks for teaching Huckleberry Finn.

 

What utter nonsense. From the Teachers Union-

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:

• Result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin(o/a/x), Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education;......

C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.

E. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.

F. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.

"Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression—even in places where it is illegal and requires civil disobedience."

Business Items - 2021 NEA Annual Meeting (archive.org)

What nonsense. From the foreword of "Not my idea"

“White people have a very, very serious problem, and they should start thinking about what they can do about it . ."

"Racism is a white person's problem"

​

 

BLOOD LIBELS: Democrats/Media Deploy Same “Eliminationist Narrative” Against School Parents As They Did Against Tea Party.

“Nothing has changed, other than the names and faces. The media still plays the role of creating false narratives that ordinary law-abiding Americans who oppose liberals are dangerous and prone to violence.”

"And the purpose of these narratives is to justify violence and oppression aimed at their political opponents."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/478884/

Bringing the FBI and the Patriot Act against parents, after the FBI has done nothing effective in the face of the largest surge in murder rates our nation has ever experienced gives one a pretty good sense of the state of play and the importance of voting out folks that would try to direct such illegitimate power against political opponents.

 

Yup. The Dems have made a serious error.
Democrats have declared war on ‘school board moms’
By Marc A. Thiessen

First there were “soccer moms” — the minivan-driving suburban mothers who became swing voters in the 1996 presidential election. Then there were “security moms” who after 9/11 were concerned about keeping their children safe from terrorism.


Well, in 2022, the new swing voters will be “school board moms” — suburban women who are deeply concerned with the direction of their children’s education and are showing up at school board meetings across the country to make their voices heard. But instead of addressing their concerns, Democrats are likening them to terrorists and weaponizing the FBI to intimidate them.

Big mistake. . . .