annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Knight/Nathon Detroit isn't here anymore, but his words are still posted:
Clarence Page: Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Those who don’t know what it is
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Knight/Nathon Detroit isn't here anymore, but his words are still posted:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I don't engage the way you want to *make* me engage. That's your problem. I have no problem engaging with others, but I generally choose not to engage with you because of your long history of trolling me. You're incapable of having a good faith conversation and I won't indulge your attempts to pretend you can.
Now how about you stop trying to derail the thread?
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
This excerpt is a good summation:
In Texas, the news coverage of the bill—which the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, is expected to sign—has focussed on the idea that it will “ban critical race theory,” as one local news station put it. But the term “critical race theory” does not appear in the text. What it seeks to do, on closer reading, is establish a protective halo around white students, so that they do not hear that their success might have something to do with their race, or that the structures of racial power and privilege in the past also apply to the present. The bill doesn’t rewrite history in the way that the campaigns to protect Confederate memorialization have sometimes sought to. Instead, it tries to cleave off students from any feeling of historical responsibility—as if, with each generation, America were re-created, blameless and anew.
This notion—that a generation can arise purely in the context of its own experience rather than that of its parents or generations before them—recurs often in American politics, and especially right now. Increasingly, conservatism after Donald Trump has been defined by a fear that American society is on the verge of being displaced by a progressive reimagining, with woke politics and aggressive redistribution. Progressivism is defined by an equally urgent hope that it can, in fact, displace old patterns of ecological destruction and discrimination. It is interesting—and slightly ironic—that critical race theory, with its invocations of structural racism, should be so central to the policy debate right now: part of its teaching is that the patterns of American society can’t be easily dislodged by a change in manners, and that if you are snapping your fingers to make the past disappear you are only doing so in tandem with the rhythms of the past.
That is reason to think that the conflict over critical race theory might endure, even when the attention of Fox News inevitably drifts. The question of what children are held responsible for cuts deep, and the answer isn’t always determined by a person’s ideology or partisan identity. When I spoke with Terry Stoops, a conservative education-policy expert at the John Locke Foundation who had been appointed to a task force on “indoctrination” in public schools by the conservative lieutenant governor of North Carolina, he told me that he wasn’t sure how long the outrage of some grassroots conservatives would ultimately last. But he did think their anger had been misunderstood. “I’ve seen so much discussion about the fact that conservatives are advancing these critical-race-theory bills because they don’t want the truth of slavery or racism to be taught, and I haven’t seen that at all. I think parents want their children to learn about the mistakes of the past in order to create a better future,” Stoops said. “They don’t want their children to be told that they are responsible for the mistakes of their ancestors, and that unless they repent for those mistakes then they will remain complicit.” The debate isn’t about history, exactly. It is about the possibility of blamelessness.
In Texas, the news coverage of the bill—which the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, is expected to sign—has focussed on the idea that it will “ban critical race theory,” as one local news station put it. But the term “critical race theory” does not appear in the text. What it seeks to do, on closer reading, is establish a protective halo around white students, so that they do not hear that their success might have something to do with their race, or that the structures of racial power and privilege in the past also apply to the present. The bill doesn’t rewrite history in the way that the campaigns to protect Confederate memorialization have sometimes sought to. Instead, it tries to cleave off students from any feeling of historical responsibility—as if, with each generation, America were re-created, blameless and anew.
This notion—that a generation can arise purely in the context of its own experience rather than that of its parents or generations before them—recurs often in American politics, and especially right now. Increasingly, conservatism after Donald Trump has been defined by a fear that American society is on the verge of being displaced by a progressive reimagining, with woke politics and aggressive redistribution. Progressivism is defined by an equally urgent hope that it can, in fact, displace old patterns of ecological destruction and discrimination. It is interesting—and slightly ironic—that critical race theory, with its invocations of structural racism, should be so central to the policy debate right now: part of its teaching is that the patterns of American society can’t be easily dislodged by a change in manners, and that if you are snapping your fingers to make the past disappear you are only doing so in tandem with the rhythms of the past.
That is reason to think that the conflict over critical race theory might endure, even when the attention of Fox News inevitably drifts. The question of what children are held responsible for cuts deep, and the answer isn’t always determined by a person’s ideology or partisan identity. When I spoke with Terry Stoops, a conservative education-policy expert at the John Locke Foundation who had been appointed to a task force on “indoctrination” in public schools by the conservative lieutenant governor of North Carolina, he told me that he wasn’t sure how long the outrage of some grassroots conservatives would ultimately last. But he did think their anger had been misunderstood. “I’ve seen so much discussion about the fact that conservatives are advancing these critical-race-theory bills because they don’t want the truth of slavery or racism to be taught, and I haven’t seen that at all. I think parents want their children to learn about the mistakes of the past in order to create a better future,” Stoops said. “They don’t want their children to be told that they are responsible for the mistakes of their ancestors, and that unless they repent for those mistakes then they will remain complicit.” The debate isn’t about history, exactly. It is about the possibility of blamelessness.
`Or, you could butt out of a conversation between Lon and me.
Do you want your comments made public or not? You do realize these forums are public?
Right Divider
Body part
This is a PUBLIC forum. Anyone can comment on any post.Or, you could butt out of a conversation between Lon and me.
CRT is the view that poverty is the result of oppression by others. That is not true. The poor may find pleasure in criticizing or blaming others for their own circumstances, but such criticism is rooted in greed and envy, not racism. If smarter people get better jobs it is not because of race, but because of laws governing good business. If people inherit wealth or are born into wealthier circumstances that is not because of race, but because of many factors, none of which are racist. Marxism feeds the greedy and envious with delusions that imbalances of wealth are evil and the wealthy are evil. Marxism is of the devil, not capitalism.
Lon
Well-known member
Your summation. So and what, Anna? What is the point of this thread, just to be mean and snarky? Let's refocus to what 'we' can do about race and what we aren't responsible for?
Aw, always going for the digs. Yeah, when it is about 'politics' I seek men, Anna : Plain: Is this just an exercise in your verbal prowess and one-up-manship?No, I hadn't noticed. I guess I was busy having a conversation while you were seeking the approval of men.
I already told you. SEE if you can read instead of being here for a different reason than me: To find something mutual and meaningful Anna! NOT to be mean and snarky or try and boost my banter skills and derogatory.
No blame. I'm just trying to avoid an accusation or judgement. It is best to leave it in your court. I'm not mean, not trying to banter. I may have hurt you, but my arrow was intended for Whitmire, not you. I don't think he's addressing the need and I have a hard time using him as the focus and talking point. If I may, I don't believe he served your discussion well in thread either, when his snarky meaninglessness is infecting the entire thread. He offered a further rift and I'd say he is being found successful, rather than actually using CRT as a needed talking point, he used it to be meanspirited and forgettable. At this point, you are defending him, and I'm saying this thread needs a reboot because most comments aren't even about Critical Race Theory, and barely about Representative Pringle's knowledge of it.
Yep. Now listen to why: I have no control over what Alabama does. You have no control over what Alabama does. What we CAN do is discuss without posturing over how it may apply to us. In among that is an important point: What are we responsible for, regarding an ill or perceived ill. Next: what is the responsible thing to teach children "that we can agree upon?" After that? All this fun (and for me childish) banter can go to the wayside. I don't need a mean-spirited, one-up conversation. You can post in the spirit of the thread or you can keep on doubling down simply to be the best leftist you can possibly be without a mind. You can either beat someone into submission or you can do a service and argue a point intelligently without beating the other opponent down. I do realize you get the same back at you and you've let it shape you into the same abusive person. I'm going to continue to treat you like I always have and ask that you address this material.
I'll do as I like. You are the one that changed. I've met you a bit on your decided change, but remain more consistently myself, concerned about matters of humanity and concerned about people rather than my angst or somehow superior opinion. I address you most times, to find exactly what I said. So you don't want to rise to mutuality in ANY thread with anybody. Okay, but I will ever continue to try and reach something meaningful and it is ever my interaction with you to break you out of the bantering mold. It isn't good for you, me or the country. We need caring conversations. Your 'care' seems to have gone out the door, but I'll not treat you differently simply because I have to hope that we can heal rifts, despite what media and politicians rip apart.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Can't blame em.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My ancestors were involved in the abolitionist movement and fought in the Union Army.
I have nothing to repent for on that score.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Why would anybody need to repent of anything that someone else did, especially someone not alive anymore.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I taught in the inner city, in the murder capital of upstate New York - a city struggling with drugs and gangs and violence.
How foolish would it have been of me to have held responsible the children I taught, for the violent actions of their brothers and their fathers and their cousins?
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Of course they can, silly! That doesn't mean they'll get included in the conversation.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Is that what they're actually being taught? That's what the conservative education-policy expert is saying, but there's no federal curriculum, this is a states issue, and there are a lot of very conservative school boards out there.
Lon
Well-known member
"..out of bantering mode..." : plain: Have you become evil, Anna? Are lies starting to become you? Why? What for? For what reason?
I'm not going to encourage you to have a nice evening. I'm going to encourage you to have an honest one with a long hard look into the mirror of what you are becoming. Don't be that monster.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It's not your job to break me out of anything. I don't know who you think you are.
And all your talk of being "not nice" rings very hollow when you read through that last long post of yours, and your post just above.
Save it for someone else.
And all your talk of being "not nice" rings very hollow when you read through that last long post of yours, and your post just above.
Save it for someone else.
Lon
Well-known member
"IF" I were a friend, as I had always thought, then yes it is. Banter isn't great.
Honest, at least. I don't lie and won't drop to that level.
No, not at all! YOU reread it. I'm trying to get to discussion of something. I 'started' with " Whitmire as not being a great reporter and not really being or playing nice, just playing dubious politics. You like Whitmire, apparently, but it isn't dealing with the actual thread issue. The way to get there is to actually talk about what Pringle does and doesn't know.
As I'd said, perhaps you shouldn't be in the thread, if you aren't able to discuss the actual material and importance of it. Yeah, I know you started it, but are you actually capable of carrying it? Haven't you dismissed everyone out of your thread at this point? Where was it SUPPOSED to be headed? Is this it? Just banter with no substance? YOU started on me, for the record. I'm not being mean nor snarky, even in my responses. I'm caught a bit off, certainly, having thought this thread was actually going to open up a much needed conversation. That it isn't going that direction? Going to continue to echo a nation unable to come to a table to try and do anything but make the other side look terrible in whatever poor light they can cast. I honestly, had hoped this thread would be something better. Perhaps I'll look for the 'meaningful' CRT discussion thread.