What’s the paradox?
So then why is it(CRT) needed? And be careful answering this. Because, ummmm well, its probably gonna answer your question, of....: How does this chamge things between white/black classmates.Kids are taught about racism and slavery already. CRT wouldn’t expose them to it anymore than kids are already exposed. Like I said, it doesn’t teach them to be racist.
I don’t know why this would change things between White and Black classmates.
So then why is it(CRT) needed? And be careful answering this. Because, ummmm well, its probably gonna answer your question, of....: How does this chamge things between white/black classmates.
Kind of like what Iamstupid said, taking about facts isn't a big deal. It's history, however, some teachers/ppl are taking it to the extremes and it's putting a bad light on it. "What's said here, stays here" for example. It creates dissonance if you will.It’s needed because it enhances their education.
It doesn’t pit white people against black people, so I do t know why it would cause friction between white and black classmates.
CRT posits that the power structure in the legal system is designed to benefit whites, while also disenfranchising minorities, especially black people. So, where does that leave people that are mixed? Half-beneficiaries and half-oppressed?
Did some searching, and I actually found my answer. Evidently there's a new study, clearly an offshoot of CRT, named Critical Mixed Race Studies lol. Check out the some of the statements released by the governing board members:
Anti-Blackness and white supremacy must be destroyed. As mixed race/multiracial individuals, we must recognize our longstanding role in perpetuating anti-Blackness, including colorism within our various communities. Our racial and colonial miseducation must end now. By being critical and standing in our truth that one can identify with their multiple ancestries, yet also stand firm in their commitment to Black Lives Matter and against anti-Blackness, we can work towards ending white supremacy and systemic racism within the US and around the world.
We acknowledge that the history of mixed race/multiracial identity has been inherently tied to white supremacy and anti-Blackness. That our mixed identities are politicized and manipulated in ways to benefit whites and create further divisions between our communities of color. That those of us with white heritage and light skin have a legacy of exploiting white privilege. That we ALL have internalized racism and have been complicit in anti-Blackness.
Holy crap. Just when I thought this theory couldn't get any whackier. Looks like @Kevin Bryan was right. If you ain't all black, you're an oppressor. Can't believe this bush league theory has gone mainstream. It's a political activist movement more than anything. You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative critical race theorist. Would love to see it.
Tell you what Brooky, if you can find me one registered Republican that is a CRT Scholar, I'll attend the next BLM rally/protest that is within an hour of me.
Kind of like what Iamstupid said, taking about facts isn't a big deal. It's history, however, some teachers/ppl are taking it to the extremes and it's putting a bad light on it. "What's said here, stays here" for example. It creates dissonance if you will.
Teaching opinions is a slippery slope no one wants with children. MSM is having a hard time telling the difference between fact and opinion. The way they're portraying CRT is basically saying teachers are as well.
Stick to the facts would go a long way.
Dialog is key. Not ranting, raving, name calling, etc.. but actual debate.CRT can easily be taught without opinion bias. But one would have to accept that CRT itself isn’t biased.
This is CRT, imo:
1) a law was enacted
2) evidence is presented that the law may have unfairly targeted minorities, perhaps not explicitly. Think Jim Crow laws just more subtle.
3) students are then tasked with analyzing the impact of the law.
4) if the teacher wants to get funky with it, she has the students perform debates on various laws like this and whether they were unjust to minorities, why, how, what the solution should be.
The information age backfired when there's money involved promoting yellow journalism.
Dialog is key. Not ranting, raving, name calling, etc.. but actual debate.
I guess opinions presented as facts is a pet peeve. It should stay past Page Six, past the comics.
You brought up earlier/maybe yesterday about how video is edited to fit an agenda.
It's so crazy that's a go to move with both sides.
We saw that with the CNN guy on tape.It’s because they already have their narrative picked out and are always thinking about how to mold news to fit it. Editing out the question asked and replacing it with a paraphrased, exaggerated question is on the first page of ‘How to Spread False Narratives: for Dummies’