CRT and no I don't mean Cathode Ray Tube

That's not the real problem though. I wholeheartedly agree, every human deserves equal rights, but you can never, ever get rid of racism, you can only shift it. And the root of racism has nothing to do with a difference of melanin content, and everything to do with cultural differences, and the hard truth is that you can have a monoculture and relative peace, or multiculturalism and conflict.

The US has a race relations problem because it does pretty much nothing to culturally assimilate people, and that's the key driver to success in life. Things like parental participation in a child's life, what values are and aren't taught, work ethic, etc are all a reflection of culture, which has both racial and class components.

So here's the question I posit - are you willing to completely erase "Black" culture in order to help African Americans succeed?

Now, if you think that sounds like an unfair request, think about other countries like Japan, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya - If you wanted to live in those countries, do business in those countries, and succeed locally, wouldn't you be expected to adopt their culture and do business the way they do business? If yes, why don't we work harder to adapt people on the fringes of society to how these sorts of things work?

Now, you can make the argument about whites not wanting blacks who act "white", but I think it's a hell of a lot more prevalent to find blacks who don't want blacks to act "white". Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Your post begs the question, what is “black culture” and what is “white culture”. Maybe that would help me answer your question.

Black people have always been slaves to the liberals.
Liberals just let them eat in the house and not in the fields.
They think that is freedom

They've got this figured out. One side says "do the work to improve yourself".

The other side says "It's not your fault, we will give the stuff you are owed." Easy.

Likely one of the most reasoned and possible honest responses we’ll get here since several posters are devoutly racist and proud of their “heritage”.

Long story short I don’t fully disagree with most of what you said so I’ll try to highlight as I haven’t an inclination to try to write a dissertation.

I have no issue with an honest discussion on slavery to the extent it’s relevant. In this discussion it isn’t really as the premise on which most CRT is based is that in America most foundational decisions were rooted in the preservation of slavery and much of the actions of government and private business carried that through for centuries (about 4) until they were just ingrained in how business and government were conducted. Now I don’t necessarily believe that wholely but some aspects of it are true even today.

Why slavery does matter in conversation is pretty limited to a backdrop of why some decisions were made. Not particularly that blacks sold other blacks into slavery or even a full discussion of the spread of African slavery through the Caribbean or south and central Americas or Europe. But how it informed the post Civil War actions in The uS. Trying to throw Africans took part in the slave trade in is just diversion.

What you wrote about disenfranchisement is mostly correct. We still have a ways to go to fix the actions of the past 160 years of disenfranchising, intentionally denying equal financial opportunity, preventing the accumulation of wealth (mostly through property) and passing laws which create a disparate impact on blacks. Now not all of that is specifically racially aimed. Some are directed to the poor, but there exists a knock on effect. If there are more poor people that are black then a rule, law or policy which effects the poor also effects more blacks, whether that’s the intent or not. Some aspects of CRT is to exam that relationship of policies and their origins.

I agree that many laws have passed to try to stem racist policies or policies that overtly are aimed at disenfranchising blacks. Some work some don’t. It’s really a kind of trial and error. Rather than letting those policies exist, people (generally white and Republican) do all they can to prevent those policies from working. There are also policies which get put in place that are designed to further disnfranchise blacks, mainly passed by whites and republicans and mainly in southern states (which rightly or wrongly looks to be a holdover from the south’s racist past and present or as some would say “heritage”). There has never been a time that we as a nation have all pulled together to make an equal playing field across the board. Since the 1860s their have been forces pushing to hold blacks back from full equality.

We would disagree as to the existence of systemic racism. Are their laws on the books aimed directly at blacks, not many, though there are sufficient attempts to pass them under the guise of being neutral. Are their laws being passed or that exist which have a disparate impact on blacks, yes. Are their laws, policies etc which have a disparate impact on the poor which in turn impact blacks more harshly, yes. Are those absolute barriers to success, not even close. Should we be vigilant in rooting those out, I believe so.

Yes,there are individual racists. Some on this very board and have posted in this very discussion. Is the US a “racist” country, no. Is opportunity equal for everyone, not at all.

Though there are voting measures that are intended to disenfranchise blacks a massive over haul of the system isn’t necessary but that’s a different discussion need not be conflated with “what’s CRT”. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

unbelievable. just astounding. you still cling to the LIE that Republicans are the blockers of any progress when you know .. or should know .. that the entire Jim Crow "society" you speak of was solely the doing of the dixiecrats who were were .. wait for it .. DEMOCRATS. yes DEMOCRATS. if i had a dollar for every time someone claimed in this forum that the Republican party was the genesis of Jim Crow i'd be retired now on a tropical island.


and speaking of systemic racism how is it that you were "allowed" to be a lawyer as you claim you are? you might possibly be a product of "reverse racism" aka affirmative action which gave you favored status over other law school candidates. was that right? was that "reparations"? should "reverse racism" be the "solution" for racism? what's that going to achieve? most racism.


don't speak in generalities .. cite what specific examples you claim about these policies you claim are designed to disenfranchise blacks. i for one would like to know what you mean by that. do you mean redistricting? something else? do tell!


and last but not least, ignoring the FACT that slavery was largely enabled by black tribes in Africa is the "Elephant in the room" that destroys the narrative that blacks are "innocent" in the history of slavery. it DESTROYS any claim of "reparations" and any "woke" narrative like CRT that tries to justify it.


do you believe in "White privilege"? i'd be interested to see if you do ... more on that later.

Wacky. As usual reading is not your strong suit.

Wacky. As usual reading is not your strong suit. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

avoiding tough questions about your comments .. as usual.

Your questions aren’t tough at all. Theyre just dumb and not worthy of the time to reply. But I’ll give a simple answer even you can comprehend. The blacks that were sold into slavery and their descendants were innocent victims of the slave trade. So the ignorance associated with your statement should be apparent.

Your questions aren’t tough at all. Theyre just dumb and not worthy of the time to reply. But I’ll give a simple answer even you can comprehend. The blacks that were sold into slavery and their descendants were innocent victims of the slave trade. So the ignorance associated with your statement should be apparent. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

oh they were innocent victims .. the question is .. whose victims were they?

i think you know the answer to that ..

oh they were innocent victims .. the question is .. whose victims were they?

i think you know the answer to that .. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Both the buyer and seller. So what’s your point. Oh that’s right, it’s to be dumber and dumber. No I get it. You’re being proudly ignorant.

Both the buyer and seller. So what’s your point. Oh that’s right, it’s to be dumber and dumber. No I get it. You’re being proudly ignorant. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

no seller .. no buyer. no supply .. no demand. who was the seller ...

basic market dynamics ..


still waiting for you to cite one single "policy" that disenfranchised blacks ..

I don't have a huge problem with reparations, as long as it's not coming out of my pockets.

Because if you actually want to punish me for something my ancestors did, and which I personally have nothing to do with, then you're crazy.

If your father commits murder, that means you should also be charged?
That's what they do in North Korea.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Both the buyer and seller. So what’s your point. Oh that’s right, it’s to be dumber and dumber. No I get it. You’re being proudly ignorant.

oeb11 - Point - calling others 'ignorant' - these days sometimes gets mod action.


Ignorant - definition - lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge - sometimes education (CRT excepted) - but the word carries a connotation :
context of “ignorant,” its an insult. both ignorant & unaware mean “lacking knowledge/ awareness,” but ignorant is the negative connotation whereas unaware is the positive connotation. The word is, like “literally”, frequently misused.

There are many things of which I am ignorant ( lacking knowledge of) - One cannot master all knowledge of our world.


Yet - 1b1 - that was not the context of your usage of the word.

no seller .. no buyer. no supply .. no demand. who was the seller ...

basic market dynamics ..


still waiting for you to cite one single "policy" that disenfranchised blacks .. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Checkmate

Both the buyer and seller. So what’s your point. Oh that’s right, it’s to be dumber and dumber. No I get it. You’re being proudly ignorant. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You lost it way before this. Youre just circling back know.

You lost it way before this. Youre just circling back know. Originally Posted by winn dixie

so he's pulling a "Jen Jen"?










BAHHAAHAAA

Likely one of the most reasoned and possible honest responses we’ll get here since several posters are devoutly racist and proud of their “heritage”.

Long story short I don’t fully disagree with most of what you said so I’ll try to highlight as I haven’t an inclination to try to write a dissertation.

I have no issue with an honest discussion on slavery to the extent it’s relevant.


But who gets to decide what is "relevant" in an open, honest discussion? Surely any factual information on the subject is relevant in an open, honest discussion. If one then wants to lay down a framework for parameters like "between 1619 to 1776 or 1776 to 1865, then one could object to relevancy if one went outside those parameters. As I understand it, the teaching of CRT wants to start at 1619 when the very first slaves arrived but that "intentionally" leaves out any discussion of how those people ended up on those ships and who participated. I suspect any discussion of other Blacks being part of the slave trade, is intentionally left out for obvious reasons. The narrative "they" the teachers of CRT want, is to lay all the blame at the feet of Whites when the fact, as you acknowledged, Blacks played a very big part, a partnership if you will, with White slavers. After all, these were Black individuals left standing on the beach when the slaves left. They made no attempt to forcible take every Black person they could. Both sides were running a business 'together". That simply can not be left out of the story in my opinion. It's to important in understanding how all people of all colors can be evil and co-operate in evil.



In this discussion it isn’t really as the premise on which most CRT is based is that in America most foundational decisions were rooted in the preservation of slavery


Let's accept for sake of discussion, that's true and should be taught. Should it also be suggested as some CRT advocates do, that these decisions being made today are also rooted in preserving slavery or to a lesser extent, the disenfranchisement of Blacks? This, what I call hysteria, being whipped up that going from one single day of voting which was the better part of my life to say two weeks of early voting and then to a week of early voting, some how disenfranchises Blacks. It makes no sense. Whether you have 10 drop boxes in a particular county or only four, does not impact sending your vote through regular mail. You either believe that the post office can adequately handle votes by mail or you don't. It seems to me that every single change whether it actually impacts Blacks more than Whites, is made up to suit the narrative. Poor White people have every bit the difficulty of getting to a polling place or "playing by the rules" as poor Black people. It's all made up bullshit to suit the narrative IMHO. Not allowing "ballot harvesting" does not impact Blacks more than Whites. It's made up bullshit.


So why would anybody want to make such a statement? Again, obvious, they want as hateful a narrative as they can spin which sad to say, is still being done today. Even the Washington Post had to call out Joe Biden for calling the new voting laws in Georgia, Jim Crow 2.0. They gave him 4 Pinocchio's for that because it is a lie. Those laws are nothing even close to Jim Crow laws but they had to try and make the narrative as hateful as possible. How about Joe Biden telling an audience of Black people that Republicans want to "put ya'll back in chains". What an utterly despicable thing to say. I can't think of anything Trump ever said that was as despicable as that if if are going to discuss "demonizing" an opponent.



and much of the actions of government and private business carried that through for centuries (about 4) until they were just ingrained in how business and government were conducted. Now I don’t necessarily believe that wholely but some aspects of it are true even today.



Some, OK but to label it "systemic"? It doesn't sound like even you believe that.


Why slavery does matter in conversation is pretty limited to a backdrop of why some decisions were made. Not particularly that blacks sold other blacks into slavery or even a full discussion of the spread of African slavery through the Caribbean or south and central Americas or Europe. But how it informed the post Civil War actions in The uS. Trying to throw Africans took part in the slave trade in is just diversion.



Here again, I do not believe what you just stated is at the crux of CRT discussion. The crux of CRT discussion today is "White people enslaved us and they are still doing it today, they are our "opressors"


Do you feel oppressed? Or merely feel that sometimes, some Whites don't give you the respect you deserve because there is one helluva difference between those to things.


What you wrote about disenfranchisement is mostly correct. We still have a ways to go to fix the actions of the past 160 years of disenfranchising, intentionally denying equal financial opportunity, preventing the accumulation of wealth (mostly through property) and passing laws which create a disparate impact on blacks.


There are property laws that specifically negatively impact Blacks cause I'm not aware of that. Can you give me an example or two? Now if your talking about the fact that Blacks haven't had as much time to accumulate property you might have an argument but that can not be resolved. What can be resolved is not having any laws that wouldn't allow Blacks to accumulate property and that, to my knowledge does not exist


Now not all of that is specifically racially aimed. Some are directed to the poor, but there exists a knock on effect. If there are more poor people that are black then a rule, law or policy which effects the poor also effects more blacks, whether that’s the intent or not. Some aspects of CRT is to exam that relationship of policies and their origins.



But unless there are laws that prohibit a poor Black from obtaining more money, that is on the individual but this is a very good example of the point I'm trying to make. Surely you know by sheer numbers, there are more poor White people than Blacks. Unless there are specific legal barriers to Blacks making more money, this argument falls flat. Laws impact poor equally. Nobody is forced to remain poor in America. Were you?


I agree that many laws have passed to try to stem racist policies or policies that overtly are aimed at disenfranchising blacks. Some work some don’t. It’s really a kind of trial and error. Rather than letting those policies exist, people (generally white and Republican) do all they can to prevent those policies from working.


I don't believe that. Unless a law is tailored with specific language excluding Blacks, then you are simply making assumptions based on bias.


There are also policies which get put in place that are designed to further disnfranchise blacks, mainly passed by whites and republicans and mainly in southern states (which rightly or wrongly looks to be a holdover from the south’s racist past and present or as some would say “heritage”).


Sorry, but you are going to have to name them and be specific. You don't get to make a statement like that without proof.


There has never been a time that we as a nation have all pulled together to make an equal playing field across the board. Since the 1860s their have been forces pushing to hold blacks back from full equality.



I agree and sorry to say, many of those "forces" are self inflicted and to even suggest that some things haven't changed since the 1860's, is just a ridiculous thing to say. Every sociology study ever done says that you are more likely to get ahead in America whether you are Black or White, if you grow up in a household with two, educated parents. Growing up in a crime ridden neighborhood is also a force to hold one back and whose fault is it if a neighborhood is crime ridden? If the citizenry, will not co-operate with the police, crime will exist and crime will be a force that holds back the citizen. The reason as I see it, that Blacks don't want to co-operate with police, is it would mean removing a Black person from the family even if that Black and of course this applies to Whites too, is responsible for crime.


The reason Democrats will not do anything about rising crime, is because it would mean incarcerating more Black males. There is no other solution to eliminate crime, than to eliminate the criminal and if Democrats will not support incarcerating criminals, crime can not be reduced. Nothing gets any more simple than that that but they can't put their base in jail. I don't like saying that but it is the truth as I see it and I don't know how anybody of any color can deny it. We can try to make a better society with opportunities for all but unfortunately, that isn't the way it works any where in the world. Some people no matter how many opportunities, chose to be bad. If we can't accept this universal principal, we can never become a safer society. Criminals, violent criminals must be put away for life in most cases. We see what no cash bail and fewer prosecutions and more people being let out of jail has brought us. New York is on the brink of collapse as a place were anybody would want to go.


We would disagree as to the existence of systemic racism. Are their laws on the books aimed directly at blacks, not many, though there are sufficient attempts to pass them under the guise of being neutral.



Sorry, again, I can't let you get away with making a statement like that without proof. What laws on the books are aimed directly at Blacks?


Are their laws being passed or that exist which have a disparate impact on blacks, yes. Are their laws, policies etc which have a disparate impact on the poor which in turn impact blacks more harshly, yes. Are those absolute barriers to success, not even close. Should we be vigilant in rooting those out, I believe so.



I'd have to know what those laws and barriers are before I could agree. I simply do not buy the whole "there are more poor Blacks" argument. Barriers to success are ingrained. That is what I believe. While I understand that it is harder for some individuals regardless of color, there are examples after examples of two Black ( or White for that matter ) living under the same exact circumstances and one makes it and the other doesn't. If one makes it and the other doesn't, it can't be blamed on circumstances. It's about the personal choices we make and I fully understand that some people have many more obstacles to over come and maybe that isn't fair but life isn't fair, it isn't "equitable" and it never will be. There will always be people who make the wrong choices.


Yes,there are individual racists. Some on this very board and have posted in this very discussion. Is the US a “racist” country, no. Is opportunity equal for everyone, not at all.



Are you seriously suggesting that we can create a country where every person regardless of color gets an "equal opportunity"? How in the world do you think that possible because as I just said, not all people will make the same choices given the same opportunity, it just doesn't work that way. Only laws and enforcing those laws can create equal opportunity but when given, it isn't always successful. And if two very different people are given the same opportunity and only one position exists, what then? Do we create two jobs even though one is all that is need so that we have equal outcomes because that's what you are really saying whether you realize it or not and equal outcomes are a pipe dream.



But this is were we differ the most in our opinions. "opportunity" to be a good person, is available to everybody and good people succeed better than bad people


Though there are voting measures that are intended to disenfranchise blacks a massive over haul of the system isn’t necessary but that’s a different discussion need not be conflated with “what’s CRT”. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

But CRT is brought into the discussion of voting to often to leave it out of the discussion and again I will ask "what specific voting measures are put in place to disenfranchise Blacks"? If you don't answer another single question, please answer that one.


The Supreme Court just said that the Constitution allows States to demand that you vote in the precinct you were assigned. 3 Liberals Justices disagreed, I guess suggesting that this is meant to disenfranchise Black voters and that everybody Black and White ( well, maybe not Whites ) should be able to vote in any precinct they want and preferably without ID.


There was nothing what so ever put into the Georgia voting law that was meant to disenfranchise Blacks. It's a canard, a damn canard.