Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

In at least in the legal context, race absolutely exists. Can you imagine ...

"Your honor, I understand the charges against me, but I'm telling you that the court is wrong. It is simply not possible for me to have violated that young black man's civil rights because he is not black. He can't be, You see, your honor, I learned on the internet that there is actually no such thing as race ..."

 

Don't know what to tell you. Race is absolutely a real, well defined, and meaningful concept in the law. See post 226.

 

"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of [the nonexistent concept of] race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."


As implied it kinda takes the luster of the Civil Rights Act, no?

 

I don't want to quarrel with you, Bower. Let me say this -- every American citizen is fully and entirely the legal equal of every other American citizen... and that is exactly how it SHOULD be! We are all different in many ways. It is heavily dependent on the point of comparison... who would ever compare Einstein with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on a basketball court? And, who would ever compare Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with Einstein in a discussion concerning physics?

NOW -- 500 years from now, imagine a person with the attributes and abilities of BOTH of them! That is what I see in the far future, and that will be the time that mankind finally comes of 'age' and achieves new goals undreamed of today. We'll get there, if we don't kill ourselves off first! We have a very long way to go....

 

Oh, now that's funny. I don't assume that's what it says. I know that's what it says, and so do you. I quoted them verbatim. Once again:

"Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites"

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory​

FWIW, I think your sense of frustration is not with me or even Britanica but rather with the growing realization that your understanding of CRT is incomplete.

 

No doubt there's political pressure to scrub the word "race" from these various disciplines, and given that it's such a loaded term, it's probably for the best. I agree there are often better terms, such as ethnicity or ancestry, but "race" still has meaning, and it most certainly exists as a concept.

Now, if we could just get the nation's media to use the word "race" less often, that would be something.

 

But our DNA does.

While the nature of shared characteristics and ancestry can make defining a race subjective, that does not mean there aren't meaningful sets of shared characteristics nor common ancestry for groups of people.

 

A thought for today: whether it's CRT or radical gender theory, beware of an ideology that demands you ignore common sense and/or the dictionary.

 

Why would I complain? I just said I'm happy that we agree about the concept, which was the main purpose of this thread. A bit jumpy, aren't we?

Where did you get the idea that it's designed to keep blacks from political power? It's not. But it is designed to make it more difficult. Which makes the Obama stock more valuable. The system is designed to make almost everything more difficult for minorities: finding a job, buying a house, studying, .... driving home after work without getting beaten up by cops. And yes, becoming President of the United States. It would take a truly great man to accomplish that feat. But that doesn't mean the rest has disappeared.

Equality in this and every context that is related to ethnic inequalities means "equal opportunity". Nobody whose first name isn't Tucker, and last name Carlson (or influenced by his white supremacist verbage), would interpret it any other way.

We are systemically racist so long as examples of SYSTEMIC racism exist. I have no idea how else you could interpret that.

Who is what? I sense that you STILL have difficulties understanding the OP. I think you should read it again.

 

Which welfare do you see from this wiki post?

...
Redlining

History
The specific process termed "redlining" in the United States occurred on the background of racial segregation and discrimination against minority populations. It had its origins in sales practices of the National Association of Real Estate Boards and theories about race and property values codified by economists surrounding Richard T. Ely and his Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities, founded at the University of Wisconsin in 1920.[15] With the National Housing Act of 1934 the federal government began to be involved in the practice and the concurrent establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

 

Then what was the purpose of this post?

 

I aim to please.

You're really straddling the fence here. You're also ignoring a great deal of human rights violations, especially in the south, for nearly a century following the Civil War. The Civil Rights Act and full enforcement of the 14th Amendment did not come about because there were mere "difficulties." If you're looking for systemic racism, you have it in Jim Crow (by that I mean the 1.0 version, not the fictitious 2.0 release).

I would interpret that as tautology.

Why don't you just tell me what you think I've gotten wrong, and we can go from there.

 

What doe this have to do with the topic or the thread?
And you post no links to where this source comes from?

For what purpose was this deflection for?

 

Actually yes, CRT is about cases. Without cases you have no CRT. You cannot have anything without individual smaller parts. That is the nature of the entire universe and everything in it from the physical to even man made concepts. There would be no sun without the individual atoms that it is composed of. Likewise CRT cannot exist without the individual cases. You couldn't even post your OP without referring to a "case".

And your (and CRT activists) go to for the reasoning is that its because of skin color. You do not examine anything else. Such as: LINK: Study Suggests Racial Gap In Speeding In New Jersey - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Yes, what I said is simplistic. We are talking on a forum after all and not making dissertations to submit to college professors or the scientific community. Nothing you said here disputes what I said.

The rest of your post just says the same thing over and over using different words. So...

And yet, what I said IS happening. You may claim that CRT "teaches that this is WRONG!". But that is what people are taking away from it regardless. Ibram Kendi is a perfect example of that happening. The 1619 Project is another perfect example of it happening (which is being taught in K-12 Curricula in over 4,500 schools). The author of which admits it's based on CRT.

 

1 dude is equivalent to it being taught all across American primary schools?
Please expand on that.

 

Certainly. Your implied assertion that I said CRT is "taught across American primary schools" is a straw-man argument. I never said, nor implied, any such thing.

In fact, in an earlier post (#161), I clearly stated we don't know how widespread it is, only that there are clearly attempts to inject CRT principles into public school curricula. And, as is evidence by another of my posts (#26 in this thread), it's significant enough that the nation's single largest teachers' union has committed to doing this.

I hope that satisfies; is there anything else you'd like me to elaborate upon?

 

No! This is definitively debunked in the thread I gave you.

Ancestry is NOT race.

What "race" would Obama be? Race simply doesn't exist. Easy as that. It doesn't describe anything whatsoever that corresponds to reality.

 

Why should I believe you when an authoritative reference says you're wrong:

 

I'd need to look it up, but I believe he's of mix ancestry, and thus mixed race.

When yellow and blue mix it forms green. The example of green does not mean that primary colors do not exist.

 

No, it's not.
It's what I've telling all those in these threads. It's not taught in primary schools.
And you replied to a post of mine that telling others that.

So i guess, I don't see any significance of your response to mine.

And you didn't make post #26.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cal-race-theory.607763/page-2#post-1073999246

 

No. There is no political pressure. Many politicians still use the term. There is only SCIENTIFIC pressure. Because they don't exist.

However, your Conspiracy Theory is duly noted.

 

I don't care if you see "any significance" or not. I've provided proof that my assertions about its teaching are true, and you've refuted none of it. Whether you continue to ignore that proof is entirely up to you.

 

We're in a agreement that scientifically, race is of little use. To take that fact and then declare that "race does not exist," full stop, is hyperbole. Science matters, but it's not everything.

 

It is true. As a secondary elective in advanced classes.
Not in primary schools.
See the posts?

 

So your argument is that because most Jim Crowe laws have been abolished, institutional racism doesn't exist.

That is the non-sequitur of the week.

It's a necessary tautology because, apparently, you fail to grasp that "systemic" means "related to the systems".

I don't want to get ahead of myself. You said: "It's like saying all policing is inherently flawed because we've found one policeman (or five) who is.". I asked "Who is what?" The answer to that question will elucidate if you got wrong something that was already addressed by the OP, or not.