Texas Senate bill drops teaching requirement that Ku Klux Klan is "morally wrong"

[Endus]

Sure, asking to teach or study history without any kind of biais (what CRT is) is pushing ideology now. I guess you learn something new everyday!

Did you mean to admit that CRT is about eliminating and understanding the bias in historical accounts? I feel like that's not what you meant to write, but then you did.

CRT is about eliminating bias, not inserting it. Basic comprehension of CRT would've told you that.

[Specialka]

Did you mean to admit that CRT is about eliminating and understanding the bias in historical accounts? I feel like that's not what you meant to write, but then you did.

CRT is about eliminating bias, not inserting it. Basic comprehension of CRT would've told you that.

mmh no ? CRT is not about eliminating biais since it does view the history through races (which is a biais in itself).

[Endus]

And you do not need CRT to achieve that. That is all I am saying.

It literally is CRT.

If you're looking at how African Americans were subjected to prejudicial laws that invalidated their personhood, to justify their enslavement, that's CRT.
If you're looking at how Jewish persons were subjected to the same in Nazi Germany, ditto.

Again, you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what CRT is.

[Edge-]

And you do not need CRT to achieve that. That is all I am saying.

This is literally what CRT was created to do. Because it was not being done already. CRT is the solution to that problem, yet still there's vague, non-specific complaints of it being "racism" or bad.

Almost like the opposition isn't to CRT specifically, since the critics rarely cite any examples, but to the fact that the subject material exists at all.

[Endus]

mmh no ? CRT is not about eliminating biais since it does view the history through races (which is a biais in itself).

You literally just said it's not about eliminating bias because it looks at history by eliminating bias.

You don't understand the words you're using at all, do you?

Here's a hint; if you're only looking at history as it was written by white men at the time, that is bias. Looking at other perspectives is the only way to eliminate that bias. If you're only going to take the accounts of white slaveowners writing before the Civil War as accounts of the institution of slavery, you're biasing your own perspective. Taking into account the views of slaves themselves, and their accounts of how it affected them and their fellow slaves, that's necessary to eliminate the bias.

And that process is literally what CRT involves.

[Edge-]

2. It's loaded with anti-white racist rethoric.

Like what?

3. It's loaded with anti-asian and antisemitic implications.

Like what?

5. It has no proven academic or educational value.

According to whom?

9. It rejects the rule of law.

Citation needed*

I left out the more vague criticisms that are more difficult to explain, so let's focus on the easy ones for now.

[uuuhname]

Plenty of people have.

1. It's not based on historical accuracy.

well that's just a complete lie. I'm not even going to bother asking how that's accomplished considering CRT at it's inception was to examine the law as it's written in the US. stop lying, liar.

[Endus]

Plenty of people have.

1. It's not based on historical accuracy.
2. It's loaded with anti-white racist rethoric.
3. It's loaded with anti-asian and antisemitic implications.
4. It's based on ideology, not on facts.
5. It has no proven academic or educational value.
6. Even if it would have any education value, it's very low compared to everything else kids could be taught.
7. It rejects evidence in favor of storytelling.
8. It rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance
9. It rejects the rule of law.

None of that's true. At all. In any way.

Which is why you didn't bother sourcing any of it.

[Muzjhath]

As I said earlier, you can't read. I said that looking at history though race is not studying history or teaching history.

One should always look at minority groups and how they had it when teaching history.
European history without looking at how non-christian minorities had it suffers. Looking at "heretical" christian minorities is also needed. You can't do a history of iberia without looking at lots of religious groups that did different subjucation at different times depending on lots of factors.

And you need the lense of race and slavery to even start looking at the history of Haiti. A country that France fucked up so majorly it's hard to even start on.

[uuuhname]

One should always look at minority groups and how they had it when teaching history.
European history without looking at how non-christian minorities had it suffers. Looking at "heretical" christian minorities is also needed. You can't do a history of iberia without looking at lots of religious groups that did different subjucation at different times depending on lots of factors.

And you need the lense of race and slavery to even start looking at the history of Haiti. A country that France fucked up so majorly it's hard to even start on.

or how do you explain the westward expansion of the US as anything but a coordinated, systemic attempt at genocide?

[Bodakane]

Plenty of people have.

1. It's not based on historical accuracy.
2. It's loaded with anti-white racist rethoric.
3. It's loaded with anti-asian and antisemitic implications.
4. It's based on ideology, not on facts.
5. It has no proven academic or educational value.
6. Even if it would have any education value, it's very low compared to everything else kids could be taught.
7. It rejects evidence in favor of storytelling.
8. It rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance
9. It rejects the rule of law.

I said present facts. None of that is true.

If it is, point out examples. We aren't like you. We don't gobble up evidence-less bullshit. I've been literally begging you people to actually present a fact filled point backed with evidence and examples.

And still none of you can do it.

[Edge-]

Here are some criticism raised by liberal legal experts:

Got any actual citations? I'm trying to track down the source of ether text and this is all I'm turning up - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600308

Which is paywalled.

[Jotaux]

I don't think its a teaching requirement here to teach the KKK is morally wrong, but then again I don't live in a place where that would even be a question.

[Shadowferal]

1. It's not based on historical accuracy. 2. It's loaded with anti-white racist rethoric. .

Are you trying to say that the Ku Kux Klan's history replete with lynchings, and violence of all sorts, isn't accurate? And that they are "moral" for all that?

[tehdang]

it's an opinion piece dude, the only point of them is to push a narrative. their opinions on CRT have as much merit as any poster in this forum...

You know it isn’t a good look when people ask for evidence, and then dismiss authors without looking or approaching the evidence.

[Endus]

Here are some criticism raised by liberal legal experts:

"They describe the
criteria for assessing a viable political vision, noting that they
believe these criteria to be shared by both sides, in spite of their
many differences:
* A valid conception of equality should condemn racism not
only against Blacks and Hispanics but also against Asians
and Jews.
* Advocates of equality need to be able to engage in constructive discussions with each other and to contribute to
public discourse in society at large.
* . . . [S]ociety should aim for the fullest possible understanding of the past ... and should reject any standard for
truth that allows suppression of the memory of genuine
suffering (p 50)."

"These apparently uncontroversial criteria are not, however, selected at random. In the succeeding chapters, Farber and Sherry
purport to demonstrate that multiculturalism fails each one of
them. They argue first that the critique of merit is anti-Semitic
(and anti-Asian) because, having abandoned the concept of merit
as irredeemably political, multiculturalists can offer no explanation for Jewish (or Asian) financial or academic success that does
not draw upon familiar, invidious stereotypes. They argue next
that the use of narrative has been responsible for the degradation
of legal discourse. Not only has a divisive quest for "authenticity"
replaced Enlightenment scholars' concern with the "typicality" of
anecdotal examples, but the normative component of narrative
scholarship has also been stymied by stories whose normative
import is nonexistent or unclear. Consequently, collegial relations
among scholars have disintegrated into feuding over the truth
and interpretation of particular stories. Finally, Farber and
Sherry argue that multicultural scholars' lack of concern about
the truth of their narratives contributes to an intellectual environment in which no account of the past can persuasively be
gainsaid. The result is an environment that provides fertile
ground for theories like Holocaust revisionism. Because of these
problems, the authors argue that multiculturalism should be
abandoned."

CRT is not focused on black viewpoints. Some people working in CRT may approach things to examine that perspective, sure, but that's a limitation of that researcher's work, not the concept of CRT.

The claims that it's "anti-semitic" or "anti-Asian" just seems to completely gloss over that class demographics exist, at all, or the entire concept of intersectionality in general. Particularly given, as I already demonstrated, the "anti-Asian" argument necessitates lumping all Asians into a single pot and ignoring any differences between national origins that would exist with a more granular look at the data.

"Merit" gets abandoned as a premise because "merit" itself was defined within a white supremacist viewpoint; it is not an unbiased position. It fundamentally argues that one should ignore systemic inequities, because that just means those who have less success have less merit. If you apply that to entire ethnic groups, you're making an explicitly racist argument. So what you've got here, is a claim of implicit racism that does not hold up to scrutiny, to defend a position based on explicit racism.

To put it another way; if you can't tie the success of Jewish-Americans and Asian-Americans on average to some demographic inequities in the system that may advantage them over other groups, what you're arguing is that those groups are simply definitively superior and thus holding more merit than other racial groups.

Those of us looking at it from the lens of CRT are perfectly capable of identifying that there were class advantages that both enjoyed, particularly with Asian-Americans and the most recent waves of immigration, as compared to earlier waves. That isn't "anti-semitic" or "anti-Asian", any more than recognizing white privilege is "anti-white". It's just a recognition of systemic inequities and the source of those inequities.

That the entire book you're citing is an attack on multiculturalism is just nails in the coffin, really.

[tehdang]

Plenty of people have.

1. It's not based on historical accuracy.
2. It's loaded with anti-white racist rethoric.
3. It's loaded with anti-asian and antisemitic implications.
4. It's based on ideology, not on facts.
5. It has no proven academic or educational value.
6. Even if it would have any education value, it's very low compared to everything else kids could be taught.
7. It rejects evidence in favor of storytelling.
8. It rejects truth and merit as expressions of political dominance
9. It rejects the rule of law.

The weird aside about these arguments is once people start looking at how this is being approached in schools, they naturally defend the truth and advocacy.

“It’s not being taught in schools, but if it were, it would be just fact-based look at race throughout history, and why do you have a problem with that, you bigot?”

Then back to why the type of authors presenting the evidence against are best ignored instead of analyzed. Ignorance and dismissal of the evidence is a poor defense of claiming there’s no evidence.

[Bodakane]

Here are some criticism raised by liberal legal experts:

"They describe the
criteria for assessing a viable political vision, noting that they
believe these criteria to be shared by both sides, in spite of their
many differences:
* A valid conception of equality should condemn racism not
only against Blacks and Hispanics but also against Asians
and Jews.
* Advocates of equality need to be able to engage in constructive discussions with each other and to contribute to
public discourse in society at large.
* . . . [S]ociety should aim for the fullest possible understanding of the past ... and should reject any standard for
truth that allows suppression of the memory of genuine
suffering (p 50)."

"These apparently uncontroversial criteria are not, however, selected at random. In the succeeding chapters, Farber and Sherry
purport to demonstrate that multiculturalism fails each one of
them. They argue first that the critique of merit is anti-Semitic
(and anti-Asian) because, having abandoned the concept of merit
as irredeemably political, multiculturalists can offer no explanation for Jewish (or Asian) financial or academic success that does
not draw upon familiar, invidious stereotypes. They argue next
that the use of narrative has been responsible for the degradation
of legal discourse. Not only has a divisive quest for "authenticity"
replaced Enlightenment scholars' concern with the "typicality" of
anecdotal examples, but the normative component of narrative
scholarship has also been stymied by stories whose normative
import is nonexistent or unclear. Consequently, collegial relations
among scholars have disintegrated into feuding over the truth
and interpretation of particular stories. Finally, Farber and
Sherry argue that multicultural scholars' lack of concern about
the truth of their narratives contributes to an intellectual environment in which no account of the past can persuasively be
gainsaid. The result is an environment that provides fertile
ground for theories like Holocaust revisionism. Because of these
problems, the authors argue that multiculturalism should be
abandoned."

Do you not understand what facts and examples are? I mean for fuck's sake.

Get actual text from an actual CRT class or textbook. Show me the objectionable excerpt and explain your problem with it. Everything else you've provided is just vacuous nothing. There's no specifics, no....anything. Just random objections to random things.

[uuuhname]

You know it isn’t a good look when people ask for evidence, and then dismiss authors without looking or approaching the evidence.

what evidence? I read the article, and the guy cries about how Asians are told they are a "model minority" and then goes out of his way to say that Asians "don't riot". on top of that he says Asians are having their lived experiences as a minority ignored all while being the president of a group that wants you to ignore race relations, full stop! wow, just one contradiction after another. I wonder why YOU felt the need to chime in.

[jonnysensible]

The weird aside about these arguments is once people start looking at how this is being approached in schools, they naturally defend the truth and advocacy.

“It’s not being taught in schools, but if it were, it would be just fact-based look at race throughout history, and why do you have a problem with that, you bigot?”

Then back to why the type of authors presenting the evidence against are best ignored instead of analyzed. Ignorance and dismissal of the evidence is a poor defense of claiming there’s no evidence.

feel free to provide :

1) a school where its being taught
2) what is being taught exactly
3) and why that is a problem

until then that little list is bunk, you can because its starts off with 'plenty of people'. engage brain please.