Actually there is a very clear definition of CRT which I provided at the beginning of this thread. You should go back and read the definition to educate yourself. In the meantime you can squeal and whine about boomers. But you really be squealing like a greased pig after the Democrats lose all the competitive races in 2022 due to the swing voting middle-ground parents all not putting up with this CRT nonsense.
"CRT holds that America is fundamentally racist, yet teaches individuals to view every social interaction and person in terms of race. Its adherents pursue “antiracism” through the end of merit, objective truth and the adoption of race-based policies." This is your definition, it's a made up definition that's not even close to what the real theory talks about. I don't give a shit if Democrats lose because of dumbfks who believe crap like this, Democrats lost the entire south because 'Race Mixing was Communism' in the 60s, I for a moment don't doubt the dumb boomers will swallow any propaganda that comes their way when it comes to race issues.
I don't understand CRT. I am not naturally suspicious of anything I can't understand, but I am suspicious of anything that seems to depend on premises that are either unclear or seem obviously false -- that doesn't mean they are false. Perhaps the the problem I'm having is accepting as a "theory" what is rather obviously a jumbled hypothesis, and not a theory, about very complex issues involving human nature and religion.
I read the article you gave a link to, but I am still having trouble understanding what this CRT stuff is all about, unless perhaps its intended to be unclear. If that's the case, then i do understand it, but just don't realize that I do. I read this: "Its adherents pursue “antiracism” through the end of merit, objective truth and the adoption of race-based policies." But this makes no sense to me. Why would anyone intentionally do that? In fact it would be impossible to be anti-racist and pursue race-based policies at the same time. Wouldn't it? None of this makes any sense to me. It's reminiscent of Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace." As far as I'm concerned, whoever is thinking this way has got a jumbled brain. We commonly confuse equal opportunity with equal opportunity to compete for opportunity. It may be nearly impossible to equalize opportunity. Certainly it is extremely difficult to do it, and to get people to accept it, because our nature is to be competitive and that involves competing over opportunity. But what is quite doable is to expand the opportunity to compete based on objective criteria. And there we've made great strides, but there is much more we could do. I personally accept E.O. Wilson's conclusions as being most likely correct. We are a tribal species. That must be a fundamental driving force behind racism. It's instinctual in us, according to E.O. Wilson, and therefore very difficult to overcome. The educated among us think that this isn't a desirable instinct in our modern world, and therefore education would seem to be the best way to overcome this "bad" instinct that is no longer needed, since we are no longer hunter gatherers and cave dwellers. That's what the educated think anyway. Now, in the interest of equal opportunity, I like to hear from the uneducated and see what they think. (Or, perhaps I have already heard, and just don't realize it.)
After I posted the above, it occurred to me how very complex and fraught with opportunity for misunderstanding anything that involves making choices based on race becomes. Could this be because we have inadequate definitions of the word "racism"? In the past, we made choices based purely on race that forced once race, against their will, to accommodate another race. Merit was of little concern. This happened precipitously during integration in our Southern public schools. By a simple definition, this was racism being applied to combat racism. Many white Southerners and some in the North too, used this too-simple definition of racism to argue against both integration and later "affirmative" action. Affirmative action was again a race based policy implemented as a profoundly anti-racist action. What was done was considered necessary because of past injustices that had caused one race to be imprisoned in a way that effectively barred them from the opportunity to compete with the other race. What made this imprisonment intolerable was that those imprisoned were prisoners not because of any act on their part, but because of the deliberate acts of the other race. When seen in this light both forced integration and affirmative action was justified and profoundly anti-racist, despite the operative decisions being made wholly, or nearly so, on the basis of race. Many in the South could not accept the necessity of these precipitous acts, while at the same time not showing any interest in correcting an intolerable and unjust situation. It was not even a clear cut case of the sins of the fathers being visited on their sons and daughters. The sons and daughters too were complicit in implementing the Jim Crow Laws of the Old South.
That’s not my definition. Go back in this thread and you can read the actual definition — instead of some jumbled crud you invented.
So you are saying from the belly of the beast NC that the conspiracy the GOP made up to further their Southern strategy, turned out by some fluke to be true in a substantial giant conspiracy manner.
Maybe you should just go review the many examples of CRT lesson plans posted on this thread. Then ask yourself if any reasonable parent would find this appropriate material for educating their children. Do you want your children writing essays on why they are oppressors.
Maybe you should fuck off with your old tactic of look at my posts. Little man, you use the NYpost as a source, you have zero credibility. If Piezoe or a couple of other said check my old posts, people would. You don't have shit sorry shiat is what is obvious.
I don't know that it takes a great deal of education to counter the tribal instinct. Imo a simple tool like Rawls' veil of ignorance can be taught to kids and they'll have it forever. Doesn't mean the instinct goes away, but the veil of ignorance principle can become a habitual response, and habits we have the power to create.