All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[worstblogever]

Apparently, Those White People mentioned in the articles above believe that CRT is designed to punish all White People or something like that.

"Punished" by no longer overlooking when they demonizing marginalized people.

[Mister Mets]

I first read about it here: At a Rockwood School District meeting in Eureka on Friday, angry white parents called for critical race theory to be banned even though it is not part of the current curriculum.

And here

Oklahoma House approves ban on teaching 'critical race theory'

And here

Idaho Passes Law Banning Critical Race Theory ‘Indoctrination’ at Public Schools

So I looked it up on Wikipedia

Critical race theory

And I am still not sure what to make of it entirely.

Here is an article about it: Critical Race Theory

I mean, some parts of it seem reasonable, but I'm not sure about the whole thing. Apparently, Those White People mentioned in the articles above believe that CRT is designed to punish all White People or something like that.

So, if anyone wants to share their thoughts on this to help me understand it better, feel free to do so.

I will have different views on this as a Republican.

It seems to me that Critical Race Theory is essentially a catchall for stupid left-wing views on race.

An example would be whoever was working for the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture who believed that married parents, delayed gratification, the emphasis on the scientific method, planning for the future, and valuing intent in legal matters are unique attributes of white culture, and to be treated with suspicion.

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-...pics/whiteness

* Edit- The Smithsonian piece was rewritten so here are descriptions of the earlier version.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...244309587.html
https://insidesources.com/on-race-ex...rves-ridicule/

[Kirby101]

Wow Mets, that's what you got from that article?

[Tendrin]

I will have different views on this as a Republican.

It's essentially a catchall for stupid left-wing views on race.

An example would be whoever was working for the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture who believed that married parents, delayed gratification, the emphasis on the scientific method, planning for the future, and valuing intent in legal matters are unique attributes of white culture, and not to be encouraged for any Americans.

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-...pics/whiteness

...frigging yikes.

[Tendrin]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e-capitol.html

A Republican lawmaker in the Oregon House of Representatives is facing two criminal charges for letting rioters into the state Capitol in December. State Rep. Mike Nearman was charged Friday with official misconduct in the first degree, which is a class A misdemeanor, and criminal trespass in the second degree, which is a class C misdemeanor. The charges came after months of investigation into what happened on Dec. 21, when rioters got into the Capitol at a time when it was closed to the public and lawmakers held an emergency session on COVID-19 relief. Surveillance footage showed Nearman leaving the Capitol into a group of protesters trying to get inside. The move appeared designed to allow the demonstrators, who were demanding an end to virus-related restrictions, into the building.

[CSTowle]

I first read about it here: At a Rockwood School District meeting in Eureka on Friday, angry white parents called for critical race theory to be banned even though it is not part of the current curriculum.

And here

Oklahoma House approves ban on teaching 'critical race theory'

And here

Idaho Passes Law Banning Critical Race Theory ‘Indoctrination’ at Public Schools

So I looked it up on Wikipedia

Critical race theory

And I am still not sure what to make of it entirely.

Here is an article about it: Critical Race Theory

I mean, some parts of it seem reasonable, but I'm not sure about the whole thing. Apparently, Those White People mentioned in the articles above believe that CRT is designed to punish all White People or something like that.

So, if anyone wants to share their thoughts on this to help me understand it better, feel free to do so.

I remembered a kerfuffle about the framing of "white" traits from a Smithsonian display on racial traits/stereotypes, found a Newsweek article on it: https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian...values-1518333

There was pushback when some of the traits, like "self-reliance, rational thinking, hard work, politeness" were considered to be "white" traits. Again I believe they were going for traditional stereotypes, obviously many of them wouldn't apply to white individuals (and many would apply to non-white individuals).

I'd have to say I disagree very strongly with the article linked that advocates for elimination of the First Amendment to allow for the abolition of hate speech. I also disagree with the labeling of white people as inherently racist. To say that we live in a society crafted and catering to white people is undeniable, but we were all born into it. Some see it and deny it, some see it and try to change it, others have the privilege of never having to see it so are ignorant of it. You could say everyone is raised to accept biases as the norm (though I'd argue that's hardly limited to white people, nor are harmful biases limited to them though the power to do harm is greater given society's current structure). But to attempt to label all white people as inherently and irrevocably racist as if they were born with it written into their DNA is an attempt by some on the extreme fringe to eliminate any moral standing or voice for white people.

Obviously given the biased nature of our society they don't have the power to do that, outside of their own bubbles, but I believe doing so isolates them and serves only to embolden actively racist white people and push away those that might be sympathetic but have other concerns of their own (kids/house/job/etc.). When you tell someone that they're inherently and irrevocably evil (or at least damaged) from birth and that their only hope of salvation is to sit down, shut up, and listen to what you're saying you're probably not going to have many takers. Then again, it sounds a lot like religious indoctrination so perhaps if you get them young?

I'm glad that people of color are finally getting a voice in society, and maybe some have become emboldened enough to channel some of that (to be clear, justifiable) anger into such a message but my concern is 1. What is your goal in transmitting a message? Is it to vent frustration and anger built up over generations? Is it to promote change? Is it to educate others about their blind spots and ignorance that you might have insight on because of your experiences in society? 2. If your goal is to change and educate, and not just vent your anger, is telling someone they're inherently inferior and not worthy of being a part of a discussion but rather ignorant people who need to be talked at rather than with the right way to go about that? Even if you really feel that way (and again, what does that say about your own learned biases?).

You might say you have no or little sympathy for white people with ignorance that need to be educated having a problem with your framing of the situation, but I'd argue that while you don't have to have sympathy you should have some understanding about effective messaging. You should also understand that they come to their ignorance (like you do) having been raised before they could think critically for themselves, absorbing information and norms long before they could question them. And if you're in a place of privilege it's less likely you're going to question things (same goes for religion, sexual norms, gender norms, etc.). They also (for now) live in a society built to accommodate them. So it's going to take a bit to convince some that something's even wrong, let alone that they should do something about it. Then you break down into what exactly they should do about it (which not everyone, even in your bubbles, will agree on). If you come right out of the gate, again, telling them that they're evil and should shut up and listen you're probably not going to be very effective.

It might feel good in the short term, might even be empowering in a way. But it's no way to make allies. And it gives a lot of aid and comfort to your enemies with the hoods and tiki torches. Not saying some of the instinct is even wrong. White people, as the Smithsonian Racial guide said, have the privilege of thinking about these things rationally and dispassionately because they don't have to go through life as the "other". If you're black/Asian/latino you don't get that choice. That's going to color your experiences throughout life, and be a part of you. Where my whiteness is like my brown hair. If someone points it out, I say, "Huh. Yeah, guess it is." Then don't really think about it much after that. Having to think about it and seeing how society caters to those in power is enlightening I'm sure, and much could be learned by my fellow white folk if they listen and can understand how that must feel. But that takes dialogue and work. Guess it depends on if you'd rather feel morally superior or help others to understand.

[Mister Mets]

Wow Mets, that's what you got from that article?

The link had been updated, so they got rid of some of the worse stuff, with the explanation that it's an ever-evolving portal.

Here are some links describing the earlier version.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...244309587.html
https://insidesources.com/on-race-ex...rves-ridicule/

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, as well as 2020, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen, who over the past two decades, who repeatedly made revolting anti-gay and anti-Islamic statements, as well as called for fanatical censorship laws to be put in place. As early as 2004, Allen was boasting about meeting President Bush (43) and calling for any book with “positive images of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle” to be banned, including the works of Truman Capote, Gore Vidal, Tennessee Williams, and Alice Walker, claiming that their existence was an “attack on family values” that he compared to Al-Qaeda. When Allen could not get his book ban to pass, he predictably painted himself as a victim of religious persecution. Fast forward to 2011, and Allen was trying to pass Sharia Law bans in Alabama, but when asked what Sharia Law actually was.

As a legislator, Gerald Allen has voted to nullify federal firearms laws, shut down all of Alabama’s abortion clinics via trap laws, sponsored fetal heartbeat bills, voted to drug test welfare recipients (always a failed conservative experiment), and voted to prevent the expansion of Medicaid in his home state. For whatever reason (HINT: he’s really racist) back over the summer of 2015 after the mass shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina occurred, when Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley followed the lead of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and removed a Confederate flag from a monument that stood at the north side of Alabama’s own state capitol, Gerald Allen responded to sponsor SB 13, to make it HARDER to remove Confederate iconography from around the state. He then defended his legislation as you’d expect from a man who likes to portray himself the victim when confronted about being any kind of a bigot, saying, "There is a revisionist movement afoot to cover over many parts of American history. Our national and state history should be remembered as it happened. The politically-correct movement to strike whole periods of the past from our collective memory is divisive and unnecessary." G

Gerald Allen made it a point in 2017 to make sure the landmarks of the Confederacy would not be taken down, and to continue to honor a failed rebellion fought against the federal government over the desire to continue to own other human beings, sponsoring legislation to keep those monuments to it in place. Y’know, important issues that were in no way resolved really 150 years ago. In fact, just prior to that bill passing around the end of May 2017, Allen commented on the bill, saying that he hoped it would end “the wave of political correctness” that he feels so victimized by. With public opinion starting to turn in favor of gun control in the wake of several mass shootings including the one in Parkland, Florida, Gerald Allen has also been paying lip service to doing something about ‘mental health” to prevent gun violence.

Gerald Allen coasted to re-election in 2018, and has gone back to work in the Alabama state legislature filing disturbingly conservative legislation, like sponsoring a bill that would eliminate the requirement that you need to apply for a permit for concealed carry of handguns, and instead just letting everyone do it if they want. We have no idea when he’ll get around to doing anything about that “mental health” problem he claims is causing an increase in gun violence, though. In 2020, one of the most stressful times in American history, you can bet a legislator like Gerald Allen is doing all that he can to help our country, like passing a law to force public school children to all stand for the Star Spangled Banner once a week. At least, they would have, had all public schools not been closed because of COVID-19. He’s not backed off his forced nationalism in schools, sponsoring another bill so that the national anthem be played in Alabama schools during the 2021 session.

Most recently, Gerald Allen has turned some heads for trying to pass legislation to rename Cousette Drive in his district to Saban Boulevard. after the Alabama football coach. While that might not normally be controversial, Cousette Drive was just renamed LAST YEAR after a fallen African American police officer, and suddenly, Allen wants to switch this specific street out of all the ones in town to the coach, instead. Interesting…

If nothing else, George Allen remains consistent at being a failure.

[worstblogever]

The link had been updated, so they got rid of some of the worse stuff, with the explanation that it's an ever-evolving portal.

Here are some links describing the earlier version.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...244309587.html
https://insidesources.com/on-race-ex...rves-ridicule/

"Worse Stuff".

This is Judith Katz, the author, who dared address racism from a white perspective, and the books she's written about addressing workplace equality. And supporting survivors of rape.

She sounds like a real monster to folks on the right, for sure.

[Mister Mets]

"Worse Stuff".

This is Judith Katz, the author, who dared address racism from a white perspective, and the books she's written about addressing workplace equality. And supporting survivors of rape.

She sounds like a real monster to folks on the right, for sure.

Did the Smithsonian misinterpret her when they used her for a source about how delayed gratification, a justice system where intent matters and an emphasis on the scientific method are unique to white culture?

That seems to be exactly what she was arguing in 1990.

https://www.cascadia.edu/discover/ab...d%20States.pdf

I'm sure she meant well, but these are damaging ideas, and not conducive to equality in the workforce. If anything, it'll discourage employers for hiring minorities.

[worstblogever]

You're going to have to forgive me if I respect the opinion of a woman who's spent 40 years on workplace equality over a guy who has argued multiple times about how Stephen Miller isn't actually a white nationalist and considers her ideas "damaging".

[evolutionaryFan]

The link had been updated, so they got rid of some of the worse stuff, with the explanation that it's an ever-evolving portal.

Here are some links describing the earlier version.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...244309587.html
https://insidesources.com/on-race-ex...rves-ridicule/

Damn... so rational thinking and quantitative emphasis are a white thing? Isn't that racist as hell?

[CSTowle]

Again, they're stereotypes. They aren't across the board, and they aren't all very accurate. That's why there was a controversy. For all I know it was meant to drum up a controversy to continue the dialogue on race. If it were accepted at face value it would be very ignorant/racist, and insulting to everyone stereotyped.

[Kirby101]

My take, and where I think Mets got this completely wrong, is that these "white" traits are not there to say that they are valued over the traits of other races. They are there to show how many positive traits are seen as "White". This puts other races viewed as don't

believed that married parents, delayed gratification, the emphasis on the scientific method, planning for the future, and valuing intent in legal matters are unique attributes of white culture, and to be treated with suspicion.

It's not an attack on these traits, it's an attack on people who think they are part of being white.
Met's, your whiteness isn't being attacked, the racist history of the United States is.
What all these laws aim to do is to keep out the discussion of the endemic racism that has always been a part of this country. They aim to remove slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights out of the history.
Your skewed view as a Republican is once again wrong.

[Tami]

Swiss Billionaire Quietly Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats

WASHINGTON — He is not as well known as wealthy liberal patrons like George Soros or Tom Steyer. His political activism is channeled through a daisy chain of opaque organizations that mask the ultimate recipients of his money. But the Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has quietly become one of the most important donors to left-leaning advocacy groups and an increasingly influential force among Democrats.

Newly obtained tax filings show that Mr. Wyss’s foundations donated $208 million from 2016 through early last year to three nonprofit funds that doled out money to a wide array of groups that backed progressive causes and helped Democrats in their efforts to win the White House and control of Congress last year.

Mr. Wyss’s representatives say his foundations’ money is not being spent on political campaigning. But documents and interviews show that his foundations have come to play a prominent role in financing the political infrastructure that supports Democrats and their issues.

While most of his operation’s recent politically oriented giving was channeled through the three nonprofit funds, Mr. Wyss’s foundations also directly donated tens of millions of dollars since 2016 to groups that opposed former President Donald J. Trump and promoted Democrats and their causes.

Beneficiaries of his direct giving included prominent groups such as the Center for American Progress and Priorities USA, as well as organizations that ran voter registration and mobilization campaigns to increase Democratic turnout, built media outlets accused of slanting the news to favor Democrats and sought to block Mr. Trump’s nominees, prove he colluded with Russia and push for his impeachment.