Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
College professor teaches students that if you’re White and you’re breathing, you are an oppressor. That’s the Initial Premise.
Oppression is bad. We must end oppression. That’s the Secondary Premise.
Logically, then, White college students breathing = oppression = must end. We must stop White college students breathing. And if the individual students won’t stop breathing/oppressing, and the government won’t stop them, individuals will simply have to pitch in to help.
Conclusion: Who’s got an assault rifle?
What? It’s the logical conclusion to the chain of reasoning resulting from the Initial Premise that White people breathing equals oppression. Isn’t mass murder what the prof wanted us to conclude? How else will society get White students to stop oppressing/breathing?
If mass murder is not the Conclusion you expected, perhaps the Initial Premise is incorrect?
Joe Doakes
On the one hand, I’m gonna guess the “professor’s” desired resolution is “reeducation”.
OTOH, what alternative awaits those who won’t willingly be sufficiently enlightened?
Of course, the professor is a fish belly white male.
So why is this guy still teaching? I mean…why are conservative legislatures funding this crap and a better question, why isn’t this course being taught by a lesbian person of color?
Ha! You know he wrote his “biography”. What a putz!
Merely by existing as a person of your race, you pose a threat to people of another race.
Where have I heard this before?
What bothers me about Critical Race Theory (CRT) is not what they teach, it is what they don’t teach.
For instance, CRT is built upon the notion of systemic racism, which is simply that law, rules and customs systemically discriminate against women and people of color.
I can see where that might happen.
But it is also illegal.
For instance, years ago after the New York Transit System announced a fare increase, a number of activists rushed into court with the claim that an increase would have a disparate impact on women and people of color. Their reasoning was, since they earn less, the impact of a fare increase would not be fair.
The courts agreed.
In other words, even a benign change of law, rules or customs that has a disparate impact is illegal.
Eventually, the courts came to their senses and allowed a modest fare increase since not having a subway would have more of a disparate impact on women and people of color.
Another example: the The Fair Housing Act stipulates that it is unlawful to print or publish discriminatory advertisements for the sale or rental of housing units that indicate any preference on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
So placing an ad that reads, Large family home in the Cathedral neighborhood is a no-no and has been for decades.
So here is the question: can we trust schools to not only teach about systemic racism, but also teach what society has been doing for the last 50 years to combat the problem?
The answer is simple: No.
The purpose of teaching CRT is not to inform, rather it is to enrage and therein motivate the ignorant young to engage in far left activism.
The professor uses a method of persuasion commonly employed in cults of all description. Effective and dangerous. He says , in effect: You are weak and sinful. Do exactly what I tell you and there is a chance you might be saved. Otherwise prepare for eternal damnation. A mature adult would tell him to f*** off and leave. Impressionable young people eat it right up.
Greg,
Interestingly enough, covert discrimination in housing, most likely occurs on a daily basis in Minnesota. Having been a realtor a few years ago, I can attest to it. The final word on the sale of a property in Minnesota, rests with the seller. Said seller can reject the sale of his property for any reason, which they don’t have to disclose.
Further, only a naive moron would not know that the recruiting/hiring process of most companies are covertly discriminatory. Despite their boasts that they don’t do it, We know that it happens.
But none of what you mention is systemic racism, Bosshoss.
The reason CRT advocates refuse to debate CRT is because it is a shit theory. When forced to give examples of “systemic racism,” they cite practices and laws that haven’t been in effect for many decades.
The argument usually goes like this:
Until after WW2, the government actively discriminated against black farmers by refusing to give them loans that white farmers received.
Therefore today’s black farmers have less money than today’s white farmers.
Therefore, to combat systemic racism, the government must offer black farmers better loan terms than white farmers.
Where is the systemic racism? Uh, yeah, it’s right there, where you are offering better loan terms to some farmers based solely on their race.
But the CRT people would tell you that the systemic racism is in NOT giving better loan terms to some farmers based solely on their race.
Like I said, it is a shit theory.
A couple of comments.
– I would not want to be the seller who was confronted by a lawyer representing a protected class buyer who made the highest cash offer.
You may not have to state your reasons for rejecting an offer to the buyer or their agent, but you damn well better explain to the judge.
– Discrimination works both ways. While individuals and companies risk lawsuits by discriminating against people because of their age, race, gender or ethnic heritage, other individuals and companies discriminate in their favor without risk.
– In Minnesota, I would venture to say there is much more discrimination that favors protected groups than disfavors them.
Hmmmm, so does speeding, shoplifting, sniffing cocaine and picking up prostitutes.
But those things are still illegal.
The case for “systemic racism” is not that it still happens or that people still do it (they do a lot of things) – but that it is encoded in our laws, rules and customs.
Which is untrue.
The flaw in CRT is the claim that disparate outcomes is evidence of discrimination. This would make sense if there were no other variables at work.
The problem with CRT in the hands of far left organizations like Education Minnesota is that they adamantly refuse to acknowledge the other variables or even that the practice of discrimination is illegal.
If White Americans traded territory with Mexico, and left everything in place to give all the oppressed black and brown people what they want, ie: their own ethno-state, they would be invading our Northern border within 50 years.
Don’t believe me? Look at South Africa and Rhodesia
Asians would have legally migrated to us by then; Canada will have built an electrified 20′ tall fence on their border, backed by tanks with orders to shoot to kill border jumpers.
Systemic racism was created .000nS after the big bang. Blame God.
Take the fascists at their word. They want a federal agency, immune to democratic and constitutional oversight, that have the power to regulate every aspect of your personal and professional life, how much education you and your children receive, what jobs you will be allowed to do, where you are allowed to live and what kind of home you may own.
MP: they already have some: CDC, Department of Education for starters.
Golfdoc, they aren’t totally there yet, close to half of Minneapolis public school teachers send their kids to private school.
Sometimes credentialed lawyers make really really bad arguments.
Emery mewled: “Sometimes credentialed lawyers make really really bad arguments.”
as compared to the wholly uncredentialed Emery who makes really really bad(incoherent) arguments all the time!
And you know that Emery would never have any idea which arguments were good or bad.
*looks above*
Or be able to support such an opinion if he were to form one, given the evidence we have available to us.