Terry McAuiliff VA Gov Race

[Sangre Naranjada]

Never underestimate Joe's ability to f things up.

Yes, this statement represents one thing about which I am in complete agreement with ex-President Hussein.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How is it being framed in secondary schools? What examples do we have? "Race as a big issue vs. defining issue of the nation" is pretty squishy to me.

There's squishiness to it. No doubt about that. That's why though I'm hostile to CRT, I'm not totally sold on bans. We're talking about history, not a hard science or math. Let's put it this way. If you teach that the "true" founding was in 1619 rather than 1776, you're taking it way too far. If you teach that the Revolution was largely about slavery, you're taking it too far. If you teach that the Constitution was an instrument of white supremacy, you're taking it too far. (Though it allowed for slavery, it did so by omission. It didn't endorse or guarantee it.) If you're trying to tie capitalism or the lack of socialized medicine in the United States to race or slavery, you're taking it too far. If you spend more time talking about Jefferson being a slave owner than about his contributions to the Constitution, you're taking it too far.

And of course, if you're taking children and dividing them up by race or condemning one group or celebrating one group based on race, not only are you doing something terrible, you're probably breaking the law even without a CRT ban.

Our nations greatest war was fought over slavery (despite what Daughters of the Confederacy claim).

Pretty much, yes. It wasn't the only controversy, but it was the dominant one and the proximate cause. We may have still had some pretty ugly political fights without slavery, but there would not have been a Civil War.

Race was clearly a bedrock issue through at least our first 200 years of existence.

That sorta depends on what we mean by "bedrock." If we just mean that it was an old issue and that early Americans were racist (like pretty much everybody in the 17th and 18th centuries), which led to some very racist laws (both nationally and at the state level), then I'd agree.

However, if we mean that the country was set up from the beginning to be a mechanism to enforce racism or white supremacy, then no, I wouldn't agree. To me, for something to be a bedrock issue in that sense, then it needs to have been a major constitutional priority and addressed therein. Race isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Slavery is mentioned one time - and in a provision that actually diminished the power of slave states. By contrast, of course, the Constitution of the Confederacy fully and unambiguously enshrined slavery and specifically of blacks. That actually was a bedrock issue for them, and they had every intention of permanently protecting slavery and enforcing white supremacy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I know from a friend that CRT is taught to organizations that work with schools in poorer areas. The reps are inculcated with the philosophy and then they go "counsel" students.

One story I was told by an eyewitness, was that one white woman was made to feel so guilty of racism that she was left to cry in a corner of a room until the training ended. Others tried to go comfort the crying woman but the instructor told the class that this would only support her racism. She told the class something like comforting upset white women was a slave/plantation practice and would only perpetuate white supremacy in the schools.

This sh-t is real folks and anyone doubting that is either willfully ignorant or unethically covering up evil.

Crap like that should get a district sued.

 

[bystander]

(Though it allowed for slavery, it did so by omission. It didn't endorse or guarantee it.)

Irony

Liberals believe in the penumbra...

 

[mchammer]

Yes, this statement represents one thing about which I am in complete agreement with ex-President Hussein.

Osama Bin Laden said that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This lady brings up an interesting point. I think the school lockdowns are a major factor in this issue turning into a big controversy.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

This lady brings up an interesting point. I think the school lockdowns are a major factor in this issue turning into a big controversy.

(a) SeaHusker's head may explode when he hears that clip

(b) Having many interactions w/ Afr American moms and dads concerning our after school chess classes, it's amazing how they're like minded with the lady in the clip. Race rarely comes up (does w/ some but it's very rare), they just want their kids to learn and advance. True, suburban moms are more interested in their kids than urban moms on the whole, but it's good to see. Moral of the story.. don't screw parents around when dealing with their kids. Too many of us want them on equal footing, earning what they get. Equity doesn't please anyone but losers and quitters

 

[mchammer]

This lady brings up an interesting point. I think the school lockdowns are a major factor in this issue turning into a big controversy.

Whether it’s lockdowns, vaccine mandates, CRT, parental control or what have you, the underlying point is that these school officials and Dem politicians don’t have your kid’s interest at heart.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I would..., but you'd cry "anecdotal", so I'll expand on the narrow focus you've decided to target (secondary curriculum)

CRT TOP 10 WORST EXAMPLES

Can I add another? Raytheon in McKinney has tried the white shame nonsense but I was told it was short lived due to the rejection by it's employees. How do I know this? I worked for TI/ Raytheon for over 20 yrs, still in contact with dozens of fmr co workers

I appreciate the effort. I was hoping for direct sources rather than a political organization's translation of events OR links to partisan media sources. Imagine if I posted RainbowPUSH Coalition (Jesse Jackson's org) as my source? With that said, I was able to follow a trail for a few of the claims. I don't have time to determine the veracity of all 10 but rather some simply didn't sound right.

5. The Smithsonian Institution publishes and promotes content teaching critical race theory featuring content by CRT scholars like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi. The National African American Museum of History and Culture, for example, claims the United States has inherently believed in “white superiority…since its inception” and Enlightenment ideas like the “natural rights of man” and “religious freedom” formed chattel slavery.

First, not all of the DiAngelo or Kendi content is controversial. Let's focus on the latter claim though. "White superiority...since its inception" isn't a quote on the site linked. It may have been updated but as far as I can tell it was taken form this. If THIS was taught in schools is this incendiary? We all know Plessy vs. Ferguson codified Jim Crow laws. It allowed Separate but Equal to be common place in many localities across the South and believe it or not some other small towns.

After the Civil War and Reconstruction, many localities and states enacted laws and social norms that would re-establish the social order where whiteness was supreme. The U.S. legally affirmed the practices of segregation through the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case [see video below]. By law, Americans could lawfully separate people in society and discriminate against black Americans based on race. The Plessy v. Ferguson decision of “separate but equal” legitimized the idea of white supremacy in America as well as the de facto segregation already occurring in the nation outside the South. It resulted in the creation of a multitude of new racist laws and practices whose ramifications are still impacting the country today. American society drew upon centuries of racist ideas to justify this new form of exclusion and exploitation, especially that of scientific racism and Social Darwinism.

Is any of that not true? Keep in mind that the Civil Rights movement occurred to combat that time period where racism was codified in our laws and accepted in many places in the US. It's painful that is our history but whoever wrote that passage had ample evidence to support the language for the Museum of Natural History for African Americans.

Next...

10. Coca Cola’s aggressive diversity plan stated the company would punish law firms working with the company if they didn’t hire “diverse attorneys,” half of which were required to be black, for at least 30% of hours billed. The plan also forced employees to watch videos on “how to be less white.”

Here is the actual PR announcement by Coca Cola's legal team. This was part of an effort by C&C to go out for RFP for a new legal counsel.

They are dictating that the billable hours be from firms that represent the US Census breakdown. Essentially, 15% of the hours they pay for should be from African Americans which not so coincidentally would be representative of the % of AA's in the US.

So why is Coca Cola worried about Diversity? Based on an ABA report in 2020 86% of all lawyers in the US are White. C&C is using their power on the "demand" side of the supply curve to reward firms that are more diverse, that offer diversity at least commensurate with the US Demographics. Even the 30% is lower than the total minority population in the US.

White men and women are still overrepresented in the legal profession compared with their presence in the overall U.S. population. In 2020, 86% of all lawyers were non-Hispanic whites, a decline from 89% a decade ago. By comparison, 60% of all U.S. residents were non-Hispanic whites in 2019. Nearly all people of color are underrepresented in the legal profession compared with their presence in the U.S. population. For example, 5% of all lawyers are African American – the same percentage as 10 years earlier – but the U.S. population is 13.4% African American. Similarly, 5% of all lawyers are Hispanic – up from 4% a decade earlier – although the U.S. population is 18.5% Hispanic. And 2% of all lawyers are Asian – up slightly from 1.6% 10 years earlier – while the U.S. population is 5.9% Asian.

That hits on my primary point. Anything race related is being lumped under "Critical Race Theory". If you look at what Coca Cola is doing is much closer to Affirmative Action efforts of the past but they aren't even setting quotas for hiring but rather saying the $$ they pay must be served by minorities (30%). You have to twist logic VERY hard to tie this to CRT. This is a vanilla effort to promote ethnic diversity in the field of law. Some are losing the upper hand against CRT when you lump in all diversity efforts. That starts to reinforce the accusations that the critics, at least the group cited above may have racist foundations.

 

[Seattle Husker]

One story I was told by an eyewitness, was that one white woman was made to feel so guilty of racism that she was left to cry in a corner of a room until the training ended. Others tried to go comfort the crying woman but the instructor told the class that this would only support her racism. She told the class something like comforting upset white women was a slave/plantation practice and would only perpetuate white supremacy in the schools.

When someone tells me a story too crazy to be true it's typically not true. Color me skeptical that white woman is cowering in the corner crying during a training session. Recognizing that some of us are hardwired to hear fantastic stories that reinforce I world view and say "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO", in most cases reality doesn't support the agenda...and that applies to left or right views.

 

[Seattle Husker]

(a) SeaHusker's head may explode when he hears that clip

(b) Having many interactions w/ Afr American moms and dads concerning our after school chess classes, it's amazing how they're like minded with the lady in the clip. Race rarely comes up (does w/ some but it's very rare), they just want their kids to learn and advance. True, suburban moms are more interested in their kids than urban moms on the whole, but it's good to see. Moral of the story.. don't screw parents around when dealing with their kids. Too many of us want them on equal footing, earning what they get. Equity doesn't please anyone but losers and quitters

Mind blown! A Blaze commentator (picture below) is claiming something that supports your view? Time to step out of the news bubble man.

Picture won't render: https://everipedia-storage.s3.amazo...shemeka-michelle/shemeka-michelle__02020.jpeg

 

[Seattle Husker]

There's squishiness to it. No doubt about that. That's why though I'm hostile to CRT, I'm not totally sold on bans. We're talking about history, not a hard science or math. Let's put it this way. If you teach that the "true" founding was in 1619 rather than 1776, you're taking it way too far. If you teach that the Revolution was largely about slavery, you're taking it too far. If you teach that the Constitution was an instrument of white supremacy, you're taking it too far. (Though it allowed for slavery, it did so by omission. It didn't endorse or guarantee it.) If you're trying to tie capitalism or the lack of socialized medicine in the United States to race or slavery, you're taking it too far. If you spend more time talking about Jefferson being a slave owner than about his contributions to the Constitution, you're taking it too far.

I have grave issues with the 1619 project and it's well documented accuracy errors. I've seen claims of the 1619 project in schools but in every case I've checked out those claims were spurious, usually tracked back to a right-wing news source. I'm not saying that some HS somewhere hasn't added Hannah Jones essay into their history curriculum but the fear of its pervasiveness doesn't match reality.

Chattel Slavery was brought back by the Europeans in ~1200. It wasn't just a US thing as nearly all countries that colonized the "New World" partook in the slave trade. Slaves were seen a necessary to manage large plantations. The UK didn't ban slavery until 1805 so clearly they were still dabbling in the insidious practice while trying to hold onto their prized territory, USA. The French banned the practice in 1794...the Dutch waited until 1863! Slavery was unfortunately seen as an acceptable trade for ~500 years of global history. Of course, go back prior to ~1200 and you'll find cultures adopting slavery since man invented the alphabet.

And of course, if you're taking children and dividing them up by race or condemning one group or celebrating one group based on race, not only are you doing something terrible, you're probably breaking the law even without a CRT ban.

Agreed. How common is that though? Not as common as the claims, I'd imagine and those that have were appropriately reprimanded.

That sorta depends on what we mean by "bedrock." If we just mean that it was an old issue and that early Americans were racist (like pretty much everybody in the 17th and 18th centuries), which led to some very racist laws (both nationally and at the state level), then I'd agree.

That's part of it.

However, if we mean that the country was set up from the beginning to be a mechanism to enforce racism or white supremacy, then no, I wouldn't agree. To me, for something to be a bedrock issue in that sense, then it needs to have been a major constitutional priority and addressed therein. Race isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Slavery is mentioned one time - and in a provision that actually diminished the power of slave states. By contrast, of course, the Constitution of the Confederacy fully and unambiguously enshrined slavery and specifically of blacks. That actually was a bedrock issue for them, and they had every intention of permanently protecting slavery and enforcing white supremacy.

The Constitution was setup to support the culture of the day. If favored wealthy landowners who happened to typically be white and male. Is there any doubt that it was to maintain a power structure? At the very least the "Representative" side of the Democracy was to ensure that the rabel who was uneducated couldn't overrule the more educated and scholarly ruling class.

The omissions were as much to maintain the confederation of the states. The Declaration of Independence calls for "equality for all men" but their definition of what fell into that group or later the "Rights of the Peoples" definitely differed from today's definitions. For example, nowhere were they proposing that women had those same rights, much to the chagrin of John Adams' wife. The Constitution of the Confederacy was our Constitution without the watered down more ambiguous language to hold all 13 states together.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Letting the public education sector, a group composed entirely of leftists as anyone with a different viewpoint has long been driven out, use critical race theory in race relations is like letting your alcoholic wife drink at a dinner party.

It starts out as "Why can't I have a glass of red wine like everyone else is having" and if you let her, one becomes five, then she's taking her top off to show the guys, then she's in a shouting match with another wife, then she's throwing up all over the carpet.

A "frank and honest discussion about race in America", as soon as you turn your back on it turns into:

America is a racist country founded on slavery (the 1619 crock of ****)
White people are evil and need to be healed of their whiteness
White children need to be told they are evil oppressors
1st grade teacher: "All of you that have white stars on your shirts, one at a time you will come to head of the class and apologize for your race, say you know you are evil, and pledge to make up for it".

But please, please, keep pushing this crap into public schools. As a conservative who'd like to see every elected Democrat in America tossed out of office, please tell all your NEA friends how important it is and how anyone opposed to it is a racist Klan member, especially the blacks and Hispanics who don't like it either.

It's a solid gold winning formula for the Democrat party for 22 and beyond - just look how well it did in VA!

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Maybe as a death bed confession, Ralphie will finally spill the secret on whether he was Sambo or the Grand Wizard his yearbook photo. He defense, as such, was that he couldn't remember which one was him, so that, err, cleared him of all charges.

 

[nashhorn]

I’m sorry to be such a simpleton but is SH simply denying the woman in the videos assertion of seeing what her children were being subjected to and calling her a liar, or is he saying it is a ‘one off’? I simply don’t get all this denial, or is it excusing?

 

[mchammer]

I’m sorry to be such a simpleton but is SH simply denying the woman in the videos assertion of seeing what her children were being subjected to and calling her a liar, or is he saying it is a ‘one off’? I simply don’t get all this denial, or is it excusing?

Deflection mostly

 

[Duck Dodgers]

I’m sorry to be such a simpleton but is SH simply denying the woman in the videos assertion of seeing what her children were being subjected to and calling her a liar, or is he saying it is a ‘one off’? I simply don’t get all this denial, or is it excusing?

Calling parents liars, who object to their kids coming home in tears after being subjected to racial denunciations, seems to be the Democrat plan for winning elections going forward, much to my delight.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Mind blown! A Blaze commentator (picture below) is claiming something that supports your view? Time to step out of the news bubble man.

Picture won't render: https://everipedia-storage.s3.amazo...shemeka-michelle/shemeka-michelle__02020.jpeg

So she's an uncle tom to you... or an aunt Tommie.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I’m sorry to be such a simpleton but is SH simply denying the woman in the videos assertion of seeing what her children were being subjected to and calling her a liar, or is he saying it is a ‘one off’? I simply don’t get all this denial, or is it excusing?

Shemoke has a financial interest, as a commentator for TheBlaze, to have a strong opinion with a very specific perspective. She's marketing herself as a poster of herself behind her denotes. Those influences demonstrate her bias. Bias shapes the way we interpret things. I don't know if she's lying and will give her the benefit of the doubt that she 100% believes what she's saying. That still doesn't mean a neutral observer wouldn't see the exact same scene differently. Given the obvious bias it's entirely appropriate to question whether Shemoke's interpretation is accurate. I'd say the same if some renowned BLM figure was screaming the school was encouraging racism against their child.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So she's an uncle tom to you... or an aunt Tommie.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Racist tropes may be easy for you to throw around but I avoid them out of respect for all groups of people

 

[nashhorn]

Bias shapes the way we interpret things.

No disagreement here.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Racist tropes may be easy for you to throw around but I avoid them out of respect for all groups of people

I didn't have to put those words in your mouth

 

[Seattle Husker]

I didn't have to put those words in your mouth

Great. Quote me then. Show me where I reference Shemoke's race. I won't hold my breath while you search for my posts. I'd merely ask that you don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to justify your comment with twisted logic that absolves you from doing exactly what I claimed anyone with reading comprehension skills can read for themselves.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Great. Quote me then. Show me where I reference Shemoke's race. I won't hold my breath while you search for my posts. I'd merely ask that you don't insult our collective intelligence by trying to justify your comment with twisted logic that absolves you from doing exactly what I claimed anyone with reading comprehension skills can read for themselves.

Don't have to quote you. She doesn't toe your line, so you demean or bash her for her opinion.

Let her have an opinion. Is that beyond you to handle?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Don't have to quote you. She doesn't toe your line, so you demean or bash her for her opinion.

Let her have an opinion. Is that beyond you to handle?

You don't have to quote me for something you claim I think/said? WTF logic is that?

I didn't begrudge her opinion but merely pointed out the bias. You were holding her out as some seminal sage resulting in the following: "SeaHusker's head may explode". I suspect you blindly made some assumptions based on her race and viewpoint that I would counter like a progressive caricature. What you really did is simply showed your own bias, blindness to alternative viewpoints. Then when a spotlight was pointed at that fact you try to go to a race card which actually just demonstrates your own racism. Now, like usual you'll try to convince me you didn't do something that anyone with a braincell can clearly read that you did.

BTW- Kudos on not injecting her race into the debate on her bias for THIS post.

 

[Statalyzer]

f you teach that the "true" founding was in 1619 rather than 1776, you're taking it way too far. If you teach that the Revolution was largely about slavery, you're taking it too far. If you teach that the Constitution was an instrument of white supremacy, you're taking it too far

Another factual error that bugs me without necessarily being part of "CRT" - the claim that the 3/5ths clause was problematic because it defined black people as only 3/5ths of person.

Phrasing it this way makes it sound like the clause should have been 5/5ths, which is completely backward as this would have artificially empowered the slavers even further. Actually, it should have been 0/5ths.

 

[mb227]

I don't know the answer but hiding the facts from our youth is not a solution either. We've long ago embraced and taught our history with Native Americans. Events like Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee Massacre and Battle of the Little Bighorn are now interwoven in our history. Youth now have full context of our battle, subjugation and newly economically emerging Native American tribes. Shouldn't African American's be given the same treatment?

I strongly believe you teach the youth the facts and let them use their own judgement. Whitewashing incidents like the example above prevents any race reconciliation discussions from moving forward.

Nobody is proposing HIDING factual accounts. What the issue comes back to is an opposition to telling little 5yo Suzy that she is guilty of some atrocity that someone in her family MIGHT have engaged in and that this inherently makes her evil.

The left, ironically, is ignoring the lessons of MLK that it is content of CHARACTER that matters, NOT the COLOR of the character...the left is the group seeking to constantly divide by race, beginning with Biden telling black people that, if they didn't vote for him, they weren't black.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What the issue comes back to is an opposition to telling little 5yo Suzy that she is guilty of some atrocity that someone in her family MIGHT have engaged in and that this inherently makes her evil.

Who is telling Suzy she's evil?

The left, ironically, is ignoring the lessons of MLK that it is content of CHARACTER that matters, NOT the COLOR of the character...the left is the group seeking to constantly divide by race, beginning with Biden telling black people that, if they didn't vote for him, they weren't black.

The irony of this statement a mere 9 posts after this post is too much to not point out. Hint: @Horn2RunAgain is conservative.

So she's an uncle tom to you... or an aunt Tommie.

 

[mb227]

Who is telling Suzy she's evil?

So I guess the multiple incidents in different locales that have been reported were all news accounts where the parent was lying.

The irony of this statement a mere 9 posts after this post is too much to not point out. Hint: @Horn2RunAgain is conservative.

Guess what AH...some of reply to posts as we come to them. We don't always read through an entire thread. When we stumble across something that merits a reply of some manner, we reply. If you don't like being called out on your crap, then don't post crap.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So I guess the multiple incidents in different locales that have been reported were all news accounts where the parent was lying.

I'm asking for examples, yes. Not from some right-wing biased blog source either. There is a reason I don't run to the Daily Beast or Mother Jones to justify my perspective. Those sites without a doubt cater to a specific bias. If these incidents are so ubiquitous as some infer here, it should be easy enough to find random parents who recorded these conversations over the Pandemic when every class was virtual.

Guess what AH...some of reply to posts as we come to them. We don't always read through an entire thread. When we stumble across something that merits a reply of some manner, we reply. If you don't like being called out on your crap, then don't post crap.

Post crap? You were pointed the finger while the same day, same thread, a mere few hours before your post someone from your side of the political spectrum was race baiting. I pointed it out to hold up a mirror! It may not be a left/right issue but rather an extremist issue.