So General Milley recently testified that he reads Critical race theory for the same reason he reads Mao and Marx.  He wants to be well read I suppose to get into the heads of (the enemy?)

He didn’t say the "enemy” I would guess maybe because he doesn’t want to alienate the woke half of the military he has to herd, but that’s just my guess.

In any case, let’s debate critical race theory.  Hopefully we can bring up points that aren’t just straw men representations of the theory, and id like to hear some devil advocates.  

It's the Theory analyzing the role of law in the maintenance of white supremacy. 

• Critical race theory (CRT) is a school of thought meant to emphasize the effects of race on one's social standing. It arose as a challenge to the idea that in the two decades since the Civil Rights Movement and associated legislation, racial inequality had been solved and affirmative action was no longer necessary.

I’m curious why conservatives are against having smart people in the military

27 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I’m curious why conservatives are against having smart people in the military

Dunno but there’s another thread for that

4 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Dunno but there’s another thread for that

Sure. But I think there’s a general delight among conservatives in ignorance.

Theory is just a way for people to grapple with the evidence at hand.

 

2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

It's the Theory analyzing the role of law in the maintenance of white supremacy. 

• Critical race theory (CRT) is a school of thought meant to emphasize the effects of race on one's social standing. It arose as a challenge to the idea that in the two decades since the Civil Rights Movement and associated legislation, racial inequality had been solved and affirmative action was no longer necessary.

My Wikipedia reading has me understanding critical race theory thinks all laws are inherently disadvantageous to blacks, which makes me wonder do they want a society without laws?

2 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Dunno but there’s another thread for that

I want people in the military that know how to win wars with minimal casualties.   
 

and that’s it.  
 

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

My Wikipedia reading has me understanding critical race theory thinks all laws are inherently disadvantageous to blacks, which makes me wonder do they want a society without laws?

It’s the new official guideline(s)  on how to spend your  life feeling sorry for yourself because your a victim.  

27 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

I want people in the military that know how to win wars with minimal casualties.   
 

and that’s it.  
 

Well part of the battle is psychological which necessarily means knowing your enemy

Sun Tzsu said know yourself and know your enemy and in 1000 battles you will never be defeated

As I understand it, the point of CRT is that the legacy of racism remains present in the system in the form of disparities that were features of institutional racism. The kernel is that, even long after things like redlining and housing discrimination have been outlawed, the effects of it are still being felt. It's a pretty simple concept that is fairly intuitive. Most of the people wringing their hands about CRT literally have no idea what it is.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

As I understand it, the point of CRT is that the legacy of racism remains present in the system in the form of disparities that were features of institutional racism. The kernel is that, even long after things like redlining and housing discrimination have been outlawed, the effects of it are still being felt. It's a pretty simple concept that is fairly intuitive. Most of the people wringing their hands about CRT literally have no idea what it is.

What is it exactly that they propose moving forward?

Most of the history taught in the USA is white-washed into stupidity. It wants to pretend Lincoln abolished slavery and that ended the issue.

 

This is true in the same way that laws against murder have prevented us from having murders since it was enacted.

25 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Most of the history taught in the USA is white-washed into stupidity. It wants to pretend Lincoln abolished slavery and that ended the issue.

 

This is true in the same way that laws against murder have prevented us from having murders since it was enacted.

Maybe I’m wrong because I got a private school education but I think this is just what we remember decades after our history lessons have faded from our memory.  I’m not sure but I think I recall being taught the real politics of the civil war

40 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Maybe I’m wrong because I got a private school education but I think this is just what we remember decades after our history lessons have faded from our memory.  I’m not sure but I think I recall being taught the real politics of the civil war

Yes, and then in US History, blacks don't exist again until Civil Rights in the 1960s. Do you recall being taught about segregation? Jim Crow? Sundown laws?

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Maybe I’m wrong because I got a private school education but I think this is just what we remember decades after our history lessons have faded from our memory.  I’m not sure but I think I recall being taught the real politics of the civil war

Politics is part of it.  After the Civil War white supremacist groups like the KKK sprung up to resist the U.S. military occupation and try to keep black people in their place.  The southern states were able to topple all the Republican state governments in the South by 1877 by outlasting Northern support for Reconstruction.  
Eventually an argument emerged between blacks about what to do about white supremacy.  Booker T. Washington’s speech in Atlanta in 1895 is called the "Atlanta Compromise” because he was accused (by Du Bois and others) of trying to compromise with white supremacy.

50 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Yes, and then in US History, blacks don't exist again until Civil Rights in the 1960s. Do you recall being taught about segregation? Jim Crow? Sundown laws?

Yes I believe so, but I think it’s really going to depend a lot on the individual teacher what gets emphasized.  One of my teachers for example was a big buff on all things war, which may have meant that certain other times get a quick brush over

like I think I recall getting every detail of every small battle in the revolutionary and civil war, which takes up what maybe 5-10 years of total history.  But then we spend a week or so studying the 60-80 year period in between

Again, this was private school, so there wasn’t necessarily a big "top down” curriculum 

38 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Politics is part of it.  After the Civil War white supremacist groups like the KKK sprung up to resist the U.S. military occupation and try to keep black people in their place.  The southern states were able to topple all the Republican state governments in the South by 1877 by outlasting Northern support for Reconstruction.  
Eventually an argument emerged between blacks about what to do about white supremacy.  Booker T. Washington’s speech in Atlanta in 1895 is called the "Atlanta Compromise” because he was accused (by Du Bois and others) of trying to compromise with white supremacy.

Myself, having read some revisionism in between, believe the "white supremacy” angle was amplified by the war and the bitterness it caused.  A lot of that bitterness could have been avoided by buying the slaves out.  And I imagine many northerners at the time would have much preferred to end slavery by paying with their money rather than paying with their lives

12 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Myself, having read some revisionism in between, believe the "white supremacy” angle was amplified by the war and the bitterness it caused.  A lot of that bitterness could have been avoided by buying the slaves out.  And I imagine many northerners at the time would have much preferred to end slavery by paying with their money rather than paying with their lives

Republicans weren’t about to buy slaves out.  They weren’t even trying to ban slavery where it already existed.  They didn’t they could based on the Constitution.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Republicans weren’t about to buy slaves out.  They weren’t even trying to ban slavery where it already existed.

Right, I beleive the south was annoyed the north wouldn’t send escaped slaves back down south.  The south then tried to leave, at which point the north said "no no nahah”

cheeseburgers. who doesn't love a good cheeseburger ? 

where are the best places to get a burger in your opinion ?

11 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Right, I beleive the south was annoyed the north wouldn’t send escaped slaves back down south.  The south then tried to leave, at which point the north said "no no nahah”

Actually the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law (1850) ramped up tensions significantly.  Slaves were being captured and sent down South throughout the 1850s.  Buchanan and Pierce were both enforcing it.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Actually the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law (1850) ramped up tensions significantly.  Slaves were being captured and sent down South throughout the 1850s.  Buchanan and Pierce were both enforcing it.

Well then there’s the issue I guess where expansion with new states was no longer being split 50/50 in the Senate.  In theory though this shouldn’t have mattered to the south?  Slavery was a states issue, not a matter for congress to decide

18 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Well then there’s the issue I guess where expansion with new states was no longer being split 50/50 in the Senate.  In theory though this shouldn’t have mattered to the south?  Slavery was a states issue, not a matter for congress to decide

History says you are incorrect.

5 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

History says you are incorrect.

About which part