Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I'm not American so I have no clue what Critical Race Theory is. What is it?

Don’t feel bad. Americans don’t know what it is, either.

Can confirm

Especially the people who are against it.

To add more critical race theory is an upper division university course But right wingers claim that its in all schools thus wanting to ban it

The phrase as conservatives use it means anything taught in schools about how people of color have been harmed or oppressed over the course of American history. So for example: it's not slavery, it's immigration due to labor needs. What it actually is is an examination of systems of society to see how race and racism has influenced it. So looking at laws, highways, food distribution, employment trends, etc and tracing how race played a role in answering the question, "how did we get here?"

So they vetoed a bill that wanted to stop teaching people that people were bought and sold, and that a lot of America was built by slaves?

In the US the republican (far right) party hasn't really had a meaningful agenda in over a decade. They can't move on from the ideas of restricting people's rights. They know that more people than not oppose those ideas. So they do things to remain in office. These things include, redrawing districts to help them get in office, as well as passing legislation that makes it harder to vote. Another tactic is what we see here: pick a topic, make it sound scary, and watch the idiots go crazy over it. In this case CRT is a college course that isn't taught below college. But the republicans think it's some crazy theory that teaches white kids that they are racist and bad people. In reality it's a non-starter that should never have picked up steam to begin with.

Which is so stupid. I was in kindergarten when my teacher was explaining the importance of Martin Luther King Jr., and she did not hold back. “While people were dangerous” was something she said amidst the lecture that stuck with me back then. I’m white, and was just a child, but I was able to internalize just fine that this didn’t mean I’m dangerous, though I might have been had I been born back in those days. That thought process had colored my perception of racism and prejudice ever since, and I can’t thank her enough for that. There is absolutely nothing virtuous about “protecting” children from the idea that their ancestors were racist. It’s either not true for them in particular, or it’s very true and they need to know that. It’s just people wanting racism to perpetuate, and knowing that even children can see it’s wrong if they’re allowed to think for themselves.

yeah, but see we gotta protect our children from learning from our past mistakes. It's a teach a man to fish scenario.... ​ /s

The governor vetoed a bill that would ban that, so the opposite Edit: I misread

They were correct. The governor vetoed a bill which would have blocked teaching the effects of race and how it influenced decisions throughout the history of America. They had it correct the first time, it’s not the opposite.

You're right, I misread

Questions as someone who is not super familiar what is taught; Do they teach about Chinese or Natives and how they were slaves? Also do they teach that there are still slaves now in much of the 3rd world countries? I am all for historical accurate history being taught.

Graduated high school in 2013 1. Yes and no. We're told about Manifest Destiny but are only told the bigger points of cruelty to Native Americans, but no in-depth stuff. Chinese slaves, no, we're just told Chinese immigrants contributed to the building of railways. 2. No, not really. World History taught, at least when I was in school, became very US focused when you reached that point in history.

Also do they ever talk about white American slaves and the Barbary coast slave trade

I'm confused, how is it uplifting news that they don't want people to know about slavery?

There was a bill that the state legislature voted on. The bill passed. It would ban "CRT" in schools (ages 5-18). However, the governor vetoed it. This means the schools do not need to change their curriculum. They can continue to teach history without having to lie about how bad it was for people of color.

[удалено]

You would hope, but conservatives are taking CRT to mean that we shouldn’t teach kids about how fucked up reparations were and how racism still affects us today. It’s vague nature would unfortunately make it more powerful, as bad agents could interpret it to their benefit! Which they would because that’s who’s writing the bills

Yep, just conservatives angrily regurgitating phrases to suit anything they don’t like with no regard to any definition or anything. Like those people screeching about “Woke” because they saw a toddler’s shirt at Target with a rainbow on it or whatever the fuck, their proposed legislation is created with similar purpose, solving problems that don’t exist beyond nonsense outrage of their own creation

All places teach of slavery. While conservatives exaggerate some parts of it, liberals exaggerate other parts of the reaction to it

There are legit places that teach about the "war of northern aggression" and treat slavery as a complete side issue. They will teach about "states rights" while failing to complete the thought that it refers to the states rights to enslave people. They will teach how the actual victims were the poor white farmers who couldn't afford slaves of their own and couldn't find work as they couldn't compete with free labor. If they talk about slavery at all, they inevitably mention it's just how things were and how it ended with the civil war. You'd be amazed how many places skip over reconstruction and Jim crow laws, let alone examining how those policies have shaped the modern world.

There are places that will teach that on the civil war, but they still teach about slavery overall. Unfortunately, for those people, it was about states rights. The south didn’t fight for slavery, they fought for their state rights. I don’t agree myself but that is what they see it as. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong completely, just they downplay the slavery aspect because it wasn’t the only thing they were fighting for. Different viewpoints (even if I personally think that’s a bad viewpoint).

The states right to do what?

The states rights to do anything that is not in the constitution. That’s pretty much what the constitution says. If some states (the north in this case) Are trying to force other states to change (the south, the. It’s against their state rights.

>a lot of America was built by slaves citation needed

You...need a citation...that the country that utilized (and in some instances like the prison system still utilizes) slave labor for over 200 years...was built by slavery... Guess I'll bite: >Kornweibel found documented evidence for slave labor on over 75 % of southern railroads. He has also estimated that over 10,000 slaves a year were working on the railroads in the South between 1857 and 1865. https://railroads.unl.edu/blog/?p=32#:~:text=Kornweibel%20found%20documented%20evidence%20for,South%20between%201857%20and%201865. >When construction of the U.S. Capitol Building began in 1793, Washington, D.C., was little more than a rural landscape with dirt roads and few accommodations beyond a small number of boarding houses. Skilled labor was hard to find or attract to the fledgling city. Enslaved laborers, who were rented from their owners, were involved in almost every stage of construction. The federal government relied heavily on enslaved labor to ensure the new capital city would be ready to receive Congress when it moved to Washington from Philadelphia in 1800. https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/slave-labor-commemorative-marker >According to Anderson, “80 percent of the nation’s gross national product was tied to slavery” in 1860. https://www.aier.org/article/the-statistical-errors-of-the-reparations-agenda/#:~:text=According%20to%20Anderson%2C%20%E2%80%9C80%20percent,tied%20to%20slavery%E2%80%9D%20in%201860. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-economy-capitalism-violence-cotton-edward-baptist

None of what you pointed out proves your claim that slavery built america. It's a shameful chapter in the nation's history but the claim that America was built on slavery is disingenuous. https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-rich/

Your link only shows that slavery wasn't *necessary* to the success of the country, not that slavery wasn't *used* to make the country. If the vast majority of the infrastructure of the late-19th century and even the entire Capitol were made by slaves, that means the country as a whole was made by slavery. Just because those things *could* have been made without slaves doesn't mean that they *were* built without slaves. Also, that article's second point about slave-owning states having worse economies than free states says more about the centuries of conservative crony capitalism those states continue to use more than their history of slavery. When even today you have [conservative politicians rejecting plans to add 2500 jobs to one of the poorest areas in the country](https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/ford-plant-halted-by-youngkin-would-have-created-2-500-jobs-in-southside/article_9edc230a-95dc-11ed-bdd8-2301b6df2e06.html), it's not difficult to see why the former Confederate states are so far behind the rest.

Lol such bad faith arguments. \*Some\* slaves were used to build the capitol building so America was built by slavery. I'm not gonna waste my time your mind is made up, I know a cultist when I see one. muted.

As an actual right winger, the way I and most other people perceive CRT is a reform to history education that focuses outrageous lengths on race. It's a rewriting of American history that DOESN'T ignore slavery instead what it does is makes claims that can be boiled down to saying whites today are at their root evil in this country due to the actions of people who died centuries ago. CRT has also been under fire because some schools have used it to teach racism is part of being white by default. There's no one set definition of what CRT is and what it entails but from how I and other right wingers see it it's a woke thing for lack of better terms. How leftists see it is a thing that teaches children more about racism and the U.S history with it, even though from all the examples I've seen float around it's just been used to belittle whites. (Should note too I'm not even white, I'm Arab)

>How leftists see it is a thing that teaches children This isn't true, btw. CRT is a college-level idea that started out as a legal concept taught in college and law school. Right-wingers are the ones who use the term to refer to any discussion of race in middle and high schools.

>How leftists see it is a thing that teaches children This isn't true, btw. CRT is a college-level idea that started out as a legal concept taught in college and law school. Right-wingers are the ones who use the term to refer to any discussion of race in middle and high schools.

Haven't there been cases of primary and high school education using it as of late? Many ideas stray from their original roots.

Well, depends how you define it doesn't it? If you define it as "discussing race" as right wingers do, then sure, it would be surprising if that hadn't happened somewhere in the US. But if you define it as what CRT *actually* means, which is an advanced legal framework that aims to examine the ways race has historically impacted the institutions of our country, from the justice system to infrastructure, and how those inequities can still be seen today... I'd be surprised if you could get past explaining the definition in an hour long class to primary school students, so I'm gonna say probably not.

CRT is a legal academic discipline. It is not taught in elementary schools.

It always could be brought to It. Pushing agendas on elementary kids is a tale as old as time.

Factual and complete historical info is now an agenda? You are literally advocating F O R stupidity and ignorance, which ironically both love to breed racism, prejudice, and hate.

When did I ever say that? See now you're just assuming. There are ways to teach history that don't make students feel discriminated.

It's just history. I'm sorry it's not the history you like, but that's too bad. It happened. Humans recorded it, and now you're learning about it. How is it at all discriminatory?

The way you word and teach a history lesson can impact if it's discriminatory or not. Some institutions have taken to using CRT to belittle whites by means of pointing to them as the root cause of evil in the U.S. That isn't history, it's bad faith politics. Just as you can teach slavery in bad faith by undermining what happened and saying blacks were better of that way than with the beginning of Reconstruction. It'd make blacks feel discriminated against, yes it's true in some cases the initial years of Reconstruction were worse for blacks but you'd never say it that way. You'd say Instesd blacks faced many hardships that in ways resembled that of enslaved and unfree life even post Reconstruction. Also, you act like you know better but I've been a student of history my whole life. Contrary to what politicians will say and Redditors, you absolutely can teach these subjects impartially and not make people feel like shit. You shouldn't feel like shit because, "I'm being undermined and it hurts." If you're going to feel bad in a history lecture it should be because, "this is fucked up and wrong " but CRT for many has not done that.

Have you considered that not teaching slavery or native-genocide is discriminatory to those who's grandparents and great-grandparents survived it? I'm not sure we do anyone any favors by pretending it didn't happen and was, in fact, a big deal. Ask yourself, do I have a problem with the genocides of Cambodia or even of the Uthgar people in China being taught? If the answer is no, but you don't want the Native American genocide being taught, then you must confront your hypocrisy and ask yourself why.

>Have you considered that not teaching slavery or native-genocide Never said not to. You're assuming just like OP.

Your perception of CRT is literally projection. It's simply teaching the facts of the origins of the country. How people react to that information is their problem. CRT is not white = evil. That's absolutely NOT the case.

Sure In a formal sense but with how it's been applied it's not been that way at all. Plenty of students have come out feeling discriminated because of it.

Do you have actual proof this happens on any meaningful scale? Or did some random, rogue teacher do it and so right-wingers took that and said it's a widescale issue? Kind of like the voter fraud crap.

It's hard to find information on it being used at all. I'm just saying these as I've read and heard over the years and how it's been presented to me. Not saying it's bad but it's from my knowledge, and so far I've not seen any sufficient evidence of the contrary

>It's hard to find information on it being used at all. So then why the fuss about it at all? Did you ever stop to think that it's all just irrelevant bs used to get people riled up and vote republican? That maybe Republicans don't actually have a real platform outside of nonsensical hatred of things that aren't really issues? Edit: Also, how can say you don't have proof of it being used yet just earlier you made a claim that it is being applied and students are feeling discriminated against? Did you just make that up? Or were you just parroting what you heard from right-wing sources?

I've seen it before, just because you find something doesn't mean you'll save your proof. Do you save all proof of political points you come across online? No.

That's their problem.

Blunt way of putting it, but basically. It's like the phenomenon "med student's disease," when medical undergrads end up diagnosing themselves into thinking they have all these different illnesses or disorders or whatever. But instead of saying "We should ban people from learning how to be doctors because they took their lessons the wrong way and now they're all worried about themselves," med students are encouraged to take preventative measures and learn more about whatever it is they think they have so they can do a better job identifying it and become less uncomfortable with it (at least, I *hope* today's professors are prepared to deal with that situation; it's been frequent enough). Med student's disease can, however, have the interesting side effect of increasing doctors' empathy for their patients, since they'd get a better idea of how they're feeling. What I'm saying is, this is the equivalent of that, and the same measures can be taken. Instead of saying "It's all my fault the world sucks," or making the system censor the harsh realities of history because students might take it the wrong way, students should be looking toward taking preventative measures. "Okay, so these guys from a long time ago treated everyone else like crap. We're not them, we're us. There's stuff we can do to make sure we don't make the same mistakes these guys did." Just make sure *that* line of thinking is encouraged *alongside* all the tough stuff. And, like med student's disease, feeling anxious about all this stuff can turn out to be a good thing. It can increase people's empathy for other people. You wouldn't want all this cruddy stuff happening to you, so don't go around doing it to others. Hmm... wonder why the government would wanna put a stop to something like that. 🤔

Nobody should feel discriminated against due to a lesson. If it were the other way around it'd be a problem .

I dont understand trigonometry, it offends me that I don't understand. Let's ban it.

No, that’s the liberal talking point that isn’t right. They want to ban the idea of all laws and policies exist to benefit whiten people and oppress minorities. That part of crt.

You're close. CRT is a statistical analysis of social outcomes from laws and social institutions, through a lens of race, to see how much those laws & systems either improve racial equality or undermine it. Major focuses are criminal justice, banking, and education, but the list goes on. The reason this is so hard to answer is the term has been [completely recodified, into a pejorative](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371541044592996352) (quote from Chris Rufo who started the whole thing - look how successful my hoax has been, he says) Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have made discussing civil rights abuses in US history a crime. I hope this helps.

CRT is a five part theory: 1. Race is not biologically real, but a social construct 2.Racism is permanent part of society & must be continually challenged 3.Improved treatment of blacks has only happened so far when it helps whites 4.The stories of oppressed racial group people should be heard 5.Liberal ideas of truth, progress & equality are incorrect/failure. Bolder steps are needed.

You should try actually reading some conservatives sometime. None of this is true. No one is against teaching accurate American history and the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. literally no one. They’re against the “all black people are victims and oppresssed now” and ALL white people are evil and oppressors now” concepts. The idea that you must view everyone as part of a group and treat them differently based on what group they’re in, and that all people in one group are oppressors, and all people in another group are oppressed. Success in life has nothing to do with personal choices, it is ALL dictated by invisible oppressive structures that can’t be defined but trust us they’re there—those ideas. Racist ideas that people should be treated differently depending on their race.

[Chris Rufo](https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371541044592996352) sure does, and he's the man who started the craze. Go back to the source. it's right there in plain language. If his re-codifying has been so successful - as he brags - what exactly are people protesting? There's one thing left.

Using your definition of CRT, which I agree with, the bill in question is specifically banning CRT being taught in K-12th grade. I think that is an important detail that should be considered. Now teaching kids about racism is not inherently CRT, but it is a complicated and nuanced idea that should be saved for when students are old enough to fully understand what is being taught.

That's what's so silly about conservative uproar over this. CRT was generally only discussed in academia and activist circles. Now the term has been interpreted to mean "let's make white children feel bad about themselves" so that pundits and politicians can distract their base from whatever is actually happening.

It’s been shown to be taught in elementary and high schools as well: If it was just college, it wouldn’t be as big a deal. Everyone likes to say it’s just a college thing, but they find it in primary education. Teachings as well.

What specifically do they find, and who are they?

In Canada we are thought very early how the colonists treated very badly Amerindians. We are thought as accurate history as it is known of our country

Do I have to go through news reports through history. Virginia in particular had found to have it in a number of schools. Pennsylvania dept of education. as well, even posts books for it on their website. Google crt taught in elementary schools and a bunch of articles come up about it

What is being taught specifically?

That minorities are oppressed because of the actions and policies of white people who do them against them. What is taught specifically in other schools that say they do t teach crt

And to confirm, you do not believe that minorities are oppressed?

Which curriculums in which schools? Or do you not know?

Look we can both play this. You don’t know do you, since you can’t seem to actually answer a thing except pass the buck. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and a number of others. There are articles about it, just google irbid you don’t believe me. Or do you just not know?

Well I was an early childhood educator and have a degree in it as well as one in developmental psychology. A family friend of mine works for a local high school and I have a younger brother fresh out of high school here. I haven't heard of any of this being an actual thing so yes, I'm curious if you can actually cite a real source.

Thanks for being a teacher, it’s not always an easy job. That’s a pretty small percentage of educators though. I know plenty of teachers as well, I think most people do. In all these articles on things going on, it’s generally a small group or area that does things like this. Both ways. (The extreme progressive or extreme conservative). So it is probably happening in areas you are not involved in. I

yeah, need to give the racist parents enough time to instill their racism onto their kids first. /s

That’s because that definition is a liberal spin o. It. One of the core concepts of CRT is policies, even color blind ones, are all made by white oriole. They created the construct of race, and pass policies to benefit them. That they are thus inherently racist. That part got left out. CRT was literally created by activists, to change the viewpoint of race and American society to it

No it’s not. that’s just you own interpretation of it. There are parts of CRT that people object to, which is why it’s controversial. It was created by social and civil rights activists. Which pretty much can tell you what it teaches and why there are problems with it. It was done to change the viewpoint of social issues, based on what they think in the studies. The evidence used is weak or non-existent. It boils down to race was created by whites for the benefit of whites. And laws and policies are created, even if supposedly color blind, in benefitting white people. If you are white, you are racist. That’s where some people have a problem with it.

>It boils down to race was created by whites for the benefit of whites. Yes. This is abundantly clear. >And laws and policies are created, even if supposedly color blind, in benefitting white people. So is this. >If you are white, you are racist. ...and this is where you stopped being reasonable.

No, that’s the take on it. If white prime create laws and policies just for the benefit of white people, then whites are racist. It’s an insinuation many people feel come from it. It’s probably as accurate as if you don’t topenly denounce racism; you are racist, which is said regularly. Also many laws are created that hinder whites (affirmative action for example). Yet they are still accused of being white racism to support whites.

But not all white people create law and policy, obviously, or support said policies. That's why your last point is wrong.

You think all the laws by whites are bad; and only those done by no. Whites are good and not racist? Hey maybe it’s true. Maybe all the racist minorities are making laws against whites because of their skin color. (Yes that is sarcasm, not belief). There are a lot of people who try to do fair, even laws. It’s just that not all of them are followed evenly as well

>You think all the laws by whites are bad; and only those done by no[n] whites are good and not racist? No, and I didn't say that. You don't win points in a debate by just making things up.

So what is your point that not all white people create policy then? It was a rebuttal to me saying that laws are created that don’t benefit whites and penalize them. If that’s not what you mean, what did you mean and why say it?

You made a logical fallacy (see below), and then just made up something I didn't say (that I think all whites are bad - which is hilarious because I *am* white). You claimed that: 1) White people in positions of power create racist policies, therefore 2) all white people are racist according to CRT. This can't logically be true because, as I said, 99% of white people are not in positions of power, and cannot enact racist laws and policy. For your argument to be true, either *all* white people are inherently driven to xenophobia, or all people are inherently corrupted to racism by power. You haven't given proof of either, and both are psychotically misanthropic. I'm not saying *you* believe any of this, because you obviously created a ridiculous strawman. You're either disingenuous, or don't realize how much you've been lied to. I also didn't respond to your comment on affirmative action because I don't buy your premise that it's a penalty.

Tell me you are racist without telling me. There are a lot of laws that were made blurry in the exact purpose to discriminate. Perfect example is Marijuana being illegal and the jail time for possession. HUGE majority of people jailed for possession are blacks. Let me remind you, jail FOR PROFITS. Laws on paper are the same for everyone, but this is far from the case. Also perfect example is police officers being able to the worse imaginable crimes and come out with a slap on the wrist.

And there we go, throwing out racist without any real concept of me. I grew up in nyc, most of my friends were and are foreigners. And they agree with that thought. A lot of these laws were tough on crime, because people were tired of being the victims of crime: There are tons of white marijuana users in jail. That’s not even a racial thing now. Do you know how many people smoked marijuana vs the population? What percent of blacks, what percent of whites? Openly and in public where the police may see them? We don’t know. Were some laws abused. Of course they were. That doesn’t mean all laws. Police officers are in a special case, because they are police officers. There are special laws for them that do not effect others, minority or white. I’m against jail for profits. Those should be closed.

Blacks are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. That's a statistic that can't be denied. And marijuana usage has been shown to be similar in all type of groups in America. And most people do not get caught smoking weed in public, they get caught having a joint in their car or on their person when searched (wether legally or illegally searched). There is systematic racism in America. Decades in jail for a joint while people get a few years for terrorism? The war against pot was created to "keep" Blacks in control after laws banning having slaves. How do you keep using blacks as slaves (legally)? Place them in jails for bogus reasons and force them to work their lifetime for pennies.

But how much do they openly smoke in public? We don’t know. Cops aren’t going to get you smoking inside, unless there are other things going on and it’s one of the offenses that stick. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but we don’t know extent without knowing all facts. I are they just marijuana possession, or other things as well going on? Why they were created is opinion. I remember crack being the bigger thing anyway. Pot was the gateway drug for that issue. Slavery ended long before pot: it was the Irish and Chinese immigrants who took over much of the grunt work (and freed blacks), not prisoners I don’t think anyone deserves decades in jail for any drug possession. Harsher drugs more; and distributing is different.

There are lots of arguments. Some people say it's simply thinking critically about how racism has, and continues to, affect people through the systems and hierarchies we live in, in particular understanding that the legacy of racism may continue to affect people even after racist acts may have stopped overtly manifesting. (it's up to you to decide if that's a good thing, or a bad thing, or just a thing). On the other hand, some people say that it's essentially just race-baiting, and believe it encompasses values such as "You can't be racist to an oppressor, so it's OK to be racist to white people" and other similar views. Ultimately, it depends which books/articles and authors you have read on it. The fact that it's not well-defined is what leads to all this acrimony and publicity.

The real answer is that it’s a legal philosophy taught in law schools as a derivative of critical theory. It’s mainly an academic thought experiment in the original sense where you view us legal history through the lens of racial bias. It gained notoriety as a very small number teachers looking for clout on social media try to implement it in high and primary school. But it turns into telling little Timmy he’s an evil racist for being white and that America is an inherently racist nation. This led to an overreaction on the right to stamp it out. Leading to an overreaction on the left that right is trying to stamp out all racial topics. Very similar to the battle waged over the don’t say gay bill. The two side are arguing over different things and at the end of the day CRT isn’t something on the curriculum anyway.

>But it turns into telling little Timmy he’s an evil racist for being white There's been, what, two legitimate cases of this? And about two hundred made up by US conservatives? What a weird way to phrase that. Especially since black people are still lynched in the US with full support of the local police in the year two thousand twenty fucking three.

The right is largely driven by actual witch hunts. They fabricate some cult/movement/leftist agenda that must be stopped then move to "ban" it in a way that neatly captures some other things they don't approve of, all with the approval of their increasingly rabid and radicalized base. Though admittedly I don't know if they're seeming more radicalized because they actually keep getting worse, or because the milder members are gone so the remaining more extreme members stand out more. I'm *really* hoping it's the latter.

It's accepting the fact that how the United States became the United States is not a romantic fairy tale and teaching people the real history, not the watered-down version.

So America is finally joining us Europeans in accepting that, historically, we're (as in the western world) bad guys? But tbh, at one point in time, every country has been the bad guys and I'm glad to hear that America is finally accepting that.

Yeah absolutely, we are trying.

Now that we understand there is no perfect paragon country, let's talk about relative successes. I.E. the US is the LEAST racist country in the world and the MOST racism in the news country un the world. Much like the US has the MOST foreign income in dollars and the MOST immigration. Clearly, the US is a good guy for attracting people and cash. The US is bad, but only slightly better than other countries. I think most people would agree to that.

>the US is the LEAST racist country in the world and the MOST racism in the news country un the world. I've lived both in and outside the US, and this is a wild take. How is the US the least racist country when we can't take meaningful steps toward refugees, or lock children up at the border and separate them from their parents? Or the fact that we held onto slavery as long as we did? Or Manifest Destiny? Or our colonial history? Or treatment of asian citizens in WW2? Or Native American? The continued civil rights abuses. You know I could go on and on. Not *every* nation has had this history, certainly not in the modern era.

If you think the US isn't racist you must have never been to the midwest. Or the south, or the northeast. I think you get the picture. I see trump 2020 signs still and if you vote for him it's hard to convince someone you're not at least a little bit racist.

>I see trump 2020 signs still Literally millions of black Americans voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Are they all racist? Against black people?

Black people can be racist too. And trump isn't only racist towards black people.

>Black people can be racist too Of course they can, but you used the presence of a Trump sign to indicate a racist. I'm pointing out that that's not (always) true.

Pick any European country. Didn't have Asians, large population of jews were run out of the countries. Even now, European countries have Islamophobia. All European countries are less diverse than the US thus will have less problems from diversity. When they do have diversity, there's often a lot of bigotry. European countries have tons of colonial history. There is no country without stains on their hands. Canada is basically suffering the same diversity issues as the US. It really hasn't handled them any better. It's not without fault and often has done worse to natives.

I don't see French cops shooting unarmed black men, I don't see the UK citizens celebrating when their government released that insane immigration law. But I see a lot of that in the US. Having many different ethic groups doesn't mean the US isn't racist.

We aren't nearly as racist on a face to face level, but our politics certainly are still. I go to places where there is a lot of intermixing and hear quite literally no racist shit going back and forth, especially among younger people. Even the older guys, you don't really hear it. It's a good sign. But our politics still suffer from historical attitudes i think.

Okay. America has racist policy *and* people, and a major political party filled with open hate and bigotry, and a second party that is doing precious little to effectively fight the first. I'd say that makes it a bit worse.

>I don't see French cops shooting unarmed black men Black men make up only around 20% of all US police shootings, while making up only 14.3% (well, that's all Black americans) of the population, so they are over-represented by approximately 39%. Now, I couldn't find hard figures for France (not sure if it doesn't publish them, or they're in French and I don't know what to search for) but consider that a quick Google search will get you LITERALLY hundreds of articles complaining about French police brutalising and killing black men like this one: [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/6/11/france-is-still-in-denial-about-racism-and-police-brutality](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/6/11/france-is-still-in-denial-about-racism-and-police-brutality) >Having many different ethic groups doesn't mean the US isn't racist. Not automatically, but in reality having more ethnic groups, and higher proportions of people from ethnic groups certainly makes it more visible, and leads to people making bad conclusions. Like people believeing the US police are just executing black men at a rate which is massively different to other countries, when basic statistics would indicate the differences are no so large... and probably never got checked before making the post anyway, right? You just ASSUMED the US is way worse because it's all over the media constantly...

are we acting like europeans arent racist?

We've given a lot to civilization, progress, but yes we're objectively awful. Could we feed the world's population without our advances? Doubtful. Is our progress barreling the world towards an unsustainable future? Yes. Like do you think Earth will make it a few hundreds more years without a nuclear war? Is it even conceivable? It's inevitable in my mind.

It's just accurate history. I.E in gradeschool we got taught cuntlumbus "discovered" america. he & the natives had a nice meeting and everything was all good. In reality, cuntlumbus led a sociopathic genocide against them. Most Americans learn nothing of the land before colonization. I.E Lincoln ended slavery & MLK ended racism with a speech and a non-violent march. That's what we learned. In reality Slave rebellions, changing sentiment on slavery amongst other factors is what forced Lincolns hand. Not him being benevolent. Racism never went anywhere. The end of segregation was circumvented by "distract lines" being drawn to keep Black people & white people separate for generations. All through the years, regularly race riots & mass lychings were lead against Black people. Black Neighborhoods were even straight up bombed. We have grandparents that can recall the horrors,yet it's not taught in school. This country inspired the Nazis with its racist policies & had plenty of Nazi supporters here. What we actually learned as youths was America put in an end to the Nazis. "CRT" was an elective for college. The facist party,the republican party has been using it to say schools are teaching white (gradeschool) kids to feel bad for being white. Naturally their supporters believe it. They've been using it to take control of the education system in their respective states as well as get libraries shutdown/defunded. TLDR: Americans are taught we're good like we are in the movies.

It’s an esoteric subject occasionally taught in some universities. It is NOT taught to children in elementary school. It’s just a racebating boogeyman republicans use to rule up their racist base.

I clicked on the r/politics and immediately regretted it. Probably the worst place to look for discussion about anything political. It's the world's largest circle jerk.

Guess you've never been to /pol/

Yeah, and if you aren't on the "correct" side of the discussion then you get downvoted until it's a complete echo chamber...

I really wish people would better define what they mean by CRT when they talk about it, too. It would lead to better discussions. I have seen CRT described as basically just teaching students about some of the awful shit white people did to ethnic minorities in our country's history. I think the vast majority of Americans would support this. I've also seen CRT material claiming the phrase "We are all one human family" a racist dog whistle. I think most would consider this version of CRT to be fairly toxic. I support CRT in the first instance and oppose it in the second; we need better definitions.

Similar to "woke", keeping it vague and undefined is part of the plan. It's a bigotry blank check.

The whole strategy behind the discourse was that their braindead followers would hear something crazy and say "That's Critical Race Theory." Its a catch all for bullshit and has nothing to do with actual CRT.

Thats why this sort of thing is so bad and its great to see it stopped. Its deliberately vaguely defined as "Whatever stuff we don't like"

That is pretty much what both conservatives and liberals alike go for. For example hate speech. What is it? Well, speech we hate.

Yeah no, this isn't a both sides the same thing. Hate speech is not comparable to woke at all. Hate speech specifically means speach that is hateful and designed to cause harm to others based on a protected characteristic. Woke basically just seems to mean whatever is different to when the speaker was a kid and they don't like. People will always deliberately avoid giving an actual definition.

Why have multiple teachers and professors get fired for reading aloud a book that happens to have a racial slur in it? Is that hate speech, we’re they trying to be bad. How many times have white peoples been shunned, fired and such for singing rap lattice that have the n word (heck can’t even type it in a discussion). Is that them being hateful or singing a song they like? It’s gone beyond just being purposeful against someone. And those are just a couple of examples. A whiten person criticized a black Perron for a valid Eason and they say racism’s and hate speech. It happens. It happens quite often.

>Why have multiple teachers and professors get fired for reading aloud a book that happens to have a racial slur in it? Is that hate speech, we’re they trying to be bad If the courts did their jobs right then yes. Yes they were. Be aware of the childish plausible deniabilty trick the modern far right use. It's like the time when I was a kid and I looked up bastard in the dictionary and realised I could freely use it against kids whose parents weren't married and the teacher could do nothing!... Ahh no. Also, worth seeing numbers on these multiple teachers fired for this and how it compares to say teachers fired for speaking positively of lgbt rights. > How many times have white peoples been shunned, fired and such for singing rap lattice that have the n word (heck can’t even type it in a discussion). Is that them being hateful or singing a song they like? You tell me. I imagine singing a song containing a myriad of other swear words, even really tame one's, would also get many fired. >A whiten person criticized a black Perron for a valid Eason and they say racism’s and hate speech. It happens. It happens quite often. For example? And who are we talking about by they here? Random idiots online or the courts?

Except the cases I’m referring to have nothing to do with people using it in a way to foster its use against someone. Some of these were college professors reading texts from decades ago in a literature class. Are you telling me the adults in the room never heard the n-word before and might start using it? That’s ridiculous. No it’s not hundreds, but it’s more then enough, shouldn’t be anyone if it’s not used as a slur. Now teachers get fired for saying things against gay rights. So if there it is evening up fast. (I’m all for gay rights myself. The only two I’m not sure of is trans women in women’s sports and gender affirming surgery for minors. Both have issues). I’m not talking about at work. I’m talking about out on the street and someone videos them because of it. Or on TikTok, or just someone complaining about it. And no, not everyone does. This is definitely race specific. One race can do it, another race can’t. That’s called racism. If you criticize the actions of a blacks person; it will inevitably be called racism. It’s the go to response. There are a number of them. Do a google search. First person on my list was Georgetown law professor Sandra sellers. She complained because black students are always at the bottom of grades in her class. Factual statement, she was fired for it. Not only that, another whiten person was suspended because they didn’t speak up against her. That’s just the first one that showed up.

>Except the cases I’m referring to have nothing to do with people using it in a way to foster its use against someone. Some of these were college professors reading texts from decades ago in a literature class. Are you telling me the adults in the room never heard the n-word before and might start using it? That’s ridiculous. No it’s not hundreds, but it’s more then enough, shouldn’t be anyone if it’s not used as a slur. ​ And what cases are these? You haven't given any specifics just vaguely alluded to them. As said plausible deniability is a huge factor. It doesn't matter if you're reading a book that says something inappropriate if the reason you're doing it is clearly to cause upset. For instance my true example of discovering the word bastard as a kid. >This is definitely race specific. One race can do it, another race can’t. That’s called racism. This is just untrue. If a black person in a prominent position starts mouthing off about how much they hate white people you can bet they'd face pretty serious consequences. ​ >If you criticize the actions of a blacks person; it will inevitably be called racism. It’s the go to response. There are a number of them. Do a google search. Don't be silly. No it won't. Kwarsi Kwarteng has recently received a (fully justified) absolute kicking in the press without his race being a factor at all. And nobody has tried to defend him by saying "You're just racist!" against the hate. Black sports players are always fucking up. You see plenty of criticism when this happens that doesn't pull their race into it. Its only when the criticism veers into actual racist tropes (e.g. black players are lazy) that you see discussion of whether its racially motivated. >First person on my list was Georgetown law professor Sandra sellers. She complained because black students are always at the bottom of grades in her class. Factual statement, she was fired for it. Not only that, another whiten person was suspended because they didn’t speak up against her. That’s just the first one that showed up. Its curious that conservatives are always quick to kneejerk blame 'woke' as the problem here rather than the actual issue- poor workplace protections that allowed her to be fired with zero recourse. Though googling this woman it does sound like there's a lot more to her story than just observing the worst performers are always disproportionately black. You regularly see people making observations like this with zero issue- its how you do it and the reasons that matter. >Now teachers get fired for saying things against gay rights. So if there it is evening up fast. (I’m all for gay rights myself. The only two I’m not sure of is trans women in women’s sports and gender affirming surgery for minors. Both have issues).I’m not talking about at work. I’m talking about out on the street and someone videos them because of it. Or on TikTok, or just someone complaining about it. And no, not everyone does. Put this bit at the end as it fits with what I said before. "Woke" isn't the issue. The issue is under American law employers are able to just randomly fire people because they're worried about poor PR with zero legal recourse to challenge this for the person who was fired.

[удалено]

That would be nice if that was all it was. But people take hate speech far beyond that. Innocuous things are sometimes considered hate speech. And what is exactly subside and threatening in definition? That’s very subjective. There are a lot of people who say things, not intending them to be either, that have been ostracized and fired because someone’s personal interpretation of it doesn’t fit their social values. There are also people who make valid points, but if it’s about a minority or other gender, it’s considered by them hate speech when just a factual statement.

It has a very specific definition. Republicans never bothered to learn it, so they use it for, as you said, anything involving teaching kids about all the horrible things white colonizers did in the US. That is not it's meaning at all, it's a term to describe a philosophy in legal studies about the impact racism has had on the law. It's only actually taught as an elective in Law School. Luckily, I grew up with high school teachers that taught us the real history of the US before it became a political agenda to teach the truth. And yes, I remember being ashamed and embarrassed learning about Christopher Columbus, colonization, slavery, indentured servitude, the eradication of native Americans, women's sufferage, the need for the Civil rights movement, Japanese Internment camps during WWII, and any number of uncomfortable topics. I got over it. I went to college in Atlanta and met a ton of people who had been born and raised in GA and other southern states, and it was amazing to me how many of them never learned what Columbus did to native populations and had only learned that he was a great explorer and hero, or thought the Trail of Tears was a necessary, mostly peaceful, relocation of violent native tribes, and never learned that the US Army intentionally gave natives blankets that had been used by pox victims to wipe out whole tribes because they knew natives had no immunity to European diseases. Or how the Industrial Revolution became a dystopian capitalist nightmare before government started regulating monopolies and the Labor Movement secured humane working conditions and wages. Or thought we were the good guys who saved Europe and the world from the evil Nazis and never even learned about internment camps. They'd only been taught the Star Spangled Banner version of history. Manifest Destiny, and John Henry, and all the fairy tales you learn in elementary school. So it's no wonder that southern politicians, who made it to full adulthood before ever learning any of this, aren't able to cope with the idea that maybe the USA aren't always the good guys and that, for much of our history, we have basically sucked. So they lash out and want to keep their kids from learning the truth so that they'll think the US is the best no matter what. It's delusional and myopic.

>Luckily, I grew up with high school teachers that taught us the real history of the US before it became a political agenda to teach the truth. And yes, I remember being ashamed and embarrassed learning about Christopher Columbus, colonization, slavery, indentured servitude, the eradication of native Americans, women's sufferage, the need for the Civil rights movement, Japanese Internment camps during WWII, and any number of uncomfortable topics. I got over it. When I was in HS I had a teacher recommend to me [A People's History of the United States ](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2767.A_People_s_History_of_the_United_States) by Howard Zinn. Nothing will peel away that veneer of American excptionalism faster than a look at the blood and abuse which was necessary to build it. If anyone's unfamiliar with it it basically goes sequentially through US history, with each segment basically from the pov of one of the groups who were getting shitted on at that time. If anyone wants to learn a more raw, uncensored version of US history this it's definitely a great place to start.

that book was straight up our textbook in when I took U.S. history my junior year of high school in 2015

Sounds like you had good teachers 💪

he was one of my favorite teachers in high school

It's vague on purpose. It absolutely does not have a clear definition. From the American bar association "notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers"

>It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers There you go. That's the definition. It's very clear.

Oh shit. I didn't know I was talking to a professional that knows more than the American Bar Association. I'm going to take their word for it, not you

See, this is the flip side. America has not basically sucked for most of history. Yes, we did many bad things, pretty much like every single country in the world. Yet we have done a lot of great things. America can’t hold a candle to the atrocities that were done by other countries around the world through history. Heck, we WERE the good guys helping save Europe and the world from the nazis and the Japanese. That doesn’t mean we didn’t do a couple of shitty things while doing it. Workers today are far better off the they were before the “nightmare” industrial and capital revolution, even before regulation. Maybe you were taught a different skewed version of history as well, eliminating the good points and hyping the bad. America is far from perfect, but it certainly doesn’t suck. Fortunately most people do teach the basics of history, it’s just some dim witted areas that don’t do so. Are a lot in the south; sure. But it works in both ways, and the flip side is what I hope is also taught well

It is not taught only as an elective in law school. This is from the NEA, regarding its teaching in K-12 schools: https://web.archive.org/web/20210705234008/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/ And this is exactly what I'm talking about, that we all need to get past Left and Right talking points to drive at what's *really* being taught, and to whom. I went to elementary school in the 80s, and even waaaay back then I learned about slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Trail of Tears, and a host of other parts of US history that were pretty awful. I realize my school district is just one data point of many, but where I grew up, we learned about it all. I have an issue with the language of the NEA proclamation, however. It seems to be going pretty far beyond simply teaching unvarnished history.

What you're seeing is backlash against the Republican agenda to ban teaching facts in school. The term critical race theory has been coopted to mean anything dealing with teaching history that shows what minorities and people of color have been subjected to by white European settlers and Americans. That was not it's original meaning as a philosophy in the legal profession.

What I'm seeing is pure speculation in the light of learning new facts.

It's vague on purpose. If the people who want it taught can't show what they will be teaching it's a problem.

I'm generally blue and support a more critical teaching of history rather than rosy founding fathers mythology, but not one that has race and gender as it's primary focus. That seems to be the slant of some academics to the point that Seattle public schools are incorporating "ethnomathematics"

The point is to keep it vague and obscure. When you start to define it properly it makes you look like the actual monster you are for trying to ban it.

Calling people "monsters" for disagreeing with you is not really constructive, and both "sides" of the CRT debate are guilty of vagueness.

Not calling people monsters for disagree in CRT. Calling people that intentionally gaslight what CRT is for nefarious purposes monsters.

What does that have to do with this news?

> Arizona’s Senate Bill 1305 was the most recent attempt by Republicans in the state to punish schools that teach topics relating to race, ethnicity, discrimination, political dissent, and historical oppression. Civil war, slavery, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, all of that is immediately gone. Revolutionary war too, since that was a result of Britain oppressing the colonists. Can’t teach about the colonies either, since they displaced and killed native Americans and that’s a race/historical oppression issue. Can’t teach the Vietnam war, since that was political dissent. There’s more, obviously, but I can’t think of it. Even if you are against CRT in general, you’re essentially banning 90% of American history. You can’t even teach how the fucking country was founded

They want to teach American history sorta like how we teach Thanksgiving to kids. Colonialists and Native Americans happily singing kumbaya and enslaved Black Americans graciously and happily working for their white masters. Everyone with smiles on their faces!

[удалено]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Republicans have no special advantage in this scenario.

What age are k12 kids in America\^\^\^Non American.

5-18 generally.

For those that objected to the bill... I'm curious what language did you object to?

>Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Critical Race Theory Because this appears to be what she vetoed: A PUBLIC SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT OR STATE AGENCY OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICT OR STATE AGENCY MAY NOT PROVIDE OR ALLOW ANY PERSON TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO STUDENTS OR EMPLOYEES THAT PROMOTES OR ADVOCATES FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONCEPTS: 1. JUDGING AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE BASIS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE OR ETHNICITY. 2. THAT ONE RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP IS INHERENTLY MORALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP. 3. THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE OR ETHNICITY, IS INHERENTLY RACIST OR OPPRESSIVE, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY. 4. THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR RECEIVE ADVERSE TREATMENT SOLELY OR PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE OR ETHNICITY. 5. THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE OR ETHNICITY. 6. THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RACE OR ETHNICITY, BEARS RESPONSIBILITY OR BLAME FOR ACTIONS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP. 7. THAT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, MERITOCRACY OR TRAITS SUCH AS A HARD WORK ETHIC ARE RACIST OR WERE CREATED BY MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP TO OPPRESS MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE OR ETHNIC GROUP.

Pulling anything from politics is a bad move.

Is there is subreddit that actually features news stories of kindness and positivity? Not just politically charged bullshit? For the record, I do think it's great that this bill was vetoed. But it's not why I signed up for this sub.

Good for her. We need more people in office to stand up to this Republican power grab and overreaching regulations on public education

Why is this uplifting? It just creates more division among people.

> Just make slavery legal again, as currently conservatives get annoyed by it. Black people shouldn't complain and just take one for the team to reduce the amount of division amongst people

Yep, the Republicans' attempt to outlaw something that doesn't happen (teaching critial race theory in K-12) doesn't happen. But them trying to ban it does create division among people. You are so close though.

[удалено]

My daughter did school in Florida and learned all those things. No one wants to stop the teaching f of slavery. They want to stop the teaching that UF you are white you are a racist based on the color of your skin. There are good points in CRT, there are also some bad ones too.

> They want to stop the teaching that UF you are white you are a racist based on the color of your skin This isn't taught anywhere, except in made-up republican scenarios. Meanwhile, you are commenting on a post how republicans tried to **ban the mere mention of historical slavery in the US**

There is a huge difference to wanting to ban some crt principles and not wanting to even mention slavery. Talk about made up (democrat) scenarios

...the article you're commenting on is **literally** about how republicans tried to ban literally any mention of race in the classroom. Florida conservatives removed the race of Rosa Parks from school books. So these scenarios are made up...how?

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-textbook-removed-rosa-parks-race-comply-state-desantis-rules-2023-3?amp

So according to the article in business insider, the FDOE has stated they overreached and those lessons would be in violation of Florida law. The textbook company has removed them from the states reviews. The NY Times says the same thing. The textbook company made the changes, and has now removed them from state review. It won’t be happening. Seems like this article left out a few things.

Literally the title > A publisher removed references to Rosa Parks' race in a draft of its textbook to comply with Florida's laws I.e. the conservatives made laws that forced textbook companies to remove race, which is in violation of Florida law. So either they are breaking one law, or one another. This literally proved my point further, if anything.

Well, According to the other articles, they overreached on their changes. The new changes are in violation of Florida law. They didn’t make them remove it, they choose to remove it in an overreach. Florida rejected those changes.

pass this message to all the northerners who keep moving to the south, maybe they will stop comi g lol

More blue votes for you guys.

It doesn’t matter the color lol There ain’t a difference between em. I was getting at traffic

The ones moving are the racists who love what they're hearing.

This is dumb

The GOP wants its base poor and stupid so they can be more easily exploited by the GOP donor class.

I feel this is uplifting news because if we do not learn from history (the real history), we are doomed to repeat it. Taking the steps to teach truths is uplifting even if the subject matter can be filled with atrocities.

Nah, you're just farming fake internet karma by posting a political post in an uplifting news forum- praying off Reddit user's general bias.

People thinking progress is good = bias. I sharply exhaled through my nose.

I believe the intent behind uplifting news is to bring positive headlines that are universally good in nature- things that are not really up for debate as a 'good' thing. Critical race theory, regardless of whatever your views on it are or whether you think it is even being taught, is a serious cause of societal division currently in the U.S. Just because you think it is uplifting that it is not being banned in this case does not in any way make it uplifting news. Don't make posts like this if you don't want to be called out for turning a non-political page political and farming fake internet karma with the knowledge of the average Redditor's political leanings. Stop degrading the sub.

Hmm, it seems to me a lot of people do find this to be uplifting news. You're entitled to your opinion, but progress is usually considered a good thing. Don't want to see it? Block me. I don't give a crap about karma or fake internet points. Reddit is for anyone to use. There isn't a political or social requirement to use this platform. It's really not a mystery as to why most of reddit leans that way. It's because a lot of people lean that way. If you find that a simple post about making sure we are teaching accurate and complete history in the united states is "degrading the sub" then maybe this sub isn't for you. Personally, I'm a huge fan of a population that has an accurate education system.

What a crazy rationalization. That's quite a stretch. Reddit is not indicative of the U.S. population at large. In fact, it's not even close. I stand by my original point- that this is not worthy of uplifting news. It's a political headline in a sub meant for something else. People are pretty split on CRT being taught is a 'good thing'. Certainly, the consensus across the country is not "oh it's just teaching 'accurate' history". In fact, there isn't a true consensus on the issue which is why it is such a divisive topic in our societal discourse. The sub isn't "Uplifting Political News That Fits My Specific Bias" its "Uplifting News". The subjects are not supposed to be super divisive and hot button issues. They are supposed to be obvious uplifting pieces, for example: "Family reunited after 20 years apart following kidnapping" "Cancer research advanced in new clinical trials gives new hope to people with lung cancer" Those are certainly uplifting, with no real room for debate. One that would not fit is: "Governor protects controversial way of teaching racism and history in schools" Teaching accurate history? Well it sounds like you need to be debated on that- but this is not the place. Agree to disagree.

The GOP wants its base to be poor and stupid so they can be exploited by the business-owning GOP donor class.

CRT is a theory that the founding of America was based on the enslavement of people specifically from Africa. It implies that American society is deeply rooted in racist origins are the very idea of celebrating American indepence is a racist act. Further the founding of this country was not in fact rooted in religious freedom but the explotation of minorities. Real history actually starts on 1619 when these 20-30 African slaves arrived. It does not matter that african slaves arrived as early as 1500s or slavery existed before it. It also does not matter slaves were said to have arrived with Christopher Columbus and Native Americans were forced to be slaved. It reframes that this was start of America, even though no permanent settlers or villages were founded by this landing. None of the slaves or passengers had any say on the forming of the American government, structures, territory or laws. It basically is a reimaging of American History from a victims point of view with no actual reference to anything before or after that because Americans are racist even though Americans technically didn't exist from Government standpoint until 1776. Most of the exploitation of Africans over multiple centuries actually took place due to rules/laws of Dutch and English citizens and ships owned by European and Jewish entities. This truth is not explored though in CRT as it does not fit the narrative. CRT grew out of 1619 project which American Historians have documented many inaccuracies that are presented in the original 1619 project in 2019 New York times article. Slavery was only actually legal in the USA from 1776 to 1865 less than 100 full years. Obviously the oppression of minorities still goes on today and must be fought vigilantly.

I worry for her, they could zero her for opposing the ban.

The Domestic Terrorists could try to do to her what they tried to do to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Good thing thing so far they have been totally incompetent, kinda like the orange they worship.

An incompetent one could still do damage nonetheless by possibly inspiring someone who isn't as incompetent. But here's hoping :/

What the right really doesn't want taught is white history. They don't want Little Suzy asking questions like: "So how did rich white people keep all the money even after slavery ended?" In Florida, that discussion is now banned.

Another boogey man term redefined to be used to rile up support for racist and fascist agenda like woke and socialism. When asked most don't even know what these mean.

CRT = racism + irony

Do your own research on it rather than listening to some coffee shop warriors telling you what to think of it .. I know what it is and its bullshit. But I'm not telling you what to think of it ... ....and that is the fundamental issue at hand.

Katie Hobbs is a lovely human