US Politics : Biden 100 days edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
36,942
What he meant was that it was biased because the NP weren't the protagonists in the story. He wants the history that is taught to be about the ANC terrorism.

Our boi is showing his true colours tonight
Lol, another false dichotomy. I hold no candle for the Nats, I was still in single digits when apartheid ended so I have no real memory of apartheid. You really think a pro British guy like me liked the Nats?
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
36,942
Proof of the claim that CRT has somewhere in its writings claimed that all white people are racist and kids will be taught to hate the country of their birth.
Literally quoted a journal article which quoted an author of CRT about it. That not good enough for you?

I've already stated that of course CRT doesn't state must you hate the country of your birth, it's the way in which it is presented that is the problem. The framing, as you will. For example, CRT history would say the Founding Fathers were slave owners (true, its history with a negative lens) while a proper and far more interesting history lesson would focus on the amazing document that they produced at the time which is one of the rare documents that can truely be called revolutionary given the political systems of the European countries at the time. Indeed, the Founding Fathers being slave owners was not particularly original at the time and does not really add value to the understanding of the creation of the US. It's only function is to smear the FFs and paint them in a wholly negative light.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
36,942
Once again, the tell is that you don't actually want anyone to read the seminal works of CRT, but instead want right wing activists' screeds to be the arbiter of what it is and isn't. Absurd.

And can you please stop dodging the question - what are the central tenets of CRT that you very confidently asserted you know earlier?
Already posted the central tenets a while ago in the thread. Or you can Google them?
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
25,835
Literally quoted a journal article which quoted an author of CRT about it. That not good enough for you?

I've already stated that of course CRT doesn't state must you hate the country of your birth, it's the way in which it is presented that is the problem. The framing, as you will. For example, CRT history would say the Founding Fathers were slave owners (true, its history with a negative lens) while a proper and far more interesting history lesson would focus on the amazing document that they produced at the time which is one of the rare documents that can truely be called revolutionary given the political systems of the European countries at the time. Indeed, the Founding Fathers being slave owners was not particularly original at the time and does not really add value to the understanding of the creation of the US. It's only function is to smear the FFs and paint them in a wholly negative light.

I particularly enjoy Article 1, you know, the one with the three-fifths compromise.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
25,835
Literally quoted a journal article which quoted an author of CRT about it. That not good enough for you?

I've already stated that of course CRT doesn't state must you hate the country of your birth, it's the way in which it is presented that is the problem. The framing, as you will. For example, CRT history would say the Founding Fathers were slave owners (true, its history with a negative lens) while a proper and far more interesting history lesson would focus on the amazing document that they produced at the time which is one of the rare documents that can truely be called revolutionary given the political systems of the European countries at the time. Indeed, the Founding Fathers being slave owners was not particularly original at the time and does not really add value to the understanding of the creation of the US. It's only function is to smear the FFs and paint them in a wholly negative light.


You can apply the spectrum in many a context.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
46,494
Literally quoted a journal article which quoted an author of CRT about it. That not good enough for you?

I've already stated that of course CRT doesn't state must you hate the country of your birth, it's the way in which it is presented that is the problem. The framing, as you will. For example, CRT history would say the Founding Fathers were slave owners (true, its history with a negative lens) while a proper and far more interesting history lesson would focus on the amazing document that they produced at the time which is one of the rare documents that can truely be called revolutionary given the political systems of the European countries at the time. Indeed, the Founding Fathers being slave owners was not particularly original at the time and does not really add value to the understanding of the creation of the US. It's only function is to smear the FFs and paint them in a wholly negative light.
Pretty clear from this that you want folk mythology, not history, taught - wanting to de-emphasise the ugly parts despite their relevance because you dislike that it puts historical figures in a "negative light".

Ironically proving the proponents of CRT correct - that there is a strong commitment to paper over the dark parts of the country's history in favour of a sanitised, soothing version.

As Elie points out:


Already posted the central tenets a while ago in the thread. Or you can Google them?
Where? Link to it please.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
25,835
Everything I don’t like is CRT, example #2 786 350



14f3ebdefdcbbf0fc800ea40e438fbd2.png
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
46,494
Hey @The_Right_Honourable_Brit - here's a thread about Rufo's latest charlatanry. Including his use of fabricated quotes, straight up lies, and misleading assertions.


Here's a longer read debunking Rufo's drivel.


And as if it wasn't obvious enough, this new CRT grift is the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory repackaged to get old people to yell incoherently at school boards and shovel money to hacks like Rufo and Lindsay.

 

AlmightyBender

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
6,399
Literally quoted a journal article which quoted an author of CRT about it. That not good enough for you?

I've already stated that of course CRT doesn't state must you hate the country of your birth, it's the way in which it is presented that is the problem. The framing, as you will. For example, CRT history would say the Founding Fathers were slave owners (true, its history with a negative lens) while a proper and far more interesting history lesson would focus on the amazing document that they produced at the time which is one of the rare documents that can truely be called revolutionary given the political systems of the European countries at the time. Indeed, the Founding Fathers being slave owners was not particularly original at the time and does not really add value to the understanding of the creation of the US. It's only function is to smear the FFs and paint them in a wholly negative light.
Both Chris. Both things should be taught. Why does it have to be one or the other? The only reason you want to whitewash the facts is because of your white fragility.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
89,189
Can I introduce you to resident libertarian konfab?

I'd prefer to hear it from the horse himself.

I'm anti-tax myself but if I have to pay my share I don't see why the rich can't pay their fair share, and I'm most definitely not anti-rich...
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
25,835
24WkqRX.jpg


A lot of that points to the south but don't drag them all under the same comb. The US has a lot of amazing people in general.
cerebus' post was squarely aimed at SoldierMan, and SoldierMan only.

There's history. Happy to share it if you'd like.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
89,189
cerebus' post was squarely aimed at SoldierMan, and SoldierMan only.

There's history. Happy to share it if you'd like.

Yeah, but he's also a hypocrite like most people here if you wanna push things.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
25,835
Yeah, but he's also a hypocrite like most people here if you wanna push things.
First, is there a reason the forum won't add multi quotes right now? Tried everything and I'm last-resorting here...

Second, this post will be a slight derail.

Third, the stolen valour thing is on me.

I started it here after a run-in with Soldier in the SADF in the 80's thread, and one of his posts in particular.

I've run with it for a while now.

Screenshot 2021-06-10 at 01.37.06.png

Screenshot 2021-06-10 at 01.22.09.png

Screenshot 2021-06-10 at 01.22.13.png

Screenshot 2021-06-10 at 01.22.16.png

That SADF thread is a bunch of old boys talking old-boy, 'remember when', border shyte. Soldier doesn't fall into that category at all, but felt the need to pop in and take pot-shots nevertheless... then... posted about his brother as if that was his golden ticket to the thread.

It isn't the same stolen valour as folks who lie about being in the Recces or what not, rather leveraging a family connection to ingratiate himself with a bunch of greying internet dudes with dodgy knees and backs, who happened to wear a uniform thirty five years ago.

The stolen valour posts are on me.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
36,942
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top