Why is it wrong to teach about s***ery in our schools? It has existed since 1619 in America (proven fact). It wasn't called that back then, but "indentured servitude" was a definite thing in New England until the Civil War. In the South, of course, s***ery was a way of life until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863. After the "War of Northern Aggression", s***ery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history?

Economic s***ery exists to this day for minorities. Why can't we admit that and teach it to a younger generation?

S******c R****m (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. It exists, and even the most diehard conservative knows this, even if they won't admit it. I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. What will be the story then? Why are there so few minorities on the Boards of Directors of major corporations (this includes women, by the way.)

The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. When that supremacy is challenged by the rise of minority rights or populations, it comes to the fore and becomes dogma for all kinds of suppression to those segments of society that oppose it. Witness v****g suppression in Republican-held states and challenges to minority v****g in national e******ns. This is a classic case of s******c r****m, i.e. maintaining that supremacy at all costs. To say that it is to insure the accuracy of the v**e and prevent fraud is an insult to the intelligence of any patriotic American. The e******n of 2020 was one of the fairest and most accurate e******ns in our history with virtually no fraud being detected despite numerous recounts and audits. The gutting of the V****g Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court open the way for this particular try at suppression to happen.

These attempts at supremacy have failed every time they has emerged in this country. They will fail again, only to repeat a few decades from now. This cycle has only been temporarily broken when minorities and women were given the right to v**e, and v**er suppression is the latest attempt to maintain that superiority that is so endemic in our society.

The only way to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past is to learn from history. Sweeping large parts of our history under the rug because the older generation feels uncomfortable for their part in perpetuating those mistakes is not a reason for burdening the next generation with ignorance of them, thus dooming them to repeating those mistakes.

whitnebrat,

" Why is it wrong to teach about s***ery in our schools? "

It is not.

" After the "War of Northern Aggression", s***ery existed for another century in an economic sense until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. " That is opinion and not fact.

" What's wrong with teaching this to our kids as factual history? "

Because it is not factual history. It is Woke, anti American C*******m.

" S******c R****m (commonly called Critical Race Theory or CRT) is a fact of life. "

Prove it.

" I wonder what they will say when admission quotas are lifted at Harvard and other colleges and their student body will become over 50% Asian-American. "

Who is they ???? So what if Harvard and other colleges become 50 % plus Asian-American ? Are you an Anti Asian American bigot ? Are you a r****t ?

" The basis for all this is, of course, white male evangelical supremacy in all its glory … whether explicit or implied. The country was founded with that concept in mind, and it has perpetuated in various forms to this day. "

A bigoted viewpoint, in my opinion.

This thread has been interesting in terms of the responses. At least they have, for the most part, been civil and we've avoided the slurs and name-calling for the most part.
I've been requested to provide sourcing for the most basic and obvious facts. I've had my conclusions challenged in many different ways. We've seen instances of bias in regards to race, even if they are wrapped in pseudo-scientific verbiage.

Let me pose a change in the definition of r****m, s******c r****m, and racial bias. It becomes clearer if we call it 'not-like-me-ism.'
An example of this would be if you were a white, male manager presented with two equally qualified candidates for a critical job opening in your company. One is a white male, the other is a black female. Which one would you choose? I'm sure that in the interests of being politically correct here, you'd say that you'd pick the best qualified one. But would you really, once it came down to making that actual decision? Would you prefer someone that you could sit down and have a drink with after work, or play a round of golf with on Saturday afternoon? Or would qualifications alone be the criteria? Here on the forum, you'd probably pound your chest and claim to be non-biased, but when it came to signing the actual person for the job, which would you choose?
This is a classic example of professing one thing publicly, and doing another (even if unconsciously) in real life. It is endemic, insidious and all of us do it. It is in our nature to want to be with people like us. We're tribal, and we can't help it. That tribalism extends not only to family and politics …it's evident in our fanatical support of our favorite sports teams and to our national politics. It's us and it's in our nature at a basic level.
It exists in both what we're taught over the years by both school and parents and our experiences in life.
Let me give you an example of the latter ...
As a child, you're playing on the sidewalk outside your home, when a man with red hair, a beard, and sandals comes up to you and, for no reason, kicks the hell out of you. You go crying into the house and eventually forget the incident. Fast-forward thirty years and you're the manager of a startup software firm and you've advertised for a systems engineer. You have a candidate that, on paper, is the one person that you've found that can take your company to the next level. The person that comes in for the interview has red hair, a beard, and is wearing sandals. Will you hire him? In this forum, you'll probably claim to be impartial, but will you really do so in that real situation?
This same concept holds true or almost all aspects of our nature. We tend to reject that which is not like us … be it skin color, religious beliefs or almost any other aspect of our being. It takes a really introspective person to truly discard the idea of 'not-like-me-ism.'
The reaction to a child announcing to their parents that they are gay. The white female teenager bringing home her boyfriend to introduce them to mom and dad …the boyfriend is black. These are just some of the endless biases that we possess.
The idea of s******c r****m is derivative of this human tendency. It isn't overt, it doesn't manifest itself in readily identifiable ways.
For the first two-hundred years of our republic, the entire federal judiciary was entirely white and male, and the product of the major Ivy-League law schools (Yale, Harvard, etc.). If you weren't in that league, your chances of being a federal judge were nil.
Until the 1920's, women weren't allowed to v**e. Why was that? Because they weren't smart enough? No, it was because women were (either overtly or subliminally) considered by men to be property … much like indentured servants or s***es. Bias again rears it's ugly head.
You can call it 's******c r****m', 'not-like-me-ism'. sexism, or any other term that you choose …it is a part of our nature, and by extension, our society. We are trying to fight it, but it's a tough fight to win. But we, as a nation, to fulfill the phrase 'all men are created equal', we have to try. While the founders used it in the context of white male property owners only, we have expanded it to all our citizens. There are those among us that would like to take us back to those days of white male supremacy, but they have to look deep into their own psyches and ask, 'is it right or Christian to be biased?'

This will be my final post on this thread.

If a white male manager had two equally qualified white male applicants, he would most likely pick the one he would prefer to have a drink with after work, same as noted. His choice of applicants should be considered r****t only if he choses a SIGNIFICANTLY LESS qualified applicant because he is "uncomfortable" with the more qualified candidate for reasons of race, g****r, etc. It's true that a person can be blind to real r****t decisions but it is also possible to see r****m even where none exists.