Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe there is too much generalization and condemnation of Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory, due to the critics' ignorance and confirmation bias.

The CRTists and their apologists will normally countered [in their very ignorance] anti-CRTism is about stopping the learning of the FACTS of racism and slavery within American History in general with its warts and all.

Note here are some points re Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory related to ALL Government Contractors and what the ban is pin-pointing specifically.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publi ... tive-order

The Trump Administration issued an executive order (EO) that will prohibit all contractors from providing employee training regarding subjects cited within the EO tied to race and sex relations.

More specifically, the EO prohibits any form of race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating and gives examples of prohibited teachings, including:

• 1. one sex or race is superior
  
  2. an individual is inherently consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist by virtue of their race or sex
  
  3. a person should be discriminated against because of their race or sex
  
  4. that a person's moral character is determined by their race or sex
  
  5. a person's race or sex makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race or sex
  
  6. that a person would feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"
  
  7. hard work ethic is inherently racist or sexist

The above is applicable ONLY to ALL Government contractors, not merely any contractor.

The anti-CRTs opposing the toxic CRT elements within the K12 schools to students is on the same basis as the above toxic points.

Do the CRTists and their apologists really believe point 1 to 7 are not toxic to humanity?

When Biden rescinded Trumps' executive order re CRT, Biden is opening a pandora box of evil free to all which will enable the very overzealous CRTists to infiltrate into the K12 schools and elsewhere to brainwash children and others with their toxic ideology.

[Sculptor]

I believe there is too much generalization and condemnation of Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory, due to the critics' ignorance and confirmation bias.

The CRTists and their apologists will normally countered [in their very ignorance] anti-CRTism is about stopping the learning of the FACTS of racism and slavery within American History in general with its warts and all.

Note here are some points re Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory related to ALL Government Contractors and what the ban is pin-pointing specifically.

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publi ... tive-order

The Trump Administration issued an executive order (EO) that will prohibit all contractors from providing employee training regarding subjects cited within the EO tied to race and sex relations.

More specifically, the EO prohibits any form of race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating and gives examples of prohibited teachings, including:

• 1. one sex or race is superior
  
  2. an individual is inherently consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist by virtue of their race or sex
  
  3. a person should be discriminated against because of their race or sex
  
  4. that a person's moral character is determined by their race or sex
  
  5. a person's race or sex makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race or sex
  
  6. that a person would feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"
  
  7. hard work ethic is inherently racist or sexist

The above is applicable ONLY to ALL Government contractors, not merely any contractor.

The anti-CRTs opposing the toxic CRT elements within the K12 schools to students is on the same basis as the above toxic points.

Do the CRTists and their apologists really believe point 1 to 7 are not toxic to humanity?

When Biden rescinded Trumps' executive order re CRT, Biden is opening a pandora box of evil free to all which will enable the very overzealous CRTists to infiltrate into the K12 schools and elsewhere to brainwash children and others with their toxic ideology.

Well we all know that Trump is a CRT Marxist Racist so why are you surprised?

[Immanuel Can]

I believe there is too much generalization and condemnation of Trump's Executive Order on Critical Race Theory...

Once you add the word "Trump" to anything, people lose their minds. That's just how it goes.

But the policy, considered on it's own merits, is actually a good one, regardless of who first suggested it. No fair-minded person could really disagree with the precepts you listed, in specific. It actually sounds like something MLK would have liked.

[RCSaunders]

1. one sex or race is superior

2. an individual is inherently consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist by virtue of their race or sex

3. a person should be discriminated against because of their race or sex

4. that a person's moral character is determined by their race or sex

5. a person's race or sex makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race or sex

6. that a person would feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"

7. hard work ethic is inherently racist or sexist

Odd that every attempt to be, "anti-racist," ends up being racist.

What the hell are, transgressions of a race or sex?

[Immanuel Can]

5. a person's race or sex makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race or sex

6. that a person would feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"

7. hard work ethic is inherently racist or sexist

Odd that every attempt to be, "anti-racist," ends up being racist.

What the hell are, transgressions of a race or sex?

They seem to mean that if your great-great grandparents were colonialists or slave-owners or something, then you are evil. And more...even if you never had a relative of any kind who was a slave-owner or colonialist...even if your ancestors actively opposed such things, for that matter, you're still bad because you share a skin colour with people who did those things.

[RCSaunders]

5. a person's race or sex makes them responsible for past transgressions of that race or sex

6. that a person would feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex"

7. hard work ethic is inherently racist or sexist

Odd that every attempt to be, "anti-racist," ends up being racist.

What the hell are, transgressions of a race or sex?

They seem to mean that if your great-great grandparents were colonialists or slave-owners or something, then you are evil. And more...even if you never had a relative of any kind who was a slave-owner or colonialist...even if your ancestors actively opposed such things, for that matter, you're still bad because you share a skin colour with people who did those things.

I know what they mean, IC. My point is that this list is supposed to be anti-racist and right in the middle of it the racist view that a whole race or sex can be guilty of any transgression is accepted as a premise. It's very subtle but to say someone is not, "responsible for," something only makes sense if there really was that something. If it were going to be said at all, it should be, "no fault or crime can be attribute to any race or sex," period, but instead implies a whole race or sex can be guilty in the past, but later generations cannot be blamed.

One thing I'm sure of, every attempt to combat racism can only make it worse, because it cannot be fought against without embracing it. So long as individuals do not choose to only recognize other human beings only as individuals, and not members of classes, categories, or groups of some kind, there will be racism.

Most people do harbor racist views, but they are mostly harmless, and in spite of their irrational prejudices, are no danger or threat to anyone else, usually keeping their opinions to themselves, and most have no problems in dealing with others, even those they may regard with some prejudice. That kind of ignorant prejudice will never go away. It is mostly harmless, and in those cases when it isn't, the tiny minority of radically and dangerously prejudice are quite obvious.

The kind of racial prejudice that is dangerous is fomented by being, "stirred up," sometime by those with a social/political agenda, but often, by those who are naive and believe the way to fight racism is to keep pointing it out, stirring it up in the same way racists do, ending up doing more harm, like this anti-racist list.

[Immanuel Can]

I know what they mean, IC.

Sorry...irony's so hard to do in this format. One almost has to resort to an emoji to guarantee it gets picked up.

My bad.


My point is that this list is supposed to be anti-racist and right in the middle of it the racist view that a whole race or sex can be guilty of any transgression is accepted as a premise. [/quote]
I was seeing an interesting video a few days ago, about some very "black" people discovering through those lineage sites that, for one reason or another, some of their own ancestors were white or black slave owners.

One thing I'm sure of, every attempt to combat racism can only make it worse, because it cannot be fought against without embracing it. So long as individuals do not choose to only recognize other human beings only as individuals, and not members of classes, categories, or groups of some kind, there will be racism.

Completely right, I would say.

Most people do harbor racist views

I don't know. I'm not sure that noticing that somebody else looks a little different from oneself falls to the level of "racism." I think that might well be no more than an observation. And even noticing that somebody looks a little different, and saying, "That reminds me of another person," hardly amounts to racism. I think it takes some view that is prejudicial -- meaning literally pre-judging a person before knowing what they will say, do or think, with no more than their common skin colour to go on -- that maybe amounts to racism. But I think it takes more than the present discourses suggest.

...those who are naive and believe the way to fight racism is to keep pointing it out, stirring it up in the same way racists do...

Yeah, that's totally counterproductive. I agree.

The biggest nightmare for any genuine "racists" would be to live in a place in which others are completely uninterested in the distinctions they treasure; where "race" is a totally ignored concept. That would really drive them mad.

[RCSaunders]

I know what they mean, IC.

Sorry...irony's so hard to do in this format. One almost has to resort to an emoji to guarantee it gets picked up.

My bad.


My point is that this list is supposed to be anti-racist and right in the middle of it the racist view that a whole race or sex can be guilty of any transgression is accepted as a premise.

I was seeing an interesting video a few days ago, about some very "black" people discovering through those lineage sites that, for one reason or another, some of their own ancestors were white or black slave owners.

One thing I'm sure of, every attempt to combat racism can only make it worse, because it cannot be fought against without embracing it. So long as individuals do not choose to only recognize other human beings only as individuals, and not members of classes, categories, or groups of some kind, there will be racism.

Completely right, I would say.

Most people do harbor racist views

I don't know. I'm not sure that noticing that somebody else looks a little different from oneself falls to the level of "racism." I think that might well be no more than an observation. And even noticing that somebody looks a little different, and saying, "That reminds me of another person," hardly amounts to racism. I think it takes some view that is prejudicial -- meaning literally pre-judging a person before knowing what they will say, do or think, with no more than their common skin colour to go on -- that maybe amounts to racism. But I think it takes more than the present discourses suggest.

Of course. Recognizing differences is neither prejudice or racism. If somebody is looking for Harry, and he happens to be Caucasion standing with a group of Thais and Philippinas, saying, "he's the white guy," is not racism, just good sense.

Nevertheless most people do have views that regard others as something, "less," or with some kind of class negativity. If you've worked in many industries it shows up in every, "well she's a ...," or, "his family comes from ...," or, "they are sush'n'such" always with some negative connotation. It's often not even meant to be insulting or denigrating, but it is ubiquitous. And of course the opposite is even more common in those who say, "I'm a ...," identifying some racial or ethnic background as though it conferred something special on those in that group (and by implication something inferior in all others.) As I said, it is mostly harmless (except to those who have such views and cheat themselves out being able to enjoy the differences in others). My purpose in pointing it out is that there are always going to be wrong views (racial prejudice is just a common one), but it is no one's business to try to make everyone else think correctly. (Isn't that what freedom of expression is really based on?) It's futile and dangerous.

The biggest nightmare for any genuine "racists" would be to live in a place in which others are completely uninterested in the distinctions they treasure; where "race" is a totally ignored concept. That would really drive them mad.

Yes. I've not personally had to deal with many radical racists, even in the military, but have had to deal with some. What bothers them even more is when they attempt to insult you because you not only associate with those they are sure are inferior beings, but enjoy them, and discover you feel complemented by their attempts to belittle you. The hate is palpable.

[Immanuel Can]

My purpose in pointing it out is that there are always going to be wrong views (racial prejudice is just a common one), but it is no one's business to try to make everyone else think correctly. (Isn't that what freedom of expression is really based on?) It's futile and dangerous.

Absolutely. And it's intolerant. Because to "tolerate" (Latin: tolere) means literally to "put up with" things you do not agree with. If, by contrast, the thing somebody else believes or says is something you already happen agree with, then it requires no tolerance at all.

I've not personally had to deal with many radical racists, even in the military, but have had to deal with some. What bothers them even more is when they attempt to insult you because you not only associate with those they are sure are inferior beings, but enjoy them, and discover you feel complemented by their attempts to belittle you. The hate is palpable.

And you would think that it's a good thing when the racists are unhappy. But for some reason, today's activists seem to want to reinforce the very sorts of stereotypes and group think that made racism possible in the first place. And I'm beginning to suspect that it's in their own interest to do so: they WANT there to be racists, so that they can preen as "anti-racists," because without a live and significant enemy, it readily becomes apparent that not only are they quixotic themselves, but also actually irrelevant.

Which, really, they are. We don't actually need "anti-supremacists" anymore today than we need alchemists or dodo hunters.

[RCSaunders]

My purpose in pointing it out is that there are always going to be wrong views (racial prejudice is just a common one), but it is no one's business to try to make everyone else think correctly. (Isn't that what freedom of expression is really based on?) It's futile and dangerous.

Absolutely. And it's intolerant. Because to "tolerate" (Latin: tolere) means literally to "put up with" things you do not agree with. If, by contrast, the thing somebody else believes or says is something you already happen agree with, then it requires no tolerance at all.

I've not personally had to deal with many radical racists, even in the military, but have had to deal with some. What bothers them even more is when they attempt to insult you because you not only associate with those they are sure are inferior beings, but enjoy them, and discover you feel complemented by their attempts to belittle you. The hate is palpable.

And you would think that it's a good thing when the racists are unhappy. But for some reason, today's activists seem to want to reinforce the very sorts of stereotypes and group think that made racism possible in the first place. And I'm beginning to suspect that it's in their own interest to do so: they WANT there to be racists, so that they can preen as "anti-racists," because without a live and significant enemy, it readily becomes apparent that not only are they quixotic themselves, but also actually irrelevant.

Which, really, they are. We don't actually need "anti-supremacists" anymore today than we need alchemists or dodo hunters.

Sadly true. Fortunately there's no money in the alchemy and dodo hunting businesses any longer, but apparently there are enough suckers around to make race-baiting still a profitable enterprise.

[Immanuel Can]

Sadly true. Fortunately there's no money in the alchemy and dodo hunting businesses any longer, but apparently there are enough suckers around to make race-baiting still a profitable enterprise.

No kidding.

In its political form, this kind of race-baiting is known as "rabble rousing." It's the strategy of pitting one group of people against another, so as to garner votes...especiall with callous disregard for the fallout and human cost of so doing.

It's the stock-in-trade of CRT. Make a group or groups of people hate some other, and then self-present as the champion of the "victims."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sadly true. Fortunately there's no money in the alchemy and dodo hunting businesses any longer, but apparently there are enough suckers around to make race-baiting still a profitable enterprise.

No kidding.

In its political form, this kind of race-baiting is known as "rabble rousing." It's the strategy of pitting one group of people against another, so as to garner votes...especiall with callous disregard for the fallout and human cost of so doing.

It's the stock-in-trade of CRT. Make a group or groups of people hate some other, and then self-present as the champion of the "victims."

I believe the CRTists are victims and pawns of foreign countries or the Islamists [Muslim Brotherhood] who want to destroy America and other non-Islamic countries from within.
The USA had been doing the same to other countries albeit not using race but other divide and destroy strategies for their self-interests.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe the CRTists are victims and pawns of foreign countries or the Islamists [Muslim Brotherhood] who want to destroy America and other non-Islamic countries from within.

I would say the Islamists have been highly opportunistic in eliciting the prejudices of CRT practicioners. But I know they didn't invent CRT. Its origins are manifestly in Neo-Marxism and French philosophy, not in Islam.

The Islamists, however, have seen how they can make useful idiots of the CRT set. They've invented a thing called "Islamophobia," to parallel things like "mysogeny" and "homophobia," and have invited the Leftists to consider it equivalent. And all the while, Islamic theology and practice in the Middle East, especially, is rabidly hostile to women and homosexuals to an extraordinary degree. But they've managed to "co-opt" CRT language to their agenda.

The key guy in making the Islam-CRT link is Edward Said, actually. But the CRT people have bought in, hook, line and sinker. They never do anything about the rights of their own "victim minorities" in Islamic lands. Islam gets a pass. But they spend all their time instead yammering at the West for being "Islamophobic."

[Gary Childress]

Sadly true. Fortunately there's no money in the alchemy and dodo hunting businesses any longer, but apparently there are enough suckers around to make race-baiting still a profitable enterprise.

No kidding.

In its political form, this kind of race-baiting is known as "rabble rousing." It's the strategy of pitting one group of people against another, so as to garner votes...especiall with callous disregard for the fallout and human cost of so doing.

It's the stock-in-trade of CRT. Make a group or groups of people hate some other, and then self-present as the champion of the "victims."

I think politicians should seek to unify and not divide. It's sad. I see it to some degree on both sides of the American political aisle. Perhaps it's a symptom of a two-party system. Perhaps if there were three or four competing parties there would be less bilateral division. Of course, then there might be multi-lateral division based on many different identity groups but I'm not sure which is better or worse. I definitely don't think a one-party system would be appropriate. I think people will always have differences and it's always going to be a matter of contention over whose agendas get implemented. I mean, one thing that seems to bring people relatively together is war, but who wants that? And war these days could prove catastrophic.

[Immanuel Can]

I see it to some degree on both sides of the American political aisle..

That's interesting. I don't see it much on the one side, but it's certainly the main strategy on the other. There's no conservative equivalent to CRT, so far as I can tell. I occasionally hear there might be "white supremacists" hovering in the wings somewhere, but nobody can ever find them when I ask, and if any of those anachronistic types still exist, certainly they have no broad appeal on the Right. They never did.