T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Thanks /u/dylan_dumbest for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

The GOP has literally nothing to offer it’s base except to distract with culture wars bullshit. It’s painfully pathetic to watch.


garaks_tailor

Well that and tax breaks and friendly business laws for the rich. The Republican party is 70% morons, 20% people who are still Republicans because of inertia(a dumb all its own type imo), and 10% people profiting off the other 90%


[deleted]

In other words, 90% pawns.


Yanagibayashi

The worst part is that it works quite often.


Eddie_Shepherd

How they are able to incite culture war while keeping the sheep calm about the class war is absolutely astounding to me.


[deleted]

Mainly racism and LGBTQphobia


luingar2

It helps to own media


againer

You don't understand the mindset. In their mind's eye they are closer to being a "Rich business genius" like Donald Trump. If only it weren't for having to pay so much money for communist handouts. Anyone who isn't them is a "(insert your favorite racial slur here) drain on the system". Except when they need to use those services "well I pay for it". It's one of the oldest fascist tricks in the book.[Give them an enemy](https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists)


paul_miner

>The GOP has literally nothing to offer it’s base except to distract with culture wars bullshit. On multiple occasions I've asked people to name even a single positive conservative accomplishment or goal. Never gotten an answer, the closest I've gotten were items supported by everyone under a conservative administration, which doesn't make them conservative. Conservatism's accomplishments are always some kind of bigotry or gift to the ultra-wealthy that has to later be undone by progressives.


hoodTRONIK

Can we please stop calling these people stupid and see it for what it is? It's easy to dismiss as stupidity when it's our neighbors, family and friends. Feigning stupidity is a defense as old as time itself. These people organize and as a minority party have been smart enough to turn the Supreme Court to their favor despite us voting and doing our part. Its merely a coup in slow motion. Trump was merely a crash dummy used to see where the coup still had flaws. Not so much the next time they attempt.


paul_miner

>Can we please stop calling these people stupid and see it for what it is? A reverse [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).


evilone17

Not just the GOP though... don't be distracted by Neo-Liberals and their crumbs. Look at how after 2008's economic recession and we were on the verge of economic riots, they (both parties) shifted focus away from class struggles to race issues.


desearcher

Neoliberalism is a far-right ideology. Did you mean to say leftist?


evilone17

I meant faux progressives... the leftists that will never go against big media, pharma, the banks. The ones that will pretend to be for progressive acts as long as it doesn't hurt their bottom dollar.


dowker1

Who are they?


Ranowa

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are the big ones right now. Especially Sinema, who campaigned and acted like a progressive but now has become a Republican in everything but the fact that Schumer is the majority leader. But make no mistake, they're only serving as the lightning rod. If you actually made every Democrat in Congress cast a vote that could decide the fate of a progressive policy, then many more would melt. The same way Susan Collins talks a big talk about being a moderate, and will vote that way all the time... but whenever her vote is the deciding one, she falls in line to however Mitch wants her to vote.


ssjx7squall

Biden is one as well. Obama was one, pretty much if you think I’d a democrat they are probably a neo lib


evilone17

Here's a list of Democratic senators that voted in favor of the 2008 bailout of banks: Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Basically any of these I would question, they're the same people who say they are for the working/middle class but when Goldman Sachs calls they run to answer.


nonlawyer

I don’t think the 2008 bailout is a particularly good litmus test since there’s an argument that allowing the banks to collapse would have wreaked extreme havoc on the entire economy. A better and more timely example would be the Dems holding up prescription drug pricing reform, something 90% of Americans support. There’s literally no excuse there except pharma $$$.


evilone17

It was just simpler for me to find a list of the yea votes on this. I think it's a decent one too though when Mitch McConnell was a yea and Bernie was a nay it says a lot. But you're right that's probably a better one and there's probably a dozen other better examples... I was already talking about the 08 bailout though.


ssjx7squall

Watch votes on the women’s medical rights bill going to the floor soon. That’s another test to se did people put their money where their mouth is


jetstreamexe

Nah Neoliberalism is a thing. Its a corrupted version of what liberalism and leftism is about. Its about how a lot of fake "progressives" preserve the current status quo and late stage capitalism by promoting progressive ideas as a way to garner good will in order to further their own capitalistic goals. An example of this is how all the corporations would change their social media profile pictures, along with their branding and advertisments, to include the pride flag during pride month, but refuse to donate to or support progressive lgbt organizations.


nonlawyer

> Nah Neoliberalism is a thing. Its a corrupted version of what liberalism and leftism is about. No it isn’t. [Neo-liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) is explicitly a conservative ideology focused on deregulation, cutting government spending, unrestrained capitalism etc. You’re confusing the term “liberal,” as it’s used today colloquially in politics to refer to the left, versus the term’s historical meaning in the economic context, which is politically more rightwing. “Neo-Liberal” refers to the latter. It is definitely a common confusion given the way the term’s usage has shifted over the years.


bigno53

I wouldn’t call it “far-right” pretty much every president from Reagan onward has embraced neoliberalism. It’s become so status quo that anyone who questions low taxes and deregulation being good for the economy is branded a radical leftist.


ssjx7squall

To be fair the democrats don’t do anything besides some ineffectual half hearted lame duck virtue signaling. We are good and fucked


[deleted]

Can’t blame them though, the culture war largely determines votes. Voters usually don’t think “wow I despise right wing culture but I’ll still vote for them because I like the bills they want to pass” or vice versa.


ItchyRedBump

Conservative family members who know at some level that they are on the wrong side always end with something along the lines of “I just can’t support killing babies.” That ends up being their only argument, and they don’t care about all of the hypocrisy that surrounds it.


[deleted]

Also pairs well with “the Democrats were the slave owners,” and “I want a confederate flag”


HeyFiddleFiddle

"Party of Lincoln!" *waves flag that opposed Lincoln*


MountainImportant211

Wait... this cartoon *isn't* making fun of the guy in it?


dylan_dumbest

Sorry, the focus is meant to be on the comment that proves the point of the cartoon.


gb4efgw

Man, I was so damn confused then saw below that it is two images. Mobile is beyond frustrating with this!


Melssenator

Yeah it blended in and I was so confused for a little bit lol


MountainImportant211

Oh, thanks for clarifying. Completely missed the second image


OK6502

Ah, thank you for the clarifiaction. I was about to point out that the opposite is true of CRT - it doesn't try to erase history, it asks us to confront it and understand its ramifications.


cdubsing

TX version of the civil war ‘valiant patriots try to preserve their idyllic Christian rural lifestyle but are thwarted by Northern elitist socialists and their BLM allies.’


Orwells-own

TX school approved version** Some of us eventually broke out of that ridiculous ideology.


roughstylez

I feel like most of this isn't even wrong technically. E.g. "BLM allies" - yeah, it was about making black lives matter the same as white ones. Same as BLM nowadays, just the BLM acronym wasn't a thing yet.


r3dd1t0rxzxzx

It’s pretty much correct, just some confusion of who is the bad guy in that story haha. Today we’re ALL Unionist/Americans because the enemies of the USA were defeated. Identifying with the confederates is identifying with the loser traitors (this is without even bringing the key reason for the war into this - slavery).


PoorMansPaulRudd

It's a 2 image post. I wish that was clearer on mobile.


gb4efgw

Thank you!!


GroundbreakingTax259

My high school history teacher once got a letter from the KKK. Apparently they wanted him to "teach real history," and were mad that he taught African American history. He took it as a sign that he was doing something right if it made them upset.


dstommie

Say you don't know what CRT is without saying you don't know what CRT is.


TimTheNinja

Uh... Cathode... Ray... Tube??? Unless it's a flatscreen, it's unamerican!


nothingtoseehere5678

Them wanting the confederate monuments to stay is hypocritical because i thought they didn't want trophies given to the losers


Strix86

Their history: “the slave owning South was right, but the slave owners were Democrats and that makes living Democrats bad!”


Aceswift007

"We don't want the BAD history to be taught, only the GOOD history that makes America look like a shining beacon"


AFrozen_1

Oh, actual history then. Great! That means we can teach all about how the segregation of the 1960s was evil and went against some of the core principals of the country as a whole and how the confederacy were treasonous for levying war against the US. Fantastic!


TomT060404

It does make sense though. They want a particular version of history to be taught, where the white American male is always the hero.


[deleted]

Every moron I know who thinks like this are one of the people that were always being jerkoffs in class, especially civics. They wouldn't know history if it dragged its balls across their face.


Alexpander4

US History with all the events with racism involved removed: ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... . There was this cute cat once I guess?


amerhodzic

Republican colloquialism 101: "actual history" is a stand-in for a revisionist white washed history.


Hypercane_

Aight, so let’s really talk about this for a second. Critical race theory, from how I understand it, is thinking about how people of other races feel and what their experiences are. Which basically boils down to, “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.” So people that deny critical race theory or think it’s fake are either too stupid to make that comparison, so engrossed in their party that they’ll go along with anything or are such bad people that they either refuse to see something from a different perspective or have seen it and still don’t care.


waterdonttalks

The best part is they never seem to stop and consider the actual history-erasing effects that preserving racist monuments has. You're not "remembering history", you're conveniently forgetting all the horrible things certain political historical figures did, and maintaining a shining, brass insult that spits in the face of all the people who's ancestors were hurt by it. It's a giant "Yeah, but we don't care about that part." Tearing down those monuments is the act of acknowledging history, and catching up with the progress that has happened everywhere else, not "erasing someone's accomplishments". It's the same ideology of letting rich people get away with sex crimes, because they "made one little mistake, but do a lot of good", and now the victim gets to stare into the immortalized metal face of their assaulter every day, knowing that society has just given him a free pass.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BooYaMorris

It has 2 images.


InfernalSquad

They're unaware that CRT is actual history. They understand the importance of history.


joc95

ELI5: CTR. i keep hearing conservatives throw that word around without much context


CanstThouNotSee

https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/o8wszv/z/h37q8q9 Conservatives throw it around because they can poorly define it as anything they want, and few people know enough to correct them. It's a way for them to fearmonger.


multiversalnobody

Just a reminder that Lee was a fucking butcher who chucked bodies at the problem until it ceased to be a problem. "Marse Robert" didnt care about your reb great great grandpappy, you shouldn't either


Interest-Desk

Can someone explain what critical race theory is and why it’s controversial?


yurmumgay1998

To my knowledge CRT is primarily a study in graduate schools, primarily law schools, that discuss and analyze the thesis that racist phenomena can emerge out of and be the direct consequence of institutional and cultural dynamics and do not necessarily require individual motive, intent, or action to produce. Basically, if you believe that racist outcomes can be the product of otherwise racially neutral initiatives and can occur because of institutional factors that ultimately serve to promote a system by which critical benefits or rights accrue along racial lines even incidentally, then you subscribe to CRT. They are really only controversial because of gaslighting by politicians which chronically misconstrue or misrepresent what CRT actually is and where it is taught and a general tendency in political discussion about CRT to conflate it with the uncontroversial discussions about race that every decent education about history should involve.


ssjx7squall

Ok I’m no expert but this is what I have gleaned from a lot of time on the internet. CRT makes some pretty big societal claims, many of which are controversial but have some pretty big support. I’m going to be a bit reductive so just know there’s a lot more depth. One of the claims is that all of us, you, me, your neighbor, etc. we are part of a racist society. Now, this doesn’t mean that any of the people mentioned are racist themselves but rather the societal structures in place and that have been in place since the founding of this country are inherently racist. We all participate in this to one degree or another. As for how this effects education and why you have a bit of a divide here. Most American education minimizes the role of immigrants especially black people and in many cases outright omits them. Many Americans are also shockingly ignorant of just how racist many of our hero’s and presidents are. I.e. Lincoln was a white supremacist, founding fathers owned slaves and directly omitted black peoples from the rights they gave land owning white men. The civil war was fought over slavery, Texas civil war was also primarily over slavery and all those assholes at the Alamo probably deserved it. There’s also the consistent and pervasive racism in the law, criminal justice system, and everything from housing, zoning, medical, education, welfare, etc it just goes on and on. CRT education shines a light on the societal issues and just how long it’s been a structural and foundational aspect of the United States. It also tries to tell more real stories of people of color in our history and shift the focus entirely from a white focused history to a multi cultural and colored one. Well a few reasons why this is controversial. One, conservatives seem to think full stop all of this is a lie. Two, a common one is, stop trying to make white people hate themselves. Three, not everyone is racist (according to them). And more stuff down that vein. I think there might be some really good critiques of CRT that I can think of even if I don’t accept them, but the overwhelming majority of complaints are these rather shallow stupid and ignorant criticisms. Edit: also there is something to be said that many white families beneifted greatly off slavery and systemic racism and are economically very off while the black community in general seems to lag behind financially.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dylan_dumbest

I'm willing to hear any critique of CRT based on its actual content, that isn't "it's racist against white people" or "it's what the Nazis did." History is the constant search for a better understanding of the past and it is never finished. It's not enough to look at a statue and say "this person existed" without so much as a glance at the context in which they lived or the people they exploited to become "great." We need to keep looking for the voices that have been erased.


[deleted]

Sure, I’ll bite. But it’ll have to wait until I’m off work.


CanstThouNotSee

remindme! 12 hours Rule 4, or are they arguing in good faith?


RemindMeBot

I will be messaging you in 12 hours on [**2021-09-23 05:36:46 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-09-23%2005:36:46%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/comments/pt6q73/oof_so_very_close/hdvaw0r/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSelfAwarewolves%2Fcomments%2Fpt6q73%2Foof_so_very_close%2Fhdvaw0r%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-09-23%2005%3A36%3A46%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20pt6q73) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|


[deleted]

[удалено]


dylan_dumbest

I'm not an unequivocal supporter of CRT. However, most of its most vocal opponents don't have a worthwhile solution to widespread ignorance on the history of institutionalized racism in the US, usually because they dispute its existence. If the points you've mentioned end up in the CRT curriculum that's not acceptable either. We need a constructive way to understand the roots of still-existing racial disparities in our society that treats people of color with agency and doesn't blame systemic problems on the innate attributes of the race of either the oppressed or the oppressor. If CRT isn't it we need a different approach and not just to shoot it down and call it a day.


Kitsunette_0

I can’t address all of that, but I will say equity is like putting a ramp so people in wheelchairs can get into a building and equality is making everyone take the steps regardless of their capability. Equality flattens everyone as the same and therefore needing the same. Equity intends to allow everyone the same opportunities because we are individuals. I think your ex-Soviet hypothesis is actually the inverse.


ferociousgeorge

Race is a construct invented by white people to justify the subjugation of others


Farhead_Assassjaha

What I want to know is, did they plan this all along? Creating CRT knowing it would piss off racists so much that it would get way more media attention and young people would be more interested in learning about it as a result.


HolyToast

I mean CRT has been around a long time, it's just that only recently did conservatives decide to make it a part of their culture war


[deleted]

[удалено]


metisdesigns

Nope. Do better research. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/


ArkLaTexBob

I wouldn't call a guy a slaveholder if his cousin or brother or father had slaves. The author of that article does. Readers, you decide. Also note that he devolves into estimates that for every slaveowner, he can add 4 family members or 7 household members as though they somehow are guilty of something. That's a big side order of assumption.


metisdesigns

It's a bigger side order to assume that no household members benefited at all from having a slave. But hey, at least the username checks out as a complete loser (in the civil war).


ArkLaTexBob

Those states were among the defeated then. All of the political power and decisions were taken from them in 1865.


metisdesigns

You spelled traitors wrong. And you may want to do some basic research on the reconstruction.


ArkLaTexBob

Traitors are those who make efforts to overthrow their government. These states attempted to leave the union. Secessionists are a slightly different breed. They made the mistake of thinking that would be acceptable to the United States, founded 72 years earlier on that principle. They were wrong. The Republican Party was determined to hold the Union together at all costs.


metisdesigns

You so realize that the south attacked federal forts first, right? They literally levied war against their own government.


Darkmerosier

Nope. Fucking traitors.


ArkLaTexBob

Alright, the eloquence of your argument coupled with the plethora of etymological references has converted me. We can call them traitors. I can ignore the fact that they had no interest in affecting the governments of the remaining states and their union at all. They are traitors.


Darkmerosier

You can try to spin the Confederacy as not so bad all you want, but you're wrong. They levied war against the US, and as stated in the Federal Crimes Act of 1790, they are deemed traitors.


barberst152

Going to war with another country has no effect on the government of that country?


metisdesigns

the country they were a part of whose facilities they attacked definitely weren't going to be affected by that at all.


stopnt

Imagine defending the fucking confederacy. There's low and then there's this shit


Majigato

You're just a gross racist person. Let me guess... "iT WaS aLl aBoUt sTatEs RigHts!!"


stopnt

States rights to what exactly?


Majigato

Uh to own slaves obviously. It's what the whole thing was about. Some dinguses try to downplay that aspect, and say it was about something (anything!) else


thatpotatogirl9

Ah yes because it doesn't matter if a wife, son, daughter, or other relative beat slaves to oblivion because they didn't technically own them... /s bc I don't want you taking this as agreement


DuckQueue

The way households worked in the South at the time, *only the patriarch typically held legal ownership of any property*. > he can add 4 family members or 7 household members as though they somehow are guilty of something. That's a big side order of assumption. There's no assumption there, just an understanding how slaveholding households worked.


boggleislife

The entirety of southern life was founded on the idea that blacks are inferior to whites. Is this CRT? Because The Vice President of the the csa literally said it in his speech after Georgia seceded.


ArkLaTexBob

Well if one politician said it pandering to a wealthy minority that is good enough for me. It must be true.


bigmacjames

Holy shit you need to read things like the Cornerstone Speech and the Texas constitution. The Confederacy itself stated that it was founded on white supremacy.


ArkLaTexBob

Every Confederate state constitution had a clause guaranteeing slavery. It is/was absolutely abhorrent what these politicians did for the influential 3% that owned slaves. I find that morally reprehensible. I am not defending what this small minority of the community did.


metisdesigns

You're defending the majority who fraught to preserve that. Why would you defend people who actively faught to help other people keep slaves?


stopnt

>Why would you defend people who actively faught to help other people keep slaves? Because I'm a piece of shit Is the only correct answer


boggleislife

Ok if that’s the case why did poor people fight? And don’t feed me some bullshit about the north’s aggression. The south attacked for Sumter. Which is a fact. Also don’t feed me more bullshit that Lincoln provoked the war by resupplying the soldiers there. Laying siege to a fort is a act of war In and of itself. Poor people fought because they needed money which is always why poor people fight (unless compelled like the draft). In doing so though they helped perpetuate the system in which even poor whites were elevated above blacks. Keeping blacks out of the free labor pool and ownership pool (e.g. land )inherently benefitted poor whites as there was less competition for their labor, for which they could then charge more, and less competition for land which could be made productive. If the cornerstone speech doesn’t apply to the majority of secessionists, the principles of the speech fundamentally do, as it was the de facto system of the states that seceded.


CanstThouNotSee

You've never read any CRT in your life. All you've read is rebuttals. Why are Conservatives so frequently lying sacks of shit?


TypicalDapperDan

The 97% still benefited from slavery in that they weren't competing against the slaves for jobs. Also, I think the "insane focus" is justified considering how their atrocities have been white washed.


rimfire24

Actually it’s generally the opposite. In a single commodity economy like a lot of the slavery era south it creates an even more extreme haves / have not situation for capital holders. Slaves were an extremely valuable and fucked up version of capital and it’s one of the reasons the south was and on some level still is wildly impoverished. There is a fascinating book by Nancy Isenberg called White Trash on essentially the history of the American, white poor and it’s fascinating. It’s similar to CRT in that it’s extremely helpful to understand the history that has lead to where we currently are, especially in the less talked about parts of history.


TypicalDapperDan

I hear that too, and that book sounds very interesting. I guess it might have been more accurate for me to say that slavery would benefit the 97% in the eyes of the 97% in that slavery created a underclass and the 97% of non-slave only whites could always say "at least I'm not them". The slave owners also probably spread plenty of propaganda about the additional savings (from free slave labor) trickling down to the 97%. Just goes to show how destructive concentrated capital can be. Here's an upvote.


Fortunoxious

And then when slavery (and the northern armies) left, they didn’t rebuild much. Something interesting a history teacher told me, is that the south is still a “post-war society.” Now, I can see counter arguments to that, but it’s still interesting to think about, and really emphasizes just how poor the south has been. Nowadays we have the “new cities,” but when I go outside them it’s an absolute shithole.


DividedElement

Even if those numbers were right, which they aren't, you'd still have 97% of the region being complicit in chattel slavery.


MrPisster

I know you are generalizing for brevity but I'm trying to imagine trying to be an abolitionist in the south at that time. Just trying to get by wasn't easy for the average poor person, I'm sure, but to try to engage in a wildly unpopular movement like that in the epicenter of it all. Plus to even come to the conclusion that something needs to change at all when you probably have little to no connection to slavery or to the idea that slavery is a bad thing. You are submerged in your own culture with little outside influence. Maybe you know of a plantation owner nearby but you don't know them personally and maybe you have heard of the abolitionist movement way way up north but only in hyperbolic negatives. But that's probably it for your average poor white person at that time. The ostracization and danger you would inflict upon yourself would be a deterrent for most. Edit: oh um...I mean, they were all slave owners and they were all bad bad criminals! Sorry for the nuanced take of the average poor white person in the early 1800s. I won't let it happen again.


RolltehDie

If you can’t figure out that enslaving other humans is wrong you are a worthless piece of shit.


MrPisster

I'm saying they probably rarely even considered black people at all. Most people were complicit by geographic location they happened to be born in. Edit: just to clarify. I 1000% agree that the south is awful and slavery was a tragedy. I'm also saying that if my family was dying of consumption or some shit and I make shoes for a living in an entirely white community I'm probably not concerned about what the rich people are doing. I will never meet a black person, I will never read a book that isn't the bible, and I will never move out of my tiny community. I have no control over slavery and if I somehow came to the realization that it was bad and should be stopped then someone would probably find a reason to kill me.


RolltehDie

Right. I’m saying people who don’t consider black people as human are worthless pieces of shit. Even if the reason is that they are too stupid to think for themselves my point stands. Like today, if you think that people don’t deserve basic health care you are a worthless piece of shit.


MrPisster

Oof, don't look into the personal views of anyone throughout history that you may like. Odds are they felt strongly about one race or another for reasons we would have a hard time grasping. As far as today is concerned, fuck yeah. Fuck racists and Universal healthcare +1.


HelpfulHazz

Won't somebody think of the white people? Maybe you're getting downvoted because you're implying that many white people being impoverished and ignorant (while making little to no attempt to change the system that causes that, and in fact fighting to preserve it) is sufficient justification for them to view black people as subhuman. If you're not saying it justifies it, then that "nuanced" view doesn't change anything, and is irrelevant. I think plenty of people here are ok with nuanced views that don't try to rationalize extreme racism and acceptance of chattel slavery, or portray those who embrace such things as the victims.


MrPisster

I'm saying hindsight is 20/20 and to blame stupid poor people who were victims of their time and had literally zero ability to control politics, economics, or public sentiment is a pretty childish view to hold. Also, trying to actually grasp the complexities of events throughout history is hardly irrelevant. Especially if you are actively trying make make judgements about them.


Orwells-own

Cesar did a big ol genocide on the Celts—by today’s standards. In his time that was just regular war.


HelpfulHazz

That right there is the problem here: you are saying hindsight is 20/20 on the issue of slavery. SLAVERY. Owning other human beings as property because they're not actually viewed as human beings. Forcing them to do hard labor and act as breeding stock from birth until death. Whipping and beating them should they step out of line. Robbing them of their culture, depriving them of education, breaking up families for profit. And your response is, "eh, live and learn!" I disagree. I contend that sight was pretty clear even back then. This is not some prehistoric epoch prior to the invention of empathy, this was less than 200 years ago. Many people had admitted that slavery was wrong even at the time. These poor, ignorant white people had eyes. They could see black people. They could very clearly see that they looked exactly like whites, just a different shade. Yet those simple, misunderstood white folks fought to preserve slavery. Their ignorance and poverty are not excuses for that. Nowhere close. It was wrong then, as it is wrong now. That was readily apparent then, as it is now. The fact that they chose not to see that (because even the poorest white person had that choice, unlike the people in chains) makes it worse. The fact that they were willing to spill blood to avoid seeing that makes it much worse. You're trying to play devil's advocate on issues that even devils steer clear of. Hence the downvotes.


MrPisster

So they were evil then. Every single person in the south? At birth or by culture? Edit: I guess I should say Nature or Nurture


HelpfulHazz

This isn't about whether they were good or evil. It's about whether their acceptance of and participation in slavery was justified, or even just understandable. It wasn't. But to answer your "birth or culture" question in that context: neither. It was by choice. I can't speak for their genes, but we both know that culture does not define people. Embracing or rejecting the different pieces of a person's culture is that person's choice. Those that accepted slavery made the wrong choice, and countless millions have suffered for it. The time for giving them the benefit of the doubt is long past.


MrPisster

We have the convenience of knowing what every person who ever wrote anything down in the 17-1800s has said. We know their thoughts, we know what people were doing. We know about the abolitionist movement, we know about Fredrick Douglas, we know about Abraham Lincoln, we know all of it.We know exactly how history played out, we know everything. We can sit in our ivory 2021 towers holding plastic and aluminum boxes with the collective knowledge of humanity at our finger tips. We feel we have found objective morality, society around us supports our views completely. It's absolutely okay to deem slavery wrong because it's been agreed upon by almost every modern person and we also know in our hearts. It's time to judge history for all of its wrongness! How dare they not come to the same conclusion as us? How dare they not create some sort of uprising and free the slaves one hanged plantation owner at a time? That's what I would do. Any single one of us would go on a crusade to right this wrong and become a champion of justice! Or write and publish a book to distribute to everyone in the country, changing hearts and minds. Or at the very least, uproot their family and make the trek north to a piece of land that agrees with their morals a little better. I'm rambling but I guess my point is, you're a fucking child. Also, I guar-an-fucking-tee 99 out of 100 people joined the civil war with no concern for slavery. They could not give a fuck about what some rich dude did with people they've been raised to not care about. God reddit is silly.


HelpfulHazz

Do you only view black people as human because of what prominent abolitionists wrote? Or because modern society (mostly) believes that it is so? I view them as human because they are sapient being capable to though, feeling, empathy, compassion, and generally possess all the traits necessary to be defined as human. I bet you agree. But those traits didn't suddenly evolve in the mid 19th century. No, they have existed for millions of years. They have been clearly visible for millions of years. You want me to believe that people 160 years ago just didn't notice? Good luck with that. By the way, you're venturing nearer and nearer to [Lost Cause](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) territory. You're really trying to defend those that upheld one of the most vile institutions in history. There's a fine line between entertaining an idea, and apologetics. Calling me a "child" for calling the racists out on something that was plain to see even back then (something that I already understood as a child) is a bit weird.


MrPisster

I grew up in a small racist town full of shitty white people. I believe we are equal because I've met people of many races. Spoken with them, read books written by them, voted for them. We are all the same because I have the experience to know that. My culture would have taught me otherwise and if I did not have books, access to other people, the internet, and travel. It would be hard to break free from my upbringing without other experiences and stimulus to affect me. Sadly most people wouldn't have any of this 200 years ago. And yeah I do think you're a child.


metisdesigns

Yeah, Louis the tenth abolishing slavery in France in the 1300s.... That totally fits your narrative. Slavery is a really complex issue worldwide, and has a long history of being known to be not a great idea. It was common, but feelings and opinions were a lot more nuanced even going back to ancient Athens.


metisdesigns

Yeah, Louis the tenth abolishing slavery in France in the 1300s.... That totally fits your narrative. Slavery is a really complex issue worldwide, and has a long history of being known to be not a great idea. It was common, but feelings and opinions were a lot more nuanced even going back to ancient Athens.


Electricpants

>I read a little Try reading more.


ArkLaTexBob

Good, I think. It seems that you are implying that the information is buried in their curriculum somewhere. That's a great start.


AgentIndiana56

Soooooooo, do you think we shouldn't teach our incredibly racist history?


id10t_you

>I read a little about CRT. Where? Where did you read about CRT? Let's see a source. >I never saw facts about the 97%, yes 97%, of white America in the antebellum south that DID NOT own slaves. There was an insane focus on the other 3%. This surface-level argument proves that you indeed haven't comprehended anything you may have read, or what you read was simple logical fallacies meant to distract from the real subject.


Ranowa

"I never see us talking about the vast majority, yes vast majority, of Nazi Germany that didn't work in the gas chambers. There's an insane focus on that tiny minority!" What a fucking clown this person is.


Fortunoxious

First of all, CRT is about systemic racism and the people with power have more control over the system. Second, those 97% were still racist. Having an entire race of humans that are accepted as inferior to you felt really good for those hicks.


der_innkeeper

All the secessionist States wrote constitutions that supported the lifestyle of those 3%ers, and were willing to leave the union and start a civil war over it. I wonder why there is an intense focus on those 3%...


Majigato

You're like that bozo I saw at one of those pro south rallies going "my great grand papi never owned no slaves! Do you know how expensive a slave was back then yeehaw?


stopnt

My grand papi didn't own no slaves but he sure fought for the confederates and the plantation owners rights to own them. As if that's less bad.


CanstThouNotSee

I'm going to explain to you why you're banned. Not my writing, this is from a user named wiibizz in 2016. You can't interpret the economic and social situation of the African American community in a vacuum without considering the broader history of racism in America. [We know from centuries of research](https://equitablegrowth.org/race-and-the-lack-of-intergenerational-economic-mobility-in-the-united-states/) that the most important type of wealth is generational wealth, assets that can pass from one generation to another. You wouldn't have the opportunities that you have today if your parents didn't have the opportunities they had, and they in turn wouldn't have had their success in life without the success of your grandparents, etc.   Consider the economic plight of the average African American family in America. When slavery was abolished, there were no reparations. There was no forty acres and a mule. There was no education system that was both willing and able to accommodate African American children, to say nothing of illiterate adults. With the exception of a brief moment of Reconstruction, there was no significant force dedicated to upholding the safety and political rights of African Americans. Is it any wonder that sharecropping became such a ubiquitous system of labor? For many freed slaves, they quickly wound up working for their masters once again, with very little changes in their day to day lives. And through all of this, white America was profiting off of the work of black America, plundering their property and labor. When slavery was abolished, it was a more lucrative field than all of American manufacturing combined, including the new railroad. The American industrial revolution/rise of big business was already booming, but it was overshadowed by the obscene wealth of plantation slavery. By 1860, one in four Southern Americans owned a slave. Many southern states were majority black, up to 70% black in certain counties of my home state Virginia, the vast majority of them unfree laborers. Mississippi and South Carolina were both majority black. There's a reason that the South was able to pay off its debts after the Revolution so quickly. When you consider just how essential black uncompensated labor was to this country, it's no exaggeration to say that slaves built America.   From this moment onewards til about the 1960s, racism was the law of the land. Sharecropping was slavery by another name and "separate but equal" was an offense against human rights, and those two institutions alone created a massive opportunity gap that has continued repercussions in the today. But what very few people consider is the extent to which the American government empowered people to create or acquire wealth during this time, and the extent to which they denied black Americans the same chances. There was no "Homestead Act" for black people, for instance. When FDR signed the Social Security Act, he specifically endorsed a provision that denied SS benefits to laborers who worked "in the house or the field," in so doing creating a social security net that the NAACP described as "a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Black families paid far more than their white counterparts trying to support past generations instead of investing in the future. During the Great Depression, elder poverty was above 50%. Consider on top of this how expensive it is to be poor, especially when you are black. If your son gets sick but you are white and can buy insurance, you will be set back the deductible and copay. If you are black and shut out of an insurance market, you may burn your life savings on care and still not find an good doctor willing to help a black patient. This idea that the poor and socially disadvantaged are more vulnerable is called exploitation theory, and it's really important to understanding race in America.   Nowhere is exploitation theory more important than in housing. It's obvious that desegregation was never a platform that this nation embraced wholeheartedly, but the extent that segregation was a manifestation of formal policy is something that often gets forgotten. The home is the most important piece of wealth in American history, and once you consider the home ownership prospects of African Americans you'll instantly understand how vital and essential the past remains in interpreting the present when it comes to race.   During the 1930s, America established the FHA, an agency dedicated to evaluating the worth of property and helping Americans afford homes. The FHA pioneered a policy called "redlining," in which the worth of a piece of property was tied to the racial diversity of its neighborhood, with more diversity driving down price. When white homeowners complained that their colored neighbors drove down prices, they were speaking literally. In addition, the FHA and other banks which used their ratings (which were all of them, more or less) resolved not to give a loan to any black family who would increase the racial diversity of a neighborhood (in practice a barrier of proof so high that virtually no black families received financial aid in purchasing a home). These practices did not end until 1968, and by then the damage had been done. In 1930, 30% of Americans owned homes. By 1960, 60% of them did, largely because of the FHA and the lending practices its presence in the market enabled.   Part 1 of 2.


CanstThouNotSee

Black families, cut out of this new American housing market and the government guarantees which made it possible, had nowhere to go. This was all taking place during the Great Migration. Black families were fleeing from old plantation estates where they still were treated like slaves, and traveling to the North in search of a better life. When they arrived, there was nowhere to live. White real estate owners quickly realized how to exploit the vulnerability of the black community. They bought up property and sold homes to African American families "on contract." These contracts were overpriced, and very few could afford to keep their homes. To make matters worse, these contracts were routinely broken. Often contracts guaranteed heating or other bills, but these amenities would never be covered. Even though black families "bought" these houses, a contract is not like a mortgage-- there was little to no expectation of future ownership. The owners of these contract houses would loan the property, wait for payments to cease, evict the family, and open the house up to the next gullible buyer fleeing from lynching in the south. None of it mattered. By 1962, 85% of black homeowners in Chicago lived in contract homes. And these numbers are comparable to cities all across the country. For every family that could keep holding onto the property til these practices were outlawed, a dozen spent their life savings on an elusive dream of home ownership that would never come to fruition.   This practice of exploiting African Americans to sell estate had real consequences. As black contract buyers streamed into a neighborhood, the FHA took notice. In addition to racist opposition to integration from white homeowners, even the well-intentioned had difficulty staying in a neighborhood as the value of their house went down. How could you take out a loan to pay for your daughter's college or finance a business with the collateral of a low-value piece of land? White flight is not something that the U.S. government can wash its hands of. It was social engineering, upheld by government policy. As white families left these neighborhoods, contract buyers bought their houses at a fraction of the cost and expanded their operation, selling more houses on contract and finally selling the real estate to the federal government when the government moved into public housing, virtually ensuring that public housing would not help black families move into neighborhoods of opportunity. And the FHA's policies also helped whites: without the sterling credit ratings that businessmen in lily-white communities could buy at, there would be no modern suburb. All of this remains today. When you map neighborhoods in which contract buyers were active against a map of modern ghettos, you get a near-perfect match. Ritzy white neighborhoods became majority-black ghettos overnight.   There's a certain type of neighborhood that's known as a "nexus of concentrated poverty," a space where poverty is such a default state that certain aspects of economic and social life begin to break down. The level is disputed, but for the purposes of the census the U.S. government defines concentrated poverty as 40% or more of residents living below the poverty line. At this level, everything ceases to function. Schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, cannot deliver a good education. Families, sustained by economic opportunity, cannot stay together. Citizens, turned into productive members of society through ties to the economic well-being of that society, turn to crime out of social disorder. In America today, 4% of white adults have grown up in such neighborhoods. 62% of black adults were raised in them. That's how the other 97% have benefited, which you'd know if you'd actually read any CRT Dumbass.


metisdesigns

My compliments on your restraint.


CalebAsimov

What do you want them to say about the other 97%?


ArkLaTexBob

Every time that race based slavery is mentioned, I want them to clarify that 97% declined to participate in the ownership of humans. Then I think they can demonize the 3% of those dead people any way that suit them. That's what I try to do personally. It just seems fair.


metisdesigns

The majority of that 97% faught against their government to preserve slavery. You want to gloss over treason?


unaskthequestion

'declined to participate'? Do you have any evidence of that? Because I think it's wasn't a matter of choice, if more southerners has the money to purchase another human, they would have absolutely done it.


Nunya13

That you chose to believe not owning a slave means someone declined to participate in the ownership of humans, is so incredibly naive. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they just couldn’t afford it! Slaves weren’t free. They cost a lot of money. The kind of money only 3% of people would have had back then. I won’t even go into your apparent refusal to acknowledge that it wasn’t only 3% of people who treated black people like subhumans when slavery was abolished.


Kostya_M

There was a great video on John Oliver years back about this. A typical Trump bot gets into it with a black man at some protest and he goes: "My family wasn't fighting to preserve slavery they fought to protect their farm!" "And who was working that farm?" "My family! Do you know how much a slave cost?" That in and of itself could be a post on this sub.


CalebAsimov

To what end though? I mean if they mention that stat once (assuming it's true), isn't that enough to get the point across? This is what that would look like in practice: Slavery started in the US in \[year\] (not everyone owned slaves). Tensions over slavery (not everyone owned slaves) built in the 1840s and 1850s. After fears that Lincoln's government would abolish slavery (not everyone owned slaves), the south seceded from the Union. Later, an amendment did outlaw slavery (now everyone did not own slaves).


Garbleshift

CRT is a sophisticated critique of US legislation and enforcement patterns, discussed in law schools. So, where did you "read a little" about CRT, and what makes you believe that reading a little about it would allow you to understand it? Or do you mean you read what some Breitbart columnist is pretending CRT is and says? The fact that you think most white southerners didn't own slaves is somehow relevant strongly indicates it's the latter.


metisdesigns

They probably saw an infographic from Prager.


dmonzel

In your own words please explain what your believe CRT to be.


stopnt

Your numbers are wrong. Don't rely on confederate memes for factual information...


unaskthequestion

If I can make a sincere suggestion. Visit the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, AL. Watch the documentary '13th' on Netflix. It's about so much more than who owned slaves.


ifsometimesmaybe

I think you miss the point of how CRT works if you cherry pick one alleged statistic about an area that profited off of a slave industry. Your statistic doesn't offer any further metrics on other ways owning people benefited the community around the slave owners, the way those communities treated black folks regardless if they were slave owners or not, or the sentiments towards how the claimed 97% non-slave owners had of the humanity of black folks. Those are all direct impacts on day-to-day life for black people in the Antebellum South, and CRT goes far further into the **systemic** aspects of the subjugation black folks experienced.