For your consideration. Shot:
And chaser:
Out of nowhere, Fox News suddenly starts putting critical race theory in heavy rotation starting in March. Six weeks later, everyone else is following suit.
Among conservatives, this is nothing surprising. Fox News has built its brand since the beginning on stoking white fear of black (and brown) people. Conservatives have never objected to this—in fact, most of them won't even admit it—so it's perfectly natural that they're along for the ride.
But there are also well-meaning moderates and liberals out there who have gotten on the "let's hear them out" bandwagon. These are people who would insist that they aren't influenced by right-wing agitprop, but they are. It goes like this: Fox keeps up the noise long enough; a few Republican legislatures propose performative laws to "ban CRT"; the mainstream media takes notice; and now we're all talking about it.
But why? Are there a few schoolrooms where teachers have taken wokeness farther than they should? Sure. There are a couple of million schoolrooms in the United States and it would be shocking if there weren't a few of them doing stupid stuff. Even if that number is a minuscule 0.1%, that's 2,000 schoolrooms, more than enough to generate a couple of shocking stories per week.
But wait. How many schoolrooms are there who have taken wokeness to ridiculous levels? What's that? You don't know? And Fox News doesn't know? Then knock off the crap until you do.
As long as you're worried about this based solely on the highly orchestrated daily anecdotes of Fox News, you're a sucker just like everyone else. This is the power of Fox News and you ignore it at your peril.
"This is the power of Fox News and you ignore it at your peril."
No. I think this is what "conservatives" would like to believe, no matter what the evidence. And not enough people are p'd o by it.
Consider Archie Bunker's worldview. Now imagine accommodating critical race theory within it. Fox News is sowing in fertile ground.
Completely missing the point. Of course conservatives devour this stuff. But why is anyone *else* talking about it? Answer: Fox News, which has perfected the art of plucking a meme (such as "critical race theory") from the right-wing echo chamber and pushing it into mainstream discourse.
That enables it to reach an audience outside the echo chamber, people who don't even watch Fox, but the rest of the media has picked it up and now it's everywhere. It's our daily dose of poison, seeping in from all around us, making everyone a little bit crazier.
I'm old enough to remember when CRT meant cathode ray tube.
But social conservatives universally think the word critical means insulting, so that will get their brains in gear pretty much instantly.
And of the fraction of public school teachers who take wokeness too far, what of the massively greater number of public school teachers in the south who teach the Bible in science class with no one complaining about it?
... And PUBLIC funds going to private religious evangelical indoctrination centers.
And yet they love to support 'Gender Critical' and 'Transgender Trend'...
(Of course, these are hate groups).
I'm with you on "CRT"! (Okay, boomer??) "BLM" also gives me cognitive whiplash -- here in the west, it's the "Bureau of Land Management", one of the most ubiquitous and powerful government agencies.
Try googling CLD sometime. Utter madness.
'Then knock off the crap until you do.'
You do realize, Kevin, that nobody that actually needs to hear that, reads this blog, right?
Liberals, after all, are not legally requiring the teaching of CRT, are we?
Kvetching.
Some times it's good to preach to the choir...or just vent a bit.
The conundrum, of course, is that you can't ignore it once it makes it to legislators, but even discussing it gives the issue and air of legitimacy.
Its not out of nowhere. Fox caters to the current conservative coalition. Those are people outraged by (1) liberals overdoing it on race relations, (2) liberals attacking religion, (3) liberals spending too much money, especially on poor people, and even more so on brown poor people, (4) liberals allowing too many brown people in the country, (5) liberals attacking gun rights, (6) liberals taking too much of their hard earned money (see (3)), (7) liberals proposing too much government regulation, (8) liberals pushing environmentalism, (9) liberals pushing engagement with the rest of the world, (10) liberals proposing less military and less police, and (11) basically anything else liberals propose, regardless of whether its an actual proposal.
I swear, being in the Fox programming department is so easy I wonder that the can even fill up 8 hours in a day. Its probably a two hour lunch and full on martinis at 3:00, 4:00 pm at the absolute latest.
You can argue about whether Fox and the rest of the ecosphere is creating this or simply serving their audience - I think its the latter.
Only very recently has the mainstream media started to figure out that this whole thing is a joke to them.
The people who created Critical Race theory would do well to have a press conference and announce they are renaming it Make America Great theory or Tucker is a Snobby Preppy Country Clubber theory or something. If Fox is providing the free advertising, make use of it.
Good suggestions! If we libs were smarter about using our words, we might begin to stand a chance against the practiced conmen and lying liars of the reactionary right.
Personally, I would support incarceration for everyone who originated and promoted "Defund The Police." Any slogan that doesn't IMMEDIATELY communicate the meaning you want it to convey, but instead has to be EXPLAINED in a couple of pages of detailed, jargon-filled exposition, is a dog. Take it out and shoot it. (Figuratively, of course.)
DEFUND THE POLICE, from the same Russian-funded controlled opposition that only four years prior shat all over ShrillaryClimpton for her inartful, campaign jargon phrasing "basket of deplorables", & did so echoing the classic Mowery Consulting line, "if you're explaining, you're losing".
It's almost as if those fauxgressive activists are as insincere as that Seven Foot Tall J.D. Vance.
I saw an editorial this weekend by a moderate to liberal columnist saying that Biden had to "take on the woke left" or the midterms would be a disaster. It basically bought the Fox News slant hook, line and sinker. You'd think these people would learn something after all these years.
Nah, they are Right-Wingers useful idiots.
I remember when Biden needed a Sistah Souljah moment every day for eighteen months (July 2019-November 2020).
But there are also well-meaning moderates and liberals out there who have gotten on the "let's hear them out" bandwagon. These are people who would insist that they aren't influenced by right-wing agitprop, but they are.
Hmm. Just the other day, Kevin was telling us that conservatives have valid genuine reasons for opposing the advice of medical professionals when it comes to vaccines.
And now today, he’s suggesting that conservatives don’t have valid genuine reasons for opposing the advice of educators and social scientists when it comes to critical race theory.
That why I keep coming back to this blog: to learn which reasons cited by conservatives are valid and genuine and thus deserve my respect and empathy, and which ones don’t and thus deserve my ridicule and scorn. Thanks Kevin!
It's the latter.
I think what Kevin meant was that wingnut reasons are real to them and you won't get anywhere in talking to them unless you accept that and in some way address their reality, which is not to say it isn't entirely delusional.
but that’s not what he said.
“ But when it comes to conservatives, no such empathy is required despite the fact that conservatives are historically averse to vaccinations too. So even though their vaccination rate is close to that of independents, it's dismissed as "bizarre." They're all just a bunch of idiot Trumpies anyway, amirite?
This is pissing me off. Either show some damn empathy for everyone or stop pretending.”
Which is pretty much exactly what cid said that Kevin said. Having empathy is not the same thing as saying that the reasoning is valid. That's a belief created entirely by your own imagination.
So why should I have empathy for Conservatives with Reasons (valid or not) rejecting vaccines… but not have empathy for Conservatives with Reasons (valid or not) rejecting critical race theory and/or the idea that racism against black people still exists? Kevin explicitly said the other day we should empathize with the former group but apparently (for today at least until Kevin changes his mind) we don’t need to empathize with the latter group. Kevin is pretty critical of Conservatives with Reasons in this post, telling us to “knock off the crap” and don’t be a “sucker” by discussing CRT just because Fox is doing so… but in a few weeks when the story metastasizes into 24/7 coverage of CRT on mainstream media, will we get a post from Kevin stating how bizarre it is that we don’t just try to see things from the anti-CRT point of view?
@Austin
I hear you. The blog seems to be following rules for alternate side of the street parking. Even-numbered days, Kevin parks on the right; odd-numbered days, on the left. It's a novel concept. Bizarre is a good word for it.
I don’t think Kevin realizes the extent that Trumpism is driving Republican vaccine “hesitancy”. He sees Republicans as always being more hesitant and therefore this time is no different than that. But it seems to me that the very large number of Republicans unwilling to get the vaccine is driven more by ideology rather than genuine distrust of science.
It's this. They were hesitant in the past due to libertarianism, and then what would become the anti-vax movement, and then Trumpism which equated any admission of a problem with a personal failing on the part of man for who loss was impossible. All "reasons" all terrible. So let them have their reasons, but "fool me we don't get fooled again." Their reasons are crap.
It's still real to me, damnit!
And before that it was "Cultural Marxism"
and before that it was "SJWs"
and before that it was "Common Core"
must be exhausting being a conservative. So many things to get outraged about...
And "Cancel Culture" and "Benghazi" and "Woke" and "Socialism" dozens of other buzzwords they couldn't define if their lives depend on it. Just epithets to demonize their political opponents.
And feminism and cultural relativism and happy holidays and welfare queens and spitting on veterans and the list goes on.
What is interesting is the way that the specific terminology applied to the lefty idea becomes poisonous, even though a lot (most?) of the specifics behind the term do not. It's "I'm not a feminist, but there is no change feminists have achieved that I don't agree with" over and over again.
Brian Sicknick was a veteran -- & the reichwing did much more than gob him.
I am liberal and an educator.
Common Core is bad. Not for the reasons conservatives say, but because it de-emphasizes remediation and foundational skills, and overemphasized synthesis and analytical skills.
This is borne out in NAEP scores which have fallen since its implementation and the gap between white and black students continues to increase.
https://jabberwocking.com/black-test-scores-continue-to-slide-in-2019-naep/
Fox news wasn't "right". But neither were the liberal academics with no experience in the classroom blaming teachers the gap in racial performance on a lack of sophistication in their pedagogy. That gap has increased since the adoption of CC.
"Exhausting"? Hardly! Outrage is energizing. Hate really gets people's blood flowing. The sense of superiority! the feeling that you and the rest of the crowd are the ones who are RIGHT! The godliness! The sense of purpose! Patriotism!
It's like a snort of cocaine every time you turn on your cable news or hate radio. But you don't have to become one of those disgusting librul drug addicts. You're PURE.
Alabama political commentator Kyle Whitmire: "State Rep. Chris Pringle wants to ban critical race theory from being taught in Alabama schools, colleges and universities. I asked him what CRT is, and well, the results weren't pretty."
https://www.al.com/news/2021/06/whitmire-alabama-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-critical-race-theory-so-i-asked-him-what-it-is.html
+1
I remember when Stephen Colbert asked a southern legislator what "The Ten Commandments" were. The dude could barely come up with one of them...
Oh, and just as a note. At least four of the 10 c's are unconstitutional under US law. At least three are not suitable for laws.
Back in the office and one numb nuts has Faux on all day. Turns up every day when the my talk about CRT. I told him sure their are idiots but do know anyone who actually has been taught this stuff? Crickets. However, outrage is what he loves. I told him today- do you just like to get aggravated? It is really very tiring TV to watch, who knew America was so entirely f’d up by Democrats?
What happened to the edit function? I apologize for my typos and poor proof reading.
Same! We have to be more careful, i guesss.
One of the difficulties with this is that CRT has become something of a Rorschach test. The term means lots of different things to different people.
Not long ago, Kevin had a post outlining what he understood CRT to be--it was a pretty benign list of points that many reasonable people with mostly or entirely endorse. On the other hand, some people view CRT to encompass the anti-white hate speech, even the endorsement of white genocide that you can find out there. And there are all sorts of things between those extremes that people label CRT.
If this is ever going to calm down, one of the first things that I think needs to happen is for the term "critical race theory" to be retired and new, specific and accurately descriptive labels be used to classify the wide range of racial views represented in our population. Until that happens, everybody is just talking past each other on this topic.
Pretty sure that whatever new labels are developed to discuss racism, conservatives will find a way to turn against those labels too. After all, “critical race theory” itself is a new label for “systemic racism” which was being vilified just a few years ago. Conservatives do not want to talk about racism (unless it dovetails with white grievances in some way, eg “a black person once was nasty to me at the checkout counter - somebody should do something about that!”) and so the terminology will never be acceptable to them. In much the same way, conservatives do not want to accept Democratic Party governance and so we’re now finding that phrases like “everybody should have a vote” and “free and fair elections” that we all thought were ok to use are being twisted and denigrated to be undesirable amongst conservatives.
But wait a minute -- liberals/the left are in fact trying to change substantially how American history is taught in schools, right? We're trying to make sure that slavery, racism, and white supremacy is being taught as one of if not *the* defining factor of American society. That's a major change from the way it's currently taught. Now, I happen to think that it's the *right* way for it to be taught, but let's not act like we're not pushing anything at all by snippily pointing out that "Critical Race Theory" isn't a blanket name for all this.
Are conservatives not allowed to react to a foundational change in a massively important area in American life?
Sure, they can react, but it would help a lot of they had any idea what they were talking about. Or, in many cases, want to avoid voicing their real objections clearly, because they know that those views will make them sound like racist asshats. Probably because they either are racist asshats or want to sell something to people that they believe are racist asshats.
They *do* have an idea what they're talking about -- the remaking of American history teaching so that racism & slavery becomes one of the central factors. They would prefer that it not be taught that way, and they're using "Critical Race Theory" as a generic stand-in for a whole bunch of things happening (Sure, that's dumb, but liberals often sound similarly clueless when talking about weapons during gun control discussions, so perhaps we shouldn't throw too many stones).
P.S. Eg, the liberal freakout about that judge comparing an M-16 to a Swiss Army knife was the epitome of left wing cluelessness about guns on full display.
I would believe more strongly in the existence of a Higher Power if the race of people known as Concern Trolls had never emerged in our society. The fact that we’ve apparently evolved to the point where tens of millions (or more!) people seem to exist solely to taunt the rest of society poses a lot of questions about How Fucked Up Is God’s Plan For Humanity?
Concern Trolls
I'm always impressed how people who can't deal with an argument immediately resort to trying to discredit it.
You got me. https://tenor.com/view/marcia-brady-nice-try-jan-gif-8421723
You got me
Good that you're mature enough to admit it.
The liberal freakout? The Judge also said the COVID-19 vaccine killed more people than mass shootings. Yeah I'd freakout if such a nutso was on the bench for my court case.
To quote exactly, he judge said, “Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.” Of course this is literal nonsense; the Swiss Army Knife does a lot of useful things, but dogs or deadbolts are better for home defense. The AR-15 was derived from an infantry assault weapon; to believe that it is ‘perfect’ for home defense is to believe in a most remarkable case of serendipity.
Of course this is literal nonsense
This is exactly what I mean. Whispering the words "infantry assault weapon" as if it means something really really scary and awful. Instead, what it means is a weapon that is designed to be used by a wide range of people of varying physical and mental capabilities. Thus, it's lightweight, with relatively low recoil, easily serviceable, and using a relatively common and inexpensive round. It's also cheap to manufacture.
It's really not that powerful a weapon -- US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan complained that the 5.56 mm round wasn't strong enough to take down an enemy insurgent when shot, part of the reason why the US military is thinking seriously about increasing the size of its round to 6.8 mm.
All of these things do, in fact, make it a reasonably versatile weapon for civilians: cheap to purchase, easy to use, lightweight and low recoil, and relatively effective. It's not as accurate or deadly as a longer-barreled rifle with a larger round, but it's more accurate and effective than a handgun. Sounds a lot like a Swiss Army Knife to me.
(I actually think a better home defense weapon would be a shotgun -- don't have to worry too much about accuracy at likely ranges and more powerful than a handgun).
Know what you're talking about before you spout off.
So you're saying that 'one of the central factors' of American history is completely subjective? If so, what are your credentials are for this statement, and what is your argument for why this is so.
Above all, be specific; any sort of weaseling on the details will be taken as the mark of a bad faith actor, which, after all, I'm sure you're entirely down with because scholarship, amirite?
So you're saying that 'one of the central factors' of American history is completely subjective?
No, I'm saying that conservatives are objecting to a substantial change in the way that American history is taught in K-12. Playing the "there's nothing really going on here because CRT doesn't mean what you say it does" card is deceptive and inaccurate.
Should parents of whatever political stripe not criticize a major change in the way their children are being taught?
If so, what are your credentials are for this statement
I'm Mahatma Gandhi. (Checks). Nope, Vladimir Putin. Wait! Anthony Fauci. Sue Bird? The Verizon Guy. The AT&T Woman! JAMES FUCKING BOND.
"Playing the "there's nothing really going on here because CRT doesn't mean what you say it does" card is deceptive and inaccurate."
Where did I say that? Please be specific and precise. The way you failed to be before, and which I specifically asked for. Also, since you concede that determining 'one of the central factors' is not subjective, could you tell us, specifically, what truthful historical events they object to teaching da kids?
Continuing, you do know that many (most?) conservatives object to teaching evolution as 'one of the central tenets' of biology. Will you be consistent and say teaching evolution should be dismissed as well, or will you be inconsistent, and say -- with your usual lack of specificity "that's different'?
"I'm Mahatma Gandhi. (Checks). Nope, Vladimir Putin. Wait! Anthony Fauci. Sue Bird? The Verizon Guy. The AT&T Woman! JAMES FUCKING BOND."
So in fact, you have _no_ credentials to offer, nada, zip, none. Which wouldn't be so bad (I tend to accept authority for matters not in my purview, but apparently you don't) but for the fact that you refused to provide any sort of argument for your case, let alone a plausible one.
Your talking points are stale, lame, and convince no one. Your unsourced, unsolicited opinion carries as much weight with me as does the opinion of any other intellectually diminutive ignoramus. Perhaps you should go back to school to correct these deficiencies. A GED doesn't get you very far these days.
Please be specific and precise. The way you failed to be before, and which I specifically asked for
Oh, dear, SoV, did I not participate in the conversation you wanted? How sad.
Providing evidence for your claims, the scientific method, etc. is just so, so woke.
Well, according to you, at least. That explains a lot. It also confirms my suspicion that your education level is 'GED' Tell me, I'm curious: How does it feel to be such a loser, Cap'n Crunch?
How does it feel to be such a loser, Cap'n Crunch?
Oh, Scent, you have to manage a better delivery than that, especially if you're going for such an hoary chestnut as "loser." At least spell it "luuuuser!" and put up a meme of Cap'n Crunch.
Think of Dorothy Parker! Be inspired.
My (very aged) Swiss army knife incorporates a toothpick, tweezers, corkscrew, can opener, saw blade, etc. Please point to the equivalent bits on the M16 (the fact that you mistakenly called it an M-16 is indicative of your level of expertise on these matters -- guess you must be a 'liberal' with so little knowledge). No, the fact you can use its ammo (the so-called 'boat tail' cartridge) doesn't count.
In future, please don't bring a silly sipper-dipper straw to a gun fight, m'kay, Cereal Boy?
That should be boat tailed cartridge to field-strip an M16 of course. I thought I should add that omitted because Special K made it quite clear he doesn't know a magazine from a clip. 'M-16' indeed.
Scent, do you think that guns have tweezers on them? I mean, it'd be kind of awesome, but tweezers?
"Yep, Sarge, I was wasting me some commies when I noticed that my eyebrow hair was gettin' a bit unruly, like, so I popped out the tweezers and got them back in order!"
Chuckle. I most emphatically do not. But your judge did. You punch as hard as a syphilitic junkie doing the high step.
BORING!
Do high-stepping syphilitic junkies often try to punch people? I'm thinking you may have lost control of the metaphor there, Scent.
Of course they do, Grape Nuts. You know, like when you were laying there in the middle of the sidewalk and the police came to move you along after you pissed yourself? And after they had the grace and civility to wipe the vomit off the front o' ya too.
WEAK!
Of course they do, Grape Nuts
I do love eyewitness testimony.
Oh, Fruit Loops! You thought the police were giant centipedes; you couldn't tell bugs from 'beans at the time. PATHETIC!
You can't even bring a scintilla of wit or imagination to your venom, much less land a punch. It's no fun squashing someone who is incapable of defending themselves, so I'm outta here.
And _that's_ how much of a loser you are.
If you live in the south racism and slavery really are the defining factors of history where they are not for the rest of the country and trying to force southern history upon the rest of us, whatever our own failings, is grossly offensive.
Slavery also existed in northern colonies. There was slavery in New Jersey well into the 19th century as existing slaves were allowed to be kept in bondage as well as their children - there were still some remaining slaves in New Jersey when the Civil War began.
Then there is the reckoning needed in the Mid West regarding sundown towns lynchings and whatnot. There was a huge race riot in Chicago in 2019, I wonder if any of my ancestors who lived there at the time were involved.
In the west Oregon was officially Whites Only, there were black exclusion laws on the books until 1926.
In California Chinese laborers and Mexicans were lynched, they burned down Chinatown in LA and earlier on the native population was enslaved by the missions.
There's a lot of failing we should be teaching in school but will hurt conservative's fee-fees
You know I know all of that, it's trivial compared to the south and without the south most of it wouldn't have happened.
Kevin: There is no database or reporting system tracking instances of stupidity in US education, or in US society for that matter. We're reduced to guessing as to the frequency distribution.
Fox News likes to create alt headlines. Typically it's incredibly irresponsible. Online readers think some issues are big news when they are minor matters. And Fox artificially elevates topics to create news stories.
However, sometimes Fox does report on important things that the rest of the media ignores. CRT is an an example. Democrats are being harmed by dismissing concerns about CRT. The line of thinking within CRT brings on hopelessness in that it says US laws are all racist since equity does not result. This amplifies racial hostility from many non-whites. The lack of equity is all due to the white supremacist racism of whites. Read the link below for an example of how far this hate.
Mainstream media analysis today on racial issues reads like a carbon copy of what Democrats say. The themes that the US is white supremacist, whites are racist and thrive on white privilege, wimpy whites have white fragility, and so on are never challenged. Journalists are afraid of the left mob if they ask questions. In fact they don't even know how to go about questioning all of this.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/nyc-pyscho-fantasizes-about-shooting-white-people-in-yale-talk/
Thank you, ProgressOne! I'm *not* a conservative, and I'm still bothered by CRT, based on descriptions of it from a range of sources. It's not simply 'anti-racism,' so just because the jerks at Fox News attack it doesn't mean we have to defend it.
Jeez, am I going to have to play the conservative here? What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The stuff that irks many people, not just conservatives, includes:
1 -- courses that you have to take that talk extensively about privilege and their counterpart oppression, as if all the challenges one encounters in life can be simply divided into a multiple dimensional matrix where you just check off the which of your identities triggered which forms of oppression. And similarly, if you have enough missing check boxes, you're defined as someone committing oppression.
2 -- talks by I Kendi that proposes the centrality of race in all interactions between white and non-white people.
3 -- the 1619 project, which seems to treat all of US history as primarily dedicated to establishing slavery on this continent, and little else.
Both items 1 and 2 were required learning for me at a large tech company (one of the "Gang of Five"), over a number of courses and a number of years. And discussions of the 1619 project are everywhere.
Yet, many Americans, not just conservatives, feel that this is, in a word, crap. People aren't oppressors simply based on the color of their skin, and resent being told so. In my office, people of varying races and ethnic backgrounds work together, and these differences simply are not central to interactions between them.
And yes, the ideals of this country, at least expressed since I've been a teen (1969) do not involve making the world safe for slavery, and indeed, those ideals helped my family immigrate here and happily integrate into society.
Is this country perfect? No, but neither is it indelibly stained by hatred, and pretending it is will not help any steps towards progress.
+1
I seriously doubt more than 1 American in 50 possesses even a passing familiarity with "I. Kendi" and you're just flat out wrong about the 1619 Project. It's an imperfect (what isn't?) but compelling, important and much-needed study of the centrality of slavery to the country's founding and the economic roots.
Well, certainly everyone at my Gang of Five company was exposed to his ideas in the courses we were assigned and recommended to take. Many companies have their employees learn this material, and running these courses is more than a small cottage industry at this point. They may not know who Kendi is, but they know what he espouses.
As for the 1619 project, I partly agree. It is compelling, and interesting, and large amounts of it probably give a clear explanation of aspects of our society that are otherwise puzzling (though some essays are a stretch). I'm reacting more to the idea, explicitly stated, that 1619 was the real date of the nation's birth instead of 1776. The implication is that slavery, even today, exceeds the principles espoused in 1776, in effect on the country.
But all those tens of millions of immigrants who came here since the end of the civil war didn't come to participate in plantation life, they came because of 1776 and later years, because of the possibility to become more than how they were defined in the old country.
Saw this -- https://bityl.co/7ME9 -- moments ago and immediately thought of your post.
Hysteria all around.
“Despite an early onslaught of critical praise, the highly anticipated film adaptation of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s first Broadway musical In the Heights failed to draw crowds to movie theaters over its premiere weekend. Instead, a wave of backlash surfaced over the film’s lack of visibly dark-skinned Afro Latinx characters — the very community the film purports to represent.
The Tony-winning hit musical that made Lin-Manuel Miranda a Broadway name half a decade before Hamilton debuted depicts a struggling but vibrant neighborhood on Manhattan’s upper Upper West Side. But while the new film is a celebration of Washington Heights, it’s very easy to come away from it thinking that the community is entirely made up of mostly light-skinned Latinx migrants and immigrants. Though a large portion of the neighborhood’s real-life population is Black Latinx, in the movie, all but one of the main cast members are light-skinned — and many viewers immediately noticed what seemed to be the erasure of the Black Latinx community.”
It’s kind of funny by now.
I definitely saw openings in that movie to invite critical assessment of colorism in the Hispanic population, but all things considered, it was a great movie. & I fully expect the 2022 Academy Awards show to come down to Justin Chu's In the Heights & Stephen Spielberg's West Side Story. Of course, if there's any justice, Chu, who hot jobbed in 2019 with no nominations for Crazy Rich Asians, will win this time -- Spielberg already got his best picture win with Schindler.
Anyway, I still think In the Earth was a better movie than either.
"Critical Race Theory Is Just the Latest Hysteria"
-------Hysteria is a term used to describe emotional excess, but it was also once a common medical diagnosis. In layman's terms, hysteria is often used to describe emotionally charged behavior that seems excessive and out of control-------
Yep, it IS the latest hysteria
We went hysterical over "welfare queens"
We went hysterical over inter-racial relationships
We went hysterical over same sex relationships
We went hysterical over abortion
We went hysterical over gun "rights"
The key words are excessive and out of control BEHAVIOR
Yet moderates and liberals don't know how to deal with the hysteria when it rears its ugly head.
THAT is the real problem
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2020/07/20/smithsonian_institute_explains_that_rationality_and_hard_work_are_racist_499425.html
https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rational-thinking-hard-work-are-white-values-1518333