Town of 100 people, 50 black and 50 White all middle class.

The 50 whites rally and are able to take all the Blacks assets and wealth.

The blacks lament the racial targeting and wish for and speak to a more 'just society' where things like race will not be seen

At the same time the blacks call for the gov't to step in and address the injustice and return their assets rebalancing things.


IHIV - 'the Blacks cannot both call for a colour blind world and then ask the courts to act against Whites to take and give assets to black. And don't ask me to comment on past injustice as I am just talking about the ideal that should be practiced now and going forward.'

No, I just don't care about what you perceive as a pivot, and as many people have explained to you, it was not a central component. Also, if CRT is arguing the color blind approach doesn't work - I'd agree. It's not an "approach" that can be used to solve racial discrimination - it's something to work towards once you've solved them.

Read the question:

CRT is explicitly against that ideal.

Nah, all you've really shown is that your knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement and its participants is about as good as your knowledge of Critical Race Theory and its practitioners, which is to say, quite poor and largely based on what you get fed through right wing sources.

Not sure if I can accept this. Shoulda labeled it as " the receipts"

If ihiv was born 50 years earlier he woulda absolutely hated MLK so it's pretty ****ing disgusting to twist his words and act like he was a conservative.

By what route do you see a majority of white people(basically the thought process) agreeing to something like mlk proposed(broad-based benefits to the poor as well as some form of reparations on top for black people)? I kinda think the thought process would be hitting on things crt brings up at least in some form like acknowledging systemic racism/race is a social construct anyway etc on the way toward agreeing to it.

I mean, he hates MLK’s ideas right now.

Yeah, it shouldn't be lost on anyone that MLK was labeled a communist, too, just to try to discredit him.

If you take the odds of immediate death or getting the monkey off your back, it's rational to use in the vast majority of situations. Many junkies are hooked for years and years.

Stop. You're not being rational. Again.

LOL

So obvious.

None of what you all are posting changes the fact that color blindness was a philosophical component of the Civil Rights Movement, and critical race theory rejects it.

It's a logical fallacy. Kendi, who the wokesters themselves consider one of the most prominent voices of the movement, is an anti-capitalist and heavily influenced by Marxist thinkers. BLM was founded by "trained Marxist". Critical Pedology is based on Marxism and is propagated in conjunction with critical race theory by teachers.

So was MLK.

.

So? MLK embraced the idea of a color blind society, you, nor critical race theory, does.

.

I trust this guy more than I trust you about where MLK stood philosophically:

Oh, how I love the receipts...

The whole civil rights movement was based on the fact that the 14th amendment, which simply declared everyone equal under the law, failed to deliver any form of equality to black people. Anti-Crters then and now, would argue that laws are already color blind and any inequalities observed in the 1960s between blacks and whites are no more the business of Congress than the inequalities between a hard working doctor and a destitute drunk. The Civil Rights Movement rejected the anti-CRT view that the 13th and 14th amendments were enough and MLK famously compared them to checks written to blacks but with no funds in the account. He took the view that specific actions needed to be taken to address racial inequality in a non-color blind way.

We don't really need other people's interpretations of mlk--it's not like the stuff he said/wrote has disappeared

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

Our nation’s adjustment to a new mode of thinking will be facilitated if we realize that for nearly forty years two groups in our society have already been enjoying a guaranteed income. Indeed, it is a symptom of our confused social values that these two groups turn out to be the richest and the poorest. The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however miniscule, through welfare benefits.

The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.

----

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest. I am proposing, therefore, that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial.

----

Do you think some of the gagging overfed mouths might need to re-adjust some of their thinking to get on board with all of this?

Whatever you make of the post-hoc rationalizations/interpretations that's going on in this thread in regards to the Civil Rights Movement, it's undeniable that color-blindness was an ideal of the Civil Rights Movement and critical race theory is adamantly opposed to that ideal. That's a philosophical principle that distinguishes between the two movements. Dr. Wyatt Tee Walkers words is incontrovertible proof of that.

All these folks are denying that distinguishing factor, which makes it impossible to carry this conversation with MrWookie any further.

So you agree with mlk on reparations for black people--as well as a more general strat aimed at poor people black/white etc alike?

Because it seems like you'd still be calling the reparations(a separate thing from a general overall project) for black people part of it 'racist'.

I'll be all for reparations, if I thought it would work. The closest thing to the economic impact reparations would be similar to is lottery winnings. About 30% of lottery winners go bankrupt.

I've never been a big believer throwing cash at the problem. Roughly 70% of the people who get it will benefit, likely, but the other 30% is going to end up equal or worse financial shape than they were before they got it. That doesn't seem like an effective way to deal with an economic/financial disparity