Why is CRT good?

Not actual CRT. Which is also good. But what people think of when they say they’re against CRT. Against teaching the real founding of the US along with what the country has done and continues to do. Here’s a fun quote:

[quote]Those who eat German bread today do not think about the fact that it came from granaries we conquered in the 12th century. A similar thing will happen in the East as in the conquest of America.

- A piece of crap that really liked the myth of his nation’s glorious, righteous, and innocent past[/quote]

I dunno, maybe only bad things happens when you teach lies about the past to make yourself feel better about today. 🤷

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Human1000 · M

CRT isn’t really history per se, though. It uses history as evidence to support the theory, but I don’t agree with much of the theory.

BohemianBoo · M

@Human1000 One part of the theory I agree with is that racism can be systemic without being part of the law. And there are some good examples from history which prove that.

Human1000 · M

@BohemianBoo There are definitely examples of racism that are not directed at specific individuals.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Human1000 · M

@MalteseFalconPunch Indeed. I am also appalled at the movement to make history exclusively pro-American. I’m an old history major, so have a keen interest in how it’s taught.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Human1000 · M

@MalteseFalconPunch I think kids can handle the truth, and in the context of 18th Century American/European history there is a lot about the history of the US that is impressive to a modern sensibility. However, we need to be careful to not teach history so that the US is a villain or a hero.

For example, if I tell you that Brazil ended slavery after the US, or that Brazil had more slaves than the US, I am stating a fact. It is proper context.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Human1000 · M

@MalteseFalconPunch That's polemicizing history, and it tends to distort. It's called the "whig interpretation of history" and if you look for bad facts you will find them. But it's not the whole story.

About addressing wrongs, that's politics, not history.

BohemianBoo · M

@MalteseFalconPunch Sure, but we also shouldn't go too far in the other direction. We should teach about slavery, but that includes slavery in other countries.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M

@Human1000 Guy walks away from a discussion on his own post that he initiated...for what it's worth I think what you are saying is interesting..I've made my opinion of this subject clear on this thread as well.

Human1000 · M

@SumKindaMunster The conflation of CRT and history is something I comment on when it comes up. There is a discipline called historiography which is “the study of the various approaches to historical method, the actual writing of history, and, primarily, the various interpretations of historical events.”

Real historians are for the most part small c conservatives when it comes to their discipline. They don’t want to step too far outside what has come before, but concepts do evolve. This history of the history of the fall of the Roman Empire is a classic example (no pun intended).

It’s not CRT, but it’s worth mentioning in the context of this thread that the NY Times was negligent when it ignored critiques of the 1642 Project by actual historians of American history who had no political agenda. I also think the right wing criticism of the 1642 Project bordered on the hysterical.

So it goes…

SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M

@Human1000 Thanks for responding. I don't disagree with anything you said. History is history, if you can't discuss it without becoming overly emotional, it's time to take a step back.