Critical Race Theory

lotr10

Well-known member
It's good you feel that way. By most estimates and predictions going back to the 70's indicates the decade of 2040 (2045 per Census projections) is when those of white European ancestry will no longer be the majority in this country, just the largest minority. Just saying.

Actually the numbers you refer to are bogus. The only way you get to the majority/minority designation you site by mid century is by not including white Hispanics in the White category. And there is no reason not to include Hispanic whites with other whites. Hispanics are NOT a racial group by any rational standard. They are a language group only.

Hispanics can be "white" as tens of millions of Cubans, Brazilians (even though they speak Portuguese!), Argentine's, Colombians, Uruguayans, etc. clearly are. Millions of Europeans migrated to Central & South America just like they did to North America. Conservative estimates are that one third of all USA Hispanics are of European descent.

Hispanics can be Asian just ask a Filipino.

Hispanics can be Native American just ask a Guatemalan or Mexican

Hispanics can be Black. Just check out the Caribbean if you don't believe me

I think you're aware of this because you slip in the misleading term "white European" ancestry. European is NOT a racial classification. You can be a Black European just like you can be a Black American.

When the racial designation of USA Hispanics are correctly accounted for whites will remain a majority though a slowly shrinking one for the reminder of the century.

The question I have is why do you and so many others deliberately mislead people about the demographics?
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Probably correct. The suburbs and rural areas will be 95% caucasian but the innercity will be 95 % non white and have 2/3 of the total population.

They want you to think this by lying about the demographics. One of the dumbest things I've ever seen in demographics is the treatment of Hispanics as a racial group.

They do this because only by declaring ALL Hispanics to be non-white can they make their numbers work. Again these people trample on science to push their ideological agenda. The fact is that there was a massive European diaspora to Central & South America. Yet by their bizarre practical classification these people are no longer white! It's like Oskar and company have been reading a South African Apartheid manual circa 1970.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
It's good you feel that way. By most estimates and predictions going back to the 70's indicates the decade of 2040 (2045 per Census projections) is when those of white European ancestry will no longer be the majority in this country, just the largest minority. Just saying.
Can we get shoved ahead of others, even though we may not be qualified, and also get tons of free sheet then?

That'll be nice.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Notice how the usual suspects ran away from this thread?

It's not possible to defend Critical Race Theory because it's one of the most racist and disgusting concepts out there.

So the smart leftists do what Oskar tried to do: throw out that white people better get their act together and accept this nonsence because soon they'll be a minority to and then you better WATCH OUT. I mean how else but as a threat can you read Oskar's post?
 

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Idaho moves to ban critical race theory instruction in all public schools, including universities

Idaho lawmakers have advanced a bill that would prohibit public schools, including public universities, from teaching that "any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior," which, according to the bill, is often found in "critical race theory."

It also prohibits teachings arguing that "individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin."
 

Redandgold

Well-known member
I dont use liberal anymore... marxist or leftist.
Marxists are radicals, not liberals. Radicals break the law to get what they want. They will even kill to get what they want, and they want massive changes to take place. Liberals want change also, but they don’t believe in breaking the law to make it happen. Conservatives oppose change. They like things the way they are. Reactionaries hate the idea of change so much that they want to return to a time period before recent changes took place. ie. The Klan are reactionaries. They would like to return to a white dominated America. Reactionaries will, like radicals, break the law to get what they want. These terms are misused constantly. You don’t get to change the definition of a word. I’ve even read on here where some have called groups or people radicals and fascists. That’s really stupid. They are the complete opposite. Fascists (Hitler) are reactionaries. You can’t be both a radical and a reactionary. Contrary to what you read on here, liberals and conservatives are both good people. They just disagree. Radicals and reactionaries are bad people.
 

Stirred not Shaken

Well-known member
whiteculture_info_1.png


Good stuff!
Only a liberal would think nuclear family, planning for the future, hard work, etc. etc. is a bad thing.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Marxists are radicals, not liberals. Radicals break the law to get what they want. They will even kill to get what they want, and they want massive changes to take place. Liberals want change also, but they don’t believe in breaking the law to make it happen. Conservatives oppose change. They like things the way they are. Reactionaries hate the idea of change so much that they want to return to a time period before recent changes took place. ie. The Klan are reactionaries. They would like to return to a white dominated America. Reactionaries will, like radicals, break the law to get what they want. These terms are misused constantly. You don’t get to change the definition of a word. I’ve even read on here where some have called groups or people radicals and fascists. That’s really stupid. They are the complete opposite. Fascists (Hitler) are reactionaries. You can’t be both a radical and a reactionary. Contrary to what you read on here, liberals and conservatives are both good people. They just disagree. Radicals and reactionaries are bad people.
What happens when a conservative lives under a flourishing liberal time period? Changes are made but the conservative never accepts them . By your definition that makes him a reactionary and a bad person. Not all reactionaries would be bad people, most older adults I know wish life was back the way it was when they were younger, making them a reactionary and bad person by your definition.
 

Redandgold

Well-known member
What happens when a conservative lives under a flourishing liberal time period? Changes are made but the conservative never accepts them . By your definition that makes him a reactionary and a bad person. Not all reactionaries would be bad people, most older adults I know wish life was back the way it was when they were younger, making them a reactionary and bad person by your definition.
You’re only a reactionary if you resort to violence to undo changes, or break the law in some other serious way.
 
Last edited:

Gulliotine

Well-known member
There are only 3 races of mankind with subsets. None of those are named for continents, languages, or colors.

Never ceases too amaze me how seemingly intelligent people quibble over something so simple.

Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid...you're one of the 3, or you're Tiger Woods.

Personally, I prefer the human race.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Notice how the usual suspects ran away from this thread?

It's not possible to defend Critical Race Theory because it's one of the most racist and disgusting concepts out there.

So the smart leftists do what Oskar tried to do: throw out that white people better get their act together and accept this nonsence because soon they'll be a minority to and then you better WATCH OUT. I mean how else but as a threat can you read Oskar's post?
For the record I think this theory is a steaming pile of $chit.

Dominant culture has always won out through survival of the fittest. You do not get to wake up one day, declare it racist, and come into work when you feel like it. ;)
 

Purplemojo

Well-known member
Stupid comment, however, without the constitution (the ratification of which was accomplished with the making of the compromise) our Nation would have died aborning and one could argue that, without the constitution two nations would have been formed instead of the one, USA, and the South's goal of the Civil War would have been accomplished at the inception, creating a nation of slave states and a nation of free states. There would have been no Civil War, so it is likely that slavery would have continued longer in the South than it actually did.

There is no doubt that many of the signers of the US Constitution considered the document imperfect and that the issue of slavery would have to be addressed at some time in the future. It couldn't be addressed by a nation that never became one to begin with.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Here's an interesting take on CRT:


Critical theories divide society into groups based on their immutable characteristics. Then, it assigns personality characteristics, motives, and societal roles to children based simply on how they were born. This strategy divides children by race, sex, immigration status, disability, and other characteristics they have no control over. It then assigns roles, such as oppressed and oppressor, based on those characteristics. Marxists learned long ago that dividing people by class was challenging. A content middle class was always a barrier to their progress. Dividing people based on immutable characteristics was more straightforward, and creating a coalition of the oppressed groups became the means to gain power, beginning in earnest in the 1980s.

Critical theories are pernicious because they remove agency and free will from one segregated group and blame the other for any disparity in outcomes between groups. It encourages blame and victimhood based on how children were born. The philosophy calls for outright discrimination against groups seen to be “privileged” historically. Generally, these children are white, male, and sometimes Asian. It follows in lockstep with the philosophy articulated by one of the high priests of critical theories, Ibram X. Kendi. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
 

AllSports12

Moderator
Wasn't this done by the non-slave states to limit the power of the slave states?
Yes... But that's not what the headline reads, so Happy is doing what Happy does.....

Either Happy needs a refresher course in history or he's being dishonest about knowing the purpose of 3/5 and is using the comment in an attempt to say... "lookie here...America is racist"
 

Purplemojo

Well-known member
Identity politics and the use of tribal conflict by the Germans and Belgians in Rwanda, in order to control the native population, did not work out too well in the long run, ultimately resulting in genocide. The Democrats fomentation of class warfare, racial hatred and contempt of law and order will have similar results.
 
.
Top