Hey @realchrisrufo. Serious Q: anti CRT legislation seeks to ban teaching that could "promote division" or cause discomfort for a racial group. So, should schools ban MLKs Letter from Birmingham Jail, which condemns white moderates bc some white folks might feel attacked?...(1)
Or how about his book Why We Can't Wait, where he endorsed aff action, or his statement in the I Have a Dream Speech re America giving Black folks a bad check marked 'insufficient funds.' Is that un-American bc it recognized how racism had been foundational to the country?...(2)
Or his last address to the SCLC in which he noted the importance of Black folks affirming their beauty, a self-affirmation "made compelling by the white man's crimes against him." I mean, talking of "the white man's crimes?" My goodness...how racist, right Chris?...(3)
Or how, in an essay written shortly before his death but published after it, King blasted white America, specifically for "ingrained and tenacious racism." I mean, how can you allow THAT to be taught, right Chris (and other CRT critics). So, be honest...(4)
You would basically seek to ban anything MLK ever said except that one line from that one speech (which even then you've misunderstood) and reduce him to a single soundbite bc everything else he wrote and said would run afoul of these new laws. (5)...
MLK made white people uncomfortable and angry. The real one still does, because the real one--not the sanitized version you prefer--called white America out on its bullshit and said America was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Admit you want MLK banned...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Obviously, I'm no fan of Greg Kelly or Newsmax, but the main interpretation of his since-deleted tweet about military service & race is pretty clearly inaccurate. That said, what he IS saying, or trying to say, is also tone deaf and worth challenging...
A THREAD
On Sunday, Kelly tweeted this (2)...
At first glance, and taken literally, it sounds amazingly white supremacist. But truthfully, it should be obvious he's trying to be funny and ironic. Sadly, right-wingers aren't good at either, so it falls flat (3)...
To understand white denial about American history, consider two photos. First, this pic of Hazel Bryan screaming at Elizabeth Eckford during the integration of Little Rock Central High. The date: September 4, 1957. As for the second photo, follow along...(1)
This is a promo pic for the TV show Leave it to Beaver: a much-beloved program, especially for white conservatives, who view it as a nostalgic representation of family life and the ultimate example of a more "innocent time..." But here's the thing...(2)
Leave it to Beaver premiered on October 4, 1957: one month to the day after that photo from Little Rock was taken. America was not innocent, and the evil wasn't only in the heart of Hazel Bryan or other Little Rock whites. It was a national sickness. One most whites ignored...(3)
His "learning" and "growth" and whatever other woo-woo nonsense folks want to advocate for cannot come at the expense of those his attitude would or could victimize. Their safety is more important than his personal evolution as a human being...Let him learn from his unemployment
It's one thing to give average folks grace for racist shit. I believe in that, generally. But if you are a cop, teacher, judge, doctor, nurse, or anyone else in an authority position where your power can harm people, no second chances unless you do SERIOUS work to make amends
Those attacking Critical Race Theory want us to get bogged down explaining why they don't understand CRT, or what CRT really is. Don't fall for it. Flip the frame. By their own admission, they seek to lump all discussion of racism, past or present, under the CRT label...
THREAD
...Bc they don't want any analysis of racism as a historic or contemporary force in the U.S. This is why even books like To Kill a Mockingbird are coming under attack, and books looking at segregation are being called "divisive" because they cast whites in a 'bad' light (2)...
Rather than spend time trying to explain what CRT is, expose their real agenda: canceling truth about history and its lingering effects. Censorship. Book banning. And as I said in an earlier thread directed at one of their main attack dogs, their approach would cancel MLK...(3)
White panic over kids learning truth about America's racist history has a long pedigree. In 3rd grade, white teachers got angry at me for reading Roots in the back of class during free time. The Black teachers encouraged it but the white ones were enraged (1)
THREAD
This was the year the miniseries was on, and the teachers wanted to either bury conversation about it (and its subject matter) or have us "trace our family tree" without thinking of how Black kids might experience that, and w/o confronting the enslavement elephant in the room (2)
I gather that this is what white conservatives prefer: avoiding truth and pain and conflict and contradiction and evil (if committed in our country and in our name or for our benefit). They have never wanted to face it. Not 200 years ago, and not today (3)...
Critics of antiracist teaching say they just want history taught in an "unbiased" way with "no agenda." First, that's a lie: their version of history has an agenda...blind patriotism without complication. That's not a neutral presentation...(1)
Second, they don't mean it: they don't intend to teach about the revolutionary war from "both sides," nor the bombing of Pearl Harbor, nor 9/11...We won't be hearing a balanced presentation of Hitler's take on Jews in the WWII section (nor should we) (2)...
Third, if they really believed in "presenting all sides" w/o an agenda that would actually be an argument FOR teaching the 1619 Project, and antiracist perspectives and theories, not shutting them down. By squleching these they prove they just want the white conservative side (3)