The Civil Rights Act of 1964 vs. Critical Race Theory – Which one is Racist?

Bobblehead DollWhen a government, teacher, business, etc., focus on race as the only issue, racial tensions will increase, and racial problems will abound.  Sort of like focusing on chronic pain makes the pain worse; focusing upon race produces racial issues.  Worse, imagined racial issues will create a reality where those issues are alive and well, for race is the only topic.

Of a truth, often spoken of in these articles, every race man can create to segregate humans into sub-categories, have experienced periods of ostracization, enslavement, racial hatred, and racial segregation.  As a person who identifies his race as AMERICAN and not a color, like a box of Crayolas, I have witnessed man’s inhumanity to man too often to care what race you choose to be.  I have met blonde hair/blue-eyed individuals who report their race as black, blacks saying they are white, adding any other color or racial denomination they desired. The same examples become apparent to others who care to look and listen, for the United Nations affirms that race is a choice and not a biological component of heritage.  When you have met your first Vietnamese-African-Anglo-American Indian, who practices Zen-Buddhism-Catholicism/Judaism, come find me, and we can talk about the racial, ethnic, and religious designations people choose!Andragogy - LEARN

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241).  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  Provisions of the civil rights act forbade discrimination based on sex and race in hiring, promoting, and firing.  The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs.  It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to resonate in America. Passage of the Act ended the application of “Jim Crow” laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.  The Court held that racial segregation purported to be “separate but equal” was constitutional.  Congress eventually expanded the Civil Rights Act to strengthen the enforcement of fundamental civil rights.Finest Hour

Effectively ending racial discrimination in America, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by a more significant percentage of Republicans than Democrats.  Yet, the Democrats continue to claim they are the banner under which all voices are equal.  While I do not want this article to take on any partisan political banter, the facts are essential to the history of how America adopted the Civil Rights Acts into law.  As always, if you desire more information, feel free to check the links embedded.

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

QuestionHungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs, the neo-Marxist progenitor of critical race theory, once described Critical Theory as being “on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity.”  Critical theory is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures—with origins in sociology and literary criticism, arguing that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.  Critical race theory is a philosophy that views everything in public and private life—from the government to business to art and anything in between—through the prism of racial identities.

The worldview is based on critical theory, which originated in Germany after World War I and combined the Marxist belief of an oppressed working class with an opaque description of relative truth.  The philosophy swept through universities in the US in the 20th century.  In the 1960s, theorists claimed American law was systemically oppressive, creating critical legal theory.  By the 1980s, theorists added race, giving us critical race theory.  One of the originators of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, wrote: “We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that the American social order is maintained and perpetuated by racial subordination.”quote-mans-inhumanity

According to Derrick Bell, this means that General George Washington was not a great leader; he was a privileged white boy.  That would make Frederick Douglass only capable because he was black. Turning Rosa Parks’ courageous stand for racial justice and equality into nothing but a gender card play.  When everything is subjugated to race, nothing else matters but race.

Racism, Racist, and Racial – The Story of Three Adjectives

Racism is a noun defined as “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”  “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”  “The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.”  Racist is a proper adjective and is defined as “having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”  Racial is also an adjective and is described as something “existing or occurring between races,” or “relating to or based upon race.”Content of their Character

Interestingly, racism is a noun, not an adjective, even though many desire racism to be an adjective.  The difference being that an adjective describes a noun, and a noun does not, and cannot, describe an action by a person, place, or thing.  Thus, you can have racist individuals, but racism is a noun; it cannot be expressed enough; every race in history has experienced periods of being the aggressor and the oppressed through race.  Worse, when discussing race, racial history, and racial descriptions, plasticity has evolved to continue to allow those desiring an excuse to use racial prejudice as a reason for their actions.

For example, when a store was robbed, the robber claimed that he only robbed the store because the owner was racist.  Intimating that if the owner had not been racist, the store would not have been robbed; not a very flattering or valid excuse for robbing a store, perpetuating violence, or acting in a manner behooving a terrorist.  Yet, this pattern of thinking is prevalent in many places in the world today.

quote-mans-inhumanity-2Digging a little deeper, how does anyone know the store owner was racist or not racist?  Just because an accusation is made does not a reality and truth reveal.  Having been slandered many times by people accusing me of being racist, I know the veracity of this question.  For example, in the US Navy, I was accused of being racist for not showing due consideration to a second-class petty officer speaking ebonics.  At the time, I had no idea what ebonics was, and since this petty officer only spoke ebonics on the ship, I had no idea what I was supposed to do differently.  But, the petty officer complained to the chief, the chief tore me a new one, and I was left confused and angry.

How can a person tell if something is racist?

Believe it or not, there is an easy test to check for racism.  Where is the focus?  Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Critical Race Theory, we can quickly tell which is racist by the focus or intent of the work.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to end a focus upon race; CRT is designed to exploit race and focus solely upon race as the preeminent separating force in human relations.  Thus, CRT is racist, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not.  Don’t believe me; look closer at the purpose; CRT has race proudly mentioned in the name, whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1964 focuses on equality under the law of all people.

Knowledge Check!The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aims to place all people on equal legal footings.  CRT aims to rip equality under the law to shreds and put people on unequal footing based solely upon race.  Worse, since the UN has claimed that race is a choice and not a sub-human categorization mechanism, people can choose to adopt the race that is favored to their advantage when placed upon unequal footing under the law.  Thus, how does CRT purpose to halt people from choosing different races to suit their desires for more equal treatment?

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Statehood for DC – A Total Waste of Time!

Angry Wet ChickenAnother legislative session, another brain-dead idea passed off as needed, fair, and necessary, and wholly without merit.  Gosh, I am fed up with the time wasted by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.  Speaker Pelosi (D) is pontificating about the U.S. House passing (again) legislation to make the District of Columbia a state.  Except, Speaker Pelosi (D) never saw a liberal idea she didn’t immediately love, embrace, and wholeheartedly support, so nothing new in this news.

President Biden (no surprise here) backs the idea he has previously not supported as a Senator.  Color me shocked!  What did not surprise me was racist and belligerent commentary on the house floor during the debate.  It seems, every time someone with a (D) after their name can play the race card, the race card gets thrown down.  No objectivity, no specificity, no reason, logic, only plain emotion, malice, and stupidity!  Man, the use of the race card has gotten ridiculous.  Read Rep. Jones’s (D) comments, and feel free to laugh at the stupidity!  Plain ol’ public scorn should follow commentaries like the statements Rep. Jones (D) made, including mockery, shunning, and shame!

On the issue of race, the 2019 Census estimates 46% of D.C.’s residents identify as “Black,” and 46% identify as “White.”  Leaving a mere 8% of the population to fill all other ethnicities and races.  Yet, Rep. Jones (D) wants to make D.C. becoming a state a race issue.  Queue the mocking laughter and public shaming!Calvin & Hobbes - Irony Hurts

One of the issues brought up for making the District of Columbia a state was the amount of taxes they pay.  Personally, I laughed at this argument!  Still laughing; not sorry!  How long has the District of Columbia elected mayors who have done nothing but tax and spend; almost forever!  Taxation without representation is a dead issue when you elect tax and spenders into office.  As I was told as a kid, “You made your bed, now sleep in it!”  Think I might be wrong, understand the following:

No Republican has ever been elected mayor since D.C. home rule began in 1975. The DC Republicans have had no representation in the D.C. Council since Carol Schwartz left office in 2009. As of January 7, 2019, there are 30,001 registered voters affiliated with the Republican Party of the District of Columbia” [emphasis mine].

It appears to me, thou doth protest too much, and consequences hurt!  One-party rule is never a good idea, but the District of Columbia has embraced one-party everything and is suffering accordingly!  Please note, I am not claiming the Republicans could rule any better, but I am arguing that one-party rule is NEVER a good idea!

What is the issue?

Detective 4The District of Columbia keeps petitioning to become a state.  The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive authority of the U.S. Congress; D.C. is therefore not a part of any U.S. state.  Since this is a U.S. Constitutional issue, it will require all 50-states to ratify a change to the U.S. Constitution, not simply the wasting of time and resources of the U.S. House of Representatives.  But, as they say on the Home Shopping Network, “There’s more.”  With 34 US States never having been made states properly, according to the US Constitution, and their lands remain under “Federal Government Control,” I do not see DC being a state that big of an issue!

The District of Columbia is a unique federal district of the U.S. The Government of the District of Columbia operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the Mayor and thirteen-member Council.  The District of Columbia Home Rule Act was a compromise back in the 1970s to allow more self-rule to D.C. while still being within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.  While the District of Columbia Home Rule Act caused some pretty wild protests, this was expected as a compromise between Congress and the local D.C. residents.  All the adults know that a good compromise leaves everyone upset.  How effective has the District of Columbia Home Rule Act been; well, look at the before and after economics, and the problem becomes loud and clear.  Taking us back to why I am still laughing and still not sorry!

For the lawyers in the house, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act is a quagmire of legal jargon and directionless logic like no piece of legislation it has ever been my displeasure to review.  If you can make sense of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, please I.M. me directly, for I have questions and need answers.  Thank you!Apathy

Alert!

Dont Tread On MeToday’s chicanery in the U.S. House of Representatives was not the first time a piece of legislation making D.C. a state has passed the house.  I doubt this will be the last time our tax dollars are wasted on passing frivolous legislation on a U.S. Constitutional issue that will be passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Have any of the elected officials in the U.S. House or Senate read the U.S. Constitution, US Bill of Rights, or other founding U.S. documents?  I figured those with (D) had read their Marx and Keynes, but they were not elected to act like Keynes or Marx!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.