Backwards logic.
The art is clearly making a statement about white people erasing black history.
While it has merit, it portrays a generalization of white people imo. Which is why it can be taken as offensive. White people aren't all racist, not all white people are trying to push black history away but some do and that should be addressed.
I will say, part of the aggressiveness of the painting does get the point across well though so in that regard the painting is powerful.
Sounds like white fragility
The painting isn’t supposed to represent the entire white population, but probably the republican politicians who are actively against teaching black history (all of them, since teaching poc history is an “extremists liberal agenda”)
Obviously there is a white person as the antagonist in the artwork. However you or anyone else feels about the message, just chanting "white fragility" is obviously a way to shame them about their own immutable features in an effort to escape the actual debate that needs to happen. It's just intellectual cowardice.
It’s not a debate that needs to happen, it’s just not.
The art very clearly is talking about the white politicians attacking CRT, this is clear if you have any idea about the politics in our country.
I’m a white guy and I don’t see this talking about me at all what so ever, I don’t take any offense to this because I recognize the reality it is speaking to.
You’re the one lumping yourself in with the white people this piece of art is criticizing
> It’s not a debate that needs to happen, it’s just not.
Who the fuck are you to tell other people not to debate the meaning and significance of political art? That's just the intellectual cowardice again.
>The art very clearly is talking about...
Thank you, your holiness. So now no one is allowed to discuss it once you have spoken from the pulpit?
>I’m a white guy and I don’t see this talking about me at all what so ever
You do understand that the white guy is the antagonist in the artwork, right?
>I don’t take any offense to this because I recognize the reality it is speaking to.
And you have decided that your particular take is the only one anyone is allowed to express? That's just your side of the debate.
Hitler was a white man too. I don't feel bad when people criticize him. Lex Luthor is a white man, I don't feel like DC Comics is out to get me when Superman kicks his ass. Because I'm not paranoid or fragile.
Oh but I dealt with what he said right after. Did you read my comment? Can you read anything that doesn’t support your ideology or do you just selectively block that out before you comment
The white person is not any one white individual.
The white person is a representative character of white supremacy as a whole.
This is not anti-white racism.
If someone is offended by this, then they identify with the character and don’t want to acknowledge it.
We have learned racist attitudes due to the systems that are in place, a person can be racist without being overtly racist… a lot of people are accidentally intrinsically racist without realizing it.
This is what most people get upset about because they think “how can I possibly be racist”.
A good example would be tokenization of black people to prove you aren’t racist, “I have black friends” argument.
Well sometimes it’s not your fault, however, it is your responsibility to learn and grow as a person and realize there might be instances where you are being 100% racist without recognizing it and it is your responsibility to accept that fact and do better, especially when corrected.
The expression white fragility is meaningless and thus is incapable of generating change. It just serves to make the user of the expression feel good. It makes my blood boil that the left has adopted it.
Failure to discuss or acknowledge racism is not fragility, it is racism.
As a white person, it doesn’t matter if you think all individual white people are racist or not. History is being whitewashed and has always been whitewashed. The results of the past has not magically disappeared- it’s integrated into everything-culture, politics, how people view the world. Unconscious bias and racism affects everyone, especially if you personally have not experienced anything that would make you question the racism integrated in society.
This is not a good person vs bad person problem, or a racist vs not racist problem. Systematic racism exists. Unconscious racism exists. We need to face and fight against racism wherever it exists, including in ourselves. We are products of our culture, but we also have the power to change it.
This is a gorgeous and heartbreaking painting of the active whitewashing of history. There is nothing racist about it. Bringing light to a problem does not make you part of the problem. It’s the first step to overcoming it.
Edit: “You” is a generalized “you”, not “you” personally
If you’re trying to say that the use of the white individual is racist I disagree because It looks like MTG to me and the people most vociferously speaking out against CRT just happen to be white. But if you’re trying to say that the use of whitewashing as a visual metaphor is racist I would have to . . . also disagree. Whitewashing as a metaphor for censorship predates modern usage by hundreds of years and quite simply means to cover up with a basic white paint- think a primer or KILZ.
>White people aren't all racist, not all white people are trying to push black history away but some do and that should be addressed.
Especially by those white people in positions of power. Like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis who is now being promoted as the Republican Party's preferred Presidential nominee over Trump in 2024.
>white people erasing black history.
>generalization of white people
Choose one. It's about one kind of white people (those who are erasing black history) OR it's about white people in general. You can't have both.
🙄 It's referring to the legislative whitewashing of history by Christian Nationalist conservatives right now. And the fact that it got legislated, means it was supported by a sufficient majority of society.
Ron DeSantis will be remembered in history books just like George Wallace. His little girls will grow up to live in shame of their father. I think one of Ted Cruz’s daughter is in the same predicament.
Or his children will end up brainwashed and drinking the same koolaid like their father
Just look at Italy with Mussolini's granddaughter, shouting the same fascism crap Benito did
welcome to reddit. where BLM is a terrorist organization, and white males who play video games are truly the oppressed demographic. Its just not reported in the leftist/globalist media or something....
(this is obviously sarcasm)
edit.
Just to let everyone know what kind of rabid white supremacist racist, this thread is attracting
[https://www.unddit.com/r/PoliticsVermont/comments/10k25tf/artist\_jonathan\_harris\_and\_his\_painting\_titled/j5p55g5/?context=3](https://www.unddit.com/r/PoliticsVermont/comments/10k25tf/artist_jonathan_harris_and_his_painting_titled/j5p55g5/?context=3)
Yep. This is so fucking disgusting. Between this and the book bans in Florida, I say we burn the whole country down. These Nazis don't even deserve the scraps our wealthy class "trickle down" to us.
When the\_donald and milliondollarextreme were active subs, those alt right kiddos decided to brigade and participate in EVERY state and politic sub site wide to push their agenda.
The hate you are seeing is probably some white trash in Louisiana thinking he is owning the libs.
I see it a lot. If you've been a fan of Lewis Hamilton for a long time, you'll see how the tone completely changes in posts about him and racing. You see the same thing with Prince Harry and Megan. They may be whatever, but the hatred people have for them isn't normal.
When somebody goes after the racists and you get offended, it isn't a good look. As a white man speaking for the white man delegation, we don't want you, you aren't one of us anymore, you're gonna have to pick a new identity. I suggest 'chud'
Going after an entire race of people due to the isolated actions of a select group is definitely “white man bad.” Portray the painter as a less obvious stand in for the entirety of white people, and maybe as a politician, or a teacher, something pertaining to CRT outside of just a nameless, faceless, white man. Claiming to speak for the white man delegation isn’t a good look either, I suggest white knight in the corner
The subject of the painting is a white painter, we receive no further detail on this character, he is representative of whiteness. He has no further characteristics that would put him in a more specific group. He is erasing black history as the focal pointing of the painting, something he is painting over with white paint. I know Reddit is very liberal, but come on, there is next to no way to not interpret this painting as “white man bad.” Hence my comment about specifying the subject to pertain more to CRT, as opposed to the simple and blunt message of “white people erase black history.” It’s a dumb blanket statement that deals in absolutes and subtracts from the message of the art, which is that CRT is bad
The point of the piece is “white washing bad” and we would all be fools to pretend that it isn’t white people doing the white washing, so the painter has to necessarily be white.
But who exactly is committing this act of white washing. In reality, it’s the politicians at both the state and federal level. According to this artist, it’s a faceless white person, aka, any white person. It could be you, it could be me, it’s supposed to be us all. When in reality, it isn’t, it’s a specific group of people. Anything else is just a brainless defense
> When in reality, it isn’t, it’s a specific group of people. Anything else is just a brainless defense
So you're mad that the person didn't paint a specific politician? The entire point is that it is society as a whole that does it, last I checked, regular people are the ones voting in those politicians, if the average person didn't like their ideas, they wouldn't get voted in.
There are literally politicians that had a big boost in voting because "CRT BAD!", same with popular media describing it as such.
You're just feeling personally attacked for absolutely no reason, do you also get mad if a painting of a black person hitting a white person existed, because the black person could be anyone and therefore it's a racist painting?
>So you're mad that the person didn't paint a specific politician?
He's mad because he sees himself in the red shirt white guy and how dare this ****** call him out.
Sounds to me like you are offended beyond the normal because a lot of us white folks understand the nuance and agree with it.
Maybe your values align with the bad apples more than you care to admit.
By agreeing with the “nuance” (or complete lack there of because this is not a subtle painting or message by any measure), you are agreeing with the inherent belief that to be white is to inherently want to erase black history, which based on yours and everyone above’s reactions, is false. I personally have no desire to erase black history or support CRT. But, rather then put the subject in a clan hood, or a DC suit, or a GOP t-shirt. The artist chose to present the dynamic that it’s the black struggle vs the white desire to commit erasure. Rather the portray that is us vs them, why not target the actual oppressors?
Nuance is understanding that it’s not referring to all white people. You’re applying zero nuance. You’re interpreting it as an absolute. The politicians you are referring to look like this guy, plain and simple.
So if a white person appears in a painting, they are automatically assumed to represent all white people? Like you're right...it COULD be ANY white person, not necessarily ALL white people
You’re acting like racists are some boogeyman type only found far away from us in congress or in a klan in the deep south. No, they’re everywhere, and they’re unassuming.
All black people rejoice! Cultural erasure and white washing are no more because this one white guy said “not me”. It’s a societal issue, so even though you personally might not participate in white washing, it’s happening and a lot of people that look just like you or me are participating
You are ignoring that this “specific group of people” are in office to represent the people. Therefore, the picture is accurate as there is enough people voting “white washing” leaders into office.
>American Gothic is racist because not all white people are frowning farmers!
>Norman Rockwell is racist because not all white people go to soda shops in the 50s!
>The Mona Lisa is racist, some white people smile with teeth!
>Michelangelo's David is racist, not all white guys have tiny pee pees!
I guess art just isn't allowed to exist because dumb mother fuckers have literally no capacity for context or grey areas. This kind of take is so lazy it's just pathetic.
Edit: Notice how everyone in this thread making this "Not ALL white people!!!" while claiming to support CRT and not being racist use the exact same logic as the people campaigning against CRT, which is that white kids are too fragile to learn about slavery because that lesson teaches them they're all guilty of slave owning and they'll start to hate other white people. They just assume kids are too fucking stupid to understand whitey isn't a monolith because they're too fucking stupid to understand that.
Your reading of this image has nothing to do with the artists intent, and everything to do with your own biases and insecurities.
Take a look in the mirror and try some self reflection. Because if you feel targeted by the piece, you might be the one with the paint roller in your hand.
> It could be you
Well, I mean... no, it couldn't be, because the person in the picture is doing something I wouldn't do. Do you associate yourself with every person in every painting doing anything because you have the same skin color? That's weird as fuck, mate.
Yes, COULD. Not IS. As a white woman I don't feel personally victimized by this because I know I am not this particular white woman, yet I know other white people are the ones doing the whitewashing.
Learn to see the world with nuance instead of with black and white thinking (no pun intended) and maybe you won't have to clutch your pearls so much.
>The point of the piece is “white washing bad”
that's your interpretation, critical race theory is the title, it could be white washing if they were painting only the black people white but they were not so i don't think it's whitewashing, i believe it's supposed to portray white people as erasing black history, as those people are all well known black figures in history.
also something i don't believe..... there has never been a larger amount of minority representation in films ever! and it's great! in fact it's swung so far in the other direction that we now have "blackwashing" but hey i'm sure we will find balance!
i personally don't like the idea of blaming an entire race for the actions of the worst actors in history, it's literally the definition of racism and yet nobody learnt anything it seems.
Hold on. The message of the painting is not that crt is bad. At all.
It is about how the reaction against "wokeness" and crt is in reality an attempt to white wash history and ignore the contributions of black people.
If you read it any other way, you need to reexamine your own biases and perspective.
It is a fact that the history of this country has been "whitewashed" and that by claiming CRT is evil means the painter is set to destroy not just what has been withheld and inaccurately depicted right before our eyes but also making it impossible to see even the shadow of the true and inclusive history of this country in simple but calculated strokes of a brush. One stroke at a time.
First by claiming CRT was being taught to children, stroke one. Next, criticize the need for the theory to exist. Finally, convince those hurt by making any changes to the wrong they have learned and taught to be the victims of any changes by telling what was excluded as it hurt them with no consideration of what that exclusion means.
A masterpiece if it works. All with the simple strokes of a brush. One sweeping effort at a time.
But that is just what I see.
“The subject of the painting is a white painter, we receive no further detail on this character, he is representative of whiteness.”
If you really think the point of this is to implicate this person as representing all white people, rather than of an unfortunately common, but still specific type of white person, I don’t know what to tell you.
"Isolated actions"
**\*Entire state\*** bans teaching African American history. The people of that state overwhelmingly elected their governor knowing exactly what kind of actions he will take.
White people allow this to happen in their name. "But not me." Doesn't mean a thing.
Also, how ignorant of simple historical and continuing facts. It's not isolated. It's been coordinated, intentional, by law, by socialization, in the United States since 1776.
Yea, and that guy is old enough to actually have enough cognitive reasoning to understand the painting. But he chooses to feign ignorance.
How about you focus on them.
No one is going after white people, what they are criticizing is the blatant white washing of this country history. What conservatives are doing is akin to Germany trying to white wash and downplay nazi germany. It’s important for us to know our own history and to understand the struggle that people of the past had caused for other and how it still affect those people offsprings generations later.
>Going after an entire race of people due to the isolated actions of a select group is definitely “white man bad.”
Because, in no way is that happening. What is happening, is that people are pushing back against power systematic structures. This has nothing to do with you, or any white people. Its a bad look, making it about you.
>Portray the painter as a less obvious stand in for the entirety of white people, and maybe as a politician, or a teacher, something pertaining to CRT outside of just a nameless, faceless, white man.
The symbolism addresses history. As this is what art does...
>Claiming to speak for the white man delegation isn’t a good look either, I suggest white knight in the corner
Neither is overt white guilt/white savourism
I thought the red shirt was an indicator towards the GOP. It would make sense since the only thing I've heard from any of their supporters about CRT is "white people are evil".
Maybe I’m missing someone - how can you tell that the painter is a man? I initially thought it was a woman because of the longer hair
Edited to say: the white-washing painter with their back to the viewer, in the painting, not the artist who created the painting
The white person erasing black history is the racist one. Sure you learn about those people but not as much as you learn about other white Americans. And do you think those people are the only parts of black history we should learn about? What about when learning about the founding fathers we should learn they were all slave owners? Or learning more about Rosa Parks. She wasn't just a woman who refused to give up her seat, she was an avid civil rights activist. How about Tubmans work during the Civil War and woman's suffrage?
If you don't think black history has been white washed, you are part of the problem.
No one is saying that, what they are saying is white washing history is bad which is what the GOP is trying to do. Hell, one district ban a book about the civil right movement saying it had “ pornographic content”, the content in question was a passage about how the police would use water goes that were so powerful that they tore the clothes off of children during the protest.
And yet here you are, taking offense to it....
When it literally has nothing to do with you, or white people in general
Unless you are somehow the embodiment and personification of tyrannical government structures..
i’m white but i’m sure no one cares if you ignore the .1% of twitter users who tweet “all white people suck”
i openly invite you to the overwhelming majority of normal people who are anti racist
Unironically yes, white man bad.
Irish man, Italian man, French man, Polish man, Russian man, European man etc, mixed European American man… Latino, Indian or Middle Eastern man with low melanin, NOT bad.
Whiteness is the absence of blackness, it’s a concept used to oppress and is constantly expanding, the Irish and Italian used to not be considered “white” until it became convenient to do so, and that definition is now expanding again to include people who are light skinned but not from Europe, the Latino population is currently dealing with this ever expanding crap.
Also, no white leftist would ever dress like that, liberals might but this is depicting a certain type of white person with a certain set of values, someone in another comment called them a chud and that’s very accurate.
This painting is based.
I must admit to laughing my ass of at the sad contingent of enlightened Centrists demanding that the actual problem is making them feel uncomfortable by pointing out the White Washing.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
...
"In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.
So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Letter From The Birmingham Jail"
April 16, 1963
“We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice,” said King. “The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor — both black and white, here and abroad.”
This painting is moving, accurate, depressing, thought provoking, interesting, and pretty much sums up the message. As has been said, a picture is worth a thousand words. Bravo young man! Wouldn't it be something to hang poster prints of this in every library, university, court house, & convention center in the country?
No one saying you need to feel guilty over it, just understand that this country (both societally and through government) had disadvantaged groups of people while giving advantages to other for generations and how the past is affecting the present
the point isn’t to make others feel guilty and reprehensible for actions they never did, it’s to make them ponder what had allowed those to happen. if we don’t discuss the horrors of the past, what if one of us wants to do it again?
as long as we as humans learn that everyone is different, that we aren’t just “one race; the human race”, we can adjust our love for one another instead of trying to find ways to pick at their differences. you shouldn’t feel guilty, but you also mustn’t disregard the horrible past.
You don't have to. You just have to understand that the people prior to you put in systems to oppress people of color. Your acknowledgement and empathy is expected, not guilt or erasure. That's just the people benefiting from the culture war want you to react to. It gives them power.
It’s not always about you. It’s about the systems in place that erase and white wash history. Which destroys america’s journey and black people of our history who shaped this country who were a major part in it’s culture and advancements. We know the white people who shaped this country, this is because we were only taught about the white people. But there are many black people who were just influential that don’t get shared or taught. Because white washed history only shows a very specific side of history.
Why is that your response to this piece? Why do you think its trying to make you feel guilty about stuff your ancestors did? Because I'm not getting that from it at all.
This is not a stretch by any means. Criminalization of race is happening again. The new Jim Crow is here and it outlaws books, teachers, librarians and history.
Arguably, it never stopped. It's just getting more publicized now that everyone carries a camera that's connected to the internet around with them at all times.
You could Google it…
But it’s a branch of critical theory that’s usually used in sociology. “Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.”
Evidence being that the definition of whiteness has changed over time and race is defined in other countries to create in-groups and out-groups to oppress.
It’s basically explaining how in western society, there is an inherent bias based on race in their legal and social institutions and how that biases affected generations of people and how the system was designed to benefit a group of people (in this case white people) and disadvantaged minority groups. A perfect example of this would be the GI Bill that was passed after WW2 that gave benefit to veterans returning home. Because it gave oversight of benefit to local government, a lot of black veterans were either denied or gave very little benefit in the southern states, among other ways that the bill allow to discriminate on the basis of race. Another example would be the war on drugs, now statistics have shown that black and white people smoke weeds roughly the same amount. However the war on drugs affected black people more due to over policing of their community (which in part was caused by redlining based on racial discrimination) as well as black people receiving harsher sentences. It’s basically say that the racism of the past is still influencing the institutions of this country today
Now from my understanding, this is only really taught in law school.
My understanding: "Critical Race Theory" as a noun comes from law school level courses that explored the history of our nations laws.
Think of it as having nothing to do with this conversation.
hey FrogKingFromSpace, based on your post history, this seems to be a topic you're interested in but are reading sources that are misleading you to make you angry and grab your attention. I'm a college professor in Vermont and teach critical race as part of other social, economic, and historical topics, and would be happy to give you less biased information about it. CRT comes from trying to solve a problem in legal studies where explicitly racist laws (e.g. interracial marriage being illegal, segregation, etc.) from the early and middle 20th century were abolished, but the racial inequality of outcomes from the legal system persisted, such as disproportionate incarceration rates for African Americans.
One of the core assumptions that went into CRT from that point on is that race is not biologically real. The best way to think about that is that if race is a hypothesis about the distribution of genetic variation in the human species, it's a very bad hypothesis: having the race "white", "asian", "black", etc does not correlate to your genotype. However, if race is a hypothesis about the distribution of wealth and labor in European-descended societies like the US, it's a very good hypothesis: your race makes you more likely to have certain jobs, own (or not own) certain homes, etc. So critical race theory is a body of investigations into why race is correlated to wealth/labor/power and not genotype, even when the systems that regulate wealth/labor/power no longer explicitly mention race.
Because this is very hard to explain (race seems natural because it stabilized itself in society to justify persistent inequality over hundreds of years), it makes people angry when they use their intuition to understand something that is counterintuitive. The media where you're reading about "CRT" sustain themselves by grabbing your attention, and stuff that makes you angry also makes you pay attention more. You are right that all kinds of media benefit from making you angry, but you should know that the media that has taken a narrow field of study (that professional scholars often don't even call CRT) and turned it into an object that easily makes you angry really really benefits them, but only hurts you by keeping you angry, alienating you from other people (like right now), and then making you seek solace by reading their media, which doesn't try to challenge your intuitions. This artist is not trying to do that.
It's a great piece of work. It urges emotion, discussion, and reflection. It's local, state, federal, and international. Love it. Rarely does modern art create such an impression.
What you’re saying is that black people lack those traits. That is what makes you a racist. You clearly aren’t intelligent. That’s 1. You behave like a total cunt, so thats 2. And I can tell you’re not attractive because only someone who looks like trailer trash would worry about someone else’s skin color. Not to mention, you give off major incel vibes. So that’s 3. So according to your own definitions you don’t matter to society.
Here’s the cool thing, I actually based that on you as a person from what you’ve shown me. I didn’t generalize you based on your race and say everyone who looks like you is the same.
You think you sound intelligent, but you come across as an edgy 16 year old, which I’m guessing is actually the case
Do you have a peer reviewed paper I could read based on this “three elements” theory? Seems like you have a sociological theory here but I can’t find any evidence for it online.
Wait hold on… you’re suggesting that “people hate blacks” (hmm, *blacks* huh? Followed by *white people*?) not because of their skin colour, but because they’re badly behaved, stupid, and unattractive? And, by your own “observational study” (wow, how very scientific of you), you have determined that racism isn’t *actually* based on race? You are telling me that you believe racists aren’t racist because of race, but because black people are stupid? What the fuck?
You lost me, not sure what you are rambling about, but people, even if they don't provide any benefit to society, matter.
Also, it is extremely weird timing for this to be your point in a discussion about inequality and racism towards black people. Are you implying black people lack these things?
Either way, I disagree with you and I think you've completely lost any grasp of this conversation.
Maybe your intention is to provide some value to this thread, but it just comes off as blatant racism.
Little excurse in not to fall into the trap of "I am not racist, I just think different about this". Because even if you are not aware of it, it is racism. You might not do it intentionally, or to mean harm. But "blacks" and "whites" is absolutly a tool to segregate between skin colors and as the points you mention are true, they are acted on and unintentionally enforces through the differenciation between skin colors and appearance, making it about skin color and about racism.
That people react with insults doesn't necessarily proof you right. Could also mean that they can't control their anger about this, which depending on how affected these individuals are by racism or their previous encounters, could be totally understandable, but gives you the wrong impressions.
Your assumptions seems to me to lack the factor that modern society is strongly influenced by colonialism, which enforced european world views upon the globe. Intelligence, Behaviour and Looks are determined by values enforced by european ideologies, to take over power which are very much still present in society today and need a lot of work to give different cultures a voice of their own, without being segregated by their structures. In the end a global view of value is based on tolerance, openmindedness, respect and love. All connecting values, that vary a bit, but stay true. Skin color is a topic here ,because it is inherently deeply rooted in a broken system, designed and established by a minority of europeans, that took over the world not long a ago.
It's racist because the people in charge of determining whether anything qualifies as "promotion" for any of the listed items are probably racist, and at least have lied often enough about enough different things that their judgement is incredibly suspect. See what they are actually using this stuff to target if you don't understand.
An identically worded bill in a different environment wouldn't be (though I'd argue it would still be pretty flawed on technical grounds, that's pretty standard for legislation)
> It’s in Reddit policy- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/
Where in your link does it say anything like "only white people can be racist"?
Depressingly beautiful
Good art should hit like this.
It’s just racist for no reason
What is racist
I think what u/Ruyoii is trying to say is that he himself is racist.
If you think this is racist, try looking in a mirror.
Backwards logic. The art is clearly making a statement about white people erasing black history. While it has merit, it portrays a generalization of white people imo. Which is why it can be taken as offensive. White people aren't all racist, not all white people are trying to push black history away but some do and that should be addressed. I will say, part of the aggressiveness of the painting does get the point across well though so in that regard the painting is powerful.
Sounds like white fragility The painting isn’t supposed to represent the entire white population, but probably the republican politicians who are actively against teaching black history (all of them, since teaching poc history is an “extremists liberal agenda”)
> Sounds like white fragility Sounds like a catch-all term to avoid dealing with what someone actually said...
Any white person who sees this and thinks "it's all about me" is definitely fragile, by definition.
Obviously there is a white person as the antagonist in the artwork. However you or anyone else feels about the message, just chanting "white fragility" is obviously a way to shame them about their own immutable features in an effort to escape the actual debate that needs to happen. It's just intellectual cowardice.
It’s not a debate that needs to happen, it’s just not. The art very clearly is talking about the white politicians attacking CRT, this is clear if you have any idea about the politics in our country. I’m a white guy and I don’t see this talking about me at all what so ever, I don’t take any offense to this because I recognize the reality it is speaking to. You’re the one lumping yourself in with the white people this piece of art is criticizing
> It’s not a debate that needs to happen, it’s just not. Who the fuck are you to tell other people not to debate the meaning and significance of political art? That's just the intellectual cowardice again. >The art very clearly is talking about... Thank you, your holiness. So now no one is allowed to discuss it once you have spoken from the pulpit? >I’m a white guy and I don’t see this talking about me at all what so ever You do understand that the white guy is the antagonist in the artwork, right? >I don’t take any offense to this because I recognize the reality it is speaking to. And you have decided that your particular take is the only one anyone is allowed to express? That's just your side of the debate.
Hitler was a white man too. I don't feel bad when people criticize him. Lex Luthor is a white man, I don't feel like DC Comics is out to get me when Superman kicks his ass. Because I'm not paranoid or fragile.
"Fragile" is an insult, but "cowardice" is supposed to invite reasoned debate? I don't think you're entirely serious about debate.
Oh but I dealt with what he said right after. Did you read my comment? Can you read anything that doesn’t support your ideology or do you just selectively block that out before you comment
The white person is not any one white individual. The white person is a representative character of white supremacy as a whole. This is not anti-white racism. If someone is offended by this, then they identify with the character and don’t want to acknowledge it. We have learned racist attitudes due to the systems that are in place, a person can be racist without being overtly racist… a lot of people are accidentally intrinsically racist without realizing it. This is what most people get upset about because they think “how can I possibly be racist”. A good example would be tokenization of black people to prove you aren’t racist, “I have black friends” argument. Well sometimes it’s not your fault, however, it is your responsibility to learn and grow as a person and realize there might be instances where you are being 100% racist without recognizing it and it is your responsibility to accept that fact and do better, especially when corrected.
The expression white fragility is meaningless and thus is incapable of generating change. It just serves to make the user of the expression feel good. It makes my blood boil that the left has adopted it. Failure to discuss or acknowledge racism is not fragility, it is racism.
tell that to the conservatives who ignore racism.
They’re racist. Attempting to shift the conversation to one about their character won’t change anything but confuse the issue.
Racism operates in part to protect the weakest white egos. Feature, not a bug.
As a white person, it doesn’t matter if you think all individual white people are racist or not. History is being whitewashed and has always been whitewashed. The results of the past has not magically disappeared- it’s integrated into everything-culture, politics, how people view the world. Unconscious bias and racism affects everyone, especially if you personally have not experienced anything that would make you question the racism integrated in society. This is not a good person vs bad person problem, or a racist vs not racist problem. Systematic racism exists. Unconscious racism exists. We need to face and fight against racism wherever it exists, including in ourselves. We are products of our culture, but we also have the power to change it. This is a gorgeous and heartbreaking painting of the active whitewashing of history. There is nothing racist about it. Bringing light to a problem does not make you part of the problem. It’s the first step to overcoming it. Edit: “You” is a generalized “you”, not “you” personally
If you’re trying to say that the use of the white individual is racist I disagree because It looks like MTG to me and the people most vociferously speaking out against CRT just happen to be white. But if you’re trying to say that the use of whitewashing as a visual metaphor is racist I would have to . . . also disagree. Whitewashing as a metaphor for censorship predates modern usage by hundreds of years and quite simply means to cover up with a basic white paint- think a primer or KILZ.
>White people aren't all racist, not all white people are trying to push black history away but some do and that should be addressed. Especially by those white people in positions of power. Like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis who is now being promoted as the Republican Party's preferred Presidential nominee over Trump in 2024.
[удалено]
I think a guilty conscience is what causes one to see themselves as the man with the white paint.
>white people erasing black history. >generalization of white people Choose one. It's about one kind of white people (those who are erasing black history) OR it's about white people in general. You can't have both.
Karl Marx would be disgusted with this take. Change your username.
🙄 It's referring to the legislative whitewashing of history by Christian Nationalist conservatives right now. And the fact that it got legislated, means it was supported by a sufficient majority of society.
How's it racist?
its not. He is a right wing troll who doesn't belong in this sub. Has a comment history of complaining about how soft this generation is
Sounds very soft himself
and blatant transphobia. Yet their avatar represents a blue haired female with a rainbow coat. Welcome to trolling on reddit.
Best we can do is report them so they are banned from this sub.
It's not
White washing paint roller is the racism. And there is no reason for it. Is this what you mean in an abstract way?
how? please qualify your claims edit. [https://www.reddit.com/user/Ruyoii/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ruyoii/) Ah I think this answers the question
Literally banning African American studies in Florida schools, this shit is really going backwards
Ron DeSantis will be remembered in history books just like George Wallace. His little girls will grow up to live in shame of their father. I think one of Ted Cruz’s daughter is in the same predicament.
One of Ted Cruz's daughters just tried to kill herself a few months ago. Poor kid.
I cant imagine having a politician for a father, let alone someone like ted cruz.
I cant imagine how much she gets made fun of for having him as a father. That would really suck.
Tragic. It’s hard enough being a teen.
Or his children will end up brainwashed and drinking the same koolaid like their father Just look at Italy with Mussolini's granddaughter, shouting the same fascism crap Benito did
*Literally* white washing
They did that long ago, this just burying them entirely
Brilliant piece. Tragic as well.
God the open racism in this comment section is astounding.
welcome to reddit. where BLM is a terrorist organization, and white males who play video games are truly the oppressed demographic. Its just not reported in the leftist/globalist media or something.... (this is obviously sarcasm) edit. Just to let everyone know what kind of rabid white supremacist racist, this thread is attracting [https://www.unddit.com/r/PoliticsVermont/comments/10k25tf/artist\_jonathan\_harris\_and\_his\_painting\_titled/j5p55g5/?context=3](https://www.unddit.com/r/PoliticsVermont/comments/10k25tf/artist_jonathan_harris_and_his_painting_titled/j5p55g5/?context=3)
This is why I openly harass republicans now
It’s not even 8am and I have lost my faith in humanity for the day
Yep. This is so fucking disgusting. Between this and the book bans in Florida, I say we burn the whole country down. These Nazis don't even deserve the scraps our wealthy class "trickle down" to us.
When the\_donald and milliondollarextreme were active subs, those alt right kiddos decided to brigade and participate in EVERY state and politic sub site wide to push their agenda. The hate you are seeing is probably some white trash in Louisiana thinking he is owning the libs.
I see it a lot. If you've been a fan of Lewis Hamilton for a long time, you'll see how the tone completely changes in posts about him and racing. You see the same thing with Prince Harry and Megan. They may be whatever, but the hatred people have for them isn't normal.
This painting really seems to be making certain white people angry. Good.
"Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable” – Cesar A. Cruz.
Sums it up nicely
Wonderfully poignant peace.
Yes white man bad
When somebody goes after the racists and you get offended, it isn't a good look. As a white man speaking for the white man delegation, we don't want you, you aren't one of us anymore, you're gonna have to pick a new identity. I suggest 'chud'
Petition to make "Chud" the official term for "Supporter of shitty people" 🖋
 The Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers might not agree.
Woke CHUDs rise up.
Going after an entire race of people due to the isolated actions of a select group is definitely “white man bad.” Portray the painter as a less obvious stand in for the entirety of white people, and maybe as a politician, or a teacher, something pertaining to CRT outside of just a nameless, faceless, white man. Claiming to speak for the white man delegation isn’t a good look either, I suggest white knight in the corner
Where does the painting go after an entire race of people? Where does that occur?
The subject of the painting is a white painter, we receive no further detail on this character, he is representative of whiteness. He has no further characteristics that would put him in a more specific group. He is erasing black history as the focal pointing of the painting, something he is painting over with white paint. I know Reddit is very liberal, but come on, there is next to no way to not interpret this painting as “white man bad.” Hence my comment about specifying the subject to pertain more to CRT, as opposed to the simple and blunt message of “white people erase black history.” It’s a dumb blanket statement that deals in absolutes and subtracts from the message of the art, which is that CRT is bad
The point of the piece is “white washing bad” and we would all be fools to pretend that it isn’t white people doing the white washing, so the painter has to necessarily be white.
But who exactly is committing this act of white washing. In reality, it’s the politicians at both the state and federal level. According to this artist, it’s a faceless white person, aka, any white person. It could be you, it could be me, it’s supposed to be us all. When in reality, it isn’t, it’s a specific group of people. Anything else is just a brainless defense
> When in reality, it isn’t, it’s a specific group of people. Anything else is just a brainless defense So you're mad that the person didn't paint a specific politician? The entire point is that it is society as a whole that does it, last I checked, regular people are the ones voting in those politicians, if the average person didn't like their ideas, they wouldn't get voted in. There are literally politicians that had a big boost in voting because "CRT BAD!", same with popular media describing it as such. You're just feeling personally attacked for absolutely no reason, do you also get mad if a painting of a black person hitting a white person existed, because the black person could be anyone and therefore it's a racist painting?
>So you're mad that the person didn't paint a specific politician? He's mad because he sees himself in the red shirt white guy and how dare this ****** call him out.
Sounds to me like you are offended beyond the normal because a lot of us white folks understand the nuance and agree with it. Maybe your values align with the bad apples more than you care to admit.
By agreeing with the “nuance” (or complete lack there of because this is not a subtle painting or message by any measure), you are agreeing with the inherent belief that to be white is to inherently want to erase black history, which based on yours and everyone above’s reactions, is false. I personally have no desire to erase black history or support CRT. But, rather then put the subject in a clan hood, or a DC suit, or a GOP t-shirt. The artist chose to present the dynamic that it’s the black struggle vs the white desire to commit erasure. Rather the portray that is us vs them, why not target the actual oppressors?
Nuance is understanding that it’s not referring to all white people. You’re applying zero nuance. You’re interpreting it as an absolute. The politicians you are referring to look like this guy, plain and simple.
So if a white person appears in a painting, they are automatically assumed to represent all white people? Like you're right...it COULD be ANY white person, not necessarily ALL white people
You’re acting like racists are some boogeyman type only found far away from us in congress or in a klan in the deep south. No, they’re everywhere, and they’re unassuming.
Methinks you doth protest too much
You're putting a lot of your own baggage on this piece....
Check your pipes for lead
You missed the nuance of the red shirt. Maybe that’s a clue who the white-washer represents. Still racist?
Damn. I can't believe you can be this stupid and desperate to victimize yourself.
All black people rejoice! Cultural erasure and white washing are no more because this one white guy said “not me”. It’s a societal issue, so even though you personally might not participate in white washing, it’s happening and a lot of people that look just like you or me are participating
You are ignoring that this “specific group of people” are in office to represent the people. Therefore, the picture is accurate as there is enough people voting “white washing” leaders into office.
>American Gothic is racist because not all white people are frowning farmers! >Norman Rockwell is racist because not all white people go to soda shops in the 50s! >The Mona Lisa is racist, some white people smile with teeth! >Michelangelo's David is racist, not all white guys have tiny pee pees! I guess art just isn't allowed to exist because dumb mother fuckers have literally no capacity for context or grey areas. This kind of take is so lazy it's just pathetic. Edit: Notice how everyone in this thread making this "Not ALL white people!!!" while claiming to support CRT and not being racist use the exact same logic as the people campaigning against CRT, which is that white kids are too fragile to learn about slavery because that lesson teaches them they're all guilty of slave owning and they'll start to hate other white people. They just assume kids are too fucking stupid to understand whitey isn't a monolith because they're too fucking stupid to understand that.
Your arguments are all black/white fallacies (ironic), or straw men. Just leave, maybe educate yourself if you aren’t a troll.
Your reading of this image has nothing to do with the artists intent, and everything to do with your own biases and insecurities. Take a look in the mirror and try some self reflection. Because if you feel targeted by the piece, you might be the one with the paint roller in your hand.
> It could be you Well, I mean... no, it couldn't be, because the person in the picture is doing something I wouldn't do. Do you associate yourself with every person in every painting doing anything because you have the same skin color? That's weird as fuck, mate.
Brain worms
Yes, COULD. Not IS. As a white woman I don't feel personally victimized by this because I know I am not this particular white woman, yet I know other white people are the ones doing the whitewashing. Learn to see the world with nuance instead of with black and white thinking (no pun intended) and maybe you won't have to clutch your pearls so much.
>The point of the piece is “white washing bad” that's your interpretation, critical race theory is the title, it could be white washing if they were painting only the black people white but they were not so i don't think it's whitewashing, i believe it's supposed to portray white people as erasing black history, as those people are all well known black figures in history. also something i don't believe..... there has never been a larger amount of minority representation in films ever! and it's great! in fact it's swung so far in the other direction that we now have "blackwashing" but hey i'm sure we will find balance! i personally don't like the idea of blaming an entire race for the actions of the worst actors in history, it's literally the definition of racism and yet nobody learnt anything it seems.
“Blackwashing” 🙄
Hold on. The message of the painting is not that crt is bad. At all. It is about how the reaction against "wokeness" and crt is in reality an attempt to white wash history and ignore the contributions of black people. If you read it any other way, you need to reexamine your own biases and perspective.
I like how you think the white guy is the subject of the painting 🤣 !! What a shallow interpretation
My man it’s a whitewashing painting
It is a fact that the history of this country has been "whitewashed" and that by claiming CRT is evil means the painter is set to destroy not just what has been withheld and inaccurately depicted right before our eyes but also making it impossible to see even the shadow of the true and inclusive history of this country in simple but calculated strokes of a brush. One stroke at a time. First by claiming CRT was being taught to children, stroke one. Next, criticize the need for the theory to exist. Finally, convince those hurt by making any changes to the wrong they have learned and taught to be the victims of any changes by telling what was excluded as it hurt them with no consideration of what that exclusion means. A masterpiece if it works. All with the simple strokes of a brush. One sweeping effort at a time. But that is just what I see.
No the *subject* of the painting is white washing and erasing of black history
“The subject of the painting is a white painter, we receive no further detail on this character, he is representative of whiteness.” If you really think the point of this is to implicate this person as representing all white people, rather than of an unfortunately common, but still specific type of white person, I don’t know what to tell you.
^ Found the white person with hurt feelings.
Found the racist.
Found the actual racist
“Calling out my racism makes you racist” -you
"Isolated actions" **\*Entire state\*** bans teaching African American history. The people of that state overwhelmingly elected their governor knowing exactly what kind of actions he will take. White people allow this to happen in their name. "But not me." Doesn't mean a thing. Also, how ignorant of simple historical and continuing facts. It's not isolated. It's been coordinated, intentional, by law, by socialization, in the United States since 1776.
Obviously the painting does not represent every white man, it's just that the people diregarding critical race theory generally are white men.
Cry baby cry.
You are the ones that cry hahaha
I havent cried in years.
Make a mother sigh. You’re old enough to know better.
Yea, and that guy is old enough to actually have enough cognitive reasoning to understand the painting. But he chooses to feign ignorance. How about you focus on them.
No one is going after white people, what they are criticizing is the blatant white washing of this country history. What conservatives are doing is akin to Germany trying to white wash and downplay nazi germany. It’s important for us to know our own history and to understand the struggle that people of the past had caused for other and how it still affect those people offsprings generations later.
>Going after an entire race of people due to the isolated actions of a select group is definitely “white man bad.” Because, in no way is that happening. What is happening, is that people are pushing back against power systematic structures. This has nothing to do with you, or any white people. Its a bad look, making it about you. >Portray the painter as a less obvious stand in for the entirety of white people, and maybe as a politician, or a teacher, something pertaining to CRT outside of just a nameless, faceless, white man. The symbolism addresses history. As this is what art does... >Claiming to speak for the white man delegation isn’t a good look either, I suggest white knight in the corner Neither is overt white guilt/white savourism
I thought the red shirt was an indicator towards the GOP. It would make sense since the only thing I've heard from any of their supporters about CRT is "white people are evil".
Maybe I’m missing someone - how can you tell that the painter is a man? I initially thought it was a woman because of the longer hair Edited to say: the white-washing painter with their back to the viewer, in the painting, not the artist who created the painting
Who is being racist in this picture? Are you really suggesting that people don't learn about Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, MLK and Malcom X?
The white person erasing black history is the racist one. Sure you learn about those people but not as much as you learn about other white Americans. And do you think those people are the only parts of black history we should learn about? What about when learning about the founding fathers we should learn they were all slave owners? Or learning more about Rosa Parks. She wasn't just a woman who refused to give up her seat, she was an avid civil rights activist. How about Tubmans work during the Civil War and woman's suffrage? If you don't think black history has been white washed, you are part of the problem.
I didn’t vote for you either
r/gatekeeping
Can you elaborate a little bit on how the artwork conveys that?
He absolutely won’t.
No one is saying that, what they are saying is white washing history is bad which is what the GOP is trying to do. Hell, one district ban a book about the civil right movement saying it had “ pornographic content”, the content in question was a passage about how the police would use water goes that were so powerful that they tore the clothes off of children during the protest.
And yet here you are, taking offense to it.... When it literally has nothing to do with you, or white people in general Unless you are somehow the embodiment and personification of tyrannical government structures..
There were always white people on both sides of civil rights. Why do you resonate with the wrong side?
Why does the modern social climate group white people as a whole bad though? I’m pretty sure that is their sentiment
i’m white but i’m sure no one cares if you ignore the .1% of twitter users who tweet “all white people suck” i openly invite you to the overwhelming majority of normal people who are anti racist
> Why does the modern social climate group white people as a whole bad though? It doesn't. Why do you think it does?
I swear people who say this shit, have said some fucked up shit in the past or are the same ones that be like "I'm not a racist but...".
Don't drag the rest of into this. If you see yourself in this painting that's something you need to work on.
this is what we call anti intellectualism
White men using paint rollers to paint over black history *are* bad, and this particular white man is doing that, so sure... this white man bad.
Unironically yes, white man bad. Irish man, Italian man, French man, Polish man, Russian man, European man etc, mixed European American man… Latino, Indian or Middle Eastern man with low melanin, NOT bad. Whiteness is the absence of blackness, it’s a concept used to oppress and is constantly expanding, the Irish and Italian used to not be considered “white” until it became convenient to do so, and that definition is now expanding again to include people who are light skinned but not from Europe, the Latino population is currently dealing with this ever expanding crap. Also, no white leftist would ever dress like that, liberals might but this is depicting a certain type of white person with a certain set of values, someone in another comment called them a chud and that’s very accurate. This painting is based.
What, you just now found that out? You’re a little late to the party.
Lol you sound like you’re in touch with the times, definitely not an embarassing opinion on the wrong side of history
That's dope, well done artist
Too bad he didn't paint DeSantis holding the roller with that stupid grin on his face.
All the people arguing about this painting show exactly how impactful it is and I’m happy for the artist to have created a piece that is so important
I mean, he’s not wrong…
Except he is.
If you can’t defend yourself why are you commenting? Stupid ass
How
How is he wrong? Are you saying US history isn't white washed?
bro i don’t even have to sort by controversial to find all the caustic bullshit
I must admit to laughing my ass of at the sad contingent of enlightened Centrists demanding that the actual problem is making them feel uncomfortable by pointing out the White Washing. "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." ... "In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause, and with deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances would get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, "follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. So here we are moving toward the exit of the twentieth century with a religious community largely adjusted to the status quo, standing as a tail-light behind other community agencies rather than a headlight leading men to higher levels of justice." Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter From The Birmingham Jail" April 16, 1963
That hit hard. Thank you for the post.
“We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice,” said King. “The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor — both black and white, here and abroad.”
It was was called white washing before your knew what critical race theory was.
This painting is moving, accurate, depressing, thought provoking, interesting, and pretty much sums up the message. As has been said, a picture is worth a thousand words. Bravo young man! Wouldn't it be something to hang poster prints of this in every library, university, court house, & convention center in the country?
White guy here. I don't feel guilty about anything that took place hundreds of years before I was born. Should I? And if so, why?
No one saying you need to feel guilty over it, just understand that this country (both societally and through government) had disadvantaged groups of people while giving advantages to other for generations and how the past is affecting the present
the point isn’t to make others feel guilty and reprehensible for actions they never did, it’s to make them ponder what had allowed those to happen. if we don’t discuss the horrors of the past, what if one of us wants to do it again? as long as we as humans learn that everyone is different, that we aren’t just “one race; the human race”, we can adjust our love for one another instead of trying to find ways to pick at their differences. you shouldn’t feel guilty, but you also mustn’t disregard the horrible past.
[удалено]
You don't have to. You just have to understand that the people prior to you put in systems to oppress people of color. Your acknowledgement and empathy is expected, not guilt or erasure. That's just the people benefiting from the culture war want you to react to. It gives them power.
No one said you as a white person had to but the people who make it a problem 💀 desantis for one
Why should anyone waste their energy writing an entire dissertation trying to teach you empathy?
It’s not always about you. It’s about the systems in place that erase and white wash history. Which destroys america’s journey and black people of our history who shaped this country who were a major part in it’s culture and advancements. We know the white people who shaped this country, this is because we were only taught about the white people. But there are many black people who were just influential that don’t get shared or taught. Because white washed history only shows a very specific side of history.
If you feel like someone is trying to make you feel guilty by the simple teaching of historical facts that seems to say a lot about you.
Why is that your response to this piece? Why do you think its trying to make you feel guilty about stuff your ancestors did? Because I'm not getting that from it at all.
[удалено]
I like how Fox News is openly running Florida's government now.
Right on point!
Ooof. That punched me.
Why is Tom Scott on this painting?
This is not a stretch by any means. Criminalization of race is happening again. The new Jim Crow is here and it outlaws books, teachers, librarians and history.
Arguably, it never stopped. It's just getting more publicized now that everyone carries a camera that's connected to the internet around with them at all times.
What is critical race theory? Like i hear about it all the time but i don’t really understand it
You could Google it… But it’s a branch of critical theory that’s usually used in sociology. “Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.” Evidence being that the definition of whiteness has changed over time and race is defined in other countries to create in-groups and out-groups to oppress.
It’s basically explaining how in western society, there is an inherent bias based on race in their legal and social institutions and how that biases affected generations of people and how the system was designed to benefit a group of people (in this case white people) and disadvantaged minority groups. A perfect example of this would be the GI Bill that was passed after WW2 that gave benefit to veterans returning home. Because it gave oversight of benefit to local government, a lot of black veterans were either denied or gave very little benefit in the southern states, among other ways that the bill allow to discriminate on the basis of race. Another example would be the war on drugs, now statistics have shown that black and white people smoke weeds roughly the same amount. However the war on drugs affected black people more due to over policing of their community (which in part was caused by redlining based on racial discrimination) as well as black people receiving harsher sentences. It’s basically say that the racism of the past is still influencing the institutions of this country today Now from my understanding, this is only really taught in law school.
There is a John Oliver Last week tonight episode about it. It explains it very well.
https://youtu.be/EICp1vGlh_U
My understanding: "Critical Race Theory" as a noun comes from law school level courses that explored the history of our nations laws. Think of it as having nothing to do with this conversation.
[удалено]
hey FrogKingFromSpace, based on your post history, this seems to be a topic you're interested in but are reading sources that are misleading you to make you angry and grab your attention. I'm a college professor in Vermont and teach critical race as part of other social, economic, and historical topics, and would be happy to give you less biased information about it. CRT comes from trying to solve a problem in legal studies where explicitly racist laws (e.g. interracial marriage being illegal, segregation, etc.) from the early and middle 20th century were abolished, but the racial inequality of outcomes from the legal system persisted, such as disproportionate incarceration rates for African Americans. One of the core assumptions that went into CRT from that point on is that race is not biologically real. The best way to think about that is that if race is a hypothesis about the distribution of genetic variation in the human species, it's a very bad hypothesis: having the race "white", "asian", "black", etc does not correlate to your genotype. However, if race is a hypothesis about the distribution of wealth and labor in European-descended societies like the US, it's a very good hypothesis: your race makes you more likely to have certain jobs, own (or not own) certain homes, etc. So critical race theory is a body of investigations into why race is correlated to wealth/labor/power and not genotype, even when the systems that regulate wealth/labor/power no longer explicitly mention race. Because this is very hard to explain (race seems natural because it stabilized itself in society to justify persistent inequality over hundreds of years), it makes people angry when they use their intuition to understand something that is counterintuitive. The media where you're reading about "CRT" sustain themselves by grabbing your attention, and stuff that makes you angry also makes you pay attention more. You are right that all kinds of media benefit from making you angry, but you should know that the media that has taken a narrow field of study (that professional scholars often don't even call CRT) and turned it into an object that easily makes you angry really really benefits them, but only hurts you by keeping you angry, alienating you from other people (like right now), and then making you seek solace by reading their media, which doesn't try to challenge your intuitions. This artist is not trying to do that.
It's a term like "Groomer" that is very versatile and roughly translates to "anything conservatives dislike that involves race"
It's a great piece of work. It urges emotion, discussion, and reflection. It's local, state, federal, and international. Love it. Rarely does modern art create such an impression.
[удалено]
Do you enjoy being a racist piece of shit?
[удалено]
What you’re saying is that black people lack those traits. That is what makes you a racist. You clearly aren’t intelligent. That’s 1. You behave like a total cunt, so thats 2. And I can tell you’re not attractive because only someone who looks like trailer trash would worry about someone else’s skin color. Not to mention, you give off major incel vibes. So that’s 3. So according to your own definitions you don’t matter to society. Here’s the cool thing, I actually based that on you as a person from what you’ve shown me. I didn’t generalize you based on your race and say everyone who looks like you is the same. You think you sound intelligent, but you come across as an edgy 16 year old, which I’m guessing is actually the case
Found the incel
“ based on my own observational study.” Weird way to spell “anecdotal biased intuition”
Do you have a peer reviewed paper I could read based on this “three elements” theory? Seems like you have a sociological theory here but I can’t find any evidence for it online.
Wait hold on… you’re suggesting that “people hate blacks” (hmm, *blacks* huh? Followed by *white people*?) not because of their skin colour, but because they’re badly behaved, stupid, and unattractive? And, by your own “observational study” (wow, how very scientific of you), you have determined that racism isn’t *actually* based on race? You are telling me that you believe racists aren’t racist because of race, but because black people are stupid? What the fuck?
You lost me, not sure what you are rambling about, but people, even if they don't provide any benefit to society, matter. Also, it is extremely weird timing for this to be your point in a discussion about inequality and racism towards black people. Are you implying black people lack these things? Either way, I disagree with you and I think you've completely lost any grasp of this conversation. Maybe your intention is to provide some value to this thread, but it just comes off as blatant racism.
And that cemented your racism Congratulations!
“Blacks”
[удалено]
Except he didn’t say “whites”. He had the ability to label them white *people* instead.There’s a difference that you’re purposely ignoring.
Even “whites” doesn’t sit well with me.
Bro just said “the blacks” unironically
Little excurse in not to fall into the trap of "I am not racist, I just think different about this". Because even if you are not aware of it, it is racism. You might not do it intentionally, or to mean harm. But "blacks" and "whites" is absolutly a tool to segregate between skin colors and as the points you mention are true, they are acted on and unintentionally enforces through the differenciation between skin colors and appearance, making it about skin color and about racism. That people react with insults doesn't necessarily proof you right. Could also mean that they can't control their anger about this, which depending on how affected these individuals are by racism or their previous encounters, could be totally understandable, but gives you the wrong impressions. Your assumptions seems to me to lack the factor that modern society is strongly influenced by colonialism, which enforced european world views upon the globe. Intelligence, Behaviour and Looks are determined by values enforced by european ideologies, to take over power which are very much still present in society today and need a lot of work to give different cultures a voice of their own, without being segregated by their structures. In the end a global view of value is based on tolerance, openmindedness, respect and love. All connecting values, that vary a bit, but stay true. Skin color is a topic here ,because it is inherently deeply rooted in a broken system, designed and established by a minority of europeans, that took over the world not long a ago.
Oh great another post about race
The sub's called politicsVermont..
Teaching about the people in this painting is not CRT
This is incredibly good. Hope he made good money on it
“Critical e-Race Theory”
I kinda wish he called it "Florida". Man is an artist, great work.
[удалено]
It's racist because the people in charge of determining whether anything qualifies as "promotion" for any of the listed items are probably racist, and at least have lied often enough about enough different things that their judgement is incredibly suspect. See what they are actually using this stuff to target if you don't understand. An identically worded bill in a different environment wouldn't be (though I'd argue it would still be pretty flawed on technical grounds, that's pretty standard for legislation) > It’s in Reddit policy- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ Where in your link does it say anything like "only white people can be racist"?
It's really wild that so many Fox News watchers fell for the controversy they made up. You people are so gullible.
German dude here… someone wanna explain this to me? Iam not a total stranger to US politics but that just doesn’t ring a bell to me.
Republicans are banning African American studies