How Critical Race Theory Endangers America’s National Security

Agree on every point LTC David Brown . I read everything I can on CRT, listen to endless conversational iterations, and remain convinced it is the logical endgame of the establishment of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in 1919. I like to engage adherents in an effort to get their definition of CRT. I've not heard a concise definition
comfortably expressed. Every single adherent parrots the "it is just a way of looking at how laws support systemic........". It is sick victimology writ large. No facet of the philosophy promotes their favorite term "inclusion". To the contrary, Dr. King's vision of a colorblind world is seen by them as manifestation of yet more "systemic racism ".

CWO4 Terrence Clark - Ben Shapiro pretty well expresses it in the attached video. Critical race theory is not history but a way to interpret history. To reinforce a racial view of American history I believe actual counter examples will be excluded. Isn’t it odd that a majority of college students believe America invented slavery? Where did they get this idea? https://www.theblaze.com/news/ben-shapiro-critical-race-theory-hbo

I think Ben Shapiro gives a good definition. Can you provide a definition of CRT?

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
And, there you are!

CWO4 Terrence Clark - "Please help this knuckle dragging old flangehead understand it." Start with this this article. Then start reading the various laws, from the start of this country while asking yourself these questions:
"Foundational questions that underlie CRT and the law include: How does the law construct race?; How has the law protected racism and upheld racial hierarchies?; How does the law reproduce racial inequality?; and How can the law be used to dismantle race, racism, and racial inequality?"
Then insert "women", "people with disabilities", "sexual preferences" into the word "race". Go back and pull out various laws, from the start of the county while asking yourself those questions with the new inserted groups.
CRT is not taught at elementary/middle/high school level. It is only taught in colleges. And even then, mostly it is taught in law schools (for at least the last 30 years). It is taught in a way so as to dismantle the racism and racial inequality. which I would hope you would think is a good thing. But maybe you believe there is no racism or systemic racism. Your right to believe that. My right to not believe that.
Then ask yourself if what is being taught in elementary/middle/high school actually CRT or is it accurate history? Should we not teach children in Texas about the KKK's rule, about the fact that Texas fought the war against Mexico to keep slavery, the lynchings of Mexican land holders in the late 1800s through the early 1920? Should we not teach children the fact that the entire Civil War was about slavery, about the 1756 Scalp Act which resulted in the payment of "redskins"?
Should we also not teach our military leaders about these laws and how they have been used? As Milley said, he has read Marx and Zedong and that didn't turn him into a Marxist or Communist. The teaching of CRT is far from Marxism or Communism. But it is now the go to "boogeyman" for a strawman argument that is espoused by those afraid to confront the real history of this country, to understand the underpinnings of our social construct and who fear they will be left behind.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Capt Gregory Prickett
I try to tag those who are involved in a conversation and/or those who are referenced. "censorship and cancel culture" is an interesting choice of words. Much like a famous Democrat, Will Rogers, I only know what comes to me through the media. I'm not sure folks rejecting precepts of CRT, as they understand it, is defined by those words. Since Patricia Overmeyer was kind enough to draft an explanation of CRT for my edification - with follow on reading suggestions - I had intended to respond to her (assumed personal pronoun). But since we are here.......
For purposes of this conversation I can stipulate to the veracity of the "foundational questions that underlie CRT and the law......" On the surface those are rephrasings of the actions the country has taken over the last 100 or so years as we dismantled the Democrat's Jim Crow laws. If we accept those as a succinct definition of CRT, then to say that CRT is only taught at the college level, is a distinction without a difference when it comes to the straight up racism being introduced into grade and high schools, over parental objections in many parts of the company. To argue a meteor is just a big rock and did not kill the dinosaurs (assuming THAT is true) is likely accurate, but obscures the ripple effect of impact, shock wave, thermal shock, ejecta, etc. In other words, it is not the tossed stone that wets the beach, it is the ripples. Intended or not, the consequences of CRT, as defined above, are return to segregated classrooms and facilities, lowering of standards, children being taught that other children, and people in general, are irredeemably racist, and benefitting from something called "systemic racism". Assuming that is actually a thing, one of the last that has not been dismantled is Affirmative Action.

The question was asked, " Should we not teach......?" Of course. I attended grade school in Argo, TX. High School in San Manuel, AZ. College, well, all over the place. Always taught the KKK was bad and good riddance, always taught Anglos and Mexicans fought for Texas independence then later Mexican Americans were discriminated against, that slavery was a large factor in the revolution as were the Siete Leyes, etc., etc. The up lifting difference was that, while those were terrible things, as a nation we have corrected those and become better for it. It appears that the main difference between that and the "its not CRT" curricula, is that the latter dwells on the terrible and fails to acknowledge the progress we've made as we, and the world at large, have made over the past few hundred years. There us nothing constructive or up lifting about tribalizing the country on the basis of immutable characteristics. Should we flinch from the darker moments in our history? No. Should we allow those moments to define us and cripple us today? No.

Since I'm no longer lecturing as an adjunct at PCC, I'll wrap this up. But have to mention the reference to the 1756 Scalp Act. Fascinating story there. The inference is that this is yet another example of systemic racism. If so, that inference would gloss over the complexity of the Indian/European allyships. Short version. The Scalp Act was aimed at Shawnee and Delaware who allied with the French, while Oneida and Iroquois allied with the English. Aside from that all sides scalped each other at whim. Scalping as a policy occurred all through the American Revolution with General Burgoyne in particular making much use of the practice against the revolutionaries.

In sum: in abstract CRT seems innocuous. In practice, it seems corrosive.

Capt Gregory Prickett Will not argue that. Unfortunately too little too late.