Guest Post by Ann Coulter
As we discussed last week, “critical race theory” is a subtle philosophical construct where the answer to everything is: THAT’S RACIST! Teachers hawking this glop are being defended by their journalist allies, who sneer that CRT critics are too stupid to understand the nuances of the theory.
The Aristotelian ideal of this sneer was Elle Reeve‘s “special report” for CNN — pre-taped to eliminate any danger of Elle being contradicted by someone smarter, such as a 10-year-old.
CNN’s Brianna Keilar introduced the segment by asking her: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?”
(That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question,” kids!)
Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”
They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?
Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)
The “vocal opponents” of CRT who “don’t actually understand fully what it is” seem to be mostly billionaire investment bankers — at least judging by the articles in the Daily Mail. Elle’s conclusion: A “theory” that consists of going around shouting “RACISM!” is too complex for those guys to understand.
The format of Elle’s pre-taped report consisted of her interviewing opponents of CRT … then nailing them with her brilliant comebacks! Except even with CNN doing the editing, the CRT opponents sounded perfectly reasonable, while Elle’s comebacks kept revealing her yawning stupidity.
Early in Elle’s report, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is shown saying, “Critical race theory says America’s fundamentally racist.” What a dope!
About 60 seconds later, Elle deferentially asks a hijab-wearing high school teacher to explain CRT. The teacher exclaims: “Race and racism is literally the building blocks of this country!” (Were I the editor of Elle’s piece, I think I would have cut that part of her answer.)
Next, Elle talks to a parent fighting CRT, who says: “Don’t force on our kids a particular worldview. Taking a wide brush and painting this country as structurally racist, it’s insane … it’s a lie.”
To this, Elle patronizingly informs the parent that America’s racism “isn’t distant history.” Her evidence of contemporary racism? “In the ’90s, the crime bill gave much more severe sentencing to crack cocaine versus powder cocaine simply because black people were perceived as doing crack cocaine and white people weren’t …”
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS? The reason crack penalties were so severe is because the Congressional Black Caucus demanded it. (And as long as I’m correcting Elle’s false facts, the crack penalties were passed in 1986 and 1988, not “in the 1990s.”)
Black churches, black leaders and black members of Congress were enraged by what the crack epidemic was doing to their neighborhoods. A 1986 New York Times article reported on “all-night vigils” held by the leaders of 60 black churches, who called the crack epidemic “a new form of genocide.” Urban League President John Jacob railed against communities “held hostage by crack dealers,” saying “drugs kill more blacks than the (Ku Klux) Klan ever did.” Running for president in 1988, Jesse Jackson spoke of the scourge of crack cocaine and told a cheering crowd, “When I become president, the drug pusher is in trouble.”
White supremacists — right, Elle?
This has been patiently explained roughly 1 million times. But why bother knowing stuff when smug arrogance is good enough for CNN?
Elle’s next big “gotcha” was even more embarrassing, if that is possible. She rolled out the old chestnut about blacks being considered “three-fifths” of a human being in our Constitution. Yes, she really did that.
Here’s her exchange with a college Republican:
COLLEGE REPUBLICAN: To paint the country as an inherently racist country from its founding I think is dangerous.
REEVE: The three-fifths compromise is written into the Constitution in which slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person.
SCORE!
How can you be in journalism and have no idea what the three-fifths clause means? No research is involved, Elle! Just read it.
The three-fifths clause means exactly the opposite of what Elle thinks it means. This was not a general statement on the slaves’ humanity: It was about congressional apportionment. The slave states wanted to count slaves as full “persons” in order to increase the number of their representatives in Congress.
If you adored slavery, you’d want the Constitution to count each slave as a full person — as 20 people! The slaves still couldn’t vote, but their slave masters would get more votes in Congress. It’s the same idea behind California’s demand that illegal aliens be counted when determining that state’s congressional apportionment.
I can’t even believe there’s anyone in America who needed that explained again. (Next time, I’ll just say: Get a home-schooler to explain it to you, Elle.)
It must have been embarrassing for everyone at CNN to watch this bimbo misstating well-known facts in a network “special report” that was supposed to show what cretins CRT critics are.
So how did the CNN hosts react? They were gobsmacked by the genius of Elle’s report!
JOHN BERMAN: That was so great.
KEILAR: Right?
BERMAN: I mean, that was just so great, and just the way the questions are asked. Just by asking simple questions you revealed so much. I mean, that was just fantastic.
ELLE: Thank you.
My idea of hell is being condescended to by an idiot, forever and ever, with no respite. In other words, watching CNN.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
What is dumber than CRT? I will tell you, Degenerate Anne: Not demanding that whites be able to advocate their own interests is dumber than CRT, you disgusting harridan.
You know what else is dumber? The Cleveland Guardians.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cleveland-indians-changes-name-guardians
MLB has been a non-entity to me for a few decades.
I stopped watching it years avo, I spent a lot of my misspent youth in the Fenway Park bleachers, but that was back when it cost me about $5.00 to go, subway fare included. I.lost interest at about the same time they brought in the DH.
I dropped all but the playoffs & world series after the first strike and dropped the rest after the second strike. Haven’t really missed it at all.
Well they need guardians more than Indians in Cleveland anyway, so it’s apropos.
It will be really interesting to see what Washington names its FC. Any ideas?
They should have poked the bear and went with the Cleveland Cavalry and changed the logo to Gen Custer. Sit back and watch their heads explode.
What’s Dumber Than CRT?
Ann Coulter.
Here I was thinking that cathode ray tubes were practically extinct. /s/
Good one.
Elle said “It’s [CRT] an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they THINK it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist.”
Brianna Keilar asks: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?
Hey Elle, hey Brianna, we don’t think it means that, we know what it means, it is clearly stated in the theory that whites are racist against all non-whites. Just whites, nobody else. Have you idiots even read this crap? That’s another rhetorical. No matter, CNN audiences believe anything they hear.
From Britannica: “Critical race theory (CRT), 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. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.”
Somewhat related, the definition of”people of color”:
The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style cites usage of “people of colour” as far back as 1796. It was initially used to refer to light-skinned people of mixed African and European heritage. French colonists used the term gens de couleur (“people of color”) to refer to people of mixed African and European descent who were freed from slavery in the Americas. In South Carolina and other parts of the Deep South, this term was used to distinguish between slaves who were mostly “black” or “Negro” and free people who were primarily “mulatto” or “mixed race”. After the American Civil War, “colored” was used as a label exclusively for black Americans, but the term eventually fell out of favor by the mid-20th century.
Although American activist Martin Luther King Jr. used the term “citizens of color” in 1963, the phrase in its current meaning did not catch on until the late 1970s. In the late 20th century, the term “person of color” was introduced in the United States in order to counter the condescension implied by the terms “non-white” and “minority”, and racial justice activists in the U.S., influenced by radical theorists such as Frantz Fanon, popularized it at this time. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation. Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move the understanding of race beyond the black–white dichotomy then prevalent.
Originally meant bi-racial, excluding blacks.
The SJWs have completely change the meaning of the word.
He who controls the language…
People of color now clearly mean everybody but whites. So CRT is directed at whites. The million dollar question: Why do those that push CRT want to demonize and destroy all things white? Their answer is that all whites are racist. What are some other answers?