Another pathetic rebuttal, Chris Lewis. Within western societies, the same always dysfunctional minorities inhabit ghettoes, even entire cities, notorious for very high levels of crime and welfare dependency. Why this is so, is a hugely important question. There seems to be only two explanations, and both of them are racist. One is that white people have created societies which are so inherently racist that they ensure that people from notoriously dysfunctional minorities can never prosper. The other is that people from dysfunctional minorities are collectively not real bright and probably possess a genetic predisposition to violent behaviour, much more so than in other races.

You wrote an article which IMPLIED that you support CRT and then you say that you do not support CRT.

Huh ?

It sure looks to me like the old dishonest tactic of "Always imply, but when challenged deny."

If CRT is wrong, and the alternative is wrong, then how about telling us what is right? I presume it is because you don't know yourself? You can't explain it. So you come on OLO implying CRT is correct while denouncing the alternative as "simplistic."

Sometimes the explanations for problems can be very simple. And I would suggest that this is one of those times? Especially if the alternative view is easy to refute. And especially if the people who indirectly support the opposing view refuse to even defend it, and even distance themselves from it.

You wrote that "some Americans choose to hate". I agree with you there. Ghetto blacks are taught to hate whites. There are almost 2 MILLION black-on-white violent assaults in the USA every year. Blacks are 18 times (1,800%) more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person, than a white person is against a black person. A black man is 9 times (900%) more likely to rape a white woman, than a white man a black woman.

Given these statistics, which race is more racist?

Lego, you do not have to support critical race theory to point out that blacks have some economic disadvantages.

If I was to say anything else after going though many sources for many weeks, I would be lying.

While you can call me what you, I try very hard to look at all of the arguments when shaping my own contribution.

But since you know everything, then please explain why legislation of the 1950s and 1960s happened long before there was CRT?

Me think it happened because there was a recognition that measures had to stop discrimination.

My article simply cited reasons why progress is not better in terms of wealth and education disparity.

But you, being a halfwit, have explained the situation as a racist would by saying that the races have different levels of intelligence.

Rather than say the US reflects structural racism, say as CRT would, I would suggest that education outcomes would improve if the US adopted Australia's policies with regard to education funding.

do you get that Lego?

What have you all got against CRT?
They’re one of our leading rural companies and their affiliate stores are to be found all over Australia.

LEGO, do you believe in old fashioned Eugenics, where through selective breeding of human beings a superior race can be developed. Just select desirable groups with desirable characteristics over the undesirable, such as white with desirable qualities, over black with undesirable qualities, and through Eugenics an all white superior race will eventuate.

A man had two dogs, a black dog and a white dog. Everyday for a year he beat the black dog with a stick, and pampered the white dog with treats. Within a year he had proven black dogs are inherently savage, and white dogs are placid and friendly animals. The moral is choose a white dog over a black dog if you want a friendly pet, and not some savage beast!

To Chris Lewis.

In respect to education, let's look at the situation in Australia to see if we can figure out if your premise is correct?

According to one article in "The Australian" newspaper, 66% of the education budget in the Northern Territory went to aboriginal children, who represent 33% of NT schoolchildren. The result was a 90% failure rate for aboriginal children in NAPLAN examinations. The very high aboriginal failure rate in examinations was explained away by aboriginal activists in the customary way. One was (of course) more money, to "close the gap", which never closes. The other was the proposition by national teachers federations to ban all examinations altogether.

So no, Chris, I don't agree that more money for education will achieve anything. And the above example seems to bear out my premise. Aboriginal children, especially full blooded aboriginal children, have low intelligence. They can not handle higher thinking, and they don't even want to go to school because it is just too hard. US activists claim that mathematics is racist.

The government has to tempt aboriginal kids to go to school with a number of expensive programs. Hiring aboriginal people to drive the kids to school in government supplied cars using government supplied petrol. Withdrawing benefits from aboriginal parents who can't be bothered sending their kids to school. Giving aboriginal children free food at school. Making the aboriginal kids school courses more about having fun than learning.

Now, compare that to Asians who are smart.

Asian "Tiger mothers" in my own suburb send their kids to school six days a week. All over Sydney are privately operated Asian learning centres which operate on Saturdays. Smart people have smart cultural values and they value education.. Dumb people have dumb cultural values. Ever listened to a rap song with the "singer" praising drug use, raping his mother, or bashing his "hoe" girlfriend?

All this tends to refute your claim that education is the answer. And it does tend to reinforce the opposing premise that certain races have a lower "bell curve" of intelligence than others