Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory is a liberal Democrat educational approach, historical revisionism that seeks to cynically engender White Guilt by emphasizing wrongs done to African Americans in exclusion of all other history, while pursuing racial favoritism towards blacks specifically, policies such as Reparations and Affirmative Action, with the ultimate effect of black supremacism.

In the process, judicial mistreatment of blacks is overemphasized while mistreatment of other minorities (like hispanics, who are a larger percentage of the U.S. population) is deemphasized). The reason for the bias is that blacks are overwhelmingly liberal, voting 93% Democrat, whereas Hispanics vote only 67% Democrat, a steadily shrinking percentage.

Blacks are treated as victims of an unfair culture, rather than a corrupted culture which, having embraced moreso than any other demographic the Democrat agenda, are more violent and immoral than any other, accounting for 54% of all U.S. murders in 2018 and 52% of all robberies, despite being only 13% of the U.S. population. Nor can poverty rates explain the degree of crime, since Hispanics also have high poverty rates but nowhere near the crime rates.

Wrongs done to groups other than blacks go unmentioned and untaught, most notably the enslavement of millions of white Americans and Europeans for the Barbary slave trade in Africa by black Muslims hijacking U.S. ships. U.S. attempts to broker peace with the African nations were unsuccessful as the nations broke the treaties, culminating in the Barbary Wars from 1801-1805 and 1815, the first major conflict after the Revolutionary War. Other history deemphasized includes mistreatment of hispanics (Mexican Repatriation and Mexican American War), Jews (refused refuge during WWII), Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans (who are still denied statehood).

Racial Crime Statistics
Even though there are similar levels of poverty among hispanics as among blacks, and there are more hispanics than blacks, hispanics do not commit nearly as much violent crime or murders as blacks. For example, blacks make up 13.4% of the U.S. population yet account for 53.3% of all murders. Hispanics account for 18.5% of the U.S. population yet account for just 20.9% of all murders and non-negligent manslaughter.

Yes, to a degree the racial distinctions are just indicative of racial differences in poverty. Poorer people tend to commit more crime because of their environments and circumstances (and richer people tend to get off the hook even when caught for crimes like embezzlement because they can afford to post bail and hire expert attorneys whereas the poor can be confined months or years awaiting trial until they are forced into pleading guilty).

However, hispanics have nearly comparable poverty levels to blacks yet do not commit even half as much crime as blacks do. Since many illegal immigrants are hispanics, the statistics suggest they are much less likely to commit crime than black U.S.-born citizens.

The following table shows how much crime each race commits in proportion to the percentage of the population they make up. For example, blacks commit 52.6% of all murders but are just 13.4% of the population, so they are 3.93 times as likely to commit murder as their percentage of the population (52.6% / 13.4%), whereas hispanics commit 20.0% of all murders but are 18.1% of the population, so they are 1.11 times as likely to commit murder as their percentage of the population. This allows for easy comparison between races when it comes to crime. For example, blacks are 3.55 times more likely to commit murder than hispanics are (3.925 / 1.105).

Ironically, Democrats are advocating reparations solely to benefit African-Americans while ignoring Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups; even as a number of leading African-Americans demonize Hispanics as criminals, even though African-Americans commit far more crime than Hispanics despite being fewer in number.

Immigrant Crime Statistics
It is commonly and falsely claimed that illegal immigrants, particularly hispanics, commit a substantial amount of crime. Actual crime statistics show otherwise. Immigrants in general commit less crime, likely due to more conservative upbringings.

No, immigrants are not freeloaders. On any construction site, warehouse, or factory they are over-represented relative to their 18.1% population percentage, doing the hardest, most undesirable jobs. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, adult male hispanics are easily the most likely group to be employed, as measured by the employment-population ratio, at 77.1%. They are over-represented in:


 * Painters, construction and maintenance, comprising 53% of all workers.
 * Miscellaneous agricultural workers, comprising 51% of all workers.
 * Maids and housekeeping cleaners, comprising 49% of all workers.
 * Natural resources, construction and maintenance, comprising 28% of all workers.

"Among employed men, Hispanics were more likely to work in the construction industry (20 percent) than were Whites (13 percent), Blacks (7 percent), or Asians (3 percent)."

-Bureau of Labor Statistics

They are paid low wages for doing the hardest work to make American society operate, and are constantly mistreated, exploited, and underpaid by unscrupulous employers. They get charged billions of dollars for benefits like Social Security through payroll and excise taxes which they will never have access to, to the extent that they are a main reason Social Security isn't even more bankrupt than it is.

History
The major omission by supporters of Critical Race Theory involves the Barbary Slave Trade and the fact that millions of white Americans and Europeans were enslaved by black Africans for the Barbary Slave Trade. Attempts by the United States to broker peace with the Barbary nations of Africa (Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, Morocco) were unsuccessful, as all but Morocco broke the treaties, culminating in the first major American conflict after the Revolutionary War, the Barbary Wars from 1801-1805 and 1815.

Mexican Abolition, Mexican-American War
It is little-known that the Mexican-American War occurred because Mexico outlawed slavery. As Frederick Douglass pointed out in his address at Belfast Ireland, Mexico originally opened its borders to modern-day Texas (then part of Mexico) because it had too much land and not enough settlers. Numerous Americans came in, many of them bringing their slaves. However, Mexico then outlawed slavery in 1829. The ex-American slaveholders attempted to circumvent this by declaring slaves indentured servants, but this too was outlawed by Mexico. Furious, the settlers, led by Sam Austin, petitioned the U.S. government, claiming that Texas wanted to cede from Mexico. U.S. President James Polk, along with the Democratic Party, acceded to the request, knowing that more slave states were needed to protect the institution of slavery at a time when free states were beginning to outnumber the slave states. Thus the U.S. started a war with Mexico to create more slave states out of the captured territory (Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado).

Polk sent U.S. troops to the border between the U.S. and Texas to start a war, and then falsely claimed that Mexican troops attacked first. As a result, three U.S. Presidents all condemned the Mexican-American War because of Democrats' dishonesty in starting a war on false pretenses in the name of slavery, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and John Quincy Adams. Ulysses S. Grant even expressed the view that the Civil War was God's divine punishment upon America for its unjust actions in the Mexican-American War, stating, "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

To quote Frederick Douglass:

"They accordingly took their families and slaves to Texas, from the blighted and blasted fields of Virginia—fields once fertile as any under Heaven—(hear)—and which would have still remained so had they not been cursed by the infernal spirit of slavery. We do not hear of much confusion in Texas, until 1828 or 1829, when Mexico after having erected herself into a separate government and declared herself free, with a consistency which puts to the blush the boasted “land of freedom,” proclaimed the deliverance of every captive on her soil. Unlike the boasted republic of America, she did this at an immense cost to her own slaveholders—not proclaiming liberty with her lips, while she fastened chains on the slave—not securing liberty for her own children but also for the degraded bondsman of Africa. This act of the Mexican government was resisted at once by the settlers who had carried their slaves into Texas, though they were bound by a solemn agreement to submit to the laws of Mexico. They remonstrated with the government. They said their slaves were too ignorant and degraded to be emancipated. The Mexican government, desirous to treat amicably with those whom it had welcomed to its bosom, listened to this remonstrance, and consented that the Texian slaves should be only gradually emancipated under a system of indentured apprenticeship. Even this restriction was evaded by the Texians, making the indentures binding for 99 years. In fact they showed themselves to be a set of swindlers. Well, Mexico attempted an enforcement of her law, making it impossible for any man to hold an apprentice more than ten years. This was resisted on the plea that the slaves would not be fit for freedom even then. One would think ten years long enough to teach them the value of liberty, but these wise Americans could not understand how that could be the case. The Texians still persisted in holding their slaves, contrary to the express declaration of their legislature—contrary to the law of the land—to drive them before the biting lash to their hard tasks, day after day, without wages. Again, the Mexican Government attempted to enforce its law, but then Texas revolts—defies the law—and calls upon the people of the United States to aid her in, what they termed their struggle for religious liberty! Yes, they said they could not worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, alluding to the contract entered into by them as professing Roman Catholics. I am not prepared to say whether that contract was a righteous one or not, but, I do say, that after possessing themselves of the land, on the faith of their being Roman Catholics, they should be the last to complain on that score. If they had been honest, they would have said, in regard to their religious opinions, “We have changed our minds; we feel we cannot longer belong to the Church of Rome; we cannot, according to our contract, worship God as our conscience dictates; many of us are Methodists—many are Presbyterians; if you will allow us to worship God as we think right, we will stay in the soil; if not, we feel compelled to abandon it, and seek some other place.” That is the way that common honesty would force them to act, but the people of the United States—and here is one of the darkest acts of their whole history—understanding the terms upon which the Texians had obtained the territory, and well-knowing the exact nature of the contract—offered them the means of successfully resisting Mexico—afforded them arms and ammunition, and even the men who. at San Jacinto, wrested the territory from the rightful owners. Here was an act of national robbery perpetrated, and for what? For the re-establishment of slavery on a soil which had been washed pure from its polluting influence by the generous act of a “semibarbarous” people! The man who goes into your ship on the high seas, puts out the captain, takes down the ensign and declares himself the owner—is no greater robber than the people of the United States. And what are their excuses, their apologies, their reasons—for they always give reasons for what they do? One of them is, that Mexico is unable to defend her territory, and that therefore they have a right to take it! What do you think of a great heavy-fisted fellow pouncing on every little man he meets, and giving as his reason that the little man is unable to take care of himself? We don’t see this pretext made use of in the case of Canada. Mexico, nevertheless, is a sister republic, which has taken that of the United States for a model. But Mexico is a weak government, and that is the reason America falls on her—the British territories are safe because England is strong. Oh, how superlatively base—how mean—how dastardly—do the American people appear in the light of justice—of reason—of liberty—when this particular point of her conduct is exposed! But here there was a double point to be gained—on the part of the Southern planters to establish and cultivate large plantations in the South—and on that of the Northern ones, to support what Daniel O’Connell says should not be called the internal, but the infernal, slave-trade, which is said to be worse than the foreign slave-trade, for it allows men to seize upon those who have sported with them on the hills, and played with them at school, and are associated with them in so many ways and under so many interesting circumstances. This is more horrible still than to prowl along the African shore and carry off thence men with whose faces at least we are unfamiliar, and to whose characters we are strangers. Still the chief object of the Annexation of Texas was the quickening of the foreign slave-trade, which is the very jugular vein of slavery, and of which, if kept within narrow limits, we would soon be rid. But the cry of slavery is ever “Give, give, give!” That cry is heard from New England to Virginia. It goes on, leaving a blighted soil behind—leaving the fields which it found fertile and luxuriant, covered with stunted pines. From Virginia it has gone to North Carolina, and from that to South Carolina, leaving ruin in its train, and now it seizes on the fertile regions of Texas, where it had been previously abolished by a people whom we are wont to call semi-civilized. They say they only want to increase their commerce, and add to their security. Oh what a reason to give for plunder! The pirate of the high seas might make the same excuse." -Frederick Douglass, 1846

Opposition by U.S. Presidents and Republican Party
“Before long, however, the same people -- who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so -- offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union… The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”

-President Ulysses S. Grant

"You have been, if you are not now, at the very point of a war with Mexico — a war, I am sorry to say, so far as public rumor may be credited, stimulated by provocations on our part, from the very commencement of this administration, down to the recent authority given to General Gaines to invade the Mexican territory. It is said that one of the earliest acts of the administration was a proposal, made at a time when there was already much ill-humor in Mexico against the United States, that she should cede to the United States a very large portion of her territory — large enough to constitute nine States, equal in extent to Kentucky.

It must be confessed that a device better calculated to produce jealousy, suspicion, ill-will, and hatred, could not have been contrived. It is further affirmed, that this overture, offensive in itself, was made precisely at the time when a swarm of colonists, from these United States were covering the Mexican border with land-jobbing, and with slaves, introduced in defiance of the Mexican laws, by which slavery had been abolished throughout that republic. The war now raging in Texas is a Mexican civil war, and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished. It is not a servile war, but a war between slavery and emancipation, and every possible effort has been made to drive us into the war, on the side of slavery.”

-President John Quincy Adams

“Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President [James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case…. And if, so answering, he [President Polk] can show that the soil was ours, where the first blood of the war was shed—that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification… But if he cannot, or will not do this—if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong, that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive—what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning—to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory—that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood—that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying contributions on Mexico.”

-President Abraham Lincoln

Mexican Repatriation
Millions of illegal immigrants may actually be descended from former U.S. citizens, because up to 2 million U.S. citizens of hispanic descent were wrongfully deported during the Great Depression to free up jobs.

During the Great Depression the U.S. government "repatriated," i.e. deported to Mexico, up to 2 million Mexican-Americans, approximately 50-60% of whom were U.S. citizens. This began under President Herbert Hoover and continued under Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, although much of the deportation was done by states such as California. To quote Arthur G. Arnoll, "The slogan has gone over the city and is being adhered to—‘employ no Mexican while a white man is unemployed; get the Mexican back into Mexico regardless by what means.’ All this without taking into consideration the legality of the Mexican’s status of being here. It is a question of pigment, not a question of citizenship or right…"

According to FactCheck.org, 5.6 million were deported during the presidencies of Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower-FDR's presidency is not addressed. Given how many generations have passed since the 1930s, it is possible that 10 million or more of the so-called "illegals" are actually descended from former U.S. citizens. As such, Mexican-Americans have thrice over had their land taken from them by the U.S. government, firstly because most are descended from Native Americans, secondly because of the Mexican-American War, and thirdly because of the Mexican Repatriation.

Spanish-American War
The U.S. actions towards the Philippines were the result of the U.S. victory in the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War occurred because Cuba, previously a holding of the Spanish government, rebelled against Spain in a 3-year war for independence. Following the mysterious explosion and sinking of the U.S. battleship Maine off the coast of Havana, the U.S. declared war against Spain. The 4-month war, instigated in part by future President Teddy Roosevelt, who led the 'Rough Riders' into combat, resulted in the Treaty of Paris as Spain ceded Guam and the Puerto Rico to the U.S., and sold the Philippines for $20 million.

Filipino Revolution
However, the Spanish sale of the Philippines did not guarantee Filipino cooperation. On February 4, 1899, two days before the U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris, armed conflict broke out between U.S. forces and Filipino rebels led by Emilio Aguinaldo seeking independence. By the time the three-year war concluded, 4,200 American soldiers, 20,000 Filipino militants, and 200,000 Filipino civilians had died, the latter as the result of "violence, famine, and disease."

Atrocities were perpetrated by both sides during the war:

"The war was brutal on both sides. U.S. forces at times burned villages, implemented civilian reconcentration policies, and employed torture on suspected guerrillas, while Filipino fighters also tortured captured soldiers and terrorized civilians who cooperated with American forces."

After the Filipinos adopted guerilla warfare tactics against the vastly superior U.S. military, the U.S. resorted to a strategy called the 'policy of attraction' to defeat the rebels through cultural means.

"Even as the fighting went on, the colonial government that the United States established in the Philippines in 1900 under future President William Howard Taft launched a pacification campaign that became known as the 'policy of attraction.' Designed to win over key elites and other Filipinos who did not embrace Aguinaldo’s plans for the Philippines, this policy permitted a significant degree of self-government, introduced social reforms, and implemented plans for economic development. Over time, this program gained important Filipino adherents and undermined the revolutionaries’ popular appeal, which significantly aided the United States’ military effort to win the war. In 1907, the Philippines convened its first elected assembly, and in 1916, the Jones Act promised the nation eventual independence. The archipelago became an autonomous commonwealth in 1935, and the U.S. granted independence in 1946."

Jews Turned Away During Holocaust
In 1939 the U.S. government turned away a ship with over 900 Jews seeking asylum during World War II. Most died as the result of the U.S. government's refusal to help them. In addition, the U.S. government rejected visa applications from tens of thousands of Jews fleeing Europe.

Reparations
The Democrat answer to slavery of blacks over 150 years ago is reparations, monetary payments exclusively to blacks, in contravention of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Affirmative Action
Hiring preference is likewise encouraged by Democrats, or what is known as Affirmative Action, but specifically of blacks, not other minorities, which is why Democrats continually emphasize wrongs done to blacks, not other groups.