7 thoughts on “We don’t need CRT, but we need to think critically about race”

  1. I feel that one thing we need is an equal grocery prices scheme. I don’t feel that it is fair that people living remotely, especially indigenous people, have to pay more for groceries per item than I do. That just isn’t fair. There must be efficient ways to (closely) equalize grocery prices across regions.

  2. it is not just regional.
    check out the available items and price differences between smaller supermarkets in suburbs from the lowest economic range to the highest.

    for those with less,higher prices for lesser range and quality are not unusual.

  3. “Rutgers Law Drops Policy Requiring Student Groups To Promote Critical Race Theory

    By  Ashe Schow
    May 25, 2021

    …” The requirement was adopted on November 20, 2020, which added a section to the Rutgers’ Camden campus’ constitution entitled “Student Organizations Fosters Diversity and Inclusion.” The section mandated that any student group seeking more than $250 in university funding must “plan at least one (1) event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.”

    “As FIRE noted, 19 out of 22 students groups last fall requested more than $250.”…

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/rutgers-law-drops-policy-requiring-student-groups-to-promote-critical-race-theory

  5. hix,

    The answer is that there is nothing genuine about costs under really existing capitalist democracy (RECD), so raising costs is a red herring.

    (1) Costs for all kinds of businesses ignore many negative externalities. The damage done to indigenous populations (and non-indigenous populations for that matter) by over-processed and fatty, sugary, salty foods inflicts enormous costs on the health budget.

    (2) Many products are subsidized for capitalist enterprises. An example is the fuel tax credits scheme under Australian tax law.

    There is no reason that remote food costs could not be subsidised albeit the sensible idea would be to subsidize healthy foods not ultra-refined junk foods.

    As my primary school teacher used to say “can’t” means “won’t”. It’s not that governments can’t do these things. It’s that they won’t do these things. This is because profits for domestic and overseas owners of mining companies matter more to the government than indigenous health. The reason this is the case is that these companies donate to the political parties. The quid pro quo is that the government makes policies to prop up mining profits.

    “Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $10.3 billion in FY 2020-21 with one Commonwealth tax break alone ($7.84 billion) … according to research released today by The Australia Institute.”

    https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/

    We can put this in context as more than is spent on targeted indigenous specific programs.

    “Mainstream services accounted for $24.7 billion (81.4%) of direct Indigenous expenditure in 2012-13… with the remaining $5.6 billion (18.6%) provided through Indigenous-specific (targeted) services (a real decrease of $0.1 billion (1.2%) from 2008-09).

    What’s the difference between Indigenous-specific and mainstream services? According to the Productivity Commission:

    Mainstream expenditure includes outlays on programs, services and payments that are available to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous Australians on either a targeted or universal basis.

    Indigenous-specific expenditure includes outlays on programs, services and payments that are explicitly targeted to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. These programs, services and payments can be either complementary (additional) to, or be substitutes (alternatives) for, mainstream services.” – The Conversation.

    So money given to rich companies and shareholders is greater than targeted money given to poor, indigenous people. To speak of economic costs, market forces etc. in this context is simply absurd, misleading and even mendacious by those who know better (meaning those who get the subsidies and support the current system). The rich get far greater subsidies than the poor. The first order of people’s business must be to cease subsidies to the rich.

  6. Pr Q said:

    The vote on Hanson is reminiscent of an earlier occasion when she proposed a motion supporting the neo-Nazi slogan “it’s okay to be White”. The LNP lined up to vote for it, then reversed themselves when they realised just how toxic the associations of this phrase were.

    I join with all right-thinking people in denouncing Ms Hanson and all her “neo-Nazis” allies. However, it is a hopeful sign that Nazism has moved on from the paleo-Nazi position of “kill all the non-Aryans” to the neo-Nazi position that it is in fact “okay to be white”. At this rate “neo-Nazis” will be soon be vying for preselection as Greens.

    More generally the notion that political slogans can be indelibly tainted with “toxic” guilt by association is a dangerous path for Leftists to tread. The noble sentiments expressed in the International became genocidal Bolshevisms corporate jingle.

Leave a comment