I can't agree with that reasoning because it ignores the necessary state-level solutions that CRT proponents argue will need to be implemented. Most states are Republican-run, so it's necessary to mobilize or convince those voters to go out and vote for people who will implement those policies. The federal government isn't powerful enough to solve the issues. For instance, let's look at Biden's recent restaurant relief: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/f...on Fund Program Guide as of 4.28.21-508_0.pdf"Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those same mistakes in the future" is good enough for me.
One thing to consider is you won't persuade everyone, so you focus on the truth, then those who will listen to it.
Especially because these people aren't being discriminated against, they're just losing an advantage they had in life less privileged groups of people didn't have and things are focused more on equality.
It's arbitrary in its implementation. Why is the standard set to 51% minority or woman owned? What about a husband-wife-owned business? Or 50% minority owned? It allows for rich foreign investors from China to receive aid who employees a 100% male staff, but if your restaurant employs a mostly minority staff yet happens to be owned by a white male, then you're at risk of not getting any funding. Some people may argue that federal relief may happen to miss these people, but that's exactly why it needs convincing power at the state level for a majority of the states.
Also, practical application of CRT principles is necessarily discriminatory. Even CRT theorists such as Ibram Kendi acknowledge that discrimination will be necessary. A part of actually equalizing isn't simply changing laws or instituting police reform but economically "catching up" minorities. For instance, Biden's restaurant relief that I linked above, which prioritizes minority and female applicants regardless of financial need has been blocked twice in two separate federal courts on the basis of discrimination: you can read the decisions here and here.
In fact the "those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those same mistakes in the future" argument is being used in law right now in order to argue that present discrimination is not a solution to solve past discrimination because, and I paraphrase, "the solution to discrimination is not to continue discrimination but to cease discrimination," which is an equally valid conclusion to your argument "
Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those same mistakes in the future."
Why do you support an "anti-CRT bill"? What are the solutions do you have for the grievances that CRT proponents have? For example, blacks were discriminated against in post-World War II America when it came to home loans, losing the opportunity to build wealth (in the form of property) for decades? Black farmers have also been discriminated against in the past. What are your solutions to help these people now? What should be done about past discrimination today? Should anything be done at all?If loses their "White Privilege" is help then i am fine with it but in time will transfer to the poc and crt could affect them in in negative way and i already sew a hating in white peoples that slow set in motion.....i saw and watch the many people of color whose has a white family members is against crt bill and started pull their mix childrens out of school....crt bill need be deal with in most civilised way and should be criticized without even over emotional about it and about Anit-crt Bill is sound great idea but wont deal with actual issues creating a crt from 60's era that change over times