The mother of a mixed-race child who looks white is suing his school for telling him to think of himself as an "oppressor" because he looks white.

The article linked to just above displays symbolic bigotry by capitalizing "black" but not "white". (To avoid endorsing bigotry, capitalize both words or neither one.) I object to bigotry, and normally I decline to link to articles which promote it. But I make exceptions for some articles which give important information about racism or the fight to eliminate racism. That article is one of the exceptions.

The fact that some would call that boy "black" adds an extra element of irony to the case, but I don't think it changes the issue at all. It's wrong to judge people as guilty based on their race. Whether guilty for being white or guilty for being black, it's wrong.

Meanwhile, Republicans are encouraging a confusion between anti-white bigotry and critical race theory. Let's look at each one and see the difference.

Critical race theory deals with the history of institutions and laws, and how some of them shaped and perpetuated racism. It's important to teach that, and important to learn that, but prejudging individuals is not part of it.

Anti-white bigotry seems to be a perversion of anti-racism. It uses terms such as "white guilt" and "white debt" and teaches that anyone who is white ought to spend per whole life in shame. That isn't critical race theory, so let's not call it that.

A system that forces children into debt is oppression, and that includes "white debt". To be born indebted is like being born enslaved.

When Republicans condemn teaching "critical race theory", and define that term to include "white debt", that is an instance of their general political approach: disinformation.

US citizens: call on Biden to pardon everyone convicted for possession of marijuana.

Over 350 human rights defenders were murdered in 2021.

Ukraine was torn between two factions, the pro-Russian faction and the pro-EU faction. There were a number of Nazis in the latter. But then Ukrainians conclusively rejected both factions, and the Nazis, by voting for President Zelenskiy.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy's surprising career before becoming president of Ukraine: he was a popular comic actor.

Ronald Reagan, the actor turned president, used his acting skills to lull Americans into letting the rich take a bigger fraction, and waiting like a cargo cult for wealth to "trickle down".

Zelenskiy uses his skills to be the best possible leader for a Ukraine under invasion.

Lukashenko, who has become Putin's puppet, announced that Belarus would retract its pledge not to have nuclear weapons.

Doing this publicly is a way to make it act as a threat. For instance, he could make vague threats against NATO.

In addition, next time the Belarusians try to kick out Lukashenko, he will be able to threaten to nuke Belarus's cities. But I suppose he will not actually do that.

Trumputin canceled the IRBM treaty, with which both the US and Russia agreed not to station intermediate-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in Europe. Would Putin like to reestablish that treaty? If so, it would make sense for the US to demand that Belarus pledge to continue not to have nuclear weapons as part of the treaty.

Has Putin shown a wish to resume that treaty? I have to wonder whether Trumputin canceled it as a favor to Putin — to give him the benefit of getting out of that treaty, while dumping on the US the onus of terminating it.