Ultimately, of course (according to the article), he does, sort of, admit it was motivated by race:
“1. The Tulsa race massacre is a terrible mark on our history. The events on that day were racist, evil, and it is inexcusable. Individuals are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable.
“2. Kids should never be made to feel bad or told they are inferior based on the color of their skin.”
I guess he is claiming that saying “people of race X murdered people of race Y because they are race Y” will make kids of race X feel bad? That’s the only (tenuous) link I can see here. It’s absurd on its face, of course.
According to the article, he really weasel-worded things:
Ryan Walters … said teachers could cover the 1921 massacre … but … should not “say that the skin color determined it”.
It’s weaselly because he didn’t outright say that it wasn’t racially motivated, just that teachers shouldn’t say that it was. Because of some kids’ feelings, apparently.
The best bit is his word salad response to the question of why the massacre doesn’t fall under his definition of Critical Race Theory:
“I would never tell a kid that because of your race, because of your color of your skin, or your gender or anything like that, you are less of a person or are inherently racist.
“That doesn’t mean you don’t judge the actions of individuals. Oh, you can, absolutely. Historically, you should: ‘This was right. This was wrong. They did this for this reason.’
“But to say it was inherent in that … because of their skin is where I say that is critical race theory. You’re saying that race defines a person. I reject that.
“So I would say you be judgmental of the issue, of the action, of the content, of the character of the individual, absolutely. But let’s not tie it to the skin color and say that the skin color determined it.”
What does this even mean? It’s fine to say that there was a reason for an action, and that the action was wrong… but if you say that the action was racially motivated, that’s not OK, because (here’s a massive leap of logic) that means race defines a person?
“Let’s not tie it to the skin color and say that the skin color determined it” is really just arguing that we shouldn’t care about motive. He acknowledges the massacre was wrong, but doesn’t want anybody to know why it occurred. I wonder if he’s as critical of racial motive when it’s black-on-white violence, for example…
All of this “anti CRT” revisionist bullshit revolves around the concept that teaching the history of racism in America must be avoided because it hurts the feelings of white children to know that white people have a history of being racists. So, the solution is, apparently, never to tell them that.
I think what he’s trying to say (his misunderstanding) is that he thinks Critical Race Theory (and all teaching about racism and its effects) inherently and unfairly labels all white people as “racist” and that that - in an of itself - is racist against white people.
His misunderstanding is that what he’s actually feeling is accountability and guilt. He doesn’t like feeling held responsible for situations that he feels weren’t or aren’t within his direct control. It makes him feel judged as being “bad” merely for existing.
When in reality, the only “bad” he is doing is fighting against the measures (like education) that bring equality, and/or doing nothing - by refraining from supporting those measures.
He doesn’t feel it should be his responsibility to compensate for the actions of his ancestors and the ancestors of other white people, that led to situations of inequality that still exist today. And he also doesn’t want to be held accountable for situations in the present day that disadvantage and treat minorities unfairly either.
He doesn’t feel that it is within his scope of responsibility to ensure that minorities can enjoy the same quality of life as the majority.
In the twisted heart of people like this is that they genuinely believe in their inherent superiority. White people persecuting black people is just the natural order of things. Accusing them of atrocity for that is racist, like making fun of a black person for their hair. He just can’t come out and say that.
As a white person and former conservative, I can tell you flat out that most of these people don’t believe that white people are inherently superior. But they still harbor racist attitudes and viewpoints. It’s a weird mental gymnastics. And a LOT of it comes down to them being taught eugenics and social Darwinism.
I dunno. I’ve never been very conservative but I’m a white man who spent much of my life doing blue collar work in small town Missouri and people make assumptions about such a person. Did people tell me they thought minorities were inferior? No, not often, but they were assumed to be lazy, or dishonest, or criminal (often by lazy dishonest criminals).
The thought that they had been better off as slaves than they had been in Africa, or that George Floyd got what he deserved was pretty common. And many of the people I worked with were black, some of the people who held these views would have called them friends; but they never would have acknowledged them as equals, not if they weren’t around. It was just a sort of tribalism that no one really explored or talked about it.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m sure your lived experience is different from mine. But people like that may not be as rare as you think.
I’d be curious to hear him say what it WAS motivated by. Lol
Ultimately, of course (according to the article), he does, sort of, admit it was motivated by race:
I guess he is claiming that saying “people of race X murdered people of race Y because they are race Y” will make kids of race X feel bad? That’s the only (tenuous) link I can see here. It’s absurd on its face, of course.
According to the article, he really weasel-worded things:
It’s weaselly because he didn’t outright say that it wasn’t racially motivated, just that teachers shouldn’t say that it was. Because of some kids’ feelings, apparently.
The best bit is his word salad response to the question of why the massacre doesn’t fall under his definition of Critical Race Theory:
What does this even mean? It’s fine to say that there was a reason for an action, and that the action was wrong… but if you say that the action was racially motivated, that’s not OK, because (here’s a massive leap of logic) that means race defines a person?
“Let’s not tie it to the skin color and say that the skin color determined it” is really just arguing that we shouldn’t care about motive. He acknowledges the massacre was wrong, but doesn’t want anybody to know why it occurred. I wonder if he’s as critical of racial motive when it’s black-on-white violence, for example…
All of this “anti CRT” revisionist bullshit revolves around the concept that teaching the history of racism in America must be avoided because it hurts the feelings of white children to know that white people have a history of being racists. So, the solution is, apparently, never to tell them that.
It’s pretty fucking disgusting. 
I think what he’s trying to say (his misunderstanding) is that he thinks Critical Race Theory (and all teaching about racism and its effects) inherently and unfairly labels all white people as “racist” and that that - in an of itself - is racist against white people.
His misunderstanding is that what he’s actually feeling is accountability and guilt. He doesn’t like feeling held responsible for situations that he feels weren’t or aren’t within his direct control. It makes him feel judged as being “bad” merely for existing.
When in reality, the only “bad” he is doing is fighting against the measures (like education) that bring equality, and/or doing nothing - by refraining from supporting those measures.
He doesn’t feel it should be his responsibility to compensate for the actions of his ancestors and the ancestors of other white people, that led to situations of inequality that still exist today. And he also doesn’t want to be held accountable for situations in the present day that disadvantage and treat minorities unfairly either.
He doesn’t feel that it is within his scope of responsibility to ensure that minorities can enjoy the same quality of life as the majority.
That’s what it all comes down to.
In the twisted heart of people like this is that they genuinely believe in their inherent superiority. White people persecuting black people is just the natural order of things. Accusing them of atrocity for that is racist, like making fun of a black person for their hair. He just can’t come out and say that.
I seriously doubt he feels guilty.
As a white person and former conservative, I can tell you flat out that most of these people don’t believe that white people are inherently superior. But they still harbor racist attitudes and viewpoints. It’s a weird mental gymnastics. And a LOT of it comes down to them being taught eugenics and social Darwinism.
I dunno. I’ve never been very conservative but I’m a white man who spent much of my life doing blue collar work in small town Missouri and people make assumptions about such a person. Did people tell me they thought minorities were inferior? No, not often, but they were assumed to be lazy, or dishonest, or criminal (often by lazy dishonest criminals).
The thought that they had been better off as slaves than they had been in Africa, or that George Floyd got what he deserved was pretty common. And many of the people I worked with were black, some of the people who held these views would have called them friends; but they never would have acknowledged them as equals, not if they weren’t around. It was just a sort of tribalism that no one really explored or talked about it.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m sure your lived experience is different from mine. But people like that may not be as rare as you think.
I think we’re saying the same thing.
What he said is weirdly incoherent.
I’m surprises they didn’t outright denied it ever happened.