Letter: Balentine guilty of ‘double whopper’ about critical race theory

“Good morning, Martha. How are you?”“I’m fine, Eleanor. And you?”“Good. Martha, I have a strange question to ask you.”“OK?”“What is the definition of a whopper?”“Well, there are really two definitions. The first: ‘a thing that is extremely or unusually large.’ And the second: ‘a gross or blatant lie.’ Why are you asking?”“I read Balentine’s article where he doesn’t believe in critical race theory. You know, the theory that ‘racism is structural and perpetrated in a calculated manner’ in both private/ public sectors. (“Rekindle Pilgrims’ pride this Thanksgiving,” Nov. 19) Isn’t Balentine telling us an ‘extremely large’ and ‘blatant lie’ when he dismisses this theory’s lengthy and documented historical foundation?”“Yes, Eleanor. According to my two definitions, Balentine is giving us a double whopper when he discounts critical race theory. As you know, even Tucker Carlson, of all people, says Balentine is no historian. (“Reader cites history, puts Afghanistan in perspective,” Oct. 1). In addition, I mentioned to him one time that he is always ‘touting our problems,’ but never suggesting any solutions. (“Reader offers solutions to Balentine’s posed problems, Oct. 15) As I remember, didn’t you have a recent discussion with Balentine about his less than stellar efforts as a writer?”“Indeed. I suggested he give up writing and play the role of a jester. (“Writing might not be Balentine’s ’thing,’ Nov. 5). After his double whopper about critical race theory, I propose he play a new role, more realistically suited to his personal and political philosophy.”“And what role, pray tell, is that?”“A non-believer in equal justice for all.”“Eleanor, isn’t that a bit too critical?”“No! Martha, look at the totality of what Balentine has written over the years. It’s no stretch to give him that label.”“Taken from that perspective, you’re correct.”John M. MishlerHarpswell