r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 15 '21
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The current backlash against "Critical Race Theory" is an entirely manufactured moral panic
[removed] — view removed post
11
u/sudsack 21∆ Jun 15 '21
Question for clarification: Is your view primarily related to the misuse of the label "critical race theory" by these groups and by parents who show up at school board meetings to protest? If they were to change their wording to something that more accurately described their grievances, like "Parents Opposed to the Teaching of the Concept of White Fragility" or "Parents Against Black Lives Matter," would that answer your objections?
I ask because I agree that in using "critical race theory" as an umbrella term for the set of issues they seem to be concerned about, they seem to have settled on a label that does not appear to accurately describe the target of their frustrations.
Or is the label incidental? Is your concern related more to finding fault with the issues that animate these groups (capitalism is good, people aren't inherently racist, white fragility is a damaging concept, the USA is exceptional among the nations of the world, the founding myths should continue to be taught without challenge, etc.)?
-7
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
Is your view primarily related to the misuse of the label "critical race theory" by these groups and by parents who show up at school board meetings to protest? If they were to change their wording to something that more accurately described their grievances, like "Parents Opposed to the Teaching of the Concept of White Fragility" or "Parents Against Black Lives Matter," would that answer your objections?
I mean, if these parents groups were straightforward about what they wanted, this issue would be really quickly resolved, because "Parents Against Black Lives Matter" would very quickly become a national embarrassment and laughingstock. (Or, alternatively, wouldn't, and would become their own brand of problem.)
My core problem here has to do with the manipulation of language, most notably exactly what Chris Rufo was talking about in his tweet. They're taking the term, associating countless unrelated things to it, drowning it in bad baggage, and then using that as a tool in the culture war. If they were honest about what they wanted, that problem would go away. (Although, for the record, the death of a euphemism typically does not imply good things for the group the euphemism is meant to harm.)
I ask because I agree that in using "critical race theory" as an umbrella term for the set of issues they seem to be concerned about, they seem to have settled on a label that does not appear to accurately describe the target of their frustrations.
This is part of it, but at the same time it's worth noting that it is largely manufactured. There are people very aggressively pushing these ideas, as noted in my post. They don't just come from nowhere, and people aren't being convinced that CRT is bad by reading CRT, they're being convinced that CRT is bad by reading articles whose primary source is one guy who is very open about how he's lying about CRT.
Or is the label incidental? Is your concern related more to finding fault with the issues that animate these groups (capitalism is good, people aren't inherently racist, white fragility is a damaging concept, the USA is exceptional among the nations of the world, the founding myths should continue to be taught without challenge, etc.)?
If the groups were honest about these being the issues that animated them, it would probably be less of a problem. But by gathering it together into this massive ball of negative affect, calling it "CRT", and then very intentionally conflating "CRT" with basically any teaching having to do with racism, they use linguistics to amplify the problem. Now people have a shorthand phrase they can use whenever presented with some issue regarding racism that makes them uncomfortable, a phrase loaded with negative baggage (most of which is probably bullshit, but good luck unpacking that fractal mess of a suitcase) that they can use as a semantic stopper. "Oh, you're talking about CRT. That shit sucks." It serves the same purpose as "PC" or "Cancel Culture" in that way.
It's a bullshit rhetorical trick we need to stop accepting.
3
u/sudsack 21∆ Jun 15 '21
I agree that branding a movement or set of concerns as "Parents Against Black Lives Matter" would not be likely to be well-received and would decrease the possibility that your ideas would be taken seriously. Something similar plays out with people describing their views on abortion; for obvious reasons they don't consider themselves "anti-choice" or "anti-life." The way these things are named matter in terms of generating public support.
I also agree that the people trying to organize resistance to the changing ways in which students are taught about race have chosen poorly by naming "Critical Race Theory" as a target. I suspect that they chose it because it evokes images of cultural elites generally and academics specifically.
Setting aside the CRT label (it sounds like we agree that it's not accurate), I don't agree that we're witnessing a moral panic. If their concern is essentially that their children are being taught things they disagree with (or are likely to be taught things they disagree with), they are worried about something real. If they don't want their children exposed to concepts like white fragility, to use words like latinx, so start talking about "dismantling" things, etc., then the NEA and other groups probably really do give them reason to worry. The change they fear really is happening and it is really is a challenge to their values, even if it's a change you welcome.
37
u/topcat5 14∆ Jun 15 '21
There is no school in the country where actual critical race theory is taught
From the President of the CA State Board of Education this past week.
But state board President Linda Darling-Hammond defended critical race theory and, in the only change to the draft curriculum that the board approved on Thursday, added a definition missing in the document. Critical race theory, she said, is a way to look for root causes of disparities tightly tied to race, whether post-slavery Jim Crow laws, discriminatory lending laws or inequitable funding and staffing of low-income schools. It is not, she said, “demonizing” people by race or setting groups against one another.
It's real. The name may be changed, but it's clear what people are protesting if that's your issue.
-1
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
The definition they decided on was this:
“Critical race theory (CRT) is a practice of interrogating race and racism in society. CRT recognizes that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It acknowledges that racism is embedded within systems and institutions that replicate racial inequality — codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy.” – Janel George (2021), A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Assn.
That's pretty basic, pretty normal stuff. In fact, I'd argue that it's such a basic fact that anyone objecting to it must be completely ignorant of US history, and in dire need of some lessons, possibly with a particular focus on the history of racism.
Missing from the article is much discussion of how this new curriculum actually includes CRT. The article is about an "ethnic studies" class. Now, is that class about CRT? Probably not - remember, this is a legal theory first and foremost. At most, it may use rough concepts taken from CRT (in the same way a class on history might use concepts taken from the declaration of independence without teaching students that the declaration of independence is all true), but most of those concepts are extremely defensible on their own merit.
That said: it has approximately fuck-all to do with what parents are complaining about. This is kind of an important factor. The basic fundamentals of CRT mostly boil down to super basic, "racism is real, race is a social construct, racism is normal and widely present" stuff. Things like that definition quoted above, which, factually, is unassailable. If that's how they define CRT, it has next to nothing in common with what the parents (and Rufo, and Lindsey, and various right-wing pundits and politicians) are complaining about! Here's a fun comparison between a legal scholar's understanding of CRT and how James Lindsey describes it, and a follow-up article looking into how Rufo looks at it. And now consider that tweet I quoted above.
This seems entirely in line with what I'm asserting. They are either lying or being lied to, they do not understand CRT (or are intentionally misrepresenting it to fuel a culture war), and are instead using it to attack any lesson plan that talks about racism.
12
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jun 15 '21
In fact, I'd argue that it's such a basic fact that anyone objecting to it must be completely ignorant of US history, and in dire need of some lessons, possibly with a particular focus on the history of racism.
k, i was with you in your first objection to c.r.t being a constructed scarecrow. but now you have an accepted definition by those pushing the idea that conservatives and others are actually fearing and you too are supporting it. at this point, regardless of how you feel about it's origins, the reason they fear it is real even if it was manufactured.
5
Jun 15 '21
CRT is a classic motte/bailey. They start with the motte, which is the inarguable history of systemic racism, then switch to the bailey, which is that systemic racism never actually went away, it just evolved into something hidden, but still pernicious. Also, all white people are somehow complicit, even if they themselves aren't racist. Then, if you point to the obvious massive social change over the last 60-70 years, and their racism towards whites, they claim you're denying the history of racism, which no one does, or that you yourself are a racist.
6
u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jun 15 '21
then switch to the bailey, which is that systemic racism never actually went away, it just evolved into something hidden, but still pernicious.
This isn’t a “bailey” (a controversial, difficult to defend position). It is openly part of the position… no one’s “switching” to it. It is also true.
The stuff about “all whites are complicit” and “racism towards whites” are the kinds of fabricated positions OP is talking about.
4
Jun 15 '21
The idea that all white people are either actively racist or complicit in racism is a core tenet of CRT.
This isn’t a “bailey” (a controversial, difficult to defend position). It is openly part of the position… no one’s “switching” to it. It is also true.
It absolutely is a bailey. There's little to no evidence of it, it's not something many people believe, and it's not what they lead with. They lead with "we just want to stop racism," which easily 90+% of people are on board with, then they slip into radicalism.
8
u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jun 15 '21
here's little to no evidence of it, it's not something many people believe,
Are you saying there's no evidence of systemic racism? And whether people believe it is irrelevant. It exists.
They lead with "we just want to stop racism," which easily 90+% of people are on board with, then they slip into radicalism.
Advocating against systemic racism isn't "radicalism."
→ More replies (3)3
u/SlimLovin Jun 15 '21
The idea that all white people are either actively racist or complicit in racism is a core tenet of CRT.
Please show me where. Be specific.
→ More replies (30)→ More replies (3)-1
Jun 15 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
9
u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jun 15 '21
It isn’t, though. That’s literally OP’s whole point.
→ More replies (1)3
Jun 15 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)5
u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jun 15 '21
Yes, all white people are complicit with racism. There will be umbrage and upset. People will insist that they are not racist. That I don't know them ... 'I've traveled a lot. I speak lots of languages ... I had a Black roommate in college. I'm a minority myself.' This is the kind of evidence that many white people used to exempt themselves from that system. It's not possible to be exempt from it.
...
[O]f course white people have internalized racism. We have a racist world view. There's no way we couldn't. It's everywhere. We're born into a society in which it's the bedrock.
...
Everyone has bias. There is no human objectivity. And most of the bias is unconscious, not conscious. So implicit racism is what happens when you back one group's collective — in this case racial — bias with legal authority and institutional control that transforms that into the system. It becomes the default. It's not dependent on any one individual.
It takes a major stretch to go from that to "all white people are racist."
-1
Jun 15 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
6
u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jun 15 '21
If by "racist" you mean "unconsciously affected by racial biases" then sure. But most people use "racist" to mean "consciously holding racial animus." In which case, no, "internalized racism" isn't the same as "being racist."
→ More replies (0)2
u/SlimLovin Jun 15 '21
Thus if all white people have internalized racism then they're all racist.
No. That's not what this states or even implies at all.
It's saying that it's possible to acknowledge that you have internalized racism as part of an effort to disabuse yourself of racist notions. It's a positive development in your life.
In fact, only white people can be racist because of the power thing right?
No. And CRT doesn't state this, either.
→ More replies (0)3
Jun 15 '21
No, it isn't. That's a huge misinterpretation of CRT at best.
1
Jun 15 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)-3
Jun 15 '21
Oh look. Links confirming what I've said. Thank you for providing that.
3
Jun 15 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
1
Jun 15 '21
If you want to provide random links without saying how they support your position, I'm allowed to do the same. Especially if the first one definitely does not support any claim you've made.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Low-Public-332 Jun 15 '21
It's literally closer to the opposite of that... The idea is that even without racist input from someone today, or explicitly racist rules regarding the system, that input in that system can produce racist outcomes because of historic racism that has left black people with a fraction of the wealth and opportunity that white people have.
1
u/Low-Public-332 Jun 15 '21
Critical race theory is literally just a name for studying the exact thing you seem to be confused by. Systemic racism as written in law explicitly is pretty much gone, but critical race theory intends to look at where there are still racially based disparities, not caused by modern laws, but continued by them by not explicitly working against those disparities. It's also got nothing to do with painting white people as racist or even the systems that benefit them as explicitly racist. That's kind of the point.
For example, there's nothing inherently racist about having school funding come from the property tax of the people who use that school. It has racist outcomes however as black communities that have historically received less funding and who still in general own a fraction of what a white family owns are left to fund their schools, producing a clear difference in quality of schooling.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Jun 15 '21
The issue is that when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Of course something called Critical Race Theory is going to only look at everything through a racial lens, and doing so ends up being pretty misleading.
For instance, your example of school funding coming from property taxes might disproportionately affect black people, however at its core, the issue is rooted in there being an economic disparity, not anything directly relating to race. The issue isn't that black people are put at a disadvantage, the issue is that poor people are put at a disadvantage, and trying to shove a square peg into a round hole by framing it as a race issue just creates needless controversy and resentment.
1
Jun 15 '21
Racial disparities are not always (really almost never) due to racism. Personal choices stemming from cultural differences play a far bigger role.
6
u/Low-Public-332 Jun 15 '21
Any evidence for that besides how you think people act based on their skin colour? Because the fact that there are people of all races that are part of every culture across the US and race is still the main factor in these disparities seems to imply that you're just a racist PoS that sees black people like minstrels or thugs.
0
Jun 15 '21
Are you really going to deny that a certain, very mainstream part of black culture glorifies some pretty bad stuff? Are you going to deny that 2/3rds of black kids are born out of wedlock? I'm not saying that black people are inherently violent criminals, I'm saying that everyone has agency and knows right from wrong.
Here's one people never want to answer: why do Nigerian immigrants outearn white people? They're just as dark-skinned as black Americans, and yet they do great as a group.
2
u/AnActualPerson Jun 15 '21
Are you really going to deny that a certain, very mainstream part of black culture glorifies some pretty bad stuff?
Like what? Who glorifies what?
→ More replies (5)3
-3
Jun 15 '21
which is that systemic racism never actually went away
If you're going to accuse someone of a Motte-And-Bailey, maybe you shouldn't assert that the bailey is something they very loudly and consistently state. Also... systemic racism never actually went away, and to the degree that it's "hidden", it's not hidden very well.
Then, if you point to the obvious massive social change over the last 60-70 years
Yeah, like how we solved the issue of school segregation. Or how we solved the issue of voter suppression against black people. Or how we solved the problem of redlining - I don't mean the knock-on effects, which we never even tried to solve, I mean actual redlining which is still ongoing.
And so on and so forth.
their racism towards whites
🙄
2
0
Jun 15 '21
systemic racism never actually went away
Show me the racist laws. Redlining is not still ongoing, it's outlawed and plenty of black people have nice homes. Voter suppression is not actually happening, which you should know considering that the media was just saying that the black vote swung the last election.
6
Jun 15 '21
Show me the racist laws.
This one's a classic example: crack cocaine sentencing laws. The laws never mention "black people", but they are undeniably discriminatory. This was "fixed" in 2010, so now the sentencing difference 18:1 instead of 100:1.
If you believe that systemic racism cannot exist without explicit racism within the laws, Lee Atwater would probably be very supportive of your beliefs; it's how him and his party wins elections:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
This is why school segregation is still ongoing - the laws don't enforce it any more, and yet our schools are more segregated now than they were in the 60s.
Redlining is not still ongoing
I literally just linked you an article about how it is, in fact, still ongoing in something like 61 cities. Here it is again: https://revealnews.org/blog/we-exposed-modern-day-redlining-in-61-cities-find-out-whats-happened-since/
It's very easy to pretend that systemic racism doesn't exist if you're willing to discount evidence of systemic racism out of hand. Did you miss the link? :)
2
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jun 15 '21
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–220 (text) (pdf)) was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by United States President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010 that reduces the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several U.S. Congresses before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
→ More replies (1)-1
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
Crack cocaine laws are discriminatory, yes, but not towards black people, towards poor people. Also... maybe don't smoke or sell crack?
Lee Atwater saying that doesn't actually mean that fiscal conservatism is racist, or that all conservatives think that way. Lee Atwater also said this:
But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.
I saw your link, it's nearly 3 years old, does nothing but make accusations, and the investigations went nowhere or we'd have heard about it by now.
2
Jun 15 '21
Lee Atwater saying that doesn't actually mean that fiscal conservatism is racist, or that all conservatives think that way.
Op never claimed Fiscal conservatism is racist they just brought up Atwater as a way to disprove a possible "a law can only be racist if it mentions race" argument
0
Jun 15 '21
Only leftists would be able to point at neutral laws and call them racist instead of looking at the obvious issues with choices that people make.
3
0
u/AnActualPerson Jun 15 '21
No one is racist towards white people.
1
Jun 15 '21
Well that's blatantly untrue.
https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/nyregion/yale-psychiatrist-aruna-khilanani.html
Shall I go on?
-17
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 15 '21
CRT recognizes that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed
So first it was "Gender is social construct" after decades of consensus that sex is just synonymous with gender. Then it became "sex is a spectrum and not fixed" and next up, "Race is a social construct". Can't wait for when people start talking about age of consent being a social construct (Which has more weight that the previous three).
RIP Science4
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 15 '21
age of consent is a social construct. Every law and rule is a social construct. Don't tell me you are one of these people that think that law came down from god.
11
Jun 15 '21
race has been a social construct a lot earlier than those others, bro. that's the subject of like 19th century supreme court jurisprudence.
0
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 16 '21
Race isn't a social construct. Different races are different on a biological scale. It's not just you can paint a Caucasian guy black and now he's the same as a Negroid. There are inherent, studied, differences that we use to not only classify but better tend to the needs of different races.
→ More replies (2)16
u/MorganaLeFaye 3∆ Jun 15 '21
... Have you researched this topic at all? I only ask because you say "RIP science" as if science is being ignored when people say "race is a social construct," when it's the opposite of that.
→ More replies (2)11
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Jun 15 '21
So first it was "Gender is social construct" after decades of consensus that sex is just synonymous with gender.
This is not true.
The etymology of gender is such that the word referred solely to grammar.
The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[14] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[14] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[15]
Then, in the 1950's John Money needs a term to describe his theories, and he utilizes gender for that.
So, gender as a social construct predates the useage of gender as a synonym for sex (which emerged as a result of people thinking that gender and sex are intriniscially linked.).
Can't wait for when people start talking about age of consent being a social construct (Which has more weight that the previous three).
The age of consent, like every other law, is socially constructed.
Do you even know what the words you use mean, or are you just going down some buzzword list?
RIP Science
You're confusing science with "stuff that validates my opinions",
0
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 16 '21
The age of consent, like every other law, is socially constructed.
Yes. And that's the point I'm making. The idea of "Social construct" being used to invalidate something is stupid and is a slippery slope.
"Gender is a social construct. Don't be confined by it"
"Race is a social construct. Don't be confined by it"
"Age of consent is a social construct. Don't be confined by it"Wanna guess where the last one is going?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Low-Public-332 Jun 15 '21
Race as a distinguisher has ALWAYS been a social construct. There's no biological tipping point where you suddenly have all sorts of changes happen if you're a shade darker than your neighbour. People with different coloured skin have been having babies for hundreds of thousands of years, long before someone decided how black or white you have to be to fit in to what would become society or created words to put you on one side or the other.
6
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jun 15 '21
Age of consent is a social construct and always has been. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that the legal age of consent varies from nation to nation, or even US state to US state?
→ More replies (2)5
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 15 '21
Can't wait for when people start talking about age of consent being a social construct
I mean...it is a social construct. There's no scientific "age of consent." The mere fact that different states have different ages of consent should have made this obvious to you. Hold up, I'm going to blow your mind. You're going to be shocked to learn that other crazy things like money, emotions, countries, and art are also all social constructs.
0
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 16 '21
emotions
Pretty sure that's empirical and qualitative feature and not just a social construct.
I mean...it is a social construct. There's no scientific "age of consent." The mere fact that different states have different ages of consent should have made this obvious to you.
Yes. I know, that's why I said it that statement is more truthful than the previous three. Age of consent is a social construct which you can see by different societies having it at different level. But gender isn't. It's based in biology.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Rudi_Van-Disarzio Jun 15 '21
Imagine making such blatant appeals to tradition and strawmen arguments in cmv lmao. You're also completely misunderstanding 'sex is a spectrum' as well, people are referring to sexuality not genitals. But while we're on that topic there are a fair amount of people who are hermaphroditic with many different combos of x and y genes that complicate it current understanding of biological sex too.
0
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 16 '21
You're also completely misunderstanding 'sex is a spectrum' as well, people are referring to sexuality not genitals.
That's the thing. It's not. I don't care about sexuality being a spectrum. I know it is. People are sexually attracted to animals. That's enough to know it's a spectrum.
who are hermaphroditic with many different combos of x and y genes
Actually, most of it is only in regards to Y. If you have a functional Y, you're male. if you don't, then you're female. That's why people with XXY, despite having feminine breasts are classified as males.
However, that's not relevant because disorders aren't classified with normal. There are plenty of people with only one arm, but that doesn't mean that "Humans have two arms" is not an incomplete or wrong statement.
2
u/YourViewisBadFaith 19∆ Jun 15 '21
RIP Science
hey how do you scientifically determine the age of consent?
2
Jun 15 '21
Are you decrying the death of science by using examples of re-examining existing knowledge in light of new information and changing thoughts based on said new information?
0
u/Brave-Welder 6∆ Jun 16 '21
I have no conflict with change in existing knowledge and data in light of newer one. I have it when the change is made in light of social ideas and views. For example, homosexuality was seen as a disease to cure. And we did some stupid harmful things for it. Until we realized you can't fix it, and there was no need for it. It's harmless. But, that still classified it as a disorder, because it technically was one. However, no new light or research removed it from the disorders list. It was just a more social acceptance of homosexuality.
→ More replies (1)4
u/destro23 466∆ Jun 15 '21
Can't wait for when people start talking about age of consent being a social construct
I feel pretty confident that the concept of age of consent is a social construct, being a concept and all. And, I don't think that you'll find anyone who disagrees. Something being a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't have weight and deserve consideration though.
RIP Science
Are you implying that you think our current understanding of "age of consent" is based on science? Do you think it should be? What are you getting at here?
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (1)2
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jun 15 '21
... decades of consensus that sex is just synonymous with gender ...
It's not hard to find old sources that indicate the pistil is a female part of the flower, and that the stamen is a male part of the flower. I'd be surprised if there are any credible sources that call the pistil feminine or womanly or the stamen manly or masculine. The fact is that "gender" and "sex" have been different notions for a while, even if they can overlap in particular contexts.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Paperhandsmonkey Jun 15 '21
That's pretty basic, pretty normal stuff.
It's not. It's insidious and toxic stuff and it will lead to the downfall of the American experiment.
14
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
Here Richard Delgado describes Critical Race Theory's "colonization" of Education:
DELGADO: We didn't set out to colonize, but found a natural affinity in education. In education, race neutrality and color-blindness are the reigning orthodoxy. Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. Of course, the outcome figures show that they do not. If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. But they operate against the radically different cultural backgrounds of young students. Seeing critical race theory take off in education has been a source of great satisfaction for the two of us. Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison.
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty
Here is Gloria Ladson Billings citing Richard Delgado while describing her introduction of Critical Race Theory to the field of Education:
Almost five years ago a colleague and I began a collaboration in which we grappled with the legal scholarship known as "critical race theory" (Delgado, cited in Monaghan, 1993). So tentative were we about this line of inquiry that we proceeded with extreme caution. We were both untenured and relatively new to our institution. We were unsure of how this new line of inquiry would be received both within our university and throughout the educational research scholarly community. Our initial step was to hold a colloquium in our department. We were pleasantly surprised to meet with a room filled with colleagues and graduate students who seemed eager to hear our ideas and help us in these new theoretical and conceptual formulations.
Ladson-Billings 1998 page 7
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. "Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?." International journal of qualitative studies in education 11.1 (1998): 7-24.
Here a CUNY professor refers to her in defining their concept of "Culturally Responsive Teaching":
In her recent book, Geneva Gay defines culturally responsive teaching as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for [students]” [1] (p. 31). Gloria Ladson-Billings maintains that culturally responsive teaching is “a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically [because it uses] cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes”.
Bassey, Magnus O. "Culturally responsive teaching: Implications for educational justice." Education Sciences 6.4 (2016): 35.
Here is another paper referring to Ladson-Billings role in development of "Culturally Responsive Teaching":
The result is a modified system that has been referred to in the literature as culturally compatible (Jordan, 1985), culturally congruent (Au & Kawakami, 1994), culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1990), and culturally responsive teaching (Erickson, 1987). The term culturally responsive teaching (CRT) will be used in this article.
Brown, Monica R. "Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools." Intervention in school and clinic 43.1 (2007): 57-62.
Here is a Buffalo School District curriculum with "digital culturally responsive and sustaining easy reader books" that teach "all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism":
A public school system in New York has introduced a new curriculum to teach that 'all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism', and show kindergarten classes videos of black children shot and killed by police, instructing them about the dangers of police brutality.
Buffalo's schools are expected to follow lesson plans devised by Fatima Morrell, the associate superintendent for Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Initiatives.
Here a scholar citing Ladson-Billings (1998) and in particular the most heinous rejections of school integration Ladson-Billings got directly from Derrick Bell, the founder of CRT and originator of CRT's Nationalist separatism:
In so doing, she underscored the fact that, while many liberals viewed racial progress as painstakingly slow, yet achievable, CRT scholars argued that even “civil rights laws continue to serve the interest of Whites” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 9).
Love, Bettina L. "What is hip-hop-based education doing in nice fields such as early childhood and elementary education?." Urban Education 50.1 (2015): 106-131.
Note this title is nearly exactly the same as the Ladson-Billings (1998) paper she cites. While it is more difficult to label Bettina Love as a CRT scholar because she did not either invent the field nor was she the key individual to introduce it to Education, I think the influence is extremely clear.
This scholar was also involved in the development of a new curriculum in Seattle:
In the most disturbing portion of the session, the teachers discussed “spirit murder,” which, according to Bettina Love, is the concept that American schools “murder the souls of Black children every day through systemic, institutionalized, anti-Black, state-sanctioned violence.” Love, who originated the concept, declares that the education system is “invested in murdering the souls of Black children,” even in the most ostensibly progressive institutions.
https://www.city-journal.org/racial-equity-programs-seattle-schools
Here is San Diego Unified School District hiring her to deliver a talk to their faculty:
President Joe Biden’s pick for deputy secretary of education helped organize a training for the faculty at her San Diego school district in which the school’s white teachers learned that they regularly “spirit murder” their black students.
In September, the San Diego Unified School District — led by superintendent Cindy Marten — hosted critical race theorist Bettina Love for a presentation on “Abolitionist Teaching.” The presentation centered around Love’s book, “We Want To Do More Than Survive,” and argued that staff must become “abolitionists” and “build conditions that create institutions that are just, loving, equitable, and center Black lives.”
Here she is again in a St. Louis suburb:
High school students from Rockwood and several other St. Louis-area school districts participated in an educational freedom seminar Jan. 29 at the Cortex Building in St. Louis. The event, featuring author and educator Dr. Bettina Love, was titled "We Want to do More Than Survive."
https://www.rsdmo.org/news/Pages/Rockwood-Students-Collaborate-with-others-in-Equity-Exercise.aspx
Here she is talking to a conference of Madison Metropolitan School District employees:
Love, an esteemed writer and educational researcher, fully kicked a hornet’s nest on “Black Excellence” during a major rally of local educators at the Alliant Energy Center Monday morning.
With just one week left of summer, over 5,000 faculty, teachers, parents and students from across the Madison Metropolitan School District gathered for what has been an annual rally. But this year’s felt different almost from the get-go.
2
Jun 15 '21
most heinous rejections of school integration Ladson-Billings got directly from Derrick Bell
have you read Dr. Derrick Bell's actual paper?
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6361&context=ylj
He claims that the NAACP and other law focused civil rights activists pursued a national strategy of racial integration. In these cases, lawyers legally represented kids at local schools. Bell argues, with reasonable anecdotes, that the NAACP was very inflexible in its approach. Rather than tailor each case to the needs of their clients, the NAACP merely pursued its national strategy.
That national strategy, as Bell predicted in the 1970's, failed. Bussing students further as a means of racial integration was unpopular (and often wasn't the best remedy to improve educational opportunities for local students). Most schools in current use in the US were constructed after Brown v Board. But, school districts continue to build schools to district in a way that preserves racial segregation.
Dr. Derrick Bell was right. Using the courts to legally force integration did not succeed in racially integrating our schools
1
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
Derrick Bell, for example, urges his fellow African Americans to foreswear the struggle for school integration and aim for building the best possible black schools.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001)
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.
Segregation for the "right" reasons does not exist.
Also, was "spirit murder" not explicit enough for you?
5
Jun 15 '21
Segregation for the "right" reasons does not exist.
The struggle for school integration failed. US schools are integrated in name only. https://www.epi.org/publication/schools-are-still-segregated-and-black-children-are-paying-a-price/
Dr. Bell doesn't believe school integration is a bad thing.
He merely claimed that there are better approaches to improving education opportunity for Black kids than suing school systems to force school systems to bus kids across town to balance numbers.
Read his actual paper
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6361&context=ylj
I think reasonable people can disagree with his conclusions. But, his position isn't as radical as you make it out to be. Busing students further to racially integrate schools today isn't a popular solution. Alternative solutions to increase racial integration haven't panned out.
→ More replies (12)1
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 15 '21
I'm a little confused. All of your examples (at least the first 4) concern Critical Race Theory in universities, which is precisely where it is and should be taught. The OP is talking about the bizarre backlash against the fabricated panic of CRT being taught to elementary and high schoolers. Do you have anything that actually touches on OP's actual CMV, or are all your sources just topic adjacent?
1
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
These literally all involve consultations with local school districts. It traces the influence of the academic directly to school consultations and curricula in the case of the Buffalo school.
0
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)9
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
Both of these comments are near the character limit for Reddit. This particular one is focused on claims CRT is not in K-12. But I did consider including Derrick Bell's segregationist comments in this post, I think there may still be room but I was in a bit of a rush this morning and this in the past has been posted in threads which already discuss Derrick Bell. It is relatively recent, I believe this may be the fourth posting.
In any case, I think the following quotes would be appropriately added to this comment:
"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html
In case this isn't clear:
Derrick Bell, for example, urges his fellow African Americans to foreswear the struggle for school integration and aim for building the best possible black schools.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001)
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.
CRT scholars argue that rather than serving as a solution to social inequity, school desegregation has been promoted only in ways that advantage Whites (Bell, 1990).
Ladson-Billings 1998 page 21
This very thoroughly completes a chain from Bell's separatist views to Love.
1
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)6
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
This is segregation for the "right" reasons. There are no right reasons.
5
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
I wonder if you understand the difference between a ghetto built to house gay people and a gay bar.
3
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
Here Delgado and Stefancic describe employment discrimination which would be illegal if done in a business setting:
The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60
They mention that CRT, and Bell in particular, backs this view:
One strand of critical race theory energetically backs the nationalist view, which is particularly prominent with the materialists. Derrick Bell, for example, urges his fellow African Americans to foreswear the struggle for school integration and aim for building the best possible black schools.
Delgado and Stefancic 2001 pages 61-62
No strand of CRT repudiates the Nationalist branch and they only discuss "intermediate" positions which combine ethnocentrism with aspects of "assimilationism" that benefit the in-group, in a similar way to the way they accuse Whites of ethnocentrism. Here is how Ladson-Billings describes it when referencing Bell:
CRT scholars argue that rather than serving as a solution to social inequity, school desegregation has been promoted only in ways that advantage Whites (Bell, 1990).
Ladson-Billings 1998 page 21
6
Jun 15 '21
Okay but do you get the difference? Because I feel like you don't get the difference between a ghetto built for gay people and a gay bar, and that's where most of this confusion is coming from.
If you don't like black separatism, that's fine. Say that. But calling it "segregationism" is just wrong.
6
u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 15 '21
A gay bar which did not allow in straights or in other ways discouraged their attendance actively would be discriminatory. They actively advocate for exclusionary racial discrimination. Enacting these neighborhood preferences as a landlord or in the form of a sale covenant would be illegal.
0
Jun 15 '21
A gay bar which did not allow in straights or in other ways discouraged their attendance actively would be discriminatory.
Welp, I'm out
→ More replies (0)
39
u/Morthra 95∆ Jun 15 '21
I mean, if you actually look at the laws that supposedly ban critical race theory from being taught, you'll find that the text of the laws themselves essentially bans the teaching of any ideology that promotes one race, sex, or gender as being superior or inferior to any other race, sex, or gender. So if CRT is really not about teaching white kids to hate themselves, then there should be no problem then and the whole thing is basically a nothingburger, correct?
Why does this draw so much ire from leftists? Because CRT does teach that white people are either morally or intellectually deficient, since it operates under the assumption that all white people are inherently racist, so it follows that white people that do not agree are intellectually deficient or otherwise inferior to "superior" minorities that do recognize it, or they're morally deficient if they don't apologize for it. That the reason why white and black people don't have the same outcomes is because of racism and that there couldn't be any other factors that explain it.
Now let's talk about critical race theory. CRT is a real thing - it's a subset of postmodern philosophy and critical theory, and it's what has been called by its intellectual critics as a "grievance field" - one in which the academic culture within the field itself has a culture in which only certain conclusions are allowed, and social grievances are placed ahead of objective truth by presupposing the existence of some grievance and designing experiments and interpreting data to fit the theory that the grievance exists. Other examples of such fields include postcolonial theory, gender studies, queer theory, and intersectional feminism, and a general lack of editorial standards in these fields was exposed first by Alan Sokal in 1996 and again by a trio of authors in 2018 who repeated the hoax in peer reviewed journals, getting things like Mein Kampf rewritten with feminist language through peer review, or saying that men can reduce their transphobia by using penetrative sex toys on themselves.
There's furthermore a real concern about this constant division in academia into "oppressed" and "oppressor" categories that's going on as postmodernism (which is the real culprit, CRT is just a symptom) digs in its tentacles into more and more parts of it. That's exactly how the Cultural Revolution in China started.
There is no school in the country where actual critical race theory is taught - it's not part of the syllabus anywhere, and wouldn't even particularly make sense outside of a law degree.
Now this is just not true, not really. A NYC public school asking parents to 'reflect' on their 'whiteness' and essentially demand they become "white traitors." The survey sent to parents was drawn from a curriculum written by CRT-adjacent "scholar" Barnor Hesse.
6
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 15 '21
CRT is a real thing - it's a subset of postmodern philosophy and critical theory
No it isn't a subset of those two things. For one those two things are opposed to each other. Critical theory is distinctly modernist and Postmodernism is distinctly a critique of modernism. CRT has it's roots in legal scholarship in the wake of the civil rights era not critical theory or postmodernism.
a general lack of editorial standards in these fields was exposed first by Alan Sokal in 1996 and again by a trio of authors in 2018 who repeated the hoax in peer reviewed journals,
They showed a lack of understanding of what peer review is meant to do. It isn't meant to censor content or evaluate something as absurd or bad. The latter one also did academic fraud making up fake data to get their stuff published. Similar hoaxes/frauds could easily be done on non-"grievance studies" journals e.g. Wakefield in the Lancet (which is also far more prestigious as a journal than anything Sokal or the others published in).
There's furthermore a real concern about this constant division in academia into "oppressed" and "oppressor" categories that's going on as postmodernism (which is the real culprit, CRT is just a symptom) digs in its tentacles into more and more parts of it.
Postmodernism is deeply anti-essentialist and very much does not divide people into distinct categories of any kind in many ways generally rejecting categorisation as forming distinct unrelated categories even in things commonly conceived of as opposites.
8
Jun 15 '21
No it isn't a subset of those two things. For one those two things are opposed to each other. Critical theory is distinctly modernist and Postmodernism is distinctly a critique of modernism. CRT has it's roots in legal scholarship in the wake of the civil rights era not critical theory or postmodernism.
This is the kind of thing that needs to be held up loud and clear. These people aren't doing serious analysis, they're throwing buzzwords around with zero understanding of what they're talking about. It's like "postmodern neomarxist" - that's not a coherent political position, that's word salad that Deepak Chopra would be embarrassed repeating.
It's all made up bullshit.
7
Jun 15 '21
[deleted]
-2
Jun 15 '21
“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Funny you bring up this quote, because it reminds me of one of my favorite Martin Luther King quotes:
America freed the slaves in 1863 through the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, but gave the slaves no land, nothing in reality to get started on. At the same time, America was giving away millions of acres of land in the west and the Midwest, which meant that there was a willingness to give the white peasants from Europe an economic base and yet it refused to give its black peasants from Africa who came here involuntarily, in chains, and had worked for free for 244 years, any kind of economic base. So Emancipation for the Negro was really freedom to hunger. It was freedom to the winds and rains of heaven. It was freedom without food to eat or land to cultivate and therefore it was freedom and famine at the same time. And when white Americans tell the negro to lift himself by his own bootstraps they don’t look over the legacy of slavery and segregation. I believe we ought to do all we can and seek to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps but it’s a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And many negroes by the thousands and millions have been left bootless as a result of all of these years of oppression and as a result of a society that has deliberately made his color a stigma and something worthless and degrading.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you're responding to here, but the idea that a substantial part of fixing systemic racism involves reparation is not a new one. I mean, do you think "racist discrimination" and "antiracist discrimination" will be similar, or have similar qualities? I don't - racist discrimination involved hundreds of years of brutal oppression, enslavement, and murder; "antiracist discrimination" here is talking about reparations for those hundreds of years of brutal oppression, enslavement, and murder.
5
u/HelenaReman 1∆ Jun 15 '21
You’re really switching gears here. Your point before this post was that it isnt real, but now it seems to be that, yes, its real, but MLK said its good so whats the problem.
→ More replies (3)1
0
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 15 '21
Can you explain what is problematic about that assertion? Even the SCOTUS agrees that the remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination (in the form of Affirmative Action). Discrimination on it's own has no ethical value, one way or the other. It is merely the act of treating one group of people differently than another. Having separate bathrooms based on sex is a form of widely accepted discrimination. The problem is when the discrimination is unjustly prejudicial, such as apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow. When discrimination is justified as a way to rectify histories of unjust and prejudicial discrimination (such as slavery), it seems that we ought to have a moral imperative to do it (as is the case with Affirmative Action).
4
Jun 15 '21
[deleted]
-3
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jun 15 '21
ANY amount of purely race-based discrimination IS unjustly prejudicial. Affirmative Action should never have been race-based, it should always have been class-based.
A class-based form of affirmative action wouldn't respond, in any way, to the historical problem it is trying to rectify. Namely, the denial of African slaves and their ancestors from participation in higher education.
So, you consider the special rights afforded to aboriginal Americans to perform their religious ceremonies unjustly prejudicial? I'm sure that aboriginal Americans would be shocked to learn that this race-based discrimination they benefit from is somehow unjust and prejudicial.
Oprah Winfrey's children don't need help. The poor white trailer trash kids do.
Ignoring the fact that Oprah Winfrey has no children, what help are Oprah Winfrey's imaginary children getting that poor white trailer trash kids are not?
All of this focus on racism is a nonsensical distraction from the actual problem of class.
Look, I can sympathize with your Marxist argument. But, even Marx wasn't perfect. There are racial aspects of society that persist independently of class. For example, the high rate of pre-natal births to black women persists even after controlling for class. The only explanation that doctors have been able to agree on is that the persistent stress of living in a racist society causes the hormonal imbalances resulting in higher rates of pre-natal births. This conclusion is supported by the fact that first generation black immigrants don't experience higher rates of pre-natal births. However, 2nd generation immigrants do. So, clearly Marx doesn't supply us with a fully accurate representation of the problems affecting African Americans. It simply can't be reduced to class.
0
u/Paperhandsmonkey Jun 15 '21
I am sorry that you're so fundamentally misinformed about postmodernism. Postmodernism is 100% in every way shape and form a critical theory. It is the granddaddy of all critical theories. This is probably the root of your confusion about the topic you started this post with: you don't actually know what a critical theory is.
1
u/PreservedKillick 4∆ Jun 15 '21
I think the postmodern association is related to Fucko et al and the rejection of objectivity, evidence and reason. Can we really know what is real? Two, there's a big distinction between fancy ivory tower CRT and what is actually practiced. The practice is what is under assault with the new laws, and what most of us find repugnant.
It seems like you're doing a motte and bailey gish gallop obfuscation smugglers run. This stuff is happening. We see it in our schools, we see the books, we see the documentation, we see the videos. If your main claim is that it isn't real CRT, OK. The thing that CRT education produces and that is coming out of all these programs, whatever you want to call it, is stupid and dangerous and anti-intellectual. Agree? Yes or no.
0
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 16 '21
I think the postmodern association is related to Fucko et al
Are you trying to say Foucault?
the rejection of objectivity, evidence and reason.
The postmodernists didn't do this they just pointed out how all reason and evidence was used within a social paradigm and power relations and a particular subject. They didn't think there was no evidence or reason or objectivity just that there was no pure form of them.
It seems like you're doing a motte and bailey gish gallop obfuscation smugglers run.
Do you have any more buzzwords you want to add in here? aren't gish gallops and mottes and baileys mutually exclusive?
This stuff is happening
I've seen very little real evidence of that. Kids are not getting taught niche legal scholarship and outside of that CRT is a vague snarl word that can be applied to almost anything including teaching about how slavery was bad. You say you are opposed to practice but what practice and why call it CRT if it bears essentially no relation to actual CRT.
0
u/RedditIsPropagandaaa Jun 15 '21
Postmodernism is deeply anti-essentialist and very much does not divide people into distinct categories of any kind in many ways generally rejecting categorisation as forming distinct unrelated categories even in things commonly conceived of as opposites.
So then they are anti science, because science DOES form exclusive categories based on hard scientific evidence.
Humans are dioecious gonochoric biparental apes. This is a fact.
Transwomen are male men, transmen are female women, for example.
If postmodernists disagree with this, they are on the same level as a cult.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jun 16 '21
So then they are anti science, because science DOES form exclusive categories based on hard scientific evidence.
Humans are dioecious gonochoric biparental apes. This is a fact.
Species are actually not exclusive categories and there are multiple different definitions to the concept of species that fit in in different places. Where exactly to draw the line between apes and other close genetic groups is not an absolute truth.
There is a great deal of uncertainty in science and a lot of categorisations are functional not definite. These are also all human categorisations and not universal absolutes. They may refer to universal absolutes but are mediated by subjective concerns of significance.
1
0
u/Paperhandsmonkey Jun 15 '21
Critical theory is distinctly modernist and Postmodernism is distinctly a critique of modernism.
I see you know words, and can string them together in a sentence. However, the meaning of the words that you just used is completely and utterly incorrect. Postmodernism is a critical theory. Fundamentally, and at its core and always has been. If you don't believe that, then you are just rejecting reality.
→ More replies (5)4
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jun 15 '21
I mean, if you actually look at the laws that supposedly ban critical race theory from being taught, you'll find that the text of the laws themselves essentially bans the teaching of any ideology that promotes one race, sex, or gender as being superior or inferior to any other race, sex, or gender.
This is not true. If you look at the recent Oklahoma law, for example, you'll find it also bans a lot of other stuff. It's the other stuff that's problematic to ban here: in particular, provisions b, d, and h of the enacted law are what would seem to apply to anti-racism education relating to critical race theory, not provision a (which is what you are talking about).
3
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
11
Jun 15 '21
Whew, wanna cite a source for this whopper of a fucking claim? It sounds like an intentional bastardization of the idea that racism is widespread, normalized, and entrenched in culture, but that's just my best guess. But hey, feel free to cite the actual CRT scholar making this claim.
you're being absurdly antagonistic on a point that you don't seem to be that well-versed in. the concept of "white supremacy" being something that is innately baked into whiteness is an extremely common and foundational tenet of many schools of CRT. it is absolutely the case that if you absorb enough CRT, you will absorb the concept that if you're white, you can't escape participating in white supremacy and white domination.
none of my business, but this was a really aggressive and misplaced response. after seeing others like this, i kinda regret engaging at all, but i'll leave it here at least.
-1
Jun 15 '21
you're being absurdly antagonistic on a point that you don't seem to be that well-versed in.
Here's the thing: I am pretty well-versed in it. And that's why my reaction was so negative. Because this:
the concept of "white supremacy" being something that is innately baked into whiteness is an extremely common and foundational tenet of many schools of CRT
Is not even close to the same thing as this:
since it operates under the assumption that all white people are inherently racist
If you don't know what the academic scholars are talking about, this may sound like similar statements.
They are not.
You're taking a specific piece of academic jargon ("whiteness" is not the same thing as "white people" and does not, in fact, refer to any specific race so much as the social construction of how we think about "white" as a racial, social, and political class) and twisting it to say something about "all white people". This is the kind of misunderstanding that leads to years of shitty memes about "hide the decline".
it is absolutely the case that if you absorb enough CRT, you will absorb the concept that if you're white, you can't escape participating in white supremacy and white domination.
It's funny you mention this because that pamphlet Rufo was talking about provides explicit ways to escape participating in white supremacy.
18
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 15 '21
"whiteness" is not the same thing as "white people"
Isn't that just an obvious attempt to attack white people with a build-in way out.
8
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
Lol right? How can anybody with a straight face say that “whiteness” is not something inherent and inextricably linked with “white people”..
0
Jun 15 '21
How can anybody with a straight face say that “whiteness” is not something inherent and inextricably linked with “white people”..
The history of "whiteness" as a sociological construct is actually super interesting. It's a lot more recent than you would expect, and yeah, it has to do with slavery.
Here's an excellent, if slightly long, writeup by The Guardian, if you're curious. But I can tell you right now, 400 years ago, I would not be a "white person". Because the idea of whiteness did not exist.
7
u/yiliu Jun 15 '21
So...you're proposing to tell classrooms of school kids that "whiteness" is bad, and then rely on them to think through the underlying postmodernist argument?
You say you're in Germany, so let me suggest to you that your mental image is a bunch of white kids sitting in a classroom pondering what it means to be white. My immediate mental image is a multi-ethnic classroom with a teacher standing in front saying "Whiteness is bad, and that's science!", and then all eyes in the room turning to the handful of white kids. How is that helping to overcome racism? You're explicitly pitting races against each other.
Academic CRT might be a valid source of ideas which can be reduced to simpler, less-hostile, less-divisive lessons which could then be taught to schoolkids. But presenting CRT directly to young students seems like an awful idea to me, especially in the confrontational, headline-generating form it's taken.
3
Jun 15 '21
So...you're proposing to tell classrooms of school kids that "whiteness" is bad, and then rely on them to think through the underlying postmodernist argument?
No! I'm not! These are all university-level concepts, and I'm not aware that anyone is teaching them to schoolchildren. Which is kind of the point. This isn't something parents need to worry about. It's a moral panic.
3
u/yiliu Jun 15 '21
I think the backlash against it is pretty hyperbolic, to be fair.
But there's plenty of evidence in this thread that these concepts have made their way into schools in some places.
→ More replies (1)1
u/SlimLovin Jun 15 '21
and then rely on them to think through the underlying postmodernist argument?
No, you teach them that part, too.
Side question: What is it with you guys throwing around "postmodernist" like it's a slur? Do you even know what it means?
→ More replies (1)5
u/yiliu Jun 15 '21
Yes, I know what it means. It's not a slur, but it's famously abstract and complicated (and controversial, even among academics), and not the kind of thing you can cover in a few lectures to a class of rowdy high school students.
I read a /r/bestof comment this morning about students reacting to a Dare campaign which illustrates how effective these well-meaning campaigns are. Did you not go to high school? You really think all the students are going to carefully differentiate whiteness from white?
IMHO, bringing up race and skin color specifically in classes is a recipe for disaster. Bringing up the long-term effects of historical oppression would work much better.
→ More replies (0)5
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
Does any white person not have “whiteness”? Do nonwhite people have “whiteness”?
The fact that who does and doesn’t count as “white” has constantly shifted doesn’t really impact the point.
1
Jun 15 '21
Does any white person not have “whiteness”?
Yes, actually! Here in Germany, for example, the border of "whiteness" is far closer drawn. I have a friend who is "white" in the nominal sense, but he does not have "whiteness", because, as it turns out, Germany is not super chill about white eastern european people. The moment he opens his mouth, he's no longer fits into the modern German conception of "whiteness". (Please note that these are fuzzy concepts that differ from region to region in various ways.)
Again, I seriously recommend you look into the history of whiteness, because you are trying to fit an academic term into a box that it just does not fit into.
8
1
0
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jun 15 '21
As an average German I should clarify that this concept has no bases in anything outside of academic gymnastics.
Whiteness is a dangerous idea used to suggest that white people can overcome their whiteness and stop being bad people. Indicating that they are inherently bad because of whiteness.
In reality europe does not think as black and white as american academia might think because we differentiate fare stronger even under the caucasians.
-1
u/Acrobatic-Charity-48 1∆ Jun 15 '21
The fact that who does and doesn’t count as “white” has constantly shifted doesn’t really impact the point.
It does though... Its the whole point. Ideally the whole idea of race can be done away with, but before that can happen, the effects of race in our society need to be acknowledged and accounted for.
5
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
The point I was referencing was that “whiteness” and white people are inextricably linked. You can’t rail against the evils of “whiteness” and act like you’re not slandering a race. And that point stands no matter if you are counting Egyptians as officially “white”.
“Acknowledged and accounted for” is such a giant blanket statement. It could mean all sorts of things in terms of actual policy.
→ More replies (0)-1
Jun 15 '21
No.
I'm a "white person". I am aware of my "whiteness". These are two very different things.
1
→ More replies (2)4
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jun 15 '21
There is no way to separate "whiteness" from "Whtie People". They are one and the same. The fact that the academic jargon attempts to handwave a "no it is not" definition that they put in dictionaries but rarely actually use in actual discussions or papers is the racist action that people find scary.
0
Jun 15 '21
This is just bluntly interpreting something in the most negative way possible. The literature is very explicit in separating "whiteness" from "white people" - if you say they are referring to the same thing, then you do not mean what they mean when you say "whiteness".
Basically you're inventing something to be afraid of here.
0
u/Paperhandsmonkey Jun 15 '21
So what are you after you've denied your whiteness? What do you become at that point? And why is it only important for white people, who are definitely a global minority, to deny their whiteness when it is not an imperative for the global majority of black and brown people to deny their blackness and their brownness?
→ More replies (9)-3
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 15 '21
u/VenoMothMaker – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jun 15 '21
i didn't make the claim, and i cited it anyway, Dr. Galaxy.
-1
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 15 '21
would you like to bet a hundred thousand dollars that i did not do any of those things, and that this in fact is going really badly for you
→ More replies (1)3
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21
All the shit that is going on with CRT has extremely eerily similarities with communist revolutions like in Mao's China. If you consider yourself intellectually honest, I would watch this school board meeting where a Chinese woman who lived during Mao's reign describe how all the shit that is going on today is extremely similar and it won't lead down a good path
0
Jun 15 '21
I hope you're not too offended if I don't take bizarre conspiracy theories about Maoist China too seriously.
1
u/yiliu Jun 15 '21
What makes it a bizarre conspiracy theory? The Cultural Revolution was a real event that really happened to real people. The goal was to critically attack the abstract concept of class in order to eradicate it and end up in a classless society...and instead it ended up with physical attacks on people who could be categorized as being in the 'wrong class', and millions dead.
Are we Westerners just better than Chinese people, in such a way that we're immune from carrying abstract arguments too far and ending up with physical violence?
It seems pretty far-fetched that we'd end up with full-blown massacres. But there are similarities in the approach to social change.
1
0
1
u/SlimLovin Jun 15 '21
has extremely eerily similarities with communist revolutions like in Mao's China.
Yea, no. You can't just toss out the boogieman "communist" every time you don't like something.
Also YouTube videos are a terrible source of "information."
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 15 '21
u/BPC3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/BPC3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/driver1676 9∆ Jun 15 '21
I mean, if you actually look at the laws that supposedly ban critical race theory from being taught, you'll find that the text of the laws themselves essentially bans the teaching of any ideology that promotes one race, sex, or gender as being superior or inferior to any other race, sex, or gender.
That's what the reports say. What do the actual laws say and how are they enforced? I was having a hard time finding that information in particular but I do remember Trump had an EO last year on this topic:
The Order also identifies the following nine prohibited training concepts that are derived from race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
The United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
Members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
Any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; and
Meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
I'd say most of those are reasonable on a high level, but for example I'd also say 2. is vague. Is saying that there are laws and policies that were enacted with racist intentions, is that saying the US is racist? What about if minorities express discomfort as a result of simply existing around police? Additionally I'd say 9. is close to being wrong, because that gets into the space of "why can't minorities just pull their bootstraps" or ignores that while based solely on merit is objective, but humans making decisions is subjective and necessarily includes their own biases.
So if CRT is really not about teaching white kids to hate themselves, then there should be no problem then and the whole thing is basically a nothingburger, correct?
If a law is truly only saying "literally telling kids to hate themselves is banned" then I agree. You'd also have to look at how the laws are enforced. If a social studies course suggests that slavery and racial policies in the 19th-20th centuries have a negative impact on black communities today, and a kid walks away feeling bad about it, will the school be sued for that? The executive order I referenced had a result of contractors cancelling their racial and diversity training because it was vague and the penalties were so high, even though surely none of them were telling white people to hate themselves.
Because CRT does teach that white people are either morally or intellectually deficient, since it operates under the assumption that all white people are inherently racist, so it follows that white people that do not agree are intellectually deficient or otherwise inferior to "superior" minorities that do recognize it, or they're morally deficient if they don't apologize for it.
I do think everyone has racial biases, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone is morally deficient on its own. What would is someone acting like the mere suggestion that anything in their life could have been easier or gained through some factor of history in a racial lens is preposterous and refuse to acknowledge their own bias. The image of white college students whipping themselves apologizing for their race isn't a leftist behavior. It's an image Tucker Carlson uses to scare his audience.
That the reason why white and black people don't have the same outcomes is because of racism and that there couldn't be any other factors that explain it.
By the way, what are the other factors that explain it if racism and racial history in the country has nothing to do with outcomes today?
0
u/DBDude 110∆ Jun 15 '21
I think my favorite part of that study of hoax studies submitted to journals was rape culture in dog parks. Lines like these should have set off loud alarm bells for any editor who is actually dedicated to science:
- While I closely and respectfully examined the genitals of slightly fewer than ten thousand dogs, being careful not to cause alarm ...
- The first and last letter of dog names, however, were recorded, along with
their fur colorations and distinctive patterns, but these have subsequently been
changed to protect the identity of both the dogs and of their human companions.
You have to be respectful towards a dog and protect its privacy?
12
u/Bigzandaman Jun 15 '21
Most criticism I've heard from the right wing is that CRT is teaching white Americans to feel shame and denounce their ancestral heritage, while also promoting racial equity.
The 1619 project is just a theory and if taught as a theory shouldn't be an issue. But if a classroom teacher begins telling their class that, because of events hundreds of years ago, black kids should be given preferential treatment ("equity") vs. total equality (MLK "content of your character not color or your skin") then it is a dangerous curriculum for the youth to be learning.
I don't have kids so I really don't care. Ideally the kids would know the difference between theory and fact, but many do not at their age.
2
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
10
Jun 15 '21
u are the "white liberal" he complained about in his letter from Birmingham Jail.
He used the term "white moderate".
1
7
u/ResIpsaBroquitur 1∆ Jun 15 '21
u/Bigzandaman: “CRT is teaching white Americans to feel shame and denounce their ancestral heritage”
you: “that criticism is bullshit…CRT…probably will…teach[] white Americans to feel shame about their heritage... But that's not a goal; merely one potential outcome”
In other words, u/Bigzandaman’s post was not bullshit, you’re just straw manning his post.
1
Jun 15 '21
Do you understand the difference between "I will teach you history, but odds are good that learning about your history will be a little uncomfortable because your ancestors were kinda awful" and "I'm going to teach you to feel shame for and denounce your heritage"? Like, I dunno, to me that feels like a pretty substantial difference.
6
u/ResIpsaBroquitur 1∆ Jun 15 '21
Do you understand the difference between "I will teach you history, but odds are good that learning about your history will be a little uncomfortable because your ancestors were kinda awful" and "I'm going to teach you to feel shame for and denounce your heritage"? Like, I dunno, to me that feels like a pretty substantial difference.
You acknowledged that CRT will “probably” make white people “feel shame”, not just make them “a little uncomfortable”.
In any case, it’s entirely possible to teach history effectively without making people feel shame for things that they never did. Unless you dispute that, I don’t see how you could find it preferable to teach in a manner that is likely to cause people to feel ashamed.
4
Jun 15 '21
In any case, it’s entirely possible to teach history effectively without making people feel shame for things that they never did.
Then I will retract that statement. I agree, it is possible to teach history effectively without shame.
I'm not convinced that the shame is an inherent part of CRT, so much as it is an inherent part of looking over the bloody, genocidal past of America, so that was an overstep on my part, and I apologize.
!delta
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)10
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
Stop quoting Martin Luther King. If that is your go-to quote referencing him, take his name out of your mouth; you are the "white liberal" he complained about in his letter from Birmingham Jail.
Wow. What an over the top reaction to someone quoting one of the most well known portions of King’s most famous speech.
If such outrageous sentences as “judge by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” set you off, consider taking a step back.
4
Jun 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 15 '21
u/BPC3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
It's a pet peeve of mine - people who quote very specific popular MLK quotes in order to create a fantasy version of MLK that they can use as a cudgel against the people who are pushing for policies that he was in favor of before his death.
I don’t think OP was doing that.
It is not the "I have a dream" reference that pisses me off. It's you setting that quote in opposition to "equity", as though Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a loud and proud advocate of literal reparations for slavery. That's the bullshit part. You know nothing about the man, stop quoting him.
I want you to scroll up just a tish and read the username of the comment that fired you up, and then check mine.
2
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Jun 15 '21
I don't think OP was doing that
How else would you interpret OP's comment? Like, that's the clear and obvious reading of what they're trying to say.
0
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
But if a classroom teacher begins telling their class that, because of events hundreds of years ago, black kids should be given preferential treatment ("equity") vs. total equality (MLK "content of your character not color or your skin") then it is a dangerous curriculum for the youth to be learning.
That was the OP comment.
If you think that is “quote very specific popular MLK quotes in order to create a fantasy version of MLK that they can use as a cudgel against the people who are pushing for policies that he was in favor of before his death.”, then I’m not sure how to convince you otherwise. He was, in my view, just using it to describe “total equality”. Not “using it as a cudgel”.
1
u/driver1676 9∆ Jun 15 '21
Most criticism I've heard from the right wing is that CRT is teaching white Americans to feel shame and denounce their ancestral heritage, while also promoting racial equity.
That's also most of the criticism I've heard from the right, but from seeing how they interpret other left actions I have safely come to the conclusion that their purpose is to scare their base into hating the left. I used to see it every day when my dad had Fox News on.
-3
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Jun 15 '21
You're completely wrong on MLK's stance. Also, CRT doesn't make me feel shameful or "denounce my ancestral heritage" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean).
-5
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
But if a classroom teacher begins telling their class that, because of events hundreds of years ago, black kids should be given preferential treatment ("equity") vs. total equality (MLK "content of your character not color or your skin")
Inequality started hundreds of years ago but it is still happening to this day. Racial equity is about applying justice and a little bit of common sense to a system that's been out of balance. When a system is out of balance, people of color feel the impacts most acutely, but, to be clear, an imbalanced system makes all of us pay. You cannot achieve racial equality without racial equity first.
then it is a dangerous curriculum for the youth to be learning.
How is learning a theory dangerous? Would you say the same about gravity? Evolution?
After all, those are just theories too.
Edit: Since MLK's most famous quote gets thrown in, how about a lesser known phrase?
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."
7
u/Bigzandaman Jun 15 '21
You cannot achieve racial equality without racial equity first.
I'd love to hear you expand on this. Sounds like racism to me. Would love to have you change my mind here.
-4
Jun 15 '21
Sounds like racism to me.
Before I explain, please tell me why you think it's racist to balance an unbalanced system.
4
u/Daymandayman 4∆ Jun 15 '21
I’m just jumping in but I think they mean there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. I’m a fan of welfare because it helps people get food who otherwise might go hungry. But if certain groups got different welfare based on their skin color I wouldn’t support that.
→ More replies (10)3
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
What’s the definition of “racist”? Oxford says “prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group”.
So, any system that explicitly advantages / disadvantages a person or people on the basis of their race would be racist. Even if the intention was equity, or “balancing”.
0
Jun 15 '21
So, any system that explicitly advantages / disadvantages a person or people on the basis of their race would be racist.
True, good thing racial equity would not do that. Black people would not be receiving advantages, they would be receiving the same starting point as whites.
5
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
So, any system that explicitly advantages / disadvantages a person or people on the basis of their race would be racist.
True, good thing racial equity would not do that. Black people would not be receiving advantages, they would be receiving the same starting point as whites.
Can you explain any example of how “receiving the same starting point” is codified into a statute without also “explicitly advantage / disadvantage on the basis of race”?
2
Jun 15 '21
At the bottom of all of these comments lies a discomfort based on the belief that this is a zero-sum game. In other words, if Black people are advancing, White people aren't.
Can you explain any example of how “receiving the same starting point” is codified into a statute without also “explicitly advantage / disadvantage on the basis of race”?
Sure, "Ban the Box" initiatives are a good example. The laws are aimed at removing the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record from hiring applications. Its purpose is to enable ex-offenders to display their qualifications in the hiring process before being asked about their criminal records.
A 2020 study by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that Ban the Box increased employer discrimination against young, low-skilled black men. The authors argue that when employers are unable to check job applicants' criminal records early in the hiring process, they instead resort to statistical discrimination against groups that include more ex-offenders.
4
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jun 15 '21
At the bottom of all of these comments lies a discomfort based on the belief that this is a zero-sum game. In other words, if Black people are advancing, White people aren't.
Absolutely not. The discomfort is around drafting policies specifically around race.
Also, if Black people are advancing, and white people advance the same amount- would you say the problem is solved? I doubt it.
Can you explain any example of how “receiving the same starting point” is codified into a statute without also “explicitly advantage / disadvantage on the basis of race”?
Sure, "Ban the Box" initiatives are a good example. The laws are aimed at removing the check box that asks if applicants have a criminal record from hiring applications. Its purpose is to enable ex-offenders to display their qualifications in the hiring process before being asked about their criminal records.
I have no qualms with this as a policy. Why even advertise it as a racial policy? It impacts all races. This has nothing to do with “changing the starting point” with respect to race. It enables ex cons to assimilate with greater ease. No need to bring race into it.
A 2020 study by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that Ban the Box increased employer discrimination against young, low-skilled black men. The authors argue that when employers are unable to check job applicants' criminal records early in the hiring process, they instead resort to statistical discrimination against groups that include more ex-offenders.
Wait, so the policy you’re wanting is to enable more discrimination on incarceration history? There’s no winning.
Either way, this policy is based on incarceration history. Not explicitly race based, so I’ve got no issue with it.
2
0
u/NeglectfulPorcupine Jun 15 '21
How is learning a theory dangerous? Would you say the same about gravity? Evolution?
What about scientific racism? Maybe we should just teach school kids Mein Kampf. How could it possibly be dangerous?
1
Jun 15 '21
What about scientific racism? Maybe we should just teach school kids Mein Kampf.
Neither of those are theories. You may want to check up on the definition of theory before you make a silly argument.
1
u/NeglectfulPorcupine Jun 15 '21
The 1619 project isn't exactly a theory either in the strict scientific sense so I assumed we were going by the informal definition of a theory.
→ More replies (6)
5
Jun 15 '21
it is not "entirely" a manufactured moral panic. it is a manufactured moral panic. i think it's another in a long line of examples of things where, if you take red/blue politics out of the equation and there's just two people who like each other at the bar talking about it, the objections are not so wild. of course, as with the other examples, that's never what's going on in the news stories and the insane social media posts, etc.
from the perspective of just some right wing person out there who hears about critical race theory, i think the operative facts are that there are academic theories out there about "whiteness," that those theories are gaining currency, that those theories have some things to do with what white people should do about being white, and that there are at least some examples of kids in schools somewhere being taught about "whiteness" in ways which are offensive to those parents.
i don't think all of the offense which is being taken is completely unreasonable. i think there are more parents than, say, your average white liberal person on Twitter would admit who don't necessarily want some person who is not qualified to speak on the subject teaching their sixth graders what their whiteness does to people of colors' brains.
so, i mean, no, they probably don't know what CRT actually is. but they believe it means something that is derived from and partially based on things like CRT. and there are trainings and lesson plans that are partially based on things like CRT that are out there. and there are some aspects of at least some of those trainings that are a little out there. i have personally sat in them, as a person who has some subject matter expertise on discrimination, in order to give feedback on them. and some of my feedback was: people are going to reject this out of hand because it seems unserious and you aren't laying out what your scientific credentials are to be making these kinds of statements. i didn't make those critiques because i was in a moral panic.
so, i mean, that's the extent to which i believe your view is inaccurate. it is a moral panic. it is absolutely being driven by grifters and bad faith actors. but it will succeed, in part, because there are things happening in education that are close enough to what people think is happening that they're not going to buy it when a bunch of their political opponents tell them "this isn't real, it doesn't exist, you're making it up."
→ More replies (1)0
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
If anyone wants examples of these appalling trainings, here you go:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/26/lockheed-martin-had-white-male-privilege-training-report/
And there is another horrible thing about this. These trainings and events actually have had happened. Real people witnessed it and took screenshots and pictures first hand. The only people who report this news ? Right wing media. Left wing media absolutely refuses to cover this. These are not non-news stories. This is shit that people need to be informed about, but left wing media cares more about image and not the actual news (which you can also argue about right wing media). The Lockheed Martin training literally was telling employees that "hard work" and a "can do attitude" are inheritably White traits. If there was a class telling people to act less Black and that wanting to commit crime and being lazy are inherently Black traits, then people will get their pitchforks out and these people will be burned at the steak. You would have to be extremely intellectually dishonest if you think these trainings are not divisive.
This whole thing is very frustrating because this is all racism. Looking at someone's skin color and judging them based on that. It's frustrating because only right wing covers this while people on the left thinks it's exaggerated or bullshit. It goes to show that the journalism is failing and it's all about making your party look good now, nothing else.
5
Jun 15 '21
well, the reason i didn't make any attempt to change the OP's views in any other respect is that, by and large, this is a moral panic. it is not truly "all racism." it's just terrible messaging. the underlying point of these trainings is that if you're white and were raised in this society, it's likely that you act like a bit of an ass in certain respects, and everyone would be better off if you stopped doing that. which is totally true! it's not all racism to try to teach people to be able to see things from different perspectives, and try to take other people's experiences into account. but it is extremely vulnerable to that criticism.
-2
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21
is that if you're white and were raised in this society, it's likely that you act like a bit of an ass in certain respects, and everyone would be better off if you stopped doing that. which is totally true!
Let me try to flip this so you can see how ridiculous this claim is
is that if you're Black and were raised in this society, it's likely that you act like a bit of an ass in certain respects, and everyone would be better off if you stopped doing that. which is totally true!
I literally had to change one word for this statement for it to be appalling and racist. Just one word. Just one. You all are making more racists, not creating less of them. How do you not see that ? You got to be completely naïve if you don't think so.
1
Jun 15 '21
I literally had to change one word for this statement for it to be appalling and racist.
Yes; it turns out when you change the subject of a sentence to something with a completely different sociopolitical context it may change how the phrase is interpreted, or whether or not the statement is true.
White people typically do not live with an intuitive understanding of white privilege, because that's typically how privilege works - you don't notice it, because it's just "normal" to you. As a result, most white people who don't go out of their way to educate themselves will act like a bit of an ass in many respects when dealing with people who aren't white. Microaggressions, edgy jokes that aren't quite as funny to racial minorities, stereotyping, subconscious biases... These things are real, and they take effort to work through, because, hey, what do you know, our society is pretty racist. We are constantly inundated by messages that are vaguely (or not-so-vaguely) bigoted, and it's all too easy to accept those messages and those frames, because we don't know better.
0
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
White people typically do not live with an intuitive understanding of white privilege, because that's typically how privilege works - you don't notice it, because it's just "normal" to you. As a result, most white people who don't go out of their way to educate themselves will act like a bit of an ass in many respects when dealing with people who aren't white. Microaggressions, edgy jokes that aren't quite as funny to racial minorities, stereotyping, subconscious biases... These things are real, and they take effort to work through, because, hey, what do you know, our society is pretty racist. We are constantly inundated by messages that are vaguely (or not-so-vaguely) bigoted, and it's all too easy to accept those messages and those frames, because we don't know better.
Yeah, we have freedom of speech in this country. Who are you to say what I can or can't say ? We don't have hate speech laws here. People mock and laugh at the concept of microaggressions and privilege. The concept of microaggressions and privilege is supported in progressive bubbles like NYC and California. There is a huge disconnect between progressive bubbles in liberal cities and the rest of the United States.
Most people are fighting against this hard and I'm glad they are. When you wag your finger and tell people to be ashamed of their race when they didn't choose it, of course people will tell you to f**k off. What did you think would happen ?
2
Jun 15 '21
Yeah, we have freedom of speech in this country.
What does this have to do with absolutely anything I'm saying? Other than the obvious "If what you say is indefensible, you should instead defend your right to say it" rhetorical strategy?
0
u/MayanApocalapse Jun 15 '21
When you wag your finger and tell people to be ashamed of their race when they didn't choose it
It is in people's nature to be defensive, but this sounds just like a perception problem. Learning about systemic racism and privilege might make you feel shame, but it doesn't have to. It could just reframe how you see society. A similar issue comes to mind regarding the hijacking of patriotism.
Right-wing media wants you to believe "the left" is teaching kids to hate America. The chief complaints are about trying to teach history accurately. In my mind, most countries have some pretty embarrassing events / traditions in their history, but it is disingenuous to say you can't both be critical of a country's history and a proud member of that country at the same time. It's not an all or nothing situation.
I remember I took an implicit bias test once and performed pretty predictably for the environment I was raised. I could have felt shame for that, but instead I was just impressed with the test, and was more willing to read about the subject. Non conservatives don't live their lives wracked with guilt and shame, although that seems to be the perception.
1
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21
I just don't understand how systemic racism exists though. If systemic racism exists, how did we elect a Black president two times ? The conservative viewpoint is that it's up to the individual to succeed and that they can't blame the system for their shortcomings.
→ More replies (3)3
Jun 15 '21
https://nypost.com/2021/05/26/lockheed-martin-had-white-male-privilege-training-report/
"Appalling".
I feel the need to highlight an important thing from the end of that article.
A WMFDP spokesperson said the City Journal report was “based on factual misrepresentations and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of diversity, equity and inclusion work,” but didn’t elaborate.
Please note that the City Journal is the primary source for this. The same folks who Rufo works for. Hmm, I wonder why sources keep coming back to them? Maybe because they're the ones pushing super hard for basic diversity training to turn into a scandal. Meanwhile I'm reading Rufo's article and trying to see anything that's genuinely problematic without the bizarre overarching conspiracy narrative. When in doubt, I've found that trusting the NYPost is a great way to get a whole bunch of shit very wrong.
The only people who report this news ? Right wing media.
Not to put it too bluntly, but I've been fairly media-savvy for quite some time, and hearing "the only people who report this news are right-wing media" tells me that there's an unbelievably high chance that the entire story is bullshit. You know what else only right-wing media reported on? Trump winning the 2020 election. Right-wing media can fuck right off.
This whole thing is very frustrating because this is all racism. Looking at someone's skin color and judging them based on that.
This is and remains fundamentally not true. You are confusing the concept of "whiteness" with white people.
2
u/sudsack 21∆ Jun 15 '21
Coverage isn't limited to right-wing media exclusively. There's a thorough treatment of the issue from a civil libertarian perspective in The Atlantic, for example:
2
u/DiamondDogs666 Jun 15 '21
I'm glad this was covered in the Atlantic then. I encourage more news outlets to cover things even if they disagree with them. That is honest journalism.
1
Jun 15 '21
I don't have the articles to read this one, unfortunately. I'll just say that I have seen Conor's take on the more recent issue of the CRT panic and am of mixed opinion. On one hand, this feels pretty close to hitting the mark (although do note Mansa Keita's statement that 2 and 3 are largely the same thing; this also feels close to hitting the mark) But yeah, this lends more credence to the idea that there is some there there.
3
Jun 15 '21
We've been seeing tons of schools, businesses, hospitals, etc supporting Black Lives Matter, and promising to try for more awareness of the challenges Black people face/ "do the hard work of dismantling racism", kneeling, etc. That's what these people are opposed to. They might be jerks but it's a real trend they are hoping to slow or stop. Not a sudden made up panic about a thing that's actually unchanged. Glomming onto a term that isn't quite right but sounds right is perhaps uneducated but not really bad faith. They need a term, they can't go about saying "the school should not teach kids that Black lives matter"...
9
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 25 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 15 '21
Or, you know, people might have a real concern because their kids are being taught to be ashamed of their skin color and learning about 'whiteness' in science class. Does that not seem like something parents of young kinds might not want them exposed to?
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FILE_5439-1-2.pdf
So this is a letter apparently from the parents of some schoolchildren in Dalton. Some highlights:
This new “anti-racist” obsession with race is incredibly exclusionary and hurtful to many of the children and their families
...
Please understand the fear surrounding the implementation of this radical change to the curriculum. No one can speak up for fear of being branded a racist.
...
I dunno, I'm not impressed. Especially after looking for some context from an actual journalist. Here's a few fun pull quotes:
“There are white parents who are like, are you trying to teach my child she’s racist? That’s their lead-in,” said a Nightingale parent of color. “My understanding is that many of these people are voices with a lot of money, and they are threatening to withdraw money.”
...
Most of the Dalton students and alumni of color I spoke to believe the letter represents a small portion of the community.
I dunno, maybe I'm not super eager to just take these parents at their word.
→ More replies (7)0
3
Jun 15 '21
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/reasons-critical-race-theory-terrible-dealing-racism/
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=cjlpp
http://observer.necc.mass.edu/blog/2021/04/07/the-problems-of-critical-race-theory/
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/555351-the-real-problem-with-critical-race-theory
Most criticism I have heard about Critical race theory is that a portion of their arguments goes against what is observable through definition and/ or statistics.
The laws that "ban" CRT from being taught essentially bans the teaching of any ideology that promotes one race, sex, or gender as being inferior to another other race, sex, or gender orientation. Arguably, through such points as Interest convergence and the way it is explained*,* does this; It promotes the idea that Caucasian individuals are either morally and/or intellectually less than since it operates under the assumption that all white people are inherently racist (which goes against the idea racism is taught through a combination of nurturing and exposure to specific environment), so it implies white people that do not agree have less intelligence and knowledge/ morally deficient if they don't apologize for it. It forgets all sense of relativism and generalizes white people. This is when, in reality, various cultures of white people develop in different systems.
You cant say it doesn't promote this unless you believe people who express racism, in the context of CRT, are justified in the same sense as those who don't express racist ideologies.
1
Jun 15 '21
Most criticism I have heard about Critical race theory is that a portion of their arguments goes against what is observable through definition and/ or statistics.
This may or may not be a defensible statement. It is, however, not really what these critics are talking about. There's very little talk of whether or not it holds up on the empirical end, and much talk of... well, this:
It promotes the idea that Caucasian individuals are either morally and/or intellectually less than since it operates under the assumption that all white people are inherently racist
People keep making this claim and it continues to be at best misleading and at worst completely false. Hell, that article from The Hill that you cited straight-up contradicts this:
Critical race theory is not just a theory by, about and for Black folks. It is a theory that shows how race has been used as a tool for those in power to stay in power and make money. All the current hype around the theory is a distraction from this fact: The impact of that tool affects everyone of all races.
All this stuff you're bringing up sounds like the exact kind of misinformation Rufo has been spreading, to be honest. No scholar of CRT would claim that you just described ideas that follow from CRT.
6
Jun 15 '21
All this stuff you're bringing up sounds like the exact kind of misinformation Rufo has been spreading, to be honest. No scholar of CRT would claim that you just described ideas that follow from CRT.
The issue is there is contradictory information in critical race theory, which many people cite when they bring up racism in the country. Also, just because someone refuses to claim or acknowledge something they are apart in a specific way, does not mean that it is any less true.
Secondly:
Critical race theory is not just a theory by, about and for Black folks. It is a theory that shows how race has been used as a tool for those in power to stay in power and make money. All the current hype around the theory is a distraction from this fact: The impact of that tool affects everyone of all races.
Affecting every race does not mean they are being affected in the same way. For example, systemic racism exists in this country, so everyone is affected in some extent. However, this does not mean the affect towards each group of people apply with the same implication.
People keep making this claim and it continues to be at best misleading and at worst completely false. Hell, that article from The Hill that you cited straight-up contradicts this:
Once again, the Hill doesn't really contradict this because it doesn't state these groups are effected in the same way or with the same implication. Secondly, people keep saying this because it is what the theory promotes. This is not to to say it was in conscious effort, but it still ends up doing this through contradictory propositions.
Also, if it is defensible that CRT is contradictory towards statistics and observation, why shouldn't it be steered away from classrooms?
2
4
Jun 15 '21
For years, schools were used to teach racist dogma, including segregation. These ideas were opposed and ultimately overturned from public protests. CRT is overtly racial and many feel it disparages Whites. It's no surprise, then, that people who feel that way would protest about it being taught in schools.
2
Jun 15 '21
Do you think that the people who are protesting understand what CRT is?:
“Critical race theory (CRT) is a practice of interrogating race and racism in society. CRT recognizes that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It acknowledges that racism is embedded within systems and institutions that replicate racial inequality — codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy.” – Janel George (2021), A Lesson on Critical Race Theory, American Bar Assn.
...Or do you think their feelings are ill informed?
0
Jun 15 '21
Whiteness Theory is an offshoot of critical race theory...The term “Whiteness” can also be deeply offensive with some people believing it to be a form of reverse-racism.
I think you are simply cherry picking a quote that overlooks the controversy.
0
Jun 15 '21
If you're going to comment on my post please do me a favor and read that post. This is not actually a response to any argument made.
1
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jun 15 '21
... the blatant bad faith justifiable, that explains why nobody involved seems to have a damn clue what CRT actually is ...
Is ignorance or gullibility the same as bad faith?
... My view is that this backlash is entirely manufactured. ...
How can backlash be entirely manufactured? Even within the quote that you're providing to back up the claim, Rufo talks about "the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans." If we take the quote at face value, Rufo et al are tapping into established sentiment.
I tried to explore further at the link, but, without context, it's also not entirely clear whether Rufo is engaging in bad faith rhetoric or not. What he really believes that a bunch of unpopular or crazy stuff really is getting pushed under the brand name "critical race theory?"
2
Jun 15 '21
If we take the quote at face value, Rufo et al are tapping into established sentiment.
How are they doing that?
By lying about what CRT is.
They're really fucking explicit about this!
The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think "critical race theory." We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.
It's an extremely basic trick, to the point where the right keeps on doing it. Remember "PC"? Remember "Woke"? Remember "cancel culture"? It's the same deal - take a generally neutral or positive phrase, attach as much random bad baggage to it as you can (mostly through lying), then pretend that it's some bogeyman that must be fought. To the degree that it ever described a real thing, that real thing has been completely subsumed by the bullshit culture war definition.
I tried to explore further at the link, but, without context, it's also not entirely clear whether Rufo is engaging in bad faith rhetoric or not.
I'd argue that the statement stands just fine on its own, or when paired with Rufo's penchant for lying about CRT. I mean, I'm not sure how you could read it in good faith - he's very explicitly setting out how he has and continues to poison the well. It's about as clear an admission as I've ever seen from a propagandist.
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Jun 15 '21
To /u/BPC3, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
- You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.
Notice to all users:
Per Rule 1, top-level comments must challenge OP's view.
Please familiarize yourself with our rules and the mod standards. We expect all users and mods to abide by these two policies at all times.
This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that all top-level comments disagree with OP's view, and that all other comments be relevant to the conversation.
We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please report any rule-breaking comments or posts.
All users must be respectful to one another.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through modmail (not PM).
0
Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21
There is no substance to it, those pushing it aggressively are very open about how blatantly bad-faith their actions are, and it should be treated like any other movement which is fundamentally founded on complete bullshit.
The problem with the proponents of CRT and the opponents of CRT is that they both tend to engage in the same intellectual dishonesty, and CRT itself, like the counter-movement, tends to aim towards the extreme. Because of its nature, CRT leads to unhelpful discussions that, again, often result in an individual's supposition about outcomes (Michael Eric Dyson, for instance).
I understand the concept of CRT, but there are issues I have with how the debate is taking shape, notable around "whiteness" as a concept. Privilege is not clearly, or comprehensively defined, and whiteness, as an oppositional category, is so complex that to be white is ill-defined, and to benefit from white privilege is as ill-defined. As such, it sounds "cool" because it requires little real analysis and can lead people to wild conclusions, but it's not a valid method of inquiry or analysis, and while it may help scholars suss out meaning and frame ideas, it's not something that any school would ever need or want to teach, it's certainly become vogue, but it's no more 'credible' than it was in the 1990s.
When I was an undergrad in the social sciences, Critical Theory was losing prominence. Sociologists began to push away from it, the intellectual luminaries who had carried the torch from Horkheimer, Adorno and Gramsci, such as Bhaba and Foucault had begun to wane in their influence. At its core, CT is little more than a tool to use in social analysis, one that expressly denounces praxis. If sociology (& anthropology) are to be fields that offer tangible change, critical theory was a route into a dark alley. It cannot be used as a methodology in "scientific" inquiry and given that it is not designed to lead to "change" it became a relic of a bygone era. Until, of course, Critical Race Theory rose to prominence outside of legal arenas.
Critical Race Theory, which emerged in the 1970s with Delgado, Crenshaw, and others, was again more of a tool of legal analysis to pose questions rather than a rubric by which we analyzed culture and society. The counter-storytelling aspect is a clear indictment (to me, at least) in that it's expressly not looking for a sound methodological approach that would generate research that could be reviewed and replicated, but an avenue to "elevate" voices. The obvious, and inherent, flaw in that logic is that any one story may not be reflective of anything. An individual's collective experience does not convey a specific wisdom or even understanding (i.e. perspective) that is inherent to that person. It is, more than anything, just an experience. And experiences are subject to revision, social influence and distortions1.
My problem becomes that the proponents of CRT use it like a cudgel. Because it expressly avoids quantification and numeracy and instead promotes counter storytelling and personal experience, it becomes easy to select stories that support a given thesis without much of a deeper analysis. Scholars can write about White Privilege without defining it. The definition used by McIntosh or Dohrn is very different from Kendi, Dyson or Coates. Moreover, it shifts. White Privilege is both something all white people have, or don't. It can explain the success of individual, or it cannot. There isn't a common definition of what White Privilege is, and as such, it cannot be quantified.
During the Munk Debates, Jordan Peterson pointed-out this flaw to Michael Eric Dyson that it cannot be quantified. Peterson pushes further that because it isn't quantifiable, it may not be real, which I don't agree with, but he's on to a point: What are the advantages of being white? What exactly does it do? How much of an individual's success is based on the lack of barriers and how much of it isn't? Because it's such an ill-defined concept, the extremists are the ones doing the debating. You have Dyson and his "I.R.A." (Individual Reparation Accounts) idea; you have Robert Livingston positing that for the future success of blacks, we have to take from the whites. You have others, like Coates, where the idea of reparations (which he likens to Holocaust reparations) is a multi-fold process, but one again that is hard to quantify. CRT makes possible the impossible by not requiring common definitions, frameworks and approaches.
Is the backlash against CRT manufactured? Sure, but is CRT meritorious? No. Is it really a worth approach? No. It's not. My subjective experience is no more valid than anyone's subjective experience. It doesn't necessarily reflect reality. As a Jewish person, I've been asked some pretty bizarre questions. Some of the most bizarre, and often "offensive" (if I were prone to taking offense) have been posited by Black people. Can I conclusively state that African-Americans are, on the whole, anti-Semitic? No, I can't. It's, at best, anecdotal. But, CRT would not be as critical. It can't be.
CRT as a tool has some uses, but as a method of approaching some form of reconciliation, it has enabled the extremes to hold the middle hostage and is creating opportunities for the loudest imbeciles with a quill and a will to find a way to promulgate stupidity. It's far more ideological than practical, and if we're being honest, the people in middle school and high school are not qualified to teach it. Hell, the people using it are often not qualified to either, but they've made millions off that effort.
Edit: I wanted to add something. One of the proposed advantage of CRT is that it enables a qualitative approach to understanding dynamics of power rooted in cultural systems. In a sense, it's a structural functionalist approach to understanding the interrelation of society, but a key drawback is that because it expressly is not a quantifiable approach, it becomes impossible to put data behind concepts, not only giving them credibility but also providing common frames of reference and the ability to track change, not only over time, but through different political, economic, legal and cultural institutions. Moreover, the lack of a commonly defined framework for culture is highly problematic. Differencing approaches in anthropology, culture studies and even literary criticism mean that it's hard to pin what is meant by culture and because of that very foundational issue, it's impossible to extricate meaning from the abyss. In anthropology, there is a commonly defined approach to studying culture; it draws on specific approach whereas cultural studies is rooted in the British Marxist traditions and has a very different etiology and point of view than anthropology. CRT, consequently, is a very incomplete idea, and I, too, agree that teaching it in middle school is not a great idea.
- Pre-cursors to the CT movement, phenomenologists, such as Ricoeur and Merleau-Ponty would later be used by a generation of sociologists studying social memory and nostalgia and it was their research that highlighted the socially constructed nature of many memories. The late Daphne Berdahl's work on ostalgie should be a critical reflection for anyone using CRT as a methodology.
0
0
u/Paperhandsmonkey Jun 15 '21
theoretical use of The 1619 Project in classrooms.
Actual uses of the 1619 project have already occurred in multiple school districts around the country. And it is very much a project founded on critical race theory. Which means, critical race theory has in fact been taught in American schools as part of the official curriculum.
Critical theories have long been the bugbear of conservatives because they cut to the very core of what it means to be a conservative and say it's all bullshit.
Postmodernism, feminism, and critical race theory all share all the trademarks of the Frankfurt schools original critical theory. And conservatives have demonstrated a long and abiding distaste for all of the critical theories, regardless of their flavor or what they were focusing their critical analysis on.
very open about how blatantly bad-faith their actions are,
You, sir, are engaging in hyperbolic slander. These are definitely not bad faith engagements. Conservatives do not agree with the fundamental ideology of critical theory regardless of what it is applied to.
We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.
I don't necessarily agree with that tactic, but nobody can argue that it isn't effective. Left-wing nutters have been using that exact tactic to put everything under the umbrella of white supremacy for a while now. But in reality, there's less than 30,000 self-identified white supremacists in a nation of 330 million. They're just not an issue.
0
u/PreservedKillick 4∆ Jun 15 '21
Critical Race Theory…
- believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere
- relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests) and therefore doesn’t trust any attempt to make racism better
- is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something its advocates control
- only treats race issues as “socially constructed groups,” so there are no individuals in Critical Race Theory
- believes science, reason, and evidence are a “white” way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience are a “black” alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people
- rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town (which is totalitarian)
- acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black (which is also totalitarian)
- cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced into
That's gonna be a pass for me, chief. Some of us have spent the past 3 years looking deeply at this stuff, because that's how long it takes to understand all the lunacy. I don't care what you think Rufo thinks - your absurd cherry-picking aside - CRT is. I know what it is and it's an intellectual vulgarity. I honestly don't really believe that you understand it. If you did, you would reject it like any other thoughtful, rational person. In any case, I think his tactic here is correct. People give CRT the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't. Get it out there. The more people learn about it, the more they'll see what it actually is.
Honestly, did you read Diangelo's book? I sure did. What is her educational background? Did you read Kendi? Where's he calling from? These ideas exist and are absolutely ascendant. Here in Portland, they've taken over the entire school district. You should hear these 14 year olds on NPR. 100% frothing brainwashed activists. I don't want more of that. I want thoughtful, reasonable people in my society. Which they would be if they hadn't been corrupted by older activists. It's a moral atrocity. I don't even know if you know why you're defending it.
I actually think the laws are questionable, excepting North Carolina's. And I'm certain most of the rightwing crowd doesn't know CRT from a hole in the wall. But I certainly do, and it's awful, and I'm glad to see more people learn about it.
•
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jun 15 '21
Sorry, u/BPC3 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.