Critical Race Theory?

[Stevicus]

I would contest the claim that Ronald Reagan was not explicitly racist by citing his "Welfare Queen" campaign which was very strongly racially coded - in fact, the original alleged "welfare queen" the slogan was based on just so happened to be a Black single mother!

I wouldn't consider that to be explicit racism, though, since it's "coded," as you say.

What he did not do was adocate segregationism, but that may well be because a) he was from California, which had never been segregated officially, and b) that was no longer a viable policy to advocate in the political climate of the late 1970s. Going by his politics before his presidential campaign, he sounds to me like he was very much the kind of far-right maverick that people have styled Donald Trump to be, and was arguably even worse as an actual US president, as unlike Trump he had the political wherewithal to turn many of his horrible ideas into actual policy.

Their rhetoric was constructed in such a way as to give them plausible deniability. The right-wing would claim that it's all about the free market, skills, work ethic, etc. - the idea that anyone can succeed if they put their mind to it. They would claim that they don't judge anyone by race - that it's all about skills, education, work ethic, and character. To some extent, I think there is some truth to this, if only because the capitalist ruling class has put profit and money-making ahead of all other political objectives.

In response, liberals have tried to attack this as a kind of "stealth" racist agenda and often point to "racially coded" language, as you pointed to above. This leads to absurd rhetorical games analogous to whack-a-mole, where liberals try to spot and out racists wherever they think they see them - even if it's not the explicit, overt racism we might have seen in previous eras. Even if someone denies that they're racist, some liberals will still maintain that they are. Regardless of anything else, it distracts from the overall issues of race and racism in the United States, and instead turns into an irrelevant and pointless personal dispute over what someone thinks someone else is. It's a dead-end argument which solves nothing.

I mean, not any set of ideals - one thing that I find interesting about modern Western democracy is that due to extensive corporate influence and self-censorship, many radical leftist proposals are literally unthinkable in the modern political landscape, and political movements championing even such tepid social democratic talking points as universal healthcare were effectively strangled in their cribs.

Even in Europe, ostensibly more "leftist" in its politics than the US, many leftist movements of the recent years (e.g. SYRIZA, PODEMOS, Corbyn's labour movement) were effectively destroyed by an alliance of corporate interests, a hostile media establishment, and conservative EU politics before they could even dream of implementing any of their ideas.

I've often considered capitalists to be just like politicians in many ways, and as such, they are aware of the politics in their country and are inclined to support that which they believe is politically expedient. Yet, they still want to make as much money as possible, so they dress up their agenda in such a way as to make it appear palatable to the masses. It's just like how a car salesman knows he is selling you a lemon, yet tries to present it in such a way and create the illusion that you're getting a really great deal.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't this how the US government works? All the tax dollars go to Congress; top of the food chain, who then trickle it down. Is this also a bad idea? There are detours made by greedy politicians for their own gain; pork barrel and bad investments for quid pro quo.

I consider most politicians to be pawns and puppets, bought and paid for by political machines controlled by capitalists. For similar reasons, the taxpayers' money doesn't trickle down as it should. There is a great deal of corruption in our system, to be sure.

If we give everyone a tax break, this is trickle up economics. The extra money now starts at the bottom and works it way to the top. it goes from consumer, to businesses to suppliers to more tax revenue. The Democrats oppose trickle up in government; tax break. They like trickle down government using lawyers to make economic decision.

Democrats have supported and opposed other ideas in the past. Wage increases and price controls would be trickle up, although conservatives tend to oppose that kind of trickle up.

The critical race theory uses half truths to mislead. It selectively picks ideas that are true, but avoids the entire truth, to help give everything the proper context. This partial truth scam can be used to lead people down the wrong path, without them realizing it. They will reason with only the truth or facts given, which is not enough for a true reality assessment. It will works on your bias and fantasy, leading to instinctive inner doubt and obsession; overcompensation.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Say we are at a neighbor's house and the homeowner is looking at her broken heirloom vase. We all try to figure out who did it. One neighbor, John, said he saw the homeowner son, Jack, enter the room about the time of the incident. This is true, and if this was the only fact we had to work with, it can lead some to conclude that Jack broke the vase.

John can see what some are thinking, so he continues his account and says Jack did indeed enter the room, but he left the door open. I could see him because the door was open. He only was the other side of the room getting his car keys. He got his keys and left to go the park. He said goodbye to me. I just added another truth and the conclusion is now different. In the pause between these two important fact, John could see those who had it out for Jack, since they were too quick to judge before getting all the truth.

Critical race theory uses this half truth scam to lead to a desired conclusion, while also triggering those who are already with the program, through previous indoctrination training. They already have a chip in their shoulder. The goal is to use half truth and this extra peer pressure to force brain wash even more children. The new inductees will have a hard time reasoning the whole truth, from the selective facts, and will be bullied for trying until they give in.

This tactic comes from the Democrat party and was used to help create the Jim Crow laws; selective truth conditioning to create brain dead bullies; KKK, who then help get others, to tow the line; trickle down racism using peer pressure.

This is why you need to kill the head of the beast and not is toes. Getting rid of the Democrats party will allow something better to form. There are good Democrats but the bad ones have evil on their side and can lead by intimidation.

I'm not really an advocate of Critical Race Theory, although I've seen mixed reviews about it. I think that, in the teaching of history and the society in which we live in, our first responsibility should be to tell the truth - the whole truth, not just half-truths or selective sets of facts.

I did come across an article which was critical of CRT and claimed that progressives were losing the debate: As Progressives Lose Critical Race Theory Debate, They Change the Narrative | Opinion (msn.com)

Activists disingenuously claim that the toxic ideology forced upon kids merely amounts to lessons about slavery—as if there's a single textbook presently in use that omits this topic. Teachers just want to teach about the Tulsa race massacre or the history of redlining, activists argue. And if you get in the way, you deny racism!

This article seems somewhat biased towards the right-wing, but there's also a video circulating of a Black parent at a school board meeting tearing into Critical Race Theory.

I also wonder whenever I read something like this:

In the majority-minority Highline School District, it seems the district's staff are race-obsessed. The district even holds an annual race symposium, most recently featuring a white teacher near tears as she discusses how she just finally realized she was white:

"I felt like yesterday I realized that I'm white and that I have all the advantages of being part of that group," she said. "Privileges that I don't really think I fully understood until yesterday. I was reading White Fragility, and I'm like, 'Oh, OK.' I think I'm taking that next step in my journey to understanding what's happening, what equity is about, what racial equity is about, what anti-racism is about and what racism is about."

A white person is near tears because she finally realized that she was white? Really?

I believe in racial justice. I believe in economic justice. I believe in equality. I believe in historical truth. But I don't believe that the entire country has to turn into one giant group therapy session.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

After a long hiatus I see things haven't changed much

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The one thing that amazes me about right-wing conservatives regarding what they consider “leftist ideology” is that when a theory such as CRT (Critical Race Theory) is addressed and suggested to be taught in schools, many are dismissive even before they even know what it is. I’ve heard the whole gamut when it comes to the criticism regarding this 40-year-old theory, a theory mind you, I learned in graduate school prior to it even being suggested to being administered in schools. Often, I’ve noticed conservatives make up stuff to even demonize the theory. I think the most ridiculous claim I’ve heard so far is that it attacks white people. Okay, so we are using conjecture to invalidate CRT’s legitimate claims of systemic racism by proclaiming that it attacks white people. I’ve challenged some colleagues of mine on their critique and basically it amounts to “it says white people are inherently racist.” Okay, then I’ll ask them to show me where it specifically states that. They can’t of course.

For once let us address the elephant in the room here and be honest, and I would hope any conservatives would be honest (but that is far-fetched). The main pushback of CRT really comes from internalized racial bias. Anything that antagonizes the United States judicial system or addressing historical racism and inequitable treatment remotely related to African-Americans or people of color. The comical part about states pushing back on having CRT in the school curriculum is that we can have students learn about Pilgrims and the inaccuracies that entail that. Learn about Christopher Columbus and the inaccuracies that entail that. We can learn to sing the Star-Spangled Banner (which had racist lyrics in its original form), and white inventors’ etcetera. We can learn about all these things in the school curriculum which is basically White American history yet the moment where senators as well as others who want to introduce a new subject that addresses the inequities of the U.S. system of governance it gets push back.

It’s like whenever we want to hold the mirror to the country there is always the whataboutisms that follow such as for example United States slavery. The immediate response is “they had slaves too!” or we want to talk about civil rights, “oh well Lincoln freed the slaves!” it is almost like the moment where we need to address these historical issues of injustice and educate future Americans it is always being pushback. What is upsetting is we can learn about some of the inaccuracies of American history but the moment we come close to addressing reality and the truth of the matter and educate our future about our failure as a society its inappropriate. It is even a sad revelation to me that white conservatives have a fit over the fact that Juneteenth is a holiday let’s me know we have a long way to go before we can say we are truly a racially equitable society.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

 

[Epic Beard Man]

 

[Yerda]

The one thing that amazes me about right-wing conservatives regarding what they consider “leftist ideology” is that when a theory such as CRT (Critical Race Theory) is addressed and suggested to be taught in schools, many are dismissive even before they even know what it is.

It's culture wars, mate. The whole point of it is to stop people thinking.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is even a sad revelation to me that white conservatives have a fit over the fact that Juneteenth is a holiday let’s me know we have a long way to go before we can say we are truly a racially equitable society.

It's not only white conservatives.

 

[metis]

It's culture wars, mate. The whole point of it is to stop people thinking.

That's actually the point of why some oppose CRT, and yet many in that same crowd say they oppose "cancel culture".

However, the one thing I do oppose with CRT is its overwhelming emphasis on Black struggles but not so much other minority groups that were also persecuted.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This video basically answers the thread

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That's actually the point of why some oppose CRT, and yet many in that same crowd say they oppose "cancel culture".

However, the one thing I do oppose with CRT is its overwhelming emphasis on Black struggles but not so much other minority groups that were also persecuted.

I suggest you see my video...No where in CRT does it talk about black struggles...Please educate yourself and see the video above where the Professor debates the conservative and explains CRT...I want to know where you saw where CRT overwhelmingly talks about black struggle....CRT was taught in graduate school something I took as a course and nowhere in the course did it talk about black struggle specifically.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

BTW for those of you who don't know, CRT is not taught in schools. It is only taught at the graduate and doctorate level as said per video it is only for graduate and doctoral students. When I got my Masters in Social Work, we studied CRT I highly doubt some kid in high school would understand the key concepts of CRT

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The DR. Again explains what CRT is and why it's not taught in schools

 

[metis]

I suggest you see my video...No where in CRT does it talk about black struggles...Please educate yourself and see the video above where the Professor debates the conservative and explains CRT...I want to know where you saw where CRT overwhelmingly talks about black struggle....CRT was taught in graduate school something I took as a course and nowhere in the course did it talk about black struggle specifically.

The greater emphasis has been on the Black experience, which to a large extent is understandable as its resurgence was mostly in response to what was happening with race relations in the U.S. This has led to other groups pushing to have their own experiences better represented as you can read here: Within critical race theory, various sub-groupings have emerged to focus on issues that fall outside the black-white paradigm of race relations as well as issues that relate to the intersection of race with issues of gender, sexuality, class and other social structures. For example, critical race feminism (CRF), Hebrew Crit (HebCrit), Latino critical race studies (LatCrit),[83] Asian American critical race studies (AsianCrit), South Asian American critical race studies (DesiCrit),[84] and American Indian critical race studies (sometimes called TribalCrit). CRT methodologies have also been applied to the study of white immigrant groups.[85] CRT has spurred some scholars to call for a second wave of whiteness studies, which is now a small offshoot known as Second Wave Whiteness (SWW).[86] Critical race theory has also begun to spawn research that looks at understandings of race outside the United States.[87][88] -- Critical race theory - Wikipedia

BTW, my references to a greater emphasis on the Black experience was not from Fox or NewsMax but was from either CNN or MSNBC by a professor whom was interviewed yesterday on this.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The greater emphasis has been on the Black experience, which to a large extent is understandable as its resurgence was mostly in response to what was happening with race relations in the U.S. This has led to other groups pushing to have their own experiences better represented as you can read here: Within critical race theory, various sub-groupings have emerged to focus on issues that fall outside the black-white paradigm of race relations as well as issues that relate to the intersection of race with issues of gender, sexuality, class and other social structures. For example, critical race feminism (CRF), Hebrew Crit (HebCrit), Latino critical race studies (LatCrit),[83] Asian American critical race studies (AsianCrit), South Asian American critical race studies (DesiCrit),[84] and American Indian critical race studies (sometimes called TribalCrit). CRT methodologies have also been applied to the study of white immigrant groups.[85] CRT has spurred some scholars to call for a second wave of whiteness studies, which is now a small offshoot known as Second Wave Whiteness (SWW).[86] Critical race theory has also begun to spawn research that looks at understandings of race outside the United States.[87][88] -- Critical race theory - Wikipedia

BTW, my references to a greater emphasis on the Black experience was not from Fox or NewsMax but was from either CNN or MSNBC by a professor whom was interviewed yesterday on this.

I see. I hate Wikipedia sometimes. I'm just saying contrary to popular opinion when I took Critical Race Theory in graduate school it wasn't like I took a course in the black experience. Of course, we examined subjects like gentrification, reconstruction, jim crow etc however it was in the context of how systemic racism developed and its effects on not just blacks but also other disenfranchised communities.

 

[icehorse]

A lot of unsubstantiated claims were made in that video.

As I understand it, a study was done in which grade school kids were taught a semester of philosophy. They then tracked their progress in later school years, and that one semester of kid-appropriate philosophy helped them be better students even years later.

So it seems to me that for CRT to NOT be divisive, students would need some basic grounding in philosophy first. For example questions like "sins of the father" are not easy to grapple with.

 

[metis]

I see. I hate Wikipedia sometimes. I'm just saying contrary to popular opinion when I took Critical Race Theory in graduate school it wasn't like I took a course in the black experience. Of course, we examined subjects like gentrification, reconstruction, jim crow etc however it was in the context of how systemic racism developed and its effects on not just blacks but also other disenfranchised communities.

Seems that we're kindred spirits because I took a course in Race & Ethnic Relations as a grad student at Wayne State University in Detroit. Back then, we used the label "institutionalized racism", so when I looked at the CRT, I see much the same.

BTW, in my poli sci course [my main course that I taught was anthropology though], I spent three weeks on the Holocaust and other forms of genocide, and because I'm a Me'tis [European & Amerindian mix-- Pawnee, Canadian Cree, + unknown out of Quebec], CRT fits into our historical experience as well.

Take care, and have a great weekend.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Seems that we're kindred spirits because I took a course in Race & Ethnic Relations as a grad student at Wayne State University in Detroit. Back then, we used the label "institutionalized racism", so when I looked at the CRT, I see much the same.

Bingo!

You to as well my friend.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A lot of unsubstantiated claims were made in that video.

Proof please....

As I understand it, a study was done in which grade school kids were taught a semester of philosophy. They then tracked their progress in later school years, and that one semester of kid-appropriate philosophy helped them be better students even years later.

My old professor if she read this probably would curse you out. She always taught us when writing in APA style always reference something if you're postulating a study's results. I'm not saying to write in APA format, but if you're going to say something happened, give me a reference link or something I can verify otherwise your comment just amounts to potential BS. No as far as grade school kids being taught a semester in philosophy seems weird to me considering a semester is approximately 15 weeks (3 1/2 months) so if grade school kids which I'm not sure at what grade they were taught this is taking philosophy at that age how are they able to do their other subjects? If this was more like a summer school research project okay but still sounds like a far-fetched study to me.

So it seems to me that for CRT to NOT be divisive, students would need some basic grounding in philosophy first. For example questions like "sins of the father" are not easy to grapple with.

First, you say my video is unsubstantiated, mind you, I also posted two other videos. Then you say there were grade school students with no listed grade just grade school students who took 15 weeks of philosophy which doesn't make sense to me hence is why I asked for a reference link to verify. Then you say in order for students to take CRT they must have an understanding of philosophy. Again, as I've said before CRT is mostly taken by graduate/doctoral students especially those trying to get their masters in social work, MFT (marriage & family therapy), or anything associated with the human sciences.

Somehow, some conservative Republicans fed the media and public that K-12 students are going to be learning something graduate/doctoral students are studying now which is not even true. Again, as per both videos I've put up in this thread, this is a ploy to keep schools from discussing slavery and the institutionalization of racism in our country. I mean even undergraduate schools don't even offer this subject. Folks don't realize we were writing 15-page papers on various subjects in CRT.

 

[icehorse]

@Epic Beard Man - After all of that lengthy response, you didn't address the one question I posed:

If a person doesn't have some understanding of philosophy, how would you hope to discuss the old "sins of the father" question?