Critical Race Theory?

[Epic Beard Man]

For the most part, when they say they oppose CRT they mean they oppose any discussion of why minorities might face disadvantages in legal, economic, civic matters. CRT is just a useful expression for these festering anuses to work themselves into a frothy moral panic.

Bingo! please explain this to @icehorse

 

[wellwisher]

I watch a documentary mini series about the Civil War several years ago. It was based on a New York Times best seller. The episode that seems appropriate to this discussion was connected to the Confederate General, Stonewall Jackson. He was a devout religious man, who was General Lee's best field general. Jackson felt he was a man of destiny led by God. He had no fear and would push and march his armies all night to get ahead of the Union armies, so they would be unprepared for his assault. One day he was so far ahead of his own fast marching troops, his most forward spies, thought he was the enemy, and he was killed by friendly fire. This changed the war since there no Confederate or Union field General like him. General Lee never recovered from this major loss. The tide of the war changed.

Jackson's attitude toward slaves, which continues in the Democrat party of today, was that he felt that it was the white man's religious duty to take care of the blacks. He saw the blacks as God's and nature's children taken from Africa, who needed to be cared for in the modern white man's world. This is the essence of critical race theory. It assumes blacks cannot deal or cope with the modern world as it is. It is a type of racism based on arrogance and misguided compassion. It implies one race is not able to cope on its own. It looks compassionate, but it implies inferiority needing help from superiority. It is sinister form of racism that misleads and can create a self for filling prophesy.

The analogy would be a mother who over protects and smothers her only child. She takes care of the child, but she also does not allow him to have a life of his own, apart from her choices for him/her. The child gets benefits that makes him accept this deal, but he is also discontent since he is never able to grow and go beyond the mother's smothering.

Inherent within this misguided compassion is a psychological game, where the mother justifies her role and her actions as being due the to the cold cruel world; abstraction. Her game is designed to destroy the child's self initiative, so the child forever remains dependent. Building the child up, to be independent and positive, is not in her own best self interest. She will spoil and scare, so together they can conspired to cheat life.

Martin Luther King said he had a dream that a person would be judged by the content of character and not the color of the skin. The color of the skin is something one is born with. The content of character is the opposite, in that it is something that the individual has to develop over time. One is not born with character, but rather this needs to be developed through a positive, honest and fair style of living.

Critical race theory judges everyone by skin color; black and white. One is placed on one side or the other. It does not see or judge anyone as individuals. It ignores the exceptions that character can create. It does not make exceptions for blacks or for whites based on being good people. It is a type of modern racism, based on the misguided compassion scam of the smattering mother. It does not assume a black person of character is able to overcome, since he is a black clone in white clone world. That is how a racist thinks; one size fits all, with no exceptions, except themselves; the smother.

This misguided compassion racism is telling, since it suggests there are few, if any, Democrats of character. They may not know what character is, to make that type of judgement. Their doctrine of relative morality may have cut them off from character. The blacks in Democrat run cities have the greatest discontent, since although living with mother is good in some ways, there is a sense of loss in terms of being able to run free at last. The child rebels, while the Smothering mother will only see fear and use that to manipulate the child, so she can possess the child forever.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Critical race theory judges everyone by skin color; black and white..

Did you even look up CRT or even read the thread?

 

[icehorse]

The video has been pretty clear on the definition of racism CRT operates under, and explicitly spells it out within the first few minutes.

I would say that the videos' definitions are very broad stroke. For example, you could not use the videos to help you determine whether a given claim concerning CRT is in bounds or not. Would CRT seek reparations? Based on the videos, we don't know. So let's take reparations as an example. From what I gather, some people think reparations are an aspect of CRT. Could be. How do they know? What's the vulgate?

 

[icehorse]

Bingo! please explain this to @icehorse

dude! I get the broad strokes. But what's important are the details. I've heard some people say that one conclusion drawn by CRT is that Math is a tool of oppression. Is that true? Now to be clear, this is just an example. What I'm really trying to get at are the details. (BTW, if my claim about math is not true in your opinion, then on what do you base your claim?)

 

[Epic Beard Man]

dude! I get the broad strokes. But what's important are the details. I've heard some people say that one conclusion drawn by CRT is that Math is a tool of oppression. Is that true? Now to be clear, this is just an example. What I'm really trying to get at are the details. (BTW, if my claim about math is not true in your opinion, then on what do you base your claim?)

Dude buy the book.....Last time me explaining this because it is a little over a year I am removed from taking the course in graduate school. Simply put CRT comes out of the Critical Legal Studies movement in the 1950s and '60s. The basic thesis for Critical Race Theory states all of these socially constructed ideas we have about society are malleable and can be moved around a power matrix based on individual's interests. THAT IS ONE OF THE THESIS FOR CRITICAL RACE THEORY!!!!!!!!

"Critical race theorists believed that political liberalism was incapable of adequately addressing fundamental problems of injustice in American society (notwithstanding legislation and court rulings advancing civil rights in the 1950s and ’60s), because its emphasis on the equitable treatment under the law of all races (“colour blindness”) rendered it capable of recognizing only the most overt and obvious racist practices, not those that were relatively indirect, subtle, or systemic.

These “basic tenets” of CRT, according to the authors, include the following claims: (1) Race is socially constructed, not biologically natural. (2) Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour. (3) Owing to what critical race theorists call “interest convergence” or “material determinism,” legal advances (or setbacks) for people of colour tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. Thus, the racial hierarchy that characterizes American society may be unaffected or even reinforced by ostensible improvements in the legal status of oppressed or exploited people. (4) Members of minority groups periodically undergo “differential racialization,” or the attribution to them of varying sets of negative stereotypes, again depending on the needs or interests of whites. (5) According to the thesis of “intersectionality” or “antiessentialism,” no individual can be adequately identified by membership in a single group. An African American person, for example, may also identify as a woman, a lesbian, a feminist, a Christian, and so on. Finally, (6) the “voice of colour” thesis holds that people of colour are uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of other members of their group (or groups) regarding the forms and effects of racism. This consensus has led to the growth of the “legal story telling” movement, which argues that the self-expressed views of victims of racism and other forms of oppression provide essential insight into the nature of the legal system.


CRT has influenced scholarship in fields outside the confines of legal studies, including women’s and gender studies, education, American studies, and sociology. CRT spin-off movements formed by Asian American, Latinx, LGBTQ, Muslim, and Native American scholars have also taken hold. In the early 21st century, critical race theorists addressed themselves to a number of issues, including police brutality and criminal justice, hate speech and hate crimes, health care, affirmative action, poverty and the welfare state, immigration, and voting rights."

Reference: critical race theory | Definition, Principles, & Facts

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not about to go and get my textbook and start breaking down legal jargon for you. This website is not a part of any University that I need to get a graduate studies book to break things down for you. If you're that interested buy the book if you're not interested in a general breakdown then you've wasted your time. I'm not as patient as fellow forum attendee Meow Mix and breaking things down patiently for everyone so hold your breath. So again if you cannot or will not understand and accept the general thesis of the subject I'm not going to waste time and break things down and explaining the legal analysis of CRT and discussing its particulars.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Well plenty of scholars say something pretty much to that effect, so it's pretty understandable how some people might indeed think that:

Wildman and Davis, for instance, contend that white supremacy is a system of oppression and privilege that all white people benefit from. Therefore, all white people

. . . are racist in this use of the term, because we benefit from systemic white privilege. Generally whites think of racism as voluntary, intentional conduct done by horrible others. Whites spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves and each other that we are not racist. A big step would be for whites to admit that we are racist and then to consider what to do about it.49

If racism involves a system of group privilege that white people benefit from and that simultaneously marginalizes people of color, such systemic privilege is not something that white people can renounce at will. Even when white people become aware of white privilege and want to disown it, the world continues to reinscribe privilege. White privilege, thus, cannot be renounced through individual volition.

Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy - Barbara Applebaum

 

[Augustus]

But what's important are the details. I've heard some people say that one conclusion drawn by CRT is that Math is a tool of oppression. Is that true? Now to be clear, this is just an example. What I'm really trying to get at are the details. (BTW, if my claim about math is not true in your opinion, then on what do you base your claim?)

There are no details as it's a vague moveable target and people tend not to have any interest in a good faith discussion.

In a nutshell:

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups...

Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached.
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.

Ibram X. Kendi - How to Be an Antiracist

So, for example, white people should be favoured over Asians for college admissions as it helps promote "equity". Extending the logic, men should be favoured over women as women outperform men at all levels of education thus "proving" discrimination against men

The good news is, if you are in good-faith dubious about the human capacity to micro-manage "equity" in a highly ideological manner and think this may end up as being counterproductive, you are a stupid racist in need of being "educated" and can be dismissed out of hand

 

[Kooky]

@icehorse
How about you get started with this and get back to us once you're finished with the book:

Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction

Since the publication of the first edition of Critical Race Theory in 2001, the United States has lived through two economic downturns, an outbreak of terrorism, and the onset of an epidemic of hate directed against immigrants, especially undocumented Latinos and Middle Eastern people. On a more hopeful note, the country elected and re-elected its first black president and has witnessed the impressive advance of gay rights.

As a field, critical race theory has taken note of all these developments, and this primer does so as well. It not only covers a range of emerging new topics and events, it also addresses the rise of a fierce wave of criticism from right-wing websites, think tanks, and foundations, some of which insist that America is now colorblind and has little use for racial analysis and study.

Critical Race Theory is essential for understanding developments in this burgeoning field, which has spread to other disciplines and countries. The new edition also covers the ways in which other societies and disciplines adapt its teachings and, for readers wanting to advance a progressive race agenda, includes new questions for discussion, aimed at outlining practical steps to achieve this objective.

 

[Shaul]

One poll shows people think Critical Race Theory is bad by almost two to one.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/1oyiu6tamw/econTabReport.pdf#page168
I see the poll for this thread shows the reverse for the RF community. Which is actually not surprising to me.

The Democrat party has adopted CRT. Of course most Republicans don’t accept it. What is interesting is the most independents don’t accept it either.

Leftists are going to learn a hard lesson.

 

[Kooky]

There are no details as it's a vague moveable target and people tend not to have any interest in a good faith discussion.

Don't worry, I don't think anybody in this thread is still holding on to the delusion that you ever had an interest in a good faith discussion of the subject, given how abudantly clear you've made the opposite case, as you demonstrate in this post:

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups...

Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached.
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.

Ibram X. Kendi - How to Be an Antiracist

So, for example, white people should be favoured over Asians for college admissions as it helps promote "equity". Extending the logic, men should be favoured over women as women outperform men at all levels of education thus "proving" discrimination against men

The good news is, if you are in good-faith dubious about the human capacity to micro-manage "equity" in a highly ideological manner and think this may end up as being counterproductive, you are a stupid racist in need of being "educated" and can be dismissed out of hand

A good faith discussion would treat a single representative of the field as just that, and would consider that their political opinion may or may not reflect on their academic work on the subject; a bad faith discussion assumes from the get-go that CRT is a monolithic bloc and one person's political opinion can be generalized to include an entire academic field, then draws the most absurd sounding conclusion from their words so as to try its damndest to make an entire field of academia look as ridiculous as possible.

 

[Augustus]

A good faith discussion would treat a single representative of the field as just that, and would consider that their political opinion may or may not reflect on their academic work on the subject; a bad faith discussion assumes from the get-go that CRT is a monolithic bloc

There are no details as it's a vague moveable target

One of these days you might actually read my post before jumping to your usual preconceived judgment that ignores what I actually said in favour of your self-righteous version of what you seem to want me to have said.

then draws the most absurd sounding conclusion from their words so as to try its damndest to make an entire field of academia look as ridiculous as possible.

Feel free to make an actual argument about how I have misrepresented his logic if you wish.

(In general, there are good faith arguments in favour of his view and against it, wouldn't you agree? What would you say are the good faith arguments against his views?)

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well plenty of scholars say something pretty much to that effect, so it's pretty understandable how some people might indeed think that:

It is not understandable. Nothing in Critical Race Theory specifically alienates whites or white individuals in fact it does the opposite however it does highlight the existence of white supremacy that exists within systemic racism.

 

[Augustus]

It is not understandable. Nothing in Critical Race Theory specifically alienates whites or white individuals in fact it does the opposite however it does highlight the existence of white supremacy that exists within systemic racism.

You seriously don't think telling people they are racist by virtue of birth and that there is nothing they can do about it is likely to alienate some of these people?

We apparently have a very different view of communication and human psychology. If you wanted a textbook case of how to alienate people who are generally supportive of your goals, this is basically it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seriously don't think telling people they are racist by virtue of birth and that there is nothing they can do about it is likely to alienate some of these people?

I looked up CRT (a couple duck duck go searches).
It doesn't fundamentally tag groups as racist IMO.
But some people do mis-use it to do just that.
Perhaps we're talking past each other?

 

[Augustus]

I looked up CRT (a couple duck duck go searches).
It doesn't fundamentally tag groups as racist IMO.
But some people do mis-use it to do just that.

Some scholars do, other scholars don't.

I was really referring to the following scholars who do:

Critical Race Theory?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some scholars do, other scholars don't.

I was really referring to the following scholars who do:

Critical Race Theory?

Aye, those who blame every individual in
a group for the actions of others are bigots
who make things worse for all.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You seriously don't think telling people they are racist by virtue of birth and that there is nothing they can do about it is likely to alienate some of these people?

I actually took the course along with my white counterparts in my former program. Nothing in CRT alienates any white person individually in fact:

"The core idea is that racism is a social construct and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

"A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas."

"Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts."

Does critical race theory say all white people are racist? Isn’t that racist, too?

"The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism."

"Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT thus puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process."

Reference:

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

 

[Augustus]

I actually took the course along with my white counterparts in my former program. Nothing in CRT alienates any white person individually

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
Delgado, Richard; Stefancic, Jean; Harris, Angela. “Critical Race Theory (Third Edition)”

Given it is a broad discipline concerned with radical change, how can you make such a claim though? I've already provided you with a direct quote of an author saying something that obviously alienates many white people.

I agree that it is not a central or necessary tenet of CRT that all white people are racist, but it is pretty clear that some scholars do indeed say things that obviously, and understandably, alienate many white people (and many non-white people too).

Whether or not you believe you normatively should be able to do so, you cannot redefine words like racism and white supremacy that have such negative connotations, apply them to people based on an accident of birth then expect all reasonable people to simply say 'of course you are right and we agree we are racists complicit in white supremacy' (never mind all people).

"The core idea is that racism is a social construct and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

"A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas."

"Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts."

Does critical race theory say all white people are racist? Isn’t that racist, too?

"The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism."

"Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT thus puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process."

Reference:

What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?

A generic overview of CRT for a popular audience doesn't negate what individual scholars may say on the issue.