Critical Race Theory?

[epronovost]

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

I will focus on Whiteness as a condition one first acquires and then has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensities, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure...


Whiteness, taking this injunction as its own, transforms it into an epistemology of entitled dominion, a mode of coming-to-know in which identity and entitlement are fused. We are licensed at birth, and therefore entitled, to find, capture, dissect, and overpower our targeted objects. As such, we will finally come to know and take dominion over them. Within the terms of the epistemology of entitled dominion knowledge becomes both a sign of superiority and an instrument of power. The steps from knowledge to dominion are clear. The more We know, then, the more We can do; the more We can do, the more We can control; the more We can control, the more We can dominate; and finally, the more We can dominate, the more We are realizing our divine mandate to “have dominion . . . over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Triumphantly submitting to this mandate, Whiteness pursues a utopia of permanent satisfaction and assigns to nonwhite peoples the task of being its ideal, infinitely need-satisfying object, there to service its voracious, and uncheckable, appetites.

That's not an article on CRT or using CRT. CRT is a sub-branch of a legal critique and that's a publication from a psychoanalytic association. It couldn't have less to do with a critique of the legal system based on race and systemic racism.

Plus nothing in these two paragraphs is particularly objectionable. It simply discusses ''Whiteness'' here defined as a psychological and social condition which the common of mortals would call ''white supremacist ideals'' and its ramifications on someone's personality and how the interact with the rest of society. Like many postmodernist writters though, the author uses extansively jargon and redefined words to present his point of view and observation. In other word, its not foolish or hateful or dangerous its stuffy and obscure.

 

[Augustus]

Actually there are very good resources that explain this. We can look at the academics themselves and see what they teach.

Yes, and the average, non-racist person of any ethnicity would find a fair amount of it ridiculous.

What do you think they are trying to teach?

Are there things taught under the banner of CRT that you think are harmful or counterproductive?

Or do you think it's all great and will improve social harmony?

LOL, how does that not apply to most everything in social life? Do you support the banning of CRT because conservatives don't like it? Is that freedom? Why don't conservatives study CRT and objectively offer a counter narrative instead of bans?

I never said anything about banning, but there are certainly things in CRT that I would find very problematic if taught to children as they are both dubious and highly ideological.

Black activists will surely not consider the far rights view of racism as honest, and the far right will certainly not consider what black activists work for as necessary or honest. Those fighting for freedom tend to have the better case in any argument, and in the USA we see daily stories about how black people face ongoing discrimination. Banning the voices of that history is how conservatives respond, not acknowledging there is still a problem, and that is why the right fails.

What do you think of black people who oppose CRT? Racist idiots too?

Can you imagine why many black parents don't want their children told they are oppressed victims from an early age?


Schools Must Resist Destructive Anti-racist Demands

The Dehumanizing Condescension of 'White Fragility'

 

[Augustus]

That's not an article on CRT or using CRT. CRT is a sub-branch of a legal critique and that's a publication from a psychoanalytic association. It couldn't have less to do with a critique of the legal system based on race and systemic racism.

I disagree with your definition as the concept, as an offshoot of Critical theory, is not limited to 'legal critique' despite this being part of its genesis.

It is a critique of a whole range of legal, social, ideological, linguistic, etc power relationships that exist in society.

Plus nothing in these two paragraphs is particularly objectionable. It simply discusses ''Whiteness'' here defined as a psychological and social condition which the common of mortals would call ''white supremacist ideals'' and its ramifications on someone's personality and how the interact with the rest of society. Like many postmodernist writters though, the author uses extansively jargon and redefined words to present his point of view and observation. In other word, its not foolish or hateful or dangerous its stuffy and obscure.

Again I disagree that it is limited to what the average person would consider "White Supremacism", a term which has been vastly expanded under the guises of CRT.

I also disagree that it is not foolish or dangerous to dehumanise opponents even if they are objectionable.

We can agree to disagree on these points though.

 

[PureX]

And this, too ...

Both of these videos explain a lot when viewed together.

 

[George-ananda]

I just don't agree with it. I believe there are subtle biological and genetic differences between races that affect things to an extent.

It should not be taught as a fact in a classroom in a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, and the average, non-racist person of any ethnicity would find a fair amount of it ridiculous.

What do you think they are trying to teach?

Are there things taught under the banner of CRT that you think are harmful or counterproductive?

Or do you think it's all great and will improve social harmony?



I never said anything about banning, but there are certainly things in CRT that I would find very problematic if taught to children as they are both dubious and highly ideological.



What do you think of black people who oppose CRT? Racist idiots too?

Can you imagine why many black parents don't want their children told they are oppressed victims from an early age?


Schools Must Resist Destructive Anti-racist Demands

The Dehumanizing Condescension of 'White Fragility'

My thoughts would be when did schools decide to teach activism rather than teaching educational subjects so students can be prepared to aquire a living?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It should not be taught as a fact in a classroom in a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought.

First: that is truly one remarkable sentence. But, let's reword it for the sake of further clarity:

<paraphrase>

Being a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought, we should purge Critical Race Theory from the classroom.​

</paraphrase>​

Second (and I want you to think really hard about this) your garbage about "should not be taught as a fact" seems to ignore the rather obvious 'fact' that what is being taught is Critical Race Theory.

 

[George-ananda]

First: that is truly one remarkable sentence. But, let's reword it for the sake of further clarity:

<paraphrase>

Being a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought, we should purge Critical Race Theory from the classroom.​

</paraphrase>​

​

There is a demonstration of poor paraphrasing skills. A 'complete reinvention' would be a closer term.

But anyway, being a freethinker (not a banner) I am OK with the theory being taught as a theory that some agree with and others don't. Are contrasting theories to be taught too?

Second (and I want you to think really hard about this) your garbage about "should not be taught as a fact" seems to ignore the rather obvious 'fact' that what is being taught is Critical Race Theory.

If other theories such as The Bell Curve are also taught as a theory for example, then I would be OK with this. I am concerned that the bullying of a particular school of thought is the underlying intent here. Teaching only one theory is pushing that theory into truth (which is the real intent).

Do schools intend to present both sides of the coin? Would you support that?

 

[InChrist]

I'm just interested to hear what people think about this idea? (it's in the news again)

I don’t think it has merit because it presents a narrow and inaccurate narrative, as well I think it encourages further division, racism and bigotry rather than addressing root causes or offering solutions for real unity.


Black Mom: Critical Race Theory Is 'Racist'


Black people are far more powerful than critical race theory preaches | Opinion

 

[Stevicus]

My thoughts would be when did schools decide to teach activism rather than teaching educational subjects so students can be prepared to aquire a living?

Probably back when they started mandating that everyone stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[epronovost]

I disagree with your definition as the concept, as an offshoot of Critical theory, is not limited to 'legal critique' despite this being part of its genesis.

Actually yes, it specifically is limited to the legal arena per its definition. It's not just an offshoot of Marxist Critical theory, but also an subbranch of Critical Legal Studies.

You also failed to mention or highlight how you came into believing these paragraphs were informed by CRT. What are the evidence that it is and not just something about racism you find objectionable (mostly for reason of tone from what you seem to mention). Not every academic (or pseudo-academic in that case) discussion about racism, systemic or not, is informed or about CRT.

 

[epronovost]

My thoughts would be when did schools decide to teach activism rather than teaching educational subjects so students can be prepared to aquire a living?

Because political activism is part of civic education. Schools don't educate future workers. They educate human beings, future citizens and future workers. There is an entire personal development and citizenship education mission in addition to training to enter the workforce in education.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because political activism is part of civic education. Schools don't educate future workers. They educate human beings, future citizens and future workers. There is an entire personal development and citizenship education mission in addition to training to enter the workforce in education.

I think it has no place in schools. The focus should remain on the essential subjects of English, Mathematics, Social Studies (History), English, Science. Phys Ed I could go either way.

Leave the activism for college.

 

[epronovost]

I think it has no place in schools. The focus should remain on the essential subjects of English, Mathematics, Social Studies (History), English, Science. Phys Ed I could go either way.

Leave the activism for college.

If you teach history, you will probably teach "touchy" subject. Teaching US history without mentioning how racism has marked the politics, society and art of your this country would be absurd.

Also, it would be good to note that k-12 education doesn't teach anything like Critical Race Theory since it doesn't teach law. What it does teach is the condition and history of black people and minorities in the US. It does teach the concept of oppression (which is essential since how could you understand concepts like human rights, or the American Revolution without it). It does teach the biggest dirtiest and most cruel actions committed against minorities like slavery, segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, Japanese Internment camps, Chinese exclusion laws, lynching and KKK terrorism, etc. because those events were marking in the history of the US.

History, as a discipline, always has an impact of civic education.

 

[metis]

Without any shadow of doubt, CRT does have merit, but what might be said on its behave may or may not have merit. Back in the 1960's, we understood this as being "institutionalized racism", which does not mean nor imply that that all or even most people are bonified racists.

It's somewhat ironic we see some here criticize CRT's existence, which may actually prove a point within CRT, namely that many people may be at least somewhat "racist" without actually knowing they are. But even then, how one may define "racism" can vary, especially since some of its manifestations may be entirely unintentional.

But what is terrible is that so many who identify as being "conservatives" and/or "Republicans" react strongly against this approach, which may well prove they're racists since denial often goes part & parcel with racism. It's like one former colleague of mine told me: "I am not prejudice; I'm postjudice. I know blacks [substitute the N-word] are inferior". So, someone like him sees his position as just being "reality".

 

[Augustus]

Actually yes, it specifically is limited to the legal arena per its definition. It's not just an offshoot of Marxist Critical theory, but also an subbranch of Critical Legal Studies.

No it is now used widely in disciplines beyond "critical legal studies". It is very common that terms expand beyond their original remit in academia.

Don't take my word for it, just type it into Google Scholar or any scholarly database and see for yourself.

You also failed to mention or highlight how you came into believing these paragraphs were informed by CRT. What are the evidence that it is and not just something about racism you find objectionable (mostly for reason of tone from what you seem to mention). Not every academic (or pseudo-academic in that case) discussion about racism, systemic or not, is informed or about CRT.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Understanding the role and power of White Supremacy in creating and reinforcing racial subordination and maintaining a normalized White privilege is central to the CRT imperative to reveal and oppose racial inequality (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Harris 1995). In this perspective ‘White supremacy’ does not relate to the obvious crude race hatred of extremist groups but to forces that saturate society as a whole:

• [By] ‘White supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic, and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and nonwhite subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings. (Ansley 1997: 592)

This presents a particular challenge because of the taken-for-granted privileges of Whiteness. White scholars engaging in CRT must strive to be aware of and committed to critically interrogating their own racial privilege and unmasking the invisibility of racism (McIntosh 1997; Picower 2009; Preston 2007; Sleeter 2011).

 

[InChrist]

Without any shadow of doubt, CRT does have merit, but what might be said on its behave may or may not have merit. Back in the 1960's, we understood this as being "institutionalized racism", which does not mean nor imply that that all or even most people are bonified racists.

It's somewhat ironic we see some here criticize CRT's existence, which may actually prove a point within CRT, namely that many people may be at least somewhat "racist" without actually knowing they are. But even then, how one may define "racism" can vary, especially since some of its manifestations may be entirely unintentional.

But what is terrible is that so many who identify as being "conservatives" and/or "Republicans" react strongly against this approach, which may well prove they're racists since denial often goes part & parcel with racism. It's like one former colleague of mine told me: "I am not prejudice; I'm postjudice. I know blacks [substitute the N-word] are inferior". So, someone like him sees his position as just being "reality".

Kind of reminds me of Biden and too many other liberal Democrats who consider Black people inferior and incapable of accomplishing anything without their help or direction.

 

[epronovost]

No it is now used widely in disciplines beyond "critical legal studies". It is very common that terms expand beyond their original remit in academia.

Don't take my word for it, just type it into Google Scholar or any scholarly database and see for yourself.

Actually, the only thing I found are articles discussing critical race study, articles like yours extracted from African American Study textbook that defines the term and you will notice that the definition bellow specifically mention that CRT doesn't talk or concerns itself with the racial hatred of extremist groups, which is more the purview of sociologists and psychologists, but its legal and political ramification (that which is alluded as the invisible forms of racism). I don't see how quoting a definition from an African American Study textbook demonstrate that critical race theory isn't a concept associated with legal studies. Note that African American Study cursus generally involve a degree of legal study amongst other disciplines.



Error - Cookies Turned Off

Understanding the role and power of White Supremacy in creating and reinforcing racial subordination and maintaining a normalized White privilege is central to the CRT imperative to reveal and oppose racial inequality (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Harris 1995). In this perspective ‘White supremacy’ does not relate to the obvious crude race hatred of extremist groups but to forces that saturate society as a whole:

• [By] ‘White supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic, and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and nonwhite subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings. (Ansley 1997: 592)

This presents a particular challenge because of the taken-for-granted privileges of Whiteness. White scholars engaging in CRT must strive to be aware of and committed to critically interrogating their own racial privilege and unmasking the invisibility of racism (McIntosh 1997; Picower 2009; Preston 2007; Sleeter 2011).

 

[Windwalker]

I think it has no place in schools. The focus should remain on the essential subjects of English, Mathematics, Social Studies (History), English, Science. Phys Ed I could go either way.

Leave the activism for college.

This is social sciences. It should be taught in school, the same as the scientific theory of evolution should be. The only activists, are the ones who decry it, who happen to be the same ones who decry teaching evolution. They hate anything that tells the truth through science, and much prefer ear-tickling over education. Education threatens their sense of reality as they believe it to be.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Never heard of critical race theory

but to ban it is rather like Book Burning.

There have been many examples in the past, and all have ended badly.