mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that single data point is a human. No human is nothing but a single data point. That is the point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Guess the (CRT) Syllabus?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Well, that single data point is a human. No human is nothing but a single data point. That is the point.
Not true when the topic has to do with public policy.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
I mean... When I was in (public) elementary school I learned about how white people wiped out the local indigenous population more or less and killed their languages and cultures via boarding schools and other such means. It's not really a secret that this happened, and white folks are directly responsible for this fate. Why hide that fact? The first nations people aren't the only people that got this treatment, either
Personally I'm in favor of flipping over the log to expose the bugs crawling underneath to the light of day. Give kids context for why things are the way the are now, and hopefully give them a brighter future to aim towards away from that dark past. No sugar coating or hand holding
I know I'm in the minority with my sentiments, but when I reached middle school age and went to christian home schooling, all that critical thinking and intellectual honesty went out the window and was replaced with American Glorification while brushing aside reality and replacing it with puff pieces about "American Heros" like Gen. Robert E. Lee. I didn't even know about the cornerstone speech until I became an adult and learned about it after the fact on my own time
No lying, no brushing reality and history under the rug, no thanks
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Just showing what's our there
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I doubt skin color was a reason. You get pulled for reasonable suspicion or committing an infraction.
Of course, there is stop and frisk policies by Democrats
Orbit
I'm a planet
You live in an alternate reality. What a red herring.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yea cops only pull over minorities. Whites are givin a pass.
Talk about someone living in an alternate reality.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of teaching conclusions derived from CRT in high schools as factual and not as one of multiple possible explanations of historical facts. I lean Marxist, myself, so I tend to agree with a lot of the analyses provided by conflict theory, from which CRT borrows multiple concepts (e.g., power structures and descriptions of relationships between classes of oppressors and classes of the oppressed). However, my Marxist leanings are a personal worldview, and I wouldn't teach them as absolute facts any more than I would want to be taught conservative analyses as facts in an academic setting.
Of course, I think conflict theory and dialectical materialism are much more reasonable than almost all other alternative analyses of history, but unlike in physics or chemistry where one set of theories and concepts can be rigorously demonstrated to be the most accurate to observable facts, sociology is a lot more open to analysis and has more room for personal leanings to come into play. That's the main reason I wouldn't teach Marxist analyses as factual.
I would need to know more about the specifics of a CRT course and how it was presented—that is, as a possible analysis versus a historical fact—before deciding whether I would be against teaching said course.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Read the article in the OP and the resolution. Did I miss some proposal?
I think the resolution would geniunely prohibit an honest account of many subjects. If it can't be argued that racism is a frequent (personal, cultural, institutionl etc) part of America because that constitutes saying "racism is normal" then how can you explore that even when it is true?
I'm linking @Stevicus @Augustus and @Debater Slayer because it was their posts that led me to make this one, but happy for any and all to offer their viewpoints.
First off, racism...and systemic racism...clearly exist to me. That doesn't make them ubiquitous, and I'm sure people would have a variety of views on their commonality and impact, but just stating my view as context. I feel similarly about others forms of discrimination, including sexism.
Secondly, I don't see it as only the privileged or those in power who can be racist by any means. But privilege broadly conveys power, and more influence on systems. So whatever the moral relativity, I'd say racism by the privileged has more impact systemically by far than by the less privileged.
Race is at best an inexact descriptor which has some utility in certain contexts. However, since people treat it as 'real', it is real (in terms of impact).
All that said, I wonder if constantly reinforcing an inexact notion like race in our hunt for societal improvements is not problematic. I do not mean that racist behaviours shouldn't be called out. And I certainly don't mean that problematic histories should be covered up. Quite the opposite.
But as an example, if we have an education issue, identifying need and addressing it by access and socio-economic measures seems preferable. As a ham-fisted example, that would still be allocating more effort and responsiveness to black or indigenous communities in the short term. But it might more equitably deal with gender disparity or migrants too. And it is a more self-correcting and inclusive way of addressing things.
Now, are there unique issues facing black communities that require particular solutions? Well...somewhat. I'd say though that those are somewhat cultural in nature. So allowing some flexibility at a local level for how interventions might actually be structured (perhaps from a range of options) seems preferable to me.
Obviously this is nowhere near a plan for addressing inequality. I was just interested in thoughts on my high level 'guiding principles'...
First off, racism...and systemic racism...clearly exist to me. That doesn't make them ubiquitous, and I'm sure people would have a variety of views on their commonality and impact, but just stating my view as context. I feel similarly about others forms of discrimination, including sexism.
Secondly, I don't see it as only the privileged or those in power who can be racist by any means. But privilege broadly conveys power, and more influence on systems. So whatever the moral relativity, I'd say racism by the privileged has more impact systemically by far than by the less privileged.
Race is at best an inexact descriptor which has some utility in certain contexts. However, since people treat it as 'real', it is real (in terms of impact).
All that said, I wonder if constantly reinforcing an inexact notion like race in our hunt for societal improvements is not problematic. I do not mean that racist behaviours shouldn't be called out. And I certainly don't mean that problematic histories should be covered up. Quite the opposite.
But as an example, if we have an education issue, identifying need and addressing it by access and socio-economic measures seems preferable. As a ham-fisted example, that would still be allocating more effort and responsiveness to black or indigenous communities in the short term. But it might more equitably deal with gender disparity or migrants too. And it is a more self-correcting and inclusive way of addressing things.
Now, are there unique issues facing black communities that require particular solutions? Well...somewhat. I'd say though that those are somewhat cultural in nature. So allowing some flexibility at a local level for how interventions might actually be structured (perhaps from a range of options) seems preferable to me.
Obviously this is nowhere near a plan for addressing inequality. I was just interested in thoughts on my high level 'guiding principles'...
When I read your post #99 it seemed to me you were summarizing CRT and/or the school's proposal, were you not?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, to me it is not about truth. It is about ideology and ethics/morality for us both.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
White privilege is when white people experience certain sociological or economic benefits in certain areas that are a consequence of certain social structures favouring positive outcomes for white people in those circumstances. All groups experience some degree of privilege and oppression. There is also such a thing as black privilege, male privilege, female privilege, etc.. These all exist and can be explored individually or collectively (the way in which these systems of oppression and/or privilege overlap and interact is the field of "intersectionality"). The question isn't whether or not they exist but whether or not one form of privilege is significantly greater than the others, resulting in social imbalance. In an ideal society, we ought to aim towards ensuring eliminating as much privilege and as much oppression as possible.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That is not intersectionality. I have no idea where any honest person who has studied intersectionality would get that idea. I might understand why they got that idea if everything they thought they understood about intersectionality came from Twitter and right-wing media, however.
No, again. Whoever said that is wrong. There is no principle or school of thought within the field of intersectionality which dictates any such thing.
Have you studied either?
Yes, they clearly exist when one evaluates outcomes and results, but sometimes, it's oftentimes presented in vague and subjective terms. I noticed how confused the dialogue became in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder. George Floyd was murdered by a cop in Minneapolis, MN - which is a city and state mostly run by liberal Democrats - who are oftentimes portrayed as white saviors and protectors against racism.
They may claim to be opposed to systemic racism, but the results in Minneapolis would demonstrate that they're obviously practitioners of it. Either that, or the liberal position is so incredibly clueless that they should not be taken seriously on this matter.
If we want to get to the root causes of systemic racism, it seems a good approach would be make a forensic examination of the local and state governments involved and try to answer the question, where did they go wrong?
But the public narrative started to go all over the map. We heard far more about how much Confederate statues are to blame, rather than any genuine good-faith, in-depth examination of the actual systems in place.
It's almost as if there's a deliberate, intentional avoidance to truly examine the system that leads to systemic racism. The dialogue and narrative seem geared to distract and confuse people - and possibly even reflects a desire to stir things up and create discord.
The main source of privilege in the United States is money and class. That's how it always has been. Whatever "the system" is - or what it does - is a reflection of what the wealthy ruling class wants. With so many people embracing a laissez faire, dog-eat-dog, predatory economic system, it clearly has an effect on how people view reality and the world around them. If people agree that those who are wealthy and powerful earned their position through their hard work and superior brainpower, then that implies that those who are privileged deserve to be - because they are superior to the lower-class "lazy drones" who have no ambition or any desire to succeed in life.
As long as Western society continues to unabashedly embrace notions like "I am superior and therefore I deserve to have more wealth, power, and privilege than those who are inferior to me," then we're going to have problems with "privilege," on multiple levels.
The idea that "privilege is okay just as long as it's not white privilege" may have a certain appeal, but it's too contradictory a position to be able to hold up to any real scrutiny. This idea needs to be reworked.
There's nothing in this part I find any issue or disagreement. Part of the problem seems to be the practice of deconstructing and compartmentalizing the issue into neat little boxes, without really taking a more holistic approach and examining how all these boxes interconnect with each other.
As an example, in my neck of the woods, issues of race and racism are more related to "Anglo" and "Hispanic," as well as "white" and "Native," but not so much about "black" and "white." A key issue of contention has been bilingualism/multilingualism and the political opposition from the "English Only" movement, whose positions are routinely castigated as racist - even though the issue is about language, not skin color. In fact, many people who might be considered racist sometimes argue that they have nothing against the color of anyone's skin, but their problems are more related to culture. Skin color is an immutable condition of birth, but culture is within the realm of human control.
ok, how would you define intersectionality?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It's a theory of sociology that examines the ways in which various forms of oppression and/or privilege overlap. For example, you can examine and compare the ways in which black people and disabled people are affected by living in a society; and intersectionally you can examine how being BOTH black and disabled manifests differently. It's about how these systems interact and interlock to create layers of oppression and privilege.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, e.g. I am white, a heterosexual male and crazy as in effect mentally disabled. Note I live in Denmark, but it even applies to me.
I thought we were talking about what you said a few posts back when you said:
"Well, that single data point is a human. No human is nothing but a single data point. That is the point."
In that context I would say - again - that the OP is about public policies. Almost all decisions that impact populations are imperfect, and don't do a good job of handling outliers. Good policy decisions attempt to handle the majority of situations, again, this is a statistical undertaking.