4 ms·

"The ideology of individualism is dependent on a denial of the past as relevant to the present… Individualism denies the significance of race." -- Robin DeAngel

"The ideology of individualism is dependent on a denial of the past as relevant to the present… Individualism denies the significance of race." -- Robin DeAngelo Robin DeAngelo, is a frontrunner of 'white guilt', CRT, and other strange sides of the woke movement. This quote pretty much sums it up, they want to put group identity first, above individualism.

Traster 5y ago
I see this criticism of CRT/wokeism etc very often and I really want to address a point about people talking past each other. Proponents of CRT don't say they want to divide people based on group characteristics, they say people are divided based on group characteristics and they recognise that whilst individualists deny what is evidently true. Essentially it's the position that people are negatively impacted due to the group they're in so they should advocate for themselves as part of that group.
- ramblerman 5y ago
  The remedy to injustice is to treat people on their merit. Not come up with different ways to divide them in the name of social justice. > I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
  - Traster 5y ago
    If there is injustice, then the correct response is to recognise it and combat it, not to do nothing whilst it continues. The problem with your appeal to treating people on merit is often merit is the result of unequal conditions. So all you’re doing is baking in the existing inequality and then quite insultingly tell people “oh it’s a meritocracy” . It’s not a coincidence that the most privileged people end up having incredibly meritorious children.
- peytn 5y ago
  It’s about using racial rhetoric in a self-serving way. Isn’t that what people are talking about here?
- ttt0 5y ago
  I'm not a fan of CRT, but you're 100% right. The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate. Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic > Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications. I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans". I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how the society would react to such knowledge No, it hasn't. Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.) So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. If we would hold it up to the same standard as something like for example the Culture of Critique.
xdennis 5y ago
As a European right winger, I find it strange how group identity, which is important to us, is valued by left wingers in the USA.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Simplistically... The right wing believes in keeping the old traditions and the left believes in modifying those to 'fit the day's or to achieve 'progress'. In this framework the difference you notice makes absolute sense. America is a country founded on enlightenment ideas, which were part of the leftist school of thought in the old borderline ecclesiocratic aristocracy that would have formed the 'right wing' of Europe. Thus the american right wingers look back to what you'd consider leftist thought as their model of keeping society as it should be, whereas a European right winger may look back to the older days of European monarchs, national identity and religion. In america, the right wing, looking back towards our american enlightenment ideals, wouldn't really believe in any of those things in the same way. There are some bits of overlap, especially in the social issues since those are recent changes. But overall an american right winger is going to be a European classical liberal which is typically considered leftist.

Traster 5y ago

I see this criticism of CRT/wokeism etc very often and I really want to address a point about people talking past each other. Proponents of CRT don't say they want to divide people based on group characteristics, they say people are divided based on group characteristics and they recognise that whilst individualists deny what is evidently true. Essentially it's the position that people are negatively impacted due to the group they're in so they should advocate for themselves as part of that group.

ramblerman 5y ago
The remedy to injustice is to treat people on their merit. Not come up with different ways to divide them in the name of social justice. > I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
- Traster 5y ago
  If there is injustice, then the correct response is to recognise it and combat it, not to do nothing whilst it continues. The problem with your appeal to treating people on merit is often merit is the result of unequal conditions. So all you’re doing is baking in the existing inequality and then quite insultingly tell people “oh it’s a meritocracy” . It’s not a coincidence that the most privileged people end up having incredibly meritorious children.
peytn 5y ago
It’s about using racial rhetoric in a self-serving way. Isn’t that what people are talking about here?
ttt0 5y ago
I'm not a fan of CRT, but you're 100% right. The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate. Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic > Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications. I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans". I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how the society would react to such knowledge No, it hasn't. Not even your specific example (racial IQ dofferences), on which there continues to be new work published (both on the differences and on influences, both genetic and environmental.) So if “the issue” with CRT is just this thing that is neither true nor about CRT, then that’s pretty much the same as there being, in fact, no issue with CRT.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    The issue with CRT is that it's anti-white. If we would hold it up to the same standard as something like for example the Culture of Critique.

xdennis 5y ago

As a European right winger, I find it strange how group identity, which is important to us, is valued by left wingers in the USA.

iammisc 5y ago
Simplistically... The right wing believes in keeping the old traditions and the left believes in modifying those to 'fit the day's or to achieve 'progress'. In this framework the difference you notice makes absolute sense. America is a country founded on enlightenment ideas, which were part of the leftist school of thought in the old borderline ecclesiocratic aristocracy that would have formed the 'right wing' of Europe. Thus the american right wingers look back to what you'd consider leftist thought as their model of keeping society as it should be, whereas a European right winger may look back to the older days of European monarchs, national identity and religion. In america, the right wing, looking back towards our american enlightenment ideals, wouldn't really believe in any of those things in the same way. There are some bits of overlap, especially in the social issues since those are recent changes. But overall an american right winger is going to be a European classical liberal which is typically considered leftist.