5 ms·

Battle over Critical Race Theory

16 points by jkuria 5y ago

TechBro8615 5y ago
Is critical race theory a decade old strawman invented by Andrew Breitbart and subsequently revived by his opponents?
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  Not if it was published about decades prior, e.g. https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144 https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144
woofie11 5y ago
I kinda feel like the central problem is that CRT is that its an ideology. It's a bundle of ideas, packaged together, and you can take it or leave it as a whole. Promoters take it. Opponents leave it. I read and re-read CRT papers to understand what they're talking about, and they make a lot of really good points. They also have a fair number of errors. That's common to most documents. It'd a brilliant starting point for a critical discussion. As-is, it's trivial for people on the left to point out obviously true statements missing from the central narrative, and call opponents racists. It's equally trivial for people on the right to call out things which are obviously wrong, and discount the whole thing. What we need, though, is to sort out the good parts, refine them, and get rid of or fix the bad parts. We can argue about the ratios there, but I don't think we can argue it's 100% wrong or right.
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  It seems to have a lot of incredibly ill defined, unscientific, unproven, and frankly racist and divisive ideas if you ask me. Any criticism or request for evidence, logic, or results is met with wildly disproportionate reactions from bullying at worst to strawmen very often, but rarely actual answers or willingness to discuss things openly. Recently I've noticed the theme is to post purile edicts proclaiming that CRT is "just acknowledging that racism exists and is bad" (and therefore if you question it or this post, then you're a racist). But no, that's a lie. That's not what CRT is, it absolutely should be critically examined and questioned.
  - lunatuna 5y ago
    With the above, it doesn’t make sense to be teaching this at a grade school level and would be expected to be introduced in late high school and more thoroughly in college. As and ideology it would be good to introduce when one is reading Adam Smith, Marx and Mussolini. But I think a lot of the concern is that CRT isn’t being taught as an ideology amongst others, but it is being employed as the underlying “unseen” lens that is being applied to all aspects of curriculum and the classroom. I also think CRT like a lot of more modern movements lacks a central authority that then allows the practitioners to take it in all sorts of directions that may or may not have been intended. You can see in many CRT zealots that race predetermines everything. Like when talking to a Marxist. Everything is understood if you just apply the right lens. If only the world was so simple. Like so much of education it is just another passing fad applied badly. My concern is that the opportunity to make the needed change is going to be missed due the extremes fighting and not getting to meaningful improvements.
    - woofie11 5y ago
      And if you go to school in a Christian community, Christianity will be the unseen lens that underlies the curriculum. And so on with any other culture. It's not ideal, but it is what is. CRT is a helpful lens, much like Marxism, Smith-style capitalism, and many other lenses. Like all of those, it has its limits. I want my kids to have as many lenses as possible, and to be able to use them critically. I'll mention -- even elementary school kids have no problems understanding these lenses. I'd argue Smith, CRT, and Marx ought to be taught around 3rd-5th grade, not high school. My problem is CRT is being taught in kindergarten.
      - test_epsilon 5y ago
        What evidence is there that it is helpful? What measurable improvements is it responsible for? I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. Would the teaching of CRT expose it for the unproven religious-like propaganda that it is? Or would it teach the horrific hurtful and racist pseudoscientific lies about toxic whiteness or children bearing some responsibility for things done by other people due to their race? Probably the latter, right? It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all.
bumbledraven 5y ago
https://archive.is/KfLH2 https://archive.is/KfLH2
desktopninja 5y ago
We all know that we are biologically the same and only different in physical attributes. Yet we contrive very nonsensical beliefs like race. We really should de-learn much of the enlightenment period. The fantastical thinking of this era should never have been taken as fact. As a specie we lost the plot and gave in to the theatrics of politics. Human migration and mixing has always happened and will never stop. Heck its how humanity started/spread. So can someone tell us why its so difficult to accept that a man from Zambia is different from an Icelandic man? They are both men. Period.
- desktopninja 5y ago
  ...man from Zambia is no different from an Icelandic man? ...
meristohm 5y ago
After hearing the author speak[0] about the construct of race (notably in Barbados, where English masters sold to coerced indentured people the idea of being better than the imported enslaved people, along with an early form of what I know as “The American Dream”) as a sibling to capitalism (in part, exploiting others for material gain), I felt a bit unmoored from my current and individualistic antiracist understanding. Sure I can change, and companies can look like they’ve changed, but I am still indirectly exploiting many people for the luxuries I enjoy; I’d rather we find a better way to go through life. I’ll be listening to her book[1]. [0] The Blindboy Podcast episode from 2021 May 30, The return of Emma Dabiri [1] https://www.worldcat.org/title/what-white-people-can-do-next-from-allyship-to-coalition/ https://www.worldcat.org/title/what-white-people-can-do-next...
JoeyBananas 5y ago
Critical race theory has elements that are reminiscent of the ideology of the Soviet communist party if you replace "white" with "bourgeoisie." At first, the goal in Russia was to implement communism in order to create a more equitable society. Of course, the biggest enemy of communism is the rich landlord. So naturally this was used as an excuse to target all rich people, even those who didn't do anything wrong other than manage to build a good life for themselves. The great irony is that at some point, even poor and average people started being prosecuted in the name of communism and they lived in fear of being sent to the gulag. Critical race theory (or perhaps the social justice movement in general) is used as a weapon to prosecute people, and the scope of who can be prosecuted is growing (cough the George Floyd trial.)

16 points by jkuria 5y ago

TechBro8615 5y ago

Is critical race theory a decade old strawman invented by Andrew Breitbart and subsequently revived by his opponents?

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
Not if it was published about decades prior, e.g. https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144 https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144

woofie11 5y ago

I kinda feel like the central problem is that CRT is that its an ideology. It's a bundle of ideas, packaged together, and you can take it or leave it as a whole. Promoters take it. Opponents leave it. I read and re-read CRT papers to understand what they're talking about, and they make a lot of really good points. They also have a fair number of errors. That's common to most documents. It'd a brilliant starting point for a critical discussion. As-is, it's trivial for people on the left to point out obviously true statements missing from the central narrative, and call opponents racists. It's equally trivial for people on the right to call out things which are obviously wrong, and discount the whole thing. What we need, though, is to sort out the good parts, refine them, and get rid of or fix the bad parts. We can argue about the ratios there, but I don't think we can argue it's 100% wrong or right.

test_epsilon 5y ago
It seems to have a lot of incredibly ill defined, unscientific, unproven, and frankly racist and divisive ideas if you ask me. Any criticism or request for evidence, logic, or results is met with wildly disproportionate reactions from bullying at worst to strawmen very often, but rarely actual answers or willingness to discuss things openly. Recently I've noticed the theme is to post purile edicts proclaiming that CRT is "just acknowledging that racism exists and is bad" (and therefore if you question it or this post, then you're a racist). But no, that's a lie. That's not what CRT is, it absolutely should be critically examined and questioned.
- lunatuna 5y ago
  With the above, it doesn’t make sense to be teaching this at a grade school level and would be expected to be introduced in late high school and more thoroughly in college. As and ideology it would be good to introduce when one is reading Adam Smith, Marx and Mussolini. But I think a lot of the concern is that CRT isn’t being taught as an ideology amongst others, but it is being employed as the underlying “unseen” lens that is being applied to all aspects of curriculum and the classroom. I also think CRT like a lot of more modern movements lacks a central authority that then allows the practitioners to take it in all sorts of directions that may or may not have been intended. You can see in many CRT zealots that race predetermines everything. Like when talking to a Marxist. Everything is understood if you just apply the right lens. If only the world was so simple. Like so much of education it is just another passing fad applied badly. My concern is that the opportunity to make the needed change is going to be missed due the extremes fighting and not getting to meaningful improvements.
  - woofie11 5y ago
    And if you go to school in a Christian community, Christianity will be the unseen lens that underlies the curriculum. And so on with any other culture. It's not ideal, but it is what is. CRT is a helpful lens, much like Marxism, Smith-style capitalism, and many other lenses. Like all of those, it has its limits. I want my kids to have as many lenses as possible, and to be able to use them critically. I'll mention -- even elementary school kids have no problems understanding these lenses. I'd argue Smith, CRT, and Marx ought to be taught around 3rd-5th grade, not high school. My problem is CRT is being taught in kindergarten.
    - test_epsilon 5y ago
      What evidence is there that it is helpful? What measurable improvements is it responsible for? I don't agree any of those things should be taught in 3rd-5th grade because I think it is much more important to exercise the fundamentals of critical and creative thinking, logic, imagination, etc. at those ages. I also have a big problem at any level of schooling with these unscientific and unproven "theories" (if you can even call them that) being taught by people who have entirely bought into the cult thinking and have no ability to critically reason about them let alone the desire to. Would lessons about socialism and collectivism teach why the system can generally only sustain itself at a state level by devolving into a single party police state dictatorship in which the people most certainly do not own the means of production? Doubtful. Would the teaching of CRT expose it for the unproven religious-like propaganda that it is? Or would it teach the horrific hurtful and racist pseudoscientific lies about toxic whiteness or children bearing some responsibility for things done by other people due to their race? Probably the latter, right? It's like inviting a white supremacist to teach children lessons about nazism. Or a creationist to teach biology. Or a flat earther to each geology. Not a helpful lens at all.

bumbledraven 5y ago

https://archive.is/KfLH2 https://archive.is/KfLH2

desktopninja 5y ago

We all know that we are biologically the same and only different in physical attributes. Yet we contrive very nonsensical beliefs like race. We really should de-learn much of the enlightenment period. The fantastical thinking of this era should never have been taken as fact. As a specie we lost the plot and gave in to the theatrics of politics. Human migration and mixing has always happened and will never stop. Heck its how humanity started/spread. So can someone tell us why its so difficult to accept that a man from Zambia is different from an Icelandic man? They are both men. Period.

desktopninja 5y ago
...man from Zambia is no different from an Icelandic man? ...

meristohm 5y ago

After hearing the author speak[0] about the construct of race (notably in Barbados, where English masters sold to coerced indentured people the idea of being better than the imported enslaved people, along with an early form of what I know as “The American Dream”) as a sibling to capitalism (in part, exploiting others for material gain), I felt a bit unmoored from my current and individualistic antiracist understanding. Sure I can change, and companies can look like they’ve changed, but I am still indirectly exploiting many people for the luxuries I enjoy; I’d rather we find a better way to go through life. I’ll be listening to her book[1]. [0] The Blindboy Podcast episode from 2021 May 30, The return of Emma Dabiri [1] https://www.worldcat.org/title/what-white-people-can-do-next-from-allyship-to-coalition/ https://www.worldcat.org/title/what-white-people-can-do-next...

JoeyBananas 5y ago

Critical race theory has elements that are reminiscent of the ideology of the Soviet communist party if you replace "white" with "bourgeoisie." At first, the goal in Russia was to implement communism in order to create a more equitable society. Of course, the biggest enemy of communism is the rich landlord. So naturally this was used as an excuse to target all rich people, even those who didn't do anything wrong other than manage to build a good life for themselves. The great irony is that at some point, even poor and average people started being prosecuted in the name of communism and they lived in fear of being sent to the gulag. Critical race theory (or perhaps the social justice movement in general) is used as a weapon to prosecute people, and the scope of who can be prosecuted is growing (cough the George Floyd trial.)