11 ms·

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

• AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  If[1] Critical Race Theory says that all whites are inherently guilty of racism, that seems on its face to be exclusive of respect[2]. [1] I'm not an expert on Critical Race Theory. I do know that White Fragility says this, and it's often classified as Critical Race Theory. Is that "folk" Critical Race Theory, or the real thing? Are we in No True Scotsman territory? I don't know. But if Critical Race Theory isn't that, then the proponents of the real thing need to do a much better job explaining to the general public what it is and isn't. [2] Note well: Respect for whites is absolutely not the most critical problem in race relations. But you aren't going to fix race relations on a foundation of contempt for one race, no matter which race it is.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • thebooktocome 5y ago
    CRT is primarily a theory of jurisprudence. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r... CRT has been conflated with various other things, primarily the NYT's 1619 Project and other attempts to communicate other aspects of true, historical events besides the received, primarily white tradition. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... I do not find in either founding myth of "critical race theory" anything that includes your hypothesized "all whites are inherently guilty of racism". You might criticize the lawyers and educators for not communicating this clearly enough, but I wonder if any explanation of CRT would pass muster for most of it's critics.