3 ms·

Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US, correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery or talk about civil rights heroes. What

Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US, correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery or talk about civil rights heroes. What most people object to are the Derrick Bell arguments that racial segregation is good, that racism is fundamental and unsolvable and that equality is not achievable or real. These are illiberal views that have no place being taught.

kennywinker 5y ago
If you’re trying to describe critical race theory, that’s not it.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Derrick Bell is one of the original CRT scholars. He believes desegregation was a mistake. [1] CRT holds, as a critical tradition, that there are fundamental unsolvable struggles. In critical gender theory this struggle is on the basis of gender, and in CRT this struggle is on the basis of race. The struggle can not be resolved, only inverted. I have read the work of Bell and Delgado, well liked overviews supported by CRT proponents and quite a few essays on the matter. I would recommend reading the source material and not the version of it touted in the press. Delgado in particular has many.. interesting views. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    I don't think we have the time, nor is this the place to discuss CRT in detail. But nothing in your citation (wikipedia) says that he believed that the goal of desegregating society is a mistake, or as you put it "racial segregation is good", only that school desegregation might have had so much blowback that it did more harm to black communities than good. Which is not an "illiberal" idea.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      > Bell concluded, therefore, that the focus for American educational systems should not be on national integration but, rather, should be on improving the quality of education provided for black students. More depth is given here, > "From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored "equal" part of the "separate but equal" doctrine. Via https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.ht... If you don't want the lights on, you are in fact asking for the lights to be turned off. There is no third option. You may prefer the answer to be stated in a given way - and this is a game that CRT proponents play - but logically the conclusion is the same. If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. I know a different group of people who are pro-segregation, believe racism is a fundamental non-resolvable struggle and think we should be keeping the races separated: that is literally the alt-right platform.
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        I'm sorry but that's not sound logic. > If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. If I don't support vapes as a tool for quitting smoking, that doesn't mean I support smoking. There's more than two options. Nicotine gum, patches, hypnotherapy, cold turkey, etc. You're getting caught up in the idea that not supporting "forcibly de-segregating school in the 1960s" is the same as supporting racial separation. "Desegregation" in this context isn't the idea of racial separation, it's a specific event where schools were racially unified over a period of a few years - but also probably caused a significant blowback (white flight) that some believe did more harm to black communities than good. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where from 1967 to 1977 the schools remained segregated, but black schools were funded as well or better than white schools (emphasizing the equal in "separate but equal"), at which point they were desegregated - but not forcibly and abruptly. The desegregation happened organically over the next 10-20 years. Would we be better off? Have more racial harmony, or less? Would we have prevented white flight, or just delayed it? I don't think exploring these possibilities is racist, illiberal, segregationist, or unproductive. Especially as we search for solutions to the racism that is apparent in america today (unsolvable? maybe... I hope not).
fknorangesite 5y ago
> Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US Have you missed the latest conservative boogeyman of "critical race theory"? > correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery On the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
- woobilicious 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_themes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_... > Critique of liberalism...Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993, was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action,[86] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[87] They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order. > Storytelling/counterstorytelling and 'naming one's own reality'":': The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression. This doesn't sound like history or science, it sounds like personal, highly subjective anecdotes, maybe even propaganda (see Jussie Smollett). > Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. > Cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism). Because we definitely want to teach our kids segregation is good. Now tell me how CRT is actually teaching objective historical facts? Because in my eyes, this is not a philosophy that cares about facts, or liberal values, or even racism.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    >> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. > this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. A revisionist means "examining and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is" I.e. we've understood the facts incorrectly, let's take another look to try to understand them correctly. This is literally what people who study history do every day. I read a great blog recently dispelling myths about what medieval life was like. Definitely revisionist, super interesting.

kennywinker 5y ago

If you’re trying to describe critical race theory, that’s not it.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Derrick Bell is one of the original CRT scholars. He believes desegregation was a mistake. [1] CRT holds, as a critical tradition, that there are fundamental unsolvable struggles. In critical gender theory this struggle is on the basis of gender, and in CRT this struggle is on the basis of race. The struggle can not be resolved, only inverted. I have read the work of Bell and Delgado, well liked overviews supported by CRT proponents and quite a few essays on the matter. I would recommend reading the source material and not the version of it touted in the press. Delgado in particular has many.. interesting views. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
- kennywinker 5y ago
  I don't think we have the time, nor is this the place to discuss CRT in detail. But nothing in your citation (wikipedia) says that he believed that the goal of desegregating society is a mistake, or as you put it "racial segregation is good", only that school desegregation might have had so much blowback that it did more harm to black communities than good. Which is not an "illiberal" idea.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    > Bell concluded, therefore, that the focus for American educational systems should not be on national integration but, rather, should be on improving the quality of education provided for black students. More depth is given here, > "From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored "equal" part of the "separate but equal" doctrine. Via https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.ht... If you don't want the lights on, you are in fact asking for the lights to be turned off. There is no third option. You may prefer the answer to be stated in a given way - and this is a game that CRT proponents play - but logically the conclusion is the same. If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. I know a different group of people who are pro-segregation, believe racism is a fundamental non-resolvable struggle and think we should be keeping the races separated: that is literally the alt-right platform.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      I'm sorry but that's not sound logic. > If you don't support desegregation, you are in favor of segregation. If I don't support vapes as a tool for quitting smoking, that doesn't mean I support smoking. There's more than two options. Nicotine gum, patches, hypnotherapy, cold turkey, etc. You're getting caught up in the idea that not supporting "forcibly de-segregating school in the 1960s" is the same as supporting racial separation. "Desegregation" in this context isn't the idea of racial separation, it's a specific event where schools were racially unified over a period of a few years - but also probably caused a significant blowback (white flight) that some believe did more harm to black communities than good. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where from 1967 to 1977 the schools remained segregated, but black schools were funded as well or better than white schools (emphasizing the equal in "separate but equal"), at which point they were desegregated - but not forcibly and abruptly. The desegregation happened organically over the next 10-20 years. Would we be better off? Have more racial harmony, or less? Would we have prevented white flight, or just delayed it? I don't think exploring these possibilities is racist, illiberal, segregationist, or unproductive. Especially as we search for solutions to the racism that is apparent in america today (unsolvable? maybe... I hope not).

fknorangesite 5y ago

> Nobody cares that you teach the history of racism in the US Have you missed the latest conservative boogeyman of "critical race theory"? > correctly educate children about the civil war and slavery On the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

woobilicious 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_themes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Common_... > Critique of liberalism...Critique of liberalism: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993, was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the U.S. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence" including affirmative action,[86] color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle.[87] They said that the liberal concept—value-neutral law— contributed to maintenance of the U.S. racially unjust social order. > Storytelling/counterstorytelling and 'naming one's own reality'":': The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression. This doesn't sound like history or science, it sounds like personal, highly subjective anecdotes, maybe even propaganda (see Jussie Smollett). > Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. > Cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism). Because we definitely want to teach our kids segregation is good. Now tell me how CRT is actually teaching objective historical facts? Because in my eyes, this is not a philosophy that cares about facts, or liberal values, or even racism.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  >> Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. > this doesn't sound like teaching objective historical facts. A revisionist means "examining and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is" I.e. we've understood the facts incorrectly, let's take another look to try to understand them correctly. This is literally what people who study history do every day. I read a great blog recently dispelling myths about what medieval life was like. Definitely revisionist, super interesting.