3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Revisionism: > noun Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements. > noun A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position. Via https://www.wordnik.com/words/revisionism https://www.wordnik.com/words/revisionism CRT, Critical Racial Theory, is a Marxist tradition. I don't mean Marxist as "bad" or "scary" but I mean as in descended from the Frankfurt School of thought which focused on the Marxist tradition. CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog. It is a Trotsky-esque tactic of reading material with a preconceived notion to find a new end.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      The second definition doesn't mean "revisionist" has some different meaning within marxist thinking. It means communists call people who back pedal the revolutionary language of marx to make it less radical "revisionists". The meaning is the same, it's just a special context where what you are revising and why are clearly defined. > CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog. The only way that re-interpreting the past as a tool to figure out how to change current systems is a bad thing, is if current systems are good. Given how things are for non-white people in america, I think it's clear that changing current systems is needed. If you're worried because they are interpreting historical fact to fit their preconceived notion, well... yes, so are we all. We all have preconceived notions. Romans were clean and noble, while medieval people were filthy and never bathed. Every story I hear about either of those times is slotted into my preconceptions about romans or medieval people. Then one day an activist historian with an agenda teaches me that romans didn't have soap, but medieval people did... the facts support their idea that medieval people were cleaner than we portray them in movies and tv. Just because they had an agenda (the medieval period is maligned in culture) when they went looking for those facts, doesn't mean they're wrong.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago

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.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Revisionism: > noun Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements. > noun A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position. Via https://www.wordnik.com/words/revisionism https://www.wordnik.com/words/revisionism CRT, Critical Racial Theory, is a Marxist tradition. I don't mean Marxist as "bad" or "scary" but I mean as in descended from the Frankfurt School of thought which focused on the Marxist tradition. CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog. It is a Trotsky-esque tactic of reading material with a preconceived notion to find a new end.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    The second definition doesn't mean "revisionist" has some different meaning within marxist thinking. It means communists call people who back pedal the revolutionary language of marx to make it less radical "revisionists". The meaning is the same, it's just a special context where what you are revising and why are clearly defined. > CRT uses Revisionist reading as a tool to formulate reform of an existing system or dialog. The only way that re-interpreting the past as a tool to figure out how to change current systems is a bad thing, is if current systems are good. Given how things are for non-white people in america, I think it's clear that changing current systems is needed. If you're worried because they are interpreting historical fact to fit their preconceived notion, well... yes, so are we all. We all have preconceived notions. Romans were clean and noble, while medieval people were filthy and never bathed. Every story I hear about either of those times is slotted into my preconceptions about romans or medieval people. Then one day an activist historian with an agenda teaches me that romans didn't have soap, but medieval people did... the facts support their idea that medieval people were cleaner than we portray them in movies and tv. Just because they had an agenda (the medieval period is maligned in culture) when they went looking for those facts, doesn't mean they're wrong.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago