4 ms·

Being against CRT, which is by definition a racist ideology, is nothing at all similar to whitewashing history. If you don't believe me, read the words of Ibram

by yucky 5y ago

Being against CRT, which is by definition a racist ideology, is nothing at all similar to whitewashing history. If you don't believe me, read the words of Ibram X. Kendi himself, the leading CRT proponent in the US: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Why would anybody support this racist nonsense? We can (and do) learn about history in the proper context. You hold the people accountable who "did the bad thing", you don't blame everyone who has the same color skin of being guilty of the same thing. Because that would be racist. That's why CRT is bad.

deanCommie 5y ago
If the people who were attempting to ban "critical race theory" could define it precisely, and ban it equally precisely, I would not have an issue. That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools. Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today. The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.
- yucky 5y ago
  CRT is defined precisely though. It is the application of collective guilt based on skin color for the actions of individuals with the same color skin. It is similar to the Stormfront crowd blaming all black people for violent crime. It's inherently racist. Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT. This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    Just like the old days huh? The "It's Marxism!" signs are still not that far away are they now?
    - yucky 5y ago
      Sadly, it's true - https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623 https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I can't help but think that people must have some wildly inaccurate conceptions of what CRT is, based on how they talk about it. I didn't really know, so I looked at the Wikipedia page for it and here's the short version: "an intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour" Which doesn't sound like an inherently racist ideology to me. I highly suspect quotes like the above are being taken out of context. Unfortunately this statement appears to be pulled from somewhere inside a book on the subject, which I have not yet invested the time to track down let alone read. My assumption would be that, as is true in many such cases, a lot of the terminology is being misrepresented by leaving the reader to assume a colloquial definition of the words rather than the context laid out in the supporting text. Indeed, several articles hint that this is indeed the case: "Kendi defines racism as “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racist inequality exists when “two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.” Racist policies are any law, rule or regulation that keeps that inequality in place. The discrimination Kendi is talking about is not the police, politicians or teachers who believe one thing or the other, but policies that are in the system that effectively keep the power to maintain or change that policy primarily in the group that benefits from that discrimination."[0] [0] https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necessary-to-create-truly-equitable-america/article_988b6b7d-4093-5f6e-b6f5-5964356bbe8a.html https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necess...
- yucky 5y ago
  One must ask themselves if they think the government should treat people differently based on the color of their skin. If you think the answer to this is yes (because CRT requires it), then I'm curious to hear why we now believe this form of racial discrimination to be a net positive in society.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Exactly which part requires it? Indeed, the very definition asserts that 'race' is a social construct designed for the purpose of opressing some for the benefit of others. I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".

by yucky 5y ago

deanCommie 5y ago

If the people who were attempting to ban "critical race theory" could define it precisely, and ban it equally precisely, I would not have an issue. That it is banned in public schools is proof that they do not and cannot define it. CRT is a Graduate-level subject that had no allocated curriculum in elementary or high schools. Rather, it's being used as a dog whistle for all debate regarding privilege, SYSTEMIC racism, the acknowledgement of US history as racist, or work still to be done today. The bans of "critical race theory" are not actually banning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory but openly suppressing discussion of civil rights and racism.

yucky 5y ago
CRT is defined precisely though. It is the application of collective guilt based on skin color for the actions of individuals with the same color skin. It is similar to the Stormfront crowd blaming all black people for violent crime. It's inherently racist. Critical theory in general (not just CRT) is an attempt to use a marxist lens to view <insert social issue here>. This is why collectivism is central to CRT. This is why we read nothing but race-based assumptions from proponents of CRT. It's a framework that requires us to not consider the content of ones character, but rather the color of their skin.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  Just like the old days huh? The "It's Marxism!" signs are still not that far away are they now?
  - yucky 5y ago
    Sadly, it's true - https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623 https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I can't help but think that people must have some wildly inaccurate conceptions of what CRT is, based on how they talk about it. I didn't really know, so I looked at the Wikipedia page for it and here's the short version: "an intellectual and social movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour" Which doesn't sound like an inherently racist ideology to me. I highly suspect quotes like the above are being taken out of context. Unfortunately this statement appears to be pulled from somewhere inside a book on the subject, which I have not yet invested the time to track down let alone read. My assumption would be that, as is true in many such cases, a lot of the terminology is being misrepresented by leaving the reader to assume a colloquial definition of the words rather than the context laid out in the supporting text. Indeed, several articles hint that this is indeed the case: "Kendi defines racism as “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racist inequality exists when “two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing.” Racist policies are any law, rule or regulation that keeps that inequality in place. The discrimination Kendi is talking about is not the police, politicians or teachers who believe one thing or the other, but policies that are in the system that effectively keep the power to maintain or change that policy primarily in the group that benefits from that discrimination."[0] [0] https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necessary-to-create-truly-equitable-america/article_988b6b7d-4093-5f6e-b6f5-5964356bbe8a.html https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/letters/letter-crt-necess...

yucky 5y ago
One must ask themselves if they think the government should treat people differently based on the color of their skin. If you think the answer to this is yes (because CRT requires it), then I'm curious to hear why we now believe this form of racial discrimination to be a net positive in society.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Exactly which part requires it? Indeed, the very definition asserts that 'race' is a social construct designed for the purpose of opressing some for the benefit of others. I think one must instead ask themselves "where the hell did I get this notion of what critical race theory means?".