4 ms·

> Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is very much not what critic

> Critical race theory posits that an entire race of people are to blame for the actions of people with similar colored skin. That is very much not what critical race theory is. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-sta...

yucky 5y ago
It certainly is - https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ And let's not forget the words of the foremost expert on critical race theory, Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  The domain name makes this appear to be an authoritative source, but it’s a website that exists specifically to promote the agenda you’re describing, run by the conservative publication Legal Insurrection. The fact remains that critical race theory does not assign blame to everyone of a given race, no matter how blithely they lie about it.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The above is a direct quote from Ibram X Kendi, the face of the CRT movement. You can find it doing a Google search and source it from whatever domain makes you feel better. But he did say it and does believe. He has defended it numerous times. But it is racist and we should call it what it is. CRT is a cancer.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      That quote is obviously correct, though. Let's say, for example, that it's "discrimination" to forcibly remove wealth from a specific person to give to another. It would be discrimination to take $100 from me and give it to you. But it would be pretty rich of me to complain about being discriminated against if it turned out I had stolen your $100 in the first place! A different example. We're playing monopoly. I have a house rule that every time you make money, it goes to me. Every time you acquire property, I get it. Then the house rule changes and you can acquire money and property… but I still own everything of yours I've taken until now. Is it wrong to discriminate against me by redistributing my resources to you? Here's some more context to that quote, by the way: > Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d...
      - yucky 5y ago
        In the context of Critical RACE theory, the discrimination is racial. So your analogy does not work. You can not get away from the reality that CRT by definition assigns blame collectively based on race, regardless of actual culpability. That is racist.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        The analogy works — just replace “me” and “you” with “white people” and “Black people”. The Black Monopoly players had to give up their money and property to the white players. You are saying that it’s racist to redistribute the stolen wealth, but not racist to allow the white players to keep their ill-gotten gains.
- eesmith 5y ago
  To mangle a Malcolm X quote: You don't stick a knife in a man's back then pull it out and say that that treating his wounds would be discriminate against those who had never been knifed. Here's more of what Kendi says in the context of what you quoted, at https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d... : > As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” > ... The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination. > That is how racist power can call affirmative action policies that succeed in reducing racial inequities “race conscious” and standardized tests that produce racial inequities “race neutral.” That is how they can blame the behavior of entire racial groups for the inequities between different racial groups and still say their ideas are “not racist.” But there is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas. I take it you would have been against reparations for the Japanese and Japanese-Americans interned during the war, justified on racist reasons. I take it you are against any sort of reparations for those people still alive today whose lives were directly harmed by racist laws? After all, both of those are remedies for past discrimination which require(d) future discrimination.
  - yucky 5y ago
    There are two huge differences in the Japanese internment issue. One, it's more recent and many of the victims are still alive. Two and most important, reparations for direct victims wouldn't be based on race, it would be based on if they were actually in an internment camp. Not all Japanese Americans were placed in these camps, so those who were not would not need reimbursement for what FDR and the Democrat Administration did to them in the 1940's. That last part is key. CRT makes no difference between abolitionist and slaveowner, it simply judges based on skin color. That is racist.

yucky 5y ago

It certainly is - https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ And let's not forget the words of the foremost expert on critical race theory, Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

jakelazaroff 5y ago
The domain name makes this appear to be an authoritative source, but it’s a website that exists specifically to promote the agenda you’re describing, run by the conservative publication Legal Insurrection. The fact remains that critical race theory does not assign blame to everyone of a given race, no matter how blithely they lie about it.
- yucky 5y ago
  >Ibram X Kendi: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The above is a direct quote from Ibram X Kendi, the face of the CRT movement. You can find it doing a Google search and source it from whatever domain makes you feel better. But he did say it and does believe. He has defended it numerous times. But it is racist and we should call it what it is. CRT is a cancer.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    That quote is obviously correct, though. Let's say, for example, that it's "discrimination" to forcibly remove wealth from a specific person to give to another. It would be discrimination to take $100 from me and give it to you. But it would be pretty rich of me to complain about being discriminated against if it turned out I had stolen your $100 in the first place! A different example. We're playing monopoly. I have a house rule that every time you make money, it goes to me. Every time you acquire property, I get it. Then the house rule changes and you can acquire money and property… but I still own everything of yours I've taken until now. Is it wrong to discriminate against me by redistributing my resources to you? Here's some more context to that quote, by the way: > Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d...
    - yucky 5y ago
      In the context of Critical RACE theory, the discrimination is racial. So your analogy does not work. You can not get away from the reality that CRT by definition assigns blame collectively based on race, regardless of actual culpability. That is racist.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        The analogy works — just replace “me” and “you” with “white people” and “Black people”. The Black Monopoly players had to give up their money and property to the white players. You are saying that it’s racist to redistribute the stolen wealth, but not racist to allow the white players to keep their ill-gotten gains.
eesmith 5y ago
To mangle a Malcolm X quote: You don't stick a knife in a man's back then pull it out and say that that treating his wounds would be discriminate against those who had never been knifed. Here's more of what Kendi says in the context of what you quoted, at https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-d... : > As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” > ... The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discrimination. > That is how racist power can call affirmative action policies that succeed in reducing racial inequities “race conscious” and standardized tests that produce racial inequities “race neutral.” That is how they can blame the behavior of entire racial groups for the inequities between different racial groups and still say their ideas are “not racist.” But there is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas. I take it you would have been against reparations for the Japanese and Japanese-Americans interned during the war, justified on racist reasons. I take it you are against any sort of reparations for those people still alive today whose lives were directly harmed by racist laws? After all, both of those are remedies for past discrimination which require(d) future discrimination.
- yucky 5y ago
  There are two huge differences in the Japanese internment issue. One, it's more recent and many of the victims are still alive. Two and most important, reparations for direct victims wouldn't be based on race, it would be based on if they were actually in an internment camp. Not all Japanese Americans were placed in these camps, so those who were not would not need reimbursement for what FDR and the Democrat Administration did to them in the 1940's. That last part is key. CRT makes no difference between abolitionist and slaveowner, it simply judges based on skin color. That is racist.