3 ms·

critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity

by yucky 4y ago

critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi, explaining critical race theory

dragonwriter 4y ago
You are misrepresenting (Kendi’s approach to) antiracism with CRT. Antiracism (in general or any specific approach) is not the same thing as CRT. CRT is an analytical approach to description of what is. Antiracism is a mix of normative judgement of what ought ought to be and beliefs and descriptive theory about what actions will get from what is to that goal. CRT or other analysis of what is may inform antiracism, but they remain very different things.
- yucky 4y ago
  They are inseparable. No reason to gaslight. Anybody who believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT), supports racial discrimination by definition.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > They are inseparable. They are quite separable, both logically and in practice; Kendi’s approach to antiracism is not uncontroversial even among people who accept CRT as a correct approach to analyzing the status quo. In fact, in regard to the particular quote you see as emblematic, CRT tends to see the problem of the status quo situation of marginalized racial groups not as being a past discrimination which needs correction by present discrimination, but currently-existing structures which prevent progress which need dismantled. While Kendi’s statement isn’t logically excluded by CRT, it is far from the most natural conclusion from it. Generously, CRTs observation of the scope and breadth of subtle systemic discrimination through superficially race-neutral policies might lend support to a idea of compensatory overt discrimination as an easier stopgap while those systems are identified and dismantled, which is rather different from what Kendi articulates but similar in policy recommendation. > treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT) That’s not a tenet of CRT at all. CRT is an analytical approach to how racial inequality occurs and is preserved through law and institutional structure. While people interested in it naturally tend to have views on a desired end-state and also be interested into policy prescriptions as to how best to achieve that, those are beyond the scope of CRT.
    - yucky 4y ago
      You claim that, and yet ALL of the most celebrated CRT authors and "experts" all espouse the need to institute racially discriminatory policies in the interests of racial equity. So if every single proponent of CRT espouses support for racial discrimination, it's fair to draw the conclusion that they are inseparable.

by yucky 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

You are misrepresenting (Kendi’s approach to) antiracism with CRT. Antiracism (in general or any specific approach) is not the same thing as CRT. CRT is an analytical approach to description of what is. Antiracism is a mix of normative judgement of what ought ought to be and beliefs and descriptive theory about what actions will get from what is to that goal. CRT or other analysis of what is may inform antiracism, but they remain very different things.

yucky 4y ago
They are inseparable. No reason to gaslight. Anybody who believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT), supports racial discrimination by definition.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > They are inseparable. They are quite separable, both logically and in practice; Kendi’s approach to antiracism is not uncontroversial even among people who accept CRT as a correct approach to analyzing the status quo. In fact, in regard to the particular quote you see as emblematic, CRT tends to see the problem of the status quo situation of marginalized racial groups not as being a past discrimination which needs correction by present discrimination, but currently-existing structures which prevent progress which need dismantled. While Kendi’s statement isn’t logically excluded by CRT, it is far from the most natural conclusion from it. Generously, CRTs observation of the scope and breadth of subtle systemic discrimination through superficially race-neutral policies might lend support to a idea of compensatory overt discrimination as an easier stopgap while those systems are identified and dismantled, which is rather different from what Kendi articulates but similar in policy recommendation. > treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT) That’s not a tenet of CRT at all. CRT is an analytical approach to how racial inequality occurs and is preserved through law and institutional structure. While people interested in it naturally tend to have views on a desired end-state and also be interested into policy prescriptions as to how best to achieve that, those are beyond the scope of CRT.
  - yucky 4y ago
    You claim that, and yet ALL of the most celebrated CRT authors and "experts" all espouse the need to institute racially discriminatory policies in the interests of racial equity. So if every single proponent of CRT espouses support for racial discrimination, it's fair to draw the conclusion that they are inseparable.