7 ms·

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)

by 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

> 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.