How is Critical Race Theory specifically anti American ?

[jojoju1998]

So how is it ? It's a serious question.

[Agafin]

I guess this question is geared towards americans. So all I'll say is that terms like "white privilege" or "white fragility" make me cringe.

[GeneralMacArthur]

"Critical race theory" is an intentionally ambiguous term.  The Republians use it as a motte-and-bailey where they tell people they just want to ban dumb s--t by Ibram X Kendi and antiracist baby and other nonsense that nobody really wants shoved down their kids' throats, but then they actually want to ban, like, Beloved or Black History Month projects or teaching that slavery was bad.

[President Johnson]

It's not my opinion, but I think a lot of people see it as some sort of accusation that America is generally a racist country and that almost all white Americans are racists. And they feel offended by that, whether it bears some truth or not. This makes the entire debate too emotional and personal rather than rational to help overcome racism.

Of course, the term "racist country" is bogus. Some people are explicitly racist, others have racist tendencies and another group is not racist. And the boundaries are not always crystal clear to draw.

[Person Man]

"Critical race theory" is an intentionally ambiguous term.  The Republians use it as a motte-and-bailey where they tell people they just want to ban dumb s--t by Ibram X Kendi and antiracist baby and other nonsense that nobody really wants shoved down their kids' throats, but then they actually want to ban, like, Beloved or Black History Month projects or teaching that slavery was bad.

Or when they want to ban the acknowledgment of gay people, outlaw all abortions and heavily restrict birth control but do so by talking about Drag queen story hour and about not  letting kids conspire against your parents to hide that they’re gay.

[Del Tachi]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

[Blue3]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

[Del Tachi]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

American civil rights jurisprudence leans very heavily into the notion of a colorblind Constitution, where there exists no distinct race-based classes of citizens before the law.  Critical race theorists would reject this approach as insufficient to correct for racial injustice.  Do you agree or disagree with them?       

[Blue3]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

American civil rights jurisprudence leans very heavily into the notion of a colorblind Constitution, where there exists no distinct race-based classes of citizens before the law.  Critical race theorists would reject this approach as insufficient to correct for racial injustice.  Do you agree or disagree with them?       

That’s a misunderstanding.

[Pulaski]

Plenty of people view their country and its history as a reflection or extension of themselves. To take a critical view of a country, its government or its history is, to those people, to do the same to them.

Sometimes these people just can't blind themselves to the worst of the evils that occurred in their country's history - slavery and colonisation for the US, colonisation and the Stolen Generations (and some slavery) in Australia. Often as a defensive mechanism these people will insulate themselves in their current timeline and the idea that everything is a level playing field now - as if momentous events of history never leave legacies for the future. So "white privilege" (a much misused and misunderstood term) is nonsense because in some way the problems were all "fixed" by the 70s or 80s and the attitudes and actions of people still living now couldn't have left some lingering effects in society that are worth learning about.

I don't hold your average German responsible in any way for the Holocaust, and I don't want them to flagellate themselves as a nation for it. That'd be ridiculous. But I want German people to learn about the Holocaust, its context, its causes, the attitudes and actions involved, how all those events have shaped German society and Germans' lives today. And to be aware that German Jews and their families might have very different experiences to theirs, and be determined to continue to work for a Germany where it's safe to be Jewish or any other minority.

And, to return to the idea of country as an extension of self, that work is never complete, just how one never completely masters a skill or becomes a perfect version of themselves. There is always more work to do.

[Ferguson97]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

[DaleCooper]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

[DaleCooper]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

[Badger]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

American civil rights jurisprudence leans very heavily into the notion of a colorblind Constitution, where there exists no distinct race-based classes of citizens before the law.  Critical race theorists would reject this approach as insufficient to correct for racial injustice.  Do you agree or disagree with them?       

That is simply incorrect. Most civil rights jurisprudence dozen fact acknowledged the existence of intrinsic racism oh, and the need to redress it. The post-civil war amendments to the Constitution our fundamental foundation for this

[T'Chenka]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

As I learned here on this forum, they don't want to deny that bad stuff happened, but they want to stop talking about it and teaching it to kids. Just move on and don't discuss the past. Definitely don't teach kids stuff that will make them less patriotic, that's the biggest sin.

[DaleCooper]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

As I learned here on this forum, they don't want to deny that bad stuff happened, but they want to stop talking about it and teaching it to kids. Just move on and don't discuss the past. Definitely don't teach kids stuff that will make them less patriotic, that's the biggest sin.

Nope.

[T'Chenka]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

As I learned here on this forum, they don't want to deny that bad stuff happened, but they want to stop talking about it and teaching it to kids. Just move on and don't discuss the past. Definitely don't teach kids stuff that will make them less patriotic, that's the biggest sin.

Nope.

OSR is exhibit A. Do you feel his views on this issue aren't widely held on the right?

[Xing]

I would argue that "anti-American" is even more nebulous of a term than CRT, and often means little more than "thing I don't like." At the very least, it doesn't understand or wants to intentionally blur the line between criticizing America in its current state or how it was founded and wanting the country to fail or hating it and its citizens. The idea that racism permeates almost every facet of American society is not necessarily an idea that I agree with, but I don't think that it is inherently "anti-American", in that not everyone who accepts CRT wants this country to fail or hates Americans. Perhaps some do, but at its core, its purpose is reform. Now, I don't agree that every institution in this country has the purpose of empowering white people. I don't agree with quite a few of the reforms that proponents of CRT posit. However, the effort to write off almost any reform as anti-American is incredibly damaging, and naturally plenty of politicians who benefit off of the status quo are more than happy to parrot and give lots of air time to this talking point.

[DaleCooper]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

As I learned here on this forum, they don't want to deny that bad stuff happened, but they want to stop talking about it and teaching it to kids. Just move on and don't discuss the past. Definitely don't teach kids stuff that will make them less patriotic, that's the biggest sin.

Nope.

OSR is exhibit A. Do you feel his views on this issue aren't widely held on the right?

No, I don't think he's representative of conservatives.

[Ferguson97]

Because it acknowledges the ugly side of American history, and conservatives still think that the Charlie Brown specials are an accurate representation of how this country was founded.

This isn't accurate. Most people are well aware of the evils of slavery, discrimination, Japanese-American internment, the murder of Indians and the theft of their land, and the other big crimes in American history. If you ever interacted with any sizable amount of real people from conservative states and communities then you'd know that.

MacArthur is right that CRT is vague but what probably motivates people against it above all else is the belief (right or wrong) that it implies that they are personally implicated in this history simply for reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, opposition to CRT is definitely based the left's argument that America is a white supremacist nation today, or that it was founded in order to keep slaves, which is ahistorical. Very few people aside from a handful of crazy Republican legislators is believes that America has never been responsible for anything bad.

As I learned here on this forum, they don't want to deny that bad stuff happened, but they want to stop talking about it and teaching it to kids. Just move on and don't discuss the past. Definitely don't teach kids stuff that will make them less patriotic, that's the biggest sin.

Nope.

OSR is exhibit A. Do you feel his views on this issue aren't widely held on the right?

No, I don't think he's representative of conservatives.

You're right, he's far too liberal on the subject.

[Mr. Smith]

It's not.

Second side to the same coin that is bigotry.

[Del Tachi]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

American civil rights jurisprudence leans very heavily into the notion of a colorblind Constitution, where there exists no distinct race-based classes of citizens before the law.  Critical race theorists would reject this approach as insufficient to correct for racial injustice.  Do you agree or disagree with them?       

That is simply incorrect. Most civil rights jurisprudence dozen fact acknowledged the existence of intrinsic racism oh, and the need to redress it. The post-civil war amendments to the Constitution our fundamental foundation for this

The Civil War amendments, if they can be said to have been passed to deal with the problem of "systemic racism", did so through the explicit prohibition of enforcing race-based categories under the law (i.e., equal protection for all citizens.)  That is a solution modern Critical Race Theory rejects as insufficient (quite obviously, since 150 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence has led them to this very conclusion.)

It's hilarious to me how red avatars will fall over themselves defending something they don't even understand if it means they get to "oWn th eCoNz!" 

[jojoju1998]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

Being color-blind isn't the answer. But acknowledge the privilege and oppression caused by racism, and its still-rippling effects, is not incongruent with American principles and laws. That's a major misunderstanding. You can have the law strive to offer equal protection regardless of race, and not have a person's race a factor in court cases and other policies, while still recognizing the impact of racism that does exist.

American civil rights jurisprudence leans very heavily into the notion of a colorblind Constitution, where there exists no distinct race-based classes of citizens before the law.  Critical race theorists would reject this approach as insufficient to correct for racial injustice.  Do you agree or disagree with them?       

That is simply incorrect. Most civil rights jurisprudence dozen fact acknowledged the existence of intrinsic racism oh, and the need to redress it. The post-civil war amendments to the Constitution our fundamental foundation for this

The Civil War amendments, if they can be said to have been passed to deal with the problem of "systemic racism", did so through the explicit prohibition of enforcing race-based categories under the law (i.e., equal protection for all citizens.)  That is a solution modern Critical Race Theory rejects as insufficient (quite obviously, since 150 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence has led them to this very conclusion.)

It's hilarious to me how red avatars will fall over themselves defending something they don't even understand if it means they get to "oWn th eCoNz!" 

I don’t particularly care about this ?

I’m just merely curious about it.

[It’s so Joever]

Critical race theory is explicitly incompatible with liberal solutions to racial inequality such as meritocracy and non-discrimination.  CRT's solution to racism is to recreate every personal and civic interaction into one that is explicitly race conscious, which is an idea incongruent with American principles and law.   

There is no such thing as true meritocracy unless every child starts off on an equal playing field from day one.