What the hysteria over critical race theory is really all about

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

Notice how the slavers are still the white ones in the scenario you mentioned lol. Racial relations on US are very very specific though.

There seems to be a correlation between Native Americans owning slaves and being considered "civilized".

The Cherokee owned slaves and even took them with them on the trail of tears.

[DrScholl]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

Notice how the slavers are still the white ones in the scenario you mentioned lol. Racial relations on US are very very specific though.

There seems to be a correlation between Native Americans owning slaves and being considered "civilized".

The Cherokee owned slaves and even took them with them on the trail of tears.

You sure do use right-wing logic for a progressive. Native Americans owning slaves doesn't mean it was okay for white people to own them and just because Africans sold other Africans doesn't make slavery okay either. Let's flush out all of the right-wing logic now.

[DrScholl]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

It's centered around the subject of racism in American history, not world history. You can't legitimize slavery with twisted logic like "oh well, whites didn't set out to harm the blacks just because they are black". There is no justification for slavery at all.

These people go on about how whites are inherently this or inherently that, so it would help if their ideas could be applied universally.

Much of American history has been built on racial polarization and white people were in charge of that. Slaves were counted as only 3/5 of a person and the overwhelming majority of slaves were black.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

Notice how the slavers are still the white ones in the scenario you mentioned lol. Racial relations on US are very very specific though.

There seems to be a correlation between Native Americans owning slaves and being considered "civilized".

The Cherokee owned slaves and even took them with them on the trail of tears.

You sure do use right-wing logic for a progressive. Native Americans owning slaves doesn't mean it was okay for white people to own them and just because Africans sold other Africans doesn't make slavery okay either. Let's flush out all of the right-wing logic now.

The "civilized tribes" were probably seen as such because they adopted many of the ways of life that European-descended people also had, and slavery was part of the package.
I certainly would hope you would recognize that a simple noting of historical fact isn't "right-wing logic" as much as it is recognition of the naunce of history and key parts of understanding how X led to Y. Credit where credit is due, jfern was in the right here.

[DrScholl]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

Notice how the slavers are still the white ones in the scenario you mentioned lol. Racial relations on US are very very specific though.

There seems to be a correlation between Native Americans owning slaves and being considered "civilized".

The Cherokee owned slaves and even took them with them on the trail of tears.

You sure do use right-wing logic for a progressive. Native Americans owning slaves doesn't mean it was okay for white people to own them and just because Africans sold other Africans doesn't make slavery okay either. Let's flush out all of the right-wing logic now.

The "civilized tribes" were probably seen as such because they adopted many of the ways of life that European-descended people also had, and slavery was part of the package.
I certainly would hope you would recognize that a simple noting of historical fact isn't "right-wing logic" as much as it is recognition of the naunce of history and key parts of understanding how X led to Y. Credit where credit is due, jfern was in the right here.

First off, I am not denying fact. I'm pointing out that shouting that another group of people owning slaves to somehow absolve white people of guilt is typically what right-wingers do.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

To be fair to CRT, afaik the general position is that racism was created and promoted to justify slavery that was being adopted for other motives.  And there is a lot of truth to that, if you look at, for example, how over the course of the 17th century in Virginia the laws become more and more racist at the same time that slavery became more institutionalized.   What CRT ignores here is that racism also arises out of a basic tendency of people everywhere to have prejudice against those unlike them, and that this tendency exists whether or not there is any system of domination or oppression involved.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

It's centered around the subject of racism in American history, not world history. You can't legitimize slavery with twisted logic like "oh well, whites didn't set out to harm the blacks just because they are black". There is no justification for slavery at all.

These people go on about how whites are inherently this or inherently that, so it would help if their ideas could be applied universally.

Much of American history has been built on racial polarization and white people were in charge of that. Slaves were counted as only 3/4 of a person and the overwhelming majority of slaves were black.

The proper proportion is 3/5, and that's also not what the Three Fifths Compromise was about. Slaves were not legally considered people in any real sense. They were counted as 3/5 for the purpose of Congressional Apportionment, when they really shouldn't have been counted all.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

Notice how the slavers are still the white ones in the scenario you mentioned lol. Racial relations on US are very very specific though.

There seems to be a correlation between Native Americans owning slaves and being considered "civilized".

The Cherokee owned slaves and even took them with them on the trail of tears.

You sure do use right-wing logic for a progressive. Native Americans owning slaves doesn't mean it was okay for white people to own them and just because Africans sold other Africans doesn't make slavery okay either. Let's flush out all of the right-wing logic now.

The "civilized tribes" were probably seen as such because they adopted many of the ways of life that European-descended people also had, and slavery was part of the package.
I certainly would hope you would recognize that a simple noting of historical fact isn't "right-wing logic" as much as it is recognition of the naunce of history and key parts of understanding how X led to Y. Credit where credit is due, jfern was in the right here.

First off, I am not denying fact. I'm pointing out that shouting that another group of people owning slaves to somehow absolve white people of guilt is typically what right-wingers do.

A lot depends on context and implication. I don't think jfern was trying to say that white people were no in way responsible for slavery, he was just backing up one of our Brazilian posters pointing out an interesting side angle to the topic that does not get much attention. And it is true history is indeed more nuanced than simple narratives common in the media and in certain intellectual circles would imply.
One could fairly say that it is testament to the universatility of the oppression America's blacks faced that the 'peculiar institution' in the South overall was not a 100% purely white institution even if it in most places it absolutely was, because it was a social norm that was taken up by Indian tribes heavily influenced by white antebellum culture.

[DrScholl]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

It's centered around the subject of racism in American history, not world history. You can't legitimize slavery with twisted logic like "oh well, whites didn't set out to harm the blacks just because they are black". There is no justification for slavery at all.

These people go on about how whites are inherently this or inherently that, so it would help if their ideas could be applied universally.

Much of American history has been built on racial polarization and white people were in charge of that. Slaves were counted as only 3/4 of a person and the overwhelming majority of slaves were black.

The proper proportion is 3/5, and that's also not what the Three Fifths Compromise was about. Slaves were not legally considered people in any real sense. They were counted as 3/5 for the purpose of Congressional Apportionment, when they really shouldn't have been counted all.

Pardon me for putting the wrong number, I am only human. My overall point is that this nation has a racist history and that is just one example.

[Roronoa D. Law]

wtf is critical race theory

From the sounds of it, you can make out to mean anything you want it to mean.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

It's centered around the subject of racism in American history, not world history. You can't legitimize slavery with twisted logic like "oh well, whites didn't set out to harm the blacks just because they are black". There is no justification for slavery at all.

These people go on about how whites are inherently this or inherently that, so it would help if their ideas could be applied universally.

Much of American history has been built on racial polarization and white people were in charge of that. Slaves were counted as only 3/4 of a person and the overwhelming majority of slaves were black.

The proper proportion is 3/5, and that's also not what the Three Fifths Compromise was about. Slaves were not legally considered people in any real sense. They were counted as 3/5 for the purpose of Congressional Apportionment, when they really shouldn't have been counted all.

Pardon me for putting the wrong number, I am only human. My overall point is that this nation has a racist history and that is just one example.

Is anyone denying that America has a racist history?  All I'm saying is that public opinion shifted and the racists eventually lost.

[Person Man]

A successful tactic by the Right to consume as much public oxygen as possible to ensure there’s nothing left to spend on fixing problems that actually exist and matter.

This is why they nominated and eventually got Trump elected. He was perfect for that.

[Person Man]

Has it struck anyone else that CRT is extremely America-centric? It's almost as if no other race has practised slavery, or that whites set out to enslave blacks because of their skin colour. As far as I am aware, that last point is untrue - whites often enslaved other whites whom they had beaten in battle, for example.

It's centered around the subject of racism in American history, not world history. You can't legitimize slavery with twisted logic like "oh well, whites didn't set out to harm the blacks just because they are black". There is no justification for slavery at all.

These people go on about how whites are inherently this or inherently that, so it would help if their ideas could be applied universally.

Much of American history has been built on racial polarization and white people were in charge of that. Slaves were counted as only 3/4 of a person and the overwhelming majority of slaves were black.

The proper proportion is 3/5, and that's also not what the Three Fifths Compromise was about. Slaves were not legally considered people in any real sense. They were counted as 3/5 for the purpose of Congressional Apportionment, when they really shouldn't have been counted all.

Pardon me for putting the wrong number, I am only human. My overall point is that this nation has a racist history and that is just one example.

Is anyone denying that America has a racist history?  All I'm saying is that public opinion shifted and the racists eventually lost.

The problem I have with CRT (if this is in fact a tenet of CRT) is that racism isn't the central theme of what America is about or where American Studies(history, political science, anthropology, et al.) should start.

The main raison d'entre for America becoming a place is that enough people in Europe had or though they had the skills to "make it", weren't allowed to "make it", and suddenly had the technology available to them to start over somewhere where they had a 7000-10000 year technological head start on those that already lived there.

What "making it" was for these people who wanted to "make it" was different between their various groups. Some people wanted to get rich and some people thought that the only way they could get into Heaven was to be left alone. Was racism a part of this? Yes. Did people come here just to be racist? No. Was there systematic mass abuse? Yes. Was it based on a new and arbitrary system that was roughly based expressed phenotype? Yes. Did people central to the American project even back then realize that this was a problem? Yes. Were there some other of these central figures that wanted this system, didn't care that it existed, or tried to be an apologist for it? Yes. Do people that fit these characteristics for each of these central figures exist today? Yes.

Ultimately, I believe that there are very good things and very bad things that are central to American Exceptionalism. One part of American Exceptionalism is that we are ultimately responsible for the society we want to live in and are morally responsible and empowered to improve it over time under the understanding that our society, or any other society, will ever be perfect until either the eschatological conclusion of civilization or until human civilization becomes impossible. Does this mean that I would find that CRT is accurate predictor of how American society has worked, currently work, and will work?

[HisGrace]

Not wanting a bunch of post-modern "there is no rational thought" crap taught in schools as the absolute truth (how does that work anyway) or for teachers to editorialize against integration and legal equality does not make someone racist.

Also a lot of people miss the point with the "almost every country did slavery" argument. The point is not that that makes it okay, the point is that racism and slavery are not distinctive to America so the emphasis should be on things that make America unique or are its defining characteristics.

[DrScholl]

Not wanting a bunch of post-modern "there is no rational thought" crap taught in schools as the absolute truth (how does that work anyway) or for teachers to editorialize against integration and legal equality does not make someone racist.

Also a lot of people miss the point with the "almost every country did slavery" argument. The point is not that that makes it okay, the point is that racism and slavery are not distinctive to America so the emphasis should be on things that make America unique or are its defining characteristics.

For one thing I don't think most right-wingers would have a problem teaching about slavery in world history because negative history about other nations only helps feed the narrative that the United States is perfect. These same people want to teach that American history is only about positive historical events, because they want a narrative that makes the United States look like it is all about apple pie, the flag and singing the national anthem.

[Kamala's side hoe]

The hysteria is because more and more people are rejecting woke notions offered by neoliberalism that are friendly to elites and finally adopting a strong and real anti-racist speech.

Critical Race Theory = Great
Woke Liberalism = Bad

So people in the top and white elites are feeling threatened and they should be. Stories about how “empowering” it is to have more female CEOs, more Black Police officers, more Gay stickers in stores is NOT something the new generation is willing to buy. People want real and intersectional anti-racist actions and stances, not the old liberal woke speech that pretends to be on their side.

Well said!

[Person Man]

Not wanting a bunch of post-modern "there is no rational thought" crap taught in schools as the absolute truth (how does that work anyway) or for teachers to editorialize against integration and legal equality does not make someone racist.

Also a lot of people miss the point with the "almost every country did slavery" argument. The point is not that that makes it okay, the point is that racism and slavery are not distinctive to America so the emphasis should be on things that make America unique or are its defining characteristics.

For one thing I don't think most right-wingers would have a problem teaching about slavery in world history because negative history about other nations only helps feed the narrative that the United States is perfect. These same people want to teach that American history is only about positive historical events, because they want a narrative that makes the United States look like it is all about apple pie, the flag and singing the national anthem.

If America or society is perfect, what's the point? It's like saying that everything that can be invented has been invented or that the work of the people in the past is somehow not worth what it's worth.

[Person Man]

The hysteria is because more and more people are rejecting woke notions offered by neoliberalism that are friendly to elites and finally adopting a strong and real anti-racist speech.

Critical Race Theory = Great
Woke Liberalism = Bad

So people in the top and white elites are feeling threatened and they should be. Stories about how “empowering” it is to have more female CEOs, more Black Police officers, more Gay stickers in stores is NOT something the new generation is willing to buy. People want real and intersectional anti-racist actions and stances, not the old liberal woke speech that pretends to be on their side.

Well said!

What's wrong with being the country that is like what our dogs think we are as people? What's wrong with trying to really be the country that conservatives say we already are? The first step is to acknowledge that what they are saying about us now hasn't yet come to pass but that it can.

[Kamala's side hoe]

The hysteria is because more and more people are rejecting woke notions offered by neoliberalism that are friendly to elites and finally adopting a strong and real anti-racist speech.

Critical Race Theory = Great
Woke Liberalism = Bad

So people in the top and white elites are feeling threatened and they should be. Stories about how “empowering” it is to have more female CEOs, more Black Police officers, more Gay stickers in stores is NOT something the new generation is willing to buy. People want real and intersectional anti-racist actions and stances, not the old liberal woke speech that pretends to be on their side.

Well said!

What's wrong with being the country that is like what our dogs think we are as people? What's wrong with trying to really be the country that conservatives say we already are? The first step is to acknowledge that what they are saying about us now hasn't yet come to pass but that it can.

Nothing, I think that’s a good thing. It just needs to be backed up with more concrete structural reforms that get at the root causes of systemic inequities- e.g. improving K-12 education for underprivileged communities instead of making it “easier” to get into college if you can claim a certain ancestry from a historically underprivileged group. The second option is nice, but it doesn’t do nearly as much to fight systemic racism as the first option. Ideally we’d do both- but in practice, we see more people trying to do the second option than the first option.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The hysteria is because more and more people are rejecting woke notions offered by neoliberalism that are friendly to elites and finally adopting a strong and real anti-racist speech.

Critical Race Theory = Great
Woke Liberalism = Bad

So people in the top and white elites are feeling threatened and they should be. Stories about how “empowering” it is to have more female CEOs, more Black Police officers, more Gay stickers in stores is NOT something the new generation is willing to buy. People want real and intersectional anti-racist actions and stances, not the old liberal woke speech that pretends to be on their side.

Whatever form CRT may take in to its purest academic form is very obviously corrupted when brought in to the new world, and its corruption more or less is "woke liberalism" adopted by companies looking to use DEI initiatives to cover their own asses and treating racism's most pernicious form as inter-personal (a liberal perspective).

Very few people are going to separate CRT from Ivy League classes on "the construction of whiteness".

On interrogating whiteness

“Well, you know, teaching it or even just having conversations with your neighbor, your friends, it's difficult. We all are projecting on to things in terms of what we want as our expected outcomes. All of that is happening all the time, and yet we can't not have the conversation.

“I think Robin DiAngelo has talked a lot about the fragility of white people in these conversations, how they feel victimized. They see any critique of the system, any reminder of the injustice, as a personal affront rather than understanding themselves as part of a system and investing in that change. And part of the changes is looking at the truth. And so I think, you know, a lot has to happen. You have to navigate people's feelings. You have to navigate truth-telling. You have to figure out where the facts that are reliable are coming from — all of that.”

(from a nationally broadcast June 2020 interview with a Yale Literature professor).

This is woke liberalism! The idea here is that one of the crucial ways to eradicate racism is introspection. What could be more antithetical to the idea that racism is a structural problem than putting the burden on individuals to undergo internal change? Unless your definition of structural racism is "the emergent sum of individual personal animus across society", putting the onus on every individual to tackle racism through a personal introspective journey will be too little, too late for noticing and destroying legacy racism that's enshrined in legislation or built in to institutional function and form.

The wokesters still shop at Amazon, they still shell out a hundred thousand dollars or more to go to college, they still drive their automobiles into city cores while avoiding "bad" neighborhoods. In its popular incarnation, CRT is woke liberalism.

[Red Velvet]

Disagree, acknowledgement of racism and its running effects on society is not “woke”, just a fact. This kind of critical thinking stimulated by anti-racist theories is inherently anti-system. That’s why CRT is good.

Woke liberalism otoh represents the appropriation of these values by the system to brainwash people into believing they by their side, helping to promote change, when they aren’t. Wokeness is style-only activism, empty of any practical meaning because its goal is to serve the system and make people believe what the system offers serves their interests, by trying to appeal to their ego.

Very basic example of how “wokeness” works to me:

Acceptance and promotion of abusive behavior from people on a higher social hierarchy only because part of their identity is supposed to make them “less privileged”.

It’s the Miranda Priestly syndrome: If your female boss is abusive, that’s celebrated as “girl power”. If your boyfriend is trying to save you from that abusive and unhealthy work relationship, then he’s the abusive one simply because of his identity, as he’s “preventing” the woman to achieve her full “success” as part of a bad environment where she has to be abused in order to “earn” her space.

Such woke ideas are inherently radically capitalist, promoting the false idea that you should try to insert yourself into an established structure instead of trying to change it. The messaging, widely embraced by the US Democratic Party, is that you just need more Women, Blacks, LGBT people doing the exact same thing White Straight Men have been doing for centuries.

Dissent from the agenda however, is not tolerated. They just want diverse voices to validate the system through a false sense of representation. What is the point of having a Black leader that enacts policies that are bad for the black community as a whole, for example?

Democrats are fighting in the side of the system. They’re in any way “left-wing” with that radical defense of all of capitalism symptoms. Look at how minority representation easily becomes a target of hate by woke liberals when they happen to have more Marxist leanings.

Anti-Racism stances are very important, but you have to acknowledge and interpret them in an intersectional way, which includes class. The racism someone like Oprah goes through is not being able to hold a purse that’s more expensive than some homes in a fancy Italian store. The racism black people in favelas not so far away from me is having police invading their homes with no permission to randomly execute them, or having helicopters shooting bullets over their homes.

That’s why I tend to have a very condescending opinion of woke liberalism, but from a very left-wing perspective. It actually prevents real anti-racist structural change to push a cruel illusion for minorities. “Symbols” have zero meaning in the construction of more representation imo in comparison to dignity and quality of life.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Disagree, acknowledgement of racism and its running effects on society is not “woke”, just a fact. This kind of critical thinking stimulated by anti-racist theories is inherently anti-system. That’s why CRT is good.

I'm going to take some time to think about your post more (because I think there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding), but for the time being, what in the absolute hell inspired this complete non sequitur? When did I ever equate the acknowledgement of racism with wokeness?

Can people please stop making the very obvious (and transparently cynical) rhetorical move to equate disagreement with a very narrow ideology with the wholesale rejection that racism exists? Nobody disputes that racism exists, or has existed, or has had a massive influence on the history of the United States with an uncountable number of legacy effects that persist to the present day. Trying to pin this opinion to your opposition in this debate is a form of moralistic bullying.

There's a very large and inarguable baseline of racism that the vast majority of Americans accept as historical and present fact. That is basically taken in the conversation as a given. There are other aspects of the ideology that people reject or take issue with, including (for example) a creeping and overly-expansive to the point of useless definition of racism, an internal logic to the movement which is inconsistent and self-servingly applied at the expense of empirical evidence, that its popular forms as implemented in public institutions is inappropriate and damaging for many of its participants, and what is at best an inability to see and at worst an unwillingness to address much larger systemic issues that compound or even explain the racist legacy that everybody already agrees upon.

[lfromnj]

Yeah there's really two types of CRT I would say that influences school teaching

One is usually in colleges or upper High school level classes and probably closer to the stricter older definition of CRT. It generally is just part of a critical analysis class although a lot of these classes can be  badly conducted and biased towards CRT. I might be ok with teaching but often times it mixes with the latter topic

The other is generally administration pushes by creating DEI sessions based on Kendi/DiAngelo and pushing that ideology on teachers who may or may not push the same harmful ideology on students, sometimes even younger students who are actually developing. It isn't even necessarily part of a class but just a general push.

[SevenEleven]

For all the talk of so-called liberals/leftists holding on to supposed "white guilt", the American right sure doesn't want actual historical facts and even current realities being mentioned at all. Why are we surpressing free speech and American history, Republicans?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Only a couple of minutes I happened to come across this opinion piece by a retired Army colonel and former NSC staffer with regards to "critical race theory in the military".

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/general-milley-critical-race-theory-why-gop-s-woke-military-ncna1272558

The most interesting points made in that article IMO:

- Critical race theory is defined by the author as "A relatively amorphous term often referring to the academic study of race and anti-racist movements, CRT has become a catch-all cause celebre for culture war conservatives."

- While the Chairman of Joint Chiefs denied the charge made by congressional Republicans that "critical race theory" is taught at military academies, he also stressed that the military teaches about race, racism, "white rage" and how this led to the events of January 6 and that this is an important thing to do so. The article doesn't really adress the question how this not supposed to be critical race theory, but maybe Gen. Milley was just being careful and tried to avoid using what has by now become a politically charged right-wing buzzword.

- The author of the opinion piece points out that Karl Marx, Lenin, Malcolm X, and Eldridge Cleaver were taught and read at military academies during the Cold War period. The former two to better understand the Soviet opponent, the latter two to understand what's going on in your own country. He also implies that had Republicans been behaving back then the way they are doing today this would have been decried and "investigated" as a form of "Communist indoctrination" at U.S. military academies.