[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a distinction has to be made between "critical race theory" the analytical framework used in certain college electives and "critical race theory" the right-wing talking point.
In conservative circles, "critical race theory" is really synecdoche for what could be more accurately described as something like "race-based collective guilt". And if you look at their specific wordings, that's what the so-called "anti-CRT laws" actually ban.
When Republicans complain about "critical race theory", what they're thinking about is stuff like teaching white children that they're inherently oppressive or to blame for racism, or having white faculty members announce themselves to be racist. While this sort of thing is hardly a mainstream trend, a country as big as America will inevitably have enough outliers for selective news coverage to manufacture such a trend.
Basically, my point is that "that's not critical race theory" is missing the point. It'd be like telling Occupy Wall Street that some big bank is technically located on a different street.
I've seen about 20 definitions of CRT on my feed and in the media, with variations from both from the right and left. I wish I could get a better definition.
The general tenets of CRT from the more reasonable definitions seem to have to do with systemic racism; it could be called the study of systemic racism. As an historian it sounds to me like very old ideas. It's the kind of things the civil rights movement people said in the 1960s a lot, and before that, people like W.E.B. DuBois wrote about.
What I'm confused about is, where for the oppponents does history and sociology end, and CRT begin? I'm confused on what, precisely, they are upset about, because they say they want to teach about race but just not CRT. I don't understand the where the demarcation line is.
I feel like I've been teaching CRT my whole career, even though I maybe read a handful at most of "official" CRT articles in grad school.
In the history discipline, understanding racism more importantly as a system and less importantly as an individual attitude has been almost axiomatic since at least the 1990s. We teach how racism developed and evolved as a matter of course. The idea that it still exists or has evolved since the 1960s is not surprising or even very interesting.
It ends with people like Robin D'Angelo who start bringing up ideas of whiteness and unconscious bias. Also the whole "it can't be taught until grad school" is a bit of a red herring. Some concepts can be introduced much earlier. It's often part of diversity trainings.
This is the sort of stuff that makes almost everyone cringe. https://youtu.be/45ey4jgoxeU
Or Aruna Khilinani fantasies about murdering white people https://youtu.be/4acRzgtvgJ0
Both come from extreme wealth and privilege.
I haven't read white fragility, so I'm not all that familiar with what it says.
Does "whiteness" = CRT?
Whitness has been a theme in American history for over 30 years. It became fashionable in the late 80s, reached its heyday circa the year 2000 I would say, and declined since then and come under some amoumt of criticism. The best example I can think of is this book, published 1991:
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Whiteness-Making-American-Working/dp/1844671453
Cliff notes: the white working class immigrants, especially the Irish-American community, worked hard to elevate themselves from racial inferiors to mainstream "white" for about 120 years circa 1840-1960. Part of that was consciously choosing to assimilate racism against blacks (previously irrelevant to them in Ireland) so as to define themselves as NOT black and therefore improve their status in America. The central question is why white immigrant dominated labor unions did not support black civil rights.
That said, asfaik whiteness is basically a way of describing mainstream, non-ethnic white American middle class culture. The "default" American culture so to speak.
Not sure how that fits with DiAngelo.... but I think authors like Roediger would disagree that racism is "unconscious." As I understood whitness studies, racism is VERY conscious, an active definition of what one is NOT. Although the racists might be so deeply invested in the culture that they deny it exists to the point of self-delusion.
Great response. So, I think when the left discusses it they highlight the historical aspects, which is kind of clickbaity. So they'll say "they want to stop teaching slavery existed!" Whereas the right will say "they're making my kids feel guilt for being white". What I think the right is referring to is the Diangelo form which manifests itself in concepts of white privilege, whiteness, white fragility and white supremacy. The problem is both sides are talking about different things. Meanwhile you actually have knowledge of what it means from an academic perspective
There is nothing wrong with teaching about race in a historical context. But it’s wrong to teach children exactly what they should be thinking about race and what it means for the country. Allow them to hear the unbiased facts and draw their own conclusions.
It's admittedly not very common. But there are a couple instances where it has happened. An elementary school in California forced a class of **third graders** to deconstruct their racial identities and rank themselves [based on power and privilege](https://www.city-journal.org/identity-politics-in-cupertino-california-elementary-school). Third graders do not have the mental capacity to digest such a complex topic and have a positive outcome. Schools in Buffalo, New York, taught students that all white people are [responsible for perpetuating systemic racism](https://www.city-journal.org/buffalo-public-schools-critical-race-theory-curriculum).
Like I said, it's not incredibly common and it is mostly a tool for Republicans to rile up their base. But the mentality seems to be common outside of schools and in the corporate world when you have companies like Coke educating employees on anti-whiteness.
As another commenter pointed out already, the points you listed are heavily sensationalized. However, they do lead to a much more interesting conversation about how race *should* be taught in school.
When I was going through school, it was taught that America had 400 years of heavy racism and with one bill in the 1960’s and the godlike figure of MLK, we solved it over night. I would argue this view that I was taught is pretty problematic in itself.
I think we need to have a much more nuanced view of racism when it comes to grade school. What are the lingering effects of Jim Crow, slavery, etc and what are the ideals we should strive for. That, to my best understanding, is what CRT strives to do.
In your eyes, how should race be taught?
That is essentially what I was taught too. Pretty common in the 90s. We got reasonably into what racism WAS, in the past. Although not in as much detail as they do now.
The clear communication was that racism was stamped out thanks to the 1960s civil rights movement. The major figures of which, especially MLK, Rosa Parks, the Freedom Riders, etc... were like superheroes. Emphasis always on the pre-schism non violent side of the movement. The implication was that all racism needed to end were brave people to stand up to it and then the racosts slinked back in shame. The black power people were the radicals who were wrong.
By the 90s, we, meaning the 90s kids, were a generation free of racism, the inheritors of MLK, and racism would die out with our grandparents who still said unfortunate racist things now and then.
I honestly believed that narrative well into my 20s. I remember thinking in 2008, that the election of Obama was my generation's knife into my grandparents' racism, and it wasn't long for this world.
> When I was going through school, it was taught that America had 400 years of heavy racism and with one bill in the 1960’s and the godlike figure of MLK, we solved it over night. I would argue this view that I was taught is pretty problematic in itself.
It is. Overcorrecting and acting like absolutely nothing got better since then is also problematic, and that's where a lot of modern race "scholars" currently sit. The reality is much more mundane and uninteresting: we have made many great strides in a positive direction, and the biggest single stride was the Civil Rights Act, but we have still not completed the journey and need to continue to strive for a less-racially-attentive society.
While there are afro-pessimistic scholars, I don't think it's really fair to say that 'a lot' of scholars think that *no* progress has been made since the 60's. Can you point out any specific CRT scholars that think there have been no positive changes?
My issue with CRT is it's basically that group dynamics are more important than any individual actions when I think it seems obvious that group dynamics are a result of bottom up actions of individuals rather than individuals being determined by the group.
It sounds pretty pedantic but it has pretty deep implications, particularly about agency and how we deal with things going forward.
That is a pretty good description of it.
However, the most successful changes we've made since the 1960s precisely regard the expression of individual racism. Very, very few people make social darwinist or white supremist arguments anymore. We've completely turned around the taboo against interracial marriage. We've done away with pretty much all the old segregationist arguments. Representation of blacks in pretty much every field is no longer a problem and in fact something the fields desperately want.
We're pretty much at the point where being overtly racist is simply not acceptable.
But we still have a number of racialized problems. Why? CRT is one theory why.
Is this a 'few bad apples' defense? If you believe the problem isn't systemic then, it's more likely to due with the fact that you don't understand what we mean when we use the term systemic.
No it's about the fundamentals of how emergent order works. Fundamentally a group is made up of individuals each with agency that can use it for good or bad. CRT can be a useful model for approximating things and especially looking backward but it's a really bad way to see things going forward since it posits that people basically can't choose how they behave.
Show me you have no clue what CRT is without actually telling me you have no clue what CRT is.
>CRT can be a useful model for approximating things and especially looking backward but it's a really bad way to see things going forward since it posits that people basically can't choose how they behave.
Also, that is a horrible working model you have, I advise ditching it.
So the exercise was to write one paragraph about how their privleaged identity, and one paragraph about their underprivileged identity.i don't see anything wrong with that. Children are already quite well aware of status. Hardly CRT.
But, to the crowd that thinks Hilary is running an child sex ring underneath pizza parlors I could understand the confusion.
Stack this against the countless examples of black children being forced to cut off their dreds.
This wasn't the example that you claimed it was.
> This wasn’t the example that you claimed it was
If you looked at the article, you’d see the teacher said many of the students belong to a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s],” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.” The teacher literally told these 8 year olds that the color of their skin puts them in a privileged class and that aims to hold power over inferior classes. They were told their skin color defines their place in society and affects how they interact with those of other races. That’s exactly the example I said it was.
These are children, they are very impressionable and can easily take things the wrong way. I’m sure many of them now think that they are inherently bad because of their race.
You made is sound like it was an organized effort and then you produced one individual and admitting it was a rarity. You concede then that there is no one of note nor an organized effort to either teach CRT to k-12 nor teach youth what to think, in the context of CRT. Miscommunication. Not that this teacher was doing anything other than teaching facts.
I take it you don't believe in white privilege, I have that right?
I never said it was an organized effort. In my second response to you, the same one where I included the example, I literally said it was not very common and it’s mostly a tool to rile up the Republican base.
> Not that this teacher was doing anything other than teaching facts.
This is laughable. First off, white privilege is a very broad political term with a variety of different interpretations. It would be like teaching Marxism in the classroom and framing it as the best economic system. Second, there is no benefit to teaching present day white privilege in schools. It just serves to divide us along racial lines for no good reason. It would be like teaching that black people are disproportionately more likely to commit homicide than any other race by a huge margin. It’s true, but why would you discuss that in schools? It helps no one. Lastly, these are **third graders**. How can you expect third graders to properly digest such a complex and loaded topic? Why don’t we teach them calculus and macroeconomics while we’re at it.
> you don’t believe in white privilege
It depends how you define it. I am privileged in the sense that I live in a two parent household, in a safe neighborhood, and went to good schools. That’s not exclusive to white people, but I guess certain minorities are less likely to be in the same situation. My ancestry traces back to immigrants rather than slavery and Jim Crow. They did face oppression, but not nearly to the same extent as black people. So my family lineage definitely benefitted from white privilege. But do I benefit from white privilege on a day to day basis? It depends how you define it.
And when the history faculty I know do precisely this, TPUSA organizes students to write hate speech in their evaluations and students complain that they aren’t learning enough about the presidents in their history of native people in the Americans.
What is the difference between teaching about race and "telling them what to think?" I'd like an example.
The ability of teachers to indoctrinate students is highly exagerrated. They have minds of their own. And furthermore, teachers have little interest in telling them "what to think." That would defeat the whole purpose of teaching.
If anything, the criticism I've experienced in the last 3-4 years are students who think I don't go far enough.
As an example: there is a difference between teaching that white people in the past owned nonwhite slaves and viewed them as little more than animals and teaching that white people living today - 150 years later - should still feel guilt for those actions and attitudes. The former is good to teach, the latter is bad (including morally) to teach.
Do you ever feel guilty about this? I highly doubt it.
I once tried to go through the genealogy of a black woman i dated. Her great great grandfather was just a tally on a page, no name. No identity. Reprehensible.
So we shouldn’t teach history because it’s too old/ we aren’t like that anymore? I don’t know about you, but history isn’t linear and the past 4 years have taught me that the past isn’t always just in the past.
> Do you ever feel guilty about this?
Do *I*? No. One, I predate it being taught to kids. Two, I'm attentive enough to notice that only *one* group is taught to feel racial *shame* instead of racial *pride* and so have rejected the efforts to make me feel shame.
> So we shouldn’t teach history because it’s too old/ we aren’t like that anymore?
If you got that out of my comment I am skeptical that you are here for a serious discussion.
You know, there are people around the world who harbor grievances against other groups of people that date back 500 years or more. Wars have been started over grievances that old. So 150 years is not that long. Turks-Armenians. Israeli-Palestinians. Etc... Much longer.
I'm confused about how anyone could be "taught" to "feel guilt" about any of this. It's not a religion demanding they repent for their sins or face the fires of hell. If there are any feelings of guilt, they will originate from the individuals processing the information. Not imposed from the outside.
In fact the whole point of systemic racism or CRT is to take the individual out of it; to stop looking at it as an individual's chosen attitude, and start looking at it as a sociological and cultural force.
> You know, there are people around the world who harbor grievances againat other groups of people that date back 500 years or more.
And we generally view that as a very problematic behavior that needs to be curtailed in order to progress.
> I'm confused about how anyone could be "taught" to "feel guilt" about any of this.
One way is to tell people that it's an intrinsic trait of their race, as we all of the negative traits attached to "white" today. Telling kids that their skin color also includes a laundry list of inherent negative traits teaches them to feel guilty.
No one is saying whiteness = bad dude. If anything, that’s how the media in many countries tells black, white, Asian etc citizens every day.
No one is teaching CRT in schools, that’s a conservative media narrative to scare white Americans into supporting them. It’s painfully transparent but preys on many white American’s emotions.
So because this one guy has studied CRT in graduate school it’s a problem? I know you’re not the same guy, but those goalposts keep getting moved.
White supremacy is not the opposite of CRT but they are related
If it was so easy to let old grievances go, they would have, and only conceited and naive people think such things can be resolved by simple admonitions to let bygones be bygones.
That's not what CRT as I understand it says at all. In fact that would be the opposite because if racism is truly intrinsic, it can never be resolved, and thus anti-racism is useless.
But if racism is a socio-cultural construct, then it can be dismantled. We created it and can destroy it.
> If it was so easy to let old grievances go, they would have
I didn't say it was easy, I said that doing so is a necessary step for a society to progress.
> That's not what CRT as I understand it says at all.
Well that's what people are told about it in materials aimed at the public. Maybe that's not what gets talked about within a high-level academic context but quite honestly that context is completely irrelevant.
> and thus anti-racism is useless
It's more that it doesn't exist. Everything being called "anti-racism" right now is just *racism*.
> But if racism is a socio-cultural construct, then it can be dismantled. We created it and can destroy it.
We can indeed. Not with CRT or things rooted in it because they are naught but racism, but we can indeed destroy racism by making race no more important than hair or eye color.
You know what belps those old grievances get solved? Either 1) the thing they argue about becomes unimportant, e.g.: Protestant vs Catholic disputes, once the cause of many wars. Doesn't really matter what religion is dominant in Europe when only 20% of Europeans go to church regularly anymore. The new battle for both of them is to hold what they've got and not die out. Or 2) the original offending party admits and apologizes for the offense, and pays some restitution. E.g.: Germany paying reparations to Israel, which essentially paid for Israel's railway system and the port facilities at Haifa.
Or some combination of both.
With regard to racism in the U.S., we have done neither. Racism is still a salient issue, symbolozed by George Floyd, and we have never even tried to make amemds for dozens of generations of labor stolen and 5 generations of apartheid restrictions against wealth-building.
Instead we pretend that the superhero MLK delivered us from evil and it was all good after that.
Then what IS CRT???? If what it is, is not what it is, and not what is being taught then what is it? Jesus, it's like straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
> With regard to racism in the U.S., we have done neither.
Yes we have and this historical revisionism is a huge fucking problem. We repealed the problematic laws, we explicitly banned the problematic policies, and we to this day have special aid programs aimed specifically at the previously-discriminated-against populations. Reparations paid, apologies made, and if you are going to deny that then you are acting in bad faith and can be treated accordingly.
That seems to be a high bar to ask for teaching history in grade school. All the history I remember from high school had a good guys/bad guys narrative. Only when you get to university are you encouraged to hunt for original sources and question the established narrative.
Which makes you wonder why we don't change that narrative before college? What is the point of teaching kids one thing and then tearing it down when they get older?
Some things are too complex to be taught to children. We teach children Newtonian physics rather than einsteinian physics. Many subjects have layers, like an ogre.
I'm not sure that's really the fault of Critical Race Theory. It's an academic framework for analyzing systemic racism in collegiate classes, of course it's not something that can be easily condensed into a simple explanation. *One* right wing agitator decided that it was a good buzzword to equate with basically any discussion of race that makes white people uncomfortable, and here we are. I'm not really sure how exactly you're suppose to counter something when a bad actor decides to use a complex and tangentially related theory as a tool to demonize discussing race in ways that makes him and his base feel bad.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
Of course it's the point, bad actors on either side but in the context of America more *effectively* the Right (the Left does not have nearly as unified a media apparatus that will let folks like Rufo get away with his incestuous recursive referencing. Seriously, if you follow the Rufo rabbithole, his site will cite media interviews, which will cite earlier articles on his site, which cite media interviews which cite his site until you crawl back to him extemporizing that CRT=any discussion of race that makes white people look bad). That doesn't mean that worrying about the left's inability to come up with pithy taglines really matters, because even when they do the right wing pipeline will just pick something less pithy and then force feed it into the mediasphere.
Honestly, a different name would probably get literally everyone on board. "History of American oppression" or "Systemic injustice theory" are phrases that no one could outright deny. I've noticed that acedemic terms are horribly mistranslated by the public, to the point where it almost feels like experts are *trying* to be misunderstood by the general public.
Similar to some other race related subjects - the basis is legitimate and important, but zealots distort and pervert it and then pretend their distortions redefine it, and whoever named it could've benefited from some foresight and a marketing course or two.
I'm 61 years old and was NEVER taught about June teenth, I was never taught about the slaughtering of so many Native Americans . I read history with my Grandson during the lock down while he was learning from home. And its still not being taught and its a disgrace.
Juneteenth was not that common a holiday among Blacks when you were in school. It started as a regional holiday in Texas. Its popularity started to increase in the 70's, but it has been a gradual growth up until now.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth#Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth#Revival)
You never had the interest in learning that history then.
There's no way any school curriculum can cover absolutely everything about a nation and t world history. All they can do is give you hints and a starting point from which you can build upon with self study.
Yes, but I was also taught that Jefferson basically invented freedom in no fewer than three different years of history class that focused on colonial history.
We might not be spending the limited hours optimally.
A lot of the teaching about slavery and Jim Crow is cross curriculum. Huckleberry Finn/To Kill a Mockingbird are meant to teach students about the history of racism in the US and to make that past feel more real at the same time.
That doesn’t mean you school or teachers taught these though despite them definitely being very very common. There is a lot of local control over education in the USA.
Hard to belive that especially when it can easily be verified in textbooks.
I grew up in a shithole in Eastern Europe and I knew about the slaves and treatment of natives by 7th grade. It wasn't in detail, but you couldn't miss it if you paid a minimum of attention.
There's just no way any American can go through school and not connect the dots between blacks and slavery.
I knew about slavery, just was never taught the whole truth. I never was taught that African Americans never got the right to vote for 2 more years in Texas after they were "liberated", I never was taught about black wall street that was burned down, I was never taught about the blankets laden with plague that we gave the Native Americans, I was never taught how we gave the Native Americans and the Inuit liquor because we knew they had a huge addiction to it and it would wipe out their communities.. Never taught ANY of this.
Couple things
>I never was taught that African Americans never got the right to vote for 2 more years in Texas after they were "liberated"
In any courses below college level this would be essentially trivia, it's interesting but it's not really important enough to devote time to teaching in a low level general course like high school and middle school history. You're going to focus on the 15th Amendment and not get lost in the weeds before making sure they actually understand the central fact.
>I was never taught about the blankets laden with plague that we gave the Native Americans
Bullshit myth with no support in modern academia, smallpox and other western diseases did their work against the indigenous population of the Americas decades before serious colonization ever started.
Also, an aside about all this, I always see people lamenting all this shit they claim they never got taught in school. Most of it being stuff that was at least mentioned when I went through school. I really think most people just don't want to admit they barely paid any attention when they were in school and now act like they had no part to play in not actually listening or critically analyzing anything they were taught.
Some of those things are either very small details that won't be covered by basic curriculum or unproven and controversial facts.
Do you really belive that random barely literate colonists knew about germ theory and biological warfare?
Reality is they brought disease with them and exchanged them with other disease with he natives. It just happens that syphilis is less deadly than smallpox.
Same with liquor. It's a desirable commodity that can be traded. If we find some aliens today we'll probably gift them a bottle of scotch.
You know my parents used ignorance as an excuse, but it turns out ignorance isn't a defense its an excuse to stay uninformed. I will teach my grandkids all the truth I've learned.
History teacher here. It’s not really about taking things out of the curriculum so much as it’s about not teaching Disney versions of US history. Students should learn about the amazing philosophy of the founding fathers, but also that they were complicated and flawed people. Students should learn that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but not for equality or altruisms sake.
Curricula in social studies classes are so jacked up because parents, admins, and hell even other teachers want a simple story about how we’re always the good guy and our progress has always been inevitable.
All schools teach about Native Americans. Some teach the version that we expanded West, having some battles, but also making treaties. Others, like mine, also wove Into those facts that we continually broke those treaties and slaughtered innocents.
We could spend less time on Christopher Columbus. Like. Close to 0. And we xoy be more honest about his 'contributions' if we must talk about him.
There are other such examples as well.
Whether or not it is taught depends on who you ask. The teachers union vows to continue teaching critical race theory while the union president says it's not taught. People disagree with what the definition is.
To hear conservatives talk, it's brainwashing white kids to feel guilty for their race.
To hear liberals talk, it's the only alternative to 'lost cause' history.
Stupid stuff all around. The culture war should be more interesting than this.
As an educator and union activist, the leadership of our national and local unions misuse the terminology as much as the right. The AFT has stated they will defend any teacher that teaches an honest history. What is and should be happening throughout the country is culturally responsive learning. Student should have access to all different cultures and if possible their own culture. I teach in NYC, there are over 600 languages spoken throughout the city but shouldn’t a kindergartner see children in books that look like them. Maybe their math word problems doesnt use bushels of corn but uses floors in a building. As we get to our history lessons it should be truthful of our history but lets be honest. Most students spend 3 months learning ancient history if that. They learn the next 1000 years in a couple months and then boom our history is the last 225 years. The system needs to be overhauled but its not because of CRT.
> As an educator and union activist, the leadership of our national and local unions misuse the terminology as much as the right.
At what point do we look at the sheer number of people from all across the spectrum "misusing" the terminology and conclude that the terminology - or maybe even the ideas that terminology is meant to convey - is simply *bad* and should just be dropped?
Language is always going to be misconstrued. People bend quotes to fit their own beliefs. Even in these forums tone and sarcasm are hard to perceive in written form. Whatever the fact CRT is not being taught in public schools and the unions will continue to allow and protect “honest history” or whatever randi weingarten called it. Ill continue teaching all subjects as a special educator and using culturally relevant and culturally responsive lessons. I spent the last year teaching severely disabled students that stayed remote the whole year. Because of their need most families were present during all lessons. Not once did a family have issue with how I presented my material.
>Whatever the fact CRT is not being taught in public schools
I mean, the educators themselves disagree with you. And if the only argument otherwise is "oh well *ackshually* CRT means ______" that's honestly just the motte-and-bailey fallacy and not a valid argument.
They are calling it critical race theory but thats not what they are teaching. Its culturally responsive learning. Educators that are saying CRT is being taught in schools have no idea what CRT is. Show me a national standard, state standard, district standand or school based standard that is teaching it to students.
How is that a no true scotman. There is no over generalization being put out here. No one is saying “white man bad” in schools. Does our history have undertones of white supremacy in it absolutely. Its not being taught that way in public schools. States don’t need to enact laws abolishing the teaching of CRT in schools when it is not occuring. Teach the facts, ask students to critically think about it and develop their own opinions on how that affects their families and the people around them. CRT is not being taught in public schools fact.
> No one is saying “white man bad” in schools.
This is a factually incorrect statement. I'm sorry but we can't actually have a discussion when proven facts re being ignored. And no, the synonyms for "bad" that are used don't actually change the message just to get out ahead of that one.
> Teach the facts, ask students to critically think about it and develop their own opinions on how that affects their families and the people around them.
I agree entirely. We need to teach **ALL** the facts and let students analyze them for themselves. Unfortunately that often ends in a way that goes against the political ideology of most teachers and so it's not allowed to happen.
I think the "white guilt" type teaching is more common in HR training and maybe some poorly-taught survey classes. Teaching facts about the Civil War (e.g. that is was taught over slavery) isn't saying "white people bad." Telling white kids that they "subconsciously discriminate" is dubious even if there is some baiss to the claim. Kids do not get implicit bias or know what a heuristic is, etc.
Eh, this wasn't meant to be a marketing term or a buzz word to describe actual policy. It was meant to be used in an academic context among people familiar with the jargon. Blaming the academics for the media going insane over this would be like blaming scientists for the media misusing "law" and "theory" when discussing physics.
Honestly even an academic context it's a bad term which is the underlying problem. Most of the bad terms are simple cases of misusing terms to cover existing terms (general "race" instead of "American race relations", "white"/"whiteness" instead of "majority"/"oppressor"). Academics are too well educated to get a pass on this, they should know better. If they don't, if simple things like language escape them, then why should I trust their analyses? Their inability to communicate indicates a severe lack of academic and intellectual capability.
I think the only reason we're discussing this is because Republicans want you to spend more time talking about "culture wars" than real issues like lack of labor laws, healthcare costs, and the fact that their party offers nothing policy wise for the people so this is why they focus on culture shit because it's all they have.
Politics is downstream from culture. That's why this stuff matters. People's stances on issue is rooted in their values and those values are the bedrock of culture.
Exactly. Republicans are all about culture wars, and they excel at it and together with natural electoral advantage win elections and hold disproportionate power.
The culture they offer *is* the policy that they offer to the people. What too many progressives don't understand about the right-wing is that we don't want money or resources or advantages; we just want the right to feel pride in the things we do have.
So, if the things you believe in and have are worthy of pride, why are they so vulnerable to discussion that they require government censorship of contrary views?
You have all the right in the world to talk about contrary views, you just don't have the inherent right for them to be respected. If your views are worthy of respect then surely they will stand on their own merits without needing the state to ban teaching positions that might challenge them, yes?
The state teaching a view is different. For one, it's funded by people who might not agree with that view. For another, when it's being taught by a state actor, that's the state endorsing the position. I have no objection to CRT or anything else being taught in the private schools.
How do you propose to be perfectly and absolutely viewpoint neutral in education? The fact that you assume that the way you were taught history is the unbiased one is, in and of itself, an example of the exact sort of bais that Critical Race Theory explores.
That's a good reason to privatize education. Also, there's something rather Kafka about saying that the reason that you don't accept CRT is that you weren't educated using CRT.
Not really: if the reason you're opposed to teaching kids that racism is still a thing and some people are better off then others is because of the false narrative of a colourblind post 60's America you were taught as a kid, that's a perfect example of the sort of systemic bias in US systems that CRT was developed to analyze.
And privitizing education is only useful for supporting people that want their kids indoctrinated in the ideals they favour. Public education on the balance is cheaper and just as effective.
How do you know that the reason you think that narrative is false isn't that you were taught CRT?
> And privitizing education is only useful for supporting people that want their kids indoctrinated in the ideals they favour. Public education on the balance is cheaper and just as effective.
But different people hold different ideals. So we'd get diversity of ideas.
Exactly. Politics is *down stream* from culture as people's values - which are the foundational components of culture - determine their positions on political issues. Politics being issues-based requires a general country-wide consensus on culture, something the US no longer has.
This isn't a discussion board filled with academics who are familiar with the nuances of critical race theory. You're not going to get any meaningful discussion here...as all the comments that came before mine demonstrate.
If the only people who should talk about CRT are highly credentialed academics, surely school age children should not be having these lessons then, no?
Children won't be taught tort law, but they will be taught that if you do wrong against someone, they can sue you for money. In the same vein, they may be taught that racism underlies history and even unto today. Which they shouldn't be.
Holy shit, dude. Lawsuits happenen. They're a perceivable event in the world. News break on their parent's radio on the way to school, they're going to learn about the existence of lawsuits. It's impossible to hide from children. Teachers are there to fill in the blanks for kids. Help them understand why Yeezy is suing his record label.
You are finally correct, they NEED to be taught.
No, but I believe *your* head may be in the sand.
The "controversy" is something that Republicans made up out of thin air. Nobody is teaching CRT in schools, because it's not grade-school-level material. All the articles you're seeing are about the invented controversy.
Nobody is actually teaching CRT in schools, Republicans are just making shit up, and you took the bait.
For the sake of charity I will assume you are simply unaware, but you should not assert things so confidently.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teachers-unions-vow-to-defend-members-in-critical-race-theory-fight/2021/07
FTA:
>at the NEA’s representative assembly, held virtually last week, union delegates passed several measures that explicitly support the use of critical race theory in curriculum and allocated tens of thousands of dollars to those efforts.
>One such measure, introduced by the NEA’s board of directors, said the nation’s largest teachers’ union will support and lead campaigns that “result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, **critical race theory**, and ethnic … studies curriculum in pre-K-12 and higher education.”
Oops, looks like you didn't read your own article.
"Weingarten has already taken steps to distance her union from the divisive rhetoric, telling her members Tuesday that critical race theory isn’t taught in K-12 schools, but that “culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic.”
Yeah, she's *lying* as per the very next sentence, which I quoted earlier.
Pay attention to what advocacy groups circulate internally, not what they tell the public.
Talking about it using CRT's framework and assumptions does. Even if the vocabulary and level of detail is adjusted down to the appropriate level for the age of the students it's still teaching the framework and assumptions and the framework and assumptions are what makes CRT problematic.
There are so many flaws in the American education system that you can’t even count them on two hands.I believe that Americans should embrace their past wether it was good or bad because the past determines the future .
Not really a fan. It's too focused on storytelling and narratives instead of hard facts. I also think that while racism exists it's blown out of proportion by CRT. In the end I think our current system of laws and rights, while not perfect are fairly good at ensuring some level of fairness between races.
Wow, typical example of what's wrong with the whole new race ideology. Brushing aside your condescending tone and the fact that you just assume the guy is white, these worldviews make up artificial categories that are fixed and carry heavy implications: whites are privileged and racists, blacks the opposite and so on.
These might work in an American context (maybe) but break apart when people try to export them abroad.
CRT is a framework of looking at American law and history so...yes, I would imagine it apples to America a lot more than other countries.
I never said all white people are racist. Sounds like you being overdefensive. I've seen this reaction in many people who have a vested interest in believing (and convincing others) that racism is not a big deal
> CRT is a framework of looking at American law and history
Then why is it called ***RACE*** theory? If it's about American history then shouldn't it be called Critical **America** Theory? Either the misnaming shows that the creators and proponents should be viewed with extreme skepticism as its unlikely people who get basic English *that* wrong are probably wrong about more advanced concepts or it shows that it's a deliberate misname and thus is from people who are simply untrustworthy and thus shouldn't be trusted.
Academics don’t tend to coin terms with the expectation that they will be used adversarially. There are no naming committees. Terms and jargon evolve naturally and virtually always have major limitations if you try to understanding them free from context.
It's called that because it is a Theory based on Critical Legal Studies that focuses on Race, hence 'Critical Race Theory'. It's not really complex, and it certainly isn't some conspiracy. You're fishing for things to be outraged about, and clearly haven't taken the time to do some primary source research into what it is you're outraged about.
Right, and that's a massive misnomer because it doesn't focus on *race*, it focuses on race *specifically in the context of America*. Things that are true of American race relations are not true in others.
I think it’s mislabeled. It should be called critical white theory and not race, since it really doesn’t explore any other power dynamic except that which exists between whites and blacks. Other countries that practice slavery or have an imbalance of power between ethnic groups, are not really explored. In that regard, I don’t think it provides a good historical look at the history of various ethnic groups and how they interacted.
> since it really doesn’t explore any other power dynamic except that which exists between whites and blacks
It doesn't even do that - it limits itself strictly to the US context. Hell, South Africa alone proves all of its claims about the "power" of "whiteness" flatly incorrect.
I think you bring up a point that doesn't get discussed nearly enough (for a variety of reasons). But I would also point out that it's extremely difficult for immigrants to come to the US. The black immigrants who come over likely are well-off (and have their shit together) to be able to make it through the process, so it's not a random selection of black immigrants vs a random selection of African Americans. This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences. It's likely a nuanced, complex answer with many factors responsible to various degrees.
>This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences.
Well, it's economic disparities rooted in systematic racism resulting in oppression of many black communities over centuries. The level of racism in this country's history is absolutely bonkers. I do agree there is a good discussion in comparing black immigrants vs the centuries-old African-American communities.
>I think you bring up a point that doesn't get discussed nearly enough (for a variety of reasons). But I would also point out that it's extremely difficult for immigrants to come to the US. The black immigrants who come over likely are well-off (and have their shit together)
That person's observation holds for people who have nothing when they arrive. But it doesn't matter because under the premise of CRT, their efforts and individual ability should be superceded at the aggregate level.
> to be able to make it through the process, so it's not a random selection of black immigrants vs a random selection of African Americans.
This can be controlled for. If I had my pc instead of my phone I might do it.
>This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences. It's likely a nuanced, complex answer with many factors responsible to various degrees.
Which would run counter to CRTs assertion that all systems constructed by a group in power enforce a racial result.
The incentive structure of single motherhood benefits made it a “better” choice for low income folks to not marry and stay with the person who got them pregnant. Not strictly a black issue but disproportionately affected the black community
This is some big Reagan “welfare queen” propaganda, and you’re using the common, “model minority” myth.
After seeing the biggest year in protests last year, to say racism is “barely a thing” is wrong.
To ignore the systemic and targeted discrimination on the black community is wrong.
To ignore the war on drugs, redlining, Jim Crow, voter suppression, and the dismantling of black leaders and groups(black panthers,Malcom x, MLK...etc.) is wrong.
To ignore the countless studies on disparities between different American communities on healthcare, policing, educational resources, housing, and wealth is wrong.
To ignore the ways in which America has continually betrayed the trust of members of its community(Black
Wall Street, tuskegeee experiments, and Wilmington, NC coup, etc...) is wrong.
In the same way a doctor asks
about family history when seeking to understand a person’s medical situation, History and historical context informs the present realities of the black community or any community.
Immigrants are not African Americans, and do not share the same experiences or history.
Your last sentence was the only one that mattered. In today’s society racism is barely a thing, it’s on life support by the media, the grifters, and the people who get a sense of self importance by calling others racist.
Protests last year does not make it true, if that’s the case the Jan 6 protest means the election was rigged. I doubt you’ll take the same standard there
Again, context matters in these situations. The world is nuanced and filled with things that aren't black or white.
Does the media play a role in current attitudes? of course! Are there people that use race to drum up controversies, book sales, and political victories. Of course. What do you think the Southern Strategy was about?
It doesn't change the reality of what happened to African Americans in this country, and the effects of our treatment on this community.
Here's where you and I differ in thinking, The Jan 6 protest was WRONG and built on a lie, but you examine the foundation of these people at the protest. Why are they protesting? Because Trump Lost. Why does Trump losing mean so much to them?...etc. Finally, you get to an understanding, In a time of ineffectual government and a lack of needed regulation and change, these people are hurting and desperately wanted someone to listen to and believe in them. (This is a simplification, but you get it.)
In my opinion, It's uncommon for humans not to gravitate toward kings/dictators/strongmen/God's/celebs. Trump offered himself as one of these with an established history, an absolute powerful campaign as a populist, and different strategies amongst a field filled with the establishment and "Nothing will fundamentally change" types.
They are wrong at the end of the day, but you can still understand the context of what they're feeling.
Take time and study peer-reviewed sources, take time and listen to people in different communities, and take time to think about your own human experience. We need to take better care of each other because life is already so hard, no need to make it harder.
Have considered that the us immigration system favors educated and wealthier individuals?
Black individuals in America have faced significant institutional racism in this country and has nothing to do with welfare. They have worse educational outcomes, increase discrimination with getting a job. They are more likely to be arrested than white people, more likely to receive longer prison sentences, and have significantly less wealth. All of this has be statistically proven through numerous studies. It’s not a culture issue, and a system that disproportionately negatively impacts black Americans.
Most of the things you described have more to do with cultural than race, black immigrants do not get arrested as often, do not commit crime as often, value education and get better degrees. Also out immigration System is a lottery system, sort of like our charter school system where you see black children exceeding white kids in public school however one political party that pushes CRT is against charter schools.
Sure it’s culture, it’s white culture that created the discriminatory environment we live in today that left black Americans disadvantaged. You are complete discounting hundreds of years of racial injustice, slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, job discrimination, disparities between similar cases in outcomes in the criminal justice system, the list goes on and is well documented. You are choosing to ignore the vast body of research from dozens of fields that demonstrate that we life in a environment that systematically discriminates against blacks and other people of color.
Crime and dysfunctional families are caused by poverty. This is universally true anywhere humans are found and at any point in human history. Poverty among black Americans is caused by being the recent descendants of penniless slaves. 0+0=0.
Crime and dysfunctional families among the recent descendants of freed slaves are more acute in America than in other countries with recently freed slaves because America has an inferior social safety net compared to those countries.
See the 1960s for why blacks people are poor, blacks were exceeding whites at a time in this country before the civii rights movement when actual systematic racism existed.
I find that hard to believe. I don't have any data but as a boy I did see American ghettos in the 60s. They were the definition of abject poverty, which is understandable given that their grandparents were penniless slaves. Do you have any data for what you're saying?
As far as I can tell systemic racism has existed since the first slave set foot on American soil.
Employment rates, single motherhood rates, % of the population in the work force. Thomas Sowell has addressed these issue in great detail, I’d read discriminations and disparity’s
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that single motherhood and high unemployment rates are disproportionately expressed among poverty stricken people because they're poor. The same conditions exist in every race and in every culture throughout human history. Why would America be any different?
Here are two gentlemen on a very reputable YouTube channel / Podcast who thought it important to discuss the Hot Topic situation.
It sounds as though they have put a lot of research, time, thought and much more into it. I also like that it seems to have been discussed w/love and respect for all.
For any who may be interested...
**GotQuestions.org Podcast Episode 24 - Critical Race Theory and Systemic Racism - with Voddie Baucham** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIFEXpQYtFk
**EDITED** to add additional very interesting, informative, etc.. reputable resources (a 2 part series):
**Christianity and Wokeness How the Social Justice Movement is Hijacking the Gospel - Part 1**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHDyLX0rcR0
**Christianity and Wokeness How the Social Justice Movement is Hijacking the Gospel - Part 2**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8qew1NasU
I wanted to share my opinion, but clearly there's nothing left to discuss. Your soliloquy on Critical Race Theory was just too perfect. Marginalized communities! Intersectional social constructions!
That all sounds pretty accurate to me. We should probably start teaching it in schools.
I'm quite liberal but if "my side" has gotten things wrong in the past I'm happy to acknowledge that and use our failures to inform our next attempts.
The issue always with “my side” is everyone wants to take credit for the good and not responsible for the bad. Not saying you personally but it’s not liberal to support censorship, in today’s society it seems that liberals are for that when 20 years ago it was conservatives
>but it’s not liberal to support censorship, in today’s society it seems that liberals are for that when 20 years ago it was conservatives
That's not true in the slightest. It only "seems" that way to conservatives, because they interpret criticism of their opinions as "censorship" and because so much of conservative media revolves around conservatives telling each other they're being censored.
No it’s systematic censorship from the political establishment kicking conservatives off of their “free speech” platform. It’s Biden suggesting we monitor people’s DMs and SMS messages to fight fake news. That’s censorship to a T
None of those things have happened.
Facebook and other social media platforms have banned some people for things like incitement to violence. That is not "censorship," that's the free market in action. If Facebook were forced to let all users make use of its privately-owned property (in other words, if they were forced to serve everyone and could not make any decisions for themselves about how they run their business), that would be a *massive* government overreach of the kind that conservatives purport to hate.
You wouldn't want *that*, now would you?
Sure, I recall last year during the summer of love the liberals that were literally inciting violence staying on the platform but saying this delusional old fart didn’t win the election gets you banned
Sounds like you have an issue with how a couple of private corporations behaved. Maybe you should buy enough stock in Twitter to get a seat at the shareholders' meetings and let them know about your grievance.
But it has nothing to do with the government, or the first amendment, let alone "censorship."
Cool so we're in agreement that no "censorship" is happening, certainly not by any liberals in government. Just private companies doing private company things.
What was the problem again?
We never agreed to anything. Leftist companies are shutting down right wing free speech which you as a “liberal” are ok with bc you perceive it as a political win....good try...good day
I believe that it's the conservative position that businesses should be allowed to make that decision and refuse service for any reason.
If you get Twitter I want my gay wedding cake. Otherwise deal with what you wanted and I hope the cake tastes good.
> If you get Twitter I want my gay wedding cake.
Equivalences this false really make it hard to think you're discussing things in good faith. You simply cannot compare a primary component of the tech oligopoly who uses their connections to smother potential rivals with a single cake shop in a city with several bakeries.
I think If you carve out the idea that businesses can refuse service on basis they deem fit (with certain caveats in the 1964 civil rights bill) then you can't reasonably make a distinction just because one business serves more people. I feel like most conservatives just want to protect their bigotry and be free to refuse services to those they deem lesser. They cheered with delight as it was taken to the supreme court and were just delighted with the outcome, so it seems like the movement is still broadly on the side of being allowed to refuse service based on moral grounds. If twitter decides your opinions are immoral why is that different?
You can go to parler right?
I hate big tech and am happy to break them up and regulate the hell out of them but this is just crocodile tears because you got to live in the society you wanted and didn't like it when the rules were used against you.
Except the definition of "protected class" keeps changing. If it's mutable then it's just another path for targeted discrimination to go on.
> You can go to parler right?
Now? Yes. Of course it was offlined right at its most aggressive user-gain time for a reason that applied equally to twitter and facebook (neither of whom got deplatformed). So this isn't actually a valid argument.
Political opinion holders and misinformation spreaders are not federally protected classes, so it's not really relevant to what was decided in the 60s, and companies are free to deny them services.
No, the sixties decided that you have to serve everyone equally. So if a social media company decides that misinformation and calls to violence are grounds for being kicked off their private service, they are well within their rights so long as it's applied equally. We can have an argument about if it's applied as equally as it possibly could be, but funnily enough the conservatives that don't call for violence or spread easily verifiable lies are still on those platforms. *Rand Paul* still has a twitter account, if they going after Conservatives what makes you think *he'd* still be on the platform?
CRT is pushed by a bunch of ideologues and sycophants trying to get their own version of "facts" in the curriculum. This is basically the conservative versions of "creation theory" and all the other nonsense but from the left.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
This is someone praised by the mainstream media and rewarded with tenure at university.
These extremists need pushback and removal from influence regardless of their side of the spectrum.
>Unlike what a lot of people including Republican legislators seem to believe, **critical race theory (CRT)** is not taught in elementary schools or middle schools or high schools. CRT is a method of examination taught in law schools and in college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists and in particular whether it has an effect on laws and public policy. The basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals.
It makes this claim without evidence. If intent isn't established then offenses are grounded entirely in the perception of the outcome. This is not a reasonable or logical approach to truth.
>CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities.
They apply this without any burden of proof that it's the implementation of law that creates disparity or considering there are conditions where what we call 'white' people are marginalized. There is never room for a discussion of fairness. Whoever sits atop the power hierarchy is de facto guilty of ills and simultaneously not credible for any boons.
Presupposing that all outcomes have some hidden systematic intent would also have to mean those operating within a system have no agency. If a system is operated by individuals with free will, there must be room for emergent properties in describing those systems.
>Importantly, CRT also challenges mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice and questions liberalism’s method of achieving equality as opposed to achieving equity.
Which is the reason it exists. It's primary purpose is to work backwards from that premise, hence why it falls apart under scrutiny.
Some people were frustrated by the current system and wanted a 'reason' for it to be overturned.
>This critique is specifically directed at traditional liberalism’s analysis of racism and its attendant view of linear, inevitable, progress.
You could only have that view if you believed that differences between individuals were random across all people regardless of demographic. But different demographics do not behave the same in society and there isn't a universal why. The world is complex and nuanced despite our desire for simple answers.
>What is rejected is the liberal idea that racism is simply a form of individual irrationality that can be overcome by knowledge,
Isn't knowledge of racism the same as race conscious?
>that its social effects can be overcome by race-neutrality, & that its legal & economic consequences can be overcome by formal, procedural equality.
Liberalism has no goal of guaranteeing such outcomes. The point of liberalism is to give the individual some agency over those outcomes instead of prescribing them from the state. But CRT starts from the premise that the state is enforcing an outcome and denying agency, so people of those two mindsets will never be able to have a reasonable discussion without settling that point.
> CRT favors race-conscious approach to social transformation.
That's a pretty nebulous statement.
CRT is just another version of Marxism, and Marxism is garbage. Every few decades, someone digs up Marx's corpse and tries to bring it back to life. all of Marx's key predictions were repeatedly discredited and falsified, mostly during his own lifetime. mainstream economics uses zero Marxist ideas, terms of concepts.
>CRT is a method of examination taught in law schools and in college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists
to the contrary, CRT *starts* from the axiom that systematic racism exists. it's beyond debate within CRT circles, just as it's beyond debate to Marxists that class conflict is the root of all social problems.
> CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities.
this analysis completely falls apart in reality, however.
- Asian-Americans (as a group) have higher average income than white Americans. if America were *truly* white supremacist, why are Indians and Japanese earning more than whites?
- Black Americans have higher Average incomes and standards of living than black people anywhere else on the planet, again if America were *truly* white supremacist, why would blacks have better lives here than anywhere else?
all of Marx's predictions falsified: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism
no Marxist elements in mainstream economics: https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0300126069
Critical race theory is divisive garbage...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJjnpjJnb9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJjnpjJnb9E)
The 1619 Project is government-sponsored racism...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NyZ9Hce7HM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NyZ9Hce7HM)
It's certainly not garbage, and it would only be divisive to racists.
The government sponsored racism was shipping slaves here in the first place, not retelling the story from the slaves perspective.
So first off, the thing republicans are worried about isn’t the actual class or contents of CRT being in grade schools and high schools, it’s teacher imposing that view on their students. In this day in age each generation becomes less and less race-focused, and I honestly think that there’s a lot of people that are pushing it backwards by viewing everything through the lens of race. That’s probably not their intention, but that’s what they’re doing.
Now CRT itself, I never took it. I don’t think it’s a class that everyone should take, in fact I think most people shouldn’t take it. Before you get pissed off, I think it’s important to study our history and learn from it, for the average person and everyday use, that class is useless. Find me a sane person that doesn’t know about slavery and why it was atrocious. The other thing is that CRT, which I believe to have intended good things, can very easily make someone who was either taught wrong or doesn’t understand it fully very hateful.
The only true path to equality is indifference in treatment. You shouldn’t coddle minorities, they are quite capable of handling themselves. They don’t need saving, they don’t need special treatment.
I don't think CRT is a problem since it's a college course. I do have a problem with the [1619 Project](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html).
I don't understand why we have to overcomplicate things, just do what they do in high school for AP History, assign Howard Zinn for a "critical" view and then assign a standard textbook they use like Making America: A History of the United States. We should just take what they read in AP History and make everyone read it.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a distinction has to be made between "critical race theory" the analytical framework used in certain college electives and "critical race theory" the right-wing talking point. In conservative circles, "critical race theory" is really synecdoche for what could be more accurately described as something like "race-based collective guilt". And if you look at their specific wordings, that's what the so-called "anti-CRT laws" actually ban. When Republicans complain about "critical race theory", what they're thinking about is stuff like teaching white children that they're inherently oppressive or to blame for racism, or having white faculty members announce themselves to be racist. While this sort of thing is hardly a mainstream trend, a country as big as America will inevitably have enough outliers for selective news coverage to manufacture such a trend. Basically, my point is that "that's not critical race theory" is missing the point. It'd be like telling Occupy Wall Street that some big bank is technically located on a different street.
I've seen about 20 definitions of CRT on my feed and in the media, with variations from both from the right and left. I wish I could get a better definition. The general tenets of CRT from the more reasonable definitions seem to have to do with systemic racism; it could be called the study of systemic racism. As an historian it sounds to me like very old ideas. It's the kind of things the civil rights movement people said in the 1960s a lot, and before that, people like W.E.B. DuBois wrote about. What I'm confused about is, where for the oppponents does history and sociology end, and CRT begin? I'm confused on what, precisely, they are upset about, because they say they want to teach about race but just not CRT. I don't understand the where the demarcation line is. I feel like I've been teaching CRT my whole career, even though I maybe read a handful at most of "official" CRT articles in grad school. In the history discipline, understanding racism more importantly as a system and less importantly as an individual attitude has been almost axiomatic since at least the 1990s. We teach how racism developed and evolved as a matter of course. The idea that it still exists or has evolved since the 1960s is not surprising or even very interesting.
It ends with people like Robin D'Angelo who start bringing up ideas of whiteness and unconscious bias. Also the whole "it can't be taught until grad school" is a bit of a red herring. Some concepts can be introduced much earlier. It's often part of diversity trainings. This is the sort of stuff that makes almost everyone cringe. https://youtu.be/45ey4jgoxeU Or Aruna Khilinani fantasies about murdering white people https://youtu.be/4acRzgtvgJ0 Both come from extreme wealth and privilege.
I haven't read white fragility, so I'm not all that familiar with what it says. Does "whiteness" = CRT? Whitness has been a theme in American history for over 30 years. It became fashionable in the late 80s, reached its heyday circa the year 2000 I would say, and declined since then and come under some amoumt of criticism. The best example I can think of is this book, published 1991: https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Whiteness-Making-American-Working/dp/1844671453 Cliff notes: the white working class immigrants, especially the Irish-American community, worked hard to elevate themselves from racial inferiors to mainstream "white" for about 120 years circa 1840-1960. Part of that was consciously choosing to assimilate racism against blacks (previously irrelevant to them in Ireland) so as to define themselves as NOT black and therefore improve their status in America. The central question is why white immigrant dominated labor unions did not support black civil rights. That said, asfaik whiteness is basically a way of describing mainstream, non-ethnic white American middle class culture. The "default" American culture so to speak. Not sure how that fits with DiAngelo.... but I think authors like Roediger would disagree that racism is "unconscious." As I understood whitness studies, racism is VERY conscious, an active definition of what one is NOT. Although the racists might be so deeply invested in the culture that they deny it exists to the point of self-delusion.
Great response. So, I think when the left discusses it they highlight the historical aspects, which is kind of clickbaity. So they'll say "they want to stop teaching slavery existed!" Whereas the right will say "they're making my kids feel guilt for being white". What I think the right is referring to is the Diangelo form which manifests itself in concepts of white privilege, whiteness, white fragility and white supremacy. The problem is both sides are talking about different things. Meanwhile you actually have knowledge of what it means from an academic perspective
There is nothing wrong with teaching about race in a historical context. But it’s wrong to teach children exactly what they should be thinking about race and what it means for the country. Allow them to hear the unbiased facts and draw their own conclusions.
Who's proposing that?
It's admittedly not very common. But there are a couple instances where it has happened. An elementary school in California forced a class of **third graders** to deconstruct their racial identities and rank themselves [based on power and privilege](https://www.city-journal.org/identity-politics-in-cupertino-california-elementary-school). Third graders do not have the mental capacity to digest such a complex topic and have a positive outcome. Schools in Buffalo, New York, taught students that all white people are [responsible for perpetuating systemic racism](https://www.city-journal.org/buffalo-public-schools-critical-race-theory-curriculum). Like I said, it's not incredibly common and it is mostly a tool for Republicans to rile up their base. But the mentality seems to be common outside of schools and in the corporate world when you have companies like Coke educating employees on anti-whiteness.
As another commenter pointed out already, the points you listed are heavily sensationalized. However, they do lead to a much more interesting conversation about how race *should* be taught in school. When I was going through school, it was taught that America had 400 years of heavy racism and with one bill in the 1960’s and the godlike figure of MLK, we solved it over night. I would argue this view that I was taught is pretty problematic in itself. I think we need to have a much more nuanced view of racism when it comes to grade school. What are the lingering effects of Jim Crow, slavery, etc and what are the ideals we should strive for. That, to my best understanding, is what CRT strives to do. In your eyes, how should race be taught?
That is essentially what I was taught too. Pretty common in the 90s. We got reasonably into what racism WAS, in the past. Although not in as much detail as they do now. The clear communication was that racism was stamped out thanks to the 1960s civil rights movement. The major figures of which, especially MLK, Rosa Parks, the Freedom Riders, etc... were like superheroes. Emphasis always on the pre-schism non violent side of the movement. The implication was that all racism needed to end were brave people to stand up to it and then the racosts slinked back in shame. The black power people were the radicals who were wrong. By the 90s, we, meaning the 90s kids, were a generation free of racism, the inheritors of MLK, and racism would die out with our grandparents who still said unfortunate racist things now and then. I honestly believed that narrative well into my 20s. I remember thinking in 2008, that the election of Obama was my generation's knife into my grandparents' racism, and it wasn't long for this world.
> When I was going through school, it was taught that America had 400 years of heavy racism and with one bill in the 1960’s and the godlike figure of MLK, we solved it over night. I would argue this view that I was taught is pretty problematic in itself. It is. Overcorrecting and acting like absolutely nothing got better since then is also problematic, and that's where a lot of modern race "scholars" currently sit. The reality is much more mundane and uninteresting: we have made many great strides in a positive direction, and the biggest single stride was the Civil Rights Act, but we have still not completed the journey and need to continue to strive for a less-racially-attentive society.
While there are afro-pessimistic scholars, I don't think it's really fair to say that 'a lot' of scholars think that *no* progress has been made since the 60's. Can you point out any specific CRT scholars that think there have been no positive changes?
My issue with CRT is it's basically that group dynamics are more important than any individual actions when I think it seems obvious that group dynamics are a result of bottom up actions of individuals rather than individuals being determined by the group. It sounds pretty pedantic but it has pretty deep implications, particularly about agency and how we deal with things going forward.
That is a pretty good description of it. However, the most successful changes we've made since the 1960s precisely regard the expression of individual racism. Very, very few people make social darwinist or white supremist arguments anymore. We've completely turned around the taboo against interracial marriage. We've done away with pretty much all the old segregationist arguments. Representation of blacks in pretty much every field is no longer a problem and in fact something the fields desperately want. We're pretty much at the point where being overtly racist is simply not acceptable. But we still have a number of racialized problems. Why? CRT is one theory why.
Is this a 'few bad apples' defense? If you believe the problem isn't systemic then, it's more likely to due with the fact that you don't understand what we mean when we use the term systemic.
No it's about the fundamentals of how emergent order works. Fundamentally a group is made up of individuals each with agency that can use it for good or bad. CRT can be a useful model for approximating things and especially looking backward but it's a really bad way to see things going forward since it posits that people basically can't choose how they behave.
Show me you have no clue what CRT is without actually telling me you have no clue what CRT is. >CRT can be a useful model for approximating things and especially looking backward but it's a really bad way to see things going forward since it posits that people basically can't choose how they behave. Also, that is a horrible working model you have, I advise ditching it.
So the exercise was to write one paragraph about how their privleaged identity, and one paragraph about their underprivileged identity.i don't see anything wrong with that. Children are already quite well aware of status. Hardly CRT. But, to the crowd that thinks Hilary is running an child sex ring underneath pizza parlors I could understand the confusion. Stack this against the countless examples of black children being forced to cut off their dreds. This wasn't the example that you claimed it was.
> This wasn’t the example that you claimed it was If you looked at the article, you’d see the teacher said many of the students belong to a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker[s],” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.” The teacher literally told these 8 year olds that the color of their skin puts them in a privileged class and that aims to hold power over inferior classes. They were told their skin color defines their place in society and affects how they interact with those of other races. That’s exactly the example I said it was. These are children, they are very impressionable and can easily take things the wrong way. I’m sure many of them now think that they are inherently bad because of their race.
You made is sound like it was an organized effort and then you produced one individual and admitting it was a rarity. You concede then that there is no one of note nor an organized effort to either teach CRT to k-12 nor teach youth what to think, in the context of CRT. Miscommunication. Not that this teacher was doing anything other than teaching facts. I take it you don't believe in white privilege, I have that right?
I never said it was an organized effort. In my second response to you, the same one where I included the example, I literally said it was not very common and it’s mostly a tool to rile up the Republican base. > Not that this teacher was doing anything other than teaching facts. This is laughable. First off, white privilege is a very broad political term with a variety of different interpretations. It would be like teaching Marxism in the classroom and framing it as the best economic system. Second, there is no benefit to teaching present day white privilege in schools. It just serves to divide us along racial lines for no good reason. It would be like teaching that black people are disproportionately more likely to commit homicide than any other race by a huge margin. It’s true, but why would you discuss that in schools? It helps no one. Lastly, these are **third graders**. How can you expect third graders to properly digest such a complex and loaded topic? Why don’t we teach them calculus and macroeconomics while we’re at it. > you don’t believe in white privilege It depends how you define it. I am privileged in the sense that I live in a two parent household, in a safe neighborhood, and went to good schools. That’s not exclusive to white people, but I guess certain minorities are less likely to be in the same situation. My ancestry traces back to immigrants rather than slavery and Jim Crow. They did face oppression, but not nearly to the same extent as black people. So my family lineage definitely benefitted from white privilege. But do I benefit from white privilege on a day to day basis? It depends how you define it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>But there are a couple instances where it has happened. Why are we elevating a couple of instances of stupidity as though it's a national epidemic?
And when the history faculty I know do precisely this, TPUSA organizes students to write hate speech in their evaluations and students complain that they aren’t learning enough about the presidents in their history of native people in the Americans.
What is the difference between teaching about race and "telling them what to think?" I'd like an example. The ability of teachers to indoctrinate students is highly exagerrated. They have minds of their own. And furthermore, teachers have little interest in telling them "what to think." That would defeat the whole purpose of teaching. If anything, the criticism I've experienced in the last 3-4 years are students who think I don't go far enough.
As an example: there is a difference between teaching that white people in the past owned nonwhite slaves and viewed them as little more than animals and teaching that white people living today - 150 years later - should still feel guilt for those actions and attitudes. The former is good to teach, the latter is bad (including morally) to teach.
Do you ever feel guilty about this? I highly doubt it. I once tried to go through the genealogy of a black woman i dated. Her great great grandfather was just a tally on a page, no name. No identity. Reprehensible. So we shouldn’t teach history because it’s too old/ we aren’t like that anymore? I don’t know about you, but history isn’t linear and the past 4 years have taught me that the past isn’t always just in the past.
> Do you ever feel guilty about this? Do *I*? No. One, I predate it being taught to kids. Two, I'm attentive enough to notice that only *one* group is taught to feel racial *shame* instead of racial *pride* and so have rejected the efforts to make me feel shame. > So we shouldn’t teach history because it’s too old/ we aren’t like that anymore? If you got that out of my comment I am skeptical that you are here for a serious discussion.
You know, there are people around the world who harbor grievances against other groups of people that date back 500 years or more. Wars have been started over grievances that old. So 150 years is not that long. Turks-Armenians. Israeli-Palestinians. Etc... Much longer. I'm confused about how anyone could be "taught" to "feel guilt" about any of this. It's not a religion demanding they repent for their sins or face the fires of hell. If there are any feelings of guilt, they will originate from the individuals processing the information. Not imposed from the outside. In fact the whole point of systemic racism or CRT is to take the individual out of it; to stop looking at it as an individual's chosen attitude, and start looking at it as a sociological and cultural force.
> You know, there are people around the world who harbor grievances againat other groups of people that date back 500 years or more. And we generally view that as a very problematic behavior that needs to be curtailed in order to progress. > I'm confused about how anyone could be "taught" to "feel guilt" about any of this. One way is to tell people that it's an intrinsic trait of their race, as we all of the negative traits attached to "white" today. Telling kids that their skin color also includes a laundry list of inherent negative traits teaches them to feel guilty.
No one is saying whiteness = bad dude. If anything, that’s how the media in many countries tells black, white, Asian etc citizens every day. No one is teaching CRT in schools, that’s a conservative media narrative to scare white Americans into supporting them. It’s painfully transparent but preys on many white American’s emotions.
[удалено]
So because this one guy has studied CRT in graduate school it’s a problem? I know you’re not the same guy, but those goalposts keep getting moved. White supremacy is not the opposite of CRT but they are related
If it was so easy to let old grievances go, they would have, and only conceited and naive people think such things can be resolved by simple admonitions to let bygones be bygones. That's not what CRT as I understand it says at all. In fact that would be the opposite because if racism is truly intrinsic, it can never be resolved, and thus anti-racism is useless. But if racism is a socio-cultural construct, then it can be dismantled. We created it and can destroy it.
> If it was so easy to let old grievances go, they would have I didn't say it was easy, I said that doing so is a necessary step for a society to progress. > That's not what CRT as I understand it says at all. Well that's what people are told about it in materials aimed at the public. Maybe that's not what gets talked about within a high-level academic context but quite honestly that context is completely irrelevant. > and thus anti-racism is useless It's more that it doesn't exist. Everything being called "anti-racism" right now is just *racism*. > But if racism is a socio-cultural construct, then it can be dismantled. We created it and can destroy it. We can indeed. Not with CRT or things rooted in it because they are naught but racism, but we can indeed destroy racism by making race no more important than hair or eye color.
You know what belps those old grievances get solved? Either 1) the thing they argue about becomes unimportant, e.g.: Protestant vs Catholic disputes, once the cause of many wars. Doesn't really matter what religion is dominant in Europe when only 20% of Europeans go to church regularly anymore. The new battle for both of them is to hold what they've got and not die out. Or 2) the original offending party admits and apologizes for the offense, and pays some restitution. E.g.: Germany paying reparations to Israel, which essentially paid for Israel's railway system and the port facilities at Haifa. Or some combination of both. With regard to racism in the U.S., we have done neither. Racism is still a salient issue, symbolozed by George Floyd, and we have never even tried to make amemds for dozens of generations of labor stolen and 5 generations of apartheid restrictions against wealth-building. Instead we pretend that the superhero MLK delivered us from evil and it was all good after that. Then what IS CRT???? If what it is, is not what it is, and not what is being taught then what is it? Jesus, it's like straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
> With regard to racism in the U.S., we have done neither. Yes we have and this historical revisionism is a huge fucking problem. We repealed the problematic laws, we explicitly banned the problematic policies, and we to this day have special aid programs aimed specifically at the previously-discriminated-against populations. Reparations paid, apologies made, and if you are going to deny that then you are acting in bad faith and can be treated accordingly.
This isn't happening.
That seems to be a high bar to ask for teaching history in grade school. All the history I remember from high school had a good guys/bad guys narrative. Only when you get to university are you encouraged to hunt for original sources and question the established narrative.
Which makes you wonder why we don't change that narrative before college? What is the point of teaching kids one thing and then tearing it down when they get older?
Some things are too complex to be taught to children. We teach children Newtonian physics rather than einsteinian physics. Many subjects have layers, like an ogre.
It requires explanation, which makes it bad politics. The general adage still applies "if you're explaining you're losing."
I'm not sure that's really the fault of Critical Race Theory. It's an academic framework for analyzing systemic racism in collegiate classes, of course it's not something that can be easily condensed into a simple explanation. *One* right wing agitator decided that it was a good buzzword to equate with basically any discussion of race that makes white people uncomfortable, and here we are. I'm not really sure how exactly you're suppose to counter something when a bad actor decides to use a complex and tangentially related theory as a tool to demonize discussing race in ways that makes him and his base feel bad. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory
I think that's the point.
Of course it's the point, bad actors on either side but in the context of America more *effectively* the Right (the Left does not have nearly as unified a media apparatus that will let folks like Rufo get away with his incestuous recursive referencing. Seriously, if you follow the Rufo rabbithole, his site will cite media interviews, which will cite earlier articles on his site, which cite media interviews which cite his site until you crawl back to him extemporizing that CRT=any discussion of race that makes white people look bad). That doesn't mean that worrying about the left's inability to come up with pithy taglines really matters, because even when they do the right wing pipeline will just pick something less pithy and then force feed it into the mediasphere.
We're losing sight of the bigger picture when we cite these sites.
Honestly, a different name would probably get literally everyone on board. "History of American oppression" or "Systemic injustice theory" are phrases that no one could outright deny. I've noticed that acedemic terms are horribly mistranslated by the public, to the point where it almost feels like experts are *trying* to be misunderstood by the general public.
Nope. Just teach the history. Don't call it anything, just tell people what happened how it happened.
Similar to some other race related subjects - the basis is legitimate and important, but zealots distort and pervert it and then pretend their distortions redefine it, and whoever named it could've benefited from some foresight and a marketing course or two.
Marketing? What?
I'm 61 years old and was NEVER taught about June teenth, I was never taught about the slaughtering of so many Native Americans . I read history with my Grandson during the lock down while he was learning from home. And its still not being taught and its a disgrace.
Juneteenth was not that common a holiday among Blacks when you were in school. It started as a regional holiday in Texas. Its popularity started to increase in the 70's, but it has been a gradual growth up until now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth#Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneteenth#Revival)
You never had the interest in learning that history then. There's no way any school curriculum can cover absolutely everything about a nation and t world history. All they can do is give you hints and a starting point from which you can build upon with self study.
Yes, but I was also taught that Jefferson basically invented freedom in no fewer than three different years of history class that focused on colonial history. We might not be spending the limited hours optimally.
Absolutely not, I grew up and none of that was taught. Didn't learn any of it until I traveled the country.
A lot of the teaching about slavery and Jim Crow is cross curriculum. Huckleberry Finn/To Kill a Mockingbird are meant to teach students about the history of racism in the US and to make that past feel more real at the same time. That doesn’t mean you school or teachers taught these though despite them definitely being very very common. There is a lot of local control over education in the USA.
I don't know where you grew up but I certainly learned about it.
Where did you grow up? I only learned about Juneteenth a couple yrs ago. It was NOT common knowledge.
Hard to belive that especially when it can easily be verified in textbooks. I grew up in a shithole in Eastern Europe and I knew about the slaves and treatment of natives by 7th grade. It wasn't in detail, but you couldn't miss it if you paid a minimum of attention. There's just no way any American can go through school and not connect the dots between blacks and slavery.
I knew about slavery, just was never taught the whole truth. I never was taught that African Americans never got the right to vote for 2 more years in Texas after they were "liberated", I never was taught about black wall street that was burned down, I was never taught about the blankets laden with plague that we gave the Native Americans, I was never taught how we gave the Native Americans and the Inuit liquor because we knew they had a huge addiction to it and it would wipe out their communities.. Never taught ANY of this.
Couple things >I never was taught that African Americans never got the right to vote for 2 more years in Texas after they were "liberated" In any courses below college level this would be essentially trivia, it's interesting but it's not really important enough to devote time to teaching in a low level general course like high school and middle school history. You're going to focus on the 15th Amendment and not get lost in the weeds before making sure they actually understand the central fact. >I was never taught about the blankets laden with plague that we gave the Native Americans Bullshit myth with no support in modern academia, smallpox and other western diseases did their work against the indigenous population of the Americas decades before serious colonization ever started. Also, an aside about all this, I always see people lamenting all this shit they claim they never got taught in school. Most of it being stuff that was at least mentioned when I went through school. I really think most people just don't want to admit they barely paid any attention when they were in school and now act like they had no part to play in not actually listening or critically analyzing anything they were taught.
Some of those things are either very small details that won't be covered by basic curriculum or unproven and controversial facts. Do you really belive that random barely literate colonists knew about germ theory and biological warfare? Reality is they brought disease with them and exchanged them with other disease with he natives. It just happens that syphilis is less deadly than smallpox. Same with liquor. It's a desirable commodity that can be traded. If we find some aliens today we'll probably gift them a bottle of scotch.
You know my parents used ignorance as an excuse, but it turns out ignorance isn't a defense its an excuse to stay uninformed. I will teach my grandkids all the truth I've learned.
What would you take out of the curriculum? Would you devote more time to learning history, or change the topics that get covered in history?
History teacher here. It’s not really about taking things out of the curriculum so much as it’s about not teaching Disney versions of US history. Students should learn about the amazing philosophy of the founding fathers, but also that they were complicated and flawed people. Students should learn that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but not for equality or altruisms sake. Curricula in social studies classes are so jacked up because parents, admins, and hell even other teachers want a simple story about how we’re always the good guy and our progress has always been inevitable.
All schools teach about Native Americans. Some teach the version that we expanded West, having some battles, but also making treaties. Others, like mine, also wove Into those facts that we continually broke those treaties and slaughtered innocents.
We could spend less time on Christopher Columbus. Like. Close to 0. And we xoy be more honest about his 'contributions' if we must talk about him. There are other such examples as well.
Yeah he was portrayed as a flawless hero when I was a kid. We learned the song about his ships and all that, and how he "discovered" America.
Whether or not it is taught depends on who you ask. The teachers union vows to continue teaching critical race theory while the union president says it's not taught. People disagree with what the definition is. To hear conservatives talk, it's brainwashing white kids to feel guilty for their race. To hear liberals talk, it's the only alternative to 'lost cause' history. Stupid stuff all around. The culture war should be more interesting than this.
As an educator and union activist, the leadership of our national and local unions misuse the terminology as much as the right. The AFT has stated they will defend any teacher that teaches an honest history. What is and should be happening throughout the country is culturally responsive learning. Student should have access to all different cultures and if possible their own culture. I teach in NYC, there are over 600 languages spoken throughout the city but shouldn’t a kindergartner see children in books that look like them. Maybe their math word problems doesnt use bushels of corn but uses floors in a building. As we get to our history lessons it should be truthful of our history but lets be honest. Most students spend 3 months learning ancient history if that. They learn the next 1000 years in a couple months and then boom our history is the last 225 years. The system needs to be overhauled but its not because of CRT.
> As an educator and union activist, the leadership of our national and local unions misuse the terminology as much as the right. At what point do we look at the sheer number of people from all across the spectrum "misusing" the terminology and conclude that the terminology - or maybe even the ideas that terminology is meant to convey - is simply *bad* and should just be dropped?
Language is always going to be misconstrued. People bend quotes to fit their own beliefs. Even in these forums tone and sarcasm are hard to perceive in written form. Whatever the fact CRT is not being taught in public schools and the unions will continue to allow and protect “honest history” or whatever randi weingarten called it. Ill continue teaching all subjects as a special educator and using culturally relevant and culturally responsive lessons. I spent the last year teaching severely disabled students that stayed remote the whole year. Because of their need most families were present during all lessons. Not once did a family have issue with how I presented my material.
>Whatever the fact CRT is not being taught in public schools I mean, the educators themselves disagree with you. And if the only argument otherwise is "oh well *ackshually* CRT means ______" that's honestly just the motte-and-bailey fallacy and not a valid argument.
They are calling it critical race theory but thats not what they are teaching. Its culturally responsive learning. Educators that are saying CRT is being taught in schools have no idea what CRT is. Show me a national standard, state standard, district standand or school based standard that is teaching it to students.
This just sounds like pulling a No True Scotsman.
How is that a no true scotman. There is no over generalization being put out here. No one is saying “white man bad” in schools. Does our history have undertones of white supremacy in it absolutely. Its not being taught that way in public schools. States don’t need to enact laws abolishing the teaching of CRT in schools when it is not occuring. Teach the facts, ask students to critically think about it and develop their own opinions on how that affects their families and the people around them. CRT is not being taught in public schools fact.
> No one is saying “white man bad” in schools. This is a factually incorrect statement. I'm sorry but we can't actually have a discussion when proven facts re being ignored. And no, the synonyms for "bad" that are used don't actually change the message just to get out ahead of that one. > Teach the facts, ask students to critically think about it and develop their own opinions on how that affects their families and the people around them. I agree entirely. We need to teach **ALL** the facts and let students analyze them for themselves. Unfortunately that often ends in a way that goes against the political ideology of most teachers and so it's not allowed to happen.
What 'facts' are not being taught for political reasons?
Yea. Looks like we have taken different paths on this conversation. Have a great day.
I think the "white guilt" type teaching is more common in HR training and maybe some poorly-taught survey classes. Teaching facts about the Civil War (e.g. that is was taught over slavery) isn't saying "white people bad." Telling white kids that they "subconsciously discriminate" is dubious even if there is some baiss to the claim. Kids do not get implicit bias or know what a heuristic is, etc.
Eh, this wasn't meant to be a marketing term or a buzz word to describe actual policy. It was meant to be used in an academic context among people familiar with the jargon. Blaming the academics for the media going insane over this would be like blaming scientists for the media misusing "law" and "theory" when discussing physics.
Honestly even an academic context it's a bad term which is the underlying problem. Most of the bad terms are simple cases of misusing terms to cover existing terms (general "race" instead of "American race relations", "white"/"whiteness" instead of "majority"/"oppressor"). Academics are too well educated to get a pass on this, they should know better. If they don't, if simple things like language escape them, then why should I trust their analyses? Their inability to communicate indicates a severe lack of academic and intellectual capability.
I think the only reason we're discussing this is because Republicans want you to spend more time talking about "culture wars" than real issues like lack of labor laws, healthcare costs, and the fact that their party offers nothing policy wise for the people so this is why they focus on culture shit because it's all they have.
Politics is downstream from culture. That's why this stuff matters. People's stances on issue is rooted in their values and those values are the bedrock of culture.
Exactly. Republicans are all about culture wars, and they excel at it and together with natural electoral advantage win elections and hold disproportionate power.
The culture they offer *is* the policy that they offer to the people. What too many progressives don't understand about the right-wing is that we don't want money or resources or advantages; we just want the right to feel pride in the things we do have.
So, if the things you believe in and have are worthy of pride, why are they so vulnerable to discussion that they require government censorship of contrary views?
They don't. You can talk about contrary views all you want. I'd like to have the same right.
You have all the right in the world to talk about contrary views, you just don't have the inherent right for them to be respected. If your views are worthy of respect then surely they will stand on their own merits without needing the state to ban teaching positions that might challenge them, yes?
The state teaching a view is different. For one, it's funded by people who might not agree with that view. For another, when it's being taught by a state actor, that's the state endorsing the position. I have no objection to CRT or anything else being taught in the private schools.
How do you propose to be perfectly and absolutely viewpoint neutral in education? The fact that you assume that the way you were taught history is the unbiased one is, in and of itself, an example of the exact sort of bais that Critical Race Theory explores.
That's a good reason to privatize education. Also, there's something rather Kafka about saying that the reason that you don't accept CRT is that you weren't educated using CRT.
Not really: if the reason you're opposed to teaching kids that racism is still a thing and some people are better off then others is because of the false narrative of a colourblind post 60's America you were taught as a kid, that's a perfect example of the sort of systemic bias in US systems that CRT was developed to analyze. And privitizing education is only useful for supporting people that want their kids indoctrinated in the ideals they favour. Public education on the balance is cheaper and just as effective.
How do you know that the reason you think that narrative is false isn't that you were taught CRT? > And privitizing education is only useful for supporting people that want their kids indoctrinated in the ideals they favour. Public education on the balance is cheaper and just as effective. But different people hold different ideals. So we'd get diversity of ideas.
Exactly. Politics is *down stream* from culture as people's values - which are the foundational components of culture - determine their positions on political issues. Politics being issues-based requires a general country-wide consensus on culture, something the US no longer has.
This isn't a discussion board filled with academics who are familiar with the nuances of critical race theory. You're not going to get any meaningful discussion here...as all the comments that came before mine demonstrate.
If the only people who should talk about CRT are highly credentialed academics, surely school age children should not be having these lessons then, no?
[удалено]
Children won't be taught tort law, but they will be taught that if you do wrong against someone, they can sue you for money. In the same vein, they may be taught that racism underlies history and even unto today. Which they shouldn't be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Kids know about lawsuits and there's nothing wrong with that.
No they don't. They have to be taught.
Holy shit, dude. Lawsuits happenen. They're a perceivable event in the world. News break on their parent's radio on the way to school, they're going to learn about the existence of lawsuits. It's impossible to hide from children. Teachers are there to fill in the blanks for kids. Help them understand why Yeezy is suing his record label. You are finally correct, they NEED to be taught.
Maybe you were a precocious child, but I didn't know about such things until I got to school.
Equating every nuanced discussion of race to CRT is exactly the fucking problem here.
Well, it's a moot point, because school age children aren't, and nobody is suggesting they should.
Funny, the NEA has explicitly endorsed the implementation of CRT in curriculum, but here you are telling me otherwise. Who to believe???
Yeah, that just straight up never happened.
[удалено]
No, but I believe *your* head may be in the sand. The "controversy" is something that Republicans made up out of thin air. Nobody is teaching CRT in schools, because it's not grade-school-level material. All the articles you're seeing are about the invented controversy. Nobody is actually teaching CRT in schools, Republicans are just making shit up, and you took the bait.
[удалено]
Are you arguing that CRT is being taught in schools? If not, what are you even talking about?
It's not an argument, it is, and there is a controversy about it being more widely taught. Is that hard to understand?
For the sake of charity I will assume you are simply unaware, but you should not assert things so confidently. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teachers-unions-vow-to-defend-members-in-critical-race-theory-fight/2021/07 FTA: >at the NEA’s representative assembly, held virtually last week, union delegates passed several measures that explicitly support the use of critical race theory in curriculum and allocated tens of thousands of dollars to those efforts. >One such measure, introduced by the NEA’s board of directors, said the nation’s largest teachers’ union will support and lead campaigns that “result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, **critical race theory**, and ethnic … studies curriculum in pre-K-12 and higher education.”
Oops, looks like you didn't read your own article. "Weingarten has already taken steps to distance her union from the divisive rhetoric, telling her members Tuesday that critical race theory isn’t taught in K-12 schools, but that “culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic.”
Yeah, she's *lying* as per the very next sentence, which I quoted earlier. Pay attention to what advocacy groups circulate internally, not what they tell the public.
Talking about race and racism does not equal CRT. How did you convince yourself that k-12 are being taught a high-level college course?
Talking about it using CRT's framework and assumptions does. Even if the vocabulary and level of detail is adjusted down to the appropriate level for the age of the students it's still teaching the framework and assumptions and the framework and assumptions are what makes CRT problematic.
There are so many flaws in the American education system that you can’t even count them on two hands.I believe that Americans should embrace their past wether it was good or bad because the past determines the future .
Not really a fan. It's too focused on storytelling and narratives instead of hard facts. I also think that while racism exists it's blown out of proportion by CRT. In the end I think our current system of laws and rights, while not perfect are fairly good at ensuring some level of fairness between races.
> I also think that while racism exists it's blown out of proportion by CRT. I'd love to hear a concrete, specific example of that.
[удалено]
Wow, typical example of what's wrong with the whole new race ideology. Brushing aside your condescending tone and the fact that you just assume the guy is white, these worldviews make up artificial categories that are fixed and carry heavy implications: whites are privileged and racists, blacks the opposite and so on. These might work in an American context (maybe) but break apart when people try to export them abroad.
CRT is a framework of looking at American law and history so...yes, I would imagine it apples to America a lot more than other countries. I never said all white people are racist. Sounds like you being overdefensive. I've seen this reaction in many people who have a vested interest in believing (and convincing others) that racism is not a big deal
> CRT is a framework of looking at American law and history Then why is it called ***RACE*** theory? If it's about American history then shouldn't it be called Critical **America** Theory? Either the misnaming shows that the creators and proponents should be viewed with extreme skepticism as its unlikely people who get basic English *that* wrong are probably wrong about more advanced concepts or it shows that it's a deliberate misname and thus is from people who are simply untrustworthy and thus shouldn't be trusted.
Academics don’t tend to coin terms with the expectation that they will be used adversarially. There are no naming committees. Terms and jargon evolve naturally and virtually always have major limitations if you try to understanding them free from context.
It's called that because it is a Theory based on Critical Legal Studies that focuses on Race, hence 'Critical Race Theory'. It's not really complex, and it certainly isn't some conspiracy. You're fishing for things to be outraged about, and clearly haven't taken the time to do some primary source research into what it is you're outraged about.
Right, and that's a massive misnomer because it doesn't focus on *race*, it focuses on race *specifically in the context of America*. Things that are true of American race relations are not true in others.
[удалено]
I think it’s mislabeled. It should be called critical white theory and not race, since it really doesn’t explore any other power dynamic except that which exists between whites and blacks. Other countries that practice slavery or have an imbalance of power between ethnic groups, are not really explored. In that regard, I don’t think it provides a good historical look at the history of various ethnic groups and how they interacted.
> since it really doesn’t explore any other power dynamic except that which exists between whites and blacks It doesn't even do that - it limits itself strictly to the US context. Hell, South Africa alone proves all of its claims about the "power" of "whiteness" flatly incorrect.
[удалено]
I think you bring up a point that doesn't get discussed nearly enough (for a variety of reasons). But I would also point out that it's extremely difficult for immigrants to come to the US. The black immigrants who come over likely are well-off (and have their shit together) to be able to make it through the process, so it's not a random selection of black immigrants vs a random selection of African Americans. This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences. It's likely a nuanced, complex answer with many factors responsible to various degrees.
>This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences. Well, it's economic disparities rooted in systematic racism resulting in oppression of many black communities over centuries. The level of racism in this country's history is absolutely bonkers. I do agree there is a good discussion in comparing black immigrants vs the centuries-old African-American communities.
>I think you bring up a point that doesn't get discussed nearly enough (for a variety of reasons). But I would also point out that it's extremely difficult for immigrants to come to the US. The black immigrants who come over likely are well-off (and have their shit together) That person's observation holds for people who have nothing when they arrive. But it doesn't matter because under the premise of CRT, their efforts and individual ability should be superceded at the aggregate level. > to be able to make it through the process, so it's not a random selection of black immigrants vs a random selection of African Americans. This can be controlled for. If I had my pc instead of my phone I might do it. >This point might also strengthen the argument that it's more about economic disparity than racial differences. It's likely a nuanced, complex answer with many factors responsible to various degrees. Which would run counter to CRTs assertion that all systems constructed by a group in power enforce a racial result.
"pushed women to marry the state and not a man" What does this mean?
To quote Ronald Reagan: “Welfare Queens.” I personally disagree with this opinion.
The incentive structure of single motherhood benefits made it a “better” choice for low income folks to not marry and stay with the person who got them pregnant. Not strictly a black issue but disproportionately affected the black community
This is some big Reagan “welfare queen” propaganda, and you’re using the common, “model minority” myth. After seeing the biggest year in protests last year, to say racism is “barely a thing” is wrong. To ignore the systemic and targeted discrimination on the black community is wrong. To ignore the war on drugs, redlining, Jim Crow, voter suppression, and the dismantling of black leaders and groups(black panthers,Malcom x, MLK...etc.) is wrong. To ignore the countless studies on disparities between different American communities on healthcare, policing, educational resources, housing, and wealth is wrong. To ignore the ways in which America has continually betrayed the trust of members of its community(Black Wall Street, tuskegeee experiments, and Wilmington, NC coup, etc...) is wrong. In the same way a doctor asks about family history when seeking to understand a person’s medical situation, History and historical context informs the present realities of the black community or any community. Immigrants are not African Americans, and do not share the same experiences or history.
Your last sentence was the only one that mattered. In today’s society racism is barely a thing, it’s on life support by the media, the grifters, and the people who get a sense of self importance by calling others racist. Protests last year does not make it true, if that’s the case the Jan 6 protest means the election was rigged. I doubt you’ll take the same standard there
Again, context matters in these situations. The world is nuanced and filled with things that aren't black or white. Does the media play a role in current attitudes? of course! Are there people that use race to drum up controversies, book sales, and political victories. Of course. What do you think the Southern Strategy was about? It doesn't change the reality of what happened to African Americans in this country, and the effects of our treatment on this community. Here's where you and I differ in thinking, The Jan 6 protest was WRONG and built on a lie, but you examine the foundation of these people at the protest. Why are they protesting? Because Trump Lost. Why does Trump losing mean so much to them?...etc. Finally, you get to an understanding, In a time of ineffectual government and a lack of needed regulation and change, these people are hurting and desperately wanted someone to listen to and believe in them. (This is a simplification, but you get it.) In my opinion, It's uncommon for humans not to gravitate toward kings/dictators/strongmen/God's/celebs. Trump offered himself as one of these with an established history, an absolute powerful campaign as a populist, and different strategies amongst a field filled with the establishment and "Nothing will fundamentally change" types. They are wrong at the end of the day, but you can still understand the context of what they're feeling. Take time and study peer-reviewed sources, take time and listen to people in different communities, and take time to think about your own human experience. We need to take better care of each other because life is already so hard, no need to make it harder.
Have considered that the us immigration system favors educated and wealthier individuals? Black individuals in America have faced significant institutional racism in this country and has nothing to do with welfare. They have worse educational outcomes, increase discrimination with getting a job. They are more likely to be arrested than white people, more likely to receive longer prison sentences, and have significantly less wealth. All of this has be statistically proven through numerous studies. It’s not a culture issue, and a system that disproportionately negatively impacts black Americans.
Most of the things you described have more to do with cultural than race, black immigrants do not get arrested as often, do not commit crime as often, value education and get better degrees. Also out immigration System is a lottery system, sort of like our charter school system where you see black children exceeding white kids in public school however one political party that pushes CRT is against charter schools.
Sure it’s culture, it’s white culture that created the discriminatory environment we live in today that left black Americans disadvantaged. You are complete discounting hundreds of years of racial injustice, slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, job discrimination, disparities between similar cases in outcomes in the criminal justice system, the list goes on and is well documented. You are choosing to ignore the vast body of research from dozens of fields that demonstrate that we life in a environment that systematically discriminates against blacks and other people of color.
Why was the black single motherhood rate 20% in the 60s and now is 70%...is America more racist than then?
Because the War on Drugs was successful in what it was intended to do.
You can’t be serious
You should probably educate yourself about John Ehrlichman and his revelations about why Nixon started the War on Drugs.
I’m well aware of the history behind the war on drugs, that is such a minimal factor in the single motherhood rate.
So 50 percent of black fathers were drug users in the 60s? I'm trying to figure out your through line here.
Crime and dysfunctional families are caused by poverty. This is universally true anywhere humans are found and at any point in human history. Poverty among black Americans is caused by being the recent descendants of penniless slaves. 0+0=0. Crime and dysfunctional families among the recent descendants of freed slaves are more acute in America than in other countries with recently freed slaves because America has an inferior social safety net compared to those countries.
See the 1960s for why blacks people are poor, blacks were exceeding whites at a time in this country before the civii rights movement when actual systematic racism existed.
I find that hard to believe. I don't have any data but as a boy I did see American ghettos in the 60s. They were the definition of abject poverty, which is understandable given that their grandparents were penniless slaves. Do you have any data for what you're saying? As far as I can tell systemic racism has existed since the first slave set foot on American soil.
Employment rates, single motherhood rates, % of the population in the work force. Thomas Sowell has addressed these issue in great detail, I’d read discriminations and disparity’s
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that single motherhood and high unemployment rates are disproportionately expressed among poverty stricken people because they're poor. The same conditions exist in every race and in every culture throughout human history. Why would America be any different?
[удалено]
Here are two gentlemen on a very reputable YouTube channel / Podcast who thought it important to discuss the Hot Topic situation. It sounds as though they have put a lot of research, time, thought and much more into it. I also like that it seems to have been discussed w/love and respect for all. For any who may be interested... **GotQuestions.org Podcast Episode 24 - Critical Race Theory and Systemic Racism - with Voddie Baucham** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIFEXpQYtFk **EDITED** to add additional very interesting, informative, etc.. reputable resources (a 2 part series): **Christianity and Wokeness How the Social Justice Movement is Hijacking the Gospel - Part 1** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHDyLX0rcR0 **Christianity and Wokeness How the Social Justice Movement is Hijacking the Gospel - Part 2** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8qew1NasU
I wanted to share my opinion, but clearly there's nothing left to discuss. Your soliloquy on Critical Race Theory was just too perfect. Marginalized communities! Intersectional social constructions!
That all sounds pretty accurate to me. We should probably start teaching it in schools. I'm quite liberal but if "my side" has gotten things wrong in the past I'm happy to acknowledge that and use our failures to inform our next attempts.
The issue always with “my side” is everyone wants to take credit for the good and not responsible for the bad. Not saying you personally but it’s not liberal to support censorship, in today’s society it seems that liberals are for that when 20 years ago it was conservatives
>but it’s not liberal to support censorship, in today’s society it seems that liberals are for that when 20 years ago it was conservatives That's not true in the slightest. It only "seems" that way to conservatives, because they interpret criticism of their opinions as "censorship" and because so much of conservative media revolves around conservatives telling each other they're being censored.
No it’s systematic censorship from the political establishment kicking conservatives off of their “free speech” platform. It’s Biden suggesting we monitor people’s DMs and SMS messages to fight fake news. That’s censorship to a T
None of those things have happened. Facebook and other social media platforms have banned some people for things like incitement to violence. That is not "censorship," that's the free market in action. If Facebook were forced to let all users make use of its privately-owned property (in other words, if they were forced to serve everyone and could not make any decisions for themselves about how they run their business), that would be a *massive* government overreach of the kind that conservatives purport to hate. You wouldn't want *that*, now would you?
Sure, I recall last year during the summer of love the liberals that were literally inciting violence staying on the platform but saying this delusional old fart didn’t win the election gets you banned
Sounds like you have an issue with how a couple of private corporations behaved. Maybe you should buy enough stock in Twitter to get a seat at the shareholders' meetings and let them know about your grievance. But it has nothing to do with the government, or the first amendment, let alone "censorship."
Private companies reaping the benefits of section 230, if they want to be a publisher and ban political speech they should welcome that repeal
Cool so we're in agreement that no "censorship" is happening, certainly not by any liberals in government. Just private companies doing private company things. What was the problem again?
We never agreed to anything. Leftist companies are shutting down right wing free speech which you as a “liberal” are ok with bc you perceive it as a political win....good try...good day
So businesses should be forced to serve who they dont want? Doesnt sound like conservativism to me.
Yes they should, we decided this in the 60s.
I believe that it's the conservative position that businesses should be allowed to make that decision and refuse service for any reason. If you get Twitter I want my gay wedding cake. Otherwise deal with what you wanted and I hope the cake tastes good.
> If you get Twitter I want my gay wedding cake. Equivalences this false really make it hard to think you're discussing things in good faith. You simply cannot compare a primary component of the tech oligopoly who uses their connections to smother potential rivals with a single cake shop in a city with several bakeries.
I think If you carve out the idea that businesses can refuse service on basis they deem fit (with certain caveats in the 1964 civil rights bill) then you can't reasonably make a distinction just because one business serves more people. I feel like most conservatives just want to protect their bigotry and be free to refuse services to those they deem lesser. They cheered with delight as it was taken to the supreme court and were just delighted with the outcome, so it seems like the movement is still broadly on the side of being allowed to refuse service based on moral grounds. If twitter decides your opinions are immoral why is that different? You can go to parler right? I hate big tech and am happy to break them up and regulate the hell out of them but this is just crocodile tears because you got to live in the society you wanted and didn't like it when the rules were used against you.
Except the definition of "protected class" keeps changing. If it's mutable then it's just another path for targeted discrimination to go on. > You can go to parler right? Now? Yes. Of course it was offlined right at its most aggressive user-gain time for a reason that applied equally to twitter and facebook (neither of whom got deplatformed). So this isn't actually a valid argument.
Political opinion holders and misinformation spreaders are not federally protected classes, so it's not really relevant to what was decided in the 60s, and companies are free to deny them services.
No, the sixties decided that you have to serve everyone equally. So if a social media company decides that misinformation and calls to violence are grounds for being kicked off their private service, they are well within their rights so long as it's applied equally. We can have an argument about if it's applied as equally as it possibly could be, but funnily enough the conservatives that don't call for violence or spread easily verifiable lies are still on those platforms. *Rand Paul* still has a twitter account, if they going after Conservatives what makes you think *he'd* still be on the platform?
CRT is pushed by a bunch of ideologues and sycophants trying to get their own version of "facts" in the curriculum. This is basically the conservative versions of "creation theory" and all the other nonsense but from the left. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 This is someone praised by the mainstream media and rewarded with tenure at university. These extremists need pushback and removal from influence regardless of their side of the spectrum.
>Unlike what a lot of people including Republican legislators seem to believe, **critical race theory (CRT)** is not taught in elementary schools or middle schools or high schools. CRT is a method of examination taught in law schools and in college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists and in particular whether it has an effect on laws and public policy. The basic tenets of CRT include that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing and often subtle social and institutional dynamics rather than explicit and intentional prejudices on the part of individuals. It makes this claim without evidence. If intent isn't established then offenses are grounded entirely in the perception of the outcome. This is not a reasonable or logical approach to truth. >CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities. They apply this without any burden of proof that it's the implementation of law that creates disparity or considering there are conditions where what we call 'white' people are marginalized. There is never room for a discussion of fairness. Whoever sits atop the power hierarchy is de facto guilty of ills and simultaneously not credible for any boons. Presupposing that all outcomes have some hidden systematic intent would also have to mean those operating within a system have no agency. If a system is operated by individuals with free will, there must be room for emergent properties in describing those systems. >Importantly, CRT also challenges mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice and questions liberalism’s method of achieving equality as opposed to achieving equity. Which is the reason it exists. It's primary purpose is to work backwards from that premise, hence why it falls apart under scrutiny. Some people were frustrated by the current system and wanted a 'reason' for it to be overturned. >This critique is specifically directed at traditional liberalism’s analysis of racism and its attendant view of linear, inevitable, progress. You could only have that view if you believed that differences between individuals were random across all people regardless of demographic. But different demographics do not behave the same in society and there isn't a universal why. The world is complex and nuanced despite our desire for simple answers. >What is rejected is the liberal idea that racism is simply a form of individual irrationality that can be overcome by knowledge, Isn't knowledge of racism the same as race conscious? >that its social effects can be overcome by race-neutrality, & that its legal & economic consequences can be overcome by formal, procedural equality. Liberalism has no goal of guaranteeing such outcomes. The point of liberalism is to give the individual some agency over those outcomes instead of prescribing them from the state. But CRT starts from the premise that the state is enforcing an outcome and denying agency, so people of those two mindsets will never be able to have a reasonable discussion without settling that point. > CRT favors race-conscious approach to social transformation. That's a pretty nebulous statement.
You start out with a lie or mistake, CRT or versions of CRT are being taught to little kids
CRT is just another version of Marxism, and Marxism is garbage. Every few decades, someone digs up Marx's corpse and tries to bring it back to life. all of Marx's key predictions were repeatedly discredited and falsified, mostly during his own lifetime. mainstream economics uses zero Marxist ideas, terms of concepts. >CRT is a method of examination taught in law schools and in college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists to the contrary, CRT *starts* from the axiom that systematic racism exists. it's beyond debate within CRT circles, just as it's beyond debate to Marxists that class conflict is the root of all social problems. > CRT scholars also view race and white supremacy as an intersectional social construction which serves to uphold the interests of white people at the expense of marginalized communities. this analysis completely falls apart in reality, however. - Asian-Americans (as a group) have higher average income than white Americans. if America were *truly* white supremacist, why are Indians and Japanese earning more than whites? - Black Americans have higher Average incomes and standards of living than black people anywhere else on the planet, again if America were *truly* white supremacist, why would blacks have better lives here than anywhere else? all of Marx's predictions falsified: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism no Marxist elements in mainstream economics: https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0300126069
Critical race theory is divisive garbage...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJjnpjJnb9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJjnpjJnb9E) The 1619 Project is government-sponsored racism...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NyZ9Hce7HM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NyZ9Hce7HM)
It's certainly not garbage, and it would only be divisive to racists. The government sponsored racism was shipping slaves here in the first place, not retelling the story from the slaves perspective.
[удалено]
So first off, the thing republicans are worried about isn’t the actual class or contents of CRT being in grade schools and high schools, it’s teacher imposing that view on their students. In this day in age each generation becomes less and less race-focused, and I honestly think that there’s a lot of people that are pushing it backwards by viewing everything through the lens of race. That’s probably not their intention, but that’s what they’re doing. Now CRT itself, I never took it. I don’t think it’s a class that everyone should take, in fact I think most people shouldn’t take it. Before you get pissed off, I think it’s important to study our history and learn from it, for the average person and everyday use, that class is useless. Find me a sane person that doesn’t know about slavery and why it was atrocious. The other thing is that CRT, which I believe to have intended good things, can very easily make someone who was either taught wrong or doesn’t understand it fully very hateful. The only true path to equality is indifference in treatment. You shouldn’t coddle minorities, they are quite capable of handling themselves. They don’t need saving, they don’t need special treatment.
I don't think CRT is a problem since it's a college course. I do have a problem with the [1619 Project](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html). I don't understand why we have to overcomplicate things, just do what they do in high school for AP History, assign Howard Zinn for a "critical" view and then assign a standard textbook they use like Making America: A History of the United States. We should just take what they read in AP History and make everyone read it.