74x12
Well-Known Member
Not always.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Critical Race Theory?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
74x12
Well-Known Member
Only talking about something someone came up with 40 years ago and saying that's all critical race theory is now is like using only Darwin's Origin of species to learn about the theory of evolution.
So much has been added on to critical race theory since then.
Augustus
…
Are progressives looking at objective and reputable references or just assuming anything "antiracist" must be noble?
What does CRT "intend to teach" ?
There is no real answer to that question as it covers a broad range of ideas that span from perfectly reasonable to the extremely ideological.
I'm sure the average person would find things they agree with and things they reject, but one side assumes it is all good and anyone who objects at all must be a "stupid far right racist" and the other side focuses only on the crazier ideas and assumes anyone advocating CRT is an anti-white leftist fanatic.
It tends not to be an honest and informed discussion from either perspective.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Gosh, the choice of name for that theoretical perspective is rather misgiving, is it not…?
But yes, after reading description of framework, I do think it’s relevant and - as everything aimed at addressing and minimising discrimination - important.
Humbly
Hermit
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. The Republicans were the ones who wanted to end slavery. The South, which was controlled by the Democrat party, wanted to maintain slavery and expand it onto new areas of the US. The South was more about farming and slaves were an important part of their labor force. The North was more about manufacturing where migrate labor was used.
When the Democrats did not get their way and the Emancipation Proclamation was signed into law, they tried to divide the country, leading to the Civil War. Division has been the Democrat trademark for centuries, with racism a subset of their philosophy of division. There are other ways they divide people; fake news, censorship and false accusations, such as Russian Collusion.
When the Democrat Party lost the Civil war, what should have happened is the Democrat party should have been dissolved, like the Nazi party was after WWII. Instead, as a show of good will, the Democrat party maintained a high level of power in the national government. If Germany had retained the NAZI party after WWII do you think old habits would have ended? In terms of the defeated Democrats, with a strong foothold onto power, the South tried to rise again; slavery by proxy, by using legal means to undermine the intent of the Emancipation. They came up with legal schemes, that led to segregation and Jim Crow laws.
The Democrats party even developed the original ANTIFA and BLM, called the KKK. The KKK was considered legitimate by the Democrat party, but it was their militant wing used to create chaos and fear. If you went south, early last century, black and whites were segregated by race, and not by the content of character. With the Democrat party strong throughout America, this type of behavior also spread, especially in Democrat northern strongholds.
In modern times, it is not coincidental that the cities that have all the racial riots in the US, where racial tension is highest, are run by the Democrats. The systemic racism we still have in Democrat run cities and states, came from the original party of racism; Democrat. They then try to blame everyone but themselves. If we want to tear down monuments to the Civil War veterans; Democrats, connected to slavery, the Democrat party is one such symbolic monument, that also needs to go, so it can become reborn without any sentimental ties to its racist glory days.
In terms of slavery in America, some blacks from the past also need to accept responsibility. When America was starting out, slavery was very common among blacks in northern Africa. Rival tribes would fight and the winner would enslave the weaker tribes. One such strong tribe had ambitions for even greater territory. They made a deal with the Dutch to trade guns for their excess slaves, since they were overflowing at the seams with conquered slaves, but they needed guns to fight their bigger adversaries. This began the slave trade, with the slaves compliant due to spoils of war.
The Critical race theory is just a theory, since it ignores the contributions of the Democrats and the Black African War Lords, in terms of setting the stone of racism in place. It tries to start the discussion at times in history that shield the truth about their culpability. It is more like a Democrat propaganda and indoctrination scam, that is already dividing the country, due to lack of openness with all the facts; half truths create doubt and obsession.
Last edited:
Is Critical Race Theory a conclusion or an academic field of study that is a subset of larger fields of study? From what I can tell, Critical Race Theory appears to be a field of study that emerged from Critical Legal Studies.
If Critical Race Theory is an field or area of academic study, I would rephrase the question posed in the OP. I would have asked:
"Do the academic questions being raised or asked in Critical Race Theory have merit or value in their being asked, or should the very asking of those questions be banned and outlawed?"
I get the impression from some of the comments on this topic that to say Critical Race Theory has merit is equivalent to saying any and every conclusion draw by those studying Critical Race Theory has merit. This is never the case ... no matter the academic topic.
To outlaw or ban the exploration of the questions raised in Critical Race Theory would be antithetical to the principles upon which this country was founded. It would be down-right un-American.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Could you give some examples of "extremely ideological" ideas that come from CRT?
I think most Americans know the history of their own nation, and most people know that we have a history of racism in this country. Most people know that race-based slavery existed and that there was westward expansion of white settlers displacing (or some cases eliminating altogether) the indigenous societies which previously existed. Most people also know about the cause of Abolition and the Civil War which was fought to end slavery, yet it did not end racism, as such practices continued even after the Civil War and even after it was racial equality was officially codified into law (as noted in the 14th and 15th amendments). The practice of "Separate But Equal" still remained, which is how America had Jim Crow laws, redlining, forced segregation of schools, and other racist policies which would subsequently be outlawed during the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s.
From what I'm able to gather about Critical Race Theory, it appears to be focused on the psychological and sociological effects of centuries of racism on people's perceptions and that of our ruling institutions. It seems to suggest that societal influences from top to bottom subtly manipulate people's views and perceptions towards a more racist view, albeit more passive and subconscious - not the overt, official racism which existed in previous eras. It would appear that CRT tends to focus more on psychological effects, not so much on actual laws or politics.
CRT might also be an attempt to explain why, some 60 years after the Civil Rights movement reached its peak, we still have racial disparities in this country, along with incidents which would indicate continued systemic racism in society. Have we made no progress at all in the past half century? Apparently not.
Sometimes, it comes off as conspiratorial, suggesting that there's some secret cabal of powerful white people setting it up and manipulating society to be racist - even while using language and supporting policies which appear non-racist on the surface. It would suggest that polite white society wants to appear decent, just, liberal, and anti-racist - yet covertly racist underneath the surface, perhaps consciously or sub-consciously.
I would also wonder if CRT puts any emphasis on the origins and sources of racism in the United States. That seems to be part of the problem. In order to resolve a problem, one needs to examine the source of the problem, where it originally came from, and why. Did the nobles and aristocrats of Europe in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries come up with some secret plan to colonize the world and subjugate all the peoples of color so that white supremacy could reign? Was that what the early explorers and colonizers were thinking as they embarked on their swashbuckling adventures? Or was it more a matter of capitalists wanting to make as much short-term profit as possible, without any elaborate grand plan which would go on for centuries?
That is too long ago, but going back even before it the Republican party was basically the reformed Whig party which dominated the industrial northern states. The Whigs were not against slavery but were against having new slave states. Abraham Lincoln did form the Republicans out of the original Whigs. Now the KKK is part of Jim Crow, a movement founded in fear of blacks. Along with it were curfews and other rules about freed black skinned people. It is a shame and an atrocity: a shadow government that reflects how people thought at the time.
This all changes decades later when the Democrats have a shift in membership. I think many people flag this shift around the time that Strom Thurmond switches parties to help Barry Goldwater. A lot of those who were Republican and Democrat switched places. The original parties then held no Historic character.
The division of the country results not from a conspiracy but from the statistical nature of our winner take all elections. The real conspiracy -- the secret conspiracy which is a wonder -- is that we continue to have two parties and not one. Many times this almost failed, but members loyal to the nation have purposely kept the parties twinned.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
CRT certainly has its merits. It is pretty obvious that racism is the result of social indoctrination and therefore a social construct. Modern racism is pretty illogical as well, since there is no such thing as black and white people in the literal sense. Everybody classified as black is just light to dark brown for example. The bad logic of racism is proof of its social construction.
Obviously, as with all ideas (I think) that have to do with society and ideology, it has its flaws. And with many ideas you have those who are emotionally involved and do not study the actual intellectual theory behind it and misrepresent it in a distasteful manner. Learn about it from the academics and not the laymen.
Obviously it makes sense to have some people studying where our racism originates. I'm not sure what exactly is being discussed about classrooms. I regret that we are hearing about this from news agencies that profit from divisive speech. I hope they all go bankrupt.
What matters is how things are taught and whether teachers should be trusted. I think they should be trusted, and I think teachers ought to have more leeway to teach in the way that they are most capable. Because of that I'm wary of the restrictions of the Trump administration, however I'm also against a lot of the requirements from the bureaucratic teacher's unions and school superintendents. They tend to try to force teachers through new teaching paradigms every few years. When I was in public high school I remember being in some classes that were just monkey rooms. The teacher was constantly failing to control the class. I think this was because the school was afraid of lawsuits if it used any discipline. Shame.
Public schools don't cover teacher's backs or protect teachers well enough from silly lawsuits. Crazy parents get to chew teachers out, sue schools over nonsense. Students are permitted to behave badly, and teachers are expected to handle student behavior through creative supportive psychology. This is bad for education. In general teachers deal with a lot more frustration than is necessary, and students suffer for it. Negligent parents are given too much leeway.
I'm one of those who doesn't like the new nationwide teaching system required of public schools. I don't like how they're teaching Math, and I don't like the secrecy required. With a nationwide system there is a risk that someone can start selling test material, so then parents aren't allowed to see a lot of material. This is not good.
From this comes the real problem. The real problem is we can't trust our education system. Therefore the divisive news agencies are able to preach fear to us over any tiny thing.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
This is all so factually inaccurate and a gross oversimplification, written from the position of what equates to little more than modern Republican apologetics.
Racism in American Politics had/has much more to do with regional upbringing and association than Party. Your argument is evidence of the LONG history of inequality and imbalance in the American socio-political landscape that I would imagine you're trying to pretend doesn't even exist, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../15/how-social-media-spread-a-historical-lie/
PolitiFact - No, the Democratic Party didn’t create the Ku Klux Klan
Minorities and Reconstructive Coalitions
KU KLUX KLAN: Kleveland Konvention
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Moral posturing, rejecting inconvenient facts, and misleading readers does more to promote division than either Party could ever dream.
One massive problem with all of this. The Democratic party of the South, became the Republican Party of the North. So the "good guys" were the Republicans of the North, but now it's the other way around.
Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Several prominent conservative Democrats switched parties to become Republicans, including Strom Thurmond, John Connally and Mills E. Godwin Jr.[12
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia
Don't be fooled by the name. Look at what they embrace. "By their fruits you shall know them". Those who embrace White Supremacy, can't whitewash that tomb with a respectable name and call themselves the "party of Lincoln" while they espouse the opposite of what Lincoln did. In today's currency, Lincoln would have been considered a left wing Democrat.
It's like calling Trump a true Christian, where he is the antithesis of Jesus and what he taught and did. The Democrats embrace what Lincoln did by a longshot more than today's republicans do. Republicans flying the Confederate flag???
Last edited:
Actually there are very good resources that explain this. We can look at the academics themselves and see what they teach.
What is notable is that some black scholars and activists are very passionate about racism and do say things that white people will not understand or feel comfortable hearing. This doesn't mean their perspectives are accurate or true, but it is their voices about their experiences in a nation that has a great deal of irony in how it advocates for freedom.
Conservatives are having the biggest problem with black voices, but that's tough **** and their problem. Trying to silence the voices, or limit their freedom to speak, or cancelling them, is more of the irony of the evolving conservative narrative these days. Conservatives really can't cope with diversity or diverse voices that challenge their idealistic and narrow view of how things should be.
LOL, how does that not apply to most everything in social life? Do you support the banning of CRT because conservatives don't like it? Is that freedom? Why don't conservatives study CRT and objectively offer a counter narrative instead of bans?
Black activists will surely not consider the far rights view of racism as honest, and the far right will certainly not consider what black activists work for as necessary or honest. Those fighting for freedom tend to have the better case in any argument, and in the USA we see daily stories about how black people face ongoing discrimination. Banning the voices of that history is how conservatives respond, not acknowledging there is still a problem, and that is why the right fails.
Critical thinking spawned Critical Race Theory, which begs the question: what spawned your expected opposition?
Back then the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative.
The conservatives did not like the equality movement, the liberals did, and that continues today. Conservatives oppose freedom for marginalized groups while liberals advocate for freedom of all groups. Look at gay rights, conservatives have opposed it. Look at religious freedom, conservatives oppose any religious views that aren't Christian. That indicates intolerance.
The Confederate States of America lost the Civil War. The USA won. If you cannot get basic history correct should we trust your assessment of CRT?
Perhaps the GOP should be dissolved given it's support of trump and his massive corruption, especially related to the January 6th attack on Congress.
Classic conservative disinformation.
While true is doe not absolve the blame for conservative Americans how fought for slavery and continue to hold racist views of black people.
"Just a theory", which is how some conservatives refer to evolution as a cheap and superficial ploy to imply it's wrong.
Don't forget the enslavement of Africans was a global phenomenon, and the USA was among the last of major nations to abolish the act. And let's not forget the Democrats were the conservatives in the 1850''s.[/quote]
I would also attribute some of the Democratic shift to what was going on in the North. The Republicans in the North were indeed anti-slavery, but not necessarily anti-racist. The power base was in the industrialists and westward expansionists who wanted more railroads, mining, and other development in the West, while being very staunchly anti-union and anti-labor.
The common workers in the North, along with huge waves of immigrants who came to work in factories, mines, railroads, etc., could not see much they could identify with in the pro-business, pro-corporate, pro-monopoly, anti-labor philosophy of the Republican Party. The Northern Democrats tended to support more liberal policies which eventually developed into them being thought of as the "party of the working man."
It might have been represented in politicians such as Woodrow Wilson, who was a Southern white racist, yet also supported liberal social programs and a better standard of living with his New Freedom platform. FDR pushed the Democratic liberal social agenda even further with his New Deal, and this is what turned the tide of national public opinion more in favor of the Democrats over the Republicans, who were mostly blamed for the Great Depression. This was also a turning point in civil rights, as FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were supporters of racial equality.
As there was a rise in liberal and working class Democrats nationwide, this eventually eclipsed the hold on power Republicans once had. Moreover, the number of liberal, progressive, and/or anti-racist Democrats started to outnumber the racist Dixiecrats, as they were called. The Democrats continued to enjoy widespread support among labor unions and other working people's concerns, while the Republicans were in a state of transition, as there were still some old guard isolationists and hardcore paleo-conservatives in the party.
Nixon, Eisenhower, Lodge, Dewey and others seemed to be moving away from religious-based isolationism, and more towards international corporatism, while still continuing to appeal to ideas of patriotism and family values. Anti-communism was a unifying influence, as the Cold War imposed a strong sense of national security and patriotism upon the masses, and there was a strong push towards all citizens being patriotic for America, regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin.
Even in the South, they claimed that they weren't against anyone for their race or the color of their skin - they're just against communists trying to rile people up. At least, that's what they often said, even if most people see it as being disingenuous and cynical. J. Edgar Hoover (another staunch Republican) put surveillance on Martin Luther King, ostensibly because he was deemed a communist or associated with communists. Hoover could argue that the surveillance on MLK had nothing to do with his race whatsoever.
By that time, no one could truly argue for any kind of overt racist policy and expect to be taken seriously on the world stage. Whatever "science" was used to support racism had been overwhelmingly debunked. Our own Constitution states that all citizens guaranteed equal protection of the law, and we were also signatories to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It took a war of over 50 million dead before the world could learn some kind of lesson from it, but many realized that we had to change the way we had been doing things.
Augustus
…
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
I will focus on Whiteness as a condition one first acquires and then has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensities, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure...
Whiteness, taking this injunction as its own, transforms it into an epistemology of entitled dominion, a mode of coming-to-know in which identity and entitlement are fused. We are licensed at birth, and therefore entitled, to find, capture, dissect, and overpower our targeted objects. As such, we will finally come to know and take dominion over them. Within the terms of the epistemology of entitled dominion knowledge becomes both a sign of superiority and an instrument of power. The steps from knowledge to dominion are clear. The more We know, then, the more We can do; the more We can do, the more We can control; the more We can control, the more We can dominate; and finally, the more We can dominate, the more We are realizing our divine mandate to “have dominion . . . over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Triumphantly submitting to this mandate, Whiteness pursues a utopia of permanent satisfaction and assigns to nonwhite peoples the task of being its ideal, infinitely need-satisfying object, there to service its voracious, and uncheckable, appetites.
When I was in school, most of the daily routine involved the standard 3 R's, in one variation or another - along with some social studies and science. But every so often, there would be special lessons that didn't seem to be part of the regular text or anything the teacher might have prepared. Sometimes it was "anti-drug education" or someone from the local police department to lecture the class about safety. I remember a few times when all the boys had to go into one classroom and all the girls went into another classroom - for sex education, but I guess they were watching different films.
Cheech and Chong had done parodies of "anti-drug education" in the caricature of "Sergeant Stadanko." The kids just rolled their eyes at the presentation and consider it to be a big joke. And of course, all those sex ed classes were nothing but giggle-fests, so I'm not sure how much anyone actually learned. Probably not much, considering all the misinformation which still floats around out there.
I don't think it's that people don't trust the teachers, but if it's something that's being required to be taught as a separate, formal course, then it might be perceived cynically by the students and the general public.
This seems to be somewhat unique to American culture. I've noticed that in some European and Asian cultures, the job of teacher is given a great deal more respect than what we generally see here in America. I remember reading about some Russian schools, and all the parents were required to show up on open house night. The teachers would then give a strong public rebuke to the parents of students who were underperforming or doing poorly in school. Their schools were tough. They didn't tolerate any misbehavior or disrespect. Very strict discipline. I've heard similar things about Chinese and Japanese schools as well.
I'm not sure if this is motivated by any desire to improve the education system. It could be that, but very often, I've noticed that the educational system is unfairly used as some kind of political football field for adults to hash out their political differences using schoolchildren as pawns and guinea pigs.