Critical Race Theory?

[epronovost]

Yes, this is something I've heard recently as a new part of the narrative, which is definitely a profound change from earlier times (1960s and 70s) when a color blind society was encouraged. I'm not sure when this reversal took place or what the reason for it was, but this is definitely an aspect which requires greater explanation, elaboration, and justification.

In order for racism to end, there absolutely must be a color blind society based on the principle that all humans are equal and must be treated the same. Anything else is an attempt to put the cart before the horse.

Except if you have a "color blind society" before the end of racism, how will you know racism is gone? You won't be able to see it anymore, but that doesn't mean racist people are just lying to you when they say "I don't judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their heart". A promise without oversight is heading straight for failure. That's even before going into the minefield of what a color blind society actually means. Race and ethnicity isn't just a skin color. It's also contains cultural expression. Your average racist towards black people hate African Americans name, their music and their particular way of speaking and dressing up, not just their color or supposed genetic inferiority.

 

[George-ananda]

I have heard this before, but its a bad example. They are genetically very mixed. An ethnic group yes but a genetic group no. The way they rear their kids is different, and this explains things well enough.

There are some good examples of genetic specialization in island humans. For example one group has better eyesight under water than people from anywhere else in the world. It helps them, because they have a lot of aquatic activities.

Differences among human groups are slight differences, so I don't see any solid case for separate races. I see one human race currently. That could change, but for now we are all one genetic group.

I understand everything like Ashkenazi Jews are a complicated subject but to my reasoning the fact of disproportionate high intelligence requires an explanation that cultural differences alone can not satisfactorily explain. Genetic differences also seem to be at play here. Heredity and environment can't be perfectly separated in human populations, so reasoning skills are our best tools.

I understand why people dislike genetics as a factor in intelligence and behavior but 'it is what it is' even though we are enculturated to not believe that. And I even further understand why people dislike the idea that Bell Curves with different center points can be found among so-called ethnic groups or races. It's not pretty but true to an extent and I'd rather face the truth than a pretty lie.

I prefer the word 'ethnicity' to race in these discussions as it implies a more complicated picture.

 

[F1fan]

I didn’t necessarily refer to Republicans or Democrats, rather conservatives and liberals. I realize there’s a lot of overlap, but not all conservatives are Republicans, they may be Independents or Libertarians. Anyway, it seems like more women and people of color are switching over to Republican , so I expect we’ll continue to see diversity increase.

Nice attempt at a save.

There are more in the categories Independent and Libertarian because Republican as a category is less attractive in the trump era.

But my point is conservatism is not attracting diversity. Yes there are a few anomalies that a few posters have used as examples of diversity, but when only about 15% of black citizens vote Republican it indicates a serious policy problem.

 

[epronovost]

I understand everything like Ashkenazi Jews are a complicated subject but to my reasoning the fact of disproportionate high intelligence requires an explanation that cultural differences alone can not satisfactorily explain.

Why? Based on what? That assertion seems to quoted as gospel based on nothing tangible.

Genetic differences also seem to be at play here. Heredity and environment can't be perfectly separated in human populations, so reasoning skills are our best tools.

Actually yes we can in many instances. That's the difference between the field of genetics and epigenetics, between gene sequencing and gene expression.

 

[Stevicus]

Except if you have a "color blind society" before the end of racism, how will you know racism is gone?

I don't think it will ever be totally eradicated, but if you're suggesting that every single person in society must have a pure heart before we declare that racism is gone, then that's an impossible dream.

What we can do, though, is publicly criticize and eliminate the ideological basis for its existence (which means encouraging a color-blind society). By continuing to categorize and divide people by race, we are maintaining the ideological basis for racism. That's why it doesn't seem to be going away, even though it's been almost 60 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, whose very passage would indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens are/were against racism.

You won't be able to see it anymore, but that doesn't mean racist people are just lying to you when they say "I don't judge people by the color of their skin, but by the content of their heart". A promise without oversight is heading straight for failure.

Oversight by whom? We have the EEOC, the US Commission on Civil Rights, and various other state and local agencies. Even most private corporations and other institutions have some sort of policy or department dedicated to ensuring equal opportunity, affirmative action, and other means of oversight - to make sure the promise is kept. We've had some form of anti-racist education going back to even when I was in school. What people are criticizing as "CRT" is just more of the same of what we've already had for decades.

As with anything, it's hard to gauge just how much of it was truly genuine and sincere, versus those who have been more cynical and mendacious about it. They may be lying and putting on a pretense just for the sake of political expediency.

The only real practical question to ask at this point is, does it even work? Has it had any effect on reducing racism in our society? From what I'm able to gather from reading opinions and articles on the subject, it appears to have had just the opposite effect. So, perhaps it's time to consider different strategies.

That's even before going into the minefield of what a color blind society actually means. Race and ethnicity isn't just a skin color. It's also contains cultural expression. Your average racist towards black people hate African Americans name, their music and their particular way of speaking and dressing up, not just their color or supposed genetic inferiority.

I would say that race is mainly about skin color, at least when applied in the context of U.S. history. Sure, there are cultural variations one can discern, although there are also many similarities. I recall listening to how Southern white racists and their apologists would talk about how there were two distinct "cultures" in the South - a white culture and a black culture. But when you really stop to look at both cultures, they're really a lot more alike than they are different. This might be why racism has been viewed as the more significant problem, whereas culturalism is viewed differently.

There is a history of that as well. The idea of forced assimilation into the amalgamated "WASP-ish" culture which was prevalent in America. There was a resurgence in patriotism after the Civil War which lasted for decades, and with the passage of the 14th amendment, which further defined U.S. citizenship, there grew this idea that anyone who is a U.S. citizen should be an American. For many, this meant giving up their old ways, the culture of the old country, learning the language, and (in many cases) even changing their names (as my ancestors did). Henry Ford even set up immigrant schools so his newly-arrived workers from other countries could learn how to become good, loyal, patriotic Americans. But this was coupled with other sad chapters in our history, such as sending Native American children to the "Indian schools" where they were subject to racist abuse and forced to assimilate to the white man's culture. At the time, it was considered the "white man's burden," which itself is a racist idea, but even that would have been considered better than killing them outright or enslaving them - which many people still wanted to do. Even "separate but equal" would have been considered relative progress compared to what had been going on 30-50 years earlier.

So, given the history, it's perfectly understandable that there would be a great deal of opposition and resistance to the idea of assimilation, which is why multiculturalism became highly favored and openly rejected any attempts at assimilation. This was one of the reasons many supported bilingual education and other multilingual policies. There was once a time when children from Spanish-speaking households were subjected to corporal punishment if they were caught speaking Spanish in school.

So, there grew a reaction against this kind of thing. People started reasserting their cultural roots. There is noticeable resistance to the idea of being amalgamated or assimilated into the WASPish culture which has been predominant.

However, I don't see that anti-racism and multiculturalism are necessarily one and the same. They're often associated with each other, but technically speaking, they are separate and distinct political objectives. In some cases, they may even contradict each other. That's the puzzle that society will ultimately have to resolve.

 

[George-ananda]

Strange considering Ashkenazi Jews aren't actually more gifted than any other group once one controls for education, socio-economical status and health. In other words, they are pretty much average bloke with a group of them finding themselves at the cornerstone of history giving themselves an excellent edge for academic success. The only "genetic" marker that has tenuous link to possible higher intelligence is the fact Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to carry a hereditary disease which might cause a mutation which would be beneficial for intelligence though evidence for the link between the disease and higher intelligence is scant at best and the disease itself rare amongst Ashkenazi Jews though less rare than in other ethnic groups. Even if it were completely true, it would still be a spotlight fallacy to declare Ashkenazi more intelligent due to that fact. Deriving judgement from statistical average with widdely swinging variable that aren't uniformaly distributed is duplicitous.

The fact that intelligence itself is hard to pin down is also a big problem. The only workable and well known metric of it is the IQ and the IQ measurements themselves aren't all that accurate, especially in older data since IQ tests were refined tremendously in the last 30 years. It also ignores completely the domain of epigenetic in the development of humans which is an enormous problem in and itself. Even if you could demonstrate that you were "born smart", it would not necessarily be due to your genes and thus your ethnic background. It could be down to your physical environment while in utero and during the early childhood.

I have heard and considered all that before I spoke. I think it is a best but insufficient attempt at an explain-away of things some people are uncomfortable with. I believe not currently well understood genetics are a factor after listening to both sides of the debate for decades.

 

[George-ananda]

Why? Based on what? That assertion seems to quoted as gospel based on nothing tangible.



Actually yes we can in many instances. That's the difference between the field of genetics and epigenetics, between gene sequencing and gene expression.

Well I can point to works like The Bell Curve that I am sure you will claim discredited and I say 'makes the most honest sense'. And there it sits.

 

[epronovost]

I have heard and considered all that before I spoke. I think it is a best but insufficient attempt at an explain-away of things some people are uncomfortable with. I believe not currently well understood genetics are a factor after listening to both sides of the debate for decades.

I know this is your position. You already stated it before. I would like your arguments in favor of that position.

 

[epronovost]

Well I can point to works like The Bell Curve that I am sure you will claim discredited and I say 'makes the most honest sense'. And there it sits.

Why do you think a book that never passed peer review, which was published in 1994 (that's a long time ago when it comes social sciences before the two most recent surge for greater reliability in 2003 and 2011), published 10 years prior to the completion of the human genome project, using old statistic derived from IQ and published by a racialist think tank (so not a neutral third party) is better than more modern explanations on this phenomenon that use much more sophisticated IQ measurements and with more abundant data? Why do you think this work is the best, albeit flawed, work there is available on that subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There may be plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Trump, but why do you feel the need to repeat a falsehood that the media created, which has since been thoroughly debunked? As well as, stereotype and slander all evangelical Christians?

Because we all heard him say it.

 

[metis]

Kind of reminds me of Biden and too many other liberal Democrats who consider Black people inferior and incapable of accomplishing anything without their help or direction.

Where in the world did you get that from? Numerous studies have shown that racism is higher with those on the right v the left, and Trump was and is an out-and-out racist, for just one example.

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

 

[Brickjectivity]

I understand everything like Ashkenazi Jews are a complicated subject but to my reasoning the fact of disproportionate high intelligence requires an explanation that cultural differences alone can not satisfactorily explain. Genetic differences also seem to be at play here. Heredity and environment can't be perfectly separated in human populations, so reasoning skills are our best tools.

Disproportionate achievement can be attributed to cultural differences. For example suppose you raise two kids, teach one to read and lock them up with books, teach the other to watch TV and lock them up with a TV. One of them will be more likely to have intellectual achievements. The ashkenazis are forced to stay on their toes, every now and then having to abandon their homes, migrate. They have to learn multiple languages, stay very business savvy and technologically aware. The other thing is that they are mudbloods just like the British or many other highly mixed groups. How would we even begin to determine which genes caused higher achievements?

I understand why people dislike genetics as a factor in intelligence and behavior but 'it is what it is' even though we are enculturated to not believe that. And I even further understand why people dislike the idea that Bell Curves with different center points can be found among so-called ethnic groups or races. It's not pretty but true to an extent and I'd rather face the truth than a pretty lie.

I don't. I love genetics. I want people to genetically engineer humans that can live without taking vitamin supplements, that don't get flabby when we rest, that don't lose muscle tone or bone density when we are ill. I'd want to enhance people so that we can all sing well, all see clearly up until the end of our lives. I'm all for genetics. I'd also make us reproduce less frequently and much later in life, such as in our 60's. I've no trouble seeing the potential that genetics hold, despite the dangers.

I prefer the word 'ethnicity' to race in these discussions as it implies a more complicated picture.

I often do but not when the question of genetics arises, because when it comes to Jews or Christians or Muslims genetic diversity is a separate thread from ethnicity.

 

[metis]

Where in the world did you get that from? Numerous studies have shown that racism is higher with those on the right v the left, and Trump was and is an out-and-out racist, for just one example.

Racial views of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

BTW, your post above one of the most nonsensical posts I've seen in quite a while as it's a totally bizarre non-sequitur. Just because someone is trying to help others in need whom may not be White doesn't make them a "racist".

 

[epronovost]

What we can do, though, is publicly criticize and eliminate the ideological basis for its existence (which means encouraging a color-blind society). By continuing to categorize and divide people by race, we are maintaining the ideological basis for racism. That's why it doesn't seem to be going away, even though it's been almost 60 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, whose very passage would indicate that the majority of U.S. citizens are/were against racism.

We both know and agree racism will never completely disapear nor is racism now the same as a 100 years in the past both in terms of occurance, but also in terms of style.

Here's one problem linked to those facts. Let's say the government stops making race a category in survey questions as do all other large database with raw informations since that would be maintaining the ideological basis of racism. How will we know if there is no discrimination based on race? How will we know if there isn't a resurgence? Now its going to be the personnal experience of one against the others. If you are blind to people race's, even if you are not racist yourself, how would you be able to notice trends like hate crimes on the rise? It's not like racist people aren't prone to dismiss or reject accusation of racism against themselves. How would we deal with stereotypes or unconscious bias? How would you make a racist person, who is in denial of their racism, realise that what they are doing is racist. These people are ''color blind'' or at least believe they are strongly, but they are not. Talks of ''color blind'' society, in my opinion, occult the fact that racism, like all forms of bigotry, is a complex social and psychological phenomenon. Hell, since systemic racism is a thing, you might not even need racist people to produce racist effect if only they follow institutional rules that were design by and for racist purposes.

A society without racism is an ideal, a nirvana, but its not realist. People in the foreseable future will have ''racial/ethnic identity'' if only because these are associated with a history, a culture and communities. Saying that people should not hold stock on such identity and just be ''human beings'' or ''insert wider national identity here''. My question is how do we make people holding all the social identity they want and feel necessary without them comming into direct conflict over differences in social identity which are as inevitable as differences in beliefs, taste and opinions.

 

[Kooky]

Kind of reminds me of Biden and too many other liberal Democrats who consider Black people inferior and incapable of accomplishing anything without their help or direction.

Now things may be different in the US, but where I live, nobody who qualifies for welfare benefits is actually forced or even required to take that help. In fact, there is usually the opposite problem of people not applying for these benefits even though they would qualify for them (which once included yours truly), due to a wide range of reasons including ignorance and pride.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, this is something I've heard recently as a new part of the narrative, which is definitely a profound change from earlier times (1960s and 70s) when a color blind society was encouraged. I'm not sure when this reversal took place or what the reason for it was, but this is definitely an aspect which requires greater explanation, elaboration, and justification.

In order for racism to end, there absolutely must be a color blind society based on the principle that all humans are equal and must be treated the same. Anything else is an attempt to put the cart before the horse.

There are plenty of visible distinctions between humans that don't result in discrimination - hair color, eye color, freckles etc. So evidently, humans are very capable of recognizing visual differences without immediately using them as justification of oppression. Clearly, the problem here is not the existence of readily identifiable superficial difference among individuals.

As for MLK, first of all, he's been dead for over 50 years now and society has changed in those intervening decades; but second of all; I cannot recall a single speech or text penned by him where he advocated for "color blindness" - that is, widespread ignorance of racial identity - but plenty where he advocated for the social and economic equality of White and Black people.

 

[Windwalker]

There may be plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Trump, but why do you feel the need to repeat a falsehood that the media created, which has since been thoroughly debunked? As well as, stereotype and slander all evangelical Christians?

What falsehood the media created that you assume I have fallen victim to? I am simply stating what I have been able to see from the word go. I'm not so easily swayed by the talking heads, like the followers of the Fox "news" entertainment channel take everything they hear uncritically as gospel because it tickles their ears.

As far as slandering all evangelical Christians, I don't mean to. I realize there were 19% of them who did not sell their Christian inheritance for a mess of poisonous orange pottage. It's the other 81% who did that I am referring to in my complaint. They betrayed everything they claim to value and believe in.

If you feel so inclined to listen to this beautiful song, that captures my complaint perfectly. Consider this as if it were my voice singing it.

You are certainly free to have your own perspective, but I think in actuality white liberal progressive are so much more bigoted and condescending to people of color, especially Blacks and Hispanics.

Really? Because of that highly biased opinion article you linked to? But I won't dispute that study which says that some liberals may not realize they are operating off racial assumptions regarding education levels and whatnot in their dumbing down their speech with them. I'm sure one that is pointed out to them, if they are mature and honest with themselves, they will recognize how they have been influenced by stereotypes the same way everyone else is.

The key difference however if in owning one's errors, not just merely making them. Conservatives tend to not own them, and finger point and deny instead. And that is a less mature and honest approach.

“Conservatives” tend to think all people are individuals first, and thus that, regardless of what popular stereotypes might indicate about any given identity group, each new person one encounters must be treated as one’s equal by default, until and unless he or she proves otherwise.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. The conservative engine tends to deny they are doing anything wrong, and thus you post something like this, absolving conservatives of their own sin, not recognizing or acknowledging the inherent prejudices of the system they are in and how it may influence them, unbeknownst to them in the same way it does liberals. Those that imagine they are sinless, have not yet stepped up the the plate in acknowledging there is in fact a system that exists that they participate in, the same as the rest of us.

Everything you say here about conservatives, applies to liberals as well. Most do approach others as individuals and take them at their merits. That's a maturity thing, not a liberal or conservative thing. What is different however is recognizing a system stacked against minorities. That system, is bigger than any one individual's values or morality. Do you not understand this? That is the core of the whole issue. Not you or me as individuals, but the system we participate in, which influences us even when we do not recognize it. I can own that. Can't you too?

“Liberals,” by contrast, as a matter of ideological faith, think of everyone as a member of an identity group first, and since everyone knows popular stereotypes of blacks indicate lack of education and poor language skills, this means “liberals” will habitually prejudge each individual black person they encounter according to that stereotype.

Wide sweeping generalizations, largely based upon a poorly written conservative opinion piece you linked to, apparently. Any human being, liberal or conservative, black or white, recognize the individuality of people we meet, hopefully anyway. But the key difference here is that in your response, which is typical of a lot of conservative perspectives, omit and overlook the system they participate in. That system, cannot but help influence how each and every individual who participates within that system thinks, believes, and acts.

"In him we live and move and have our being", is a fantastic reference to how we are unaware of the water of the ocean we swim in, like a fish. A fish doesn't think about the water. He just interacts with it. The same with humans in social systems and cultural perspectives. We don't think about it. Unless we are made to be aware of it. The conservative voice, tends to deny there is any water or system they swim in, naively assuming they and their own thoughts are wholly autonomous and uninfluenced by culture and society, and that they are the masters of their own domains as fully self-actualized and Enlightened individuals. To me, that only speaks of their naivety and denialism, and that they don't yet understand what everyone else is talking about.

Can you explain to me what "systemic causation" means? Do you understand what systemic racism means, and can you provide examples of it? Or do you believe there is no systemic racism, and that everything is fully open to anyone who has the desire to get ahead in life, and that those who fail or don't get ahead, is because of themselves alone to blame? Do you believe that?

 

[George-ananda]

I know this is your position. You already stated it before. I would like your arguments in favor of that position.

It’s the result of a lifetime of observation and reason. And testing seems to confirm my pretty obvious observations. I look at individuals and societies and social results. And I look at brain differences like size and interconnecting neuron fibers but such data is not popular and suppressed.

Now I could ask you to prove your theory but I know that is not possible.

 

[epronovost]

It’s the result of a lifetime of observation and reason. And testing seems to confirm my pretty obvious observations. I look at individuals and societies and social results. And I look at brain differences like size and interconnecting neuron fibers but such data is not popular and suppressed.

So, if I understand you correctly, the best argument of your theory that genetical differences are responsible for intelligence and that this explains racial gaps in achievements is linked to brain size and interconnecting neuron fibers differences between racial groups.

PS: how did you isolate for false positive also known as the the ''correlation doesn't equal causation'' problem.

Now I could ask you to prove your theory but I know that is not possible.

Of course I can or at least I can provide you with the strongest arguments of my position. If you are interested, I could provide them to you if you want.

 

[InChrist]

Because we all heard him say it.

Say what?