Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,564
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
So, what exactly is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
It is the current "look squirrel" from Repugs.
Most of the above wiki is either anti-CRT critique, or it is incoherent babble, decorated in academic jingo, with mostly names of scholars and journals, but saying nothing of substance.
Here are some parts which seemed to say something:
Standpoint epistemology: The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have, and that this can expose the racial neutrality of law as false.
This seems to say that the "minority" has the truth, and others must keep their mouth shut and just listen to this "minority" member preach to them, because only this "minority" member has any understanding, and all others must have this truth spoon-fed to them because they're too unenlightened to be able to speak any truth themselves. So they must agree automatically with anything the "minority" member says about what's wrong with the law and how it must be changed, and not disagree with what this member preaches to them, because others "do not have" the "authority and ability" to speak about it which only this "minority" member has.
Structural determinism: Exploration of how "the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content", whereby a particular mode of thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually occurring without conscious knowledge. As such, theorists posit that our system cannot redress certain kinds of wrongs.
What "theorists"?
This seems to say that our "system" or "structure" of thinking cannot address certain social outcomes or "wrongs" which are to be redressed, and so we must abolish our current thinking entirely, perhaps do away with science or logic or any "structure" we currently follow that guides our thinking. But this does not answer how these "theorists" telling us this are not themselves part of the "structure" or "system" which cannot redress the wrongs.
So CRT then might be a substitution of one incapable "structure" for another, or it's just part of the current incapable "structure" or "system" which occurs "without conscious knowledge" and can't redress anything.
Empathetic fallacy: Believing that one can change a narrative by offering an alternative narrative in hopes that the listener's empathy will quickly and reliably take over. Empathy is not enough to change racism as most people are not exposed to many people different from themselves and people mostly seek out information about their own culture and group.
This seems to say that racism is incurable, because everyone ignores any "narrative" trying to change them and just remains in their own prejudice. So CRT = racism is permanent and unchangeable through any kind of communication (including communication from the CRT theorists, so that CRT inherently refutes itself or condemns itself as a failure).
Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (including black nationalism).
This seems to demand separation of anything non-White and funding of it by Whites.
Internalization
Karen Pyke documents the theoretical element of internalized racism or internalized racial oppression, whereby victims of racism begin to believe in the ideology that they are inferior to whites and white culture, who are superior. The internalizing of racism is not due to any weakness, ignorance, inferiority, psychological defect, gullibility, or other shortcomings of the oppressed. Instead, it is how authority and power in all aspects of society contribute to feelings of inequality.
This seems to say that White authority and power are automatically internalized by non-Whites in all aspects and believed by them, including White CRT theory (but no non-White CRT theory), because non-Whites are incapable of forming any belief other than that imposed by the authority and power of White culture. So any non-White theory/ideology cannot be internalized by them, but only White ideology, as non-Whites are inherently incapable of receiving or internalizing anything from non-Whites.
Institutional racism
Camara Phyllis Jones defines institutionalized racism as
differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes legalized and often manifests as inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice, and law, so there need not be an identifiable offender. Indeed, institutionalized racism is often evident as inaction in the face of need, manifesting itself both in material conditions and in access to power. With regard to the former, examples include differential access to quality education, sound housing, gainful employment, appropriate medical facilities, and a clean environment.
This seems like a normal description of race discrimination as something embedded in society, but it doesn't seem to add anything new to what was already known prior to CRT, which originated in the 1970s, according to this wiki page.
Critical race theorists have also paid particular attention to the issue of affirmative action, whereby scholars have argued in favor of such on the argument that so-called merit standards for hiring and educational admissions are not race-neutral for a variety of reasons, and that such standards are part of the rhetoric of neutrality through which whites justify their disproportionate share of resources and social benefits.
This seems to say there is no such thing as "merit" or "race-neutral" standards, ever. All choices anyone makes (or anyone White) are based on race prejudice, regardless what one claims. Even any attempt to avoid prejudice and judge by merit only stems from racial prejudice and is an attempt to disguise one's inherent prejudice. So don't waste your time trying not to discriminate. Your effort to do this is itself only another lie you're telling to try to conceal your inherent racism. Including any arguments by CRT scholars (if they're White).
Other than the above excerpts, the wiki page says nothing about what CRT is. It's mostly listings of distinguished scholars, so we know who the theorists are, but not what their theory is.
Since the schools seem to be the main battleground here, maybe we need some quotes from educators who are trying to introduce CRT into the schools. What exactly are they demanding to be taught to the kids? We need to see it in their words, rather than just the slogans from their opponents, who seem to be the only ones who want to talk about it.
There would be nothing wrong with having the textbooks rewritten to include events such as the Tulsa massacre.