What, exactly, is CRT?

[Loren Pechtel]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

Some evidence that it's racism rather than cultural issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

I am confused as well. Seems like maybe Loren is referring to the "CRT" of right wing myth, wherein dissatisfied cotton pickers are simply trying to wreak socioeconomic vengeance upon their kindly-but-possibly-somewhat-misguided white benefactors.

At least there is no outright denial of the actual origins and outcomes. Descriptions and accounts of those origins and outcomes are somehow objectionable though, as they tend to draw causal arrows that are hard to measure. Impossible to measure if undertaking rigorous examination that might support or falsify those specific causal connections, is forbidden.
So ... yeah. Forbid it, problem solved.

And the left very carefully avoids considering the arrow from socioeconomic status to outcome. Strangely enough, evidence of racism tends to melt when confronted with this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one, and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion. It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

Exactly. There are actual problems in the legal system (we explicitly made white-man's drugs legal and colored-man's drugs illegal and that persists to this day) but that's a minor part of the issue.

Hi Loren, I thought I would drop in and let you know that you just applied Critical Race Theory in your examination of drug laws. Of course you would not recognize that, as CRT has been made into a something it is not by the right wing, and you have fallen for their ploy.

The problem is that CRT pretends racism is the whole issue when in reality it's a minor part of it these days.

 

[Elixir]

The problem is that CRT pretends racism is the whole issue when in reality it's a minor part of it these days.

It's like how all those courses in population genetics keep talking about DNA and genes and stuff. Not one whiff of concern for the current weather in Tennessee - sheesh!

 

[Emily Lake]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

Part of the core of CRT is that racial equality under the law, and neutrality in the practice of law, is not possible. This is a great starting point for investigating the disparate treatment and sentencing on the basis of race - something that is very, very much in need of revision. But that same assumption (not proof, assumption) is being currently used in order to push a narrative that the law should NOT be equal, should NOT be neutral, and that in order to be *fair* in the eyes of CRT, the law must treat people differently on the basis of their color.

One of the objectives of CRT (indeed, critical theory of all types) is to undermine the core principles of liberal democracy.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is that CRT pretends racism is the whole issue when in reality it's a minor part of it these days.

It's like how all those courses in population genetics keep talking about DNA and genes and stuff. Not one whiff of concern for the current weather in Tennessee - sheesh!

Not to mention that CRT pointedly says "it's not overt or even intentional behavior that is being jargonally referred to as "racism" in CRT" but rather things like politically empowered people criminalizing drugs they personally don't use, not accounting for the difficulty to enter certain social systems (or accounting for it specifically in some cases...), and the difficulties endemic to having few familial connections to wealth.

These are real things that are in the discussion of "CRT" "systemic racism". Note that few if any require overt or even intentional "continuance of legacy". It just requires SOME well placed malice and lots of ignorance or apathy.

 

[Politesse]

There's nothing in society limiting you to making the $1 instead of $2. If you can't make the $2 you're either disabled or have other internal problems.

I don't think a viewpoint grounded solely in denial of obvious realities is ap to produce successful social policy.

It's still the standard leftist solution--tear down anyone higher than you rather than pull up those below.

Tearing down who?

Take away the "extra" they have so they have no more than you do.

No one is advocating for that, though.

 

[Politesse]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

Some evidence that it's racism rather than cultural issues.

Racism is very obvoiusly a cultural issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think a viewpoint grounded solely in denial of obvious realities is ap to produce successful social policy.

It's still the standard leftist solution--tear down anyone higher than you rather than pull up those below.

Tearing down who?

Take away the "extra" they have so they have no more than you do.

No one is advocating for that, though.

I love that Lauren keeps insisting on this in the face of gobs of people in the thread showing direct first person experience that invalidates the insistence.

 

[ZiprHead]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

Citation?

 

[Jarhyn]

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

Citation?

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

 

[Trausti]

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

Citation?

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

The CRT clergy make clear that EVERYTHING is to be viewed through a racial lens. Without this central belief, there is no CRT. This is why empiricism is so anathema to CRT: simply scrutiny shows CRT to be woo.

 

[ZiprHead]

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

The CRT clergy make clear that EVERYTHING is to be viewed through a racial lens. Without this central belief, there is no CRT. This is why empiricism is so anathema to CRT: simply scrutiny shows CRT to be woo.

Citation?

And your ass doesn't count.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

The CRT clergy make clear that EVERYTHING is to be viewed through a racial lens. Without this central belief, there is no CRT. This is why empiricism is so anathema to CRT: simply scrutiny shows CRT to be woo.

Those are fantasy claims, very entertaining.

What ZiprHead said.

 

[Jarhyn]

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

The CRT clergy make clear that EVERYTHING is to be viewed through a racial lens. Without this central belief, there is no CRT. This is why empiricism is so anathema to CRT: simply scrutiny shows CRT to be woo.

Those are fantasy claims, very entertaining.

What ZiprHead said.

Also in direct contradiction to the actual descriptions of CRT up thread.

How many times have we all pointed out "overt, gnostic, intentional racism is merely a tiny part; mostly it is a set of otherwise agnostic systems made in ignorance or apathy operated in ignorance and apathy, with the pointed effect of preventing economic mobility generally along cleavage lines of racially self-identified communities?"


Everything is viewed with a lens of "ignorance and apathy".
It's the same metaphorical reason dust mites stay in the air rather than settling: while mostly the particles of society's racial imbalance fall slowly due to the apathy and ignorance, occasional blasts of overt racism whiffing through tend to keep the whole suspension swirling and effectively mixed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

It is the current "look squirrel" from Repugs.

Yeah, but look at the page.

This is postmodernism. All the critique against postmodernism is valid for CRT. Postmodernism is a tool to analyze texts. It's a method with which to shift perspective and uncover implicit power dynamics. It's super cool and useful for this. The problem is that you can use the methodologies to pick any perspective. You can prove anything. Or rather, you can prove nothing. You can't use anything from postmodernism and use to it formulate... let's say policy. Or change laws. This is the trouble that modern (intersectional) feminism has run into. These people have been in power the last 20 years in Sweden. It's not the apocalypse. But it's pretty clear that this isn't a theoretical framework you can use for anything practical. It certainly won't make the world more equal. It should stay in the domain of literary criticism and help authors write better books. Which is what this bag of philosophical tools was first developed for.

FYI. I also think that the conservatives screeching about this are idiots. I don't think they understand what all the long CRT words mean. I don't think they know what they are criticizing. My suspicion though is that most people who support postmodernism and CRT don't know what they are supporting. To them (and the conservatives) this is formulated more as a war between good and evil, rather than a discussion between adults. But I digress.

Common themes that are characteristic of critical race theory, as documented by scholars such as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, include:

Critique of liberalism: Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse.[25] They favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle[41] with an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.
Storytelling, counter-storytelling, and "naming one's own reality": The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression.[42] Bryan Brayboy has emphasized the epistemic importance of storytelling in Indigenous-American communities as superseding that of theory, and has proposed a Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribCrit).[43]
Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress: Criticism of civil-rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Derrick Bell, one of CRT's founders, argues that civil-rights advances for black people coincided with the self-interest of white elitists. Likewise, Mary L. Dudziak performed extensive archival research in the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice and concluded that U.S. government support for civil-rights legislation "was motivated in part by the concern that racial discrimination harmed the United States' foreign relations".[44]
Intersectional theory: The examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination (i.e., their intersections) plays out in various settings, e.g., how the needs of a Latina female are different from those of a black male and whose needs are the ones promoted.[45]
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.[1]
Essentialism vs. anti-essentialism: Delgado and Stefancic write, "Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common?" This is a look at the ways that oppressed groups may share in their oppression but also have different needs and values that need to be looked at differently. It is a question of how groups can be essentialized or are unable to be essentialized.[46]
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.[47]
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.[48]
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).[42]

 

[Emily Lake]

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

Citation?

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

Go read the goddamned foundational material on it. I posted links, along with the tenets of CRT as defined by the fathers of the entire fucking theory. If you can't be bothered to actually read the core concepts, I can't help you.

 

[ZiprHead]

Obviously, the citation is all the times that Emily has insisted it is true, same as always.

Go read the goddamned foundational material on it. I posted links, along with the tenets of CRT as defined by the fathers of the entire fucking theory. If you can't be bothered to actually read the core concepts, I can't help you.

I would like you to post the parts that make you believe the part I bolded. We shouldn't be expected to go on a mining expedition to understand your thoughts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I consider something to be a religion when it's core is taken on faith rather than evidence.



No. We are looking at evidence. The CRT defenders continue to not provide any evidence--it's always either showing the results or showing the historical origins.

If demonstrating neither the results of systemic racism nor the causes of systemic racism nor metrics to measure the present situation with respect to systemic racism constitute evidence, I am confused as to what would satisfy your "skepticism".

The challenge is that CRT assumes systemic racism as the root, and then it proceeds to present results and metrics as proof of systemic racism. And because of the way that the underlying tenets of CRT are developed, it assumes systemic racism for ALL observable discrepancies. Indeed, that's the whole point of the framework - to explore the entirety of US history and society through the assumption of embedded systemic racism.

It's a very useful tool for looking at the world in academic contexts. But it assumes its conclusion, which makes it inherently unfit for policy making.

I don't think it's useful even in an academic context. When you start with a false assumption you get bad results.

Not to mention that CRT pointedly says "it's not overt or even intentional behavior that is being jargonally referred to as "racism" in CRT" but rather things like politically empowered people criminalizing drugs they personally don't use, not accounting for the difficulty to enter certain social systems (or accounting for it specifically in some cases...), and the difficulties endemic to having few familial connections to wealth.

These are real things that are in the discussion of "CRT" "systemic racism". Note that few if any require overt or even intentional "continuance of legacy". It just requires SOME well placed malice and lots of ignorance or apathy.

The basic problem here is that while you can certainly find examples like this there's nothing to justify the jump from this to their point of faith that it's all due to racism.

I don't think a viewpoint grounded solely in denial of obvious realities is ap to produce successful social policy.

Tearing down who?

Take away the "extra" they have so they have no more than you do.

No one is advocating for that, though.

I love that Lauren keeps insisting on this in the face of gobs of people in the thread showing direct first person experience that invalidates the insistence.

And here you're showing your error:

CRT claims if p then q.
All "proof" of this consists of finding a few examples of ps that are qs. You can't prove it that way.

 

[Politesse]

CRT doesn't "claim" anything, it's a methodological paradigm based on otherwise well-established facts.