Did you take a class in critical race theory?

[blastula]

CRT as opposed to this...

[TWEET]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">There are two approved Louisiana history textbooks for the state's 8th graders.<br><br>This is how one of them introduces the Civil War: as tough times for a poor young white woman whose family owned 120 slaves. <a href="https://t.co/oR617iSkFO">pic.twitter.com/oR617iSkFO</a></p>— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbenton/status/1404245820103348227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/TWEET]

Are those our only choices?

Unless you can show evidence of an 8th grade history book being used anywhere that teaches CRT, then you don't even have that as a choice. Your choice, especially if you live in Louisiana, may only be the one that notes how tough the poor slave owners had it.

“The 1619 Project” Enters American Classrooms - Education Next

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For anybody defending CRT, can you tell me what you think qualifies as CRT and how do you know so? Also, what is non-trivially factual and useful about any of it?

This was on Fresh Air last week. I hate posting a decent length program, but this covers a lot of ground.

In general, there is CRT and then there is what the right-wing wants to say CRT is.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[blastula]

For anybody defending CRT, can you tell me what you think qualifies as CRT and how do you know so? Also, what is non-trivially factual and useful about any of it?

This was on Fresh Air last week. I hate posting a decent length program, but this covers a lot of ground.

In general, there is CRT and then there is what the right-wing wants to say CRT is.

I see this as "no true CRT" game being played.

But opponents are using critical race theory as really more of a catchall to include anything teaching students about systemic racism, any mention of white privilege, and, really, the definition that they're using has expanded to include anything related to equity, diversity and inclusion.

Why in the world does he think the concepts of "systemic racism, any mention of white privilege" are not a part of CRT?

And I don't see what the point is of fixating on the CRT vs not CRT distinction at all, when the right could just as well just say they're against teaching concepts x, y and z without saying the term CRT. But how would that make anybody happier? How would anybody's position change on it?

Here's the Seattle public school district page on new classes there. New High School Courses - Seattle Public Schools

Black Studies U.S. History 11A and 11B will be the first courses of this new Black Education Program and will focus on the Black and African American experience from a national and global perspective. This includes, but is not limited to African History, American History, Critical Race Theory, American Enslavement, Black/African American-led social movement, Black/African American social autonomy and economic development, Black/African American Innovation, and Black/African American leadership nationally and globally.

It includes the magic CRT words. Does that make any difference in whether it's right for the right to complain about it now?

 

[blastula]

View attachment 34335

When they can point to actual nonsense about "crt," they don't need to make up any nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is an introduction to it https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ng-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

So if is CRT, why is Kendi's quote not?

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Is this not CRT?

It is not.

Where in what I posted does it posit that the only remedy to racist/past/present discrimination is antiracist/present/future discrimination?

I think a better question is why do you think Kendi's quote is CRT?

 

[blastula]

So if is CRT, why is Kendi's quote not?

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Is this not CRT?

It is not.

Where in what I posted does it posit that the only remedy to racist/past/present discrimination is antiracist/present/future discrimination?

I think a better question is why do you think Kendi's quote is CRT?

From your quote,

CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral” policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts, CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses.

That's exactly what Kendi is doing. He's examining and challenging concepts of racism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's the Seattle public school district page on new classes there. New High School Courses - Seattle Public Schools

Black Studies U.S. History 11A and 11B will be the first courses of this new Black Education Program and will focus on the Black and African American experience from a national and global perspective. This includes, but is not limited to African History, American History, Critical Race Theory, American Enslavement, Black/African American-led social movement, Black/African American social autonomy and economic development, Black/African American Innovation, and Black/African American leadership nationally and globally.

It includes the magic CRT words.

So a course in Black Studies US History includes in a very major way the concept of Critical Race Theory. As an aside, that can be included in the op poll as a "Yes," if anyone here took or is taking this class.

Does that make any difference in whether it's right for the right to complain about it now?

There's also this one from the same page:
LGBTQIA+ World History 3

I wouldn't think that a regular person like yourself would start screaming that this other voluntary course is part of the Liberal Gay Agenda. I mean, I hope you wouldn't. So, for the same reasons, I hope you wouldn't claim that a Black Studies course--a very rare type of Studies at the high school level--is indicative of a greater conspiracy to brainwash American youth in conservative towns across America.

Do you think they should get rid of these voluntary courses or keep them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So if is CRT, why is Kendi's quote not?

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Is this not CRT?

It is not.

Where in what I posted does it posit that the only remedy to racist/past/present discrimination is antiracist/present/future discrimination?

I think a better question is why do you think Kendi's quote is CRT?

From your quote,

CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral” policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts, CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses.

That's exactly what Kendi is doing. He's examining and challenging concepts of racism.

I see conservatives examining and challenging concepts of racism all the time. Obviously they are not doing Critical Race Theory. So, there should be better criteria. Maybe it's just the way you worded it?

 

[Politesse]

It makes my head hurt, the "logic" being here employed. I guess since the theory of universal gravitation concerns mass and proportion, I'm pushing a UG agenda everytime I bring up either mass or proportion in the classroom?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

“The 1619 Project” Enters American Classrooms - Education Next

I read a significant part of that, then I realized that the criticisms were very meager and nit-picky. The place where I got stuck was in the alleged debunking of Crispus Attucks's race. Most Black Americans are multi-racial...I mean almost all. The multiple contintental origins of their recent ancestry is extremely common. Some Blacks may even be less than 50% sub-Saharan African according to dna testing while others might be as much as close to 100%. The average number is around 74% sub-Saharan African but it has this wide distribution. We even recently had a President who was 50% African, but called Black.

So I took a step back and thought about this more. Here is my counter to you and this isn't meant to be argumentative. Alright,

...so if someone does a huge historical project and you expect a lot of people to be against it because they weren't included and because of their ideologies, then wouldn't you expect them to be able to make some very minor points and frame things in their favor? I mean, a bunch of individuals. I would. It's just the nature of having a large body of text to deal with where people have reasons to try to attack it.

...next if a propagandist comes along, such as, say someone who works for the Heritage Foundation, or in this case the American Enterprise Institute and consolidates all those individuals' complaints into a singular narrative of "errors" and goes in for the kill with some argumentum ad hominem...really irrelevant stuff about the author going to Cuba or whatever...wouldn't you think that critique would be very effective to the average American?

...suppose you are such an average American. How can you ensure you are getting both sides of the story? Where can you get an author's response to criticism if no big institution is pushing it out there? Also in this hypothetical how can you ensure that you are qualified enough to discern which side's points are superior, if you are even presented with both sides?

 

[KeepTalking]

Unless you can show evidence of an 8th grade history book being used anywhere that teaches CRT, then you don't even have that as a choice. Your choice, especially if you live in Louisiana, may only be the one that notes how tough the poor slave owners had it.

“The 1619 Project” Enters American Classrooms - Education Next

That article does not mention Critical Race Theory.

 

[laughing dog]

So if is CRT, why is Kendi's quote not?

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Is this not CRT?

It is not.

Where in what I posted does it posit that the only remedy to racist/past/present discrimination is antiracist/present/future discrimination?

I think a better question is why do you think Kendi's quote is CRT?

From your quote,

CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral” policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts, CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses.

That's exactly what Kendi is doing. He's examining and challenging concepts of racism.

You asked why this quote

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

is not CRT. Please show how this is examining or challenging the concept of racism because it is giving a monosolution to the issue of racist discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, I wasted my time going through it looking for CRT. It is an interesting article though. The arguments made were worth the read although some of them were borderline nitpicking over semantics.

Edit: For example arguing over whether or not it was historically accurate to say Crispus Attucks was black. hahahaha, like anyone at that time cared to make a distinction between colored folks.

Edit 2: And by anyone, I don't mean to count out the good white people of that time. I really mean to address the general mistreatment and how whether he was Indian or black didn't matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see this as "no true CRT" game being played.

It could be, but I also have a much larger feeling of the boy (the right-wing) who cried wolf. From PC to gay marriage -> marrying toasters to "woke" to CRT.

But opponents are using critical race theory as really more of a catchall to include anything teaching students about systemic racism, any mention of white privilege, and, really, the definition that they're using has expanded to include anything related to equity, diversity and inclusion.

Why in the world does he think the concepts of "systemic racism, any mention of white privilege" are not a part of CRT?

When did White Privilege become part of CRT?

And I don't see what the point is of fixating on the CRT vs not CRT distinction at all, when the right could just as well just say they're against teaching concepts x, y and z without saying the term CRT. But how would that make anybody happier? How would anybody's position change on it?

Because one thing is talking about concepts that been getting developed in academia for a few decades and other stuff could be pet projects and individual goals. I see it a bit as Kent Hovind's evolution challenge where you need to satisfy the origin of the universe in defending evolution.

Here's the Seattle public school district page on new classes there. New High School Courses - Seattle Public Schools

Black Studies U.S. History 11A and 11B will be the first courses of this new Black Education Program and will focus on the Black and African American experience from a national and global perspective. This includes, but is not limited to African History, American History, Critical Race Theory, American Enslavement, Black/African American-led social movement, Black/African American social autonomy and economic development, Black/African American Innovation, and Black/African American leadership nationally and globally.

It includes the magic CRT words. Does that make any difference in whether it's right for the right to complain about it now?

If they claim the curriculum that involves CRT is about white shaming, I'd say yeah, that would matter if that isn't part of the curriculum.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't matter whether Dungeons and Dragons is satanism.

All that matters is that you can get a certain section of the voting public enraged about it, so they will support right-wing candidates, attack people who don't support right-wing candidates, and create a smokescreen of outrage behind which genuinely outrageous events and actions will go unreported, unnoticed, or at least to a significant degree unopposed.

Now, replace "Dungeons and Dragons" with "CRT", and "satanism" with "shaming of, and discriminatory against, white people".

And note that these replacements do exactly nothing to the strategy or its intent.

The fuss about CRT isn't about CRT at all. CRT is just a convenient hook to hang the strategy from, and any hook will do. All that it needs is to be something right-wing voters don't understand, and that people they already feel uncomfortable about engage in.

The list of things right-wing voters don't understand that are done by people who make right-wing voters uncomfortable is endless, and when the fuss over the latest such cause dies away, the propagandists will pick another.

 

[laughing dog]

CRT is just another dog whistle for the conservatives and right wing to rile up some of their base. Nothing like making people fear for the future to get them stoked up.

 

[Trausti]

CRT is just anti-White racism.

White teacher sues Evanston/Skokie School District 65 for alleged race based policies

Lawsuit: https://www.fairforall.org/content/pdfs/profiles/2021-06-29-deemar-v-district-65.pdf

 

[Politesse]

Confronting and critiquing "Whiteness" is not the same thing as anti-White racism. At least, not within a CRT framework. It looks like this individual let their politics get in the way of their common sense, and failed to understand the lessons these trainings were attempting to communicate. It is one of the fundamental cores of the framework that Whiteness as a scoial category was an invention, not a discovery. Whites have to deal with this legacy because of the privileges that were applied to them as a result of it, not because it is some internal fact of their being. Whites do not exist as natural realities, but rather as the social product of a certain cultural way of organizing and labeling the world which served the interests of the ruling class under settler colonialism. If you understand that basic tenet, you'll understand most of the quoted statements in that document much more clearly.

I'm curious what you even think, for instance, 11C is supposed to mean, if you think CRT as a whole is indulging in race essentialism? If your "race" is an unchangeable, natural about yourself, how could one possibly be white without being a part of whiteness?

 

[Trausti]

Confronting and critiquing "Whiteness" is not the same thing as anti-White racism. At least, not within a CRT framework. It looks like this individual let their politics get in the way of their common sense, and failed to understand the lessons these trainings were attempting to communicate. It is one of the fundamental cores of the framework that Whiteness as a scoial category was an invention, not a discovery. Whites have to deal with this legacy because of the privileges that were applied to them as a result of it, not because it is some internal fact of their being. Whites do not exist as natural realities, but rather as the social product of a certain cultural way of organizing and labeling the world which served the interests of the ruling class under settler colonialism. If you understand that basic tenet, you'll understand most of the quoted statements in that document much more clearly.

I'm curious what you even think, for instance, 11C is supposed to mean, if you think CRT as a whole is indulging in race essentialism?

How the fuck is this not a secular religion? I have no sin that needs repenting. I have no interest in your Maoist struggle session. Self-flagellants please fuck off. Treat people as individuals and not as members of groups. Do not divide by race. Thank you.