Mixed-race student brings lawsuit against charter school for mandatory CRT content.

[Politesse]

And you take it as a given that the differences are due to race rather than background.

Race does not exist, except as an aspect of a person's background. But your background has an enormous impact on your life.

 

[ruby sparks]

Wassup my Niggas?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/us/mimi-groves-jimmy-galligan-racial-slurs.html#click=https://t.co/UA84HkMYXg

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

It might or might not be a mentality fostered by CRT. As such, I don't know if it's on-topic in this thread.

If it were a separate discussion, I would say there are two sides to it. For example, it's not for you to say it was a trivial thing, and even if, of itself, it was, it may have been part of a wider, non-trivial pattern. That is in fact what the article suggests.

 

[Politesse]

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

 

[J842P]

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

Well, that is vacuous reasoning.

 

[Politesse]

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

Well, that is vacuous reasoning.

Well, why protest your right to do something without consequences, if doing it is trivial? There are more important rights to defend.

 

[laughing dog]

If your whiteness is constructed by sociopolitical factors, it cannot by definition be "inherent" to you. "Racism" in CRT is an institutional reality that primarily exists as a broad social structure rather than the sole product of individual decisions.

That is a stupid definition of racism that was only made up to try to justify the "only whites can be racist" dogma on the Left.

No, it was one of the accepted interpretations of racism long before the offshoot of "only whites can be racist" view. I believe the second view became prevalent partly because most people in Western civilization either ignored or knew little about the histories of other civilizations. And, from a practical point of view, operationally, at the time, white people were the dominant power structure in their societies.

The definition is not stupid - it makes sense and it can be viewed as helping to delineate a major difference between racism and bigotry/prejudice - power over the disfavored. Now, one does not have to accept or like it, but it is not stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

This is the kind of stuff that the CRT mentality fosters. Passive aggressive holding on to trivial stuff to try and ruin people.

If racial slurs are "trivial", don't use them.

Well, that is vacuous reasoning.

Which is vacuous reasoning? Really, the observation about CRT seems more vacuous to me that Politesse's response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you take it as a given that the differences are due to race rather than background.

Race does not exist, except as an aspect of a person's background. But your background has an enormous impact on your life.

The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter.

In the real world the costs are borne by everyone and the result is counterproductive anyway. There are some true racists and I have no problem with punishing them but disparate results is a hopelessly inadequate way to find them.

Want to actually do something useful? Make one-party consent the law of the land. The boss is stepping over the line, record him doing it!

 

[Politesse]

The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter.

Definitely not what an expert in critical race theory would recommend. The whole point of shifting the direction of study away from individual culpability is to understand how racist institutions function as whole structures. "Fault" is irrelevant, the system needs to be documented and challeneged as a communal social production in which all actors are relevant. Indeed, I think most writers in this genre see people of color, explicitly not whites, as the parties most able to change the way the system functions. The king can't dissolve the monarchy, that's the job of the proletariat.

There are some true racists and I have no problem with punishing them but disparate results is a hopelessly inadequate way to find them.

Accepting injury without protest is a completely inadequate way to challenge the common belief that such offenses are acceptable, earned, or "trivial". Again, this obsession with guilt and personal culpability is distracting from the actual problems, preventing true inequlaities from being addressed by derailing the conversation into a discussion about the aggrieved feelings of the accused, in which it is assumed but never stated that the feelings of the accused should be considered more important or more justified than those of their original victim. This was literally the central thesis of White Fragility, the book all the conservatives are so afraid of but haven't read.

 

[ruby sparks]

Indeed, I think most writers in this genre see people of color, explicitly not whites, as the parties most able to change the way the system functions. The king can't dissolve the monarchy, that's the job of the proletariat.

I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but even since participating in this thread, I've read the opposite (it may even have been at one of the links provided) to the effect that under CRT it's whites who can effect the most change.

As with most ideologies not only can CRT actually be about different things to different people, but it may even be possible (as a result) to say almost anything about it.

And the idea that it is not white-blaming is, I think, effectively a non-starter. Without beating about the bush, that is effectively a large component of it, possibly the main one. As patriarchy (essentially, men-blaming) is to feminism.

To me, the question is not, 'is it white-blaming?' (to say anything other than yes is just mincing words, imo) but how to respond to that.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is that it's all but impossible to fix background. Blaming racism provides an "easy" fix whose costs are supposedly borne only by the evildoers and thus don't matter.

Definitely not what an expert in critical race theory would recommend. The whole point of shifting the direction of study away from individual culpability is to understand how racist institutions function as whole structures. "Fault" is irrelevant, the system needs to be documented and challeneged as a communal social production in which all actors are relevant. Indeed, I think most writers in this genre see people of color, explicitly not whites, as the parties most able to change the way the system functions. The king can't dissolve the monarchy, that's the job of the proletariat.

I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but even since participating in this thread, I've read the opposite (it may even have been at one of the links provided) to the effect that it's whites who can effect the most change.

Oh? How?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but even since participating in this thread, I've read the opposite (it may even have been at one of the links provided) to the effect that it's whites who can effect the most change.

Oh? How?

Ok, well, I can't believe you're actually asking but since you did....

By giving up power and privileges. Well, first, by becoming aware of them (as part of an understanding of Whiteness and for example the unintentional racism that goes along with it), then by giving them up. Or, intervening to help other white people give them up.

I can't readily find the particular quote I was referring to ( I can look again if you want*) but for example:

"Understanding race and racism is rooted in understanding the experience of racialized people. This does not mean simply acknowledging difference or "the other” in a superficial way, which often happens in a multicultural approach with the celebration of difference with song, dance, and food. Understanding racism involves becoming aware of how race and racism affect the lived experience of people of colour and Indigenous people, as well as becoming aware of how we participate, often unknowingly, in racism".

http://www.aclrc.com/antiracism

That is aimed at White people.

If CRT were only for blacks to engage in, I doubt there would be the same type of controversy. There'd be a different sort of controversy.

Obviously, it's neither one or the other. It's both. CRT is about both, I mean.

(PS I added to my post).

 

[ruby sparks]

*Ah. I found it:

"If you truly want to be an ally against racism, here’s my advice: Talk less and listen more when around people of color. Don’t be that white person who will inevitably fill my inbox or Twitter mentions with reasons that racism doesn’t exist (white supremacy is one a hell of a drug, man). Hear the stories of people of color and learn from them. Then when you see racism in your community, fight like hell to destroy it. Again, as a white person, you’re way more powerful than I am in that regard".

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opin...jdCPCz90NWS0xwHPMlfz3pSSIIfHx-3TPSP8lpyPoWLiG

 

[Politesse]

By giving up power and privileges. Well, first, by becoming aware of them (as part of an understanding of Whiteness and for example the unintentional racism that goes along with it), then by giving them up.

I would describe CRT in general as a school that is very, very skeptical about the possibility of this happening, at least not when driven solely by an internal drive to improve. Fundamentally, expecting people who are in a position of privilege to simply give it up, especially if they aren't really aware of that privilege to begin with, is naive at best and I'm not sure who you're referring to who would imagine this as the primary method by which racial inequalities are reduced. Noblesse oblige is a popular myth, but it is a myth, and like most myths, the truth at its core is heavily bounded and impaired by the material realities it ignores. Fundamentally, core to the reforms of CRT is that people of color, if they desire to break free of the constraints society has placed on them, must occupy traditionally white spaces and firmly refuse to be removed from them. '

White ally-ship is appreciated and possibly even needed at a certain point, but it is not the focus, nor itself above critique. The general feeling is that whites will only actually share power when we are consistently obliged to do so. Their concessions are the result, not the primary mover, of social change in this paradigm. Derrick Bell didn't lead with a polite entreaty to be treated better by his collegues at Harvard. He led with a lawsuit, and encouraged his students of color to become the next generation of Black and Asian students that the American legal profession needed, rather than the one it wanted.

Or, intervening to help other white people give them up.

This is certainly Robin DiAngelo's bag. I don't think she would argue that it should be the focus of advocacy on race issues, though. Perhaps I am wrong, and I should clarify that I am not the biggest fan of Robin DiAngelo, but I would be surprised if she actually said that the liberation of Blacks must start with Whites.

"Understanding race and racism is rooted in understanding the experience of racialized people. This does not mean simply acknowledging difference or "the other” in a superficial way, which often happens in a multicultural approach with the celebration of difference with song, dance, and food. Understanding racism involves becoming aware of how race and racism affect the lived experience of people of colour and Indigenous people, as well as becoming aware of how we participate, often unknowingly, in racism".

http://www.aclrc.com/antiracism

That is aimed at White people.

It is, explicitly so, but it is more in the vein of helping white folks understand what's going on than imploring them to lead it, let alone lead it unilaterally and exclusively.

If CRT were only for blacks to engage in, I doubt there would be the same type of controversy.

Black liberation was always the focus of critical race theory in the United States. While a handful of white self help gurus like DiAngelo (who arrived at the party twenty years late) have made a pretty penny for themselves by cashing in on the white market for reading a politely filtered version of critical race theory its principle researchers, philosophers, and intended audience were always racially subjugated people themselves, originally within the legal system and filtering out into the other social sciences as the empirical value of the paradigm became increasingly obvious. Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberle Crenshaw, and the other giants of this field never made converting Whites a primary goal, and their writings on the question tended to be more.. frank. Up to, and passing, the point of being considerably offensive to whites, hence a large part of the controversty. White America was not ready for an entire academic school that treated them primarily as a passive impediments rather than heroic agents of change. They still aren't.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would describe CRT in general as a school that is very, very skeptical about the possibility of this happening, at least not when driven solely by an internal drive to improve. Fundamentally, expecting people who are in a position of privilege to simply give it up, especially if they aren't really aware of that privilege to begin with, is naive at best and I'm not sure who you're referring to who would imagine this as the primary method by which racial inequalities are reduced. Noblesse oblige is a popular myth, but it is a myth, and like most myths, the truth at its core is heavily bounded and impaired by the material realities it ignores. Fundamentally, core to the reforms of CRT is that people of color, if they desire to break free of the constraints society has placed on them, must occupy traditionally white spaces and firmly refuse to be removed from them. White ally-ship is appreciated, but it is not the focus, nor itself above critique.

This is certainly Robin D'Angelo's bag. I don't think she would argue that it should be the focus of advocacy on race issues, though. Perhaps I am wrong, and I should clarify that I am not the biggest fan of Robin D'Angelo, but I would be surprised if she actually said that the liberation of Blacks must start with Whites.

"Understanding race and racism is rooted in understanding the experience of racialized people. This does not mean simply acknowledging difference or "the other” in a superficial way, which often happens in a multicultural approach with the celebration of difference with song, dance, and food. Understanding racism involves becoming aware of how race and racism affect the lived experience of people of colour and Indigenous people, as well as becoming aware of how we participate, often unknowingly, in racism".

http://www.aclrc.com/antiracism

That is aimed at White people.

It is, explicitly so, but it is more in the vein of helping white folks understand what's going on than imploring them to lead it, let alone lead it unilaterally and exclusively.

If CRT were only for blacks to engage in, I doubt there would be the same type of controversy.

Black liberation was always the focus of critical race theory in the United States. While a handful of white self help gurus like D'Angelo (who arrived at the party twenty years late) have made a pretty penny for themselves by cashing in on the white market for reading a politely filtered version of critical race theory its principle researchers, philosophers, and intended audience were always racially subjugated people themselves, originally within the legal system and filtering out into the other social sciences as the empirical value of the paradigm became increasingly obvious. Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Kimberle Crenshaw, and the other giants of this field never made converting Whites a primary goal, and their writings on the question tended to be frank. Up to, and passing, the point of being very offensive to whites, hence a large part of the controversty. White America was not ready for an entire academic school that treated them primarily as a passive impediments rather than heroic agents of change. They still aren't.

Ok. Thanks. Several good points. Especially the last two sentences, imo.

Bear in mind that I am not offering a strong opinion one way or the other on this particular point. I am only noting that there is a range of views (and I am not as aware of the history as you are). In my afterthought post, what the writer said did seem to suggest a significant role for white people. Whether he was endorsing CRT explicitly, or merely anti-racism generally, I don't know. It was in any case his own opinion.

My own personal view would be that if such things are to work well, all people in society would ideally play a constructive part.

Even including what John McWhorter suggests. He, as you may know, takes quite a different line.

Or maybe Victimology is already integrated into CRT and I am behind the curve.

 

[Politesse]

My own personal view would be that if such things are to work well, all people in society would ideally play a constructive part.

That would be great, but that's a utopian vision, not social theory. I don't think the movers and shakers of CRT ever imagined that everyone involved would pursue the same goals with equal passion, or that this was a prerequisite to ameliorating racial inequalities. Fundamentally, you really only need a small, persistent core of advocates to push the needle of social inequallity. Do you imagine that, when the Civil Rights movement began, or even when it ended, that the majority of white Americans supported it? We didn't, but we didn't need to in order for political actions like strikes, boycotts, and sit-ins to do their magic. These actions structurally altered what American politicians' natural self-interest would lead them to do, rather than trying to convince them to act against their self-interest voluntarily When the cost of refusing to change became greater than the cost of allowing some small alterations of institutional structure, things changed. Opinions changed. An entire generation of American politicians suddenly pretended they'd supported liberating ideals all along. Really as the result of a few hundred thousand people standing up and refusing to accept the supposed conditions of their existence under a white supremacist system.

 

[ruby sparks]

My own personal view would be that if such things are to work well, all people in society would ideally play a constructive part.

That would be great, but that's a utopian vision, not social theory. I don't think the movers and shakers of CRT ever imagined that everyone involved would pursue the same goals with equal passion, or that this was a prerequisite to ameliorating racial inequalities. Fundamentally, you really only need a small, persistent core of advocates to push the needle of social inequallity. Do you imagine that, when the Civil Rights movement began, or even when it ended, that the majority of white Americans supported it? We didn't, but we didn't need to in order for political actions like strikes, boycotts, and sit-ins to do their magic. These actions structurally altered what American politicians' natural self-interest would lead them to do, rather than trying to convince them to act against their self-interest voluntarily as previous, less successful efforts had tried to do.

Your points about the origins of CRT are informative, and I accept them.

It may be that of late especially, either CRT has morphed somewhat, or other ideas which are not strictly-speaking 'CRT proper' have become attached and mingled with them.

Whatever way we slice what I might call the 'general current situation', white-blaming and white-asking has I think become a part of it all.

As you say, it may not have been or even be the core (of CRT).

Personally, I wouldn't call the expectation utopian. Yes, history often teaches us that social change happens due to agitation from the disadvantaged side, but by no means always or only. Imo, persuading the advantaged side is in principle also a really good part of any overall strategy. Many would even say it is crucial. 'Equal passion' is not necessary of course. It can even be done by what I am calling the advantaged side reluctantly, but still be co-operative.

And then there is the aspect of the disadvantaged side looking in the mirror and acknowledging things THEY might be averse to acknowledging, in their turn. Their own complicity and responsibility I mean.

 

[Politesse]

My own personal view would be that if such things are to work well, all people in society would ideally play a constructive part.

That would be great, but that's a utopian vision, not social theory. I don't think the movers and shakers of CRT ever imagined that everyone involved would pursue the same goals with equal passion, or that this was a prerequisite to ameliorating racial inequalities. Fundamentally, you really only need a small, persistent core of advocates to push the needle of social inequallity. Do you imagine that, when the Civil Rights movement began, or even when it ended, that the majority of white Americans supported it? We didn't, but we didn't need to in order for political actions like strikes, boycotts, and sit-ins to do their magic. These actions structurally altered what American politicians' natural self-interest would lead them to do, rather than trying to convince them to act against their self-interest voluntarily as previous, less successful efforts had tried to do.

Your points about the origins of CRT are informative, and I accept them.

It may be that of late especially, either CRT has morphed somewhat, or other ideas which are not strictly-speaking 'CRT proper' have become attached and mingled with them.

It was never a unified whole, more a paradigm. Especially after Bell retired and passed on, eight years ago.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your points about the origins of CRT are informative, and I accept them.

It may be that of late especially, either CRT has morphed somewhat, or other ideas which are not strictly-speaking 'CRT proper' have become attached and mingled with them.

It was never a unified whole, more a paradigm. Especially after Bell retired and passed on, eight years ago.

Just out of curiosity, where did Whiteness Studies originate? From the same black guys, or from different black guys?

ps I can only hope you read my appallingly belated edits when I'm replying to you.

All my best nuggets of insight are late arrivals. Or so I like to delude myself. Lol.

 

[repoman]

Your points about the origins of CRT are informative, and I accept them.

It may be that of late especially, either CRT has morphed somewhat, or other ideas which are not strictly-speaking 'CRT proper' have become attached and mingled with them.

It was never a unified whole, more a paradigm. Especially after Bell retired and passed on, eight years ago.

Just out of curiosity, where did Whiteness Studies originate? From the same black guys, or from different black guys?

ps I can only hope you read my appallingly belated edits when I'm replying to you.

All my best nuggets of insight are late arrivals. Or so I like to delude myself. Lol.

Maybe from the white passing Jewish guy Noel Ignatiev:

https://www.latimes.com/obituaries/story/2019-11-11/noel-ignatiev-dies-race-whiteness