What, exactly, is CRT?

[Politesse]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory set, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

 

[LoAmmo]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

It brings to mind all the "critical discussions" I've participated in on the theory of Evolution, in which one side is actually prepared to talk about Darwin's writings, descent with modification, genetics, and the fossil record, and one side just wants to cram their fingers in their ears and scream, "Alligators don't give birth to ducks! Jesus is Lord!"

That's another "Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term" to add to the pile of obfuscation they favor.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory set, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

I linked to the Wikipedia article on CRT earlier in this thread, and that did not lead to any discussion. It's a good article.

Based on that, this is my theory, I don't think defenders of CRT on this forum gives a damn whether or not CRT has anything meaningful to say about racism. Instead it's reduced to whether someone is for or against racism. If this is a forum for free thinking skeptics, then Where's the free thought?

I don't care that a bunch of racist fundie conservatives are against CRT for racist reasons. That doesn't prove that CRT is beneficial in the fight against racism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

Okay, so...
Flood 48-hrs worth -> Damage -> Flood Ends -> Repair Damage
Racism a few centuries worth -> Untold Level of Damage -> Intentional systemic racism ends -> *underwear gnomes*

We are still learning today just how bad this stuff was. Race riots, property destroyed or flat out stolen (the thefts being potential untraceable), and of course all the blatant racism we are aware of. Blacks are a century behind because of this stuff. You have any idea how much money that is? How much damage there is to repair? And this ignores the likelihood of residual systemic racism that is still creating an impact, though thankfully nothing quite as bad as mobs of white people burning black property and lynching blacks..

 

[Politesse]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

It brings to mind all the "critical discussions" I've participated in on the theory of Evolution, in which one side is actually prepared to talk about Darwin's writings, descent with modification, genetics, and the fossil record, and one side just wants to cram their fingers in their ears and scream, "Alligators don't give birth to ducks! Jesus is Lord!"

That's another "Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term" to add to the pile of obfuscation they favor.

Well, yeah. And similarly to the Creation debate, they really only want wholesale rejection of the premise; ie., for me to say that I don't think systemic racism exists. I don't argue with Creationists if I can help it, because the real, interesting critical conversations to be had aren't about whether or not pigs can give birth to ptarmigans, or whether ancient texts should supersede scientific observations in one's personal epistemology. Likewise, whether or not there's racism is the least interesting thing to argue about with respect to CRT. CRT assumes that racism exists, the point is to decide how to address it. If you don't accept that premise, no one can make you, but you are incapable of really understanding the actual conversation that's going on if you can't get past the idea that discrimination might be occurring.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's another "Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term" to add to the pile of obfuscation they favor.

My favorite part of the act is how they open with 'Intelligent Design is science, not faith!' And when it gets booted, 'You're kicking GOD out of schools, that's why we have shootings!'

With CRT, the general discussion is about how the system is built by racism, but the actual objection is from people thinking THEY are not racist, therefore their systems cannot be...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory set, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

I linked to the Wikipedia article on CRT earlier in this thread, and that did not lead to any discussion. It's a good article.

Based on that, this is my theory, I don't think defenders of CRT on this forum gives a damn whether or not CRT has anything meaningful to say about racism. Instead it's reduced to whether someone is for or against racism. If this is a forum for free thinking skeptics, then Where's the free thought?

I don't care that a bunch of racist fundie conservatives are against CRT for racist reasons. That doesn't prove that CRT is beneficial in the fight against racism.

CRT isn't about being "beneficial" it is about being aware of inertia and implicit bias that can exist without much in the way of intent.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's more pernicious than limiting online debates. This has ballooned into Fox Nation viewers believing that all public schools are immersed in this demon ideology, and that school boards need to ban it or be voted out.

 

[Politesse]

I would love it if my students (ie college freshman) started showing up in my classes already aware of CRT from their secondary education. As things stand at present they seem woefully undereducated about the social sciences in general. If they understand CRT, then I don't have to start from scratch explaining concepts like class, colonialism, the concept of race itself...

 

[scombrid]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

Okay, so...
Flood 48-hrs worth -> Damage -> Flood Ends -> Repair Damage
Racism a few centuries worth -> Untold Level of Damage -> Intentional systemic racism ends -> *underwear gnomes*

We are still learning today just how bad this stuff was. Race riots, property destroyed or flat out stolen (the thefts being potential untraceable), and of course all the blatant racism we are aware of. Blacks are a century behind because of this stuff. You have any idea how much money that is? How much damage there is to repair? And this ignores the likelihood of residual systemic racism that is still creating an impact, though thankfully nothing quite as bad as mobs of white people burning black property and lynching blacks..

The insurance analogy would be more accurate if someone built a levee behind your house and caused it to flood. The flood bankrupted you and 11 years later you have received no compensation from the people that exacerbated the flooding or the insurance company that had sold you a policy. So you are expected to eat a total loss and start from scratch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Less an analogy on insurance, but an indication something bad went down and there is damage and it needs repairing. It seems a lot easier for people that weren't in a flood to say the damage is exaggerated and costing the insurance industry too much money from fraud. I mean yes, there are instances where there is a good deal of damage, but that isn't what everyone is dealing with.

Much like Loren walking up to a black person, patting them on the shoulder and saying, 'It ain't that bad, you just aren't smart. *hug... leaves*'

 

[Politesse]

In the flood analogy, it seems to me that the anti-CRT position is more akin to being angry at the suggestion that there was a systemic flood, rather than a coincidental set of house-by-house flooding incidents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Again and again I see clearly economic factors blamed on racism.

This is ridiculous. How could any system of system racism not be economic? Of course racism has economic implications.

You have it backwards--of course racism will show up economically. That doesn't mean economic factors are racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I still think that in this thread for the supporters of CRT, CRT seems to be equated with good, and any opposition is necessarily racist and evil. I see no more nuanced argumentation.

Yup, the sort of thing I have called a religious position. Any disagreement with the core faith is treated as blasphemy.

Now, most of the opposition truly is from racists, but that doesn't mean all of it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well yeah, we know your house got flooded when the river over ran the levees and the town got flooded. But really, you seem to be stretching in saying that all this water damage is from a flood that is in the past now.

My hometown was inundated by a flood. Homes and buildings that had never even been damp suffered huge damage.

But if someone complained now that their carpet is wet and smelly, and their wallpaper is peeling, neither I nor any insurance company are likely to take claims of flood damage seriously. Because the flood was 11 years ago.

Okay, so...
Flood 48-hrs worth -> Damage -> Flood Ends -> Repair Damage
Racism a few centuries worth -> Untold Level of Damage -> Intentional systemic racism ends -> *underwear gnomes*

We are still learning today just how bad this stuff was. Race riots, property destroyed or flat out stolen (the thefts being potential untraceable), and of course all the blatant racism we are aware of. Blacks are a century behind because of this stuff. You have any idea how much money that is? How much damage there is to repair? And this ignores the likelihood of residual systemic racism that is still creating an impact, though thankfully nothing quite as bad as mobs of white people burning black property and lynching blacks..

Even if you were right that it's due to inheritance it's still not racism. The reality is that it's attitudes being passed, not wealth, that matters. And the damage will never be repaired until it's addressed--and pretending it's racism will not address it.

 

[Politesse]

I still think that in this thread for the supporters of CRT, CRT seems to be equated with good, and any opposition is necessarily racist and evil. I see no more nuanced argumentation.

Yup, the sort of thing I have called a religious position. Any disagreement with the core faith is treated as blasphemy.

Now, most of the opposition truly is from racists, but that doesn't mean all of it is.

In the same way that a bullet fired from a gun is not a gun? True, but irrelevant to the conversation?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We still have a lot of direct racism today in terms of suspicions, white flight, within-race relations. I suppose it is possible on many small scales across the country in local regions and in small institutions for it to be systemic within those entities. Then, in other areas or institutions where there is NOT "systemic" racism, you can still have those extreme and light racists having an impact on the whole in order to impact communities of color without saying it explicitly or even just biasing systems on average. Now you don't have to also take into account the very large inertia of slavery and historical racism that even when you try to implement color-blind policies will still create unequal outcomes because of those historical artifacts that still impact today. I think it is fair to look at the big picture and call it systemic racism, but I also understand how some retreat into literalism while refusing to see the forest for one specific tree that they focus on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so...
Flood 48-hrs worth -> Damage -> Flood Ends -> Repair Damage
Racism a few centuries worth -> Untold Level of Damage -> Intentional systemic racism ends -> *underwear gnomes*

We are still learning today just how bad this stuff was. Race riots, property destroyed or flat out stolen (the thefts being potential untraceable), and of course all the blatant racism we are aware of. Blacks are a century behind because of this stuff. You have any idea how much money that is? How much damage there is to repair? And this ignores the likelihood of residual systemic racism that is still creating an impact, though thankfully nothing quite as bad as mobs of white people burning black property and lynching blacks..

Even if you were right that it's due to inheritance it's still not racism. The reality is that it's attitudes being passed, not wealth, that matters. And the damage will never be repaired until it's addressed--and pretending it's racism will not address it.

There are multiple issues. The flooding was violent and there was great damage. This is unimpeachble truth.

Then we have the reality of inertia and that certain decisions in the past impact today. Kind of like the black area gets the factory because who cares what the blacks think. And then several decades later, the black area get the new landfill because the property values around the factory suck for a whole bunch of reasons.

THEN we have the issue of inertial racism in the system that isn't intended anymore, but still occurs. It is nothing like it was, but it is there.

It makes me ponder white America walking up to black America, saying "We're sorry about that shit, we cool?" But it is more like the Catholic Church, and we keep learning about shit that white America did to black America that pretty much kept most blacks in America capable of making it, despite the odds, from making it. Several generations worth! And in response to that you say "It isn't racism". It is fucked, whatever label you want to put on it. But dealing with it like adults, part of White America calls it reverse racism.... meanwhile you cut off White America in traffic... and you'd swear they burned down your home.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still think that in this thread for the supporters of CRT, CRT seems to be equated with good, and any opposition is necessarily racist and evil. I see no more nuanced argumentation.

I'm personally not opposed to it. I think CRT is great. But I question how useful it is to be taught to people who haven't first studied philosophy. Since it's a branch of post modern philosophy. I think without this theoretical foundation, it won't be applicable, and risks making people think that it proves more than it does. I haven't seen anybody in this thread argue against that.

We've had the same mess within feminism for 30 years now. I have plenty of friends who have done gender studies at uni and come away with the most bizarre beliefs. Because they only studied that and were never taught the postmodern philosophical foundation. Which I'd argue is super important to make any of it useful. Instead they come away from it seeing the evil patriarchy everywhere, and every problem is the result of the patriarchy.

Teaching CRT in isolation will of course make people see racist oppression everywhere, and see racism as the root cause of every problem. This way of thinking can be a useful tool. In the correct context. It can also cause a lot of damage, without it. Also for black people. Since facing an overwhelming, nebulous and all powerful oppressive force can be disempowering.

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

Agreed. It's the same problem - the university level content, with appropriate prerequisites, can serve as a good framework for investigating how society functions. But without that context, it causes more harm than good, imo.

Your observation with respect to Butlerian feminism is spot on.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see positives and negatives with it. I haven't seen much discussion in this thread about that?

How can we have a serious critical discussion about the pros and cons of a theory whose fundamental content is in dispute? If I were to have a critical discussion of CRT, I'd want to make reference to the actual theory set, it's principal authors and source texts, etc, not the Vaudevillian creation the conservatives have invented around the term.

Interesting then that when I've provided references to those principle authors and source texts... you've glossed right past them and failed to engage.