The only people going on about CRT persecuting poor innocent white people as individuals are people who don't understand CRT and indeed are trying to destroy it. How is anyone supposed to fix this? How could CRT theorists adjust the theory to change a stereotype they have no control over? A real academic paradigm is capable ot change and evolution in response to new information. A politicized stereotype about an academic paradigm is set in stone for all time, and will only change when and if a changing political landscape alters what rhetoric will be most useful in affecting public perception.
No, just look at this thread. CRT theorists ought to be clear, stop redefining words or else make clear that they are not speaking in common English and define their words, and of course drop their unwarranted assumptions. And they ought to stop denying that race is a biological phenomenon, because it is, as B20 already explained in this thread and others.
Politesse said:
For the millionth time, CRT explicitly treats race as only one of many social factors influencing the life of an individual's life, and has since the very beginning of that school. Intersectionality is and always has been a central element of the paradigm.
You can repeat that, but actually, you said earlier that
Politesse said:
You do accept that racial disparities are the result of social constructions of race, then?
by which you implied in context that racial disparities are the result of social constructions of race. And of course, I did not claim that CRT says that race is the only factor in an individual's life. Rather, I pointed out that CRT as described in this thread claims that
racial disparities are the result of the social construction of race. Among other problems with CRT.
Politesse said:
However, if by "culture" you just mean "race by any other name", I don't see how this is helpful or likely to be helpful in any way. Cutlural boundaries do not, in fact, neatly follow racial stereotypes.
No, by "culture", I do not mean race by another name. For example, suppose that there is some group of people - from, say, China or Korea - where children usually make massive efforts to pass some exams, because they are told they have that obligation, say it's their duty to their parents, or their ancestors, or whatever, and they believe it. And suppose some other group has predominant religious beliefs that hold that girls ought not to do such-and-such behaviors, and limit their chances of learning significantly. Now, these beliefs are
not about people of certain races being superior, or inferior, etc., in other words, they are not beliefs
about races at all. They are not part of the social construction of
race. Rather, they are part of all sort of
other social constructions which are not about race, and which happen to correlate with race due to accidental historical factors, since people of the same race lived in the same place for a long time and developed that culture, different from some other culture developed in some other place by people of a different race. The result you get is racial disparities due to cultural factors not related to the social construction of race.
Of course, in addition to redefining 'racism'- which predictably and observably leads to false unwarranted accusations against innocent people -, I suppose the CRT proponent might choose to redefine 'social', 'construction', and 'race' - or something to that effect - and then claim the above would still be due to the social construction of race, and then by the previous redefinition, due to racism. But that would lead to further false accusations, and further confusion. Predictably, as people are not warned that the CRT proponent is not speaking in common English but is redefining several key words.