Why CRT Hysteria?

[Metaphor]

CRT is an analytical framework that treats untested assumptions as facts.

Name a theory that does not use untested assumptions.

Any number of scientific theories have assumptions that have been tested by prior theories and observation. When LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves, it relied on Einstein having a better theory than Newton. Einstein's theory of gravity predicted gravitational waves. For them to be detected, a lot of other assumptions also have to be have been right, or there was a series of unlikely coincidences to give them the appearance they were right.

CRT assumes institutional and systemic (mostly anti-black) racism. It does not establish how the theorists came to this conclusion. Early, influential theorists asserted it, and other theorists cited the assertions as if they were facts.

 

[Toni]

CRT is an analytical framework that treats untested assumptions as facts.

Name a theory that does not use untested assumptions.

Any number of scientific theories have assumptions that have been tested by prior theories and observation. When LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves, it relied on Einstein having a better theory than Newton. Einstein's theory of gravity predicted gravitational waves. For them to be detected, a lot of other assumptions also have to be have been right, or there was a series of unlikely coincidences to give them the appearance they were right.

CRT assumes institutional and systemic (mostly anti-black) racism. It does not establish how the theorists came to this conclusion. Early, influential theorists asserted it, and other theorists cited the assertions as if they were facts.

Observation.

 

[Metaphor]

Any number of scientific theories have assumptions that have been tested by prior theories and observation. When LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves, it relied on Einstein having a better theory than Newton. Einstein's theory of gravity predicted gravitational waves. For them to be detected, a lot of other assumptions also have to be have been right, or there was a series of unlikely coincidences to give them the appearance they were right.

CRT assumes institutional and systemic (mostly anti-black) racism. It does not establish how the theorists came to this conclusion. Early, influential theorists asserted it, and other theorists cited the assertions as if they were facts.

Observation.

What have they observed?

 

[Elixir]

Any number of scientific theories have assumptions that have been tested by prior theories and observation. When LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves, it relied on Einstein having a better theory than Newton. Einstein's theory of gravity predicted gravitational waves. For them to be detected, a lot of other assumptions also have to be have been right, or there was a series of unlikely coincidences to give them the appearance they were right.

CRT assumes institutional and systemic (mostly anti-black) racism. It does not establish how the theorists came to this conclusion. Early, influential theorists asserted it, and other theorists cited the assertions as if they were facts.

Observation.

B-b-but it has to be repeatable observation for CRT to be science at any level, let alone at the level of certainty of a "theory".
At best, it's a set of social hypotheses. If Meta can't observe it, can anyone really fairly assert to him that it exists?

It makes a body wonder... are there a lot of other things that don't exist that there should laws against talking about?
I can think of one - massive voter fraud n 2020.

 

[Elixir]

Took a few seconds.

"Critical race theorists base their thinking on a few important observations:"

Why has it become so politicized?

Resistance to critical race theory is not a new phenomenon. However, the term jumped into headlines and social media feeds in recent years when, in a Constitution Day speech at the National Archives, former president Donald Trump characterized education that takes a critical lens as “radical” and “ideological poison.” Trump went on to attack the “1619 Project” and announced an executive order establishing the short-lived “1776 Commission” to “promote patriotic education.” He also issued a subsequent executive order banning government contractors from conducting racial sensitivity and diversity training in the workplace.

The executive orders were a reaction to educational initiatives—like the “1619 Project” or the work of Howard Zinn—designed to examine professional development, pedagogy, teaching and learning through a critical lens, labeling any approach that acknowledges American racism, white supremacy, white privilege, intersectionality, microaggressions, and the like as dangerous, unpatriotic and, ironically, racist.

 

[laughing dog]

CRT is an analytical framework that treats untested assumptions as facts.

Name a theory that does not use untested assumptions.

Any number of scientific theories have assumptions that have been tested by prior theories and observation. When LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves, it relied on Einstein having a better theory than Newton. Einstein's theory of gravity predicted gravitational waves. For them to be detected, a lot of other assumptions also have to be have been right, or there was a series of unlikely coincidences to give them the appearance they were right.

So, all theories rest on assumptions. And if you bothered to actually think about, assumptions are always untested. If they are tested and found valid, they are no longer assumptions.

All of that means that the complaint a theory is using untested assumptions is simply establishing something is a theory.

CRT assumes institutional and systemic (mostly anti-black) racism. It does not establish how the theorists came to this conclusion. Early, influential theorists asserted it, and other theorists cited the assertions as if they were facts.

Actually as other have pointed out, they used observation and historical fact.

 

[Trausti]

Took a few seconds.

"Critical race theorists base their thinking on a few important observations:"

Race is a social construct that doesn’t have anything to do with biological differences among people, including differences in intelligence or physical ability. This became definitively clear after the Human Genome Project.

This is false. Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

The U.S., and all of its laws and institutions, were founded and created based on the myth of white supremacy—the assumption that lighter skin and European ancestry meant that white people were better and deserved a higher social and economic position than people of color. Because racism is embedded within our systems and institutions, codified in law, and woven into American public policy, this racial inequality is replicated and maintained over time. Thus, systemic racism shows up in nearly every facet of life for people of color.

This is false. Even a brief survey of American Revolution shows why it is false. And the question posed many times to the CRT commissars: where is racism codified into law? The answer is always: *crickets*

I mean, saying the CRT is true because its progenitors made observations is like saying Islam is true because people saw Muhammad speak in tongues.

 

[Metaphor]

All of that means that the complaint a theory is using untested assumptions is simply establishing something is a theory.

No, it's not. Some theories are based on assumptions that have more support than others. Some theories have assumptions that have not been subjected to any kind of meaningful scrutiny.

Actually as other have pointed out, they used observation and historical fact.

Calling it 'observation' is question-begging.

 

[laughing dog]

Race is a social construct that doesn’t have anything to do with biological differences among people, including differences in intelligence or physical ability. This became definitively clear after the Human Genome Project.

This is false. Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

You are really confused - using DNA to trace ancestry is not about race.

This is false. Even a brief survey of American Revolution shows why it is false.

I am beginning to think you don't understand what false means. Hell, the US Constitution accepted the fact of slavery of blacks.

 

[laughing dog]

All of that means that the complaint a theory is using untested assumptions is simply establishing something is a theory.

No, it's not. Some theories are based on assumptions that have more support than others. Some theories have assumptions that have not been subjected to any kind of meaningful scrutiny.

We are going around in circles. It is pretty clear to me that you do not understand what a theory is nor the difference between assumption and fact.

Calling it 'observation' is question-begging.

That is silliness. The only way to test assumptions is by observation.

 

[TomC]

Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

I think that they are.

My mother-in-law's grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. But 23 didn't find any Native genetics in my brother-in-law.
I understand that he hasn't a lot of Native blood. But, none?
Nah.

You can see the Native blood in her descendants. She had documents. 23and Me is a scam, at least sometimes.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

I think that they are.

My mother-in-law's grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. But 23 didn't find any Native genetics in my brother-in-law.
I understand that he hasn't a lot of Native blood. But, none?
Nah.

You can see the Native blood in her descendants. She had documents. 23and Me is a scam, at least sometimes.
Tom

23andme is not a scam, but it does rely on having a sufficient sample size to make confident determinations. My experience was that it pinpointed not only the country my parents were born but the individual counties.

 

[Trausti]

Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

I think that they are.

My mother-in-law's grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. But 23 didn't find any Native genetics in my brother-in-law.
I understand that he hasn't a lot of Native blood. But, none?
Nah.

You can see the Native blood in her descendants. She had documents. 23and Me is a scam, at least sometimes.
Tom

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

 

[Politesse]

23 and Me is not a scam, per se, but they do knowingly perpetuate common misunderstandings about genetics and the scope of what tests like theirs can accomplish. Their reports aren't fraudulent, but you shouldn't expect them to give you an accurate portrait of your whole genome. They are, fundamentally, looking for certain "shortcuts" that connect an individual to a known network of common descendancy (and associated common medical conditions), essentially a few thousand known areas of common variation. The accuracy of the report is therefore heavily dependent on how similar you are to the groups they have such shortcuts for, and they certainly aren't sequencing all of your DNA; the percentages they give you are measures of similarity to their known benchmarks, not a quantitative measure of "how much blood you have" by proportion. That isn't how inheritance actually works, as we have known in the sciences since the reproductive role of semen was first deduced in the 1870's. Your blood doesn't know whether it is Italian or Swiss, and it's national identity cannot be reduced to any concrete number.

Generally speaking, if a 23 and Me test indicates that you have some degree of genetic similarity to a known living community, they're probably right. If they say you're at risk for a genetic disorder, there's a reason for it but that doesn't mean you necessarily have a disorder. But if they simply lack information about a certain group, that doesn't much mean anything, except that if you are a member of one of their social/ethnic/national groups, you're atypical compared to some of the other people in that social group and may not be a close genetic relation to the individuals their data were derived from.

 

[Politesse]

Or is 23andMe perpetuating a fraud on the public?

I think that they are.

My mother-in-law's grandmother was full blooded Cherokee. But 23 didn't find any Native genetics in my brother-in-law.
I understand that he hasn't a lot of Native blood. But, none?
Nah.

You can see the Native blood in her descendants. She had documents. 23and Me is a scam, at least sometimes.
Tom

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

Population groups in genetics are not identical, or even usually related, to the folk concepts of "race" peddled by social conservatives and authoritarian governments.

 

[Trausti]

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

Population groups in genetics are not identical, or even usually related, to the folk concepts of "race" peddled by social conservatives and authoritarian governments.

Um, okay.

A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans

 

[Politesse]

You have the common sense expectation that different population groups would have different genomic presentations? So one the base assumptions of CRT is *gasp* wrong?

Population groups in genetics are not identical, or even usually related, to the folk concepts of "race" peddled by social conservatives and authoritarian governments.

Um, okay.

A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans

I'm baffled as to why you would post annimage that conflicts with your own bullshit narrative concerning "Blacks".

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't know how many of you will read my linked opinion piece, but as a NYT subscriber, I'm supposed to be permitted to share 10 articles per month, so if you are interested, you should be able to read the entire article

It's written by a conservative, a progressive, a moderate and a libertarian who all agree that it is wrong and unAmerican to deny teachers the right to teach CRT. I agree.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/opinion/we-disagree-on-a-lot-of-things-except-the-danger-of-anti-critical-race-theory-laws.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

At their best, our nation’s schools equip young minds to grapple with complexity and navigate our differences. At their worst, they resemble indoctrination factories.

In recent weeks, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, Idaho and Texas have passed legislation that places significant restrictions on what can be taught in public school classrooms and, in some cases, public universities, too.

Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, for example, bans any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.”

We, the authors of this essay, have wide ideological divergences on the explicit targets of this legislation. Some of us are deeply influenced by the academic discipline of critical race theory and its critique of racist structures and admire the 1619 Project. Some of us are skeptical of structural racist explanations and racial identity itself and disagree with the mission and methodology of the 1619 Project. We span the ideological spectrum: a progressive, a moderate, a libertarian and a conservative.

It is because of these differences that we here join, as we are united in one overarching concern: the danger posed by these laws to liberal education.

The laws differ in some respects but generally agree on blocking any teaching that would lead students to feel discomfort, guilt or anguish because of one’s race or ancestry, as well as restricting teaching that subsequent generations have any kind of historical responsibility for actions of previous generations. They attempt various carve outs for the impartial teaching of the history of oppression of groups. But it’s hard to see how these attempts are at all consistent with demands to avoid discomfort. These measures would, by way of comparison, make Germany’s uncompromising and successful approach to teaching about the Holocaust illegal, as part of its goal is to infuse them with some sense of the weight of the past and (famously) lead many German students to feel anguish about their ancestry.

Indeed, the very act of learning history in a free and multiethnic society is inescapably fraught. Any accurate teaching of any country’s history could make some of its citizens feel uncomfortable (or even guilty) about the past. To deny this necessary consequence of education is, to quote W.E.B. Du Bois, to transform “history into propaganda.”

There is more in the opinion piece if you are interested, but I think the primary concern is that by denying teachers the ability to teach what may be to some a controversial theory, we are censoring free speech and denying students to learn all of the negative or controversial parts of US history. Shouldn't students be exposed to a wide range of ideas so they can form their own opinions?

Imo, the primary reason why the Republicans are hysterical over CRT, is so they can use it in the upcoming midterm elections to demonize their opponents. They want to make it seem as if all liberals are forcing White people to feel guilty over things that happened in the past. I read a few days ago that Fox so called news used the term CRT hundreds of times over the course of a few days, often associating it with making little White children feel guilty. That sounds like an attempt to indoctrinate people into believing that CRT is some type of evil that Democrats want to push on innocent children, making them feel responsible for all of America's dark racist history. That of course is nonsense. Those who oppose allowing teachers to examine and teach CRT or similar concepts are the real threat.

I am White and I've read many books on racism from "Narrative of a Slave" by Frederick Douglas, to Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice", to the more recent "White Rage by Carolyn Anderson. I never felt guilty, but I did feel disgusted by the hatred and racism that has been part of the history of my country, and that remains to a lesser extent in some of what are supposed to be our most cherished institutions.

I went to school in the Northeast and I regret that I wasn't taught more about some of the things that I learned later in books. On the other hand, to be honest, how many children even pay that much attention in social studies or history class? I was never interested in those subjects until adulthood, but at least give students the opportunity to consider different aspects of our history, and then discuss these things openly. Perhaps my high school history classes would have been more interesting if things like CRT had been discussed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know how many of you will read my linked opinion piece, but as a NYT subscriber, I'm supposed to be permitted to share 10 articles per month, so if you are interested, you should be able to read the entire article

It's written by a conservative, a progressive, a moderate and a libertarian who all agree that it is wrong and unAmerican to deny teachers the right to teach CRT. I agree.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/opinion/we-disagree-on-a-lot-of-things-except-the-danger-of-anti-critical-race-theory-laws.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

The laws differ in some respects but generally agree on blocking any teaching that would lead students to feel discomfort, guilt or anguish because of one’s race or ancestry, as well as restricting teaching that subsequent generations have any kind of historical responsibility for actions of previous generations. They attempt various carve outs for the impartial teaching of the history of oppression of groups. But it’s hard to see how these attempts are at all consistent with demands to avoid discomfort. These measures would, by way of comparison, make Germany’s uncompromising and successful approach to teaching about the Holocaust illegal, as part of its goal is to infuse them with some sense of the weight of the past and (famously) lead many German students to feel anguish about their ancestry.

Indeed, the very act of learning history in a free and multiethnic society is inescapably fraught. Any accurate teaching of any country’s history could make some of its citizens feel uncomfortable (or even guilty) about the past. To deny this necessary consequence of education is, to quote W.E.B. Du Bois, to transform “history into propaganda.”

There is more in the opinion piece if you are interested, but I think the primary concern is that by denying teachers the ability to teach what may be to some a controversial theory, we are censoring free speech and denying students to learn all of the negative or controversial parts of US history. Shouldn't students be exposed to a wide range of ideas so they can form their own opinions?

Imo, the primary reason why the Republicans are hysterical over CRT, is so they can use it in the upcoming midterm elections to demonize their opponents. They want to make it seem as if all liberals are forcing White people to feel guilty over things that happened in the past. I read a few days ago that Fox so called news used the term CRT hundreds of times over the course of a few days, often associating it with making little White children feel guilty. That sounds like an attempt to indoctrinate people into believing that CRT is some type of evil that Democrats want to push on innocent children, making them feel responsible for all of America's dark racist history. That of course is nonsense. Those who oppose allowing teachers to examine and teach CRT or similar concepts are the real threat.

I am White and I've read many books on racism from "Narrative of a Slave" by Frederick Douglas, to Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice", to the more recent "White Rage by Carolyn Anderson. I never felt guilty, but I did feel disgusted by the hatred and racism that has been part of the history of my country, and that remains to a lesser extent in some of what are supposed to be our most cherished institutions.

I went to school in the Northeast and I regret that I wasn't taught more about some of the things that I learned later in books. On the other hand, to be honest, how many children even pay that much attention in social studies or history class? I was never interested in those subjects until adulthood, but at least give students the opportunity to consider different aspects of our history, and then discuss these things openly. Perhaps my high school history classes would have been more interesting if things like CRT had been discussed.

But that's the thing! The republicans want to keep this problem going. They want to deny the problem exists at all, on my estimation so they can keep from being displaced by a society that moves away from their insistence that pleasure yachts are more important than, say, feeding hungry people.

I keep saying this, we should be talking less about the problem, not because the problem "does not exist". Rather, it does exist.

Instead of talking about the problem, we need to be offering solutions to the problem: ending the drug war; making a quality education freely available; ending for-profit prisons; regulating the loan/equity industry to blind it to racial factors.

These are things conservatives fear. Note that none of these things says anything about race, and in fact aims to make people less aware of it (not CoLorBLinD but "blind, as Justice ought be"). If you cannot stand for those things, then I will readily stand up, however, and say you are a racist, because each of those pillars is a pillar holding up the racial disparity in our country.

 

[southernhybrid]

Instead of talking about the problem, we need to be offering solutions to the problem: ending the drug war; making a quality education freely available; ending for-profit prisons; regulating the loan/equity industry to blind it to racial factors.

Of course we need to offer solutions and I agree with all of the things you listed, although I'm not sure that there is still a problem in my neighborhood with loan inequity, since I have at least 6 or more new Black neighbors over the last two years in my previously, mostly White middle class neighborhood. Yay for that!

Perhaps that problem has been solved, at least where I live. If it hasn't changed, then of course, add that to the list. There are many more, like the systemic racism that exists in many if not most police departments etc. All recreational drugs should be made legal or at least decriminalized.

But, here's the thing. How do you find solutions if you don't discuss the problem and convince others that the problems exists in the first place?