• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this a Valid Definition of Critical Race Theory?

Do you agree with this definition, and analysis:


  • Total voters
    38
first off, you have no, none, ZERO reference to what Broder said.....and I will never depend upon your word for anything.....which is why you lose every debate we have.....you do not back up your arguments. AND AGAIN, at the end, Broder was not a "moderate", neocon ass kissers are not moderate in any stretch of the term. If you want to argue he thought "the left" wanted culture wars, it more than proves he wasn't a "moderate". We know who strives to foment culture wars.

Now I will tie this into the topic......CRT is an explanation of how and why we have huge disparities. It is not a cause of the disparities.....and the right wingers like yourself that get themselves fired up over this are simply looking for a way to excuse our history. We in AZ saw this same thing play out with Hispanic history being temporarily banned in Pinal county. It didn't work, the courts overturned what the state ED board tried to do.
your self proclaimed wins are as big a joke as the other crap you post. Your posts are among the most lame bits of bullshit on this board-you are continually given truth and it never sticks. CRT is nothing more than revisionist racist crap designed to make excuses while blaming whites for everything from high rates of black crime to the fact that 75% of black children are born out of wedlock-which in turn leads to high rates of crime, educational failures and social pathologies.
 
your self proclaimed wins are as big a joke as the other crap you post. Your posts are among the most lame bits of bullshit on this board-you are continually given truth and it never sticks. CRT is nothing more than revisionist racist crap designed to make excuses while blaming whites for everything from high rates of black crime to the fact that 75% of black children are born out of wedlock-which in turn leads to high rates of crime, educational failures and social pathologies.
No Broder link? Check.
No citation of CRT? Check.
Fomenting the usual culture war/denial of racism, ala W F Buckley, our favorite crypto-fascist?
CHECK!
 
No Broder link? Check.
No citation of CRT? Check.
Fomenting the usual culture war/denial of racism, ala W F Buckley, our favorite crypto-fascist?
CHECK!
30+ years ago

Crypto fascist for Buckley? you seriously need some more truth.
 
30+ years ago
You memorized it......from SOMEWHERE...at SOME POINT IN TIME. Am I supposed bear the burden of finding where you read it?

Good ****ing grief.
Crypto fascist for Buckley? you seriously need some more truth.
"for"?

See now, when you can't even get down on your kb something that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, why would ANYONE have any faith in something you supposedly read "30 years ago"?
 
The way I understand CRT goes something like this particular example: blacks were excluded de facto from the GI Bill, something that helped create/strengthen the US middle class. That exclusion meant a lack of accumulated wealth that was passed on to heirs and has an effect on our lives today. Thus in this instance, racism had a lasting effect. There are other historical examples I imagine scholars might offer. None of this says that all whites are racist, or any of the other things some folks are freaking out over.
Nah, its more like-
"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon" ... Ibram X. Kendi
Solely because blacks dont do as well.
 
Last edited:
Unless an 8 y/o is in law School CRT does not affect public school students.

Nah, Critical legal studies morphed into Critical Race Theory back in the 80s and went into all of academia.
 
Once again, a YouTube Source I find of interest bringing up a topic of valid discussion.

This young psychologist (and member of a knitting society, who knew that was political?) has put forward an interesting definition of Critical Race Theory.

I post the video, but will also post the Definition below it for discussion purposes:



Here is her definition:

"1. Critical Race Theory is an Ideology started in academia in the 1970's that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

2. Another way to think of critical race theory is this: it's the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It is the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character."

She goes on to explain how this is problematic as if one starts with a conclusion that racism has occurred and one work's their way back from that initial conclusion, that is confirmation bias in action. You'll only look for information that supports your conclusion.

Worse, you will dismiss any information that does not conform to your expectations. You will look until you find something that confirms your expectations, and disparage anyone who does not agree/conform with the conclusion.

The poll question is:

Do you agree with this definition, and analysis:

Yes.

No.

Other, explain.

CRT is based on Critical Theory, which is Marxist doctrine based on more then just race. The CCP uses it everyday, and used it exactly as the Democrats are using it now, only they did it by class of people instead of race.
 
CRT is based on Critical Theory, which is Marxist doctrine based on more then just race. The CCP uses it everyday, and used it exactly as the Democrats are using it now, only they did it by class of people instead of race.

Yes. I point this out on page 1, in post #24. ;)
 
Page 1? How many pages did you write?

Page 1 refers to the first page of 25 posts in this thread. I was being helpful in giving both the number of the page and the post number to speed up locating it.
 
CRT is based on Critical Theory, which is Marxist doctrine based on more then just race. The CCP uses it everyday, and used it exactly as the Democrats are using it now, only they did it by class of people instead of race.
yep. Any division they can exploit, will be exploited to bring about the revolution against capitalism.


Marcuse champions non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia, attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition. .....

The intelligentsia is a status class of educated people engaged in the complex mental labours that critique, guide, and lead in shaping the culture and politics of their society.

Modern industrial societies have furthermore created an "affluent society", which in increasing comfort have disguised the exploitative nature of the system, and have therefore strengthened means of domination and control. Modern "affluent society" therefore limits opportunities for political revolution against capitalism.....

Thats why Hannah Jones, author of the 1619 project beamed with pride when people started referring to the BLM riots as the 1619 riots. "oppositional thought and behavior" JUST as intended
 
Unless an 8 y/o is in law School CRT does not affect public school students.

"I’m going on record now: At the end of the day it’s just my students and me in our classroom and we will be discussing race, class and gender in my history classes, regardless of what laws and policies people want to pass. Critical race theory is a component of everything I do."

Amusing to see those who deny that critical race theory is taught in schools are the ones most opposed to state laws prohibiting the teaching of critical race in schools.
 
Nah, its more like-
"Standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon" ... Ibram X. Kendi
Solely because blacks dont do as well.
It's a theory, and presumably the guy you quote has an explanation for why he calls it that, and I doubt he posits racism as the sole reason blacks don't do as well as whites. Fact is, as I pointed out, that racially based policies from generations ago can have effects that last to and explain current disparities. Slavery, lynchings, segregation are gone, but their effects linger and are even renewed a bit in the current massive attempts to limit voting.

CRT seems to be the right's new 1619 Project argument. Instead of attack, skeptics or opponents should critique the theses of the two notions and offer alternative theories. So for example, why do *you* think blacks don't do as well on standardized tests?
 
You just made a 'Nuh-uh!' argument. Very lame. Let me know if you ever have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation.
vaush is gross
 
It's a theory, and presumably the guy you quote has an explanation for why he calls it that, and I doubt he posits racism as the sole reason blacks don't do as well as whites.

Yeah.
"When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism" Kendi
So for example, why do *you* think blacks don't do as well on standardized tests?

Probably the same reason whites dont do as well on average as Asians
 
If I recall, that woman is a psychologist who teaches workers to be more subservient to their corporate overlords.


Yup:


So what?

The real question is, why can't leftists judge people based on the content of their character, not their skin color?
 
Last edited:
Yeah.
"When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism" Kendi


Probably the same reason whites dont do as well on average as Asians
And those reasons are?

But I still don't get your point about the "Kendi" statement. It states a point that is defensible. If, for example, to answer the question I posed, Asians do better - much as it used to be said of Jews (as opposed to Italians) - because parents of those ethnicities put a premium on education more than others. That has complex cultural factors as sources, some of which are tied to race. If you were told that the only path to success was as "hewers of wood and drawers of water," to use the biblical phrase applied to some groups, if that is what everybody in the neighborhood is doing, then your ambition and success may be limited.

Italian friend of mine from the old neighborhood in NYC said his dad's advice in the 1950s was "Go to school. That's what the Jews are doing."
 
And those reasons are?

But I still don't get your point about the "Kendi" statement. It states a point that is defensible. If, for example, to answer the question I posed, Asians do better - much as it used to be said of Jews (as opposed to Italians) - because parents of those ethnicities put a premium on education more than others. That has complex cultural factors as sources, some of which are tied to race. If you were told that the only path to success was as "hewers of wood and drawers of water," to use the biblical phrase applied to some groups, if that is what everybody in the neighborhood is doing, then your ambition and success may be limited.

Italian friend of mine from the old neighborhood in NYC said his dad's advice in the 1950s was "Go to school. That's what the Jews are doing."

Asians have higher intelligence when measured by IQ tests, compared to whites. And I dont doubt that black American culture, as opposed to biological differences, is responsible for the differences. Recall reading a study on the disparity between blacks and whites in HS graduation. Both within individual schools and more so across the whole population. When they control for income, some of the disparity disappears. when they controlled for the presence of the mother and father in the home, most all of the disparity disappears when comparing whites with their parents in the home to blacks with their parents in the home.
 
Asians have higher intelligence when measured by IQ tests, compared to whites. And I dont doubt that black American culture, as opposed to biological differences, is responsible for the differences. Recall reading a study on the disparity between blacks and whites in HS graduation. Both within individual schools and more so across the whole population. When they control for income, some of the disparity disappears. when they controlled for the presence of the mother and father in the home, most all of the disparity disappears when comparing whites with their parents in the home to blacks with their parents in the home.
So both examples you cite (income, number of parents) are economic effects, primarily....so it is not "culture" to blame, but economics, ie poverty.
 
So both examples you cite (income, number of parents) are economic effects, primarily....so it is not "culture" to blame, but economics, ie poverty.
An economic effect of the culture.
 
An economic effect of the culture.
I've studied macroecon some, elaborate on how black culture causes blacks, who have equal qualifications/education, to earn less than other "cultures" in the US......and please cite references.
 
Unless an 8 y/o is in law School CRT does not affect public school students.

From the teachers union-

From the Teachers Union-

2. Supporting and leading campaigns that:
  • Result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic (Native people, Asian, Black, Latin(o/a/x), Middle Eastern, North African, and Pacific Islander) Studies curriculum in pre- K-12 and higher education;
The NEA will, with guidance on implementation from the NEA president and chairs of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Caucuses:

A. Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) — what it is and what it is not; have a team of staffers for members who want to learn more and fight back against anti-CRT rhetoric; and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members.
C. Publicly (through existing media) convey its support for the accurate and honest teaching of social studies topics, including truthful and age-appropriate accountings of unpleasant aspects of American history, such as slavery, and the oppression and discrimination of Indigenous, Black, Brown, and other peoples of color, as well as the continued impact this history has on our current society. The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.

E. Conduct a virtual listening tour that will educate members on the tools and resources needed to defend honesty in education including but not limited to tools like CRT.

F. Commit President Becky Pringle to make public statements across all lines of media that support racial honesty in education including but not limited to critical race theory.

"Join with Black Lives Matter at School and the Zinn Education Project to call for a rally this year on October 14—George Floyd’s birthday—as a national day of action to teach lessons about structural racism and oppression—even in places where it is illegal and requires civil disobedience."
 
Is anyone asking whether constantly highlighting racism, theorizing about the history and scope of racism, and so forth, actually helps minority groups? Seems like we all (except the Trumpers, of course) have the same goal, but if one truly wants progress, empirical study of the consequences of different approaches would be informative. In raising kids, I do not lie to them and pretend everything is fair, but I do emphasize that reality is what it is, and you can either lament it or overcome it. Is anyone SURE a similar focus on overcoming (rather than protesting) inherited injustices is not the most effective way to defeat them? Do you have studies demonstrating that a mindset that focuses on talking about injustices is a better path to success than one that ignores them and instead focuses on making oneself better than the competition? Put differently, do you have any tested reason to think this approach works?
 
Once again, a YouTube Source I find of interest bringing up a topic of valid discussion.

This young psychologist (and member of a knitting society, who knew that was political?) has put forward an interesting definition of Critical Race Theory.

I post the video, but will also post the Definition below it for discussion purposes:



Here is her definition:

"1. Critical Race Theory is an Ideology started in academia in the 1970's that says racism exists everywhere - in every person and system - and the job of the critical theorist is to assess HOW (not if) racism occurred in any circumstance. Racism is always ASSUMED to have occurred.

2. Another way to think of critical race theory is this: it's the opposite of what Martin Luther King preached. It is the idea that we should judge people on the basis of their race, that race is the only thing that matters about them, not the content of their character."

She goes on to explain how this is problematic as if one starts with a conclusion that racism has occurred and one work's their way back from that initial conclusion, that is confirmation bias in action. You'll only look for information that supports your conclusion.

Worse, you will dismiss any information that does not conform to your expectations. You will look until you find something that confirms your expectations, and disparage anyone who does not agree/conform with the conclusion.

The poll question is:

Do you agree with this definition, and analysis:

Yes.

No.

Other, explain.

 
Back
Top Bottom