• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Critical Race Theory: Of the Racists, By the Racists, and For the Racists

I maintain that Professor Bell's words are racist, ignorant, and inflammatory. Do you deny the words of Professor Bell or are you just upset that his words are made public?

Professor Bell: "I live to harass white folks".

Do you want to deny Professor Bell said that?

Well, you do have to show he said that. Second, I wouldn't call that racist. You have to read a lot into it and redefine what the word racists means to get to your conclusion. it sounds like him ahving a little fun to me. But you're ignoring the issue here. The op offers no evidence. Nor do you ask for any. Focus on the point. Focus.
 

I believe this may help folks better understand what is being said.
 
I believe this may help folks better understand what is being said.
With 95% of black america being owned by Barack Obama and The Democrat Party, I believe we can safely say the Zonation Guy is a minority among minorities.

Hi there Excon and welcome to the arena :boxer So, are you a reformed criminal or do you still dabble?!__LOL!(excuse my humor, I can't take myself anywhere)

From the number of posts you've managed to put up, one might suspect you're still doing time__Are you positive you haven't prematurely labeled yourself an "excon"???
 

I believe this may help folks better understand what is being said.


This is the best you can offer? I suggest Google:

Critical race theory (CRT) first emerged as a counterlegal scholarship to the positivistand liberal legal discourse of civil rights. This scholarly tradition argues against the slow pace of racial reform in the United States. Critical race theory begins with the notion that racism is normal in American society. It departs from mainstream legal scholarship by sometimes employing storytelling. It critiques liberalism and argues that Whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation.Since schooling in the USA purports to prepare citizens, CRT looks at how citizenship and race might interact. Critical race theory's usefulness in understanding education inequity is in its infancy. It requires a critique of some of the civil rights era's most cherished legal victories and educationalreform movements, such as multiculturalism. The paper concludes with words of caution about the use of CRT in education without a more thorough analysis of the legal literature upon which it is based..

Taylor & Francis Online :: Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education? - International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education - Volume 11, Issue 1

Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory,[1][2] a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power.[1][3] According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.[4]

The movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[5]

Critical race theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critical Race Theory was developed out of legal scholarship. It provides a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Since its inception within legal scholarship CRT has spread to many disciplines. CRT has basic tenets that guide its framework. These tenets are interdisciplinary and can be approached from different branches of learning.

What is Critical Race Theory? « UCLA School of Public Affairs | Critical Race Studies

Learning to look critically at race relations is a key part of critical race theory. Examining everyday interactions, and finding the racial component in them, can help move the racial equality cause forward perhaps more than a sometimes simplistic "color blind" approach. Looking carefully at what sociologists call micro-aggressions can help to see the true extent of racism in the United States, and through critical analysis, it is hoped people can begin to work past it.

What Is Critical Race Theory?

Now I know some prefer the wild accusations over actually knowing what something is, But I think the more we know . . . ;)
 
This is the best you can offer? I suggest Google:
I suggest you recognize that CRT is crap.

I would also suggest you go back to the Wiki link you provided and read the "Critique" and "Controversies and impact" sections to see just what crap it is.
 
Well, you do have to show he said that. Second, I wouldn't call that racist. You have to read a lot into it and redefine what the word racists means to get to your conclusion. it sounds like him ahving a little fun to me. But you're ignoring the issue here. The op offers no evidence. Nor do you ask for any. Focus on the point. Focus.

If Hannity or Rush said...."I live to harass Black Folks", would you say "it sounds like him having a little fun to me."

This is why I can't take you seriously. Your posts reveal dishonesty and are insulting to common sense and basic intelligence.
 
I suggest you recognize that CRT is crap.

I would also suggest you go back to the Wiki link you provided and read the "Critique" and "Controversies and impact" sections to see just what crap it is.

Let's talk crap.

 
This is the best you can offer? I suggest Google:

Critical race theory (CRT) first emerged as a counterlegal scholarship to the positivistand liberal legal discourse of civil rights. This scholarly tradition argues against the slow pace of racial reform in the United States. Critical race theory begins with the notion that racism is normal in American society. It departs from mainstream legal scholarship by sometimes employing storytelling. It critiques liberalism and argues that Whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation.Since schooling in the USA purports to prepare citizens, CRT looks at how citizenship and race might interact. Critical race theory's usefulness in understanding education inequity is in its infancy. It requires a critique of some of the civil rights era's most cherished legal victories and educationalreform movements, such as multiculturalism. The paper concludes with words of caution about the use of CRT in education without a more thorough analysis of the legal literature upon which it is based..

Taylor & Francis Online :: Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education? - International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education - Volume 11, Issue 1

Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory,[1][2] a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power.[1][3] According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.[4]

The movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[5]

Critical race theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critical Race Theory was developed out of legal scholarship. It provides a critical analysis of race and racism from a legal point of view. Since its inception within legal scholarship CRT has spread to many disciplines. CRT has basic tenets that guide its framework. These tenets are interdisciplinary and can be approached from different branches of learning.

What is Critical Race Theory? « UCLA School of Public Affairs | Critical Race Studies

Learning to look critically at race relations is a key part of critical race theory. Examining everyday interactions, and finding the racial component in them, can help move the racial equality cause forward perhaps more than a sometimes simplistic "color blind" approach. Looking carefully at what sociologists call micro-aggressions can help to see the true extent of racism in the United States, and through critical analysis, it is hoped people can begin to work past it.

What Is Critical Race Theory?

Now I know some prefer the wild accusations over actually knowing what something is, But I think the more we know . . . ;)
Everything Below Is My Postings

I wonder if you really know who, what and where the roots of Critical Race Theory actually stems from?

I can see that you did stumble upon the truth in one of your links above, but did you invest the time and effort to examine the Meat&Potatoes of CRT's reality?

Critical Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Critical Theory
First published Tue Mar 8, 2005


Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, 244). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.

Critical Theory in the narrow sense has had many different aspects and quite distinct historical phases that cross several generations, from the effective start of the Institute for Social Research in the years 1929–1930, which saw the arrival of the Frankfurt School philosophers and an inaugural lecture by Horkheimer, to the present. Its distinctiveness as a philosophical approach that extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history is most apparent when considered in light of the history of the philosophy of the social sciences.
Critical Theory was created and instituted for the methodical destruction of the fabric of America's social and economic infrastructure by attacking it's core values and institutions.

It targets everything from religion and family values to capitalism and the white male power structure.__These were very serious, determined and intelligent people who laid the groundwork for this marxist/progressive movement.

The motivation of course is very obvious considering the Marxist ideology of this "group of thinkers", who relocated to the US in 1933 from the Frankfurt School in Germany and set up shop at Columbia University in New York City.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Frankfurt school

Group of thinkers associated with the Institut fr Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), founded in Frankfurt in 1923 by Felix J. Weil, Carl Grnberg, Max Horkheimer, and Friedrich Pollock. Other important members of the school are Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, and Jrgen Habermas. After the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Horkheimer moved the institute to Columbia University in New York City, where it functioned until 1941; it was reestablished in Frankfurt in 1950. Though the institute was originally conceived as a centre for neo-Marxian social research, there is no doctrine common to all members of the Frankfurt school. Intellectually, the school is most indebted to the writings of G.W.F. Hegel and the Young Hegelians ( Hegelianism), Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. critical theory.

Read more: Frankfurt School: Definition from Answers.com
They immediately went to work on the easily influenced and naturally rebellious, eager young students entrusted to them at Columbia University, many of which were the sons and daughters from affluent families of media, industry and politics__This unwitting army of freshly indoctrinated Marxist followers grew and slowly spread far and wide becoming professors, activists and recruiters themselves at other universities across America.

During the 1960's these devoted followers, proudly wearing their Che Guevara and Karl Marx T-shirts, began surfacing in mass to fulfill the purpose of their indoctrination__The blossoming civil rights movement and a dragged out televised war in Vietnam made inciting civil unrest way too easy__The movement spread quickly to young America who was already beginning to emulate their long hair, dress and cool slang and eagerly joined them in the streets, most of which had no idea what was going on.

Destroying American values was easy considering they were telling people that religion is evil and to ignore the social taboos they were raised to believe and to get high and indulge in free love and disobey your parents and rebel against the system and embrace homosexuality and marriage enslaves women and the white man is a racist capitalist pig and to "make love not war" which by the way was coined by one of the original Frankfurt School founders, Herbert Marcuse.

Many of the issues they protested and promoted are now deemed necessary, although doing the right thing was not their motivation__They can be credited for supporting such movements as women's liberation, racial equality and homosexual rights__They are also credited with the sexual revolution which weakened the family unit and increased the divorce rate, premarital sex, teenage pregnancy and unwed child birth among other things.

Critical Theory was not only the inspiration for Professor Bell's Critical Race Theory but it also spawned Political Correctness which has kept the so-called "progressive" movement alive long after these Marxist hippies grew up, got a haircut and put on a three piece pin stripped suit and took control of the television and entertainment industries, teacher and labor unions, universities and nearly all of the print and electronic news outlets__They pretty much own American journalism which influences your vote and determines elections.

We are played like a fine tuned Stradivarius___Make that a fiddle__We don't deserve a Stradivarius status.
 
Last edited:
Empirica,

You draw some pretty radical conclusions. Yes, people want to change society. But not destroy it (though I'm sure there are a few radicals who can be found to want any silly thing). Most see a problem, want to draw attention to, examine and hopefully improve it if not fix it. This fixation some have on seeing any critique as being a Marxist/communist/socialist/facist plot gets pretty silly at times. This was just a person who lived through a challenging time, saw a continuation of problems an sought to critque and improve. Evil **** I know, but not what you claim.
 
If Hannity or Rush said...."I live to harass Black Folks", would you say "it sounds like him having a little fun to me."

This is why I can't take you seriously. Your posts reveal dishonesty and are insulting to common sense and basic intelligence.


It would be different, as the history is different. You really need to understand how context works. because how it should be treat, both ways, has to do with context.
 
I suggest you recognize that CRT is crap.

I would also suggest you go back to the Wiki link you provided and read the "Critique" and "Controversies and impact" sections to see just what crap it is.

So what you imply is that anything that has some controversy should be through out and the more radical complaint accepted? Yes, I read those, and don't mind it being critiqued as well. But look at how far from that some here are leaping.
 
It would be different, as the history is different. You really need to understand how context works. because how it should be treat, both ways, has to do with context.

There is no "context" that excuses racism. Either it's wrong or it isn't. No one is excused from racism because of the color of their skin. That's another form of racism that you are deliberately overlooking with the excuse of "context".

There is no context when you call someone a "niggar". I know Black people use it with each other, but if I'm around I will call it out for what it is. There is no double standard in my world.
 
Last edited:
There is no "context" that excuses racism. Either it's wrong or it isn't. No one is excused from racism because of the color of their skin. That's another form of racism that you are deliberately overlooking with the excuse of "context".

There is no context when you call someone a "niggar". I know Black people use it with each other, but if I'm around I will call it out for what it is. There is no double standard in my world.

No one said there was. But what is said matters in terms of context. Some blacks use that word and that changes the context, for example. It's not a double standard, but a different context. They is also something about a different spelling, but we don't need to go into that here. What is important is that under what context something is said matters.
 
Empirica,

You draw some pretty radical conclusions. Yes, people want to change society. But not destroy it (though I'm sure there are a few radicals who can be found to want any silly thing). Most see a problem, want to draw attention to, examine and hopefully improve it if not fix it. This fixation some have on seeing any critique as being a Marxist/communist/socialist/facist plot gets pretty silly at times. This was just a person who lived through a challenging time, saw a continuation of problems an sought to critque and improve. Evil **** I know, but not what you claim.
you are much kinder than i am, i would say she is extremely full of shinola...........
 
Okay. Explain CRT to me so I'll understand it. Thanks.

You know, Neal, you can't go on an angry rant about something if you don't understand how it works. If you hate it so much, its your job to know why it is bad, not anyone else's.
 
That's your opinion of the organization. Please show me something that supports the accusation that the article is flawed. Thanks.

Well, I read the article and all I saw was the author whining about how Leftists are trying to turn America into a communist cesspool where, no, people can actually have different ideas on how racism exists! The horror! Even Stalin shrivels at the sight of this Scary Red!
 
So if I put a million dollars in a box labeled "Breitbart" and gave it to you, you'd would decline the gift. Fascinating.

strawman-motivational.jpg
 
There is no "context" that excuses racism. Either it's wrong or it isn't. No one is excused from racism because of the color of their skin. That's another form of racism that you are deliberately overlooking with the excuse of "context".

There is no context when you call someone a "niggar". I know Black people use it with each other, but if I'm around I will call it out for what it is. There is no double standard in my world.

Perhaps he was joking when he said, "I live to harass white people."
 
Empirica,

You draw some pretty radical conclusions.
Excuse me?!__I draw radical conclusions?

You read neither the Britannica nor Stanford Encyclopedia articles I posted concerning the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory and you obviously know nothing of American History during the 1960's.

How do you ever expect to know anything about the world and nation you live in if you choose to faithfully toe the party line of an ideology you have bought into on blind trust rather than taking the time to learn the reality of how, what, when, where and why things are as they are?

The talking heads who do your thinking are very aware that the truth is impossible for them to hide and instead rely on you to believe it is unnecessary to seek, consider or even take the time to read any evidence provided you that might discredit them__And thus-far, you have loyally complied!

My assessment of the motivations was determined because it was the most logical conclusion, based on the 100% accurate historical facts which I took the time to provide for your inspection which you quickly skimmed over at best, but most likely ignored all together, followed by your somewhat condescending reply.

Yes, people want to change society.

But not destroy it (though I'm sure there are a few radicals who can be found to want any silly thing).
I view this statement as pure ignorance based on it's relevance to this discussion.

Most see a problem, want to draw attention to, examine and hopefully improve it if not fix it. This fixation some have on seeing any critique as being a Marxist/communist/socialist/facist plot gets pretty silly at times. This was just a person who lived through a challenging time, saw a continuation of problems an sought to critque and improve. Evil **** I know, but not what you claim.
Derrick Albert Bell is not simply a critique who lived in hard times, but an educated Harvard University professor who is 100% aware that Critical Theory is a marxist tactic for converting the United States to Marxism__These people depend on the ignorance of people like you.

The world viewed through your liberal eyes does not exist and the utopia you have been promised is the same one that murdered, tortured, terrorized and oppresses hundreds of millions of people who blindly followed the same piper which now precedes you.

The unarmed students that survived the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing China, who asked only for a little freedom, would warn you of the false utopia awaiting you should you follow in their grandparents footsteps and your own grandchildren will someday wonder why you delivered such evil into their lives.
Cover01.webp
Beware the piper as you follow singing and dancing while he plays his beautiful tune.
 
Excuse me?!__I draw radical conclusions?

You read neither the Britannica nor Stanford Encyclopedia articles I posted concerning the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory and you obviously know nothing of American History during the 1960's.

How do you ever expect to know anything about the world and nation you live in if you choose to faithfully toe the party line of an ideology you have bought into on blind trust rather than taking the time to learn the reality of how, what, when, where and why things are as they are?

The talking heads who do your thinking are very aware that the truth is impossible for them to hide and instead rely on you to believe it is unnecessary to seek, consider or even take the time to read any evidence provided you that might discredit them__And thus-far, you have loyally complied!

My assessment of the motivations was determined because it was the most logical conclusion, based on the 100% accurate historical facts which I took the time to provide for your inspection which you quickly skimmed over at best, but most likely ignored all together, followed by your somewhat condescending reply.

I read them, fully, but they speak to someone else, doing something else. And what you see as logical, doesn't mean it really is the most logical conclusion. If you start with thinking you already know, which many are doing that you listen to, then you are the one risking getting it wrong. Examination works best if you have no preconceived notion.

You see, I have not viewed any talking heads. None. Nada. No Beck. No Limbaugh. No Weekly Standard. No Oberman. No Madow. No Move on. Instead, I became familiar with the theory and what has actually been done. It's a novel concept today, but then again, I'm old school.

I view this statement as pure ignorance based on it's relevance to this discussion.

I can't help how you view things, but the truth is the truth. Change does not equal destruction. I work hard here to change how things are done here at my college. I do it to improve and make things better, and I look over policy critically. Sometimes, I use student stories, faculty narratives, and other more subjective measures to make my point. Like all, including Bell, I don't limit my argument to just those things, but the point is to effect change, not destroy.

Derrick Albert Bell is not simply a critique who lived in hard times, but an educated Harvard University professor who is 100% aware that Critical Theory is a marxist tactic for converting the United States to Marxism__These people depend on the ignorance of people like you.

The world viewed through your liberal eyes does not exist and the utopia you have been promised is the same one that murdered, tortured, terrorized and oppresses hundreds of millions of people who blindly followed the same piper which now precedes you.

The unarmed students that survived the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing China, who asked only for a little freedom, would warn you of the false utopia awaiting you should you follow in their grandparents footsteps and your own grandchildren will someday wonder why you delivered such evil into their lives.
View attachment 67125324
Beware the piper as you follow singing and dancing while he plays his beautiful tune.

You make a few mistakes here, because someone you dislike used a method doesn't make the method invalid. Is a communist discovered a cure for cancer, we'd still be wise to use it. If a Marxist developed an efficient system of evaluating judicial review, we could still use it. Again, your view is the one that is skewed.

Let me point out another mistake you're making. No one here is arguing for Utopia. You heard that somewhere and put it in your lexicon and repeat it as mindlessly as Tea Party folks scream socialism (or Marxist or Communist). Seeking improvement is not saying we can have Utopia.

However, that said, you should examine that complaint closer. What you're really saying is anyone who seeks improvement on something is foolish. What is and always was is all that will ever be. It's kind of a defeatist attitude. If I had to choose between the two extremes you seem to paint, defeatist or blindly optimistic, I would choose the optimism.

However, no one is suggesting Utopia here anywhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom