Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

[NatMorton]

In another thread I commented on how any criticism of critical race theory (CRT) is met by its supporters with accusations of racism. Commenter @justabubba then asked me to provide such criticism to see if I was or was not actually racist. While I wouldn't normally respond to this loaded a question (i.e. where the burden of proof on not being a racist is placed on me) there is much chatter about CRT on DP these days and not a great deal of substantive discussion of it. So in that sense this is a discussion worth having.

One of the problems here is defining CRT. To some extent, it is a kind of Rorschach test: you see in it what you bring to it. That said, there are generally accepted definitions. I will choose one for this thread. If you have a different definition, I ask that you start another thread to discuss it. For the sake of this thread, this is the definition we will use and the definition I will critique:

critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

Taking this as a working definition, there are, I think multiple problems with CRT. In this post I will tackle the first: "the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category."

The idea that race is only an invention of culture and not a biological one is patently absurd and demonstrably false. The visible characteristics that make someone recognizable as being from African, European, or Asian ancestry are not "social constructs." They are products of DNA common to peoples whose ancestors lived in relative isolation from other groups of people and thus developed a set of common traits distinct from those outside their group. These characteristics are most often suited for their environments. It's not an accident nor a "cultural invention" that those of African ancestry have heavily pigmented skin and those from northern Europe do not. We are all products of natural selection and thus also our ancestral environments.

Even the definition above highlights this absurdity. Think about this passage "the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups." How do subgroups become physically distinct if not as a byproduct of their naturally occurring and distinct DNA? Are we to believe slavery darkens skin and privilege lightens it? This is a farce.

To argue that race is not biological is to argue against the theories of Darwin and nearly everything we believe to be true about genetics. That is critique #1. More to follow.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The idea that race is only an invention of culture and not a biological one is patently absurd and demonstrably false. The visible characteristics that make someone recognizable as being from African, European, or Asian ancestry are not "social constructs."

Yes, it’s all the times white cons point out that Asians don’t look like Black people vs all the times cons argue that Asians are geneticially smarter than Black people that drives much of the discourse.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

And we know how strongly conservatives believe in the genetics of it while arguing about “Black culture” and what they perceive as its priorities.

 

[j brown's body]

"The study confirms that societal constructions of race are not useful when it comes to genetics. “One of the traits that most people would associate with race—skin color—is a terrible classifier,” Tishkoff tells Yong, pointing out that there is variation even within dark skin. “The study really discredits the idea of a biological construct of race. There are no discrete boundaries between groups that are consistent with biological markers.”

Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep

Genes for both light and dark pigmentation have been in the human gene pool for at least 900,000 years

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[NatMorton]

"The study confirms that societal constructions of race are not useful when it comes to genetics. “One of the traits that most people would associate with race—skin color—is a terrible classifier,” Tishkoff tells Yong, pointing out that there is variation even within dark skin. “The study really discredits the idea of a biological construct of race. There are no discrete boundaries between groups that are consistent with biological markers.”

Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep

Genes for both light and dark pigmentation have been in the human gene pool for at least 900,000 years

www.smithsonianmag.com

Not sure I agree, but let's stipulate that point for the sake of discussion. How does this support the claim that physical traits associated with race aren't a product of biology, i.e. aren't naturally occurring, and are instead "cultural inventions?"

 

[bluesmoke]

Not sure I agree, but let's stipulate that point for the sake of discussion. How does this support the claim that physical traits associated with race aren't a product of biology, i.e. aren't naturally occurring, and are instead "cultural inventions?"

"...physical traits associated with race aren't a product of biology, i.e. aren't naturally occurring, and are instead "cultural inventions?"

All traits associated with race, whether that of whatever is in your mind, or of the human race vs some other, is biological. They are naturally occurring.

I don't know what you mean by "cultural invention" in the context of what you say. Please clarify.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, it’s all the times white cons point out that Asians don’t look like Black people vs all the times cons argue that Asians are geneticially smarter than Black people that drives much of the discourse.

Really?

I only see the left making such distasteful statements.

Race matters only to racists. The rest of us care about character. It is always the left bring up race.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And we know how strongly conservatives believe in the genetics of it while arguing about “Black culture” and what they perceive as its priorities.

Why? Because some liberal pundit told you that lie? Can you prove it?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Why? Because some liberal pundit told you that lie? Can you prove it?

Prove what? That various conservatives have argued that there is something inherently inferior about Black people and/or their culture?

This is literally the only argument cons make whenever jobs, crime, and abortion come up.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Really?

I only see the left making such distasteful statements.

Race matters only to racists. The rest of us care about character. It is always the left bring up race.

Correct, which is why so many of you voted for Donald J Trump twice.

 

[Cardinal]

In another thread I commented on how any criticism of critical race theory (CRT) is met by its supporters with accusations of racism. Commenter @justabubba then asked me to provide such criticism to see if I was or was not actually racist. While I wouldn't normally respond to this loaded a question (i.e. where the burden of proof on not being a racist is placed on me) there is much chatter about CRT on DP these days and not a great deal of substantive discussion of it. So in that sense this is a discussion worth having.

One of the problems here is defining CRT. To some extent, it is a kind of Rorschach test: you see in it what you bring to it. That said, there are generally accepted definitions. I will choose one for this thread. If you have a different definition, I ask that you start another thread to discuss it. For the sake of this thread, this is the definition we will use and the definition I will critique:



Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory

Taking this as a working definition, there are, I think multiple problems with CRT. In this post I will tackle the first: "the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category."

The idea that race is only an invention of culture and not a biological one is patently absurd and demonstrably false. The visible characteristics that make someone recognizable as being from African, European, or Asian ancestry are not "social constructs." They are products of DNA common to peoples whose ancestors lived in relative isolation from other groups of people and thus developed a set of common traits distinct from those outside their group. These characteristics are most often suited for their environments. It's not an accident nor a "cultural invention" that those of African ancestry have heavily pigmented skin and those from northern Europe do not. We are all products of natural selection and thus also our ancestral environments.

Except that has nothing to do with race in terms of social and legal constructs, which is the point of critical race theory.

Even the definition above highlights this absurdity. Think about this passage "the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups." How do subgroups become physically distinct if not as a byproduct of their naturally occurring and distinct DNA? Are we to believe slavery darkens skin and privilege lightens it? This is a farce.

To argue that race is not biological is to argue against the theories of Darwin and nearly everything we believe to be true about genetics. That is critique #1. More to follow.

That's not the framing of critical race theory. CRT approaches race in terms of its relationship to the legal system (primarily).

 

[Lord of Planar]

Prove what? That various conservatives have argued that there is something inherently inferior about Black people and/or their culture?

This is literally the only argument cons make whenever jobs, crime, and abortion come up.

If I assigned "liberal" to every time some one in 1,000,000 liberal made a silly claim, I would really be off my rocker. You said "conservative" in a context meaning we believe that as a group.

Do you realize how silly that is?

Please prove that contention, or retract it.

 

[justabubba]

Not sure I agree, but let's stipulate that point for the sake of discussion. How does this support the claim that physical traits associated with race aren't a product of biology, i.e. aren't naturally occurring, and are instead "cultural inventions?"

the cultural invention is the premise that the coloration has anything to do with capacity and capability
it would be like ascribing to a white butterfly unique abilites the black, orange, and yellow butterflies do not posses, only because they are not white, while the color in no way biologically affects ability

 

[Lord of Planar]

Correct, which is why so many of you voted for Donald J Trump twice.

OMG Really? Just because we hate Biden more than hating Trump?

When is the last time you voted for a high ranking politician that you actually liked?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If I assigned "liberal" to every time some one in 1,000,000 liberal made a silly claim, I would really be off my rocker. You said "conservative" in a context meaning we believe that as a group.

Do you realize how silly that is?

Please prove that contention, or retract it.

Yup, and I’m super comfortable with that stance.

If you feel it applies to you, that’s something for you to work on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yup, and I’m super comfortable with that stance.

If you feel it applies to you, that’s something for you to work on.

OK, I see how foolish you are. Grouping all conservatives the way you do. A pity.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

OMG Really? Just because we hate Biden more than hating Trump?

When is the last time you voted for a high ranking politician that you actually liked?

Yes, voting for an anti-semitic and racist - twice - does indeed define your beliefs in a manner that is not arguable

 

[NatMorton]

"...physical traits associated with race aren't a product of biology, i.e. aren't naturally occurring, and are instead "cultural inventions?"

All traits associated with race, whether that of whatever is in your mind, or of the human race vs some other, is biological. They are naturally occurring.

I don't know what you mean by "cultural invention" in the context of what you say. Please clarify.

Cultural invention is quoted from the definition of CRT cited in the OP. So it's not "what [I} say," it's what the authors of CRT say.

I infer their meaning to be that race isn't something that is rooted in biology but instead an invention of society in the same way, say, moral codes are. And as I stated in the OP, I think that premise is ridiculous.

What do you think CRT advocates mean when they say race is only a cultural invention?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

OK, I see how foolish you are. Grouping all conservatives the way you do. A pity.

Conservatives group themselves. These conversations are always marked with the same thing: insisting Black people are either: too stupid to ”get off the dem plantation”, too criminal to be part of our society, or just too other…but you know, it’s genetics. Or or just their culture.

Get up off your fainting couch and shove it into another room, take a nap on it.

 

[Cardinal]

Cultural invention is quoted from the definition of CRT cited in the OP. So it's not "what [I} say," it's what the authors of CRT say.

I infer their meaning to be that race isn't something that is rooted in biology but instead an invention of society in the same way, say, moral codes are. And as I stated in the OP, I think that premise is ridiculous.

What do you think CRT advocates mean when they say race is only a cultural invention?

It refers...as solely one example...to the belief that black people are more likely to commit crimes. The perception sidesteps the mechanisms that lock black people in a spiral of poverty and crime.

 

[NatMorton]

Except that has nothing to do with race in terms of social and legal constructs, which is the point of critical race theory.

No, you've got it wrong there. They are describing what race is and what is it not. No one is disputing that the concept of race, no matter how one defines it, finds its way into social and legal matters.

 

[NatMorton]

the cultural invention is the premise that the coloration has anything to do with capacity and capability

I would agree with that, but that is not what CRT says, If CRT said racial discrimination is a cultural invention, I would agree completely. They are instead saying race is a cultural invention. Those are two different statements.

 

[Rickeroo]

The visible characteristics that make someone recognizable as being from African, European, or Asian ancestry are not "social constructs."

Agreed. Rachael Dolezal wasn't allowed to "socially construct" her way into being Black.

 

[Cardinal]

No, you've got it wrong there. They are describing what race is and what is it not. No one is disputing that the concept of race, no matter how one defines it, finds its way into social and legal matters.

And that's the point. It deals with how, genetically, race falsely embeds itself into our legal system. Remember that crt is, academically, concerned with legal and social orders; not genetics. So on that point, yes, race is an artificial construct.

 

[NatMorton]

It refers...as solely one example...to the belief that black people are more likely to commit crimes. The perception sidesteps the mechanisms that lock black people in a spiral of poverty and crime.

You can say that, but that's not what CRT says, and we are discussing that theory and whether it's valid.