Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

[jnug]

I don't necessarily disagree with that statement. I'd like to think that wasn't the purpose of our system of government but it seems more than conceivable that the system set up by a white majority without the intention of developing a level playing field to include minorities/slaves/natives would arrive at a situation where those laws favored whites and disfavored others -- intentionally or not.

With all due respect and understanding your point....that is not the point the OP tried to make in this thread. He is making a claim for CRT that he cannot prove and is then going on to provide what he suggests is a critique based on a claim he cannot prove. He has created an entire thread as a circle jerk.

NOWHERE other than in an opinion offered by the Encyclopedia Britannica EDITORIAL STAFF has he proven that at the core of CRT is a claim by its proponents that "American Government is INHERENTLY racist." He either does not know the meaning of words in the English Language or he does not care.

 

[ataraxia]

What is it I am failing to understand? Please explain, oh enlightened woke one.

Illinois father goes viral for speech against critical race theory: 'Bunch of nonsense' and virtue signaling

After going viral for eviscerating critical race theory teachings, radio host and father Ty Smith said on Friday that the race-based curriculum is a “bunch of nonsense" and a harmful view of the world to convey to young children.

www.foxnews.com

So what? A lot of people think basic evolutionary biology is nonsense as well, and should not be forced down their children’s throat. We cannot keep the lay public uneducated and ignorant because it bothers some people’s sensibilities.

CRT is part of the standard curriculum in law schools. Turns out you cannot understand law without understanding CRT.

 

[less right]

With all due respect and understanding your point....that is not the point the OP tried to make in this thread. He is making a claim for CRT that he cannot prove and is then going on to provide what he suggests is a critique based on a claim he cannot prove. He has created an entire thread as a circle jerk.

NOWHERE other than in an opinion offered by the Encyclopedia Britannica EDITORIAL STAFF has he proven that at the core of CRT is a claim by its proponents that "American Government is INHERENTLY racist." He either does not know the meaning of words in the English Language or he does not care.

I'm way down the ladder on CRT knowledge and/or opinions.

To hear it told, CRT is already being taught in schools like it comes with it's own text book and yet locally I'm told these are academic discussions happening at post graduate levels and not part of any curriculum taught around here.

I'm trying to figure out if CRT is trying to blame white people for codifying racism or trying to recognize how our codified system of government has contributed to an uneven playing field because so many 'participants' weren't even considered participants in the system.

 

[Cardinal]

yes it is, if there is a scientific basis to race then the definition give is wrong.

Crt is related to sociological and legal institutions, and explains that it is human-constructed systems and race itself that results in racism and inequality. The simplest example is slavery. Simply the act of being black didn't put them into slavery. In other words, slavery wasn't a natural condition of being black. It took other people to enslave them.

 

[Visbek]

I'm way down the ladder on CRT knowledge and/or opinions.

To hear it told, CRT is already being taught in schools like it comes with it's own text book and yet locally I'm told these are academic discussions happening at post graduate levels and not part of any curriculum taught around here.

I'm trying to figure out if CRT is trying to blame white people for codifying racism or trying to recognize how our codified system of government has contributed to an uneven playing field because so many 'participants' weren't even considered participants in the system.

In reality, CRT is a fairly obscure academic theory. It isn't being taught in grade schools.

What has happened is that a small core of right-wingers, who can't even define CRT, are using it as a snarl word and excuse to stop teaching primary and secondary students pretty much anything about race. Republican party officials have jumped on this as a way to basically take over local school boards.

‘Held hostage’: How critical race theory moved from Fox News to school boards

In towns nationwide, well-connected conservative activists, and Fox News, have ramped up the tension in fights over race and equity in schools.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[j brown's body]

So what? A lot of people think basic evolutionary biology is nonsense as well, and should not be forced down their children’s throat. We cannot keep the lay public uneducated and ignorant because it bothers some people’s sensibilities.

CRT is part of the standard curriculum in law schools. Turns out you cannot understand law without understanding CRT.

The CRT panic reminds me a lot of the daycare center panic of the the 1990s when operators went to jail based on the "recovered memory" of children.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In reality, CRT is a fairly obscure academic theory. It isn't being taught in grade schools.

What has happened is that a small core of right-wingers, who can't even define CRT, are using it as a snarl word and excuse to stop teaching primary and secondary students pretty much anything about race. Republican party officials have jumped on this as a way to basically take over local school boards.

‘Held hostage’: How critical race theory moved from Fox News to school boards

In towns nationwide, well-connected conservative activists, and Fox News, have ramped up the tension in fights over race and equity in schools.

www.nbcnews.com

I have yet to get a single response to my question:
Name a public school district that is currently teaching a Critical Race Theory curriculum.

 

[Elmo]

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". The key word is "associated". Throughout this thread your argument has been:

"Physical traits are genetic, therefore race is genetic."

Your logic is flawed. A "race" is actually defined by the association between traits, not the traits themselves. And what determines that association? Society and culture, not biology. Society has decided that people should be grouped by a particular set of traits: skin color primarily, and to a lesser extent facial structure, hair color, and eye color. To reiterate, we call that grouping "race".

Society could choose to use height instead of skin color to assign people into groups. Many of us would end up as a different "race" with no change to our genetics.

 

[j brown's body]

View attachment 67338637

I have yet to get a single response to my question:
Name a public school district that is currently teaching a Critical Race Theory curriculum.

That says it all.

 

[NatMorton]

Where does the WAPO quote you have copied offer that CRT claims that "American Government is inherently racist". Where....where????? Further, is WAPO a CRT source document of any sort?

Words matter. The Post characterizes the assertion using the verb "woven." Things are not "woven" by accident. The word implies a purposeful addition of racism to our legal system. "Inherent" means existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. Things woven in are near impossible to remove. Thus when you say something is woven into something else you are saying it is both purposeful and permanent, i.e. inherent.

I think we've reached the end of our debate over the definition. The OP's definition is essentially correct. You can agree with it or not at this point.

 

[Simpletruther]

Crt is related to sociological and legal institutions, and explains that it is human-constructed systems and race itself that results in racism and inequality. The simplest example is slavery. Simply the act of being black didn't put them into slavery. In other words, slavery wasn't a natural condition of being black. It took other people to enslave them.

The critique was in regard to this claim:

race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings


Obviously if race has a genetic basis this claim is incorrect.

 

[NatMorton]

That "race" has no real biological basis

This is, simply put, nuts.

The visible characteristics of race -- the ones that were used as justification to enslave people of African ancestry -- are the product of biology. Even before genetics were understood the concept of ancestry was used to determine who was eligible to be a slave and who was not. Terms like quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon were used as crude measures of genetic make-up.

 

[Cardinal]

The critique was in regard to this claim:

race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings


Obviously if race has a genetic basis this claim is incorrect.

With regards to sociological and legal constructs, it isn't.

You have to step back and honestly ask if anybody is seriously claiming that there are literally no defining genetic characteristics of different races. Since nobody is actually saying that, then you have to consider that maybe your approach to the topic is wrong.

 

[Cardinal]

This is, simply put, nuts.

The visible characteristics of race -- the ones that were used as justification to enslave people of African ancestry -- are the product of biology. Even before genetics were understood the concept of ancestry was used to determine who was eligible to be a slave and who was not. Terms like quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon were used as crude measures of genetic make-up.

Oh? What was the driver for the choice to use black Africans as our main slave labor force? Do you think it was race? And if so, what was it about their race that you believe led to that decision?

 

[Simpletruther]

With regards to sociological and legal constructs, it isn't.

You have to step back and honestly ask if anybody is seriously claiming that there are literally no defining genetic characteristics of different races. Since nobody is actually saying that, then you have to consider that maybe your approach to the topic is wrong.

If nobody is saying that, then someone is a very poor communicator.

 

[NatMorton]

Your logic is flawed. A "race" is actually defined by the association between traits, not the traits themselves.

If you're looking for flawed thinking, that's it. By your reasoning we could declare every man with a receding hairline and fading eyesight of the same race. They are not. Those characteristics, when the are the byproduct of genetics and not lifestyle, are not particular to a given ancestry. The appear in nearly all large groups of humans.

Race is a particular grouping who share traits because of common ancestry. People who's surnames begin with the Mc, Mac, or O' tend to be fair skinned not because of social constructs. They are that way because generations of their ancestors lived isolated from other peoples on an island with miserable weather. Their ancestral environment didn't require strong protection from UV light thus that protection was slowly dropped from their gene pool over time.

 

[Cardinal]

If nobody is saying that, then someone is a very poor communicator.

I'd be happy to explain, but first acknowledge that genetic differences not being a feature of different races isn't literally a component of crt. If you can move past your misunderstanding, then you can move forward.

But so long as you're stuck on this point then you can't move forward.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Race not a function of one's DNA?

Liz Warren would like a do-over.

Well, she is 1/1024 Native American in there somewhere.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Similarly, moving the Abebe's to Stockholm will not increase the likelihood of them having a child that looks like Dolf Lundren.

It will if you wait long enough. It will take several dozen/hundred generations, but their skin will lighten.

 

[NatMorton]

Oh? What was the driver for the choice to use black Africans as our main slave labor force? Do you think it was race? And if so, what was it about their race that you believe led to that decision?

A fair question. I think it was several factors:

• To the European eye of the day, Africans were very different looking. It is easier to dehumanize those who are less like you, both physically and culturally.
  
  
• The Africans targeted will still stone-aged people and thus easily conquered by the vastly more technologically advanced societies in Europe. This was nothing new; the weak have been taking advantage of the strong for as long as there have been humans.
  
  
• The wealth that slavery made possible. The development of modern banking, exploitation of the new world and then with the beginnings of industrial farming all converged to make wealth creation possible in ways that were simply not feasible in earlier eras that were mostly about subsistence farming (e.g. ironically, the cotton gin was supposed to reduce the need for slave labor; it wound up creating a higher demand for it).

 

[NatMorton]

Well, she is 1/1024 Native American in there somewhere.

Yes, but that ratio was meant to be applied only to a social construct. It's not a science thingy,

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is a fairly accurate summary of White American culture.

 

[NatMorton]

It will if you wait long enough. It will take several dozen/hundred generations, but their skin will lighten.

Yes, it likely will. But will that change be brought about by the process of natural selection altering the gene pool of that community over time or will it be the result of social pressure?

 

[VanceMack]

This is a fairly accurate summary of White American culture.

I take you at your word that you are a racist and your children and grandchildren deserve to be punished for your shit actions and behaviors. ( guess I should say "assuming you agree with CRT")

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes, it likely will. But will that change be brought about by the process of natural selection altering the gene pool of that community over time or will it be the result of social pressure?

Left to their own skin color will naturally adapt to changes in exposure to sunlight over time. You take the population of the Congo and transport them to Scandinavia, and vice versa, and over the course of centuries their pigments will reverse.