Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

[Jredbaron96]

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")

I have a hard time believing you actually gave any thought before you smacked your hands onto the keyboard and pressed enter.

That chart remains a more-or-less accurate rendition of White American culture.

 

[Deuce]

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.

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.

You’re critiquing based on your own idiotic interpretation of things and it’s making you look bad, not CRT.

 

[VanceMack]

I have a hard time believing you actually gave any thought before you smacked your hands onto the keyboard and pressed enter.

If you think that chart is "white culture" then that explains why you think black culture fails.
And if you think CRT is valid, the comments are 100% valid.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If you think that chart is "white culture"

Which element of that chart do you feel is an inaccurate representation of how white American culture?

then that explains why you think black culture fails.

What is black culture?

 

[VanceMack]

Which element of that chart do you feel is an inaccurate representation of how white American culture?



What is black culture?

Apparently black culture is a culture that doesnt believe in family, science, religion, hard work, etc....to you.

The depiction started by the Smithsonian but based on the words of 3 Marxist lesbians CLAIMS it is 'white culture' to hold those values. And that...well...thats just ****ing stupid.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Apparently a culture that doesnt believe in family, science, religion, hard work, etc....to you.

So, your claim is that the chart that describes White American Culture is racist because it by definition means that Black culture...doesn't?

 

[VanceMack]

So, your claim is that the chart that describes White American Culture is racist because it by definition means that Black culture...doesn't?

I think you are missing the point. The chart describes VALUES....and marxist leftists attributed them as 'white values'.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I think you are missing the point. The chart describes VALUES....and marxist leftists attributed them as 'white values'.

So what does that have to do with blacks?

Furthermore, you haven't explained how those are inaccurate. Do white Americans not believe in the nuclear family?

 

[VanceMack]

So what does that have to do with blacks?

Furthermore, you haven't explained how those are inaccurate. Do white Americans not believe in the nuclear family?

Do black Americans NOT? Do black Americans ignore science? Religion? Communication? Competition? And really...I have to know...when you studied world history in HS and college (assuming you studied world history) did you REALLY only learn about the Europeans and the Brits?

 

[VanceMack]

So what does that have to do with blacks?

Furthermore, you haven't explained how those are inaccurate. Do white Americans not believe in the nuclear family?

Do you think Africans dont believe in Man, wife, and children? Or Latinos? Hell...aboriginal tribes in the outback believe in families.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Do black Americans NOT? Do black Americans ignore science? Religion? Communication? Competition?

You're are conflating absolutes when none were intended.

Different cultures approach similar items/objects differently. For Americans, as a left over of English culture, the nuclear family of two parents and two children are the norm. But for the majority of the world, multi-generational housing and the extended family are the norm.

And really...I have to know...when you studied world history in HS and college (assuming you studied world history) did you REALLY only learn about the Europeans and the Brits?

My American education system overwhelmingly focused on American and European history, yes. I did have a total of two classes (including one in college) that covered world history, but I had to take an entire year of nothing but Texas History, then US History, then US. Government.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Do you think Africans dont believe in Man, wife, and children? Or Latinos? Hell...aboriginal tribes in the outback believe in families.

Of course they do. The differences is in interpretation.

Americans and western Europeans very much emphasize individuals and singular figures when discussing history. Russians on the other hand tend to view societies and systems over individuals.

American families are nuclear. In much of the world, they are extended. In some cultures, uncertainty prevention is a major concern that impacts their society. In others, uncertainty prevention is nonexistent.

 

[VanceMack]

You're are conflating absolutes when none were intended.

Different cultures approach similar items/objects differently. For Americans, as a left over of English culture, the nuclear family of two parents and two children are the norm. But for the majority of the world, multi-generational housing and the extended family are the norm.



My American education system overwhelmingly focused on American and European history, yes. I did have a total of two classes (including one in college) that covered world history, but I had to take an entire year of nothing but Texas History, then US History, then US. Government.

And if you were in France you would have taken years of French history. I find it fascinating to know that even though we studied world history in the south in the 70's, apparently the rest of America studied only that "white people are good."

 

[Jredbaron96]

And if you were in France you would have taken years of French history.

Actually foreign students often have more time devoted to learning more of world history than American students.

 

[Elmo]

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.

Yes, we could choose to define race based on those characteristics. They are just as valid as skin color when it comes to grouping human beings. Which is to say, not very.

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.

No, race is not synonymous with ancestry. It is not even a rough approximation. I was disappointed you never responded to Irredentist's post #183 on this topic. You should. You CANNOT draw useful conclusions about a person's ancestry based on their apparent race. The scientists are also extremely clear on this. Ancestry and race are not the same thing.

How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

by Vivian Chou figures by Daniel Utter Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. A rise in racial incidents ensued in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s victory in November 2016. Since the beginning of 2017, over...

sitn.hms.harvard.edu

In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.

 

[jnug]

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.

Words are important and "woven" is not "inherent" and since when is WAPO a source document for CRT? You keep referring to opinions when if you really wanted to discuss the issue honestly, you would go critique the source documents instead of offering up opinions from Editors and critiquing their opinions.

 

[jnug]

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

Well done....succinct and accurate.

 

[jnug]

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.

I am going to review source documents in order to get myself better informed on the topic. Critiquing opinions from Encyclopedia Britannica or WAPO is absurd on its face which is what the OP is attempting to do.

It is not being taught in schools and in an earlier post I did discuss how and where I thought Racism in America should be taught and how and under what circumstances CRT should be taught. To be specific if the core of CRT is that Racism is endemic to or in American Society which appears far closer to what some of the originators of the Theory appear to say, then I can see it being taught as a specific class in higher education. If as the OP contends, the core principle of CRT is that Racism is inherent to American Government, then I would oppose it being taught at any level including higher education. I have yet to find a Critical Race Theorist contending that Racism is inherent to American Government.

As to your direct question, IMO CRT is not trying to blame white people for codifying racism. The second part of your question might get closer. Recognizing how our codified system of government has contributed to an uneven playing field for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is because so many participants weren't even considered participants in the system and were thus easily oppressed. To be honest I don't think even the premise of the second part of your question is entirely accurate, just much closer to CRT than the first part of your question.

The demise of the Reconstruction might be a good example of the second part of your question. The only thing that protected Southern Blacks and the Reconstruction from the former Confederate States was the presence of Federal Troops in those States after the Civil War. Andrew Johnson, easily within the 4 worst Presidents all time accepted bribes and state by state pulled out the Federal Troops leaving the Reconstruction and Blacks simply working the land they had received exposed to States passing laws that literally pulled the legs out from under both the Reconstruction and Southern Blacks. There are other examples that are as in your face as that one and examples that are far more subtle. The demise of the Reconstruction was both in your face and widespread making it a pretty good example addressing the second part of your question.

There are three issues at play in this thread though and I should touch on them before closing:
1) There is what some of us might know from history, like what I just posted regarding the demise of the Reconstruction
2) There is what the originators of this Theory called CRT claim to be the core principle of CRT
3) There is opinions by those not directly involved in the origination of CRT about what is the core principle of CRT.

I could be associated with group 1 and group 3 and have yet to see a post from anybody in this thread including me that would appear to be part of group 2.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Are there any public school districts that have actually adopted a "Critical Race Theory" course or curriculum?**
One might think that since this is such a white-hot burning issue, Trumpers would have compiled a list of those school systems already.

**This is the fifth time I have posted this question, never received an answer.

 

[HangLow]

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.

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.

​

 

[Paradoxical]

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.

So false teachings that even blacks say are dangerous because your ilk thinks we should teach division and racism against white people.

 

[ataraxia]

So false teachings that even blacks say are dangerous because your ilk thinks we should teach division and racism against white people.

Who said it’s false?

Should Germans stop teaching their schoolchildren about the history of the Nazis because it teaches hatred of modern Germany? I respect them for doing it even more. Conversely- makes them a bigger person in my book.

 

[Paradoxical]

Who said it’s false?

Should Germans stop teaching their schoolchildren about the history of the Nazis because it teaches hatred of modern Germany? I respect them for doing it even more. Conversely- makes them a bigger person in my book.

You may not have seen my excellent posts to Geoist on the matter This is NOT history. It is theory, conjecture, and lies. Slavery ad Jim Crow is being taught. This is garbage teaching about why blacks don't succeed.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Are there any public school districts that have actually adopted a "Critical Race Theory" course or curriculum?**
One might think that since this is such a white-hot burning issue, Trumpers would have compiled a list of those school systems already.

**This is the seventh time I have posted this, still no answer.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You may not have seen my excellent posts to Geoist on the matter This is NOT history. It is theory, conjecture, and lies. Slavery ad Jim Crow is being taught. This is garbage teaching about why blacks don't succeed.

So excellent that you're incapable of linking to them?