Say -NO-> to labels

[ultmd]

Because I have limited time, and I'd like to see how you react to one of the points before investing the time in digging them all up.

Yes, I know all about that. Trust me. You won't see me on this board every day, either. But this is a bit of a cop out, honestly. We're on a debate board. If you have time to compile a detailed list like that, you can make time to back it up. But if you're not prepared to defend the content of the arguments you offer, you shouldn't offer them.

You mention nuclear family here, hence let's use that as an example.
I don't think you'll find a stronger statement than is made by Ms. Andray Domise in Maclean's Magazine (a major publication here in Canada, like 'Newsweek' in the US):

Andray Domise? Who the heck is that? And why would you assume that he represents whomever you conveniently (and murkily) describe as "they"? As I suggested previously, if you're going to make the case that "they" (i.e. African-Americans/minorities/liberals/progressives/"the left"/etc.) believe that everything on that ridiculous list you posted.....is "racist".....you can't just post an opinion piece from some random dude as "proof". That's ridiculous. What you're actually doing is scapegoating. Mr. Domise is one man. He speaks for every himself. Just as (and I assume you agree) someone like David Duke or Louis Gohmert doesn't speak for all white conservatives. Right? So the Domise op/ed is hardly a convincing argument....instead, it's an affirmation of your existing bias.

And, just as importantly, I think you completely misunderstand the message in that column. He's not saying that the "nuclear family" is a negative. He's saying that the parameters by which that term is defined (by white people) is bad and destructive. And there is a lot of merit to that argument. As the old African adage goes: "It takes a village to raise a child". Does that mean that the traditional western concept of a 'nuclear family" is bad? Of course not. It just means that another perspective can (and should) be held in equal esteem, by others.

The question I have for you, about this, is....why does it threaten you to see a perspective that differs from yours?

If you read the entire article, it links to a similar piece on why 'Oh Canada!' is racist, which touches on another item in the list.

I don't know much about Oh Canada. But I do know about our National Anthem in the US....which is certainly offensive to many who know the lyrics. But again, I think you're misrepresenting the whole "national anthem" controversy, as well.

Do you honestly take offense to those who choose not to stand for the anthem (or the Pledge of Allegiance) in public venues?

Also, if this excerpt strikes you as having been ripped straight out of Marx' treatise on the family: no, it's not just you.

Not at all. This strikes me as the kind of thing said by someone who conflates Socialism, Communism and Marxism. But nothing in that excerpt (nor in the entire piece) remotely hints at "Marxism". That's just an absurd leap of logic on your part.

The Nuclear Family was a Mistake - The Atlantic

Without critiquing the substance of the column, I'll just note that the author (David Brooks) is a noted CONSERVATIVE columnist here in the U.S. Brooks is a "Reagan Rebublican" who supported Bush Sr., Bush Jr, John McCain and Mitt Romney in previous presidential races. He's nobody's idea of a liberal/lefty/Democrat/African-American/etc (i.e. "they", as you would say).

So, what does that say about your argument, that such a noted WHITE CONSERVATIVE such as David Brooks would pen an op/ed/critique of the modern concept of "nuclear family"? Please, be candid in your response.

The White Nuclear Family Perpetuates Racism - Campus Reform

Ok, so a professor at CUNY says that nuclear family perpetuates racism. Got it.

But how does the opinion of one random academic allow you to translate that into a general condemnation of "they" (blacks, liberals, progressives, the left, etc.), as you have?

Talking About Race - Smithsonian

[see the referenced infographic here]

Correct me if I'm in error, but there is not one mention of the "nuclear family" in the link. And the infographic doesn't attack the nuclear family at all. It just defines it.

I don't get the relevance. Please elaborate further.[/quote]

 

[ultmd]

Posttraumatic Slave Syndrome, the Patriarchal Nuclear Family Structure, and African American Male-Female Relationships - National Library of Medicine

Can't tell much from the citation. But it seems to me that your general issue here is grievance, not "academia". Certainly, you don't think these articles prove that the people you ambiguously refer to as "they"....are reflective of the general population of "they" (whomever "they" are).

It might help if you define "they" more precisely.

I agree with you that it's a mistake--immoral, even. But there are plenty of erroneous and immoral theories floating around out there, and CRT is one of them.
The de facto layman's introduction to CRT is a book called "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo, although he focuses more on the response of white people to CRT.

So....Critical Race Theory? Is that what this is all about?

Ok, so now I know you're a white grievance conservative. Subjects like CRT, the "nuclear family", the National Anthem, etc. etc....are points of obsession that really trigger white conservatives with high levels of resentment and victimhood.

So, question: Do you feel that white people are as likely (if not moreso) to be victimized by racism, than to be the culprits of racist behavior?

And, btw, Robin DiAngelo is a white FEMALE. I've read her works and generally agree with them on substance.

I ascribe it to progressives (the term "liberal" is a misnomer).

No it's really not. It's just that it's becoming increasingly fashionable for some rightwingers like to call themselves "Classical Liberals", and they need to separate themselves from those who identify as "Liberals" to do so.

I do so because virtually 100% of the proponents of CRT fall on the far left end of the political spectrum, and the overwhelming majority of people who tolerate or endorse the theory to any degree are progressive. You'll also note that every last DP member who defends the postulates of CRT is extremely progressive. It's not a perfect fit, but for the sake of this debate it will do.

....well, I guess it's a good thing for us all that YOU don't get to redefine common words and terms in the English language, just to fit them into your worldview, huh? The word "liberal" is well-defined and is not subject to change by you or anyone else.

And the CRT is really not that controversial at all. It's just threatening to far right some conservatives who perceive "whiteness" to be under attack.

As to which specific politicians or leaders subscribe to CRT, and to what degree, I don't know. I'm interested in ideas, not people.

Well I would think that such details ought to be important to you. Otherwise, why all the worry and drama about what "they" are thinking and doing. Know what I mean?