What Is Critical Race Theory?
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 3 years ago • 92 commentsBy: Rebecca Bodenheimer (ThoughtCo)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Critical race theory (CRT) is a school of thought meant to emphasize the effects of race on one's social standing. It arose as a challenge to the idea that in the two decades since the Civil Rights Movement and associated legislation, racial inequality had been solved and affirmative action was no longer necessary. CRT continues to be an influential body of legal and academic literature that has made its way into more public, non-academic writing.
Key Takeaways: Critical Race Theory
- Critical race theory was a response by legal scholars to the idea that the United States had become a color-blind society where racial inequality/discrimination was no longer in effect.
- While "race" as a notion is a social construction and not rooted in biology, it has had real, tangible effects on Black people and other people of color in terms of economic resources, educational and professional opportunities, and experiences with the legal system.
- Critical race theory has inspired various other sub-fields, such as "LatCrit," "AsianCrit," "queer crit," and critical whiteness studies.
Definition and Origins of Critical Race Theory
Coined by legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw in the late 1980s, the term "critical race theory" first emerged as a challenge to the idea that the United States had become a "color-blind" society where one's racial identity no longer had an effect on one's social or economic status. Just two decades after the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement, many politicians and institutions were co-opting the aspirational, color-blind language of Martin Luther King, Jr.—i.e., the idea that we should judge someone on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin—while omitting the more critical aspects of his speeches that emphasized discrimination and economic inequality.
There were also beginning to be attacks on affirmative action policies, with conservative politicians arguing that they were no longer needed. CRT as a school of thought is designed to highlight the ways that supposedly color-blind laws have allowed racial oppression and inequality to continue despite the outlawing of segregation.
CRT originated among legal scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, who argued that racism and white supremacy were defining elements of the American legal system—and of American society writ large—despite language related to "equal protection." Early proponents argued for a contextual, historicized analysis of the law that would challenge seemingly neutral concepts like meritocracy and objectivity, which, in practice, tend to reinforce white supremacy. The fight against oppression of people of color was a major goal of early critical race theorists; in other words, they sought to change the status quo, not just critique it. Finally, CRT was interdisciplinary, drawing on a wide range of scholarly ideologies, including feminism, Marxism, and postmodernism.
Derrick Bell is often thought of as the forefather of CRT. He made important theoretical contributions, such as arguing that the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education was a result of the self-interest of elite white people instead of a desire to desegregate schools and improve education for Black children. However, Bell also critiqued the field of law itself, highlighting the exclusionary practices at elite schools such as Harvard Law School, where he was on faculty. He even resigned from his position to protest Harvard's failure to hire women of color as faculty. Other early important figures were Alan Freeman and Richard Delgado.
Black feminists have been particularly influential proponents of CRT. Beyond coming up with the name of the field, Crenshaw is even more well-known for coining the now-very-fashionable term "intersectionality," meant to highlight the multiple and overlapping systems of oppression that women of color (in addition to queer people of color, immigrants of color, etc.) face that make their experience different from that of white women's. Patricia Williams and Angela Harris have also made important contributions to CRT.
Race as a Social Construct
The notion that race is a social construct essentially means that race has no scientific basis or biological reality. Instead, race as a way to differentiate human beings is a social concept, a product of human thought, that is innately hierarchical. Of course, this does not mean that there are no physical or phenotypical differences between people from different regions of the world. However, these differences make up a fraction of our genetic endowment and do not tell us anything about a person's intelligence, behavior, or moral capacity. In other words, there is no behavior or personality that is inherent to white, Black, or Asian people. In Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic state, "That society frequently chooses to ignore these scientific truths, creates races, and endows them with pseudo-permanent characteristics is of great interest to critical race theory."
While race is a social construct, this does not mean that it hasn't had real, tangible effects on people. The impact of the notion (as opposed to the reality) of race is that Black, Asian, and Indigenous people have for centuries been thought of as less intelligent and rational than white people. Ideas about racial difference were used by Europeans during the colonial period to subjugate non-white people and force them into subservient roles. This socially constructed notion of race, which was used to exercise and reinforce white supremacy, was the backbone of Jim Crow legislation in the South, which relied on the one-drop rule in order to separate people by race. Race as an idea continues to have a wide range of effects with respect to educational outcomes, criminal justice, and within other institutions.
Applications of Critical Race Theory
CRT has been expanded to various fields within and beyond law. Two offshoots are Latina/o Critical Theory—whose leading scholars include Francisco Valdes and Elizabeth Iglesias—and "AsianCrit," whose proponents include Mari Matsuda and Robert S. Chang. "LatCrit" in particular has relied heavily on queer theory and feminism, and both of these variants address issues relevant to the Latinx and Asian populations in the U.S., such as immigration and language barriers. In this way, CRT has many overlaps with and is often a defining feature of Ethnic Studies programs in many colleges and universities.
CRT scholars have also turned their attention to a critique of whiteness, the ways it is socially constructed (as opposed to the standard by which all other groups should be measured), and how its definition has expanded or contracted historically. For example, various European groups—such as Irish and Jewish immigrants—were originally racialized as non-white when they began arriving in large numbers in the United States. These groups were eventually able to assimilate into whiteness or "become" white, largely by distancing themselves from African Americans and adopting the Anglo mainstream's racist attitudes toward them. Scholars like David Roediger, Ian Haney Lopez, and George Lipsitz have all contributed important scholarship to critical whiteness studies.
Sub-fields of CRT focusing on gender identity and sexual orientation have also emerged in recent decades. Some of the most important scholars fusing CRT with feminist theory are featured in the anthology Critical Race Feminism: A Reader. As should be evident, there are many overlaps between critical race feminism and intersectionality, as both focus on the overlapping and multiple marginalizations of women of color. Similarly "queer crit," as theorized by scholars like Mitsunori Misawa, examines the intersections of non-white identity and queerness.
Apart from the legal field, education is where CRT has had the largest impact, specifically in terms of the ways race (and often class) intersect to create worse outcomes for Black and Latinx students. CRT has also become a more influential ideology in the new millennium as the scholars of color who were its first proponents have been tenured at major American law schools.
Criticisms
Crenshaw (in Valdes et al., 2002) and Delgado and Stefancic (2012) detail the opposition to CRT in the 1990s, principally from neo-conservative opponents of affirmative action who saw CRT scholars as leftist radicals, and even accused them of anti-Semitism. Critics felt the "legal storytelling movement," an approach focusing on stories by people of color and used by CRT law scholars to challenge dominant narratives, was not a rigorous method of analysis. These critics also objected to the notion that people of color were more knowledgeable about their own experiences and thus, better equipped to represent them than were white writers. Finally, critics of CRT were suspicious of the movement's tendency to question the existence of an "objective truth." Notions like truth, objectivity, and meritocracy are all challenged by CRT scholars, who point out the often invisible workings of white supremacy, for example, the ways white people have always enjoyed a form of affirmative action within higher education through policies like legacy admissions.
Sources
- Crenshaw, Kimberle, Neil Gotanda, Gary Peller, and Kendall Thomas, editors. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press, 1995.
- Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic, editors. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. New York: New York University Press, 2012.
- Hill-Collins, Patricia, and John Solomos, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010.
- Valdes, Francisco, Jerome McCristal Culp, and Angela P. Harris, editors. Crossroads, Directions, and a New Critical Race Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Pretty straightforward and objective description of critical race theory, which is by the way not being taught in American schools.
Then why do you get so upset about decisions to not teach it in schools?
Duh, because they are divisive, white grievance motivated, publicity stunts?
Then why give them attention, if that's all they are? Your obsessive defense of CRT in schools indicates the opposite.
The obsession on CRT does not come from people like me, we are reacting to the right wing obsession on this. Period. You have it totally backwards.
eacting to the right wing obsession on this
Who are reacting to it being pushed on kids...
"Who are reacting to it being pushed on kids..."
But it's not
This all reminds me more than a little bit of the conservative allegation that transgender policy is "destroying women's and girls' sports". There is no evidence that transgenders are destroying girls or womens sports. Very few transgenders have ever even competed in girls or womens sports.
Same thing with CRT being "taught". They have a few anecdotal incidents of some teacher telling kids white people are racist and they turn it into a national emergency.
I dont think there is a school district in the country that has a policy of teaching kids that all whites are racist.
John.
RepublicansAmerican Fascists lie. They care nothing about truth.After all these years, have you still not understood?
Why do you persist?
Here's one example:
At the first session, “Whiteness in Ed Spaces,” school administrators provided two handouts on the “norms of whiteness.” These documents claimed that “(white) cultural values” include “denial,” “fear,” “blame,” “control,” “punishment,” “scarcity,” and “one-dimensional thinking.” According to notes from the session, the teachers argued that “whiteness perpetuates the system” of injustice and that the district’s “whitewashed curriculum” was “doing real harm to our students and educators.” The group encouraged white teachers to “challenge the dominant ideology” of whiteness and “disrupt” white culture in the classroom through a series of “transformational interv
https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-in-wake-county-nc-schoolsentions.”
Page can't be found Sean...... Please try again.
Is not being taught and has never been taught. Right wingers seem to want to ignore that CRT is 50 years old...
CRT originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.
As Richard Delgado, who you cited, stated, "Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists. ... Political scientists ponder voting strategies coined by critical race theorists. ... Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension."
Pretending it hasn't evolved from it's law school origins and it's disciples aren't influencing educational policy is simply dishonest.
Cartoons and memes. Can you express your own thoughts?
you're on the wrong seed with those complaints.
So you admit that CRT is 50 years old.
It's not 50 years old.
But how long it's been discussed in law schools is a deflection. What a shameless pivot from "it's not taught in schools" to pretending it's age is the issue.
We have 100 times more evidence of conservatives becoming hysterical over this than we have of it poisoning primary education.
It isn’t in primary education. You MIGHT encounter it in its more basic form in an AP class, possibly, but definitely not in your run of the mill k-12 classes. Odds are no one is ever going to run into it until a 300 or 400 level college course.
And CTR is not the same as teaching kids about slavery, Jim Crow, or the civil rights movement.
I provided a link to show the age, you provided........nothing......
How can law schools have been discussing it for 50 years, if it is not 50 years old?????
What a dishonest pivot to pretend that I didn't say that it had never been taught in school. Especially since I showed that it was 50 years old.
Sure it is, while the actual theory might not be taught to fourth graders, it affects what and how kids are taught. It's the framwork through which teachers are instructed to teach:
"In controversial “implicit bias” training, New York City’s public-school educators have been told to focus on black children over white ones — and one Jewish superintendent who described her family’s Holocaust tragedies was scolded and humiliated, according to firsthand accounts.
A consultant hired by the city Department of Education told administrators at a workshop that “racial equity” means favoring black children regardless of their socio-economic status, sources said.
“If I had a poor white male student and I had a middle-class black boy, I would actually put my equitable strategies and interventions into that middle class black boy because over the course of his lifetime he will have less access and less opportunities than that poor white boy,” the consultant, Darnisa Amante, is quoted as saying by those in the room."
100% true. That's the usual tactic used by CRT defenders, that CRT is just about making sure slavery or Jim Crow is taught. It's not. It's about teaching kids to see the world through racialist eyes.
Because your own link doesn't even claim it's 50 years old. Why would I bother spending anymore time on an irrelevant deflection?
How can law schools have been discussing it for 50 years, if it is not 50 years old????
Because math is a thing...
onest pivot to pretend that I didn't say that it had never been taught in school.
Are you kidding???? "Is not being taught and has never been taught" Who hacked your computer and typed that I wonder?
It’s not taught to kids because they are too young to understand it. I’ve become quite convinced that a good number of adults are unable to understand it either.
The bias training you cited isn’t CRT. Sounds dumb though.
And unless you are teaching sociology or higher level history courses really going into the complexities of race and race relations especially as they influenced government and other institutions with a. Focus on the latter half of the 20th century, you will not see CRT being taught or really influencing what 4th graders are taught. Their curriculum is not that complex and does not go into anything resembling that level of detail.
Then, according to my link, how old is it?
You should have said "because relativity is a thing". Then you could have claimed that it is less than 50 years old because you are traveling closer to the speed of light than I am. That would have made more sense.
Of course the theory isn't. It's like saying geometry isn't taught to kids until they are taught Euclidean proofs. But teaching kids the differences between circles and squares is teaching them the foundation of geometry. Just like teaching third graders to rank themselves by their racial power and privilege is applying critical race theory without teaching the theory behind it.
he bias training you cited isn’t CRT.
Of course it is. It's applying CRT principles to achieve "equity." The idea that this sort of racialist training exists independently and isn't inspired by CRT doesn't pass the laugh test. But that's the new dodge. Just deny everything and anything is CRT related unless it's from a literal law review article. It's, as McWhorter points out, a dodge to avoid dealing with the reality of what is being taught in schools.
Why are you so damned scared about dealing with the truths about our history Sean?
Is it for the same reason you don't want to do root cause analysis on what happened on 6JAN21?
I wonder how many Americans know that Irish and Italians and Jews were not originally considered "white". My guess is not many.
There have even been books written on the subject.
How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev
"Listen to this Elect white teacher at Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School. Here’s another grand old academy being choked by CRT ideology, while smart media types stand by claiming nothing’s going on because legal theorists forty years ago had no such things in mind and thus it isn’t CRT and thus if you don’t like it, * you’re a racist and … (note that this is religious thought as well, in that sharp break with sequential logic at the point I marked with an asterisk).
Anyway, listen here to this person who openly likens white people to alcoholics, who need to meet and cleanse themselves:
The strong religious component in AA meetings needs no explanation, and this teacher is openly calling for him and his colleagues to, essentially, come together and pray, self-flagellate – complete with dismissing those in disagreement as not belonging in the setting, having no place among them. Just imagine this blithe, tribalist kind of dismissal coming from anyone you had as a teacher in your life, and yet now, zealots like this man are normal in institutions of instruction. This man likely doesn’t realize that he, despite likely happily guffawing at the thought of Jerry Falwell and looking upon Ultra-Orthodox Jewish people as curiosities, is on the vanguard of a faith himself"
.
I am not a big fan of the approach of critical race theory, because i think it is a little too much of an "us against them" approach.
Is it a big deal which needs to be attacked 24/7? Of course not.
The basic tenets of critical race theory are correct (US history has been whitewashed, the legal system has systematically disadvantaged people of color, the police have been prejudiced against blacks) but I can see an issue with how it is talked about in some circles.
This will all work itself out or we will go through the same problems all over again and again.
Yeah I agree. It is something that needs to be discussed delicately because it can easy devolve into an us vs them issue based on skin color. Hence why it is best left in academia and kept out of the mainstream discourse. I would say the majority of people are not able to discuss it responsibly, this site being a prime example.
As I have said before, people seem to have a really hard time disassociating themselves from American history, and their skin color and this topic spirals out of control pretty quickly.
So, critical race theory is about achieving color-blind civil rights? CRT, as the article explains, emerged as a challenge to the notion that post-1964 civil rights had achieved color-blindness through affirmative action. That means CRT is either meant to work toward a color-blind society - or - is meant to end affirmative action. Perhaps both.
As the article presents critical race theory, CRT has nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, or segregation. CRT is about civil rights; particularly about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent efforts at affirmative action. Affirmative action was deliberately intended to provide social benefits based solely upon race. Affirmative action requires eligibility based upon racial identity; it's not possible to provide targeted benefits based on racial identity without treating the races differently. Is CRT challenging the purpose and intent of affirmative action?
If race is a social construct, as the article indicates, then that suggests CRT is about achieving a color-blind society. Celebration of racial identity would seem to be contrary to the notion that race is a social construct; meaning that racial identity is also a social construct. Fostering and promoting racial identity does affirm the challenge to the notion of a color-blind society that CRT apparently was intended to challenge. But the importance of the social construct of racial identity in civil rights means CRT was an academic exercise in futility.
As with many academic social theories, critical race theory was created out of self-defeating circular logic that allows academics to make a career of arguing in circles and accomplishing nothing of importance.
No. As usual, your reformulation is dead wrong.
Are you attempting to argue that critical race theory is about achieving separate but equal civil rights?
No. As usual, your reformulation is dead wrong.
Or my formulation is dead right. The points supporting my formulation have not been challenged. Three monkeys can refuse to see, hear, or speak; that's the merit of the argument you are making.
No, you're absolutely incorrect.
If it's a "formulation", then it is whatever you wish.
I said "reformulation". That supposedly is a faithful reproduction of my words. Which it most certainly is not.
Do you not know the difference?
Prove it!
There's no proving nonsense. It's nonsense.
Yes, I do know the difference. But my 'reformulation' (as you put it) challenges your formulation. There can't be a 're' without a formulation to begin with. And as you state, your formulation is whatever you wish since that is the nature of a formulation.
So, you are neither challenging my formulation - or - defending your formulation. As with many academic theories, you are speaking without saying anything of merit.
"ORDER!!!" None of that is a point about CRT. HELLO?!!!
That's correct. My comment @4.2.8 isn't about CRT; it addresses heckling from the peanut gallery without contributing to the discussion.
My comment @4 is about critical race theory. Care to contribute to the discussion?
Please learn English.
I believe the ultimate goal of CRT theorists is to end affirmative action, both for blacks (who are relatively new to affirmative action policies) and whites which have been the beneficiaries of white affirmative action even before our founding (only whites allowed in majority of jobs, only whites allowed in the majority of schools, only whites allowed in many retail establishments, only whites allowed to live in certain areas, only whites given bank loans, only whites allowed many government benefits and the benefits of programs like the GI bill). Ultimately CRT is teaching that through active policy changes and a thorough understanding and investigation of our laws and social constructs we can eventually root out the systemic racism that still exists and create a color-blind society and justice system where there would be no need for affirmative action.
So say those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo of inequality and don't want their boat rocked.
Quite the conundrum, isn't it? The argument is that the United States embodies systemic racism evidenced by 500 years of history. Yet that means the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent civil rights and affirmative action efforts were influenced by entrenched institutional and social attitudes toward race. Since systemic racism is entrenched then it follows that civil rights accommodates systemic racism.
Racial identity would appear to also perpetuate those entrenched attitudes toward race. Since racial attitudes are a social construct then it follows that racial identity is also a social construct influenced by social attitudes concerning race. A social condition of 'whiteness' also results in a logical conclusion that there is a social condition of 'Blackness' that is distinct, different, and separate.
How can active policy changes accommodate racial identity without perpetuating entrenched social attitudes concerning race? Which is more important; an integrated (color-blind) society or celebration of racial identity? What has been the intent and purpose of civil rights since 1964?
We already know you are a white griever , now it's just a matter of finding out how many different ways you can say it.
I'm the topic of discussion now? Was the point of seeding the article only to engage in name calling and ad hominem attacks?
You are a 'Senior Principal', don't act surprised.
Why the either-or? Let's behave as citizens equally, equitably, and with justice towards all and recognize the "beauty" of cultures and "other-ness." The intent and purpose of civil rights since 1964 is inclusion, diversity, and justice.
I am this, I am that, I am many things. One thing I'm not is the topic of discussion.
And how do we recognize the "beauty" of cultures and "other-ness" in an equitable manner?
Open your eyes, your ears and your brain. It's not complicated.
A picture worth a thousand words:
When we meet someone for the first time, we know nothing. We observe the other person, first their physical characteristics, and then their expressions.
I'm White. Scandinavian. When I was growing up - all the way through college - I never was familiar with a Black person. They're only 10% of the population, after all.
I'm sure I have had more contact with Black people on television, than in real life. That means I have had more fictional contact than real contact.
I cannot not notice Black skin. It's the most obvious trait. My struggle must be to control the associations I make with that Black skin.
I suspect that many, many White Americans are in the same situation.
No, it's not complicated. You do your thing and I'll do mine. That is the hippie solution, isn't it?
But that's not reality. Someone has to pick up the trash after the lovefest. How do we do that in an equitable manner?
It does not follow that a thread about beauty and culture should land on hippies and a lovefest.That said, here we be. Reality is love overcomes 'trashy' after-effects. For trash: buy and deploy larger trash containers.
All you have in a world that is dynamic enough to slay us at any given moment is the peace and well-being we give each other. Take that way and this is a most exquisite "Hell-scape." A place where we, humanity, are our worse 'disease and virus' infecting ourselves.
Want to be infected with something: Love is a good 'sickness' to have lifelong.
Would you prefer a more Victorian example of 'pie-eyed Pollyanna'? Emotionally satisfying sentimentality wasn't created by hippies. But sentimentality doesn't address the practical reality of equity.
Love your friends. Hate your enemies. Christ is an aspirational model but even he judges people. That is the nature of nature.
As I said, love won't pick up the trash. The question is how do we accomplish that equitably?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor [ a ] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" - Matthew 5:43-47
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:1-5
Not sure which "Christ" you're referring to but the one in the bible has a very different message than you're trying to sell. I may not believe in the divinity of the Jesus in the bible, but he had a lot of wise things to say that in my mind match a more Zen Buddhist ideology which mankind would do well to emulate, and perhaps get us close to that universal equity.
That statement gives an insight to your character, Nerm. Especially after Dismayed corrects you on what Jesus actually said
You are arguing for argument sake. Nerm_L, that is a waste of time.
The message incorporated in those verses: Be bigger than yourself. (Separately, be bigger than one's petty problems/issues/dilemmas.) I can tell you that the first time I prayed for someone who I justifiably and utterly despised, it was like chewing up and swallowing a Brillo pad, but interestingly the "digestion" was palatable. Nowadays, I can pray for my enemies with expectation of feeling better afterwards.
So imagine my "shock" at seeing Nerm_L write that and the lack of awareness it pointed out to me. Nerm_L, ask me how I do it. (Yes, I even pray for Donald J. Trump: a true frenemy of our system of governance. Moreover, a reprobate liar extraordinaire.)
My ease with white people started in the military. Thank God for our president who initiated the process of equity and then justice in the military ranks. Because it is where a great percentage of us are "bonded" through the hot-press of situations into a team. But.
That does not mean we visit each other in dorms, at each other's homes, parties, other gatherings ("after-hours"), nights together in bed, or learn about each others' cultures. Those models of behavior take additional effort/s.
Right now, I am sitting here trying to remember the first time I honed in, really listened, to a White rock and roll band song and not just have it pass through one ear and out the other: It might (don't quote me on this) have been Rush or Heart? I don't know, I am trying to thresh up my state of mind at the time. I do know what happened that caused me to be interested in trying 'out' a people new to me, nevertheless. (Won't share that one!)
Anyway, we're beautiful people. Especially if you find solid 'family man/woman' or long-time together same-sex couple types - young or old. We're good people. Being on the good side of the register is how we have made it this far for so long.
I know that, intellectually.
But our species is hard-wired to be wary of others - more and more wary as that other is "different" from our own immediate family.
And I am your species, who lives surrounded by a 'universe' of ethnic and racial neighbors. I interact with them (husbands and wives, plural) - LOL, I even have their wives phone numbers and can and do call each one in turn at will. Because I am friend to 'them' both and all.
Try making a friend outside your race today. Choose someone who is known for their 'balance' and openness. We're beautiful people. Although we have our 'rat's too just like everybody else. Oh, and it really is true what is said about having similar likes and 'habits.'
(Thanks Bob, for being open and honest. It really helps discussions.)
Is there an app for that?
YOU-App!
Compare the above to this below:
Nerm_L, your statements, unless I am misunderstanding, does not convey the same message as those comparison quotes beneath it. Yes or no?
Nerm reformulates.
The article says "Critical race theory (CRT) is a school of thought meant to emphasize the effects of race on one's social standing. It arose as a challenge to the idea that in the two decades since the Civil Rights Movement and associated legislation, racial inequality had been solved and affirmative action was no longer necessary. CRT continues to be an influential body of legal and academic literature that has made its way into more public, non-academic writing."
CRT arose as a challenge to the notion that institutional racial inequality, based on color of skin, had been solved. Martin Luther King was the prominent motivator for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And King's version of civil rights was about achieving a color-blind institutional equality. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was not about social equality; civil rights was limited to addressing institutional equality. That is the limit of the role and scope of government. It is impossible for the government to impose and enforce morality or social attitudes. The government cannot serve as 'thought police' without becoming a totalitarian government.
The notion was being put forward that King's goal of institutional equality had been achieved. CRT challenged that notion.
Hence my comment: "So, critical race theory is about achieving color-blind civil rights? CRT, as the article explains, emerged as a challenge to the notion that post-1964 civil rights had achieved color-blindness through affirmative action. That means CRT is either meant to work toward a color-blind society - or - is meant to end affirmative action. Perhaps both."
What has not been addressed is the intent and purpose of CRT. Is CRT attempting to achieve King's goal of institutional equality? Is CRT attempting to make the argument that institutional equality is insufficient? Is CRT attempting to argue that the role of government is to impose and enforce moral beliefs and social attitudes onto the population?
|\
We are not now a color-blind society in a social or figurative sense. Particularly not so as long as some conservatives keep trying to draw lines around minorities to force and 'corral' us to conform to a conservative worldview and forsake our own choice of political worldviews and attitudes.
I do not know why you think it is helpful to put up these distracting "partitions" between social justice and civil rights. It is nonsensical and serves no meaningful purpose or distinction. Everything Dr. King argued for and against was for the advancement of people and benefit of society as a whole.
No, we're not a color-blind society. But the purpose of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action was to address institutional barriers; to become institutionally color-blind.
Does that mean CRT is arguing that institutional equity is insufficient? Is CRT arguing that the United States needs to become a color-blind society?
The Black population will be required to conform to the majority worldview. That's how democracy works. Does that mean CRT is arguing that democracy is incompatible with civil rights?
Right now, CRT is only being used as a vehicle to attack portions of the white population. CRT has become a political weapon and nothing more. CRT isn't even about civil rights any longer; it's about political influence and political control over minority politics. Political pandering to the ever growing number of minorities will inevitably shrink the political influence of the Black population and divert public resources toward other minorities.
Wow. (More later.) I need. . . a moment.
Nerm has some odd ideas, which he holds very firmly... except when he doesn't understand them himself. Well... actually... he holds them very firmly even then!
Triangles and circles are completely different and cannot be treated the same.
Dinosaurs and mammals are completely different and cannot be treated the same.
Is critical race theory teaching that black and white are completely different and cannot be treated the same?
As I have said previously, you will never run into this outside of an upper level college course.
This is not being taught in k-12 and no one is suggesting it should be. However, some dip shots over at fox heard the term somewhere and decided to turn it into a new boogie man and use it to scare their viewers in order to avoid having a national conversation about race.
That is the danger of the bills being passed around the country, they are not going after CRT but rather discussions concerning race generally, which you cannot effectively teach American history in a way that makes any sense without discussing race.
I am gleaning a great deal of reading material (on this country's past) through this CRT subject matter topic! Kudos to our "Seeder" for his diligence to bring this out for research, study, and comprehension!
That is, my book reading list is expanding and I love it!
Everyone should read this. It is a series of tweets by Christopher Rufo. Don't know who that is? He is the right wing activist who created the current outrage over "critical race theory".
So here
Its not that often that someone hands you the smoking gun concerning their nefarious intentions.
What I’m saying is that if someone is reading the newspaper and they see that there’s the kind of BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] only income program in Oakland, or they’re only distributing COVID vaccines to minorities in Vermont, or that they’re demolishing standardized testing and competitive admissions in Virginia — all of those things can be understood through the framework of critical race theory.”
Rufo continued, “So, when someone sees those items, rather than attacking them individually to try to understand them, we’re providing them a framework. We’re providing them a lens. We’re providing them an ideology, critical race theory — so they can understand the connections between those two things. And then we can attack critical race theory at its ideological roots, rather than trying to fight one by one and in whack-a-mole about these individual stories.”
What's nefarious about that?
Is it blacks and liberals who want to see everything through the lens of critical race theory, or Christopher Rufo and his now followers?
It is case in point: As some of us all to well know, generally conservatives and specifically some conservatives have always tried to thwart anything that would make this country anything than a "free for all" for originalists White citizens or the odd minority individual or group deemed "highly favored" by the White Majority conservatives to exist on par with the dominate group.
I don't pick on these people. They 'pick' on others chronically, non-stop, doing so for centuries. They try to hold back progress and diversity of thought even though it is likened to trying to blow out the sun!
So yes, conservatives, and in this iteration, some conservatives are all in to stop the liberals, because it is who they are in their hearts: Some conservatives do not see this country as made to include liberals. They see us as something to taunt, tackle, and eventually erase from existence.That is, they value us as much as they value a bug that pesters them.
It is why they can lie, cheat, steal, and yes even tell the truth only when and if it suits their strategy to undermine progress and diversity.
(NOTE: I watched that sad excuse for a human being, Christopher Rufo, on "The REIDOUT" with Joy Reid last week.)
The Man Who Turned “Critical Race Theory” into a Red-Hot Political Issue
Jun 21, 2021 · Christopher Rufo was a successful documentary maker, some of whose shows were broadcast on PBS. He moved to Seattle and his politics moved rightward. The New Yorker wrote about his rise as a star of conservative politics. An employee of the Seattle city government sent him slides about anti-bias training that started Rufo on a crusade to expose the bias in anti-bias programs.
Wanna bet that Rufo becomes a regular on Fox?
From Politico :