What is race if not saying your ancesters are from some particular part of the world?
Are you kidding? It’s a sociological classification, with only a bare, non scientific surface patina of relationship to geographic origin, purposefully put into place to divide and manipulate to benefit the wealthy and powerful.
That’s kind of the most fundamental basis of CRT.
And that—the part I bolded—just strikes me as conspiracy theory-ey the more I think of it. Like the claim that certain diseases were purposefully designed by scientists to kill off certain groups of people.
I think it’s far more likely that our notions of race evolved naturally, as a form of tribalism.
But I could be wrong. I don’t know what evidence there is, either way, or whether I’d be at all qualified to assess it.
I’m not saying a room full of mustache twirling Colonel Sanders looking mofos all got together and said “this is how we’re going to rule America” - I’m saying that, over decades and centuries in America (and the land that would become the USA), conscious and purposeful decisions were made by those in power to emphasize racial divisions and reduce the chance of poor whites and poor blacks working together in common cause. One example that comes to mind is that prior to about 1700, interracial marriages in Virginia were not terrible common but were legal and visible, and there were a handful of wealthy landowning black families. And slavery wasn’t tied to blood or skin color - the children of slaves were not automatically slaves. Laws changed around 1700 that made all of that illegal in Virginia, and all of that went away (the families were forced to leave or worse, and slavery became explicitly race based and passed on by blood). And stuff like that happened all over the burgeoning USA, especially but not only in the South. That wasn’t just something that happened “naturally” - that was considered and conscious decision making by those in power.
Not particularly relevant to the OP. A better question for you would be: How do you justify the reality that the ones banning CRT in academia do not care that they are also telling Asian researchers and teachers what they can research or teach?
That’s what CRT says, but you haven’t demonstrated that it’s true. Seems to me that your race is pretty much defined by where your ancestors came from (with some complication from groups that lived close together but didn’t mix much, eg in Finland). I don’t see how that’s even arguable. Or is it the way we group them that is supposed to be unscientific?
AIUI, religion was originally used as the justification for slavery in the New World; one of the Popes declared that it was okay to conquer non-Christian countries and enslave their people. Later they switched to using race as the excuse, maybe because more of the slaves were converting to Christianity?
Back on topic, most of the criticism I had seen is not of CRT as an academic or legal theory, but of the diversity programmes in schools and corporations that it has influenced. Eg.
It is pretty relevant when we are told racism is the only possible or remotely plausible explanation for group differences. If CRT cannot explain these differences that go in the opposite direction to what it would predict, then that is a problem for the theory.
And if we push the narrative that any group doing better than average must have some kind of unfair advantage, taken at the expense of other groups, it could even be dangerous for minorities in that position. There’s a worrying rise in anti-Asian hate crimes this year.
(You’d think we’d have learned that this is a bad idea from the centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe… 
)
In CRT, Asians aren’t fully formed people with their own motives, goals, and values, they are just semi-robotic “wedges” used in the eternal race war between whites and blacks. When Asians do well it’s because they are “white-adjacent,” “white-acting,” imported by whites to harm blacks, or propped up to serve as a “model minority” which is bad because it implies that blacks might have agency over their own lives. Any Asian success is part of some larger scheme by the white cabal to harm black people, and that’s why harming Asians is a direct good in CRT. That’s how they explain it.
Are you saying your race is British? And the Finns are a different race? If so, that is a very novel definition of race and one I’ve never seen before. If you’re saying something different, what is it?
Whether true or not, this doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve said in this thread, AFAICT.
I stand with you against this fantastical straw version of CRT.
We’ve seen lots of tactics used by those who hold power to write off dissent to this point, because CRT proponents are used to lording over domains where they are rarely challenged such as academic humanities departments. “Always attack, never defend,” “never admit that This Thing of Ours exists,” and the drawing of irrelevant distinctions between ad-hoc technicalities are the hallmark of this approach (“oh, that guy who bashed your head in with a pipe for looking too Asian in his neighborhood actually majored in Whiteness Studies, not Critical Race Theory, so it doesn’t count”).
Now, however, people with some sense of morality, history, and intelligence are fighting back:
https://news.yahoo.com/virginia-parents-push-back-against-114632345.html
At some point when enough school board seats are lost and the movement of good parents against this evil ideology drops a big enough bombshell - perhaps in the statewide races in Virginia this fall - CRT will have to actually start to define and defend itself using some semblance of a real argument, and boy will its ugliness be on full display then.
Indeed Tucker Carlson and many other right-wing liars have been successful in inculcating fear against a largely-fictional version of CRT in many Americans. I’m sure they’re very thankful for your assistance in spreading these falsehoods and fears.
But rather than aiding Tucker, why not try engaging the substantive things I’ve actually said? Pretend I’m talking about “blitical face theory” and try to engage my actual ideas on their own merits. Unless engaging on the merits isn’t something you’re interested in…?
But are your ideas the same as the CRT that is influencing school curriculums and corporate diversity trainings, and various other things? Unless you have established that it’s kinda academic.
What did you think of the article I linked? Do the lessons the author described match your idea of what CRT teaches or should teach? Do you agree there are problems with teaching kids those things?
It sounds like the part you are objecting to is saying both those groups are white. So it’s the way we group different ethnic groups into races that you think is unscientific?
Oh, yeah, keep pushing that narrative that Asians haven’t been instrumental in developing CRT from the get-go. It’s just a Black thing, suuuure.
Are you saying there are multiple races originating in Finland?
I don’t understand what you’re saying. I asked you questions, but you didn’t answer. If you answer these questions and explain what you mean by race, then maybe I’ll be able to understand what you’re saying and respond.
Before scientific racism of the 19th century, people quite often referred to ethnicities as races. It’s just a grouping of interrelated people or animals and could even be a clan or family, although those are less common.
It looked like a mix, to me, of useful and accurate things and nonsense. I don’t know if the nonsense is an improper understanding of what was taught or that what was taught was nonsense.
And if this was the 18th C., or DemonTree was a time traveller, that would be relevant. But it isn’t, and she’s not, so if she’s using the word in that fashion, it would be a non-helpful idiosyncrasy.
You might want to rethink your opinion on the existence of mustache-twirling villains, at least on the state level. See Hunter v. Underwood as a prime example. Here, I am quoting the wiki, but FWIW I have read the decision in full and the wiki appears to be an accurate summary, particularly of points emphasized below:
The Court identified § 182 as a facially neutral law with racially disproportionate effects, thus requiring an inquiry to discover if the law was passed with a discriminatory purpose. The provision was adopted at a convention in 1901, and the Court found ample evidence that the law and other measures of the convention were passed with the outspoken intention of disenfranchising practically all African-Americans, from its very start. At the opening address, the chairman of the convention claimed that its purpose was, “within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State”. This was supported by the minutiae of the proceedings, where delegates repeatedly claim that they did not wish to disenfranchise “whites”, but “blacks”.
The appellants claimed that this openly acknowledged purpose was accompanied by an unspoken purpose of disenfranchising “poor whites”. They claimed their true object was for the ruling party, the Southern Democrats, to thwart the Populists and the Republicans, who threatened their political power, by disenfranchising groups of voters who were more inclined to vote for those parties.
The appellants argued then that the disenfranchisement rules were not unconstitutional since the secret, yet ultimate, purpose was to secure the rule of the Southern Democrats by disenfranchising a sufficient number of their opponents’ supporters, independent of their race. They claimed that rewriting the laws for such a purpose was not prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.