That’s simply false.
Well, no, that’s wrong too. That isn’t a novel definition of race at all; it’s a very old one. It used to be VERY common for people to describe the British as a “race,” or Finns or the French as a “race.”
Race is however it is socially defined, and race and nationality used to be quite coterminous and in some places still are.
To keep it about the OP, one has to notice that researchers (links already posted) who use CRT are not limited to race as the right wing sources of info declare. Injustice and discrimination has been researched by CRT proponents that involves ethnicity, religion and social interactions rather than just race.
I have never, ever seen a critic of CRT who knew what CRT is or who had done any actual study of it at all.
Sorry, I didn’t realise they were banning it in universities too. When we say schools in the UK we mean the places that provide compulsory education for children.
But it just leads to the same question. This seems to be the main substance of the bill in question:
(b) appears to be more about affirmative action and is a separate question, but on the face of it I cannot see any objection to the rest of the law. If I understand it correctly it does not even ban teaching those concepts, it only bans compelling students to affirm or agree with them. What is your objection to that?
It is a very similar resolution as the ones seen to plug creationism in science classes. Sure they told them that the new law is mostly about not forcing students to accept evolution, but the rules, until the supreme court did say otherwise, allowed many parents and administrators to prevent the teaching of inconvenient biology concepts.
Again, if there were not bigoted anti-intellectual in power like that governor, the issue would be moot, but the reality is that (as Joe Arpaio showed with a complicit governor) they reach for interpretations that are barely there as you noticed, but they usually run with the worse interpretations of a new law and abuse their power until a judge tells them to stop being bastards. In Arizona it was a change in attitudes that allowed a judge to eventually say that to the executive branch, I’m not so sure about Idaho. So I do think that Lysenkoism is on the table.
I’m just not interested in this endless list of weirdness from people (Trump, in this case) who hate and usually don’t even bother to try and understand CRT. It’s not interesting to me – it’s been done over and over and over again, and I find it boring. That’s not what this thread is about.
What kind of debate do you expect to have if you make up your own definition and ignore all the actual expressed concerns of the people who disagree with you?
I didn’t make up my own definition. It’s just not the right wing defined (or made up) definition, which apparently is the only one you’re interested in discussing.
If it turns out everyone agrees with my definition, then great! Let’s figure out what to do about it and make things better.
I’m interested in discussing what is actually being taught to kids in schools or adults in their jobs. Does it agree with your definition? Does it go well beyond it in some cases?
If the right wing definition is made up then it should be easy to say the concepts mentioned above are not in fact part of CRT. Why the reluctance to do so?
I’ve addressed much of that right-wing nonsense in early posts. But it’s still mostly just oversimplified nonsense – this is a complicated issue and the right-wing wants to distill it down to bite size absurdities in order to use it as a cudgel for political attacks. So they twist and lie and make shit up, and what’s actually taught in schools and workplaces doesn’t matter to them, except how they can use it for attacks. Why must we always discuss this from a right-wing perspective?
He’s done no such thing.
Because Andy’s obviously not done beating his wife yet.
Well, that is one weak “rule” that I have seen OPs get. Sure, you can propose other definitions, but it does not mean that the OP has to follow.
And speaking of definitions, it is really clear the Idaho potatoes senate and governor do think that CRT is against all what you posted, and as you also noticed it is a very stupid way to define CRT and by the time (if ever) a judge points out that the reason to ban CRT teaching was stupid, it will be too late for many researchers that will be affected. Minority ones specially.
This insistence that no one is allowed to observe what the actual beliefs, proposals, and actions of the ideology’s proponents are is one of the issues with CRT. And of course, it’s a meta-problem with the whole collective of “wokism,” “whiteness studies,” “intersectionality,” “anti-racism” as religious doctrine, etc - when all of the people who subscribe to one doctrine subscribe to all the others and none of them will define which ideas go in which interchangeable label except when trying to avoid defending them by diverting the discussion into those kind of irrelevant distinctions, of course we’re just going to treat it all as one single ideological blob.
People object to five-year-olds being taught that they are born racist in kindergarten because it’s happening. They learn about it because their kids come home from school and tell them about it or show them assignments saying it. They object to being told that “worship of the written word is a white value” because they sit right in front of the Powerpoints that consultants are paid $20,000 an hour to show them that spell it out in so many words. They object to good school programs being destroyed over “too many Asians” benefitting because they are sitting at the school board meetings where the people who control school policy say, in public, that they are destroying the programs because “too many Asians benefit.” They’re not making it up, it’s not coming from “Tucker Carlson.” The response being to retreat from all the parts of the CRT ideological complex that people actually object to and defend the parts of it that are tautological or paying lip service to things everyone has agreed on for 50 years is evasive.
CRT didn’t invent the idea that all-white primaries in the 1940s were racist, and the core claim of CRT is not in any way about the motives of people in the 1940s. Everyone outside of the extreme right has long understood that all-white primaries in the 1940s were racist. If that were not the case, then all-white primaries would not have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1940s and further targeted by civil rights legislation in the 1960s that was passed by extremely popular politicians who easily won re-election. Conflating these examples of actual racism that have been targeted by the mainstream for literal decades with the claims of CRT is simply not accurate. When confronted with everything radical, insane, demonstrably untrue, and fundamentally harmful about CRT, responding with “oh, so you think racism is good, you must like all-white primaries” is a very obvious fallacy.
My challenge regarding the elucidation of CRT-complex beliefs that I have spelled out in this thread and that its other liberal critics have realized, versus the false definitions put forth by CRT defenders remains the same: Look at any emerging controversy that somehow touches on race. Use my list of CRT beliefs to predict what the CRT devotees will say and do about the situation, versus the CRT defenders’ (if you can get the CRT defenders to admit that CRT exists, has any beliefs, or has any devotees at all, which is always part of the challenge). Then follow what actually happens as the issue develops - what is actually said and done by CRT-devotee politicians. Which set of definitions ends up making more accurate predictions as to how CRT proponents with political power actually speak and act about the issue? That’s all you need to determine who is giving you the more accurate description of what they really believe.
I don’t think the article I posted was from a right-wing perspective. It was a parent’s concerns seeing what was being taught to her children.
I want to make clear that I don’t think Andy’s definition is wrong, I think it’s incomplete. The Britannica article goes on to say this:
Now maybe the issue is that not every member of the movement agrees with these and other ideas, so they can’t be definitively said to be part of CRT. But IMHO beliefs that are widely held or held by influential people are still very relevant to the debate.
That article wasn’t – it was just an interview with a parent (and, at least based only on that article, it’s impossible to know if that parent’s description of the teaching plan is accurate). But you also presented that crap from Trump. That’s from a right-wing perspective.
So which of these do you have a problem with? I don’t have a problem with any of them – they all jibe with my understanding of CRT. And none of them seem to have anything to do with the Trump silliness or most other right-wing nonsense about CRT. I’ve been saying for years on this board that Black Americans do indeed generally have special insight into the treatment of Black Americans in America, and always have; and that Black Americans have always had the “right answer” about how they’re truly being treated, and white people ignore this at their own moral peril. Black Americans, generally speaking understood and were right about slavery; Black Americans understood and were right about Jim Crow and segregation; and I think it’s almost certain that today, Black Americans generally understand and are right about how they are treated by law enforcement and other institutions.
I’ll note that this definition doesn’t include some of the weirdness I’ve seen in attacks on CRT on Twitter – like that hard work and entrepreneurial thought as positive values are somehow white supremacist notions. Why would any parents object to the notions in your Britannica snippet unless they’re psychologically invested, knowingly or not, in maintaining these systems, institutions, and practices that harm people of color?
Since you have these in quotes, I’m sure you can cite both of these statements.
It’s not “on Twitter” or “right-wing,” it’s the exact thing that sane liberals object to CRT consultants doing.
Those are six sites which are pro-CRT and/or offering CRT training which use the Okun/Jones list of what “white supremacy culture” is.
They are not making it up, they are not Fox News, they are not “lies from the right wing.” This will hopefully be the last time that such nonsense is heard from the people who refuse to engage with the actual insanities of CRT.
When the idea that “objectivity” and “writing” are white traits is taught as gospel to, e.g, New York City school administrators, we have an ideological crisis going on. Do you not see how absolutely insane it is to teach that positive, productive traits are “white” and claim to be “anti-racist”?
Which CRT proponents say is the same as “white values” where, exactly? Sine that’s clearly where you got “worship of the written word is a white value”
Well, as written, a lot of it overessentializes the artificial group of “white people” and uses language that implies that white people as a whole perform these actions or have these attitudes. However, again, taking these as written, one thing I do disagree with is that
no one group should have a monopoly on the meaning of a word. If someone wanted to say that “the form of racism is simply growing up within the white society and absorbing all the bad messages about people of other races, to the extent that you can be considered a racist, even if the messages aren’t explicit and there are other, more explicit, messages of equality you are also exposed to”, then that is using the word in a definition far from common understanding. Even if there are indeed two definitions, tolerance is important enough to not want to use the same for for not achieving an impossible zero out of 100 in racism level as for someone who doesn’t even try and is an obvious racist.
Central to this belief is that we are inescapably molded by the culture we grew up in. The meaning of words is also part of this culture. If you use the same word for a virulent bigot that you use for a relatively-introspective liberal, in order to be consistent you must agree that you will unconsciously associate the two and reflexively think of the latter as more like the former if you use the same word for them.
I see it saying “dominant white groups”, nothing about “white people as a whole”
Why do you read “uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of their group” as “have a monopoly on meaning”?