1, I already said.
2, depends what it means.
3 & 4 - I could be persuaded but I’d need to see some evidence.
5 doesn’t go far enough. People are individuals, and cannot be defined simply as members of a bunch of intersecting groups.
And I don’t have a problem with 6 in itself but with how it’s often treated as “You must never doubt what a black person(/woman/gay person) says about racism(/misogyny/homophobia) or ask for evidence before believing it.” (Unless of course said black person is disagreeing with CRT, in which case they are suffering from internalised something-or-other and should be disregarded.)
Why are you harping on the definition of race when you’ve already acknowledged that the American definition is different from yours? This America-centered concept uses the American definition, which is not at all scientific. What are you disagreeing with?
As far as 5, where does it say that this is the only way to define people?
Why are you harping on it? I said more about the other 5 points and you ignored most of it.
I actually don’t agree with you about your definition, but thought talking about it more would derail your thread, so I decided to drop it.
I don’t know if this belief is part of CRT, but I have seen enough people saying it’s impossible for a black person to oppress a white one, a woman to oppress a man, etc, completely ignoring individual circumstances. That’s what I disagree with.
You basically said nothing about 2 through 4, which is why I ignored them. I have no idea what this second part has to do with 5 in the Britannica snippet, or anything else, for that matter.
Speaking of saying nothing, DemonTree is making a sport of avoiding what is going on regarding clear evidence of how powerful white guys in America are telling minority researchers what to do, and for very stupid justifications. Meaning that he does not want to deal with the elephant in the room…
That is usually a Republican in the US now.
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.
What kind of evidence is going to convince you that “Racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational: it is the common, ordinary experience of most people of colour.” when you’ve made it clear you won’t give any credence to just having Black people tell you that?
Only shows that he is avoiding the published and reviewed papers; as it was already noticed, one can find ways to falsify those, but I will not hold my breath expecting the misguided critics of CRT to bother to find evidence that the cited papers are not useful or properly made. ZosterSandstorm continues to get this basic item wrong and only concludes that anything that has to do with improving race relations is coming from the Illuminati Critical Race Theorists. As it is with everything else in life, it depends on what is the issue and that someone is doing a misguided thing is not a reason to dismiss a framework, one needs to dismiss the published papers and research.
If you read my post again you’ll see that it was 3 and 4 specifically that I wanted to see evidence for, not point 2 which is what you are referring to there.
Since the new law specifically bans Critical Race Theory, it is really silly to ignore what it would do to the universities in Idaho, incidentally there are reports that other states are following that misguided attempt.
Again, as even you noticed, the reasoning is Orwellian. They are saying that CRT is against the anti-discrimination laws that they already have. It is as I mentioned, in reality, a similar reason to the ones the old plantation owners had; they are trying to limit what researchers (and in many cases minority researchers) can find. And, as the current debate shows, it is easier for critics to dismiss a framework rather than the actual research that is published.
On the one hand, I am very leery of any sort of attempt by central legislative action to blanketly dictate what schools should teach or not teach, particularly “bans” on ideologies, and I doubt that the average Idaho Republican has a good understanding of this issue.
On the other hand, it’s undoubtedly true that some aspects of CRT (as actually practiced in the real world by its devotees and not disingenuously defended in fantasy-land) absolutely do violate existing anti-discrimination statutes. The constant use of racial segregation in gatherings, the instruction to students that they are all X because they belong to race Y and the requirement to regurgitate that back, the targeting of programs based on their lack of racial quotas, etc. I think that it would be better to go after these individual behaviors using the existing laws that they violate, rather than do something as dramatic as ban ideas by legislative action.
In Virginia, where a successful magnet school program was destroyed by replacing a blind admissions test with a racial quota during a secret meeting, for the explicit goal of punishing the school for admitting “too many Asians,” despite the fact that state law prohibits racial discrimination, mandates the use of admissions test for magnet schools, and requires open meetings, there is going to be no prosecution under existing laws since allies of the CRT disciples who performed the execution control the Attorney General’s office. One wonders why Republican-controlled Idaho can’t produce a different outcome.
I don’t know what reply you’re expecting. I said I wanted evidence for 3 and 4 because they are contrary to my not-too-comprehensive knowledge but seem amenable to evidence. 2 is just too vaguely defined for me to evaluate.
It didn’t seem worth going into great detail in my reply to Andy, when I don’t expect that he has seen any more evidence than I have.
A previous discussion showed that this was a wrong way to tell what had been the usual in many universities or schools.
In sum, while it was true graduating seniors at Columbia University could attend 2021 commencement ceremonies based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity, or socioeconomic status, it was false to frame those events as unprecedented efforts to “bring back segregation” or eliminate diversity at graduation ceremonies.
Warning and thread ban for ZosterSandstorm. You are rehashing an old and tired pet issue in a thread not for it. I am officially warning you to change your behavior in CRT threads going forward and to stay out of this thread from this point forward.
I’d have liked an actual reply to the question I asked, which was not at all vague and was not actually dependent on your conversation with iiandyiiii.
Here it is again - since you’re on record in this thread as having a problem with just listening to what Black people have to say about racism without “evidence”, what possible evidence could convince you that racism is the common, ordinary experience of most PoC in the USA?
Ignoring, for the moment, that testimony is evidence, what evidence are you looking for?
Failing that, maybe at a minimum you can tell me what the fuck is “vague” about the statement I bolded?
What about that is contrary to your knowledge? I mean, in the case of (4) for example, isn’t it fairly evident that negative stereotypes change over time?
For instance, it used to be common in the slavery era for white people to portray African-Americans as good-natured, trusting, but irremediably childish and simple-minded innocents. Now that the carceral system is doing a fair bit of the racist oppression that used to be done by slavery, stereotypes tend more toward the violent “predatory” “thugs” and “animals”.
Stereotypes of South Asians that I’ve seen in early 20th-century British media focused on their being “dark” and “oily” and, you know, foreign, especially in their eating and drinking. “Tar-brush.” The stereotypes now seem to be more about religious fanaticism and sexual predation.
Stereotypes of Jews have similarly changed over decades and centuries in majority-Christian countries, and there are innumerable other examples. If you don’t find those persuasive, exactly what sort of “evidence” are you looking for?