Another Critical Race Theory thread

Does it mean every PoC in the US has encoutered racism? I’m sure that’s true. Does it mean racism is encountered daily, and if so are we talking ‘microaggressions’ or something more overt? Does it mean racism is present in every aspect of life and every relationship? If so, is this the definition of racism where it means unconcious bias rather than prejudice?

I don’t know why you’re asking me what evidence I’d accept, I told you I’m not asking for evidence, I’m asking for clarification on what it means.

It means incidents of racism are generally common in the lives of PoC in America - such incidents aren’t “abnormal”.

Yes

A distinction without a difference. Unconscious bias is prejudice. But no, this is the definition of racism that includes all of it.

I told you why. You’re arguing with me about my own motives, when I’ve laid out what I was responding to in a plain post.

She’s trying to wrangle some sort of difference between unconscious and overt racism, as though that mattered to the recipients.

Or as though it even matters for CRT. Individual motives are not really a significant part of CRT, and this appears to really bother a lot of people. I think there are lots of white folks who just can’t help themselves with approaching everything at all related to racism with, as a first response, “What about me? I’m not racist, and I need my lack of racism to be acknowledged and praised before we go any further!”

You have to remember, she comes from a part of the UK that simply doesn’t have a lot of racism. She only (distantly) knows 3.

You’re the one assuming motives here, not me.

AFAIK I didn’t say anything about your motives at all. This whole conversation makes no sense.

More assuming motives.

I’m basing it on your own posts. Things like:

And previously:

What does the difference matter? Racism is racism to the victims.

Then why do you keep asking why I asked a question, and just answer the question?

You live in a society where for white people, ‘racist’ is pretty much the worst thing they can be called. Then you present a theory that says everyone (white?) is a racist. And you’re surprised people have a problem with that?

Your first two sentences are incorrect.

There’s no point debating someone who misrepresents everything I’ve said. I’m done replying to you in this thread.

…by simply quoting you. That’s a neat trick.

Since you kept dodging my one plain question, this is no great loss.

This is completely intentional and strategic. CRT is (or was) a niche academic theory, fine for what it is, with little traction outside of academia. Then someone decided it could stand in as a bête noire (no pun) for all race concerns, and unleashed the marketing brand-smiths upon it.

Or, in their own words, here’s what they’re doing:

et voilà we have now manufactured the latest Egghead Menace, straight out of academia and onto your TV screen.

Fragile whites are to get mad because someone’s less than adoring of whiteness. White-adjacent groups (Asian, Indian) are to get mad because another minority’s concerns are being privileged at their expense. Woke lefties are to assist the cause by vigorously defending this niche theory that wasn’t even important to anyone a year ago.

Fox News, as usual, rakes in the bucks by playing both sides of a conflict they stoked, but the ultimate beneficiaries are the Republican party, who get to talk about another imaginary white fragility panic instead of the latest story about a smirking cop murdering a restrained man on camera.

Am I saying stop talking about CRT? Maybe. I’m not sure how to ignore it without conceding the field to the bad guys, but I’m also sure it’s not wise to play into the hands of white strategists.

Are Kendi and di Angelo 5th columnists in your conception?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at, what do you mean?

You implied the idea of CRT left academia and was popularised by people who are opposed to it, with nefarious motives. But as I understand it, Kendi and di Angelo were influential in bringing ideas derived from CRT to a popular audience, where they are being picked up by many corporations and school boards, and even the CDC.

The phrase “ideas derived from CRT” is doing a lot of work here, can you see how? It’s exactly like the summary Twitter link I posted above. Take an unknown niche theory like CRT, use negative branding to turn it into a toxic menace, then associate it with real social justice concerns that we’d rather not talk about.

Poof, the magic is done, we’ve changed social justice from being a popular widespread concern into an evil concerted egghead plot, a Problem That Has A Name, complete with named villains (Kendi and di Angelo - who else can you think of)?

That sounds so familiar…

(from Promising Young Woman)

I don’t see your point. It’s the ideas that people like Rufo object to, what does it matter if they are ‘really CRT’ or not? They object to them either way.