Based on what others report and what I saw before, I was not expecting to change your mind. What is important is that you do learn why is that what most of what the right is doing about CRT (specially in the US) is more bananas than what you can imagine.
And I have to mention one important item here. One big reason I post is that I also do want to learn and to teach (why not?) about this subject in the SDMB, and it is really underwhelming when as a counter to what I found and cited a poster just replies by avoiding one of the very reasons why CRT is there in the first place. As I learned, it is clear that a caricature of it is being used as an accusation against the researchers. And because many of them are minorities too, it is really a Trump like move to ignore that what the bigoted politicians are doing is the very same thing CRT scholars are researching for, this is injustice being done by powerful groups either due to anti-intellectual or bigoted reasons.
Ignorant lawmakers are then trying to control what even Universities can teach. I guess I will have to research that and someday make a paper about the history of the banning issue as it is clear that a lot of ignorance is being used to make dumb laws.
One of the first steps I made when checking about this was to take a look at what the experts were telling us about the issue, then I found about the research they published. Then I noticed how painfully ignorant lawmakers were with the issue, just like I did with Climate Change in the past.
What was important was to check first where CRT came from, the history of it too, and the published research. What I found out was that CRT is not just about race but includes other items and yes, they also get to be peer reviewed, enough was found by me to show that a lot of the ideas coming from the American right wing regarding CRT are coming from a similar ignorant black hole as the one Climate Change denier talking points come from.
Just ignorance, and as I also realized a long time ago, racism is also ignorance; it is just that it is more concentrated and harmful.
If you are asking what critical race theory actually is, you can go to law school and take a critical race theory class to understand how laws are created with the dominant group in mind so laws that say we ought to punish people for drug abuse will end up sending black people to jail for crack and laws that say we ought to help the victims of drug addiction will end up sending white opium addicts to rehabilitation centers.
The concept of reasonableness is a central part of law, the reasonable man standard is frequently the standard that would feel most intuitive to a straight white male. CRT cannot form the central part of any philosphy because it is meant to critique and provide additional perspectives to more logical and rational schools of thought. It is the garlic of theories. You can add a bit of it to almost anything and bring out some flavor but isn’t much use on its own. But some other disciplines have picked it up and really run with it. Most notably in education and sociology.
If you want to know what it has been distorted into you can go get an education masters. That is where you get the living caricatures that think that oppression explains everything
The problem is that many of its proponents are also ideological in other ways and trying to reach certain conclusions. Critical race theory doesn’t do a very good job of explaining model minorities. These model minorities have little social power and somehow achieve success. So when the scales have to be balanced, it is often done on the backs of the politically powerless model minorities.
“Model minorities” is itself a pretty fucked up phrase. Given past experience, however, I’ll politely decline to engage with you on this subject, unless there’s another forum where I may express my thoughts more productively.
No. Carlson, a man who makes his living by spouting racist bullshit, flourishes because there’s racism in our society. That doesn’t explain everything, but it does explain his success.
Another racist might flourish despite their racism.
It is not the flourishing of racists like Carlson that proves our society is racist. It’s a million other factors in our society that demonstrate that. However, Carlson’s success certainly provides one more piece of evidence: in a society free of racism, his racist twaddle wouldn’t be profitable.
You completely misunderstand the dynamic at play, and what folks who work at antiracism are likely to say on the subject.
I won’t engage with you, but I will offer you a link: if you’re interested how a theory of systemic racism can explain attitudes toward Asian Americans, here’s a great place to start.
The law school version of crt is not what people are riled up about. The law school version of crt even makes a little bit of sense. It is the crt being taught in education and sociology departments that people have problems with.
I don’t know if you are talking about me but I am probably only right wing in a place like this. I am pro-choice, pro taxes, pro-union and I haven’t voted for a republican since Bob Dole. Does objecting to the philosophies that support discrimination against asians make me right wing?
CRT pretty much ignores model minorities. It has no use for us. It does provide a gloss on how a society could pass legislation like the chinese exclusion act and affirms that racism also exists against asians but that isn’t particularly useful.
There is in fact no real developed asian crt beyond the category of “white people are racist against asians too”
CRT has a very hard time explaining the success of asians and jews. And so it adherents frequently just lump them in as some sort of third party beneficiaries of white supremacy and try to ignore the racism that these model minorities face from both the left and the right.
She seems to be claiming that anything taught outside of law schools is really just anti-racism so the folks who are opposing crt outside of law schools are really just defending racism. Of course that assumes that anti-racism is actually anti-racist.
The insinuation is wrong, for two reasons, one was that virtually no evidence was presented that CRT scholars were involved in the decisions schools and colleges made about who to admit; and second: the issue was about diversity and some Asians and very bigoted whites that funded the lawsuits did choose to discriminate against Blacks and Hispanics or not care at all about those groups being left almost completely out.
What I do remember is that when cites were made from an Asian scholars agreeing with me you never presented evidence against their claims you only expected that the fallacy of shooting the messenger would be enough to dismiss the arguments.
It actually is. There is a very ideological element to it. That may be why you are juxtaposing crt with “the right” And by “the right” you mean moderate liberals.
Well, that silly name is giving an aura of legitimacy to fairly undisciplined thinking about race. It allows people to arbitrarily take admissions away from asians and give them to mostly white kids and call it justice because it incrementally increases the number of black and hispanic kids.
Thinking math problems have correct answers is not considered racist. Who is getting the correct answers versus the wrong answers is considered racist and rather than getting rid of the root cause of why some groups get the wrong answer so much more frequently, they are getting rid of the math.
It’s almost like they don’t think that they can fix the root problem. This is the basic underlying premise behind the move to get rid of standardized testing.
So then the people who oppose it are either academics or heard it from an academic?
Or it is a plea for the far left to step away from the edge.
It really seems like you just laid out a progressive platform on race. And not even that progressive.
If CRT was limited to what you said then I don’t see why there is an argument between liberals and woke sjws. And that is really what crt is in practice these days, the philosophy of the woke sjw.
Can you identify such an institution or system? I am trying to see what you think the end goal looks like.
How about if a non-white minority group achieved greater success in american society than white people? Because it clearly cannot be because they worked harder, all groups are equally diligent. How dare you imply that black people are lazy, that’s a racist thing to imply. The racial profile of the student body at places like stuyvesant and tjhsst should reflect the racial profile of the pool of students from which it draws and any significant deviation from this can only be the result of racism.
As an anti-CRT type, I think the black people have endured enough. Can we punish white people instead?
A lot of pro-crt folks trying to deflect a lot of the burden for fixing racism away from white people and onto asians.
This is kind of a dumb line of reasoning.
I don’t think it falsifies crt but how does white supremacy explain how asians are doing better academically than whites?
Can you cite someone who has said that in the last couple of years?
Sure it can be used for all sorts of things. But this is not what it mostly does. Mostly it is about white supremacy, black oppression and little else.
I can dig up 2 articles on crt that are about white supremacy or black oppression (maybe hispanic oppression too), for every one that you can cite about anythign else. crt is pretty focused on the black white dynamic. Everything else is more or less the exceptions that prove the rule.
crt has always had trouble with model minorities. Nobody likes it when they blow the curve.
I thought Derrick bell was supposed to be the anti-semetic crt guy.
I am not familiar with the conspiracy theory element of crt. For the most part racial supremacy (white or otherwise) is the almost inevitable result of an unenlightened dominant group.
OK so what asian gloss did mari matsuda add to crtical race theory at the get-go?
I know mari matsuda, I met her in the 1990s, she seemed much more concerned with crt and feminism than the asian aspects of crt. But perhaps this was after she did all her work on asian crt. Do you have a cite for her asian crt from the get-go? Or was she just an asian woman involved in crt rather than a representative of her race in the crt discussion from the get-go?
White supremacy was not intentional at the get go. It didn’t have to be. Everyone was a white supremacist, they just called it being american.
Stamped from the beginning. A much better book that how to be an anti-racist.
How is that relevant? CRT is absolutely a product of us culture. The french recently banned that aspect of our culture.
And yet you spend so much time defending it.
Seems like there isn’t so much hole poking as there is hole pointing out.
I studied it in law school. I have encountered few people on either side of the debate who knows what crt is. I can name a fairly long list of critics of crt that probably understand it much much better than anyone on this site. Mostly legal academics that criticized it until it became synonymous with wokness.
It was responding in kind to the other poster. Most would get the sarcasm, in reality he like you does not bother to falsify what the scholar reported. I will not expect any efforts either from the critics of CRT to falsify what the researchers reported about Rwanda when it is clear that it can be.
He literally said he providing his own definition at around post 22.
Right wing is relative. Perhaps a lot of things are right wing to some posters.
CRT moved waaaaay beyond this once the folks in the sociology and education departments got a hold of it. Suddenly racism was able to explain all the things that they could not explain.
And do asian americans have special insight into the treatment of asian americans in america?
Is it possible that the advances that you seek for blacks are the result of a “convergence of interests” due to whites suddenly being underrepresented at good schools?
Isn’t it a little convenient that this social justice seems to be coming mostly from a non-white group with a considerable benefit going to whites?
If you can’t express yourself productively here I don’t know if you can do it anywhere.
But thanks for letting me know.
I can predict what “anti-racists” have to say on pretty much any topic as easily as i can predict what peta members will say on any topic. They will find some way that animal rights is involved and harp on that.
There is a paywall but I am going to guess its some rehashing of the Atlantic article.
The difference in asian achievement preceded the "model minority status, not the other way around.
And again, repeating “woke” as an insult is not working for what you want, it only continues to identify the ones that are falling for right wing propaganda while claiming to be aware of not falling for it.
No point responding to Damuri Ajashi who’s doing little more than saying I’m wrong without actually saying how or why. On the one thing he’s actually brought up some sort of real depth for - supposed model minorities - I haven’t said anything about, and whether they exist or not doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.
And this is wrong as it was shown already with cites in this thread, racism is not the only item that the CRT framework can be applied to, nor other items ignored to find out what the powerful are doing to repressed minorities or groups.