Modnote: Please do not accuse other posters of trolling outside of the Pit. Do not do this again.
DemonTree is right that she shouldn’t have brought it up and is refraining for further comment. Thank you.
Modnote: Please do not accuse other posters of trolling outside of the Pit. Do not do this again.
DemonTree is right that she shouldn’t have brought it up and is refraining for further comment. Thank you.
A rational argument would be to realize that you are just relying on opinions and not what was published, the only thing needed here was to acknowledge that your accusation about
Needs a cite before one can talk about any falsification. Because so far, as you are not producing any cite whatsoever, one has to conclude that whatever Kendi said was just an opinion or worse, it was an invented opinion attributed to Kendi by right wing sources of information.
And that brings us to the “blogessor” portmanteau, chances are that what you claim, that ‘Kendi claimed that any difference between groups is caused by racism’, is then an item that if declared in a scientific or law journal it requires a lot of support, and the only way to find if that was done then a paper from Kendi needs to be cited with the quote showing the context. Having failed to do that then the realization of where that “any” claim comes from means that it comes from right wing bloggers or influencers that are claiming expertise on the matter (hence the bloglessor term), and if no cite is produced, then we only are left with an unsourced opinion from those McExperts that criticise CRT. (What science writer Peter Hadfield prefers to call the ones that, even if a line is coming from an expert, many times what Hardfield finds are still opinions from experts that are not related to the field, or claims that were not really published science for what they claim.)
You… you really don’t know what the General Relativity theory is, do you?
It would be ever so much more likely that I would learn that if you explained what frame I should be viewing it through, rather than writing ridiculous analogies to mock me.
If you’ve gone this far without realizing that CRT falls under social philosophy, not empirical science, I don’t think your paranoiac response to the use of analogies is the major problem.
Seriously , to mock you? That’s what you read in this?
So glad you asked! I’m not an expert on epistemology by any means, but as I understand it, social theories like don’t get judged by falsifiability and predictive power. Instead, you ask a couple of questions:
Obviously, if the theory is contradicted by evidence (somewhat similar to falsifiability, but a bit different), it’s problematic. But just as important, if the theory doesn’t help make sense of the world, it’s useless.
Most ideas I’ve heard that are associated with CRT are consistent with the evidence. You can easily see past systemic racism, and the threads connecting past systemic racism to modern conditions are clear. Even cases that might superficially appear to contradict the theory, e.g., the experiences of Asian Americans, turn out to support the theory when you study the evidence.
And it has broad explanatory power: it helps make sense of huge swaths of experience that people have, and explains how systems and policies lead to the results they lead to.
There are specific ideas held by some folks who (I believe) espouse CRT that I’m not convinced by. Kendi suggests that:
I’m not entirely sure I agree with that–I just don’t have enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion. If the Cashew Growers Association decides to set a workplace policy that staff vehicles must be parked in the side lot, not the front lot, is that racist or anti-racist – and, more importantly, is it worthwhile to analyze such a policy through that lens? I’m not sure if I’m understanding what he’s saying, if I’m missing some nuance of CGA’s parking policies, or if I just disagree with him.
Understood.
I’m really not seeing the distinction here, or why you consider it ridiculous to want to see evidence for the parts I’m not so well informed on before endorsing them. I agree that if the theory doesn’t have explanatory power it’s useless, but that is a separate point.
AIUI, he is saying that if the policy produces equal outcomes between races, or more equal than the policy it is replacing, then it is an anti-racist policy. Otherwise it is a racist policy. This test can in theory be applied to every policy, so every policy can be declared racist or anti-racist.
I’d like to preface this with the full acknowledgement that I have not taken the time or effort to take a deep dive into CRT so I’ve followed the thread with interest to see what I can learn.
My personal anecdote involves a conversation I had with a colleague who said that he received his vaccination early in the process because he was identified as part of the 1b population that was recognized to be particularly vulnerable to COVID. His wife is Asian and was not selected to be vaccinated as part of the 1b population thus did not receive her vaccination at the same time. His conclusion and stated accusation of the vaccine rollout was that the policy was obviously racially biased.
I guess the point of this anecdote is to provide a real life example where the above quoted and bolded statement by Kendi is a correct lens through which to view all social policy.
I’d really appreciate if those who are in strong favor of CRT don’t respond with the all too common and predictable disclaimer, 'I never said CRT is the correct lens to view everything - don’t put words in my mouth!'. But consider whether, as LHoD has so reasonably stated, that there are ways in which CRT simply does not apply to good public policy.
Do supporters of CRT feel any responsibility to admit when this view (per Kendi) is not universally applicable and might even lead people to mistakenly see racial injustice where there is none?
AIUI, he is saying that if the policy produces equal outcomes between races, or more equal than the policy it is replacing, then it is an anti-racist policy. Otherwise it is a racist policy. This test can in theory be applied to every policy, so every policy can be declared racist or anti-racist.
So it was in a book, not published in a science or law paper, that figures.
What you need to realize again is that falsification in this case is not as crucial or doable scientifically. Of course the one can counter an opinion with facts or more educated opinions. The problem here is that even the opinions that I have seen to counter that opinion of Kendi have been lousy.
Remember that it was claimed that “he claimed that any difference between groups must be caused by racism”, clearly Kendi does not think that. He is referring to many policies already in place that are racist, it is then that Kendi says that any of those specific ones are a racist policy, Kendi also does mention that there are policies that are anti-racist, so again, claiming that he declared that any differences are caused by racism is oversimplifying or just talking about the racist policies Kendi is pointing at, but omitting that he also talks about anti-racist ones.
Do supporters of CRT feel any responsibility to admit when this view (per Kendi) is not universally applicable and might even lead people to mistakenly see racial injustice where there is none?
As my previous post showed, the bolded part only concentrates on one part of what he said, if the policy is anti-racist (in his view, I would be a bit more nuanced, but he has a point that can be clarified) it already shows that even he also considers that there are policies that are not racist at all. Indeed, not all policies are racist, Kendi was not claiming that just the opposite was the case.
As my previous post showed, the bolded part only concentrates on one part of what he said, if the policy is anti-racist (in his view, I would be a bit more nuanced, but he has a point that can be clarified) it already shows that even he also considers that there are policies that are not racist at all.
Perhaps I should be more generous in granting him this latitude. But he is a book author and I assume he has an editor. Is it unreasonable to wonder whether the editor asked him to make the kind of clarification you suggest is warranted and he declined because he was being very precise in his language?
My point is that we should not speculate about what he perhaps meant to say and just take it at face value until he provides a correction or an elaboration.
Uh, it is even in the quote you cited:
[quoting Kendi] An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups.
Not the fault of LHOD, but really, just looking at the bolded part is a bit misleading, and the right wing media just looks at the bolded part and twist it even more to just have Kendi just “saying” the opposite.
A bit Orwellian IMHO, and that is what we need to watch for, even moderates can get caught by the omissions and complete lies that politicians and talking heads from the right wing media are making.
Getting back about looking for falsification, what he declared was just his opinion dude, if he was doing science or a law paper he needed to publish in a journal and be peer reviewed, and then we could be discussing any possible falsification of the research or the conclusions. As it is, his declaration of policies being racist or antiracist can be countered with more educated opinions or facts, no need for publishing a paper to falsify what was claimed. Of course, it is a bit harder when one can see that it depends on the policy to note if it is a racist or a not racist one (anti-racist) he was in reality talking about the task of identifying those policies.
Indeed, not all policies are racist, Kendi was not claiming that just the opposite was the case.
I’m not sure what you mean here. From the text quoted by LHoD, Kendi claims that all policies are either racist or anti-racist. AFAIUI, he is not saying anything about policies that have nothing to do with racism in any way. Is he leaving room for those in his CRT hypothesis? I’m asking because I do not have a deep knowledge of the subject or his specific views.
ETA: I see you’ve provided more context above. Thanks for that.
My personal anecdote involves a conversation I had with a colleague who said that he received his vaccination early in the process because he was identified as part of the 1b population that was recognized to be particularly vulnerable to COVID. His wife is Asian and was not selected to be vaccinated as part of the 1b population thus did not receive her vaccination at the same time. His conclusion and stated accusation of the vaccine rollout was that the policy was obviously racially biased.
I guess the point of this anecdote is to provide a real life example where the above quoted and bolded statement by Kendi is a correct lens through which to view all social policy.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that Kendi’s statement is a useful/explanatory framework for understanding the covid vaccine rollouts?
Because I do, but I also think your friend’s takeaway is orthagonal to Kendi’s statement.
“Racially biased” is not the same thing as “racist” according to what I quoted. The relevant measurement here is, are two racial groups experiencing equal outcomes?
If group A (e.g., African Americans) are dying at a higher rate than group B (e.g, Asian Americans), then a race-neutral policy of equal access to the vaccine will sustain that inequity, and is a racist policy. A policy of making the vaccine more available to African Americans will challenge that inequity, and is an anti-racist policy.
It’s also just good epidemological policy: if you identify a group that’s at greater risk, you prioritize preventative treatment for that group.
Note that his framework isn’t specifically pro-Black. If we discover that group A (White Americans) are at greater risk of opioid addiction than group B (African Americans), a race-neutral policy of preventative education will sustain that inequity and would be racist, whereas a policy that prioritizes preventative measures directed at White people would be anti-racist.
But it gets complicated. If we prioritize anti-opioid education over, say, anti-cocaine education because White people are disproportionately affected by the former, then we’re back to a racist policy.
That’s how I understand it. I definitely think it’s a valuable framework for understanding lots of policies. I’m just not convinced it’s valuable for all policies.
Edit: On rereading the quoted bit, I may have misunderstood something. Was his wife not in group 1B because she was Asian, or was that irrelevant to her grouping? If it’s the latter, we’re seeing a case where someone is misinterpreting the situation. You can’t usefully apply a critical lens to inaccurate facts.
Edit: On rereading the quoted bit, I may have misunderstood something. Was his wife not in group 1B because she was Asian, or was that irrelevant to her grouping? If it’s the latter, we’re seeing a case where someone is misinterpreting the situation. You can’t usefully apply a critical lens to inaccurate facts.
His wife was simply not in the high risk group. But it was clear that my colleague decided to view the vaccine rollout (rightly or wrongly) through a CRT lens in large part because of the rise of anti-asian hate crime rates being reported at the time. My questions is, if we accept Kendi’s views (and those of some CRT advocates) that all public policy may be viewed through that lens, is it surprising that people will use it to jump to wrong conclusions and thus question good public policy for the wrong reasons.
My questions is, if we accept Kendi’s views (and those of some CRT advocates) that all public policy may be viewed through that lens, is it surprising that people will use it to jump to wrong conclusions and thus question good public policy for the wrong reasons.
Is it surprising that people who are only passingly familiar with a theory will misunderstand it–is that your question? I don’t find that remotely surprising, nor do I blame a theory for the folks who misunderstand it.
I don’t think your colleague viewed the vaccine rollout through a CRT lens, because again, a CRT lens doesn’t focus on whether a policy is racially biased. It focuses on whether it leads to racially biased outcomes.
The key is that “may” part, as noted earlier, CRT is not as prominent as many on the right paints it, and with a wide brush. And as mentioned earlier, it is curious to see critics coming from another angle being surprised or demanding that CRT is not or should be covering the earth like Sherwin Williams.
What is important IMHO is to not forget that even if it is a growing field, that what white politicians in some states are doing is telling researchers (many of them minorities too) that they are being forbidden to teach what they find.
Is it surprising that people who are only passingly familiar with a theory will misunderstand it–is that your question? I don’t find that remotely surprising, nor do I blame a theory for the folks who misunderstand it.
I don’t think your colleague viewed the vaccine rollout through a CRT lens, because again, a CRT lens doesn’t focus on whether a policy is racially biased . It focuses on whether it leads to racially biased outcomes .
If the theory leads people who are in support of racial equity to misunderstand it and apply it incorrectly, then is it a well conceived or elaborated theory? Perhaps it’s overbroad?
The key is that “may” part, as noted earlier, CRT is not as prominent as many on the right paints it, and with a wide brush. And as mentioned earlier, it is curious to see critics coming from another angle being surprised or demanding that CRT is not or should be covering the earth like Sherwin Williams.
Well, as I understand it from this thread, it’s a theory that is applicable to all policies and all nations, globally. So in that respect, it’s trying to be like Sherwin Williams, is it not? Which is not to say that there are not a plethora of really racist policies being put forward all the time.
I’m reminded of a common bon mot among my people, “Sure, but is it good for the Jews?”, often meaning that no matter how irrelevant some social policy or event may be, some Jewish person will wonder how it will affect the tribe. It’s a silly, self-deprecating comment that often contains a grain of truth in that people will consider it even if it’s an irrelevant consideration.
If the theory leads people who are in support of racial equity to misunderstand it and apply it incorrectly, then is it a well conceived or elaborated theory? Perhaps it’s overbroad?
Is it the theory’s fault that people who are only passingly familiar with it misunderstand it and apply it incorrectly? Particularly when there is a very active disinformation campaign at work against it?
On a separate note, it’s interesting that one can find in this very thread suggestions that the problem with CRT is that it’s both 1) overly broad and 2) overly narrow, with both reasons given to support the conclusion that it is ineffective and useless.