I genuinely don’t know what you’re getting at here.
I may have misinterpreted, I apologize if I did. It seemed like you were suggesting you don’t want white people on your planet and to me that sounds very similar to something a white supremacist would say, unless you have something against dwarfs 
On a side note I appreciate you tolerating me asserting my opinions, I don’t want to bog you down with replying to other things you’ve said in this thread (unless thats of interest) but I have read them and working them into my personal framework for reasoning.
One thing I need to remember is that despite me being the utmost confident that I don’t contribute to these problems, not everyone is like that. I just have such strong suspicion that these kinds of things will end up trading oppression for oppression because every group of people has bad eggs, and I didn’t think that was our goal
Just in case I’m not being wooshed
The issue here is that CRT is not just for looking at race, but also does look at ethnicity, religious and cultural groups that control others not only in overt way, but in the ways societies decided in the past about how things “ought to be” for the minority group.
Once that is taken into account, definitions like the one from sociologist F. James Davis have to be considered and like he does, the definitions also need to be analyzed and deconstructed.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
To be considered black in the United States not even half of one’s ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation’s answer to the question ‘Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,’’ meaning that a single drop of “black blood” makes a person a black. It is also known as the “one black ancestor rule,” some courts have called it the “traceable amount rule,” and anthropologists call it the “hypo-descent rule,” meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation’s definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.
Let us not he confused by terminology. At present the usual statement of the one-drop rule is in terms of “black blood” or black ancestry, while not so long ago it referred to “Negro blood” or ancestry. The term “black” rapidly replaced “Negro” in general usage in the United States as the black power movement peaked at the end of the 1960s, but the black and Negro populations are the same. The term “black” is used in this book for persons with any black African lineage, not just for unmixed members of populations from sub-Saharan Africa. The term “Negro,” which is used in certain historical contexts, means the same thing. Terms such as “African black,” “unmixed Negro,” and “all black” are used here to refer to unmixed blacks descended from African populations.
For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors.
It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of “Negro” (now black) spread and became the nation’s social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.
The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken “judicial notice” of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way. . . .
We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since they are so often confused with each other. As defined in physical anthropology and biology, races are categories of human beings based on average differences in physical traits that are transmitted by the genes not by blood. Culture is a shared pattern of behavior and beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural identity, such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a racially distinctive group. A group that is racially distinctive in society may be an ethnic group as well, but not necessarily. Although racially mixed, most blacks in the United States are physically distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic group because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the general American framework.
Because, at it should had been obvious but that is many times missed by many, there are definitions in the law and society that are part of the system that undermine minorities, so looking at the definition should also include a discussion about what to do regarding what definitions are out there and what definition is used from here on.
This is what I get for consuming too much fantasy media. I didn’t know these were a things, so I certainly retract my statement to @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness as I didn’t understand
No–a white dwarf within 100 miles of our earth (or within a million miles of our earth) would annihilate all life.
That was the joke/point: just because “white” is used as an adjective doesn’t mean the two are similar. “White people” are in no way synonymous with “white supremacy”, any more than they’re synonymous with “white dwarf.” You can’t syllogize between them: one’s a word for a sociologically-identified group of people, the other’s a system of cultural norms that reinforces inequality.
No wonder: it’s a loose, shared cultural construct. Can you give me an unambiguous definition of “Christian” that everyone will agree on? What about “money”? What about “chair”?
Difference is, if your definition of “chair” is something like, “four-legged piece of furniture designed for one person to sit on,” nobody’s likely to be all, “HAHA I HAVE A STOOL WITH FOUR LEGS” or “NOPE MY SWIVEL CHAIR HAS FIVE WHEELS AND NO LEGS.” People let you use the word “chair” despite an unambiguous definition that applies in all cases.
It’s okay that the definition of “white person” is more of a heuristic, a rubric, than a clear set of bright-line rules. It’s okay that it’s fairly self-referential (a white person is a person who identifies as white and who is identified by their society as white). Social definitions are often really sneaky and tricky that way, gets into the whole “Crooked Timber of Humanity” business.
Yes, we need to implement understanding of how to make the world better, I 100% agree. But that doesn’t mean all theories need to be easily understood by the layperson. CRT is in the main a highly academic field of study, which is absolutely appropriate. For layfolk, talking about concepts like “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” ought to suffice for most of our needs. And those are much easier for layfolk to pick up quickly.
I appreciate this information and I embrace many points made. In general, I firmly believe nobody should oppress another and laws and structures and descriptions that exist to do so need to be reconstructed to ensure everyone is treated fairly. After all, for the life of me I can’t understand why we today and people of the past dwell so much on race/ethnicity/religion etc, instead of just considering respecting one another as fellow human beings. On paper, CRT is beautiful this way since its this thing that simply existing with a name gives us a way to talk about these changes we can and should make.
Perhaps its an irrational fear, but since I really don’t see much of a difference between all people on this planet I assume there are “folks of color” that are just as nasty and are waiting for their chance to abuse power just as so many “folks of non-color” have and do. I fear more these days because oppression mixed with modern technology is frankly terrifying.
So I just hope that since we’re going in hard on trying to rewire society that we’re doing it in a controllable way and not providing incredible leverage ripe for abuse. It’s not intellectuals or the structures they set up that I’m worried about, its exploitation by “the animals” (of whatever size/shape/color, they exist in every permutation). I don’t want anything to do with nasty people even if they look like me or claim to be on my side and will share the benefit. Wrong is wrong.
When I think about leverage ripe for abuse, I think of stuff like this. It sounds fantastic and I hope it is, but then I bet people said that about the police and we know your mileage varies with them.
I learned something and thats always a good thing, again I apologize. I still have a hard time decoupling the concepts of white people and white supremacy, at least in the sense that I can’t yet see how in practice the two will remain decoupled. Just as is stated in information @GIGObuster provides where somehow a whole bunch of unique individuals get grouped together under the “one-drop rule”. I get how thats a coupling of different groups of people rather than a group of people and cultural norms, but I still wonder if there is abuse potential by stating “white” anything in the CRT literature. This said, I’ll work on this and keep learning.
I hope when you say “I can’t understand” it indicates a willingness to learn. Racial prejudice isn’t just some random side-effect of solar flares or anything: it was created and reinforced by powerful people because it justified some seriously egregious shit that they wanted to do.
If you don’t understand its origins, but want to understand, I recommend Stamped from the Beginning. (Or technically I recommend Stamped, his YA version and the one I listened to trying to figure out if it’d be good for my classes).
The history of racial prejudice is fascinating. People benefit from it. Understanding how and why they benefit is crucial if you want to be part of ending it.
Absolutely, I won’t put my head in the sand over anything except folding clothes (I refuse to budge). But even beyond that, let me say I want to know what the hell it is that drives people to have these wants in the first place. Like what is it in us that causes things like the tragedy of the commons (as an example)?
I appreciate this and will give it a shot
Sorry, but thinking that minorities that do reach high levels in intellectual places like universities are animals is a very anti-intelectual thing, specially when they are using the law and education, unlike white supremacists that are guided by ignorance and many do have positions of power.
Not as fantastic as realizing that even white people can see the current injustice and agree with people like Kendi.
You really thought that one would not notice that you were indeed calling people involved with CRT as animals?
This argument… Of course they have been historically treated poorly. It’s horrible and needs to change and I said that several times. Why does this mean I can’t want to avoid being oppressed any more than I am? It doesn’t do any good for anyone’s cause and is silly. I’m not the one oppressing people, If I was then I’d call it fair game, but I’m not. I guess I also have to declare that I’m more than aware of the ability to oppress directly and indirectly. I’m simply not in the position to have the chance to oppress nor would I do it if I did have the chance. Those who do are what I call animals.
Thats not even close to what I said. I’m not worried about things like CRT and how it motivates change for the better when its in the hands of intellectuals (like Kendi), I’m worried about the people that will abuse what comes of it. Those are the animals. If you read the words I typed you’ll know I went on to describe “the animals” as “whatever size/shape/color” which clearly indicates anybody and I absolutely meant anybody. Actually, if you read all of what I wrote you can infer that I imply more of those “animals” being “white” at the moment.
I have acknowledged the injustice several times and I said Kendi’s idea sounds fantastic. Thanks for confirming that I guess?
Don’t put words in my mouth. You grossly misinterpreted damn near everything I said and are attacking me over it. I took care when writing what I did to avoid exactly this. It seems like you cherry picked a few key words and are making something of this that it isn’t.
I found value in these conversations. I learned some things, both good and bad, I’ll take it. Do good things for everyone, thats all that really makes sense to me and is my MO anyway. I’m out.
Sorry if I sounded harsh there, but the TED video from John Biewen explains a lot of what you missed and you were sounding as if you are missing the point. Using the law does mean that if there are abuses of power in the future by a former minority, that there will be already changes in the law and policies that will be also on the side of the people that could be abused in the future if they become a minority.
In reality, freeing the oppressed also has as the objective of freeing the oppressors too, and mostly the ones that ignore that policies in place can harm minorities a lot. The people that still think that “I’m not the one oppressing people” miss that the benefits that several in power do get are not really there for many whites that ignore the racist policies that are in place.
In the 1930s and '40s, the United States went on a nationwide building boom of public amenities funded by tax dollars, which in Montgomery, Alabama, included the Oak Park pool, which was the grandest one for miles. You know, back then, people didn’t have air conditioners, and so they spent their hot summer days in a steady rotation of sunning and splashing and then cooling off under a ring of nearby trees. It was the meeting place for the town. Except the Oak Park pool, though it was funded by all of Montgomery citizens, was for whites only.
When a federal court finally deemed this unconstitutional, the reaction of the town council was swift. Effective January 1, 1959, they decided they would drain the public pool rather than let black families swim, too.
This destruction of public goods was replicated across the country in towns not just in the South. Towns closed their public parks, pools and schools, all in response to desegregation orders, all throughout the 1960s. In Montgomery, they shut down the entire Parks Department for a decade. They closed the recreation centers, they even sold off the animals in the zoo.
You know, it costs us so much to remain divided. This zero-sum thinking, that’s what’s good for one group has to come at the expense of another, it’s what’s gotten us into this mess. I believe it’s time to reject that old paradigm and realize that our fates are linked. An injury to one is an injury to all. You know, we have a choice. Our nation was founded on a belief in a hierarchy of human value. But we are about to be a country with no racial majority.
So we can keep pretending like we’re not all on the same team. We can keep sabotaging our success and hamstringing our own players. Or we can let the proximity of so much difference reveal our common humanity. And we can finally invest in our greatest asset. Our people. All of our people.
If your argument is that we’ve never had a break from White supremacy, yes, that is my point also.
My statement about how they multiply faster than than they renounce is based of the dearth of examples of renunciates, vs the obvious existence of masses of younger recruits at rallies etc.
Also, focusing mainly on “seriously harmful people” is one of the mistakes CRT exists to address in the first place…
White supremacists are not “in the cracks”. They’re everywhere.
No, what I agreed was that we have not replaced all of them, or ended the existence of an oppressor class. We’ve replaced plenty of individuals.
You left out quite a bit of the context in which I said “No thanks”, there.
No thanks to the condescension, too.
Plenty of post-information-age people at those White Power rallies. White Supremacy has weaponized the internet and global media just as successfully as it weaponized print and radio. The cultural bubbles are being reinforced, not popped.
The Washington Post has a great overview of Critical Race Theory and the opposition to it. Recommended reading for folks who aren’t entirely clear on what it means.
One great thing about the article is that it describes the drift in meaning. This thread is plagued by people using different definitions: some folks are talking about CRT in its purest sense as a scholarly discipline, others are talking about its redefinition by conservative activists, and plenty of people are somewhere in the middle. The conservative movement to redefine the term and to muddy its meaning is pretty pernicious.
This would be a much more effective message than the currently popular ones of ‘white people are oppressive’ and ‘all white people benefit from white supremacy/are privileged’. But it doesn’t serve the in group as well so I don’t expect it will be adopted.
Uh, as shown already with cites, it is the right wing the one that turned CRT into a caricature (and this is not new, people that defended the status quo in the past also declared Martin Luther King as the most dangerous man in America back then, even before CRT was a thing) where the right wing media has turned it into the reverse of what is trying to do. (Spoiler alert, CRT is trying to make society to look at that message too.)
A former hatchet man from the right started a group called Media Matters, and they explained the ways the Right wing is pushing their Orwellian message also here:
Right-wing media and Republican politicians have been railing against the teaching of critical race theory — a broad academic discipline that seeks to explore how the history of racism in America still has an effect on modern life and society — and attempting to depict this simple concept as an imminent threat to the country, and an insidious effort to “warp the minds of American children” and make them feel guilty for “being born white.”
But in Fox News’ own coverage recently, the network has become self-aware that to the extent critical race theory is controversial, it is a controversy that the network itself has pumped up in an attempt to discredit any anti-racist discussions at all.
A recent analysis by Media Matters found that Fox News has covered the topic over 550 times in 11 months, while another Media Matters study found that nearly 90% of Facebook posts on the topic of critical race theory come from right-leaning sources — not from the left — as the conservative movement has sought to whip up a public frenzy.
And all of this has real consequences: Fox News has amplified lies about such discussions of racism — linking them to the very notions of racial superiority that they seek to combat — helping to inspire a wave of new legislation in Republican-controlled states that educators say would have a chilling effect on any classroom discussions about racism.
As Media Matters has previously documented, a driving force behind this scare campaign is Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute and frequent Fox News guest who has taken credit for a Trump-era executive order that restricted federal racial sensitivity trainings — an order that President Joe Biden rescinded upon taking office — as well as working with state legislatures to restrict diversity training materials. In Rufo’s telling, such materials constitute a “cult programming” in which “blackness” and “whiteness” become “the new metaphysics of good and evil.”
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page pointed out that many of the loudest voices decrying critical race theory — which is “found mostly in graduate schools and law schools,” anyway, rather than K-12 education — don’t even seem to know what it is, but instead use this sloganeering in order to paper over the complexities of American history and modern society.
New Yorker staff writer Jelani Cobb also noted that right-wing voices “don’t know what CRT is but don’t need to because their people don’t either … point was to turn an academic school of thought into a catch-all phrase that conjures everything people fear.” This in turn serves to distract from the ongoing threats to America’s democratic order:
On a side point, Brnovich [one of the attorney generals that follow the ignorance from the white governors that want to ban the teaching of anythng regarding slavery and Jim Crow laws] claimed that “the Declaration of Independence listed a whole bunch of grievances, none of them related to slavery, it was all about giving power back to the people.”
Unfortunately, that claim is not actually true — one of the Founders’ listed grievances was indeed an artfully worded protest about slave rebellions in the colonies, while the drafters had deleted proposed language that would have condemned the slave trade itself. Indeed, as The Atlantic has pointed out, this clause of the Declaration “reveals a hard truth recently brought to the public’s attention by The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project.”
But it may well be that neither Faulkner nor Brnovich had learned about this in history class — and they wouldn’t want today’s youth to learn about it, either.