It’s very illuminating to see “you’re not allowed to talk about this, the only explanation is racism for racism’s sake, anyone who disagrees is a racist” spelled out in response to a post complaining about that exact phenomenon. Thank you for demonstrating the workings of CRT to this thread.
Well, yes, along with some other things (if you categorically refuse to hire or rent to black people for some reason other than believing they are “intrinsically inferior” that’s still racist). But according to CRT racism is also thinking that math problems have correct answers or that historically verifiable accounts of why the American Revolution was fought are true.
If you mean what I think you mean about race having no significant biological basis, I agree with that, and I think it’s well-enough established that in this day and age anyone who disagrees should really know better.
But if I had been born and raised in another time and place, I might plausibly have believed that there were genuine, built-in differences between people of different races. And I genuinely don’t know to what extent it’s true that “race has been socially constructed as a tool to aid the powerful” as opposed to, say, an honest mistake.
Similarly for the rest of what you say: I don’t have enough evidence to decide to what extent it’s actually true, though my suspicions are that it’s partially true but not the whole truth. For instance, I don’t know how to measure or separate out the harm done by racist individuals vs. that done by institutional racism, but I strongly suspect that both are a significant problem.
Basically like how people that don’t understand quantum physics make up their own interpretations of it?
There are two types of people who have heard of critical race theory. Those who discuss it academically, and those who hear about it by those who oppose it.
You will have to realize that when the right or misguided centrists like Carville use “woke” is really with the meaning that right-wingers are pushing nowadays, it is made to discourage whites that are sympathetic to minorities, just like when old fashion racists called supporters of blacks or other minorities “N**** lovers”.
I don’t really object nearly as strongly to what Carville said – he’s in the realm of political messaging, and he was talking about what he thinks is effective political messaging. I may disagree on some of the particulars, but I don’t think he actually gave any real critique or criticism of progressive policy and issue preferences (including CRT) – just the messaging strategy. Basically, I think he was talking about a different topic.
I am not they. I do object to the name because it is meaningless. Do you understand the difference between the name and what is being named?
Of course it is. Again, nothing new there. Do you think critical analysis was just invented or never applied to race before. People talk about the causes of racism and try to find solutions all the time.
I don’t know what you are trying to say there.
I’m not other people. Try to follow. I am talking about the message is received by most people. I don’t know what you are talking about.
Again, you aren’t making any sense. I’m talking about effective messaging and how the lack of it prevents people from ever hearing the substance of the message. I’m only trying to get you to consider that no matter what the message is it will be ignored if people don’t understand it.
So you have just found out about the history of this country recently? Again, tell me when these things were not being discussed.
If the only people interested in the discussion already agree with you, then they are ‘the choir’.
Your concerns about messaging strategy and politics are not really part of my intentions for this discussion. This thread is about the actual substance of CRT and related ideas, not associated political messaging/PR/etc.
I will get back to you on that. I did mention your definition is pretty clear didn’t I? Apologies if I forgot that. There is one thing immediately coming to mind to ask you about, the concept of intent, and I’d like to find out if that is actually part of CRT or a secondary conclusion on your part or someone else’s.
The intent of people today is not that important, in my understanding, outside the margins (i.e. the actual openly violent white supremacists). The intent of people in the past is more important, but not from an individual perspective – rather from the perspective of recognizing that much, if not nearly all, of the bias and bigotry within these societal and government institutions was put in to place purposefully, rather than just by accident or as a side effect. I think the most critical foundation of CRT is that white supremacy and racism in America didn’t happen by accident – but rather were mostly put into place purposefully, and in order to dismantle them, we’ll have to do that purposefully as well.
No, systemic racism isn’t always directly traceable to the actions of individuals, or at least, not of still-living individuals. For a really simple example: Blacks are, overall, in a lower economic class than whites, in the US. Why is this? The simple answer is that black people tend to be poor because their parents were poor, and economic class is inherited in many, many ways. Why were their parents poor? Mostly, in turn, because their parents were poor, and so on back, until you get to their great^n grandparents, who were poor because they were enslaved.
Now, obviously, the slavers were racist individuals, but stopped doing anything generations ago; they’re long dead. We’ve stopped the slavery, but that doesn’t make the problem go away. What would make the problem go away? Well, if we knew that, maybe we could do it, and a failure to do it would be a sign of present-day racist individuals… but we don’t know how. It’s an inherently hard problem.
This does leave out a lot of significant disadvantages that came from Jim Crow, redlining, and other policies that were put in place purposefully to (as TNC puts it) plunder property and wealth (and the chances for future property and wealth) from black people, many within living memory.
We do know how, but the mechanisms are contrary to what CRT demands!
Let’s take one of my examples:
*Child abuse under the guise of “corporal punishment,” “whupping,” “spanking,” and other euphemisms is more normalized in black households than white households in America (about 2x as common in reported incidence, and almost certainly higher than that in reality since the normalization discourages reporting).
*Hitting children causes them to develop personality disorders, lose trust in authority figures, become more likely to engage in violence/criminality later on, develop weak planning/concentration skills, and a host of other problems that impact economic, educational, and criminal justice outcomes.
*Most people who hit their children do so because they were hit or otherwise exposed to violence as children themselves, perpetuating a cycle.
*There is no particularly higher incidence of physical abuse in West African cultures compared to European cultures, especially compared to the aberrantly violent 17th-century Scots-Irish culture that provided most of the Southern U.S.'s population.
The above are facts, not opinions; I can waste time citing them to people who want to argue in bad faith, but disagreeing with them is disagreeing with reality.
These are conclusions from those facts:
*The generational reproduction of abusive parenting coupled with the lack of any innate tendency towards abuse in African culture strongly implies that the origin of the higher rate of physical abuse of children in African-American families is in the period of racial slavery in the American South, and specifically in the violence exhibited by slaveowners towards slaves.
*If one is inclined to focus on collectively “blaming” groups for the historical origin of problems, then blaming white slaveowners for the higher rate of child abuse in black American families today is not only justifiable but in fact the sole position that the vast weight of the evidence points towards.
*Simply observing that “it’s white people’s fault” changes nothing about the existence or consequences of the problem.
*State intervention to change the norms of black culture away from tolerating child abuse through education and therapy provided via multiple channels (churches, schools, etc) is the only way that this huge factor contributing to black achievement gaps is going to be eliminated.
So, do CRT proponents think that black culture has this problem and it must be fixed to improve the lives of black people? Or do they fight identifying and solving the problem at every turn in favor of “the problem is racism and criticizing a black parent is racist?” It’s the latter, and the CRT fans in this thread owe us an explanation as to why.
I do not at all understand how you can say the intent of today is not important. And of course everything was put in place purposefully but how to jump to the conclusion that the purpose was white supremacy and racism? I think there is plenty of that, but most people aren’t spending any time at all on purposefully instituting white supremacist and racist policies. Most everything we do largely results from ignorance by a greedy selfish fearful populace, but they are rarely aligned on underlying motivations. I don’t have any problem pointing out all the ways in which racism has been ingrained in our society, but our entire society is simply a big racist conspiracy. I don’t see the purpose in categorizing it that way. Isn’t it sufficient to point out all the indisputable racist policies put in place and maintained at a minimum for a disregard for their effects on top of all the intentional harm?
As I remember from previous discussions and what CRT scholars talk about it, that point of yours was already taken into consideration, the fact that racist policies are still present tells them that what MLK said is still valid:
“For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I didn’t say anything about waiting or anything like that. I am saying that there’s no need to say everything is about racism when there is more than enough indisputable racism to justify change.