By the way, is there a difference between White privilege and CRT? Or is White privilege a part of CRT?
It’s proven to be a difficult topic here as well, albeit in entirely different proportions, but if you look at the Dutch controversy over Black Pete (Zwarte Piet) I see the same mechanism at work.
As my cite from an Asian scholar using CRT to criticize China’s treatment of the Uighurs showed, the CRT framework is not just about white privilege, it can criticize just about any group that is using their position of power to keep other groups marginalized.
And to show once again how off base many right wing sources are about this, CRT has been used also to explore how the Hutus and Tutsies got at each other in the Rwandan Genocide and to look at ways to solve ethnic violence among Black people in Africa.
Thanks for the clarification.
In Rwanda the differences between Hutus and Tutsi’s have been consciously emphazised and exaggerated by the German and Belgian colonial powers. They granted power to the Tutsi minority, thus laying the framework for the later genocide, in an appaling game of divide and conquer.
Interesting article, thanks.
Of course, we also have this:
In the critical social justice paradigm, Jews, who have never been seen as white by those for whom being white is a moral good, are now seen as white by those for whom whiteness is an unmitigated evil.
The origin of the CRT hostility to Jews is several-fold, but its primary cause is the absorption of pre-existing trends in black nationalist politics into the current CRT movement, and of course those ideas can never be wrong (that’s criticizing black culture, which is racist).
In Black Reconstruction In America (1935), W.E.B. Du Bois writes about the “psychological wage” received by poor whites who are otherwise exploited by society. A white and a black sharecropper may have a lot in common, but the white farmer had the advantage in that he could participate unchallenged in most social functions, his children could go to a decent school, and was unlikely to be treated too harshly in courts for minor offenses. The idea of white privilege predates it but is generally accepted by CRT proponents.
Earlier you expressed an interest in irony, so here’s some for you. You’ve finally started giving cites for your claims, which, awesome, great job! Only problem is, you’re citing Bret Stephens’s new pet project as it tells lies about CRT. Which, not so awesome, not such a great job.
Again, your ability to mock CRT is inversely proportional to your willingness to say correct things about it. I appreciate your willingness to start citing your claims. Consider citing your claims with correct cites, not bonkers hit pieces.
Curious, I Googled “Ibrim X. Kendi antisemitism.” The first response was a Kendi tweet about–wait for it-- Bret Stephens.
Lots of cites end up being hit pieces from Quillette et al. But then there’s this:
There is absolutely no friction between being antiracist and being Jewish. It’s a lousy right-wing canard to suggest otherwise.
I do encourage people to read that cite you linked to earlier, though. Its level of paranoid fantasy, its utterly unreflective descent into whimsically libelous imagination, is something else.
As a Jewish scholar who uses Critical Race Theory in my work, let me assure you: This take is wrong. Jews have nothing to fear from Critical Race Theory.
First, let’s clear up a few misconceptions about what Critical Race Theory actually is. The political discussion usually conflates a bunch of different academic disciplines, including Whiteness Studies, Critical Theory, and Critical Race Theory. If you’re not an academic, the distinctions between these disciplines might seem silly. But if we’re going to politicize academic discussions, it’s important to understand what we’re politicizing.
The language of “white privilege” or “white skin privilege,” for example, comes out of Whiteness Studies, though the concepts do also underpin much of Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is an approach to understanding social problems and power structures. Critical Race Theory is a framework that is built on Critical Theory, but acts within disciplines like sociology and law to understand how systemic structures perpetuate discriminatory impacts against marginalized groups. Critical Race Theory uses case law and evidence of discrimination, such as economic status, incarceration rates, and medical outcomes to examine the effects of systemic structures.
And if you believe there is racism in the United States that is perpetuated by our legal structures, you probably agree with Critical Race Theory.
Despite the usefulness of CRT to Jews, there are people, both Jewish and not, misrepresenting Critical Race Theory and anti-racism policies as somehow anti-Jewish. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than a tool to oppress Jews, CRT is a critical tool in fighting white supremacy — the gravest threat we face.
Relearning anti-racism with new language and methods is always scary for people who believe they are on the right side of history. But fear of making a mistake or being called racist is not enough of a reason for Jews to distance themselves from work that will help the Jewish community and all marginalized groups.
Dr. Mia Brett holds a PhD in American Legal History.
?? You’re saying that because some anti-Semitic Black rioters criminally vandalized* and looted some Jewish synagogues in the unrest following the George Floyd murder, that means it is inappropriate for Jews to be antiracist?!?
Personally, speaking as someone of Jewish descent, I find that sort of maliciously retaliatory attitude to be disgusting and selfish. Anti-Semitism on the part of some Black people does not justify or validate anti-Black racism on the part of Jews. Nor does it exempt Jews from the ethical obligation to combat racism and work to eradicate it.
Would you similarly argue that the fact that some Jews are racist against Black people (and I’ve definitely met some who are) justifies anti-Semitism or tolerance of anti-Semitism on the part of Black people? Like hell you would.
*And not even all aspects of the vandalism were equally anti-Semitic, for that matter. For example, there’s nothing automatically or intrinsically anti-Semitic about the slogan “Free Palestine”, or even explicitly anti-Israel slogans such as “Fuck Israel”. Scrawling such slogans on the walls of synagogues, however, is definitely anti-Semitic.
If and when I ever want to say such a thing I will say it. You can trust that only the things that I have actually said represent my opinions and not waste time reading four paragraphs of straw into a five-word link in the future.
What I do think is that the “antiracist” movement is “opposed to racism” to about the same extent that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democracy, and that confusing “opposition to the self-proclaimed antiracist movement as currently constituted” with “support for racism” is a linguistic fallacy masquerading as a serious political argument.
Great, then kindly tell us what you actually did mean to say by countering LHoD’s principled declaration about Jewishness and antiracism with your snarky sneering reference to some anti-Semitic Black people committing criminal vandalism.
I see that you’re quickly pivoting in the rest of your post to renewed attacks on antiracism in more abstract terms. But I don’t think you should get away so easily with dropping that smelly subtextual turd, which quite clearly conveys the insinuation “silly Jews with your idealistic antiracism, the blacks actually hate you!”, into the punchbowl of this discussion.
My irony meter has just exploded. Virtually every post by you in this thread has been a gross misrepresentation of what CRT is, what others have written about it, and/or what people in this thread have said. You’ve built a veritable army of strawmen and virtually nothing you’ve written has been an accurate portrayal of others’ views. And now you’re suddenly concerned about “straw”?
I mean, the same guy who pulled this out of this out of his backside
And this:
And this:
And especially this:
…is suddenly saying this?
Wow.
Perhaps when you start taking your own advice, the rest of us might consider taking you seriously.
Again, kudos for finding a cite, and extra kudos for not finding a cite that just repeats lies about CRT.
I’m afraid I’m going to move the goalposts again, though: try finding cites that have anything whatsofuckingever to do with the discussion.
It’s an unfair ask, I know, but you can do it!
Modnote: Please keep posts on Topic. Your post has nothing to do with the post you’re replying to or CRT. Please do not do this again. To everyone else, please do not reply any further to this and future off-topic posts.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
Not because of what you said BTW, I will have to modify that bit of yours about the foundation being about white supremacy, in light of the discussion and what I found so far. (This is how I get to learn about an item, and many posters think that I pretend to be an expert when in reality what happens is that I check what the experts do talk about)
It is clear to me that how robust a framework that is used in research is, is one property a frame work has, that it can be applicable in other situations; not just race. In essence then, the modification to your definition is that you are right about what white supremacists did to set up a situation where change is hard to do. What needs to be pointed out too is that CRT researchers do not limit themselves just to white supremacy, but also how other races or ethnicities can be involved in setting up or benefiting from a system that their ancestors put in place.
There is another reason why I say that about what CRT does for minority researchers, it is the realization (that is bound to be ignored by many right wingers) that in previous discussions, and based on very misguided efforts by politicians in some states to ban the teaching of CRT in universities too, is that right wingers are shooting themselves in their feet by the simple fact that other minority scholars (already cited) are not going to stand with their arms crossed when seeing such gross misunderstandings about their work. It is really very naive for right wingers to think that researchers will be impressed or be quiet about what the right is trying to pull here.
There is also the item that I noticed too: they claim to be “helping” minorities by denouncing or banning the caricature they peddle about CRT, when in reality the minority researchers are not amused when those who are “helping” are in reality just following the footsteps of Lysenkoism. And now the right wing is really, besides forbidding minority researchers (not just black ones) from doing their jobs, just following the current state of affairs among conservatives, that of being in favor of anti-intellectualism.
Correcting this:
What I meant to say: How valid the CRT framework when used in research is demonstrated by how well it can be applicable in other situations. It is not just for racial injustices.
The definition of CRT has to notice that while it is applicable to what white supremacists are doing in America, CRT is used by Jews, Asians and even Blacks analyzing injustices in other places.
.
.
.
And that shows why I teach social studies and history sometimes and avoid teaching English, it is hard to be an ESL guy.
I’m curious how you explain those selective schools with 70% Asian students. Pro-Asian racism?
Don’t genetic testing companies like 23 and me demonstrate that racial background is generally identifiable in one’s DNA? Not by looking at one gene marker but by comparing many. It may not have a perfect correlation to the social categories of race that we use, but it doesn’t have to.
No they don’t. They can provide data that correlates to likely regional origin (like, say, British Isles, or West Africa, or Southeast Asia, etc.) of some parts of a person’s DNA, but geographic regional origins are not race.