Lies About CRT makes it worse

[Into the Night]

I don't think so. Almost everyone believes that you can separate humans into various races. It's even instilled in our language(s). Referring to someone as "mixed race" or just "mixed" is an example. That we then subdivide ourselves by self-naming with things like "Native American" or "Asian-American" further perpetuates these mistaken beliefs. From a sociological POV identifying as a hyphenated person might make sense, since obviously my experience as a white female in our culture is going to be different than the experience of a black woman or a Hispanic man. That's what CRT was designed to address: the perceptions of our different experiences (negative and positive). At its core it is an attempt to instill some empathy and the skills to see life through someone else's eyes.

There isn't a damn thing wrong with that. How can you effect change, if you're unaware that something needs changing? That right there is what RWers fear.

CRT is just racism by another name. It encourages people to look at one another by race.

 

[Flash]

We each examine the existing definitions and utilize those that we agree with, based upon our own experiences. We might take extracts and combine them to form our own definition. This is the explanation that I can relate to;

Critical race theory

Critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans.

That's just in the context of North America, of course.

That definition of CRT is exactly the reason it cannot be used to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking seeks answers to questions based on critical examination. This definition of CRT has already reached all its conclusions and has offered no evidence to support any of them.

If someone is seeking to test the various hypotheses of CRT it is impossible because all the terms are too ambiguous to test. Research requires operationalization of terms to be tested and terms such as racism, inherently racist, systemic racism, institutional racism do not have universally accepted definitions. Any definitions would be difficult to operationalize in a measureable way.

I do not know too much about biology and race, but to say it is a social construct with no biological basis seems overly simplistic. Scientists can identify race based on skeletal remains and DNA. Those are biological.

It is not really relevant when discussing prejudice and discrimination whether races have any biological differences, but it makes CRT somewhat questionable.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

If democrats and "wokers" did not have identity politics they would have nothing. They need to have some groups somewhere that is in their mind less capable and ones that needs their help. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Okay then. You sound like you're channeling Ayn Rand.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

CRT is racism by another name.

Of course it is, dear- now go and play quietly with your acronym generator.

 

[Lightbringer]

First, I am not "all in" on CRT. However, like most theories, I am not all in. For me, that is why it is a theory. It is an idea, not proven, but sometimes worthy of discussion. In my experience, if CRT is presented that way, as an idea, not fact, it is a great tool to encourage critical thinking.

Unfortunately, when encouraging critical thinking, the context is important. Articles like this, are a disservice because of how misleading they are. Moreover, by misleading people, the real concerns that could actually improve teaching and learning, are overshadowed by misplaced anger.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rhode-island-mother-lawsuit-critical-race-theory-requests

""""I was also told that they refrain from using gendered terminology in general terms of anti-racism. I was told that kids in kindergarten are asked what could have been done differently at Thanksgiving, and this struck me as a way to shame children for their American heritage," Solas said."""

Ok, told they did something. Great, but in what context. What else was included in the lesson? If the only mention of Thanksgiving was this assignment then there is a problem. Personally, I doubt that. Asking that question, even of kindergarten students, is worthwhile. Just saying everyone got along, end of story is misleading and insults the truth.

"""Solas was advised by the school district to submit a public records request through the Access to Public Records Act. Upon receiving some information, Solas said she "did not see any evidence of gender theory or anti-racism" but knew that it was being taught to students."""

No evidence but she knew. Wow, that is just insane. She has no credibility on this but according to the article, "she knew". No wonder people are confusing a theory with propaganda and propaganda with fact.

"""CRT curriculum has sparked a national conversation about the role of race and racism in school districts across the country.*Often compared by critics to actual racism, CRT is a school of thought*that generally focuses on how power structures and institutions impact racial minorities."""

Nice that at the end of the article convincing people AGAIN of the horrors of CRT they present a factual summary of what CRT actually is. Unfortunately, if you read the comments you will quickly realize the propaganda worked. CRT is anti-American hate.

True garbage. Even for fox, this is disappointing.

Shut up fuckwit, you are all in. And you deserve what you'll get.

 

[goat]

Two things- look at it outside of the American context because it applies everywhere. Most people really do believe that there are different ' races ' when there is just the one. That's the essence of CRT.
They believe this falsehood because it is a societal construct that they've been conditioned to believe. Somebody is profiting from the deception.

Now, if exposing that is BAD because Karl Marx AGREED with it then good luck, but it is NOT 'Marxist' in essence. It's anthropological- and anthropology is a science for everybody.

Marx talked about Women and Black folk being oppressed in the white male dominated capitalist system, so when the Ayn Rand zealots heard about this they twisted it into Marx being a racist and sexist. The Tulsa race massacre proved that Marx was right about Blacks not being allowed social mobility, and the covid lockdown showed that Women are expected to return to their traditional role in society so males could find a job.

Marx wrote that class, gender, and race had to unite for there to be a more stable economic system.

 

[anatta]

Marx talked about Women and Black folk being oppressed in the white male dominated capitalist system, so when the Ayn Rand zealots heard about this they twisted it into Marx being a racist and sexist. The Tulsa race massacre proved that Marx was right about Blacks not being allowed social mobility, and the covid lockdown showed that Women are expected to return to their traditional role in society so males could find a job.

Marx wrote that class, gender, and race had to unite for there to be a more stable economic system.

wha kind of trash is this?
Traditional role of women in society? like what? Women are in positions of leadership and management everywhere.
white male capitalist system?? really? so all these black and minority business owners dont really exist?

Get your mind out of the 19th century/ Learn about the civil rights act, and dump Marx and the rest of that
crap down the sewer

 

[anatta]

CRT is just racism by another name. It encourages people to look at one another by race.

more then that - it DEFINES people by race. Dr. King must be rolling in his grave

 

[anatta]

Do you mean this?



If so, that doesn't explain in the least its origins with come from a purely Marxist theoretical background.

All the persons in academia who are the founders of this crap theory are themselves Marxists like:

Antoina Darder. Her seminal work on the subject is titled: Critical Race Theory and Education, A Marxist Response
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Rac...153KYHE3TTS&psc=1&refRID=BJ7HBFCN9153KYHE3TTS
She's a unabashed Marxist Communist and long time academic in the field of Critical Pedagogy.

Derrick Bell, one of the seminal founders of CRT, was less ardent but often described CRT in terms of Marxism as a class struggle.

The CPUSA lists many of the founding CRT academics on their site where they discuss CRT and its merits.


https://cpusa.org/article/the-rage-against-critical-race-theory/

The US Communist Party makes it clear CRT is Marxist in origin.



It's absolutely crystal clear that CRT is rooted in Communist / Marxist theory.

thanks for that. why anyone would STUDY this junk is a real waste of time and a mind fuck
X'rs and millennials (some) actually take this junk science seriously..It's anathema to American values
and it' a pile of lies

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If democrats and "wokers" did not have identity politics they would have nothing. They need to have some groups somewhere that is in their mind less capable and ones that needs their help. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Agreed the Democrats play the identity politics card too much. OTOH, Trump also began playing that same card and played it very well.

IMO, it's better if Americans stopped subdividing themselves into warring factions and focused upon common goals. In another thread goat brought up Muzafer Sherif's Realistic Conflict Theory, specifically the Robbers Cave experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robbers_cave_study

The experiment has been replicated. Note this paragraph from the link:

However a further review of the Robber's Cave Experiments, which were in fact a series of three separate experiments carried out by the Sherifs and colleagues, reveals additional deliberations. In two earlier studies the boys ganged up on a common enemy, and in fact on occasion ganged up on the experimenters themselves showing an awareness of being manipulated.[9] In addition, Michael Billig argues that the experimenters themselves constitute a third group, and one that is arguably the most powerful of the three, and that they in fact become the outgroup in the aforementioned experiment.[10]

Lutfy Diab repeated the experiment with 18 boys from Beirut. The 'Blue Ghost' and 'Red Genies' groups each contained 5 Christians and 4 Muslims. Fighting soon broke out, not Christian vs Muslim but Blue vs Red.

From the net.

The Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated that an attempt to simply bring hostile groups together is not enough to reduce intergroup prejudice. Rather, this experiment confirmed that groups must cooperate and have common goals to truly build peace. Thus, although contact is vital to reducing tensions between groups, interdependence is essential for establishing lasting intergroup harmony. This experiment is a classic in social psychology and is important because it has implications for reducing conflict between real social groups. In addition, this study has implications for a number of prominent social psychological theories, including realistic conflict theory and social identity theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Working through our own issues is the only path to peace.

 

[Into the Night]

wha kind of trash is this?

Simple goat is making shit up again.

Traditional role of women in society? like what? Women are in positions of leadership and management everywhere.

Quite true.

white male capitalist system?? really? so all these black and minority business owners dont really exist?

They obviously do, and have through the ages.

Get your mind out of the 19th century/

Both women and blacks owned and operated businesses in the 19th century too.

Learn about the civil rights act,

Acts, actually. Amendments were passed as a result of the War of Secession as well (what schools teach as the 'civil war'). The Civil Rights Acts were a definite improvement in the United States.

and dump Marx and the rest of that crap down the sewer

Indeed. Marx, like Plato, teach compulsion and class warfare.

 

[Into the Night]

more then that - it DEFINES people by race. Dr. King must be rolling in his grave

Dr. King was actually racist. Sure the oft quoted part of his speech seems to indicate the opposite, but you should listen to the rest of that speech.

 

[Into the Night]

thanks for that. why anyone would STUDY this junk is a real waste of time and a mind fuck
X'rs and millennials (some) actually take this junk science seriously..It's anathema to American values
and it' a pile of lies

Racism, obviously, is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Racism is a compositional error fallacy. No theory of any kind (scientific or otherwise) is possible based on a fallacy. You are correct. It is junk, and not even science.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed the Democrats play the identity politics card too much. OTOH, Trump also began playing that same card and played it very well.

IMO, it's better if Americans stopped subdividing themselves into warring factions and focused upon common goals. In another thread goat brought up Muzafer Sherif's Realistic Conflict Theory, specifically the Robbers Cave experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robbers_cave_study

The experiment has been replicated. Note this paragraph from the link:

However a further review of the Robber's Cave Experiments, which were in fact a series of three separate experiments carried out by the Sherifs and colleagues, reveals additional deliberations. In two earlier studies the boys ganged up on a common enemy, and in fact on occasion ganged up on the experimenters themselves showing an awareness of being manipulated.[9] In addition, Michael Billig argues that the experimenters themselves constitute a third group, and one that is arguably the most powerful of the three, and that they in fact become the outgroup in the aforementioned experiment.[10]

Lutfy Diab repeated the experiment with 18 boys from Beirut. The 'Blue Ghost' and 'Red Genies' groups each contained 5 Christians and 4 Muslims. Fighting soon broke out, not Christian vs Muslim but Blue vs Red.

Sorry dude. I have no forgiveness for what the Democrats have done and for what they continue to do.

 

[Yakuda]

First, I am not "all in" on CRT. However, like most theories, I am not all in. For me, that is why it is a theory. It is an idea, not proven, but sometimes worthy of discussion. In my experience, if CRT is presented that way, as an idea, not fact, it is a great tool to encourage critical thinking.

Unfortunately, when encouraging critical thinking, the context is important. Articles like this, are a disservice because of how misleading they are. Moreover, by misleading people, the real concerns that could actually improve teaching and learning, are overshadowed by misplaced anger.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rhode-island-mother-lawsuit-critical-race-theory-requests

""""I was also told that they refrain from using gendered terminology in general terms of anti-racism. I was told that kids in kindergarten are asked what could have been done differently at Thanksgiving, and this struck me as a way to shame children for their American heritage," Solas said."""

Ok, told they did something. Great, but in what context. What else was included in the lesson? If the only mention of Thanksgiving was this assignment then there is a problem. Personally, I doubt that. Asking that question, even of kindergarten students, is worthwhile. Just saying everyone got along, end of story is misleading and insults the truth.

"""Solas was advised by the school district to submit a public records request through the Access to Public Records Act. Upon receiving some information, Solas said she "did not see any evidence of gender theory or anti-racism" but knew that it was being taught to students."""

No evidence but she knew. Wow, that is just insane. She has no credibility on this but according to the article, "she knew". No wonder people are confusing a theory with propaganda and propaganda with fact.

"""CRT curriculum has sparked a national conversation about the role of race and racism in school districts across the country.*Often compared by critics to actual racism, CRT is a school of thought*that generally focuses on how power structures and institutions impact racial minorities."""

Nice that at the end of the article convincing people AGAIN of the horrors of CRT they present a factual summary of what CRT actually is. Unfortunately, if you read the comments you will quickly realize the propaganda worked. CRT is anti-American hate.

True garbage. Even for fox, this is disappointing.

Funny how you fucking ass wipes never say or do anything that's misleading or a lie. Fuck off you queer

 

[moon]

That definition of CRT is exactly the reason it cannot be used to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking seeks answers to questions based on critical examination. This definition of CRT has already reached all its conclusions and has offered no evidence to support any of them.

If someone is seeking to test the various hypotheses of CRT it is impossible because all the terms are too ambiguous to test. Research requires operationalization of terms to be tested and terms such as racism, inherently racist, systemic racism, institutional racism do not have universally accepted definitions. Any definitions would be difficult to operationalize in a measureable way.

I do not know too much about biology and race, but to say it is a social construct with no biological basis seems overly simplistic. Scientists can identify race based on skeletal remains and DNA. Those are biological.

It is not really relevant when discussing prejudice and discrimination whether races have any biological differences, but it makes CRT somewhat questionable.

Again- the essence of CRT, according to the summation with which you ' choose' to disagree is that ' race ' does not exist. Discussion of CRT by those who think that ' race' does exist is really pointless as it has no foundation. So the discussion- if it is no reach any agreement or conclusion must begin with determining whether ' race ' exists or not.
I agree with those who state that it does not, for example;

DOES RACE EXIST?

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

 

[Flash]

Again- the essence of CRT, according to the summation with which you ' choose' to disagree is that ' race ' does not exist. Discussion of CRT by those who think that ' race' does exist is really pointless as it has no foundation. So the discussion- if it is no reach any agreement or conclusion must begin with determining whether ' race ' exists or not.
I agree with those who state that it does not, for example;

I don't see that as the main issue. Whether race has any biological basis does not change the fact that discrimination and prejudice exit.

All the other premises of CRT can be challenged or supported regardless of any other biological differences. If I agreed with you about no biological basis, I could still disagree with all the other elements of the theory. However, they would be very difficult to test because of the very ambiguous nature of all the definitions and claims.

A person/school could teach CRT from the viewpoint of supporting all of its premises or by refuting them. A theory based on predetermined political views is not a sound educational practice. CRT can be introduced and explained in a course on race relations, ethnic studies, etc., but it should not be taught as an attempt to make employees or students accept it.

How does whether race has any biological basis change any of the other parts of the theory?

 

[moon]

I don't see that as the main issue. Whether race has any biological basis does not change the fact that discrimination and prejudice exit.

All the other premises of CRT can be challenged or supported regardless of any other biological differences. If I agreed with you about no biological basis, I could still disagree with all the other elements of the theory. However, they would be very difficult to test because of the very ambiguous nature of all the definitions and claims.

A person/school could teach CRT from the viewpoint of supporting all of its premises or by refuting them. A theory based on predetermined political views is not a sound educational practice. CRT can be introduced and explained in a course on race relations, ethnic studies, etc., but it should not be taught as an attempt to make employees or students accept it.

How does whether race has any biological basis change any of the other parts of the theory?

Supporting/refuting both sides of a premise is no way to teach anything. The foundation of CRT, I say yet again, is that ' race ' does not exist, that it is a societal construct. This is fact to my mind. If the opposite is fact to yours then we're both obliged to present our conflicting arguments before discussion of the ramifications of CRT can begin. CRT is only valuable if we view life through its prism of the denial of ' race'. When we do that we can start to mend the rents and tears in our societies. This cannot be does, I believe, by insisting upon aggravating differences between peoples that actually aren't there.

Does it trouble you that your references to bones and DNA as indicators of different ' races ' are, according to the study I linked to, no such thing ?

My everyday observations had always told me that people look different and have different features; the basic tenets of Biology had always confirmed and explained my observations, telling me that observable variances are caused by very real, genetic differences. Based on this logical sequence of thought, my conclusion—that yes, race does indeed exist—seemed self-evident. But why, then, would Dr. Royal be asking me this question?

Because I was wrong. In a landmark paper based on the Human Genome Project, scientists showed that there are no “races” but a single human race—not in sociological terms, but according to biology.

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

 

[Flash]

Supporting/refuting both sides of a premise is no way to teach anything. The foundation of CRT, I say yet again, is that ' race ' does not exist, that it is a societal construct. This is fact to my mind. If the opposite is fact to yours then we're both obliged to present our conflicting arguments before discussion of the ramifications of CRT can begin. CRT is only valuable if we view life through its prism of the denial of ' race'. When we do that we can start to mend the rents and tears in our societies. This cannot be does, I believe, by insisting upon aggravating differences between peoples that actually aren't there.

Does it trouble you that your references to bones and DNA as indicators of different ' races ' are, according to the study I linked to, no such thing ?

I already stated that I know little about race and biology and I am not going to make a conclusion based on one article. My reference to DNA and skeletal remains are just things that popped in my head to question the claim there is no biological basis.

However, assume I accept that race is a social construct. That makes the remaining tenets of CRT no different than if race did have biological foundations. Using race to "to oppress and exploit people of colour" can be done with real or socially constructed categories. If "the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans," those inequalities can be maintained whether race is a biological or social construct.

Why do all those elements of CRT depend on race being a social construct. I can discriminate against a person whether they are biologically different or have no biological differences. We actually do that to white people we don't like (see the JPP prejudice against those from the South or have no college degree).

 

[Darth Omar]

If race is a social construct then it’s an abstraction.

So, what does it mean if someone self-identifies as another race?