Law Should Critical Race Theory be Cancelled?

[Seano]

Not only was the drivel you posted entirely fallacious and outright dishonest, it didn't even properly address what I asked.

As I said earlier, nevermind a discussion on the merits of CRT when we have ppl propagating disinformation regarding the history of AAs in this country.

Good luck w/ your new account though bud.

It is not. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative but he's right. Maybe not about the "100000X more" part but he is right. Africans were not the only people to be treated inhumanely, they're just the only ones who still get to use it as an excuse for failure all these years later. All I'll agree with is that it took longer for blacks to get their rights and recognition.
The Irish, the Chinese and to some extent even Italians were all less than second class citizens who couldn't do as they pleased.

 

[luckyshot]

We need to start critical race theory even earlier. I am recording an audiobook now to be played to fetuses while in the womb

How dare you call them fetuses? They are people just like you and me!

They have the right to bear arms.

Why don't you want fully human human beings inside their mothers wombs to have the guns that God wanted them to have?

You hate America.

And you disgust me.

 

[Denter]

I get the distinction you are making, but it's not clear to me that it is a distinction the laws referenced in the OP recognize. That seems to be the language implied by the British law, but the WV and OK laws simply ban schools from "promoting divisive concepts." If a school taught CRT as a concept-- one racial view among several-- would it be "promoting" a divisive concept? That's not clear on the face of it, not to me anyways. If you have another source that talks about the intentions behind these laws, and whether or not they leave room for any discussion of CRT in a school curriculum, please share those sources.

I highly doubt they'll be teaching "one racial view among many". The current respectable contenders are color blindness, which ignores history and context, and whatever this new thing is, which frankly seems to change too fast to clearly describe but seems to boil down to racial essentialism.

Since you meet only individuals in your day to day life, not golems composed of statistical averages or walking amalgams of collective racial trauma, the former seems psychologically much healthier than the later. It's a Nietzschean way to look at it- does it serve life or not?

 

[Zankou]

I get the distinction you are making, but it's not clear to me that it is a distinction the laws referenced in the OP recognize. That seems to be the language implied by the British law, but the WV and OK laws simply ban schools from "promoting divisive concepts." If a school taught CRT as a concept-- one racial view among several-- would it be "promoting" a divisive concept? That's not clear on the face of it, not to me anyways. If you have another source that talks about the intentions behind these laws, and whether or not they leave room for any discussion of CRT in a school curriculum, please share those sources.

Well I agree that banning ‘promoting divisive concepts’ is nowhere near specific enough for any law. You couldn’t enforce that. Really any prohibition on teaching CRT or other ideologies in a non-critical way should be drafted in detail.

 

[luckyshot]

Well I agree that banning ‘promoting divisive concepts’ is nowhere near specific enough for any law. You couldn’t enforce that. Really any prohibition on teaching CRT or other ideologies in a non-critical way should be drafted in detail.

My guess is they are not drafting the language specifically so as to keep the pretext of fairness. Drafting the law broadly also allows them to apply it to the next concept they don't like.

Really though, it's the spirit of the law that gives me pause. In education, isn't it more important to teach things that are TRUE than things that are "non-divisive"? I could see this law, for example, being used to promote a "Lost Cause" style narrative for the Civil War, because after all, it might be "too divisive" to teach the truth-- that the main objective of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery. The other term used to describe these "divisive concepts" is "un-American." Does that mean we can't teach the kids the truth about how America entered several major wars based on untrue reasons (the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, etc.)? Does "divisiveness" also preclude any critical discussion of current politics, given the essentially divided state of the country? For example, if Biden decides to go to war with Iran, are teachers not allowed to discuss it with their students because, given the emotions that war inherently triggers, such a discussion itself is intrinsically divisive?

No, it's a bad law passed for bad reasons.

If you take them at their word, they are mandating a nationalistic, whitewashed view of American history and current events (which too many students get anyways, thanks to ridiculously anodyne textbooks).

If you think that "non-divisive" is just the pretext used to target one specific concept-- Critical Race Theory-- then it is unfairly targeting on potentially divisive idea among many.

I highly doubt they'll be teaching "one racial view among many". The current respectable contenders are color blindness, which ignores history and context, and whatever this new thing is, which frankly seems to change too fast to clearly describe but seems to boil down to racial essentialism.

Since you meet only individuals in your day to day life, not golems composed of statistical averages or walking amalgams of collective racial trauma, the former seems psychologically much healthier than the later. It's a Nietzschean way to look at it- does it serve life or not?

This is, though, essentially an argument against entire fields of study in the humanities-- anthropology, to some extent, which is based on cultural distinctions; and sociology almost entirely since it is based on statistical norms.

I agree that trying to apply statistical norms to individual situations is a stupid way to live your daily life, but I am also loathe to throw out the statistical analysis of populations for this reason.

It is also stupid to treat individuals as mere "products of history," but neither does this invalidate the study of history.

 

[DOPEFIEND85]

Critical Theory is Marxist class war applied to race, gender etc. So no, nowhere should this kind of trash be used to indoctrinate people.

 

[luckyshot]

Critical Theory is Marxist class war applied to race, gender etc. So no, nowhere should this kind of trash be used to indoctrinate people.

That's the right wing interpretation of it certainly.

Since Marxism is based on the conflict of interests of certain groups in society, you can take any theory that is based on the conflict of interests of certain group in society and call it "Marxist." It's a bit disingenuous, though, to call a theory that is not primarily about economics classes "Marxist."

It would be kind of like calling a religion based on the adoration of Donald Trump a form of "Christianity."

There is really no reason to "Red Scare" on Critical Race Theory. If you don't like it, attack it on its merits and demerits. Don't just call it something else you don't like.

 

[Morning Star]

Member when TS wanted to assault a conservative teen for smiling and lied and smeared him? I member.

 

[Sketch]

That's the right wing interpretation of it certainly.

Since Marxism is based on the conflict of interests of certain groups in society, you can take any theory that is based on the conflict of interests of certain group in society and call it "Marxist." It's a bit disingenuous, though, to call a theory that is not primarily about economics classes "Marxist."

It would be kind of like calling a religion based on the adoration of Donald Trump a form of "Christianity."

There is really no reason to "Red Scare" on Critical Race Theory. If you don't like it, attack it on its merits and demerits. Don't just call it something else you don't like.

My guess is they are not drafting the language specifically so as to keep the pretext of fairness. Drafting the law broadly also allows them to apply it to the next concept they don't like.

Really though, it's the spirit of the law that gives me pause. In education, isn't it more important to teach things that are TRUE than things that are "non-divisive"? I could see this law, for example, being used to promote a "Lost Cause" style narrative for the Civil War, because after all, it might be "too divisive" to teach the truth-- that the main objective of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery. The other term used to describe these "divisive concepts" is "un-American." Does that mean we can't teach the kids the truth about how America entered several major wars based on untrue reasons (the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, etc.)? Does "divisiveness" also preclude any critical discussion of current politics, given the essentially divided state of the country? For example, if Biden decides to go to war with Iran, are teachers not allowed to discuss it with their students because, given the emotions that war inherently triggers, such a discussion itself is intrinsically divisive?

No, it's a bad law passed for bad reasons.

If you take them at their word, they are mandating a nationalistic, whitewashed view of American history and current events (which too many students get anyways).

If you think that "non-divisive" is just the pretext used to target one specific concept-- Critical Race Theory-- then it is unfairly targeting on potentially divisive idea among many.


This is, though, essentially an argument against entire fields of study in the humanities-- anthropology, to some extent, which is based on cultural distinctions; and sociology almost entirely since it is based on statistical norms.

I agree that trying to apply statistical norms to individual situations is a stupid way to live your daily life, but I am also loathe to throw out the statistical analysis of populations for this reason.

It is also stupid to treat individuals as mere "products of history," but neither does this invalidate the study of history.

 

[Sketch]

Member when TS wanted to assault a conservative teen for smiling and lied and smeared him? I member.

We all do. Dude is a Joke.

 

[luckyshot]

Go to bed Sketch. You are tired trolling.

Member when TS wanted to assault a conservative teen for smiling and lied and smeared him? I member.

Well, certainly, if you can't argue the point at hand, bring something up from a year and half ago.

...When my initial reaction, like a lot of people's, was wrong based on a deceptively edited video. I admit I can be wrong on facts sometimes. (Everyone who actually believes in facts should admit this...)

I'm not often illogical though, which, I think is why no one has been able to address the inconsistencies I've pointed out in this thread.

 

[DOPEFIEND85]

That's the right wing interpretation of it certainly.

Since Marxism is based on the conflict of interests of certain groups in society, you can take any theory that is based on the conflict of interests of certain group in society and call it "Marxist." It's a bit disingenuous, though, to call a theory that is not primarily about economics classes "Marxist."

It would be kind of like calling a religion based on the adoration of Donald Trump a form of "Christianity."

There is really no reason to "Red Scare" on Critical Race Theory. If you don't like it, attack it on its merits and demerits. Don't just call it something else you don't like.

Critical Theory was formulated by communists who decided, in Horkheimer's own words, to invert Marx's concept of base & superstructure and follow Antonio Gramsci's tactics of a "long march through the institutions". Race & gender war instead of class war, cultural subversion instead of violent revolution. This isn't a "right wing" interpretation, it's literally what these theorists quite explicitly said themselves.

But you know this already. Admitting you're pushing race war politics in an attempt to impose communism isn't good for optics so you lie, lie and lie some more.

 

[Sketch]

Go to bed Sketch. You are tired trolling.


Well, certainly, if you can't argue the point at hand, bring something up from a year and half ago.

...When my initial reaction, like a lot of people's, was wrong based on a deceptively edited video. I admit I can be wrong on facts sometimes. (Everyone who actually believes in facts should admit this...)

I'm not often illogical though, which, I think is why no one has been able to address the inconsistencies I've pointed out in this thread.

You got played

 

[khabeep]

Doesn't critical race theory just mean that white supremacy is real and black people have been oppressed? It's reality. It should absolutely be mandatory in schools and for job training if so.

lol, no one gives a shit

 

[luckyshot]

Critical Theory was formulated by communists who decided, in Horkheimer's own words, to invert Marx's concept of base & superstructure and follow Antonio Gramsci's tactics of a "long march through the institutions". Race & gender war instead of class war, cultural subversion instead of violent revolution. This isn't a "right wing" interpretation, it's literally what these theorists quite explicitly said themselves.

But you know this already. Admitting you're pushing race war politics in an attempt to impose communism isn't good for optics so you lie, lie and lie some more.

So, instead of being about class solidarity and violent revolution, Critical Race Theory is about race, gender, and subversion... but besides that, it's Marxism.

That's kind of like saying, yeah, I'm having a salad, but instead of lettuce, I have cheese, and instead of tomatoes, I have meatballs, and instead of cucumbers, I have pasta. It's in a bowl, though!

If you wanted to sum up Marxism in two words, they would be: class, and revolution.

I'm not saying Critical Theorists were not influenced by Marx; I'm saying Marx wasn't a Critical Race Theorist. To take a view of the world that elevates other distinctions above class and call it "Marxism" is simply wrong.

To use the phrase popularized by actual communist and anarchist groups: There is no war but the class war.

(I am neither a Marxist nor an Anarchist, btw. I generally have a pretty rosy view of capitalism in the vein of people like Steve Pinker. I favor after market wealth redistribution policies.)

 

[TheLastSpartan]

It is not. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative but he's right. Maybe not about the "100000X more" part but he is right. Africans were not the only people to be treated inhumanely, they're just the only ones who still get to use it as an excuse for failure all these years later. All I'll agree with is that it took longer for blacks to get their rights and recognition.
The Irish, the Chinese and to some extent even Italians were all less than second class citizens who couldn't do as they pleased.

You’re being disingenuous. I nor anyone else have claimed that AAs were the only ethnic group that suffered historical injustice. That would be dumb.

What you and the sockpuppet are doing besides misattributing my point is severely downplaying AA mistreatment in this country by equating it to other US-based ethnic struggles that do not reasonably compare by all historical accounts in regard to magnitude and effect (save for the indigenous peoples ofc).

So yes, that sockpuppet's post was straight drivel. Confirmed by him linking some fake news propaganda piece about how Irish "slaves" were the most victimized people in the US. Shameless disinformation and a popular racist tactic that clearly still has legs.

 

[mommas homeboy]

You’re being disingenuous. I nor anyone else have claimed that AAs were the only ethnic group that suffered historical injustice. That would be dumb.

What you and the sockpuppet are doing besides misattributing my point is severely downplaying AA mistreatment in this country by equating it to other US-based ethnic struggles that do not reasonably compare by all historical accounts in regard to magnitude and effect (save for the indigenous peoples ofc).

So yes, that sockpuppet's post was straight drivel. Confirmed by him linking some fake news propaganda piece about how Irish "slaves" were the most victimized people in the US. Shameless disinformation and a popular racist tactic that clearly still has legs.

AA mistreatment is coming from other AAs far more than whites these days though. Most of the mistreatment you’re referring to ended decades ago.

 

[DOPEFIEND85]

So, instead of being about class solidarity and violent revolution, Critical Race Theory is about race, gender, and subversion... but besides that, it's Marxism.

That's kind of like saying, yeah, I'm having a salad, but instead of lettuce, I have cheese, and instead of tomatoes, I have meatballs, and instead of cucumbers, I have pasta.

If you wanted to sum up Marxism in two words, they would be: class, and revolution.

I'm not saying some Critical Theorists were not Marxists; I'm saying Marx wasn't (and wouldn't have been) a Critical Race Theorist. Marx called for solidarity of the working class.

To take a view of the world that elevates other distinctions above class and call it "Marxism" is simply wrong.

To use the phrase popularized by actual communist and anarchist groups: There is no war but the class war.

(I am neither a Marxist nor an Anarchist, btw. I generally have a pretty rosy view of capitalism in the vein of people like Steve Pinker. I favor after market wealth redistribution policies.)

Nowhere did I claim Critical Theory was classical Marxism. I said Critical Theory was Marxist class struggle applied to race and gender. Your entire post is made of straw.

 

[Handsome Bruce]

Critical Theory was formulated by communists who decided, in Horkheimer's own words, to invert Marx's concept of base & superstructure and follow Antonio Gramsci's tactics of a "long march through the institutions". Race & gender war instead of class war, cultural subversion instead of violent revolution. This isn't a "right wing" interpretation, it's literally what these theorists quite explicitly said themselves.

But you know this already. Admitting you're pushing race war politics in an attempt to impose communism isn't good for optics so you lie, lie and lie some more.

I'm not sure if any of that is true at all. If you go back to the beginnings of feminism there was a huge divide between poor and working class women and privileged white women wanting different things. Feminist bell hooks explains that working class women wanted more time with their families and to be recognized for the labor they did in both the home and the workplace. Privileged white women wanted into the workplace to get a piece of the pie that the privileged men were getting. Of course, it is painfully clear today that the privileged white women won out and that is why there is so much emphasis on getting women into cushy, high-paying jobs and kids into daycare while the middle-finger is being put in the face of the poor and working class women who want better pay, less hours and time to spend with their families.

You see the same thing with critical race theory where a lot of wealthy, college kids in expensive schools are being very opportunistic and using race-theory to their advantage. If anything, feminism and critical race theory are being used to push crony-capitalism when you consider how much money, power and privilege is being created with it. Feminism and race-theory are maintaining the status quo and have made a lot of privileged people wealthy while conveniently forgetting about the poor, the sick and the lowest of the low.

 

[DOPEFIEND85]

I'm not sure if any of that is true at all. If you go back to the beginnings of feminism there was a huge divide between poor and working class women and privileged white women wanting different things. Feminist bell hooks explains that working class women wanted more time with their families and to be recognized for the labor they did in both the home and the workplace. Privileged white women wanted into the workplace to get a piece of the pie that the privileged men were getting. Of course, it is painfully clear today that the privileged white women won out and that is why there is so much emphasis on getting women into cushy, high-paying jobs and kids into daycare while the middle-finger is being put in the face of the poor and working class women who want better pay, less hours and time to spend with their families.

You see the same thing with critical race theory where a lot of wealthy, college kids in expensive schools are being very opportunistic and using race-theory to their advantage. If anything, feminism and critical race theory are being used to push crony-capitalism when you consider how much money, power and privilege is being created with it. Feminism and race-theory are maintaining the status quo and have made a lot of privileged people wealthy while conveniently forgetting about the poor, the sick and the lowest of the low.

This is seriously confused thinking.

"Rich kids use Critical Race Theory to advance their own personal vested interests, therefore it's not true that Critical Theory Race has anything to do with neo-Marxist race war tactics".

Yes, people jump on bandwagons and use whatever the latest zeitgeist is for their own personal gain. That doesn't change the fact that ideologues push this ideology in an attempt to completely reconstitute society into an authoritarian dystopia, nor does it change the fact that there are powerful forces at work behind the scenes who are imposing this ideology at all levels throughout society. It's a cultural revolution backed by oligarchs, just as the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was backed by Western banking cartels to overthrow the Romanovs. Until you understand the forces and work and the larger agenda at play, you simply won't understand what this present zeitgeist is about. Outside of the extreme margins and the apparent lunatic fringe, most people have no idea where we're heading.

And btw, hardly any working class women supported first-wave feminism. It's was almost exclusively a small minority of penis-envying middle-to-upper class types who supported the suffragette movement.