Critical race theory (2 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Frankly, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Critical Race Theory curriculum. What is it, where does it come from, and is it legitimate? Has anyone here read it and maybe give a quick summary?

If this has been covered in another thread, then I missed it.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[Paul]

So, I have a couple of thoughts, and then I'm off to dinner.

First, who is equitablemath.org? I don't see the words CRT anywhere in that document, why do you believe this is CRT? Not saying it is or isn't, but going back to the discussion of CRT, I feel like it needs to be defined.

Next, I did just quickly read through what you posted, and disagree with the way you characterized the sections. You said page 5 was a critique of white people. I don't see that at all. So that is really weird. It says quite clearly that these concepts hurts white people as well as POC. It then goes on to list characteristics that they say perpetuate white supremacy. I do think they do a pretty poor job of explaining why they think those things perpetuate white supremancy. But there is nothing in there that criticizes white people implicitly or explicitly.

I also you said page 7 criticizes the way white people teach math. And I do not think it does at all. It criticizes the way math is taught. Earlier on, they even said that some of these things are taught in classrooms led by POC. They are saying that the way math is taught make it harder for POC to succeed. They don't provide evidence of this, but their recommendations also aren't really bad, and I quite like a lot of them (ie emphasis of learning why a particular answer is correct instead of brute memorization).

Finally, it doesn't say that math needs to be taught differently based on skin color - they are quite clear that they think everyone should be taught math this way. They do not do a great job of proving why they think the way math is taught perpetuates white supremacy, but there is nothing in there that says white people are bad, or anything like that.

I do not disagree. Perhaps math needs to be taught differently to POC and maybe there is a method to teach math that helps all children. However the first pages of the math curriculum harps way to much of the concept of getting rid of white supremacy in the classroom. That statement is very incendiary and I can see why some people may have an objection. All they have to do is remove the anti western white statements and I am cool with that. There is also that line where they say white math supremacy is not good because it expects kids to get the correct answer. That is not a nice thing to say in the math class. Why not be a bit more moderate?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I do not disagree. Perhaps math needs to be taught differently to POC and maybe there is a method to teach math that helps all children. However the first pages of the math curriculum harps way to much of the concept of getting rid of white supremacy in the classroom. That statement is very incendiary and I can see why some people may have an objection. All they have to do is remove the anti western white statements and I am cool with that. There is also that line where they say white math supremacy is not good because it expects kids to get the correct answer. That is not a nice thing to say in the math class. Why not be a bit more moderate?

That's not what it says. It says that there is currently too much focus on being right than understanding why they are right. Knowing how to do something- truly understanding the underlying concepts- is an important tool in critical thinking. That should be reinforced constantly.

 

[Paul]

That's not what it says. It says that there is currently too much focus on being right than understanding why they are right. Knowing how to do something- truly understanding the underlying concepts- is an important tool in critical thinking. That should be reinforced constantly.

OK, fair point. But, in math class there is no ambiguity. The answer to 2 +2 is expected to be 4. In any event i give that statement a pass if there is a sincere desire to teach the basics.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I have been enjoying the discussion the last few pages.



So, I think the issue I have is that the whole discussion is based around something that is not well known, and for large parts of the population is defined by its opposition. Ie @Farb will say something like teaching children to hate America, and some races are better than others, and that white people should be ashamed of themselves is wrong. Well, duh, obviously. But it's taking it as fact that that is what is being taught to children, without a lot of evidence.

To be honest, I've never heard of CRT until a couple of months ago, but apparently, Republicans tried to make this a political issue a couple of years ago but it didn't catch on, but now it has.

As I understand it CRT is something of an academic discipline or framework that is taught in college history classes as a way of view American history, where race played a significant role. In that light, well, of course children should not be taught an advanced history course. To my knowledge there is no CRT curriculum at the elementary, middle or high school level.

So, based on that, it appears to me that the right does not want any sort of race related history taught to children. Which should be obviously wrong.

I think there's room to discuss how to talk about these issues in an age appropriate manner. But age appropriate does not mean hiding the truth or its consequences. And the truth is, laws and practices were created based on race in America's past, those laws and practices had harmful effects on the communities they targeted, and they still have consequences today.

Well I'll be damned if you haven't completely changed my view on this topic. I don't know if its the edible I had about an hour ago or that what I just read completely gave me pause. I'm sincere when I say that I was actually able to begin to see the other side of this issue for the first time. Not from the side of the party of insurrection, but from the side of folks not wanting it taught in elementary and high schools.

I think that I could agree that maybe it shouldn't be taught at that early of an age. Let kids be kids sort of speak. I would like to see a more truthful approach to American history including how our founders took the land from the people who were here and not gloss over slavery and jim crow and pretend that black history ended with the civil rights movement. There's no need to teach "white people are bad or racists". Just tell the story the way it happened and let the truth be the judge.

Where I began to come back to my original belief on the topic is why would those opposed to CRT be against it being taught in a serious history class in college or even if it was an honors elective in high school. If a reasonable and believable explanation can be given, I'd be willing to listen. Anything other than that simply points to a fear of more people knowing the truth....and that's un-American.

I'm sorry for the babbling. I'm probably going to read this tomorrow and marvel at the level of high I achieved.

 

[Paul]

Well I'll be damned if you haven't completely changed my view on this topic. I don't know if its the edible I had about an hour ago or that what I just read completely gave me pause. I'm sincere when I say that I was actually able to begin to see the other side of this issue for the first time. Not from the side of the party of insurrection, but from the side of folks not wanting it taught in elementary and high schools.

I think that I could agree that maybe it shouldn't be taught at that early of an age. Let kids be kids sort of speak. I would like to see a more truthful approach to American history including how our founders took the land from the people who were here and not gloss over slavery and jim crow and pretend that black history ended with the civil rights movement. There's no need to teach "white people are bad or racists". Just tell the story the way it happened and let the truth be the judge.

Where I began to come back to my original belief on the topic is why would those opposed to CRT be against it being taught in a serious history class in college or even if it was an honors elective in high school. If a reasonable and believable explanation can be given, I'd be willing to listen. Anything other than that simply points to a fear of more people knowing the truth....and that's un-American.

I'm sorry for the babbling. I'm probably going to read this tomorrow and marvel at the level of high I achieved.

Great post. Let's teach history as it was. No need to embellish the history lesson with hateful statements. The facts speak for themselves. The European settlers abused others. Does that mean that the USA has no redeeming value?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well I'll be damned if you haven't completely changed my view on this topic. I don't know if its the edible I had about an hour ago or that what I just read completely gave me pause. I'm sincere when I say that I was actually able to begin to see the other side of this issue for the first time. Not from the side of the party of insurrection, but from the side of folks not wanting it taught in elementary and high schools.

I think that I could agree that maybe it shouldn't be taught at that early of an age. Let kids be kids sort of speak. I would like to see a more truthful approach to American history including how our founders took the land from the people who were here and not gloss over slavery and jim crow and pretend that black history ended with the civil rights movement. There's no need to teach "white people are bad or racists". Just tell the story the way it happened and let the truth be the judge.

Where I began to come back to my original belief on the topic is why would those opposed to CRT be against it being taught in a serious history class in college or even if it was an honors elective in high school. If a reasonable and believable explanation can be given, I'd be willing to listen. Anything other than that simply points to a fear of more people knowing the truth....and that's un-American.

I'm sorry for the babbling. I'm probably going to read this tomorrow and marvel at the level of high I achieved.

hahaha... I think it made perfect sense, which I'm not sure what that says about me.

So, I think like with most things, there are ways to take something that is fine and reasonable and do something wrong and unreasonable with it. So, let's say I think it's fine and reasonable to try to be sensitive of the words and language we use when teaching and to be aware of racial disparities and the role that race plays in shaping history and personal interactions. There is a way to talk to 3rd graders about this topic, like, sometimes people divide people up based on things they have no control over and this has caused a great deal of harm, and so it's important to treat people as individuals and so on. But it's not ok to have 8 year olds do a full on analysis of their own power structures and so on - like in one of those stories that @SaintForLife posted about.

I'll do a quick aside to talk about @SaintForLife 's post - I'm not going to go into depth about it because it was a bit of a spam of tweets from a very biased source who definitely twisted facts to make some things worse than they were (in my own opinion). The City Journal is funded by the Manhattan Institute (as well as by Patreon). So, based on that, I'm did not taking their representation of anything at face value. So, I tried to dig into each example, and of course the overall reporting is fairly spotty, and a lot of it is highly sensationalized. HOWEVER, there are some examples that I could basically corroborate and agree that it was wrong/bad - the Cupertino school issue for example.

So, I think there is some cause for concern about the way race is taught in schools, how to approach it in an age appropriate manner. And I do think some of the training to teachers is of poor quality.

Going back to the topic - there seems to be a conflation with teacher training and what is being taught to students. I would not classify having teachers learn about white supremacy, institutional racism and so on as teaching CRT in schools. This is not taught to students, it is teacher training. Now, it's of course possible that some of that actually does trickle down to the students, but examples of teacher training or a principal's letter to parents is not CRT being taught to students.

Going to head to bed now.... I still have a lot to read on the subject.

 

[SaintForLife]

There's no doubt that the right are highlighting CRT and exaggerating it in some instances as a social wedge issue similarly to how the left claims racism at every chance.

There are some legitimate discussions to be had if the framing and the wording used is appropriate for the public education system.

And no, 6-year-olds are not being taught Derrick Bell — or forced to read Judith Butler, or God help them, Kimberlé Crenshaw. Of course they aren’t — and I don’t know anyone who says they are.

But they are being taught popularized terms, new words, and a whole new epistemology that is directly downstream of academic critical theory. Ibram X. Kendi even has an AntiRacist Baby Picture Book so you can indoctrinate your child into the evil of whiteness as soon as she or he can gurgle. It’s a little hard to argue that CRT is not interested in indoctrinating kids when its chief proponent in the US has a kiddy book on the market.

The goal of education of children this young is to cement the notion at the most formative age that America is at its core an oppressive racist system uniquely designed to exploit, harm, abuse, and even kill the non-white. This can be conveyed in easy terms, by training kids to see themselves first and foremost as racial avatars, and by inculcating in them a sense of their destiny as members of the oppressed or oppressor classes in the zero-sum struggle for power that is American society in 2021.

...Similarly with CRT, impenetrable academic discourse at the elite level is translated to child-friendly truisms, with the same aim — to change behavior. And so the notion that the most important thing about a child is that she is white, and this makes her part of an oppressive system purposely designed to hurt her new friend, who is black, is how this comes out in an actual real-life scenario. And she has to account for her indelible “whiteness”, just as Catholic kids have to account for their sins. CRT has its own words and values, and they are instilled from the beginning: racism, systems, intersectionality, hegemony, oppression, whiteness, privilege, cisgender, and “doing the work,” as CRT convert Dr. Jill Biden would say.

...There is something so disingenuous about critical theorists both arguing that they are revealing the real truth about the world in order to change it, and then claiming that they’re just offering an alternative take of history within a liberal context. You can see this intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch in the 1619 Project. It claims something truly radical — that the real founding of America was in 1619 because the core meaning of America is white supremacy, not liberal democracy — and then, when called on it, turns around and says no, silly, we’re just engaging in a thought-experiment to explain how racism has affected all of us, and to provoke debate. Well: which is it? In theory, they tell you it is all compatible with liberalism; in practice, they prove and believe the opposite.

...The legacy of this country’s profound racism, the deep and abiding shame of its genocidal slavocracy, the atrocities, such as Tulsa, which have been white-washed, the appalling record of lynchings and beatings, the centrality of African-Americans to the story and success of this country: all this must be better explored and understood. There is nothing wrong and a huge amount right about black scholars taking the lead in shining light on what others might miss, building on past knowledge, helping us better account for it. White scholars, like the hundreds of thousands of white citizens who gave their lives to end slavery, have a crucial role to play as well.

Don't Ban CRT. Expose It.

There's a liberal way to fight illiberalism. And it's beginning to work.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Professor at Brown University who writes about inequality and race:



On his podcast he discussed if he should go on Tucker's show.

Should Glenn Go on Tucker Carlson?

with John McWhorter

glennloury.substack.com

He did go on Tucker's show and was surprised that it was a good interview.

Glenn Went on Tucker Carlson, Part 1

A conversation about "whiteness" in America

glennloury.substack.com

...Well, in the months that ensued after the death of George Floyd, I did recognize that I thought something really significant in our culture was taking place. I mean, I thought the country had lost its mind, to be quite honest with you.

Like I say, or maybe I haven't said it here, I'll say it now. There are a handful of cases like George Floyd. The main reality on the streets of American cities, insofar as racial risk and so forth, is violent crime. That is the thing that has to be confronted. The embrace of this "open season on Black people,” I think that's what Benjamin Crump calls it, "open season." The embrace of this framing of the problem, which distracts us from the objective threat to the integrity of the Black body, is just a profound mistake.

And to find not only African Americans embracing it, but to find the country buying it struck me as deeply problematic, deeply concerning. So, I mean it started with me reacting against people who were saying: "Oh, don't mind the looting. It's mostly peaceful protests. Don't mind the looting and rioting. People are just collecting their reparations. Don't mind the looting and rioting. After all, they have a reason to be angry. We should understand."

And I thought a couple of things. I thought, first of all, objectively, that's wrong. Our civilization rests upon exactly the opposite of what you said. And I thought, secondarily, do you think that the quiet, silent majority of this country is going to take it forever if you talk like that and act like that? Actually, they're not going to take it forever

...Here's what I'm talking about. How many times can you remind the white majority of this country that their numbers are shrinking and they're about to be dominated by a coming nonwhite coalition of Latino and Black and whatnot? How many times can you tell them that they are intrinsically racist, that their lives are built upon an unearned privilege? How many times can you accuse them of failing to see your humanity, when in fact you're living in the freest country and you are the richest people of African descent ever to have walked on the planet? I'm talking about Black Americans.

How many times can you do that and not have them get the idea that they've got an identity, too? That it's a racial identity, and it's not yours? That's not the world you want to live in. You don't want to be told in response to your iconoclasm—we're going to tear down all the statues, we don't like Mount Rushmore, we think the founding fathers are full of shirt—you don't want to be told by those people, “I tell you what, where's your civilization?” You don't want that.

You don't want to be reminded that modern medicine rests upon a European intellectual foundation. You don't want to be told that the institutions that secure our liberty and allow for our prosperity came out of Europe. So if you insist on playing the race card, you better watch out. Because that's a game you can't win. If people insist on discussing violent crime in this country in terms of white police officers attacking Black citizens, how long will it be before somebody actually does the exercise that Charles Murray pursues in this recent book of his, this forthcoming book, and does the counting of who's actually committing the crimes against who in this country?

I don't want to hear about black thugs raping white women. But I'm going to hear about it soon enough if you keep telling me about white cops killing Black kids. It's not a racial thing. It's a human thing. Bad cops need to be dealt with and thugs need to be dealt with, regardless of their color. That's the position I take. But what I fear for my country is that the racialization of these conversations invites a reaction, which we will be reaping the whirlwind should we allow it to come to being.

...And I feel like that's such an obvious point that you sort of wonder, you know, a lot of smart people are pushing this stuff. Very smart people, actually. This hasn't occurred to them? Or what is this about? It's like, they're pushing us toward a wholly racialized America. Why are they doing that?

I don't know the answer. I can think of some reasons why. They're going to be partisan, Tucker. I know you don't have a problem with that. The Democratic Party needs the Black people to vote for them 85% or 90%, or else they're politically uncompetitive. This is Glenn Loury's analysis. You all can make of it what you will. My mouth is not a prayer book. I could be wrong, but this is what I see.

What I see is, to keep that solid support from African Americans for the left of the American political spectrum requires pushing before us this narrative about, "They're going to put y'all back in chains." That was Joseph Biden. About, "The only reason I ran for president was because he said that there were good people among the white supremacists." Well, he didn't say any such thing. That's again, Joseph Biden. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." That's a Barack Obama.

To which my response is: no, he wouldn't. Because what he is and looks like is not the color of his skin. It's the character of his life. And if you had a son, you and Michelle, you billionaires, he wouldn't look anything like Trayvon Martin. So why did you say that? Why did Michelle Obama say that she worries that Sasha and Malia might be set upon by a rogue police officer because he sees the back of their head and she looks like somebody who did something wrong, when she knows that that's not true?

And the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is a very powerful political tool to keep African Americans aligned, when in fact the substance of the political conversation offers us very little reason why it is that we should stay aligned. I mean, Donald Trump was many things. He was wrong about many things. But, "You have nothing to lose. Take a look at your inner cities"? He was certainly right about that.

I agree.

Forgive me for thinking Donald Trump was right about anything.


More on the subject here:

Glenn Went on Tucker Carlson, Part 2

with John McWhorter

glennloury.substack.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There's no doubt that the right are highlighting CRT and exaggerating it in some instances as a social wedge issue similarly to how the left claims racism at every chance.

There are some legitimate discussions to be had if the framing and the wording used is appropriate for the public education system.

And no, 6-year-olds are not being taught Derrick Bell — or forced to read Judith Butler, or God help them, Kimberlé Crenshaw. Of course they aren’t — and I don’t know anyone who says they are.

But they are being taught popularized terms, new words, and a whole new epistemology that is directly downstream of academic critical theory. Ibram X. Kendi even has an AntiRacist Baby Picture Book so you can indoctrinate your child into the evil of whiteness as soon as she or he can gurgle. It’s a little hard to argue that CRT is not interested in indoctrinating kids when its chief proponent in the US has a kiddy book on the market.

The goal of education of children this young is to cement the notion at the most formative age that America is at its core an oppressive racist system uniquely designed to exploit, harm, abuse, and even kill the non-white. This can be conveyed in easy terms, by training kids to see themselves first and foremost as racial avatars, and by inculcating in them a sense of their destiny as members of the oppressed or oppressor classes in the zero-sum struggle for power that is American society in 2021.

...Similarly with CRT, impenetrable academic discourse at the elite level is translated to child-friendly truisms, with the same aim — to change behavior. And so the notion that the most important thing about a child is that she is white, and this makes her part of an oppressive system purposely designed to hurt her new friend, who is black, is how this comes out in an actual real-life scenario. And she has to account for her indelible “whiteness”, just as Catholic kids have to account for their sins. CRT has its own words and values, and they are instilled from the beginning: racism, systems, intersectionality, hegemony, oppression, whiteness, privilege, cisgender, and “doing the work,” as CRT convert Dr. Jill Biden would say.

...There is something so disingenuous about critical theorists both arguing that they are revealing the real truth about the world in order to change it, and then claiming that they’re just offering an alternative take of history within a liberal context. You can see this intellectually dishonest bait-and-switch in the 1619 Project. It claims something truly radical — that the real founding of America was in 1619 because the core meaning of America is white supremacy, not liberal democracy — and then, when called on it, turns around and says no, silly, we’re just engaging in a thought-experiment to explain how racism has affected all of us, and to provoke debate. Well: which is it? In theory, they tell you it is all compatible with liberalism; in practice, they prove and believe the opposite.

...The legacy of this country’s profound racism, the deep and abiding shame of its genocidal slavocracy, the atrocities, such as Tulsa, which have been white-washed, the appalling record of lynchings and beatings, the centrality of African-Americans to the story and success of this country: all this must be better explored and understood. There is nothing wrong and a huge amount right about black scholars taking the lead in shining light on what others might miss, building on past knowledge, helping us better account for it. White scholars, like the hundreds of thousands of white citizens who gave their lives to end slavery, have a crucial role to play as well.

Don't Ban CRT. Expose It.

There's a liberal way to fight illiberalism. And it's beginning to work.

andrewsullivan.substack.com

Lol... I agree with a lot of this post... not so much the one underneath it.

 

[bdb13]

Professor at Brown University who writes about inequality and race:



On his podcast he discussed if he should go on Tucker's show.

Should Glenn Go on Tucker Carlson?

with John McWhorter

glennloury.substack.com

He did go on Tucker's show and was surprised that it was a good interview.

Glenn Went on Tucker Carlson, Part 1

A conversation about "whiteness" in America

glennloury.substack.com

...Well, in the months that ensued after the death of George Floyd, I did recognize that I thought something really significant in our culture was taking place. I mean, I thought the country had lost its mind, to be quite honest with you.

Like I say, or maybe I haven't said it here, I'll say it now. There are a handful of cases like George Floyd. The main reality on the streets of American cities, insofar as racial risk and so forth, is violent crime. That is the thing that has to be confronted. The embrace of this "open season on Black people,” I think that's what Benjamin Crump calls it, "open season." The embrace of this framing of the problem, which distracts us from the objective threat to the integrity of the Black body, is just a profound mistake.

And to find not only African Americans embracing it, but to find the country buying it struck me as deeply problematic, deeply concerning. So, I mean it started with me reacting against people who were saying: "Oh, don't mind the looting. It's mostly peaceful protests. Don't mind the looting and rioting. People are just collecting their reparations. Don't mind the looting and rioting. After all, they have a reason to be angry. We should understand."

And I thought a couple of things. I thought, first of all, objectively, that's wrong. Our civilization rests upon exactly the opposite of what you said. And I thought, secondarily, do you think that the quiet, silent majority of this country is going to take it forever if you talk like that and act like that? Actually, they're not going to take it forever

...Here's what I'm talking about. How many times can you remind the white majority of this country that their numbers are shrinking and they're about to be dominated by a coming nonwhite coalition of Latino and Black and whatnot? How many times can you tell them that they are intrinsically racist, that their lives are built upon an unearned privilege? How many times can you accuse them of failing to see your humanity, when in fact you're living in the freest country and you are the richest people of African descent ever to have walked on the planet? I'm talking about Black Americans.

How many times can you do that and not have them get the idea that they've got an identity, too? That it's a racial identity, and it's not yours? That's not the world you want to live in. You don't want to be told in response to your iconoclasm—we're going to tear down all the statues, we don't like Mount Rushmore, we think the founding fathers are full of shirt—you don't want to be told by those people, “I tell you what, where's your civilization?” You don't want that.

You don't want to be reminded that modern medicine rests upon a European intellectual foundation. You don't want to be told that the institutions that secure our liberty and allow for our prosperity came out of Europe. So if you insist on playing the race card, you better watch out. Because that's a game you can't win. If people insist on discussing violent crime in this country in terms of white police officers attacking Black citizens, how long will it be before somebody actually does the exercise that Charles Murray pursues in this recent book of his, this forthcoming book, and does the counting of who's actually committing the crimes against who in this country?

I don't want to hear about black thugs raping white women. But I'm going to hear about it soon enough if you keep telling me about white cops killing Black kids. It's not a racial thing. It's a human thing. Bad cops need to be dealt with and thugs need to be dealt with, regardless of their color. That's the position I take. But what I fear for my country is that the racialization of these conversations invites a reaction, which we will be reaping the whirlwind should we allow it to come to being.

...And I feel like that's such an obvious point that you sort of wonder, you know, a lot of smart people are pushing this stuff. Very smart people, actually. This hasn't occurred to them? Or what is this about? It's like, they're pushing us toward a wholly racialized America. Why are they doing that?

I don't know the answer. I can think of some reasons why. They're going to be partisan, Tucker. I know you don't have a problem with that. The Democratic Party needs the Black people to vote for them 85% or 90%, or else they're politically uncompetitive. This is Glenn Loury's analysis. You all can make of it what you will. My mouth is not a prayer book. I could be wrong, but this is what I see.

What I see is, to keep that solid support from African Americans for the left of the American political spectrum requires pushing before us this narrative about, "They're going to put y'all back in chains." That was Joseph Biden. About, "The only reason I ran for president was because he said that there were good people among the white supremacists." Well, he didn't say any such thing. That's again, Joseph Biden. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." That's a Barack Obama.

To which my response is: no, he wouldn't. Because what he is and looks like is not the color of his skin. It's the character of his life. And if you had a son, you and Michelle, you billionaires, he wouldn't look anything like Trayvon Martin. So why did you say that? Why did Michelle Obama say that she worries that Sasha and Malia might be set upon by a rogue police officer because he sees the back of their head and she looks like somebody who did something wrong, when she knows that that's not true?

And the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is a very powerful political tool to keep African Americans aligned, when in fact the substance of the political conversation offers us very little reason why it is that we should stay aligned. I mean, Donald Trump was many things. He was wrong about many things. But, "You have nothing to lose. Take a look at your inner cities"? He was certainly right about that.

I agree.

Forgive me for thinking Donald Trump was right about anything.


More on the subject here:

Glenn Went on Tucker Carlson, Part 2

with John McWhorter

glennloury.substack.com

To put a finer point on it, the vast majority of Americans who identify as “white” do so in some general, nonspecific way. Most of them don’t assign any real political meaning or tribal affiliation to their whiteness. They’re far more likely to strongly identify with their religion or regional origin or ancestral origin than they are to identify with their “race.” In short, most white people don’t think their political interests, personality traits, or culture are defined by their whiteness.

John and I and, perhaps surprisingly, Tucker Carlson all agree that this is a very good thing. No one should want the majority of white Americans to start thinking of themselves as a unified ethnic group, one with shared political interests that deserve special consideration. We have seen what happens when national ethnic majorities start to view themselves as engaged in political struggles with ethnic minorities. Things tend not to end well for the minorities.

I would say that through my experience in life I actually fundamentally disagree with the part I bolded part there in the quote, most specifically the political part, which kind of changes how you perceive everything in regards to this topic, I think.

 

[First Time Poster]

Great post. Let's teach history as it was. No need to embellish the history lesson with hateful statements. The facts speak for themselves. The European settlers abused others. Does that mean that the USA has no redeeming value?

Embellish?! "The European settlers abused others." That's your summation on chattel slavery in the US? Good grief. I appreciate your contribution and participation in the discussion but I must admit much of your commentary borders on white savior and white victimization. A little too much for my liking.

Jon Stewart said something on a podcast the other day that stuck with me. "Their whole thing is "we're censored" right? As always, the right is always the victim in any conversation. At a time of racial unrest, where 400 years of you know, degradation, they want to make themselves the victim of this moment."

Now, I disagree with Jon's framing of it as "the right" because I would substitute White America. Although, more persons with this mindset politically probably identify on the right, to me, that really isn't salient to the larger issue. It's bigger than politics to me. But, his point is sound. In this time of racial unrest, a racial reckoning, a time when most of us acknowledge we still live in an unequal society, still operate within institutions that are biased, and, yes, racist, in what should be an effort to say "how can we teach our history in a way that properly contexualizes, identifies, represents and honors ALL Americans, and do it truthfully" White America, again, has found a way to shift the discussion to THEMSELVES. To make themselves victims in this. And you're not.

Chappelle has a bit in one of his stand-ups where he pitches a TV show to some Hollywood types. The show is about a guy who is a super hero. His power is that he cures cancer. But, he can only get the power by raping women. And the tag line of the show is "he rapes but he saves." The ultimate payoff of the bit is when he starts talking about Dr. Cosby. He talks about the moral dilemma, really all of us face, but particularly Black Americans face with dealing with Dr. Cosby's legacy.

Bill Cosby made an indelible mark on American culture, particularly African American culture. There is a direct correlation between the popularity of a "A Different World" and an increase in higher education rates among AA's. He has spent millions on education for AA's. His art, his stand up and tv show, had an almost unquantifiable effect on the image of Blacks in this country. He essentially resuscitated NBC and possibly saved the sitcom genre.

And, yet, through all of that goodwill, all those years of humanitarian "saving," we now know he was raping countless women. And that sucks. Because I can't just abandon what he means to my culture, to me. The countless memories tied to his art. But my morality, my ethics, my HUMANITY, won't allow me to turn a blind eye to who the man is, in totality. I can't watch the Cosby Show and feel the same way. I can't look at my past, my history, and celebrate it the same as before, knowing what I know now. And...that's okay.

So, as Chappelle would say, here is my n***a lesson for White America. Yall ready? America = Dr. Cosby. "It rapes but it saves." But, probably more appropriately, "it saves but it rapes." This country has done some wonderful, amazing things. Heroic things. Honorable things. I feel blessed to have been born here and if you asked me now, could I have been born anywhere, where would I pick, I would say America no question.

And for most White Americans, that is the end of the story. That is the America of your dreams, your heritage, your legacy. "American exceptionalism." But, for an American that looks like me, there is more to the story. Let me repeat that. FOR AN AMERICAN...yes, I am an American, and my story, my heritage, my legacy, my dreams or perhaps, my nightmare deserves to be told as openly, as proudly, as truthfully as yours. And if that infringes on your sensibilities, shatters your perception on what you thought, and shocks you out of your less informed bubble, well, forgive me when I say too forking bad.

Embellish would be to just speak of the American exceptionalism and not speak of the heinous, horrible things this country has done and is still doing. To not be clear on the origins of our institutions and speak honestly about their the effects of those institutions today. To summarize chattel slavery as "the European settlers abused others" is a level of disrespect that I don't give you permission to disregard my AMERICAN ancestors in such a way.



Perhaps teaching history properly could help answer that.

 

[Paul]

Embellish?! "The European settlers abused others." That's your summation on chattel slavery in the US? Good grief. I appreciate your contribution and participation in the discussion but I must admit much of your commentary borders on white savior and white victimization. A little too much for my liking.

The slavery can be described in great detail without demonizing the white people of 2021. Blaming a group of people for the past when they were not around is not useful. Teaching history is just teaching history without demeaning or putting down others. The slave owners are dead. If your great great grand father committed murder I am quite certain you are not guilty.

Jon Stewart said something on a podcast the other day that stuck with me. "Their whole thing is "we're censored" right? As always, the right is always the victim in any conversation. At a time of racial unrest, where 400 years of you know, degradation, they want to make themselves the victim of this moment."

Victimhood for ongoing issues that are seen problematic is probably more valid than victimhood for issues that are over 100 years old. Embracing the role of the noble victim is never a good thing and not recommended by psychologists. I acknowledge this likely sounds uncaring to you, but accept it as tough love.

Now, I disagree with Jon's framing of it as "the right" because I would substitute White America. Although, more persons with this mindset politically probably identify on the right, to me, that really isn't salient to the larger issue. It's bigger than politics to me. But, his point is sound. In this time of racial unrest, a racial reckoning, a time when most of us acknowledge we still live in an unequal society, still operate within institutions that are biased, and, yes, racist, in what should be an effort to say "how can we teach our history in a way that properly contexualizes, identifies, represents and honors ALL Americans, and do it truthfully" White America, again, has found a way to shift the discussion to THEMSELVES. To make themselves victims in this. And you're not.

Teach the history with no incendiary insulting remarks. No problems. The history speaks for itself.

Chappelle has a bit in one of his stand-ups where he pitches a TV show to some Hollywood types. The show is about a guy who is a super hero. His power is that he cures cancer. But, he can only get the power by raping women. And the tag line of the show is "he rapes but he saves." The ultimate payoff of the bit is when he starts talking about Dr. Cosby. He talks about the moral dilemma, really all of us face, but particularly Black Americans face with dealing with Dr. Cosby's legacy.

Bill Cosby made an indelible mark on American culture, particularly African American culture. There is a direct correlation between the popularity of a "A Different World" and an increase in higher education rates among AA's. He has spent millions on education for AA's. His art, his stand up and tv show, had an almost unquantifiable effect on the image of Blacks in this country. He essentially resuscitated NBC and possibly saved the sitcom genre.

And, yet, through all of that goodwill, all those years of humanitarian "saving," we now know he was raping countless women. And that sucks. Because I can't just abandon what he means to my culture, to me. The countless memories tied to his art. But my morality, my ethics, my HUMANITY, won't allow me to turn a blind eye to who the man is, in totality. I can't watch the Cosby Show and feel the same way. I can't look at my past, my history, and celebrate it the same as before, knowing what I know now. And...that's okay.

So, as Chappelle would say, here is my n***a lesson for White America. Yall ready? America = Dr. Cosby. "It rapes but it saves." But, probably more appropriately, "it saves but it rapes." This country has done some wonderful, amazing things. Heroic things. Honorable things. I feel blessed to have been born here and if you asked me now, could I have been born anywhere, where would I pick, I would say America no question.

And for most White Americans, that is the end of the story. That is the America of your dreams, your heritage, your legacy. "American exceptionalism." But, for an American that looks like me, there is more to the story. Let me repeat that. FOR AN AMERICAN...yes, I am an American, and my story, my heritage, my legacy, my dreams or perhaps, my nightmare deserves to be told as openly, as proudly, as truthfully as yours. And if that infringes on your sensibilities, shatters your perception on what you thought, and shocks you out of your less informed bubble, well, forgive me when I say too forking bad.

That was an exceptional statement and I agree with all of it. However, the injuries need to be put behind so America can heal. I am reminded of the husband that was unfaithful to his wife and decides to try to heal his marriage. Meanwhile the wife reminds her husband everyday about what a crappy hideous man he is for for being unfaithful. One day the husband says I've had enough and walks away.

Embellish would be to just speak of the American exceptionalism and not speak of the heinous, horrible things this country has done and is still doing. To not be clear on the origins of our institutions and speak honestly about their the effects of those institutions today. To summarize chattel slavery as "the European settlers abused others" is a level of disrespect that I don't give you permission to disregard my AMERICAN ancestors in such a way.

You are free to feel that way, but healing will be quite difficult, if not impossible

 

[MT15]

Paul, I would suggest that your objections to CRT involve a bit of “noble victimhood”. It’s pretty ironic, IMO, that some people take such deeply held offense to a few thought exercises done in school (which I will agree are sometimes done in a ham fisted way and should be carefully thought out and supervised).

It seems to me that the reaction to these thought exercises (which are NOT CRT, BTW) from conservatives has been extreme. And the culmination of these extreme reactions has manifested itself as attempts to regulate speech in the classroom. More irony.

And now I get to read you telling an African American poster who himself has experienced racism in his lifetime, that he needs to basically “get over it”, while at the same time you are being indignant about some thought exercises that may have hurt some feelings. Incongruent is the word that came to mind if I’m being nice. Patronizing if I’m not.

 

[Paul]

Paul, I would suggest that your objections to CRT involve a bit of “noble victimhood”. It’s pretty ironic, IMO, that some people take such deeply held offense to a few thought exercises done in school (which I will agree are sometimes done in a ham fisted way and should be carefully thought out and supervised).

Reverse psychology type remarks only work when the other side is unaware that reverse psychology is used. Nice try guy!

I am a moderate and deeply concern about racism in America. I have been in America for nearly 50 years and racism is less now than in the 1970s. I was not around in the 1950s and early 60s, but i have seen footage on TV. The barriers and hurdles were easy to see and define. The civil rights advocates of that era were heroes. And by the way many were white. I see some progress and refuse to adopt the doom and gloom approach.

Teaching history as it was is fine as long as there are no derogatory remarks towards other groups based on their skin color. Fighting racism with racism does not work. I understand there is a natural impulse for payback, but I suggest the high road. As a Latin American I have been discriminated, I never took it personallyy. I simply laughed at the ignorance of others.

The thought exercises are fine as long as there are no incendiary remarks. For example: This is the opening paragraph in page 4 of the proposed math curriculum for Oregon public schools:

This workbook provides teachers an opportunity to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by making visible the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.

https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf

The manifesto is riddled with anti white rhetoric and claims western teachers make math racist. This is the sort of issue that would cause some protest. Otherwise, i am all for a special math curriculum designed for POC. But, why add the hateful rhetoric? Is it resentment? Resentment is like personally taking poison and expecting your opponent to die from the poison. Why not present a more moderate approach that promotes unity rather than division.

It seems to me that the reaction to these thought exercises (which are NOT CRT, BTW) from conservatives has been extreme. And the culmination of these extreme reactions has manifested itself as attempts to regulate speech in the classroom. More irony.

I agree, I suspect that the number of classrooms where incendiary remarks have been made is quite small. Furthermore, pubic schools have been teaching classes of inclusivity and diversity for some time with no issues. You are correct in saying right Republicans are running with this issue and they see it as a great tactic to attract voters. Why in the world would the left want to give free ammunition to the right? This is not about freedom of speech. Some subjects are not appropriate for children. Furthermore public schools should be centered on academics rather than adult type political issues.

And now I get to read you telling an African American poster who himself has experienced racism in his lifetime, that he needs to basically “get over it”, while at the same time you are being indignant about some thought exercises that may have hurt some feelings. Incongruent is the word that came to mind if I’m being nice. Patronizing if I’m not.

No one denies the atrocities, but I suspect at one point we move on as a nation. You either try to fix the marriage or get a divorce. No point in supporting perennial conflict. Let's work together and leave behind the tribal confrontational manner.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Paul -

First @MT15 is not a guy.

Second she isn’t one to try mind games so I don’t think she was trying reverse psychology.

Third, you mentioned that the civil rights leaders “were” heroes. I would vehemently disagree with this statement. While a few now are revered, they all were hated at time. And most still are.

Fred Hampton, Malcolm X, Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton for example are all still villified to this day (though I would venture most don’t recognize many of the names on that list). and the name that most do know (X), is notorious and not synonymous with civil rights despite mostly everything anyone thinks they know about him is false.)

And in the 1960’s, even the known leaders were hated by basically the whole (white) country. We have made progress. I would say in the 60’s the numbers would be reversed and the majority of white Americans still supported segregation on some level. Today, I do not believe most would like to revert to segregation but the percentage that would is not small nor insignificant.

I mean, we celebrate Dr. King’s birthday. But do we really? We watch a 5 second blip of his I have a dream speech (at best) and act like we know the man. Then we go to Target for 20% off stuff.

Juneteenth was treated as a takeover not a step towards reconciliation.

And finally, the point you made about how so many civil rights leaders who are known are white makes a fantastic point; I just don’t think it was the one you were trying to make.

 

[Paul]

@Paul -

First @MT15 is not a guy.

Second she isn’t one to try mind games so I don’t think she was trying reverse psychology.

Third, you mentioned that the civil rights leaders “were” heroes. I would vehemently disagree with this statement. While a few now are revered, they all were hated at time. And most still are.

Fred Hampton, Malcolm X, Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton for example are all still villified to this day (though I would venture most don’t recognize many of the names on that list). and the name that most do know (X), is notorious and not synonymous with civil rights despite mostly everything anyone thinks they know about him is false.)

And in the 1960’s, even the known leaders were hated by basically the whole (white) country. We have made progress. I would say in the 60’s the numbers would be reversed and the majority of white Americans still supported segregation on some level. Today, I do not believe most would like to revert to segregation but the percentage that would is not small nor insignificant.

I mean, we celebrate Dr. King’s birthday. But do we really? We watch a 5 second blip of his I have a dream speech (at best) and act like we know the man. Then we go to Target for 20% off stuff.

Juneteenth was treated as a takeover not a step towards reconciliation.

And finally, the point you made about how so many civil rights leaders who are known are white makes a fantastic point; I just don’t think it was the one you were trying to make.

I have six grand children (five girls and one boy). I called them guys. It is just a colloquial thing.


In the old days the barriers and hurdles were massive and easy to see and define. Colored only signs, back of the bus, school segregation, police brutality, red lining, etc. The list is long. I venture to say that at some level it was easier to fight for justice when the hurdles were so clearly defined and visible. And you are correct, most Americans were very racists. I do not like to judge people from the past with a 2021 mindset (presentism). However, the racism is relatively recent and therefore presentism does not apply.

It was evil to the core, however, I have to say it again. We are moving in the right direction, but I am now seeing methods to fight racism that actually promote racism. Conciliatory remarks work better than acrimonious rhetoric.

I also understand that fighting systemic racism is a 1000 times harder than fighting the racism of the past when the barriers were so easy to see. Saying the entire system is racism elevates racism to an abstract level and hence it is more difficult to combat. Furthermore, the system is made up of a few elites and not the average Joe Blows in the street. Specifically pinpointing the enemy is not easy and hence people tend to speak in general terms. And to make matters worse sometimes the systems that are seen as racists are under the control of the left.

 

[CoolBrees]

I agree that we are going too far to hold our ancestry to the standards of today. That is a negative sum game. But CRT doesn’t do that. It simply highlights the racial undertones that existed, and in many cases still exist today, in societal systems, like voting, employment and educational opportunities to name a few. Are you suggesting they didn’t exist?

Could you be so kind as to expound upon this: “I am now seeing methods to fight racism that actually promote racism. Conciliatory remarks work better than acrimonious rhetoric.”

And maybe provide an live example of the former sentence.