Critical race theory (7 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.

 

[Saintamaniac]

My point is trying to argue where does it eventually end, I'm sure CRT and 1619 has extremely strong, valid historically substantiative conclusions, but where is the eventual end game?

Conservatives aren't saying or using this exact rhetoric or logic, yet at least, because they think the MSM will crush and ridicule it as propesterous, and extreme but I truly believe when some of them see or read CRT curriculum, their minds start getting imaginative and they foresee something like Fahrenheit 451 occuring in the distant future. Anyone's who's read the novel or saw the good HBO original TV movie starring Michael B. Jordan and Michael Shannon that came out 2-3 years ago will know what I'm referring to and if you haven't, I highly recommend it. Maybe I'm wrong in how I think that could be one of their privately-held motivations and opinions discussed in what's one of their primary reasons, on the surface, at least.

Probably could/should have saved the Great Wall of Text to get to the point you are attempting to make. However, IMO, the point you are attempting to make is the same point that was made arguing against ending slavery, the same point made to deny voting rights and the same point that was made during integration. It is as invalid now as it was then.

Non-trumpian media outlets will ridicule it and crush it as preposterous because it is. The point you're arguing supposes that teaching the true history of our country, the role of slavery in our history and the impact of the enslaved not being seen as human on the founding language of our country as leading to some kind of dystopian future is exactly preposterous. Your argument can be condensed down "the truth is dangerous."

The truth is only dangerous to those who profit from the lie.

 

[bird]

There is an old saw that the winners write the history. To a great degree this is true. That being said any history is bound to have particular bias based upon a host of things including geographic space-time, the position of the writer in terms of superior (not superior in value but by accident of position) or inferior position (”winner”, “loser”), length of time occupying geographic space-time (how long have they been there) etc. In the case of American history we suffer from multiple problems dealing with our past/present/potential future. The first in not particular order is the original sin of destruction of indigenous peoples, the second is the original sin of slavery and the third is the original sin of exceptionalism. This does not even take into account women who have throughout all of history usually, but not always, been forced into proscribed roles.

Expecting humans loaded with conflicting belief structures, biases and preconceived notions to gladly accept a history which may be diametrically opposed to the agitprop pablum which they were fed from birth is wishful thinking. Does this mean it should not be done? Of course not. What is does mean is the process will be extremely long and filled with rancor. People as individuals may change after much discussion and education. People in the aggregate are scared, provincial and rigid.

Of more importance is the question of how the RW and it is generally the RW is and will be reacting to this change and, ultimately, destruction of American Theomythology. Look at the statement from the counties in Eastern Oregon that want to secede and join Idaho. The term “Americanism” appeared. That is dangerous in the extreme.

Do not expect this battle to end in your lifetime. It won’t happen that fast. Unfortunately, racing alongside is the goal of the RW to destroy democracy. That is far likely to happen first.

 

[RebSaint]

Again, someone a little more clever could also take this theory and its applications and expand this much further to everything about Western civilization, even back to the ancient Greeks, Romans, their cultural, political, religious ideals, concepts, Western classical literature, legendary operas, concertos, plays classical and Western Enlightenment philosophes are incontrovertibly racist, have unconsciously, subconsciously, or knowingly 2-3,000 thousand years of supremacist, ethnocentric overtones and that fundamentally its usefulness, utility is discredited, meaningfulness, is at an end and that is belongs in the intellectual "dustin of history". Marx, Engels, Trotsky, other late 19th and 20th century left-wing intellectuals, philosophers, lawmakers were as Euro centric as the laissez-faire, decadent immoral and unethical bourgeiouse they despised and wanted to be overthrown. Marx and Engels believed Russians were backward, incorrigable peasant society that could never successfully try a workers, proletariat revolution, they would've found even the concept of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution asinine and that Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev were idiotic, fanciful delusional fools. Sure 19th and 20th century communist/orthodox Marxists may have found other non-European cultures, civilizations fascinating, wondrous beyond belief but do you really think they believed they belived those same civilizations or cultures were as equal as their Eurocentric reflections and centuries of descended-upon indoctrination, beliefs of superiority. Marx and Engels likely wouldve scoffed and ridiculed at people like AOC, Illam Omar, Tlalib and the notion that they were idealogically equal or that their countries all these women's ancestors immigrated from could successfully build or construct a pure Marxist-Leninist anarcho-communist state. These women's ancestors, to Marx and Engels, came from mostly rural, backward, scarcely industrialized superstitious societies still controlled by autocratic clergy or a decaying, quickly rotting and disintegrating Ottoman Empire that everyone believed 125 years ago would collapse(l
Google "Eastern Question" to get more detailed specifics.

My point is trying to argue where does it eventually end, I'm sure CRT and 1619 has extremely strong, valid historically substantiative conclusions, but where is the eventual end game? How do we know some vindictive, CRL theorists with ulterior motives and agendas, take these ideas and radicalize them turning their attention to newer targets? Most progressives seem to believe some of these ideas can be kept moderate, and that someone eventually won't distort it and out-manuever or tout they have "better credentials" and incapable of no longer giving informed opinions on the matter.

What we believe to be rational, logically scientific ideas or movements could 150 years from now might be seen as well-intentioned or well-meaning, but was hijacked, manipulated, and distorted and didn't lead to the ultimate long-term social progress its promoters and advocates wholeheartedly believed it would or we're so sure they'd covered every little eventuality or potential flaw. That's not fear-mongering, or being cynical its recorded, historical facts and consensus.

Conservatives aren't saying or using this exact rhetoric or logic, yet at least, because they think the MSM will crush and ridicule it as propesterous, and extreme but I truly believe when some of them see or read CRT curriculum, their minds start getting imaginative and they foresee something like Fahrenheit 451 occuring in the distant future. Anyone's who's read the novel or saw the good HBO original TV movie starring Michael B. Jordan and Michael Shannon that came out 2-3 years ago will know what I'm referring to and if you haven't, I highly recommend it. Maybe I'm wrong in how I think that could be one of their privately-held motivations and opinions discussed in what's one of their primary reasons, on the surface, at least.

I could probably ask this question for just about every one of your posts going back, say 15 yrs or so, and maybe I'm going to regret this question, but what is your point here? Because there's a lot of heat here, but very little light.

 

[Saintman2884]

Probably could/should have saved the Great Wall of Text to get to the point you are attempting to make. However, IMO, the point you are attempting to make is the same point that was made arguing against ending slavery, the same point made to deny voting rights and the same point that was made during integration. It is as invalid now as it was then.

Non-trumpian media outlets will ridicule it and crush it as preposterous because it is. The point you're arguing supposes that teaching the true history of our country, the role of slavery in our history and the impact of the enslaved not being seen as human on the founding language of our country as leading to some kind of dystopian future is exactly preposterous. Your argument can be condensed down "the truth is dangerous."

The truth is only dangerous to those wh

I could probably ask this question for just about every one of your posts going back, say 15 yrs or so, and maybe I'm going to regret this question, but what is your point here? Because there's a lot of heat here, but very little light.

My point is is that CRT has certainly lot of very strong, meaningful benefits academically and I'm not opposed to it being taught but I feel, like they need to broaden their scope a bit. America wasnt alone in being guilty of being involved in and profiting from the "Middle Passage" or the mid-Atlantic slave trade, the Dutch, French, British, Spanish were as well long before we officially achieved independence in 1783.

Again, lets broaden the discussion to see the history, butt area of slavery, and its long-lasting lefacy effects modern British, French, Dutch culture from an institutional standpoint, or cultural assimilation? A deep, nuanced, multi-disciplined comparative historical analysis where we can discuss how slavery and its many rooted, persisting legacies affect not just us but also modern UK, France, or even Holland. Its not as well known as its U.S. counter part, but Afro-Caribbean immigrants, immigrants and even refugees from Britain's former African colonies like Nigeria, Kenya had their own fight and struggle for civil rights in UK during the early 1960's that doesn't get discussed nearly as much as it should.

Lets broaden the argument or its scope so that HS or college students can know about this discussion of how racism, bigotry and race-based discrimination effects minorities in those countries or from European imperialism still creates these subconscious residual effects?

 

[RebSaint]

Okay, well I cannot speak for other disciplines like sociology or anthropology, but historians utilize CRT to examine all of those topics, esp. slavery from a much deeper and non-superficial way as you describe. And I agree with your premise and do those very things in my courses.

 

[zztop]

Of more importance is the question of how the RW and it is generally the RW is and will be reacting to this change and, ultimately, destruction of American Theomythology. Look at the statement from the counties in Eastern Oregon that want to secede and join Idaho. The term “Americanism” appeared. That is dangerous in the extreme.

yep, a while back Tom Cotton saying slavery was a "necessary evil" to today where I saw Rick Santorum say “We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here,” “I mean, yes, we have Native Americans, but candidly, there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”

 

[bird]

yep, a while back Tom Cotton saying slavery was a "necessary evil" to today where I saw Rick Santorum say “We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here,” “I mean, yes, we have Native Americans, but candidly, there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”

Yeah, as I said elsewhere: God save us from mediocre white men.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, as I said elsewhere: God save us from mediocre white men.

Or better yet, ignorant ones.

 

[bird]

Or better yet, ignorant ones.

That too.

 

[Saintman2884]

Yeah, as I said elsewhere: God save us from mediocre white men.

I think God could or if you've read the Bible and believe it has some theological or existential merit to how we, as human beings treat other, God should save us from ourselves and I mean that in the sense that we're often our own worst enemies. Whether its Marxist-Leninism, Capitalism, Fascism, Puritanism, or Maoism, or fundamentalist Islamic theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia, there's always been, occasionally, the wrong type of idealogues who hijack legitimate reform movements, radicalize them, and turn ordinary, law-abiding men into willing mass murderers. Google "The Lucifer Effect", a study done by eminent UCLA behavioral psychologist Philip Lombardo and his findings, observations on his now-famous 1970 Stanford Prison experiment.

Then, if you want more information, do a little research on Stanley Milligram's early 1960's " Fear and Obedience" social experiments. If you're a cynic or have a overly pessimistic view towards human nature or God forbid even worse, a misanthrope, some of their observations, findings, and research techniques werent very flattering to human nature as a whole and could be positive reinforcement again to hardline pessimists and misanthropes.

 

[Saintman2884]

Or better yet, ignorant ones.

Dave, as a former minister and saying this to you as a man was raised Catholic, speaking universally, God has had to save us from ourselves and if you read the Bible, personally intervene to prevent us from sliding into moral decay, despotism, and all-out violence. Why do you think God told Noah to build an Ark and bring two of every living (kosher) species on board and try to argue, browbeat, and convince any skeptics living around him that a deadly deluge was about to happen and that they, their families, friends, and entire world would be obliberated while Noah was in the process of building such an Ark?

In the Tower of Babel story in Genesis, the character Nimrod has always struck me as a forking idiot and his followers gullible fools by deriving this stupid, asinine concept of building a ziggarut that would rise so high into the heavens that he, Nimrod, could invade and de-throne God and take revenge for what he'd done to their disbelieving, wicked ancestors killed in the Flood. That was one of the reasons pointed out in Genesis and Apocryphal extra-Biblical texts why he decided to construct it and that this ziggarut would be a safe holdout in case of a future, worldwide deluge. That and also he wanted to set a one-world, tyrannical regime where all then-living peoples on Earth still spoke the same dialect and language. My own personal view is that God should've just destroyed Nimrod and his followers for being stupid idiots for even conceiving much less, building their huge "Stairway to Heaven" vanity project without considering elevation sickness, lack of oxygen, or breathable air once builders, carpenters, and engineers started baking and laying bricks once they reached higher elevation, they'd all start dropping like flies or birds who ingested DDT back in the 1950's and 60's.

 

[bird]

I think God could or if you've read the Bible and believe it has some theological or existential merit to how we, as human beings treat other, God should save us from ourselves and I mean that in the sense that we're often our own worst enemies. Whether its Marxist-Leninism, Capitalism, Fascism, Puritanism, or Maoism, or fundamentalist Islamic theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia, there's always been, occasionally, the wrong type of idealogues who hijack legitimate reform movements, radicalize them, and turn ordinary, law-abiding men into willing mass murderers. Google "The Lucifer Effect", a study done by eminent UCLA behavioral psychologist Philip Lombardo and his findings, observations on his now-famous 1970 Stanford Prison experiment.

Then, if you want more information, do a little research on Stanley Milligram's early 1960's " Fear and Obedience" social experiments. If you're a cynic or have a overly pessimistic view towards human nature or God forbid even worse, a misanthrope, some of their observations, findings, and research techniques werent very flattering to human nature as a whole and could be positive reinforcement again to hardline pessimists and misanthropes.

Yeah, I am aware of the Stanford experiment as well as the Milgram experiment. What they showed me is simply that man is an animal that is capable of achieving great things but that can just as easily creat terrible things. The so-called veneer of civilization is very thin and too easily discarded. Cooperation among humans is too often limited to tribal groups unless the particular situation warrants cannon fodder in which case cooperation is couched in grand terminology agitprop that allows some groups to prosper/live in relative safety while others die.

 

[Saintamaniac]

If you really want to know whether CRT is a good thing or a bad thing, look no further than who is vehemently opposed to it. Once you look at that, ask yourself why one group would be vehemently against the truth. Trump and the Republican party is the party of lies. Everything they stand for is based on lies. CRT is a direct threat to them and their plans.

The saying doesn't go "your beliefs will set you free." It doesn't say "your opinions will set you free" and it doesn't say "your narrative will set you free." It says that "the truth shall set you free." Anything other than the truth becomes a way to imprison people. Republicans have their supporters in a prison of lies and they are hell bent in making sure that no truth reaches them.

The only reason CRT is a problem for Republicans is because CRT is a threat to their base of support. How anyone could argue that telling the truth opens the door to abuse is beyond my understanding. Essentially the argument becomes "if you tell the truth about slavery, where does it end? What else are you going to tell the truth about? What if someone goes further and examines early western civilization and tells the truth about that too?" My question to those people would be when has the truth ever been a danger? The only thing endangered by the truth is the lie used to cover it up.

 

[bird]

Dave, as a former minister and saying this to you as a man was raised Catholic, speaking universally, God has had to save us from ourselves and if you read the Bible, personally intervene to prevent us from sliding into moral decay, despotism, and all-out violence. Why do you think God told Noah to build an Ark and bring two of every living (kosher) species on board and try to argue, browbeat, and convince any skeptics living around him that a deadly deluge was about to happen and that they, their families, friends, and entire world would be obliberated while Noah was in the process of building such an Ark?

In the Tower of Babel story in Genesis, the character Nimrod has always struck me as a forking idiot and his followers gullible fools by deriving this stupid, asinine concept of building a ziggarut that would rise so high into the heavens that he, Nimrod, could invade and de-throne God and take revenge for what he'd done to their disbelieving, wicked ancestors killed in the Flood. That was one of the reasons pointed out in Genesis and Apocryphal extra-Biblical texts why he decided to construct it and that this ziggarut would be a safe holdout in case of a future, worldwide deluge. That and also he wanted to set a one-world, tyrannical regime where all then-living peoples on Earth still spoke the same dialect and language. My own personal view is that God should've just destroyed Nimrod and his followers for being stupid idiots for even conceiving much less, building their huge "Stairway to Heaven" vanity project without considering elevation sickness, lack of oxygen, or breathable air once builders, carpenters, and engineers started baking and laying bricks once they reached higher elevation, they'd all start dropping like flies or birds who ingested DDT back in the 1950's and 60's.

Minor problem. Noah was commanded to take 7 pairs of each clean animal and 1 pair of each unclean animal and seven pairs of all birds. Eh.

 

[SystemShock]

Dave, as a former minister and saying this to you as a man was raised Catholic, speaking universally, God has had to save us from ourselves and if you read the Bible, personally intervene to prevent us from sliding into moral decay, despotism, and all-out violence. Why do you think God told Noah to build an Ark and bring two of every living (kosher) species on board and try to argue, browbeat, and convince any skeptics living around him that a deadly deluge was about to happen and that they, their families, friends, and entire world would be obliberated while Noah was in the process of building such an Ark?

In the Tower of Babel story in Genesis, the character Nimrod has always struck me as a forking idiot and his followers gullible fools by deriving this stupid, asinine concept of building a ziggarut that would rise so high into the heavens that he, Nimrod, could invade and de-throne God and take revenge for what he'd done to their disbelieving, wicked ancestors killed in the Flood. That was one of the reasons pointed out in Genesis and Apocryphal extra-Biblical texts why he decided to construct it and that this ziggarut would be a safe holdout in case of a future, worldwide deluge. That and also he wanted to set a one-world, tyrannical regime where all then-living peoples on Earth still spoke the same dialect and language. My own personal view is that God should've just destroyed Nimrod and his followers for being stupid idiots for even conceiving much less, building their huge "Stairway to Heaven" vanity project without considering elevation sickness, lack of oxygen, or breathable air once builders, carpenters, and engineers started baking and laying bricks once they reached higher elevation, they'd all start dropping like flies or birds who ingested DDT back in the 1950's and 60's.

A lot to digest there, but that's what happens when you have ancient stories written by peasants understood for you, and believe what is said in fictitious and/or erroneous texts of dubious origins. Goes without saying I don't believe any of it, but in any case:

Genesis itself doesn't say much about Nimrod (6-7 passages), other than his genealogy, that he was a mighty warrior and hunter, and tersely describes his kingdom... which (side note) being that he was the grandson of Noah and first generation born after the flood, how many people could have possibly been born of incestuous relations in one generation that Nimrod's kingdom included Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, Kalneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth, and how could Caleh have been a great city?

As for the story of Babel, there is more to it than just the tower.

Genesis 11:1-7
11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there. 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

The text is very clear. It says Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower, not just the tower (there's something to be said about a timeless, spaceless metaphysical being who's supposedly everywhere "coming down" from anything to see anything... I digress). It is also very clear that the tower itself was not the issue, but the things people could achieve if they worked together was.

In the end, Yahweh failed. Babylon's moniker is the Cradle of Civilization; we not only have multiple towers that reach the heavens, but we have reached other planets and peered beyond our galaxy; and more importantly, we now speak the language of science, which makes our possibilities endless.

 

[DaveXA]

If you really want to know whether CRT is a good thing or a bad thing, look no further than who is vehemently opposed to it. Once you look at that, ask yourself why one group would be vehemently against the truth. Trump and the Republican party is the party of lies. Everything they stand for is based on lies. CRT is a direct threat to them and their plans.

The saying doesn't go "your beliefs will set you free." It doesn't say "your opinions will set you free" and it doesn't say "your narrative will set you free." It says that "the truth shall set you free." Anything other than the truth becomes a way to imprison people. Republicans have their supporters in a prison of lies and they are hell bent in making sure that no truth reaches them.

The only reason CRT is a problem for Republicans is because CRT is a threat to their base of support. How anyone could argue that telling the truth opens the door to abuse is beyond my understanding. Essentially the argument becomes "if you tell the truth about slavery, where does it end? What else are you going to tell the truth about? What if someone goes further and examines early western civilization and tells the truth about that too?" My question to those people would be when has the truth ever been a danger? The only thing endangered by the truth is the lie used to cover it up.

That's all well and good, but, I'd rather judge it on it's own merits, not based on what any particular group thinks it is. Precisely my reasoning for posting the question in the first place. I don't want the CRT critics opinion. I already have a good idea what that is. I wanted to know what it actually is and includes.

I think a holistic approach to history, one that includes to good, the bad and the ugly in any look at our country's and world history Is what we should strive for. Leaving something out or excessively emphasizing one point of view leaves us with an incomplete or warped view of history.

And I agree, the truth matters, but even the perception of that truth can vary depending on who you talk to, so how to present that truth will always be open to debate.

For example, the history of the Pacific campaign in WWII will be written much differently in Japan than it would be here in the US. Historians in both countries will no doubt write their accounts much differently.

That's obviously the case between the US and England after the fight for the country's independence. The classrooms in each country probably tells a different story.

 

[bird]

That's all well and good, but, I'd rather judge it on it's own merits, not based on what any particular group thinks it is. Precisely my reasoning for posting the question in the first place. I don't want the CRT critics opinion. I already have a good idea what that is. I wanted to know what it actually is and includes.

I think a holistic approach to history, one that includes to good, the bad and the ugly in any look at our country's and world history Is what we should strive for. Leaving something out or excessively emphasizing one point of view leaves us with an incomplete or warped view of history.

And I agree, the truth matters, but even the perception of that truth can vary depending on who you talk to, so how to present that truth will always be open to debate.

For example, the history of the Pacific campaign in WWII will be written much differently in Japan than it would be here in the US. Historians in both countries will no doubt write their accounts much differently.

That's obviously the case between the US and England after the fight for the country's independence. The classrooms in each country probably tells a different story.

One of my favorite examples is the “we defeated Nazism” when FDR counted on the Soviets to do the bleeding.

 

[DaveXA]

One of my favorite examples is the “we defeated Nazism” when FDR counted on the Soviets to do the bleeding.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, we suffered a lot of casualties advancing on the western front, but yeah, the Soviets did a lot of the heavy lifting for sure.