What is CRT?

[RDKirk]

Is it possible Jesus' notion of a narrow way and the chosen people being who he initially talked to could have fed into colonialist and racist norms that persisted into American culture and history, especially if we factor in other related aspects like manifest destiny and the application of the Great Commission in "civilizing the savages"?

It was already understood by 1600s that the occasions Jesus appeared "anti-gentile" were ironic lessons to His Jewish audience. Nobody in those days took Jesus as actually being anti-gentile. That is a very recent atheist-inspired interpretation.

 

[RDKirk]

So the question is why do you seem to dismiss the idea of race as a valid sociological and anthropological category and try to unify people under some idea that seems to ignore the myriad other ways we are different?

Celebrating diversity (by acknowledging the differences that exist, such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc) is a far better notion of unifying rather than just some idea that's antiquated in the notion of trying to not be racist, but also almost seems more redundant in these modern times, as if people are still unsure about whether dark skinned people are the same species as light skinned people

Does anyone really want to "celebrate diversity?" Really?

No, rather people may be willing to celebrate certain surface elements--music, hair styles, food choices--things that don't really make any difference.

But culture goes down to the bones of epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. What is "good," what is "valuable," what is "true?" Nobody is really willing to "celebrate" every other culture's concepts of right, wrong, justice, and injustice. Nobody is really willing to "celebrate" every other culture's concepts of truth, or the worth of life, or concepts of human rights.

At depth, "celebrating diversity" is an error of either ignorant naiveite or a calculated political falsehood.

 

[muichimotsu]

Does anyone really want to "celebrate diversity?" Really?

No, rather people may be willing to celebrate certain surface elements--music, hair styles, food choices--things that don't really make any difference.

But culture goes down to the bones of epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. What is "good," what is "valuable," what is "true?" Nobody is really willing to "celebrate" every other culture's concepts of right, wrong, justice, and injustice. Nobody is really willing to "celebrate" every other culture's concepts of truth, or the worth of life, or concepts of human rights.

At depth, "celebrating diversity" is an error of either ignorant naiveite or a calculated political falsehood.

Celebrating diversity does not mean doing so as if everything is absolutely equal, no one remotely claims that with any honesty that is a common manifestation, so at best you're cherrypicking and at worst you're strawmanning dishonestly.

Celebrating and acknowledging racial differences as part of human beauty and such is not that complicated, freaking Sesame Street does it and there isn't some agenda there

And diversity is not primarily or exclusively about culture, you're oversimplifying to create this strawman where you can dismiss it as naive or a conspiracy instead of considering that your understanding is biased and skewed because apparently the idea of celebrating differences is threatening to a comfortable existence where you're not challenged.

 

[muichimotsu]

It was already understood by 1600s that the occasions Jesus appeared "anti-gentile" were ironic lessons to His Jewish audience. Nobody in those days took Jesus as actually being anti-gentile. That is a very recent atheist-inspired interpretation.

Nice try, but this isn't something I learned from atheists, it was decidedly a Christian line of thought that acknowledged there were prejudices. Or are Episcopalians just atheists in disguise now? Not sure why the 1600s are that relevant either in the idea that Biblical scholarship was just stagnated and everyone before that was just anti Semitic Christians (as if anti semitism in Christianity is not just glossed over and treated like a "joke"), even though that was the case for the Middle Ages in Europe for a time

Trying to act like Jesus was without prejudice and claiming he was "just joking" sounds suspiciously like trying to defend a sex offender by saying they didn't mean anything bad by it they were just "complimenting" a girl and she took it the wrong way.

This is also the difference between devotional and academic study, the former lends itself far more to making excuses for the inviolable messiah and not considering that the literature may imply something that would be uncomfortable to your perspective that they can do no wrong, almost on the level of cognitive dissonance a cult tries to quash.

 

[RDKirk]

Celebrating diversity does not mean doing so as if everything is absolutely equal, no one remotely claims that with any honesty that is a common manifestation, so at best you're cherrypicking and at worst you're strawmanning dishonestly.

Celebrating and acknowledging racial differences as part of human beauty and such is not that complicated, freaking Sesame Street does it and there isn't some agenda there

And diversity is not primarily or exclusively about culture, you're oversimplifying to create this strawman where you can dismiss it as naive or a conspiracy instead of considering that your understanding is biased and skewed because apparently the idea of celebrating differences is threatening to a comfortable existence where you're not challenged.

Read through my topic on "Chit'lin' Culture" and come back and tell me that.

The people who are "cherry picking" are the ones who talk about "celebrating diversity" without qualification. The real qualification is, "celebrate people who are like us in all the ways we think are really important." The ancient Romans even celebrated diversity to that extent.

 

[muichimotsu]

Read through my topic on "Chit'lin' Culture" and come back and tell me that.

The people who are "cherry picking" are the ones who talk about "celebrating diversity" without qualification. The real qualification is, "celebrate people who are like us in all the ways we think are really important." The ancient Romans even celebrated diversity to that extent.

So because you can find people that advocate some absolute, that means everyone must agree with them by association? You realize people aren't a monolith right? There's a little thing called nuance that seems to be escaping you based on demonizing diversity while also claiming you support it in a way that is literally cherry picking on its face

 

[RDKirk]

So because you can find people that advocate some absolute, that means everyone must agree with them by association? You realize people aren't a monolith right? There's a little thing called nuance that seems to be escaping you based on demonizing diversity while also claiming you support it in a way that is literally cherry picking on its face

My point is that everyone is cherry picking...like feminists who support Islam.

 

[muichimotsu]

My point is that everyone is cherry picking...like feminists who support Islam.

As if Islam is entirely anti woman: that'd be little different than painting all Christianity as misogynist, rather than pointing out those Christians who demonstrate misogyny. Case by case basis takes more thought, but that's not a bad thing if we're going to be thorough and try our best not to generalize.

Why is it you still sound so threatened by people celebrating diversity, as if they must just accept everything equally rather than acknowledge that diversity should be accepted with a reasonable foundation of respecting human dignity and autonomy (so misogyny is not to be respected, for instance)?

Someone being black is not against that, and it isn't racist to acknowledge that category of race in sociology and anthropology

 

[RDKirk]

Why is it you still sound so threatened by people celebrating diversity, as if they must just accept everything equally rather than acknowledge that diversity should be accepted with a reasonable foundation of respecting human dignity and autonomy (so misogyny is not to be respected, for instance)?

“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” -- Malcolm X

Malcolm X didn't accept any white people as "allies." I don't think the situation is as barren as that, but a close examination of what people most loudly proclaiming "celebration of diversity" are actually doing, particularly with regard to black people, demonstrates that Malcolm X was not wrong to be wary of them.

 

[muichimotsu]

“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” -- Malcolm X

Malcolm X didn't accept any white people as "allies." I don't think the situation is as barren as that, but a close examination of what people most loudly proclaiming "celebration of diversity" are actually doing, particularly with regard to black people, demonstrates that Malcolm X was not wrong to be wary of them.

Who are you going to cite next, Louis Farrakhan? Calling out hypocrisy is not the same thing as painting every white person with a broad brush instead of having some charitable perspective

Loud proclamations don't always reflect the common perspective, just look at the anti vaxxers who throw a fit, yet are in the vast minority as regards vaccine mandates, mask mandates in schools, etc.

Celebrating diversity is not the same as tokenizing black people that Malcolm X and others are right to call out. Treating one expression as if it covers every bad manifestation equally is hasty generalization

 

[RDKirk]

Celebrating diversity is not the same as tokenizing black people that Malcolm X and others are right to call out. Treating one expression as if it covers every bad manifestation equally is hasty generalization

"Celebrating diversity," as it's being preached and practiced, is totally tokenization of cultures.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Celebrating diversity," as it's being preached and practiced, is totally tokenization of cultures.

More myopia, as if what you see is the only manifestation of the expression and isn't a loud minority versus the genuine intent. You want to keep prevaricating and blame shifting?

 

[Tom 1]

Tom, sometimes when someone is asked where they got their information from, it might be a video. This black man is pretty animated while he gives his opinion of CRT and seems to know what CRT is.

People should make their own points, and use a source to back it up if necessary. Just posting some random vid without any explanation of why the poster thinks it is relevant isn’t an adequate way to express an opinion. It isn’t an opinion - it’s a video of someone else’s.

The guy it in the vid has the typical knee-jerk response a lot of people seem to have to the mere mention of CRT, that it’s about ‘oh blacks are oppressed’ blah blah. It’s the same immature response a lot of people have, without even taking the time to find out why that doesn’t explain it adequately by a mile.

If someone has something to say on a topic, they should formulate their own answer, not post someone else’s opinion without the slightest attempt to explain why they think it is useful or adequate. Some guy having a rant doesn’t tell me anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus' anti gentilism was an early part of his ministry and didn't even always manifest in the same way with each gospel, so I'm not painting it with the broad brush you seem to insinuate, since each gospel's author has a different intent and audience they're presenting to, John in particular being the most anti semitic as I recall (ironically, given Jesus is Jewish in ethnicity himself).

The application of CRT to the gospels as to Jesus' situation is debatable as to relevance, since it's more xenophobia than racial based prejudice

On this sub-topic, I'm not going to go into deeper elaboration since I think it's a bit of a tangent from simply focusing on CRT (as Tom has wanted to do in this thread). I'll just say that I think what @RDKirk has said above captures the kind of general response I'd also give.

As for the application of CRT to the Gospels, you may be right---it's actual relevance is debatable and some of whether we think there is an ideological problem regarding justice bleeding from the pages of the New Testament will depend on our individual hermeneutical choices that go into our readings of it (or of selected, specific passages of it-----which actually have to be cited and presented rather than just talked about on the sidelines).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it possible Jesus' notion of a narrow way and the chosen people being who he initially talked to could have fed into colonialist and racist norms that persisted into American culture and history, especially if we factor in other related aspects like manifest destiny and the application of the Great Commission in "civilizing the savages"?

Are you meaning to ask if it is possible that Jesus' statements about a narrow way and a chosen people ... could have been misconstrued and misapplied by some post-1st century Christians?

Yes. I think it is possible, especially since the Church has never been an institution of "perfected saints."

 

[RDKirk]

Are you meaning to ask if it is possible that Jesus' statements about a narrow way and a chosen people ... could have been misconstrued and misapplied by some post-1st century Christians?

Yes. I think it is possible, especially since the Church has never been an institution of "perfected saints."

Except that because those post-1st century Christians were gentiles...their misconstrual was "Jesus was talking about us all the time," whence comes the "replacement" concept.

And that's not wholly out of line...Paul somewhat makes that case in Romans.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So the question is why do you seem to dismiss the idea of race as a valid sociological and anthropological category and try to unify people under some idea that seems to ignore the myriad other ways we are different?

Because I think the term of "race" as it has been thought about in the Modern era is essentially overstocked and superfluous in today's market of ideas. It's not needed. Sure, it can be used by this or that individual or group to accentuate some attention to how biological appearances still play into socially discriminatory practices.

Part of why I say this is represented by the following article, which encapsulates some of the various lines of thought I've had to consider over the past 15 years. Of course, there's more than this, but this is a good place to start, I think:

How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

Celebrating diversity (by acknowledging the differences that exist, such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc) is a far better notion of unifying rather than just some idea that's antiquated in the notion of trying to not be racist, but also almost seems more redundant in these modern times, as if people are still unsure about whether dark skinned people are the same species as light skinned people

... some folks where I live still seem to unfortunately be wrestling with the idea, if not literally then socially.

You see, I think we can still reify the notions about race and ethnicity, doing better to parse them out analytically, and then end up doing ourselves an even larger favor by throwing away the concept of "race" in its various modern usages and just retain the general idea of ethnicity.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that there is an additional layer in all of this that pertains to how I interpret and apply the New Testament. So, I do think that accepting a Christianized version of multi-culturalism is acceptable, but without aligning perfectly with the Postmodern and Secular concepts of that same term, retaining and affirming some but not all of the goals of CRT.

Thus, I have my awareness of "race" influenced by science on the one hand, all the while keeping it in tension with the better parts of philosophy and religion on the other hand, especially where important historical social concerns between ethnic identities are pressing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Except that because those post-1st century Christians were gentiles...their misconstrual was "Jesus was talking about us all the time," whence comes the "replacement" concept.

And that's not wholly out of line...Paul somewhat makes that case in Romans.

Yes, I agree. I think you're right on target about that. Which is why I just want to add (for the sake of anyone else reading) that we today have to urge caution and careful handling, and if possible even more careful handling than was given by early post-1st century Christians, with what the writers of the New Testament literature most likely meant in regard to how they understood race and/or ethnicity among different people groups.

 

[muichimotsu]

Because I think the term of "race" as it has been thought about in the Modern era is essentially overstocked and superfluous in today's market of ideas. It's not needed. Sure, it can be used by this or that individual or group to accentuate some attention to how biological appearances still play into socially discriminatory practices.

Part of why I say this is represented by the following article, which encapsulates some of the various lines of thought I've had to consider over the past 15 years. Of course, there's more than this, but this is a good place to start, I think:

How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

... some folks where I live still seem to unfortunately be wrestling with the idea, if not literally then socially.

You see, I think we can still reify the notions about race and ethnicity, doing better to parse them out analytically, and then end up doing ourselves an even larger favor by throwing away the concept of "race" in its various modern usages and just retain the general idea of ethnicity.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that there is an additional layer in all of this that pertains to how I interpret and apply the New Testament. So, I do think that accepting a Christianized version of multi-culturalism is acceptable, but without aligning perfectly with the Postmodern and Secular concepts of that same term, retaining and affirming some but not all of the goals of CRT.

Thus, I have my awareness of "race" influenced by science on the one hand, all the while keeping it in tension with the better parts of philosophy and religion on the other hand, especially where important historical social concerns between ethnic identities are pressing.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the relevance of ethnicity in the discussion, it overlaps with race and can even get more complex in how Hispanic is considered both a race and an ethnicity, as I recall.

The superficial aspects factor in with how we can treat someone as Hispanic and White, while some don't have that leisure because they don't pass as "white enough", that whole factor contributing to profiling and prejudices based purely on appearances.

There's pretty much just one use that even tends to work and it isn't the ones that have fallen out of practice because they don't match up remotely with scientific findings about genetics (as in race cannot be said to be a genetic aspect, more phenotypal at best)

 

[muichimotsu]

Are you meaning to ask if it is possible that Jesus' statements about a narrow way and a chosen people ... could have been misconstrued and misapplied by some post-1st century Christians?

Yes. I think it is possible, especially since the Church has never been an institution of "perfected saints."

Never said they were perfect, but you'd expect better if they're supposed to be so great and guided by God. It almost seems more like goalpost shifting to excuse bad behavior while praising all the good ones that are emphasized in contrast while always having a pessimistic cynical viewpoint that we will disappoint consistently and have to submit to an authority that has "our best interests" in mind