Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

[stevevw]

The basic failure of CRT today (I've said this before) is that it's data is locked to the early 80s. It all worked, it all made sense, it was valid in 1980. But it presumes nothing has changed since then.

I think the principle of critical thinking which came about around the 80's was a natural progression of trying to understand the many factors involved in racial relationships between people and society. But CRT like Feminism became politicized and a dogma in Postmodern society. Now rather than being open to the many factors associated with racial differences and disparities CRT takes a narrowed down view that all disparity and disadvantage is caused by racial relationships of power.

In that sense its an ideology, a belief and assumption about how the world is. This has led to identity politics where the measure of a person now is the groups identity rather than individual merit or lack of. Now everyone is looking over their shoulder, being made to feel guilty especially white males. Its a new form of discrimination and only divides society and makes people hostile towards each other.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Among the myriad problems I see with Critical Race Theory:

There is the implicit assumption that any statistic that favors white people or disfavored people of color is necessarily the result of systemic racism. And, as I experienced first-hand, to openly challenge this assumption is to make yourself a lightning rod.

Then there's the notion of "systemic racism". If there is any such system, who designed this system? Who keeps it operational, despite the wishes of many of us? How do we stop it? If systemic racism is an evil we need to conquer, then how on earth are we supposed to do this if we don't know what we are up against? I have asked these questions to people who claim we need to do this, and I have paid the price for it.

 

[timothyu]

What do we do with political parties that thrive on keeping racism alive in order to sway the votes? Will we see the violence flare again as it always seems to come election years? Should we once again invest in stocks in bricks and fireworks?

 

[RDKirk]

Among the myriad problems I see with Critical Race Theory:

There is the implicit assumption that any statistic that favors white people or disfavored people of color is necessarily the result of systemic racism. And, as I experienced first-hand, to openly challenge this assumption is to make yourself a lightning rod.

Then there's the notion of "systemic racism". If there is any such system, who designed this system? Who keeps it operational, despite the wishes of many of us? How do we stop it? If systemic racism is an evil we need to conquer, then how on earth are we supposed to do this if we don't know what we are up against? I have asked these questions to people who claim we need to do this, and I have paid the price for it.

In 1980 both of those were valid assumptions.

 

[RDKirk]

What do we do with political parties that thrive on keeping racism alive in order to sway the votes? Will we see the violence flare again as it always seems to come election years? Should we once again invest in stocks in bricks and fireworks?

It's not just political parties. It's also the education industry.

The nucleus of the problem is too many people going to college. What makes it "too many" is that most people don't have the intellect to get a degree in a robustly intellectual major, which includes even philosophy. You have to learn how to do some heavy critical thinking to get through a philosophy program.

The majority of people aren't at that intellectual level. That's just how the bell curve works. The education industry got a snort of stimulant with the GI Bill and the idea that everyone should go to college, but to make that work, they had to provide majors the average Dick and Jane could pass. Not courses of study that required rigorous critical thinking, but courses of study that required only regurgitation of whatever the instructor said.

So, we got African-American Studies and Women's Studies and Gender Studies as major fields of study. Other "soft" majors got heavily watered down. They don't require thinking; they only require regurgitation.

People who have those degrees want also to teach, so they have to get advanced degrees, which means they have to publish theses and dissertations. Publish or perish, something new every year.

So they make up stuff to get something new every year. They redefine old terms that have been overcome by progress to keep them relevant. The students of those courses take up teaching in high school and college because pedagogy, too, only requires regurgitating and not thinking.

That evil genie is not going back into the bottle because these mushy fields of study attract so many people...they're big business for the education industry, which really doesn't even care about education.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In 1980 both of those were valid assumptions.

One, I would say the validity of those assumptions even then might be debatable at best. Two, most of the people who gave me heat for asking critical questions about CRT were born well after 1980.

 

[RDKirk]

One, I would say the validity of those assumptions even then might be debatable at best.

In 1980, you'd be wrong if you actually understand what CRT was in 1980.

Two, most of the people who gave me heat for asking critical questions about CRT were born well after 1980.

So? That has nothing to do with my assertion that CRT was a valid study in 1980.

 

[Ken-1122]

In 1980, you'd be wrong if you actually understand what CRT was in 1980.

So? That has nothing to do with my assertion that CRT was a valid study in 1980.

3 books have become the face of Critical Race Theory; 1619 project, How to be an anti-racist, and white fragility. Before those books were written, Critical Race Theory was pretty much unheard of by the masses, so when people object to CRT, their objection has nothing to do with what was taught in Colleges nearly half a century ago, their objection is based on what is written in those books.

 

[RDKirk]

3 books have become the face of Critical Race Theory; 1619 project, How to be an anti-racist, and white fragility. Before those books were written, Critical Race Theory was pretty much unheard of by the masses, so when people object to CRT, their objection has nothing to do with what was taught in Colleges nearly half a century ago, their objection is based on what is written in those books.

I agree. I'd go further to say that what is being taught as CRT in high schools, and what has become "anti-racist" pedagogy down to the elementary level that is supposed to be based on CRT (based on CRT according to the NEA and teachers themselves), isn't really the practice of CRT either.

They have created an ideology based on what were the credible findings of CRT back in the early 80s. Even then, CRT was oblivious to the fact that although they found a great deal of racist policy and structural racism in America still standing--in the early 80s--the fix was already in to continue to dismantle it through the course of the century.

But the pedagogy pushed by the NEA and others in the education industry is based on the idea that nothing has changed since then.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree. I'd go further to say that what is being taught as CRT in high schools, and what has become "anti-racist" pedagogy down to the elementary level that is supposed to be based on CRT (based on CRT according to the NEA and teachers themselves), isn't really the practice of CRT either.

They have created an ideology based on what were the credible findings of CRT back in the early 80s. Even then, CRT was oblivious to the fact that although they found a great deal of racist policy and structural racism in America still standing--in the early 80s--the fix was already in to continue to dismantle it through the course of the century.

But the pedagogy pushed by the NEA and others in the education industry is based on the idea that nothing has changed since then.

Back in the day (mid 80's) we had the empathy curriculum in language arts classes, where we got to learn things, like what is was like to be moved to the Manzanar War Relocation Center. What has really changed? It seems to me a tempest in a teapot. I don't think little Johnny or Jane is as upset by learning about slavery, as certain parents are upset about school curricula losing the whole Lost Cause and Noble Institution narratives.

 

[timothyu]

I don't think little Johnny or Jane is as upset by learning about slavery

Better set the age restriction on media for the upcoming yearly showing of the Ten Commandments.

 

[RDKirk]

Back in the day (mid 80's) we had the empathy curriculum in language arts classes, where we got to learn things, like what is was like to be moved to the Manzanar War Relocation Center. What has really changed? It seems to me a tempest in a teapot. I don't think little Johnny or Jane is as upset by learning about slavery, as certain parents are upset about school curricula losing the whole Lost Cause and Noble Institution narratives.

An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

Based on whistleblower documents and parents familiar with the session, a third-grade teacher at R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School began the lesson on “social identities” during a math class. The teacher asked all students to create an “identity map,” listing their race, class, gender, religion, family structure, and other characteristics. The teacher explained that the students live in a “dominant culture” of “white, middle class, cisgender, educated, able-bodied, Christian, English speaker,” who, according to the lesson, “created and maintained” this culture in order “to hold power and stay in power.”



Next, reading from This Book Is Antiracist, the students learned that “those with privilege have power over others” and that “folx who do not benefit from their social identities, who are in the subordinate culture, have little to no privilege and power.” As an example, the reading states that “a white, cisgender man, who is able-bodied, heterosexual, considered handsome and speaks English has more privilege than a Black transgender woman.” In some cases, because of the principle of intersectionality, “there are parts of us that hold some power and other parts that are oppressed,” even within a single individual.

Woke Elementary

An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” Based on whistleblower documents and...

www.city-journal.org

As a black parent and grandparent, I don't need this to be happening in schools today. I don't want my grandchildren in a classroom in 2023 ranking themselves as "unprivileged" by race compared to anyone else in that class. That's not productive, that's not uplifting.

That's not history. That's radical political indoctrination. That's the sort of thing we saw happening in Maoist Chinese colleges at the start of the bloody Cultural Revolution.

 

[gaara4158]

Woke Elementary

An elementary school in Cupertino, California—a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million—recently forced a class of third-graders to deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” Based on whistleblower documents and...

www.city-journal.org

As a black parent and grandparent, I don't need this to be happening in schools today. I don't want my grandchildren in a classroom in 2023 ranking themselves as "unprivileged" by race compared to anyone else in that class. That's not productive, that's not uplifting.

That's not history. That's radical political indoctrination. That's the sort of thing we saw happening in Maoist Chinese colleges at the start of the bloody Cultural Revolution.

It’s not math, to be more precise. There’s nothing inherently wrong with such an exercise, it’s just not exactly third grade math class material.

 

[Hazelelponi]

My husband and I are both white. He and his family are currently, and generally, less religious and more progressive than mine, but his (historically) is MUCH more Southern and slave-owning than mine. In fact, all his family has Southern and slave-owning past, whereas mine doesn't on either paternal or maternal side.

My dad's family are all WASPs and Irish/Scottish from the upper northeast (Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.) who never held or owned slaves. My mom's are all Germans/Norwegians/Hutterites from the upper midwest (Minnesota, South Dakota, etc.) who came to the US in the 1800s and also never had slaves.

In recent years, I've noticed a change from individualistic and historical focus of racism, toward more 'systemic' focus. The idea is, it doesn't really matter that my husband's family was historically slave-owning, whereas mine were in regions where slavery never occurred. The focus now is, both nonetheless benefited from 'white privilege,' so it doesn't matter if one's white families had slaves or not. What matters now is, if they are allies, or at least voting Democrat in greater numbers. In that case, my husband's family is generally more progressive now, even if they have purely Southern and slave-owning roots.

Do you agree with that perspective: is it better to have a family that "currently" is overall more progressive and voting Democrat, even if that family is purely slave-owning and Southern in its past, than it is to come from a family with no slavery, even if that family is currently slightly more third-party or Republican in its voting?

If neither you nor your husband have ever personally owned a slave and are not actually racist (your not running around wearing white robes burning crosses in black people's yard are you?) Then there's not one thing you're guilty of - period. End of.

It doesn't matter if you're democrats or republicans, conservative or liberal.

This whole "republicans are racist because they prefer the nation state model of government over globalization" is, in itself, bigotry.

Anyone who declares all whites guilty of some weird racism that no one can see or recognize are, in themselves, racist.

 

[timothyu]

Why is it that people want to make what was predominantly a white civilization their own, thus relieving them of their creation, having found their own lands and heritages lacking?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with such an exercise,

Of course there is....

The problem is the difference between opinion and fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why is it that people want to make what was predominantly a white civilization their own, thus relieving them of their creation, having found their own lands and heritages lacking?

Uhhhh....must be that wellspring of all evil....white supremacy lol?

 

[timothyu]

They want what the devil offers, just not the devil. How human.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They want what the devil offers, just not the devil. How human.

Humans are predictably human, if nothing else.

 

[timothyu]

Humans are predictably human, if nothing else.

So when making a power play is it advantageous to play the race card even though all are human?