America is still obsessed with racial segregation

[durangodawood]

Marx' foundational concept of "critical theory" is what's wrong. To accept Marx, you have to abandon every concept of epistemology and accept his epistemology of "critical theory." He states that up front. It's within a bushel of word salad, but it's up front.

What epistemology is that? If you could save me from bingeing on word salad and just pull out that nugget, I'd be grateful.

Then you're uncritically looking for only what CRT apologists write to cover up what the founding critical race theorists actually wrote.

Go ahead with that.

Absolutely I looked at crt critics precisely because that where I thought it would show up. But its not that important. Im actually more interested in the marxist epistemology question above.

 

[RDKirk]

I do get that and I will take a look back. Still, don't you think that CRT has evolved into more and less extreme writings over the years as the theory has been studied and added to/taken away from? I mean is it just one theory from one writer or is it a topic with many varying ideas?

It can't. Accepting any part of CRT first requires accepting critical theory, and that requires throwing out everything you know about any other philosophy and any other epistemology...and they tell you that. Accepting CRT in any respect is like believing Flat Earth theory...you first have to discard everything else.

 

[Bradskii]

Because it was just uncovered to the public now. That's what makes most things newsworthy.

And reported in a way that made it sound like it was something that just happened and people were up in arms about it. It wasn't and they weren't. Somebody asked one of the white government dudes about it and he said something along the lines of 'I wasn't invited. Big deal'. I guess the reporter couldn't find someone who was all bent out of shape about it.

This report is not worth the bandwidth which is being used up talking about it. What is worth the time is discussing how some people get so excited about it. That's the interesting aspect of this thread. It's like there needs to be a level of indignation maintained and people need a fix now and then to keep it ticking over. And if there's not much happening on a slow news day then some journo in a right wing outlet will word a non story in a way that will help keep it ticking over and sloppy journalism perpetuates it.

And I can guarantee that nobody dug any deeper than the original linked report. And why would they? Well, if they want to use this as some reverse racism point scoring exercise then they should. You know, to check facts.

I mean, really...this is par for the course. We get this on a daily basis in this forum.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it really your opinion that the public has no need to know as long as enough government officials know? Is that an Australian perspective or just yours?

There's no 'need to know' aspect about it. A group of people get together now and then to discuss their particular problems in the organisation as non whites. And they had a social meeting.

The horror!

 

[Bradskii]

That can be said for any news posted on this forum by the left or the right.

I didn't say anything. I asked a question about this particular article.

 

[Bradskii]

And something else I've already said is that it's a false relationship.

So why do you think they were meeting?

 

[durangodawood]

....Young black people today believe white people are just as racist now as they were back then...no improvement. Yet, they don't understand why the parents of black Boomers pushed for integration in the first place. If whites are no better now than before, then re-segregation won't work any better now than it did before. Their re-segregation depends on whites being better people now. But if whites are better people, then re-segregation is not necessary.

Except, as you noted earlier, the structural racism that existed has been eliminated. The law will not tolerate anyone using underhanded means to squash a black owned bank expansion like it did before, for instance. Perhaps thats sufficient for voluntary re segregation to work - even if, personally, white people havent changed?

(I'm not predisposed to re segregation. Just asking.)

 

[Bradskii]

Some argued the same about school segregation.

And wearing brown shoes with a blue suit.

 

[Bradskii]

So, by that definition of racism, only white men are racist, and that's the definition that a number of people in this thread (as well as nearly all of academia) are going by.

They are. Can you name names? I'd be keen to see their response. Mine would be 'We're all racist. It's inbuilt not to trust someone who is not from 'our group''.

I'm always amazed that some people argue against this.

 

[Bradskii]

That white people in general and white men in particular can never become non-racist...it's a genetic function.

Genes aren't interested in skin colour. So that is obviously a non sequitur.

 

[RDKirk]

Genes aren't interested in skin colour. So that is obviously a non sequitur.

I was talking about the point of view propagated by CRT. Your remark is obviously a non sequitur.

 

[RDKirk]

Except, as you noted earlier, the structural racism that existed has been eliminated. The law will not tolerate anyone using underhanded means to squash a black owned bank expansion like it did before, for instance. Perhaps thats sufficient for voluntary re segregation to work - even if, personally, white people havent changed?

(I'm not predisposed to re segregation. Just asking.)

I am saying that the structural relationship has been eliminated.

According to CRT, the law is just as tolerant of racism today as it always was. The people I'm talking to believe that everything is as bad as it ever was, nothing has improved. If you point out an instance in the past when it was worse, they still maintain, "It's just as bad today."

 

[RDKirk]

They are. Can you name names? I'd be keen to see their response. Mine would be 'We're all racist. It's inbuilt not to trust someone who is not from 'our group''.

That's true, but "our group" can be socially redefined.

Two thousand years ago, "Our group" was "Roman citizen," regardless of skin color.

When soldiers are in combat, "Our group" becomes "my unit," regardless of skin color.

As the Apostle Paul described it, "Our group" was all fellow Christians, regardless of skin color.

 

[Bradskii]

I was talking about the point of view propagated by CRT. Your remark is obviously a non sequitur.

If it's genetic then it's colour blind. Anyone who says it's evolutionary inbuilt but only affects white folks is an idiot.

 

[USincognito]

Be bold Look it up! I know blacks kill whites. How many articles can find? All you see in the media about is a white man killing a black man somewheres? Ignorance is bliss.

Doubling down on the racism is bold.

 

[RDKirk]

If it's genetic then it's colour blind. Anyone who says it's evolutionary inbuilt but only affects white folks is an idiot.

So that's your opinion of CRT advocates. Okay.

 

[timothyu]

Even if the white population of the United States were to become a minority, that minority would still hold the majority of money, property, and government influence so don't worry.

So that is what makes them racist?
Interesting, as people flock from all over the world to the white mans' civilizations they built over time. Many even come from post colonial areas that once gaining their independence the new life no longer suited these migrants, wanting what they had lost and abandoned their heritage and culture for white man's ways and toys.

 

[Bradskii]

That's true, but "our group" can be socially redefined.

Two thousand years ago, "Our group" was "Roman citizen," regardless of skin color.

When soldiers are in combat, "Our group" becomes "my unit," regardless of skin color.

As the Apostle Paul described it, "Our group" was all fellow Christians, regardless of skin color.

Quite right. It can be 'us two against those two' or 'our country against theirs'. And every step in between. And every mixture of people you can possibly imagine.

What I don't get is the argument that says that it's wrong to say that we're all racist. People bristle. 'Hey, some of my best friends...' You have to start with that understanding, and the acceptance that you yourself have those tendencies, and work from there.

I remember going to watch my grandkid playing rugby. He mentioned one of the guys in the team with whom he was friendly. He pointed to a group of kids. 'Which one?' I asked. 'The one wearing red socks'. Out of 5 or 6 guys, he was the only black guy. But he differentiated him by his socks. That's great, I thought. He's colour blind in that repect. But...at some point he's going to encounter racism. Do we just let that happen? Or do we prepare him for it? It's a reasonable question to ask.

 

[Bradskii]

So that's your opinion of CRT advocates. Okay.

That's my opinion of anyone who thinks that. See my post above about whether we should teach kids about racism. I think we should. But anyone who wants to teach my grandkid that he is racist and no-one else is will get my opinion in no uncertain terms.

 

[rturner76]

That's the class my son took but was afraid of getting a bad test grade. I'm a dork. The reason I dislike the media so much and the continued talk of racism is because it affected my family. My granddaughter who was in middle school at the time never talked about racism. When she got her iPhone, she was exposed to racist talk. She talked to my son and expressed her fears because of the color of her skin. She even compared her color with her siblings and cousins. She was color-blind until the media got in her head.

Being color blind can also lead to being culture blind. The United States, although a couple of hundred years old, is a country of immigrants. So all US citizens have a root in another country. Being a country of immigrants we all have another country's culture in our blood and history.