The qualification made here is "in the United States." Why that qualification?
If it's not a truth worldwide, then it can be true in the United States.
If it is a truth worldwide, then it's a common condition of man like any other sin, and can be mitigated by social compact like any other sin.
I think in the minds of the activists (or really ideologues) there's a risk in describing it as a human condition.
You might convince people that as such, it's simply the way things are, and not a problem that we can fix more than we could hope to fix something like greed.
The other risk is similar but it affects the activist themself instead of the undecided people who don't know what they think on the issue. It justifies tribalism. It affirms the importance of the group over the individual. It reaffirms the idea of things like race essentialism over the idea of individual expression.
That's partly why there's a very strong attempt at controlling the outside perceptions of these identity groups. If you're a feminist who insists upon a difference between a woman and trans-women, you're a terf. It's not a positive portrayal...it's described in negative ways like transphobic.
Similarly, you look at how Condoleeza Rice was labeled an agent of white supremacy....for the outrageous offense of suggesting that we can teach the good and bad parts of history without laying blame at the feet of a white kid. I've read about half a dozen opinion pieces (and I know these aren't representative of anything other than what gets clicks) that basically accused her of defending white supremacy, that even considering the feelings of white children is wrong or unnecessary. Ostensibly, these are the same people who want their own perspectives not just heard or considered but treated as fact with the same weight as any other historical fact.
I can't really understand the logic behind that without any discussion of racism. I can't see a motive that would justify the abandonment of rationality if it's not a motive that is centered on controlling narratives. The 1619 Project is a good example of this. It presented itself as history from the viewpoint of slaves. It was largely a curated selection of narratives that painted white European colonizers in the worst possible light. She sent it to an actual historian associate of hers to get feedback. I'm paraphrasing this part...but her historian friend told her she simply shouldn't have it published in the current form. It contained too many factual errors. Her reply to this was along the lines of white people lie about history too. She published it as it was.
The reaction was predictable...overwhelmingly applause and support. It was the Black Panther of American history. Awards were given. Finally American history explained from a black perspective.
The problem of the errors still existed though. Very large claims, very significant events, and very influential people were being incorrectly portrayed....or lied about.
Actual historians got together, outlined just some of the most egregious examples....and politely put their names in a letter asking her to please make corrections or at least acknowledge these weren't facts. For people who work very hard at the historical method (which is very difficult and leaves a lot unresolved) I thought the letter was extremely polite and borderline loving in it's tone and request. I read the actual letter.
She responded by calling them white supremacists who were trying to exclude marginalized voices.
I can only imagine how the discussion proceeded from there. It probably involved the historical method, what kind of evidence is given s certain amount of weight...stuff that she may or may have not known.
The result was a change in text that happened after some kind of historical debate behind closed doors. If you bought one of the first copies of the 1619 Project when it came out...I'd put it under glass and never open it. It's going to be one of those historical oddities that people will pay big money to get their hands on. There's a different 1619 Project that can be bought now....that has different facts, different interpretations, different levels of certainty about conclusions. These corrections were made, to my knowledge, quietly and behind the scenes. People who bought it in that first month and people who bought the later draft might not even realize they aren't reading the same book.
Why? Well the debate over the facts happened behind the scenes. Then the corrections were made but went completely unmentioned. That's despite the original version winning awards and being heavily promoted.
You might think this all happened behind the scenes to avoid embarrassing anyone. Perhaps they didn't want to deal with a larger audience weighing in.
It's primarily about the way this new left wing ideology determines truth. They look at which "voices" have been "marginalized" by "systems of power" and then encourage such people to "speak truth to power" and explain their "lived experiences" of oppression and suffering. That is literally....not an exaggeration....literally the way this ideology determines what is true. A person can certainly gather the writings of slaves and former slaves and place them into a general narrative to lend some perspective on history. If a historian tries to claim that it's all factual however, they had better have done the research and examined the evidence or actual historians will gladly embarrass that person. The idea that history is written by the victors or all history is biased is true to an extent. In many places there is no debate on what happened in history. In modern western nations however, who tried very hard to construct history out of facts by weighing certain types of evidence over others....because of logic and the availability of other evidence....the idea that all historical narratives are equally valid is simply untrue. There is plenty of room for argument and interpretation in modern western society for what is historically true. That happens....in open debate. The version of history we can be highly certain about and teach at the collegiate level is extremely difficult to argue against...it's not merely a myth constructed by the "victors". It's subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence. It acknowledges it's imperfections....and tries to correct its mistakes.
Hannah Nicole Jones holds to an ideology that history is just part of a "cultural metanarrative" that is constructed by the oppressors to maintain privilege and power.
If you look at a lot of ancient history and the historians that existed very long ago. ..you could be right for believing that. That's not really the method today. Today historians try to separate facts from fictions, try to weigh evidence accordingly, and admit what they cannot be certain about...things they can only guess...
It's not a story created to preserve power nor is it considered immutable fact.
It would be a problem to teach it that way as well. We know that the civil war happened, there's a ton of both physical evidence, firsthand, secondhand, and even accounts completely removed from the actual experience of the war. We have a mountain of evidence for why it happened, what many people on both sides were motivated by, and the extent to which they were motivated by those reasons and beliefs.
To rewrite all that without the mountain of evidence supporting the rewrite requires a certain ideology that abandons reason and rationality and elevates some other method of finding truth.
In Critical Pedagogy....which includes critical race theory, critical feminist theory, and critical gender studies.....the method for finding truth is listening to the lived experiences of the oppressed and giving it the weight of truth. If you are of the privileged group? You aren't supposed to have any opinion. Your lived experiences don't count. Your only job is to listen to the oppressed, accept their personal perspectives as truth, and then do whatever is required to end their oppression and thereby create equity of outcomes.
There is nothing surprising or new about his "interest convergence theory." It's been known for thousands of years that any human transaction, if it is to be successful, must conclude with both parties feeling they have gained something valuable to them. Who expects altruism in this world?
I forgot which economist stated it....but he said every transaction is essentially a gamble on value and you only agree when both parties think they are correct about the value. Sadly, only one ever is or there would be no trade.
Even the classical hedonists of ancient Greece could understand how keeping the poor from falling too deeply into poverty was in their own long-term interests.
It takes a lot of slaves before the act of thinking becomes described as an occupation in an ancient society.
White abolitionists were not motivated by a love of black people, but by a desire to save white souls.
There's certainly room to argue or debate over that position.
And there's no shame in that. There have been debates in these forums about whether Christian agape is really about some mystically induced, purely altruistic "unconditional love for all mankind" or, rather, a desire for pain avoidance or a desire to hear "well done, my good and faithful servant" one day.
Interest convergence is the essence of all successful human interactions.
Bell also asserts that the civil rights movement was only supported by whites because they were trying to convince the rest of the world that liberal western civilization under capitalism was preferable to communism and that was difficult with a tiered racial system.
Do you think that is an accurate description of the majority of white civil rights supporters? Surely Bell is aware of the fact that MLK worked with communists.
I have not yet seen in CRT any steps actually toward or even a view of that brave new world. All I see at this point is the effort to tear down the white male patriarchy, and yet another non-white concept that white radical feminists are running with as another battering ram against the white male patriarchy. But they have not vision beyond that.
Anything with Marxist roots is essentially utopian in its vision of what should be. The easiest way to spot it here is this almost magical idea that if we could snap our fingers and remove oppression we wouldn't see these disparities everywhere we look.
I agree that I don't see any plan for it. Marx himself didn't see any plan for it. The only plan Marxists make are about seizing power....they concern themselves with that first, what to do with it is a distant second.
Sadly, the results of these power grabs are predictable. You cannot gather broad support without convincing people of victimhood. If they aren't victims...the system might be working somewhat effectively.
Victimhood must be created if it doesn't exist. This is easily done by framing everything in a dialectical model....without any actual Hegelian synthesis. Silence is violence. Property is theft. Inaction is complicity. There are only oppressors and oppressed. Only racist and anti-racist. There are only white supremacists or white allies.
To allow the existence of a nuetral third position or 4th position that is interested in something else entirely like....saving whales....would give people a chance to deflect moral culpability in the oppression.
Oppression that is assumed by the lack of equity of outcomes. Evidence of oppression in a system isn't needed. In fact, understanding a system isn't the goal either. This ideology doesn't seek to identify problems nor solutions. This ideology considers any attempt to point out it's flaws as a defense of the oppressors and their privilege. It has one goal and one method. Acquisition of power by framing all things as power relationships between those with power and their victims.
I'm a Christian, so ultimately I must strive for reconciliation. Even if I were not a Christian, the fact is that white people aren't going anywhere, black people are not going anywhere, and nobody else is going anywhere, so reconciliation is a practical necessity.
Which is true and a big part of what concerns me. If those enamored with this ideology gain power....I don't think they can actually solve any problems. I'm not convinced they really want to. If they genuinely do....and I don't think they can succeed....they'll have basically three options for justifying their acquired positions of power.....
1. Lie about results and claim success. That's not as easy as it uses to be. Internet changed a lot of things. Still a possibility.
2. Reexamine the problem, consider other possible explanations, come to new conclusions.
3. Double down on the strategy that has already proven successful...scapegoating white men. That justifies more history correction....more injustice punishment...a wider tier of gender and race.
I think #1 is a possibility. I don't think #2 is even something they can consider without being excommunicated by their peers. I think #3 is almost a certainty.....especially if they move their beliefs into education.
