Critical Race Theory

[Ana the Ist]

Since it was mentioned last night...

Anyone want to explain the merits and demerits of this thing?

I know what Trump said...

Why did he say it?

Pretty simple really....

critical race theory | Definition & Facts

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that raceitself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elitewhite interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to povertyand criminality in many minority communities.

The main takeaway from CRT is that white people are evil, and racist, and actively trying to oppress everyone who isn't white.

 

[FireDragon76]

Uh yes... Nazis are a derivative of Marxism.

That's just not true. National Socialism was a movement based on collective organization of groups of people (hence the "socialism" in the term), but there the similarities end. Most historians of National Socialism consider it a right wing ideology, since Nazis saw German Social Democrats and Communists as their enemies, and Nazis made alliances with the German Right in order to secure power.

Communism and Marxism are different...they don't get along. Stalin didn't like Adolf because of his racist and religious views...Stalin wasn't any fan of Jews or any religion and Adolf was a Lutheran.

Hitler was baptized a Catholic in Austria and was never a Lutheran. Austria is and was a Catholic country.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Only barely.

The gist is that it tries to look at systemic dynamics that can operate at the societal level to reinforce and entrench certain relationships or power imbalances even in the absence of deliberate action on the part of individual actors.

This approach can be useful as a tool when crafting social policy because it has the potential to identify avenues by which corrective measures can be taken.

Sounds like a rather vague thing. How could one use something so vague as tool? Mathematics or Geometry for instance is are very specific and clear as to how one would use them. No vagueness whatsoever, so is a hammer and their use as a tool is quite obvious. Seems to me that something so uncertain and ephemeral as what you have described would only be useful as an excuse to do what one felt like doing rather than as a tool to direct one's actions.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Critical race theory is used to understand how media, law, and culture translate and effect racial demographic groups. It is used in sociology to understand viewpoints and structures with societies and micro societies.

How has it been shown to be a reliable and and valid tool? What proof has been put forward to show its findings are as reliable and valid as the tools of physical science for instance?

 

[grasping the after wind]

CRT doesn't make things appear or go away. Its a the examination of outcomes and systems within a society.

How does it examines those outcomes and systems and what scientific evidence do we have that supports it as reliable and valid ?

 

[grasping the after wind]

My comment had nothing to do with Critical Race Theory. The poster I was replying to was saying that the passage of laws/court decisions that made racist activities illegal marked the point at which any class divide in the country was no longer related to race. Which is patently ridiculous.

Why is it patently ridiculous? You neglected to provide the evidence for your assertion. As for CRT, since the thread is about CRT, I assumed you had some point related to it. I was surprised that you did not. I expect the poster you replied to was making a point about CRT.

 

[Speedwell]

Why is it patently ridiculous? You neglected to provide the evidence for your assertion. As for CRT, since the thread is about CRT, I assumed you had some point related to it. I was surprised that you did not. I expect the poster you replied to was making a point about CRT.

Never mind. The discussion has moved on from there, and we are now arguing about whether Hitler was a Marxist Lutheran or not. Apparently proving that he was is critical to opposing CRT and the argument turns on the point of whether the Krupp steel company was confiscated by the Nazis in WWII. Any light you can shed on that issue would be welcome.

 

[Speedwell]

How has it been shown to be a reliable and and valid tool? What proof has been put forward to show its findings are as reliable and valid as the tools of physical science for instance?

None. Social science is never expected to be as precise and reliable as physical science. What about history, though? If you can show that contrary to conventional history the Krupp company was indeed confiscated by the Nazis, then Hitler was a Marxist Lutheran and CRT is toast.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Never mind. The discussion has moved on from there, and we are now arguing about whether Hitler was a Marxist Lutheran or not. Apparently proving that he was is critical to opposing CRT and the argument turns on the point of whether the Krupp steel company was confiscated by the Nazis in WWII. Any light you can shed on that issue would be welcome.

Hitler was a National Socialist. Not a Lutheran or a Marxist. He was brought up in the Catholic faith but as with many Catholics, it did not stick. AFAIK he was most likely an atheist who used other people's religious beliefs as a tool to manipulate them.

 

[Speedwell]

Hitler was a National Socialist. Not a Lutheran or a Marxist. He was brought up in the Catholic faith but as with many Catholics, it did not stick. AFAIK he was most likely an atheist who used other people's religious beliefs as a tool to manipulate them.

That's what I would have though, myself. But that point of view, it appears, does not support the case against CRT.

 

[grasping the after wind]

None. Social science is never expected to be as precise and reliable as physical science. What about history, though? If you can show that contrary to conventional history the Krupp company was indeed confiscated by the Nazis, then Hitler was a Marxist Lutheran and CRT is toast.

This is why I have zero confidence in any social science as they are nothing more than opinions couched in scientific language.

The only difference between Marxist socialism and fascism is Marx's idiosyncratic need to want to be able to claim ownership over the means of production. It seems silly as he also claimed that the end goal was for there to be no such thing as ownership. But then again Marx was never exactly an intellectual giant. I can thing of a least three other people who carried that last name that were much more intelligent and made much more sense.

Hitler was a fascist socialist not a Marxist. Fascistic Socialism is about total control, not necessarily confiscation, of the means of production. The government does not have to own, it merely has to be in control. The Krupp company would only have had to do exactly what it was told by the Nazi government and it would reap the benefits of remaining technically unowned by the government. This is the direction China has moved to. It seems to produce more financial success and allows the government to be just as authoritarian and in as much control as the Marxist model without the complete economic privation that that model invariably results in. So people are oppressed but not as deprived of the necessities and niceties of secular society. Unless the authoritarian government gets them into a World War and starts to lose it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's what I would have though, myself. But that point of view, it appears, does not support the case against CRT.

If one is trying to promote something as valid and reliable then they need to make the case for it not ask others to prove the case against it.

 

[Quartermaine]

How has it been shown to be a reliable and and valid tool? What proof has been put forward to show its findings are as reliable and valid as the tools of physical science for instance?

reliable enough the president wants its use banned

 

[Speedwell]

If one is trying to promote something as valid and reliable then they need to make the case for it not ask others to prove the case against it.

It's not a question of whether it is valid and reliable. Nobody here is arguing against CRT on the grounds that it is invalid and unreliable.

As far as I can tell from the postings in this thread, CRT is being opposed on the grounds that it is Nazi doctrine. But since CRT is approved of by BLM, who are all Marxists, it is necessary to show that Nazi doctrine was inherently Marxist, i.e. that Hitler himself was a Marxist. And if Hitler and the Nazis have to be Marxists, then the fact that privately owned capitalist enterprises thrived in Nazi Germany must be denied--all in order to oppose CRT.

At least, that's the argument being made here.

But that is basically a secular argument. There is also a theological argument being made against CRT in more appropriate forums, but it is not straightforward, plausible and logical like the argument being made here--it is so convoluted as to be beyond my understanding.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sounds like a rather vague thing. How could one use something so vague as tool? Mathematics or Geometry for instance is are very specific and clear as to how one would use them. No vagueness whatsoever, so is a hammer and their use as a tool is quite obvious. Seems to me that something so uncertain and ephemeral as what you have described would only be useful as an excuse to do what one felt like doing rather than as a tool to direct one's actions.

Your objection to my description is silly. The only reason you can understand how math and geometry can be used as tools is because you understand them better. If I had described math as "the study of quantity, structure, space, and change", then you would be similarly hard-pressed to come up with a concrete application.

The Time article linked earlier had a decent example of how CRT can be applied. (going from memory) If, say, a particular health malady impacts POC at disproportionate rates, it would easy to assume that the problem lies in the bodies of those POC. It's possible that that explanation would be the correct one (e.g. sickle cell disease). But it's also possible that it's caused by some systemic problem that disproportionately impacts POC and manifests itself as this health malady. (e.g. negative impacts of elevated stress levels caused by being the direct victim of racist acts or by living in substandard conditions created and/or reinforced by racist policies). In the latter case, the solution is not found in some new medication or gene therapy. The solution is found in correcting the social conditions causing those elevated stress levels.

If you're really interested in how CRT can be applied, perhaps you should go read some books about it written by people who study it and apply it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

AFAIK he was most likely an atheist who used other people's religious beliefs as a tool to manipulate them.

Sounds familiar.

 

[rturner76]

Could you explain why this narrative is wrong?

Because it operates n the assumption that the past has no effect on the present.

 

[rturner76]

How does CRT make something go away?

Using CRT as a tool would serve to identify the mistakes made when developing national and local policies that affect people of color negatively in a disproportionate way. Things like history, civics, and even art in public schools have traditionally focused only on Eurocentric paternalistic philosophy and history has been whitewashed by the white upper-middle-class and the wealthy people who have enjoyed power since before the founding of the United States. Learning about the ways that white supremacy has been at the center of government policy and social norms the past 400 or so years and how it was applied would teach current and future generations of those in power what mistakes were made by relying on white supremacist philosophy and history and changes could be made to reflect a more egalitarian philosophy in law, education, and economics.

 

[Speedwell]

This is why I have zero confidence in any social science as they are nothing more than opinions couched in scientific language.

The only difference between Marxist socialism and fascism is Marx's idiosyncratic need to want to be able to claim ownership over the means of production. It seems silly as he also claimed that the end goal was for there to be no such thing as ownership. But then again Marx was never exactly an intellectual giant. I can thing of a least three other people who carried that last name that were much more intelligent and made much more sense.

They were brothers, right? Though Karl's analysis of the capitalism of his day and the problems it posed was actually pretty reasonable. It was his solution for those problems which was bonkers. Fortunately, most western economies have managed to solve them in more practical ways.

Hitler was a fascist socialist not a Marxist. Fascistic Socialism is about total control, not necessarily confiscation, of the means of production. The government does not have to own, it merely has to be in control. The Krupp company would only have had to do exactly what it was told by the Nazi government and it would reap the benefits of remaining technically unowned by the government. This is the direction China has moved to. It seems to produce more financial success and allows the government to be just as authoritarian and in as much control as the Marxist model without the complete economic privation that that model invariably results in. So people are oppressed but not as deprived of the necessities and niceties of secular society. Unless the authoritarian government gets them into a World War and starts to lose it.

Most lucid and succinct. It agrees entirely with what I know of the subject. Unfortunately, in forums like this one such terms as Marxism, fascism, socialism, etc. are more often thrown out as nothing but ill-informed scare words

 

[rturner76]

If by being white means by default that white people are inherently racist and that equity should be applied...
Then because a person is white their possessions they have, due to working for them, should be confiscated and given to someone who is black. (That is the function of equity which is part of CRT) Ergo the black person is more deserving of someone else's hard earned property.

Not one iota of this is included in CRT. It is about policies and not people. Nowhere in CRT is there a call for whites to give up their possessions to blacks. That is a complete fabrication. What is put forward is learning what policies, laws, education philosophies have been inherently based on a white supremacist principles and applying that knowledge to develop more egalitarian policies, laws, and education in the future.

It has nothing to do with blaming working white people for all of life's problems. Except those who support those racist policies like our President and many of his followers who oppose any change to the idealist image they have of America and it's past policies..