CRT and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

[Ana the Ist]

Very presumptuous of you to say that about me -- if you were a censor, it might be problematic.

I've never seen you remotely criticize any other racial group.

In fact, I've seen you call out such behavior as racist.

If I'm wrong just throw out an example for me.

 

[SilverBear]

What do you mean by "potentially CRT is correct". Are you admitted CRT only looks at racial disparities through a systematic/institutionalized racist lens? As far as racial disparities only or mainly being due to systematic and institutionalized racism.. yes.. yes it is.

I am not scared or turned off by the idea. On the contrary, it would feel good to be able to jump back on the bandwagon and blame all or even most racial disparities on such things.



I do not want to go around in circles anymore. Either you genuinely do not understand me or you're just being obtuse. I don't care anymore..

You just summed up your position that while you don't know much of anything about CRT you know it's both wrong and 'bad'

That's cool. Although I am not sure what you are trying to convey with this information? Are you saying these studies have proven that racial disparities are only or mostly due to systematic/institutionalized racism? Because I find that hard to believe. I find it easier to believe that academia has been searching for evidence of institutionalized racism for decades and as a consequence has developed a hefty collection of studies.

I believe racism exists, and you can certainly come up with studies pinpointing it.

so there is a grand conspiracy going on for decades to produce tens of thousand of fake studies and research. sure that makes sense

 

[coffee4u]

It's probably more of an internet slang. It originated with this cartoon.

Also...

Sealioning - Wikipedia

Oh that's good. Yes I definitely know one or two of those on CF.

 

[rjs330]

Dupicate

 

[Ana the Ist]

Parents are reacting to inflammatory media, not to things they saw in their kids' schools. As for the use of terms like "white supremacy", it is an entirely objective fact of American History. Some may argue that the era of white supremacy is over and all is good now. But there is no doubt that it played a powerful role in the development of American society, and that repercussions of that effect are still visible today. Denying the existence of white supremacy in American history is like the Germans denying the existence of the Nazi era.

How are you defining white supremacy?

I typically use the term to describe groups like the KKK that desire a white ethnostate.

How are you using it?

 

[rjs330]

Just to clarify a few pieces though:
This is what I taught. Just this portion. Is THIS problematic for you?

Why is this taught? What's the end goal?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've never seen you remotely criticize any other racial group.

In fact, I've seen you call out such behavior as racist.

Clearly you've been paying quite a lot of attention to me. That's... unsettling, TBH.

If I'm wrong just throw out an example for me.

Why? You're not a censor; what do I gain by appeasing you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How are you defining white supremacy?

I typically use the term to describe groups like the KKK that desire a white ethnostate.

How are you using it?

It is a lot simpler than that. White supremacy is the effort to go to any lengths necessary to concentrate power in the hands of whites and to prevent non-whites for gaining power, status, and wealth. It was expressed in all sorts of activities, both legal and extralegal. The KKK was the most well-known organization embracing this goal, but they were not the only ones. I use the past tense, because it is the history that we are talking about. The question of whether white supremacy is active today is a separate matter that I will not get into because teaching history is about what was. So that is all I am focusing on. There is no doubt that what I described here played a big part in the formation of American society, with repercussions in the present day distribution of wealth. So even if there is no longer any white supremacy, its effect remains until today, whereas the importance of Paul Revere's ride to Lexington that all school children learn about is arguably inconsequential to the state of American society today. It is very likely that American still would have won the revolutionary war even if Paul Revere had fallen off his horse and never made it to Lexington.

 

[SilverBear]

What would happen to a journalist who photoshopped fake evidence?

Would that journalist, and indeed the entire media company be sued for libel? Yes it would. That's basic journalism.

If I provided you with the web address...would you admit that you're wrong about CRT and it's concepts being taught in school? Or are you going to move the goalposts and just waste my time?

Christopher RUfo isn't a journalist he is a conservative activist with a long history of presenting false claims about CRT.

 

[SilverBear]

I'm not upset with you @rambot ...but please consider something from my point of view. For at least 3 years now, I've been accused of arguing in bad faith in these discussions.

On this thread alone....a poster asked for evidence. I linked an article, it included evidence, and they simply claimed they didn't believe it.

no you linked a twitter post from an activist known for making false claims about CRT

 

[rjs330]

Parents are reacting to inflammatory media, not to things they saw in their kids' schools. As for the use of terms like "white supremacy", it is an entirely objective fact of American History. Some may argue that the era of white supremacy is over and all is good now. But there is no doubt that it played a powerful role in the development of American society, and that repercussions of that effect are still visible today. Denying the existence of white supremacy in American history is like the Germans denying the existence of the Nazi era.

Once again white supremecy is NOT being denied. And no one is saying white supreme y is over. Cause there are white supremacists out there saying it's not.

Honestly, where do get such ideas?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You just summed up your position that while you don't know much of anything about CRT you know it's both wrong and 'bad'




so there is a grand conspiracy going on for decades to produce tens of thousand of fake studies and research. sure that makes sense

Well there's good research and bad research...and bad research can get a pass for monetary gain.

Here's an example from Critical Whiteness Studies I saw recently. The problem is a description of how "systemic racism works".

A shopkeeper watches young black men who enter his store and treats them as if they are going to steal something.

The reason? Whiteness. Whiteness is the culture and values of all white people and it causes him to see blacks as criminals. White supports both white privilege and white supremacy.

I'd like to tell you that the essay goes on to actually research this idea....it doesn't.

So how can we actually research the idea? We'd have to start by figuring out if the shopkeeper actually does this. Then we would need to find a large enough group of similar shopkeepers of multiple demographic types.

Then we can start investigating the causes. We can survey their racial attitudes towards different people. We can examine if they are even aware of what they are doing. We can ask them.

If the response is that 4 of the last 5 times they were robbed, it was by a similarly aged black man....well we have a problem. We can say that racism is at play here....but it's a racial attitude born out of experience. Whiteness isn't even a factor.

That's the downside of real research. If the conclusion doesn't fit the premise you have to revise the premise. That's a good thing for rocket science....but if you're in critical whiteness studies....you're getting nowhere.

Real example btw.

 

[rjs330]

Christopher RUfo isn't a journalist he is a conservative activist with a long history of presenting false claims about CRT.

Really? A long history is it? Where is your evidence of that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

no you linked a twitter post from an activist known for making false claims about CRT

I provided screenshots.

If activists are automatically wrong then we can completely discount the entire BLM movement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is a lot simpler than that. White supremacy is the effort to go to any lengths necessary to concentrate power in the hands of whites and to prevent non-whites for gaining power, status, and wealth.

Empire building?

Is that how you're defining white supremacy?

Because that's something every group of people has done since the dawn of history. The Zulu nation didn't conquer a third of Africa for the benefit of some other tribe, race, ethnic group, or culture....they did it for themselves. The Mongols weren't conquering China for the benefit of the Chinese.

Every group that has ever engaged in empire building has done this....Aztecs, Comanche....you name it.

Is it just a name for when white Europeans do it or is there something unique about it?

It was expressed in all sorts of activities, both legal and extralegal. The KKK was the most well-known organization embracing this goal, but they were not the only ones. I use the past tense, because it is the history that we are talking about. The question of whether white supremacy is active today is a separate matter that I will not get into because teaching history is about what was. So that is all I am focusing on. There is no doubt that what I described here played a big part in the formation of American society, with repercussions in the present day distribution of wealth. So even if there is no longer any white supremacy, its effect remains until today, whereas the importance of Paul Revere's ride to Lexington that all school children learn about is arguably inconsequential to the state of American society today. It is very likely that American still would have won the revolutionary war even if Paul Revere had fallen off his horse and never made it to Lexington.

Ok...so not empire building. You're talking specifically about laws and practices that discriminated against non-whites.

Would it surprise you to find whites also discriminated against whites?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I provided screenshots.

If activists are automatically wrong then we can completely discount the entire BLM movement.

It's not that activists are wrong. It is that they are not - on their own authority - reliable sources of objective information. That goes for those on the right and those on the left. I see now that you are unable to find the original school board document, but have simply trusted the activist you like.

 

[Pommer]

It's probably more of an internet slang. It originated with this cartoon.

Also...

Sealioning - Wikipedia

My raison d’être!

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not that activists are wrong. It is that they are not - on their own authority - reliable sources of objective information.

Right...that's why I didn't quote an activist, I posted screenshots.

That goes for those on the right and those on the left. I see now that you are unable to find the original school board document, but have simply trusted the activist you like.

Would you admit that you are wrong if I provided that?

It's not a shameful thing. We're all human. We're all wrong sometimes. I simply want to acknowledge it so we don't continue arguing this point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Clearly you've been paying quite a lot of attention to me. That's... unsettling, TBH.

Your beliefs are transparent because they are determined by political fashion.

I only have to quote rhetoric to describe what you believe.

If that makes you easy to predict, that's on you.

Why? You're not a censor; what do I gain by appeasing you?

Yeah ...you've only got criticism for whites.

 

[MehGuy]

You just summed up your position that while you don't know much of anything about CRT you know it's both wrong and 'bad'

No I didn't. I shared my suspicions about CRT asked for you to clear some of them up.. you so far have just ignored me and painted everything I've posted in the least charitable light.

so there is a grand conspiracy going on for decades to produce tens of thousand of fake studies and research. sure that makes sense

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I suspect most of those studies have merit and were not faked. My problem with academia is I think it can be prone to being biased in heavily researching certain issues and relatively ignoring others. Which over time can give certain topics massive research weight and others relatively little, potentially aiding in false impressions. Not that the heavily research topics are simply "faked". Simply that this imbalance can give false impressions. It also doesn't have to be the result of some grand "conspiracy".