What is CRT?

[Tom 1]

Some people assert that critical race theory is either the simple idea that whites are all racist, others that it cannot be understood. Neither of these ideas is true.

As there's a lot to it, I want to present different elements of CRT in different threads. In this thread the topics are the word racism, what it is taken to mean, and what CRT is actually intended to explain.

Googling the term leads to a lot of similar definitions, but here is one that I think is widely accepted:

Racism: 'the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another'

Point one: CRT is not about defining racism but rather an attempt to understand the effects of racism in different contexts.

In the book Critical Race Theory, An Introduction (Delgado, Stefancic, Harris), the authors make a comparison between the urban myth that the Inuit have 50+ words for snow and the difficulty of reducing CRT to the basic definition of racism most of us have. In English there is only one word - racism - that most people think of in relation to what CRT is about. If there were in fact an unlimited number of words that could be used to define each element of what CRT proposes to address, things would be simpler for those who write about it. But there are no such words, so understanding CRT requires a bit of lateral thinking.

CRT attempts to address (note it is a theory, despite claims to the contrary no-one in any of the literature claims that it is in its entirety the absolute truth and nothing but the truth) all of the historical and current affects of racism, the changing and various motivations behind racism, elements of socio-political and legal infrastructures and many other related aspects of modern society.

That's it for now, the first question is: Is this difficult to understand? Is it difficult to understand that CRT does not primarily deal with the concept of racism, as defined above, but with the multiplicity of its underlying causes and immediate and long term effects?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

its underlying causes

Lack of personnel relationship with Jesus

 

[Aussie Pete]

Some people assert that critical race theory is either the simple idea that whites are all racist, others that it cannot be understood. Neither of these ideas is true.

As there's a lot to it, I want to present different elements of CRT in different threads. In this thread the topics are the word racism, what it is taken to mean, and what CRT is actually intended to explain.

Googling the term leads to a lot of definitions, but here is one that I think is widely accepted:

Racism: 'the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another'

Point one: CRT is not primarily about racism as here defined.

In the book Critical Race Theory, An Introduction (Delgado, Stefancic, Harris), the authors make a comparison between the urban myth that the Inuit have 50+ words for snow and the difficulty of reducing CRT to the basic definition of racism most of us have. In English there is only one word - racism - that most people think of in relation to what CRT is about. If there were in fact an unlimited number of words that could be used to define each element of what CRT proposes to address, things would be simpler for those who write about it. But there are no such words, so understanding CRT requires a bit of lateral thinking.

CRT attempts to address (note it is a theory, despite claims to the contrary no-one in any of the literature claims that it is in its entirety the absolute truth and nothing but the truth) all of the historical and current affects of racism, the changing and various motivations behind racism, elements of socio-political and legal infrastructures and many other related aspects of modern society.

That's it for now, the first question is: Is this difficult to understand? Is it difficult to understand that CRT does not primarily deal with the concept of racism, as defined above, but with the multiplicity of its underlying causes and immediate and long term effects?

CRT, whatever the real definition, is being used as a baseball bat to beat up white people. It's just one more attempt to bully people into to submitting to a leftist/Marxist worldview such as promoted by BLM.

A country that can elect a black president and coloured people to high government office is not fundamentally racist. There are racists in every society. Painting every white male (white females are exempt for some reason) as some kind of supremacist or excessively privileged is racist in itself.

 

[Tom 1]

CRT, whatever the real definition, is being used as a baseball bat to beat up white people. It's just one more attempt to bully people into to submitting to a leftist/Marxist worldview such as promoted by BLM.

A country that can elect a black president and coloured people to high government office is not fundamentally racist. There are racists in every society. Painting every white male (white females are exempt for some reason) as some kind of supremacist or excessively privileged is racist in itself.

That's how a lot of people seem to see it, but I don't know what that impression is actually based on. From what I've seen, ideas about CRT as a tool to disparage whites mainly come from distortions of what it is about via talkshows and opinion pieces.

 

[Tom 1]

Lack of personnel relationship with Jesus

Some people still interpret Christianity as a reason to be racist. Some fundamentalists in the US (I've no idea how big a group but there was a case of some guy working for local government there last year or the year before who believed this) think that marriage between different ethnic groups is 'sinful'. Those ideas might not be widespread now, but for long periods racism was a central tenet of Christianity as taught in Europe and the US.

 

[Tom 1]

Painting every white male (white females are exempt for some reason) as some kind of supremacist or excessively privileged

What are you basing that on? What literature produced by a CRT theorist gave you that impression?

 

[Norbert L]

Is this difficult to understand?

Possibly yes given the explanation you're using is too long imo.

" ... the Inuit have 50+ words for snow and the difficulty of reducing CRT to the basic definition of racism most of us have..."

It used too many additional words which simply suggests that people can legitimately make up their own definitions about what single words mean. "My truth".

Besides if a person has a problem with the academic thinking of the race theory eugenics previously proposed but do not see the similar problems CRT proposes, then let's just say, race is the operative word.

 

[Tom 1]

Possibly yes given the explanation you're using is too long imo.

" ... the Inuit have 50+ words for snow and the difficulty of reducing CRT to the basic definition of racism most of us have..."

It used too many additional words which simply suggests that people can legitimately make up their own definitions about what single words mean. "My truth".

Besides if a person has a problem with the academic thinking of the race theory eugenics previously proposed but do not see the similar problems CRT proposes, then let's just say, race is the operative word.

Racism is one word with a generally accepted meaning.

CRT exists because of racism, but deals with the reasons for and effects of racism rather than racism itself.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's how a lot of people seem to see it, but I don't know what that impression is actually based on. From what I've seen, ideas about CRT as a tool to disparage whites mainly come from distortions of what it is about via talkshows and opinion pieces.

Most people get their news from those places. When "education" departments jump on the bandwagon, you get "experts" demanding 11 year old boys apologise for being white. Education? More like social engineering. Things were pretty simple when I was growing up. You went to school to learn sufficiently to be able to earn a living and raise a family. How kids deal with the constant bombardment of PC nonsense, woke and progressive agendas, LGBTIQ promotion and "the world owes you a living" propaganda, I don't know. We are producing a generation of snowflakes. I'm glad that the world is warming. Maybe the snowflakes will melt and the rest of us can get on with living.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What are you basing that on? What literature produced by a CRT theorist gave you that impression?

I base it on what some professionals are doing with CRT. I mentioned Australia's education system in my response to your previous post. CRT has been added to the "white privilege" mantra. Australia is supposed to accept a collective guilt trip because of the way the country was colonised by European settlers. Yes, wicked things were done. What I won't accept is that I was responsible. I'm not racist. I was married to a part aborigine and my two kids identify as aborigine. It's irrelevant to me.

 

[prodromos]

CRT - Cathode Ray Tube
What TV's and monitors used to be before LCD and LED displays came around.

 

[Norbert L]

Racism is one word with a generally accepted meaning.

CRT exists because of racism, but deals with the reasons for and effects of racism rather than racism itself.

Is that clear enough?

We agree that racism is wrong. How does CRT deal with the reasons for and effects of issues within a society? It inserts race as a cause. Therefore it must be racist which is clear enough.

 

[Tom 1]

Besides if a person has a problem with the academic thinking of the race theory eugenics previously proposed but do not see the similar problems CRT proposes, then let's just say, race is the operative word.

What do you see as being the points of comparison between eugenics and CRT, with reference to those theories (as opposed to generalisations about the idea of race)?

One major difference is that in CRT race is seen as a social construct, whereas eugenics promoted the idea that different races actually exist within the species Homo Sapiens, and that some are objectively better than others. These ideas are fundamentally opposed.

 

[Tom 1]

We agree that racism is wrong. How does CRT deal with the reasons for and effects of issues within a society? It inserts race as a cause. Therefore it must be racist which is clear enough.

I'm left with the impression that either you don't understand the question, or that for some reason you choose not to answer it.

 

[Norbert L]

I'm left with the impression that either you don't understand the question, or that for some reason you choose not to answer it.

I disagree. What has happened is you have no answer to the logic I used. It's not about me and you, its' about how CRT is either a racist ideology or not.

 

[Tom 1]

How does CRT deal with the reasons for and effects of issues within a society? It inserts race as a cause.

You've got that the wrong way round.

CRT recognises the effects of racism in modern society and what led to those effects. It doesn't 'insert race as a cause', any more than I could say I insert a hole in the roof as the cause of rain on my floor. That many countries in the world have experienced various problems because of racism is a fact, not a hypothesis.

'How does CRT deal with the reasons for and effects of issues within a society?'

That is the purpose of CRT - those effects exist independently of the theory, hence there being various different ways of interpreting and evaluating the effects of racism in the US, in this instance. Racism is not a theoretical concept. If it was not a theory that related to the causes and effects of racism it would be called something else, for example a theory addressing the effects of poor nutrition on education would have a different name, something to do with nutrition and education.

If I understand what you are saying, your idea is that because CRT attempts to understand racism and its effects, the theory itself must be racist? Can you explain why you think that is a valid argument?

 

[Tom 1]

Most people get their news from those places. When "education" departments jump on the bandwagon, you get "experts" demanding 11 year old boys apologise for being white. Education? More like social engineering. Things were pretty simple when I was growing up. You went to school to learn sufficiently to be able to earn a living and raise a family. How kids deal with the constant bombardment of PC nonsense, woke and progressive agendas, LGBTIQ promotion and "the world owes you a living" propaganda, I don't know. We are producing a generation of snowflakes. I'm glad that the world is warming. Maybe the snowflakes will melt and the rest of us can get on with living.

In what way would it be different to refer to people who get upset at the mere mention of CRT as snowflakes? Do you think that people who write about the fraught history of racism in the West don't want to earn a living and raise a family?

 

[Tom 1]

I base it on what some professionals are doing with CRT. I mentioned Australia's education system in my response to your previous post. CRT has been added to the "white privilege" mantra. Australia is supposed to accept a collective guilt trip because of the way the country was colonised by European settlers. Yes, wicked things were done. What I won't accept is that I was responsible. I'm not racist. I was married to a part aborigine and my two kids identify as aborigine. It's irrelevant to me.

That seems like a gross exaggeration of what is an attempt to reconcile the experience of some citizens of a country with a historical account that focuses mainly on the perspective of citizens with a different background. The bulk of it is about asking questions - in any country, it's the same thing. The history of Transylvania as taught in schools here presents one view, some ethnic hungarians insist on a history with a different set of emphases. Does that mean they are trying to make all Romanians feel guilty? Of cause it doesn't.

People often talk about guilt trips and taking personal responsibility as if that is what proponents of CRT are expecting or promoting - where does that idea come from? Do you have any specific examples of that being pushed as an idea, as opposed to people making that up in response to any attempt to question the standard history textbooks?

 

[Tom 1]

I disagree. What has happened is you have no answer to the logic I used. It's not about me and you, its' about how CRT is either a racist ideology or not.

As you chose to comment in this thread, you can do me the courtesy of responding to what the OP asks:
Do you understand that CRT is not simply about racism as a concept?
Do you understand that CRT is intended to address the causes and effects of racism?

Do you understand these two questions, or not? These are the questions this thread is about. If you have the idea that because CRT is a theory about causes and effects of racism, then it must be racist, then you can make a thread about that if you like. You can present your argument and explain why you think a theory about how ideas about race have an influence on society is racist by definition, knock yourself out.

 

[Tom 1]

It used too many additional words which simply suggests that people can legitimately make up their own definitions about what single words mean. "My truth".

That is the opposite of what it means to point out that the word racism has a generally accepted meaning.

Racism, as a word, has a generally accepted meaning. What 'my truth' definitions of the word racism are you aware of that don't fit within the parameters of what it is generally accepted to mean?

CRT is not about the meaning of the word racism.

CRT is about the causes and effects of racism as an actual element of human thought and behaviour, past and present.