Who can we blame for CRT? Immanuel Kant

[public hermit]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

 

[cow451]

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

I Kan’t get on board that.

 

[Sabertooth]

So, it wasn't Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland...?
IIRC, that started out with Alice being critical of "reason."

 

[public hermit]

So, it wasn't Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland...?
IIRC, that started out with Alice being critical of "reason."

Right. Anything "critical" could be the principal source of CRT. Socrates was critical of other people's notions of justice, hence CRT can be traced back to Socrates.

 

[dqhall]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

I think critical race theory is about prejudices and favoritism of Whites past and present. It errs in as much as it does not also find evidence of the prejudices and favoritism of Blacks, Latinos and others both past and present. I lived in a Black majority city where the mayor was Black. A city government office building I visited was full of Blacks. The parking meter enforcement were Black women. Many police officers were White men. I guessed too many Black men have felony records. It was like they talked about the shame of White injustices, while they also showed favoritism. It is as if some do not want equality, they want reparations, affirmative action and supremacy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory? ........ hardly.

I wonder. Did Guelzo supposedly learn this from his Scofield Reference Bible?

 

[cow451]

Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory? ........ hardly.

I wonder. Did Guelzo supposedly learn this from his Scofield Reference Bible?

Why Kan’t you believe it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

No, I tend to think Guelzo has, shall I say, "erred."

Who knows? Maybe Guelzo read something like the following article and failed to understand, and hence misapplied his own thoughts to, what he read:

Sandford, S. (2018). Kant, race, and natural history. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(9), 950-977.

 

[public hermit]

Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory? ........ hardly.

I wonder. Did Guelzo supposedly learn this from his Scofield Reference Bible?

He's a historian of American intellectual history. Let that sink in for a moment.

Okay, he's not a scholar of early modern philosophy up to Kant. Still, he seems to think Kant was against the the kinds of principles, Enlightenment principles, upon which the American republic was founded. I should probably be more generous and consider how that might be the case. But even if I succeeded in persuading myself of Kant's supposed anti-reason/Enlightenment stance, we still have the large leap from CRT back to Kant.

It just smacks of some ad hoc revision for the sake of a current political touch point. But yeah, intellectual history.

Allen C. Guelzo - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's a historian of American intellectual history. Let that sink in for a moment.

... yeah, of the American Civil War era...

Okay, he's not a scholar of early modern philosophy up to Kant. Still, he seems to think Kant was against the the kinds of principles, Enlightenment principles, upon which the American republic was founded. I should probably be more generous and consider how that might be the case. But even if I succeeded in persuading myself of Kant's supposed anti-reason/Enlightenment stance, we still have the large leap from CRT back to Kant.

It just smacks of some ad hoc revision for the sake of a current political touch point. But yeah, intellectual history.

Allen C. Guelzo - Wikipedia

... I very much agree with your thoughts on this, but I think we'd really need to see Guelzo's writings and his accompanying bibliographies to get an idea as to how he's come to his conclusions about a connection between CRT and Kant. From what I see so briefly in the article you posted, there's not much described there by which to review his processes and methods of research.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

Here's an additional piece to consider--a transcript from which Thiessen apparently drew some of his material:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/6.23.21-Guelzo-transcript.pdf

 

[public hermit]

... yeah, of the American Civil War era...

... I very much agree with your thoughts on this, but I think we'd really need to see Guelzo's writings and his accompanying bibliographies to get an idea as to how he's come to his conclusions about a connection between CRT and Kant. From what I see so briefly in the article you posted, there's not much described there by which to review his processes and methods of research.

There's a link embedded in the article to what looks to be a podcast transcript where he gives a little more, but not much.

He says Kant thought reason was insufficient (Critique of Pure Reason? Critique of Practical Reason?), which I guess resulted in a wholesale rejection of reason. Kant didn't reject reason, he just critiqued those areas where he thought reason could not go, e.g. metaphysics. But the idea that he was contra-enlightenment seems ludricus, on the face of it. So, you're right, who knows what he's talking about? Lol

Edit: Right, you linked to the podcast transcript I mention above.

 

[cow451]

There's a link embedded in the article to what looks to be a podcast transcript where he gives a little more, but not much.

He says Kant thought reason was insufficient (Critique of Pure Reason? Critique of Practical Reason?), which I guess resulted in a wholesale rejection of reason. Kant didn't reject reason, he just critiqued those areas where he thought reason could not go, e.g. metaphysics. But the idea that he was contra-enlightenment seems ludricus, on the face of it. So, you're right, who knows what he's talking about? Lol

Edit: Right, you linked to the podcast transcript I mention above.

I Kan’t figure it out. But I Kan’t go on this way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's a link embedded in the article to what looks to be a podcast transcript where he gives a little more, but not much.

He says Kant thought reason was insufficient (Critique of Pure Reason? Critique of Practical Reason?), which I guess resulted in a wholesale rejection of reason. Kant didn't reject reason, he just critiqued those areas where he thought reason could not go, e.g. metaphysics. But the idea that he was contra-enlightenment seems ludricus, on the face of it. So, you're right, who knows what he's talking about? Lol

Edit: Right, you linked to the podcast transcript I mention above.

Yeah, from the cursory comments that Guelzo makes about Kant, I'm getting the impression he hasn't read much (if any?) of Kant or that much about Kant.

 

[public hermit]

I Kan’t figure it out. But I Kan’t go on this way.

That use of his name never gets old. It Kan't.

 

[cow451]

That use of his name never gets old. It Kan't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He's a historian of American intellectual history. Let that sink in for a moment.

Okay, he's not a scholar of early modern philosophy up to Kant. Still, he seems to think Kant was against the the kinds of principles, Enlightenment principles, upon which the American republic was founded. I should probably be more generous and consider how that might be the case. But even if I succeeded in persuading myself of Kant's supposed anti-reason/Enlightenment stance, we still have the large leap from CRT back to Kant.

It just smacks of some ad hoc revision for the sake of a current political touch point. But yeah, intellectual history.

Allen C. Guelzo - Wikipedia

I wouldn't call it "ad hoc revision"---I'd call it "right leaning polemics"!

 

[muichimotsu]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

At best, he's "accurate" in that critical theory in the broader sense may have been something Kant started with his Critique of Pure Reason, though Marx also has aspects there that, if Guelzo wanted to go with his right leaning polemic, then why not immediately go for the jugular with a "CRT is Communism!" tactic

Critical Theory is more specific in nature and applies to Critical Race Theory, yes, which began with Derrick Bell, while Critical Theory goes back to the 1920s or so from German thinkers of the Frankfurt school.

But if you want to blame someone for Critical Race Theory specifically, that really only came about in the 1970s via Derrick Bell, and the older framework is not necessarily to blame for any outcomes that may result in differing theoretical models as to investigating certain aspects, like race, or just having different approaches, like critical social theory. And the applications are pretty broad by intention, because it's meant to look in a somewhat postmodern fashion, even if modernist philosophy also acknowledges the value

Trying to find a scapegoat as specific as Immanuel Kant or Karl Marx is unhelpful unless you're paid to just be a mouthpiece for ideological bents, in which case, that person likely doesn't care about much nuance, but just conveying an idea that sounds smart to the masses so they can continue to treat CRT like it's anything comparable to simple discussions that I wish my generation had in regards to racial injustice and how to approach such issues.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Apparently, Immanuel Kant is to blame for Critical Race Theory.

Marc Thiessen asked "Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, to explain CRT and why it is so dangerous."

Here we go:

Critical race theory, Guelzo says, is a subset of critical theory that began with Immanuel Kant in the 1790s. It was a response to — and rejection of — the principles of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason on which the American republic was founded. Kant believed that “reason was inadequate to give shape to our lives” and so he set about “developing a theory of being critical of reason,” Guelzo says.

But the critique of reason ended up justifying “ways of appealing to some very unreasonable things as explanations — things like race, nationality, class,” he says. Critical theory thus helped spawn totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century such as Marxism and Nazism, which taught that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors. For the Nazis, the Jews were the oppressors. And today, in 21st century America, critical race theory teaches that Whites are the oppressors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/11/danger-critical-race-theory/

So, Kant rejected the "principles of the Enlightenment"? Um, no he didn't. He wrote an essay specifically promoting reason and enlightenment (as it was understood at that time)!

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Does anyone think this might be an accurate analysis? Does anyone think Guelzo has no idea what he's talking about?

I Kant say. I'm not that familiar with Kants work.

Certainly within the time period, Kant couldn't be the only one criticizing rationality. There was widespread distrust of science. It has a tendency to provide more useful answers than traditional narratives.

He's a historian of American intellectual history. Let that sink in for a moment.

Okay, he's not a scholar of early modern philosophy up to Kant. Still, he seems to think Kant was against the the kinds of principles, Enlightenment principles, upon which the American republic was founded. I should probably be more generous and consider how that might be the case. But even if I succeeded in persuading myself of Kant's supposed anti-reason/Enlightenment stance, we still have the large leap from CRT back to Kant.

It just smacks of some ad hoc revision for the sake of a current political touch point. But yeah, intellectual history.

Allen C. Guelzo - Wikipedia

Oh this explains it...

Allen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is an American historian who serves as Senior Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities

A historian and researcher in the humanities.

This guy knows exactly where it comes from. He knows that if you just follow citations you go back to Marx and Hegel, Gramsci, I forgot the name of the old Brazilian marxist who thought schools were for political revolution....

He can't possibly be that deep in the humanities without knowing this mainly comes from marxists trying to understand why communism wasn't happening in the west....and how to change that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At best, he's "accurate" in that critical theory in the broader sense may have been something Kant started with his Critique of Pure Reason, though Marx also has aspects there that, if Guelzo wanted to go with his right leaning polemic, then why not immediately go for the jugular with a "CRT is Communism!" tactic

Critical Theory is more specific in nature and applies to Critical Race Theory, yes, which began with Derrick Bell, while Critical Theory goes back to the 1920s or so from German thinkers of the Frankfurt school.

But if you want to blame someone for Critical Race Theory specifically, that really only came about in the 1970s via Derrick Bell, and the older framework is not necessarily to blame for any outcomes that may result in differing theoretical models as to investigating certain aspects, like race, or just having different approaches, like critical social theory. And the applications are pretty broad by intention, because it's meant to look in a somewhat postmodern fashion, even if modernist philosophy also acknowledges the value

Trying to find a scapegoat as specific as Immanuel Kant or Karl Marx is unhelpful unless you're paid to just be a mouthpiece for ideological bents, in which case, that person likely doesn't care about much nuance, but just conveying an idea that sounds smart to the masses so they can continue to treat CRT like it's anything comparable to simple discussions that I wish my generation had in regards to racial injustice and how to approach such issues.

Derrick Bell certainly created the racial elements of it....but he was a rationalist.

Today's CRT scholar thinks truth is subjective and lived experiences can identify it....if your lived experiences represent the bottom of a hierarchical power structure.

If you're at the top of a power structure...well your lived experiences are just an attempt at preserving your own power.