Author Topic: CRT- where is the controversy?  (Read 3671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #60 on: November 24, 2021, 08:26:37 AM »

Offline td450

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1890
  • Tommy Points: 210
Is the decision being based solely on skin color? If all things are equal, as you suggest, then couldn't you argue no matter what the employer decides is prejudice? Also, I'd argue that businesses, colleges, etc. have the right to diversify their populations. So yeah, maybe a person of color is prioritized to add different values, thoughts, and cultures to a not very diverse place.

I donít think race should be considered at all.  I think it violates equal protection.  I also disagree that race is the best way to find diversity.  I think itís a short cut to bypass individuality.  The real objection is the lowering of standards, however.  If candidates are equal and thereís a default preference, I donít like it.  But, the bigger problem is giving slots to those who are simply underqualified.

I hear the bolded part all the time, and in my experience I just don't see companies hiring woefully undeserving candidates solely because they're of a certain color/ethnicity. A lot of people make it sound like wall street hedge funds are just finding people of color and hiring them because of it.

A statement like the bolded cannot be proven because we would have to know what each interview committee, or each hiring firm wants in searching for an employee. Does college degree make someone more qualified? Does years experience? Do recommendations? How can I from the outside say confidently a less qualified candidate was hired (oh and by the way I am saying that because they took the job from a white person) when I don't know how search committee ranked qualifications.

I certainly saw it in law school.  While I obviously didnít have access to grades, you could generally tell that there were students who just didnít have the intellect to compete.  And, yes, all of those students ó literally all of them ó were students of color.  And of course, there were also brilliant students of color with overwhelming intellect.

In college, I didnít notice that divide based upon race.  The people I met who ďdidnít belongĒ were members of the football and crew teams.  I was roommates with one.  The guy was average intelligence, but was attending a first tier college.  I liked him, but he didnít belong there, and took some other kidís slot.

I donít think anything is gained by giving underqualified folks slots theyíre not good enough for.

Professionally, weíve seen this in terms of lowering qualifications or test scores necessary for certain jobs, to get a more ďdiverseĒ workforce.  I think thatís extraordinarily flawed.

CRT can lead to affirmative action, and that is the threat?

I've read a lot of words in this thread, but I haven't heard a clear and concise response.

I agree with this comment, and wonder how some might respond:

"Attacks on CRT can be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimize historically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history; to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life; and to retain political power."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt

Did you see my response re: objectivism?

I'll try to simplify the danger of CRT for you. It rejects objective reality in favor of a reality that it dictates. And it attacks any legitimate critique as oppression.

How about you sell us on the merits of CRT? And again, not just dissection of racial issues in history and culture. The actual proposals of CRT via the tradition of Critical Theory and Marxist influence. What are the benefits of that specific approach?

Why should I sell you Marxist proposals? I'm getting lost.

I don't have an advanced degree in this subject. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing a ton of angry white dudes yelling about CRT on Fox News.

I read A People's History by Howard Zinn (after college), and thought that it was interesting how much info I didn't learn in school. I saw that the Zinn Project is fighting against states that want to ban certain information. In addition, people are freaked out by the 1619 Project. Is this because the focus is off of the founding fathers?

This fear that people of color are going to jump and grab jobs, or college spots, that don't belong to them seems to pale in comparison to the number of people that undeservedly get jobs from their network/family. Why so vocal about affirmative action but quiet about nepotism?

In an argument over whether we should address or deny the country's racist history, I don't see a solid argument for the latter.


Perhaps this will help.

More than one thing can be going on at the same time.

Most people, including you apparently, don't bother actually looking into what CRT is. Some people really do just use it as a racial dog whistle to complain about an influx of historical perspectives that look at race and the county's political origins differently. So you are correct there.

But, that isn't the whole story. Like almost all political talk, it is 10X easier to identify problems than it is to fix them. CRT attracts a lot of junk political philosophy. Some CRT questions things like democracy or empirical thinking. Some of it is marxist.

So, most of the time, anyone who talks about this tends to pick the part that suits them and ignore the rest. That is what you are doing too.


Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #61 on: November 24, 2021, 09:04:47 AM »

Offline MarcusSmartFanClub

  • Robert Williams
  • Posts: 189
  • Tommy Points: 17
Is the decision being based solely on skin color? If all things are equal, as you suggest, then couldn't you argue no matter what the employer decides is prejudice? Also, I'd argue that businesses, colleges, etc. have the right to diversify their populations. So yeah, maybe a person of color is prioritized to add different values, thoughts, and cultures to a not very diverse place.

I donít think race should be considered at all.  I think it violates equal protection.  I also disagree that race is the best way to find diversity.  I think itís a short cut to bypass individuality.  The real objection is the lowering of standards, however.  If candidates are equal and thereís a default preference, I donít like it.  But, the bigger problem is giving slots to those who are simply underqualified.

I hear the bolded part all the time, and in my experience I just don't see companies hiring woefully undeserving candidates solely because they're of a certain color/ethnicity. A lot of people make it sound like wall street hedge funds are just finding people of color and hiring them because of it.

A statement like the bolded cannot be proven because we would have to know what each interview committee, or each hiring firm wants in searching for an employee. Does college degree make someone more qualified? Does years experience? Do recommendations? How can I from the outside say confidently a less qualified candidate was hired (oh and by the way I am saying that because they took the job from a white person) when I don't know how search committee ranked qualifications.

I certainly saw it in law school.  While I obviously didnít have access to grades, you could generally tell that there were students who just didnít have the intellect to compete.  And, yes, all of those students ó literally all of them ó were students of color.  And of course, there were also brilliant students of color with overwhelming intellect.

In college, I didnít notice that divide based upon race.  The people I met who ďdidnít belongĒ were members of the football and crew teams.  I was roommates with one.  The guy was average intelligence, but was attending a first tier college.  I liked him, but he didnít belong there, and took some other kidís slot.

I donít think anything is gained by giving underqualified folks slots theyíre not good enough for.

Professionally, weíve seen this in terms of lowering qualifications or test scores necessary for certain jobs, to get a more ďdiverseĒ workforce.  I think thatís extraordinarily flawed.

CRT can lead to affirmative action, and that is the threat?

I've read a lot of words in this thread, but I haven't heard a clear and concise response.

I agree with this comment, and wonder how some might respond:

"Attacks on CRT can be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimize historically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history; to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life; and to retain political power."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt

Did you see my response re: objectivism?

I'll try to simplify the danger of CRT for you. It rejects objective reality in favor of a reality that it dictates. And it attacks any legitimate critique as oppression.

How about you sell us on the merits of CRT? And again, not just dissection of racial issues in history and culture. The actual proposals of CRT via the tradition of Critical Theory and Marxist influence. What are the benefits of that specific approach?

Why should I sell you Marxist proposals? I'm getting lost.

I don't have an advanced degree in this subject. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing a ton of angry white dudes yelling about CRT on Fox News.

I read A People's History by Howard Zinn (after college), and thought that it was interesting how much info I didn't learn in school. I saw that the Zinn Project is fighting against states that want to ban certain information. In addition, people are freaked out by the 1619 Project. Is this because the focus is off of the founding fathers?

This fear that people of color are going to jump and grab jobs, or college spots, that don't belong to them seems to pale in comparison to the number of people that undeservedly get jobs from their network/family. Why so vocal about affirmative action but quiet about nepotism?

In an argument over whether we should address or deny the country's racist history, I don't see a solid argument for the latter.

Ok, I see. You don't know what CRT is. That's fine. Neither do the people yelling about it on Fox News (most likely).

What it seems like you want is improved curriculum that address racism and racial issues in history more than they have in the past and/or currently do. That sounds good. But if you support CRT because you think that's what it is, you're going to end up with a bunch of destructive post-Marxism because that's what CRT is--to be concise.

People are afraid of CRT because it is Marxism? Gotcha. The outrage from Tucker Carlson (a person born into wealth) makes sense.

According to Cedric Powell (Professor at Louisville), ďTo say that it is totally Marxist is absolutist. I think any academic discipline draws on different theories,Ē he said.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2021, 09:26:17 AM »

Offline PaxtonDarcy

  • Enes Kanter
  • Posts: 38
  • Tommy Points: 4
Is the decision being based solely on skin color? If all things are equal, as you suggest, then couldn't you argue no matter what the employer decides is prejudice? Also, I'd argue that businesses, colleges, etc. have the right to diversify their populations. So yeah, maybe a person of color is prioritized to add different values, thoughts, and cultures to a not very diverse place.

I donít think race should be considered at all.  I think it violates equal protection.  I also disagree that race is the best way to find diversity.  I think itís a short cut to bypass individuality.  The real objection is the lowering of standards, however.  If candidates are equal and thereís a default preference, I donít like it.  But, the bigger problem is giving slots to those who are simply underqualified.

I hear the bolded part all the time, and in my experience I just don't see companies hiring woefully undeserving candidates solely because they're of a certain color/ethnicity. A lot of people make it sound like wall street hedge funds are just finding people of color and hiring them because of it.

A statement like the bolded cannot be proven because we would have to know what each interview committee, or each hiring firm wants in searching for an employee. Does college degree make someone more qualified? Does years experience? Do recommendations? How can I from the outside say confidently a less qualified candidate was hired (oh and by the way I am saying that because they took the job from a white person) when I don't know how search committee ranked qualifications.

I certainly saw it in law school.  While I obviously didnít have access to grades, you could generally tell that there were students who just didnít have the intellect to compete.  And, yes, all of those students ó literally all of them ó were students of color.  And of course, there were also brilliant students of color with overwhelming intellect.

In college, I didnít notice that divide based upon race.  The people I met who ďdidnít belongĒ were members of the football and crew teams.  I was roommates with one.  The guy was average intelligence, but was attending a first tier college.  I liked him, but he didnít belong there, and took some other kidís slot.

I donít think anything is gained by giving underqualified folks slots theyíre not good enough for.

Professionally, weíve seen this in terms of lowering qualifications or test scores necessary for certain jobs, to get a more ďdiverseĒ workforce.  I think thatís extraordinarily flawed.

CRT can lead to affirmative action, and that is the threat?

I've read a lot of words in this thread, but I haven't heard a clear and concise response.

I agree with this comment, and wonder how some might respond:

"Attacks on CRT can be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimize historically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history; to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life; and to retain political power."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt

Did you see my response re: objectivism?

I'll try to simplify the danger of CRT for you. It rejects objective reality in favor of a reality that it dictates. And it attacks any legitimate critique as oppression.

How about you sell us on the merits of CRT? And again, not just dissection of racial issues in history and culture. The actual proposals of CRT via the tradition of Critical Theory and Marxist influence. What are the benefits of that specific approach?

Why should I sell you Marxist proposals? I'm getting lost.

I don't have an advanced degree in this subject. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing a ton of angry white dudes yelling about CRT on Fox News.

I read A People's History by Howard Zinn (after college), and thought that it was interesting how much info I didn't learn in school. I saw that the Zinn Project is fighting against states that want to ban certain information. In addition, people are freaked out by the 1619 Project. Is this because the focus is off of the founding fathers?

This fear that people of color are going to jump and grab jobs, or college spots, that don't belong to them seems to pale in comparison to the number of people that undeservedly get jobs from their network/family. Why so vocal about affirmative action but quiet about nepotism?

In an argument over whether we should address or deny the country's racist history, I don't see a solid argument for the latter.

Ok, I see. You don't know what CRT is. That's fine. Neither do the people yelling about it on Fox News (most likely).

What it seems like you want is improved curriculum that address racism and racial issues in history more than they have in the past and/or currently do. That sounds good. But if you support CRT because you think that's what it is, you're going to end up with a bunch of destructive post-Marxism because that's what CRT is--to be concise.

People are afraid of CRT because it is Marxism? Gotcha. The outrage from Tucker Carlson (a person born into wealth) makes sense.

According to Cedric Powell (Professor at Louisville), ďTo say that it is totally Marxist is absolutist. I think any academic discipline draws on different theories,Ē he said.

Okay, so I understand what you are trying to say/do here. Also, the poster above clearly doesnít understand crt and is being alarmist. For whatever reason. Itís also okay, there is a lot of dog whistling around crt. As I said in my previous post, some of it justified.

CRT is a Marxist text, thatís no absolutist. CRT is Marxist in the same way a word that we use in the English language but has a complex etymology, is.

I fundamentally agree that nepotism is a far greater danger to our country. Generally, I find classism to be the greatest risk to American Liberty and freedom.

This is where I am frustrated with the state of discourse, esp coming from the crt perspective. If I say what I just said above I am labeled as an ableist and racist. I am attacked in ad hominems rather that with substance.

It is okay to both say that racisim is a huge issue and say that I do not think it is the widespread, intrinsic extistential threat others do. I place a larger emphasis/ responsibility on a different aspect of what is happening. That needs to be okay in all forums, we are talking about theory.

By casting it off and saying it isnít being taught in schools and isnít this and isnít that, you are enabling it. Trust me, I have been in academia for over ten years now, it is being taught in ever level of education. The only discussion is whether crt is being explicitly taught or implicitly taught. It has absolutely reached and influenced any young teacher that has been in college over the past ten years.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 09:35:18 AM by PaxtonDarcy »

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #63 on: November 24, 2021, 09:28:31 AM »

Offline gift

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
  • Tommy Points: 263
Is the decision being based solely on skin color? If all things are equal, as you suggest, then couldn't you argue no matter what the employer decides is prejudice? Also, I'd argue that businesses, colleges, etc. have the right to diversify their populations. So yeah, maybe a person of color is prioritized to add different values, thoughts, and cultures to a not very diverse place.

I donít think race should be considered at all.  I think it violates equal protection.  I also disagree that race is the best way to find diversity.  I think itís a short cut to bypass individuality.  The real objection is the lowering of standards, however.  If candidates are equal and thereís a default preference, I donít like it.  But, the bigger problem is giving slots to those who are simply underqualified.

I hear the bolded part all the time, and in my experience I just don't see companies hiring woefully undeserving candidates solely because they're of a certain color/ethnicity. A lot of people make it sound like wall street hedge funds are just finding people of color and hiring them because of it.

A statement like the bolded cannot be proven because we would have to know what each interview committee, or each hiring firm wants in searching for an employee. Does college degree make someone more qualified? Does years experience? Do recommendations? How can I from the outside say confidently a less qualified candidate was hired (oh and by the way I am saying that because they took the job from a white person) when I don't know how search committee ranked qualifications.

I certainly saw it in law school.  While I obviously didnít have access to grades, you could generally tell that there were students who just didnít have the intellect to compete.  And, yes, all of those students ó literally all of them ó were students of color.  And of course, there were also brilliant students of color with overwhelming intellect.

In college, I didnít notice that divide based upon race.  The people I met who ďdidnít belongĒ were members of the football and crew teams.  I was roommates with one.  The guy was average intelligence, but was attending a first tier college.  I liked him, but he didnít belong there, and took some other kidís slot.

I donít think anything is gained by giving underqualified folks slots theyíre not good enough for.

Professionally, weíve seen this in terms of lowering qualifications or test scores necessary for certain jobs, to get a more ďdiverseĒ workforce.  I think thatís extraordinarily flawed.

CRT can lead to affirmative action, and that is the threat?

I've read a lot of words in this thread, but I haven't heard a clear and concise response.

I agree with this comment, and wonder how some might respond:

"Attacks on CRT can be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimize historically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history; to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life; and to retain political power."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt

Did you see my response re: objectivism?

I'll try to simplify the danger of CRT for you. It rejects objective reality in favor of a reality that it dictates. And it attacks any legitimate critique as oppression.

How about you sell us on the merits of CRT? And again, not just dissection of racial issues in history and culture. The actual proposals of CRT via the tradition of Critical Theory and Marxist influence. What are the benefits of that specific approach?

Why should I sell you Marxist proposals? I'm getting lost.

I don't have an advanced degree in this subject. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing a ton of angry white dudes yelling about CRT on Fox News.

I read A People's History by Howard Zinn (after college), and thought that it was interesting how much info I didn't learn in school. I saw that the Zinn Project is fighting against states that want to ban certain information. In addition, people are freaked out by the 1619 Project. Is this because the focus is off of the founding fathers?

This fear that people of color are going to jump and grab jobs, or college spots, that don't belong to them seems to pale in comparison to the number of people that undeservedly get jobs from their network/family. Why so vocal about affirmative action but quiet about nepotism?

In an argument over whether we should address or deny the country's racist history, I don't see a solid argument for the latter.

Ok, I see. You don't know what CRT is. That's fine. Neither do the people yelling about it on Fox News (most likely).

What it seems like you want is improved curriculum that address racism and racial issues in history more than they have in the past and/or currently do. That sounds good. But if you support CRT because you think that's what it is, you're going to end up with a bunch of destructive post-Marxism because that's what CRT is--to be concise.

People are afraid of CRT because it is Marxism? Gotcha. The outrage from Tucker Carlson (a person born into wealth) makes sense.

According to Cedric Powell (Professor at Louisville), ďTo say that it is totally Marxist is absolutist. I think any academic discipline draws on different theories,Ē he said.

It's totally post-Marxist as I said.

You keep skating past the warnings I've posted about it's danger being that it rejects objective reality. Does a theory that rejects reality and all critique not seem bad to you? It sounds like a dangerous religion to me.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2021, 09:31:02 AM »

Offline gift

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
  • Tommy Points: 263
Is the decision being based solely on skin color? If all things are equal, as you suggest, then couldn't you argue no matter what the employer decides is prejudice? Also, I'd argue that businesses, colleges, etc. have the right to diversify their populations. So yeah, maybe a person of color is prioritized to add different values, thoughts, and cultures to a not very diverse place.

I donít think race should be considered at all.  I think it violates equal protection.  I also disagree that race is the best way to find diversity.  I think itís a short cut to bypass individuality.  The real objection is the lowering of standards, however.  If candidates are equal and thereís a default preference, I donít like it.  But, the bigger problem is giving slots to those who are simply underqualified.

I hear the bolded part all the time, and in my experience I just don't see companies hiring woefully undeserving candidates solely because they're of a certain color/ethnicity. A lot of people make it sound like wall street hedge funds are just finding people of color and hiring them because of it.

A statement like the bolded cannot be proven because we would have to know what each interview committee, or each hiring firm wants in searching for an employee. Does college degree make someone more qualified? Does years experience? Do recommendations? How can I from the outside say confidently a less qualified candidate was hired (oh and by the way I am saying that because they took the job from a white person) when I don't know how search committee ranked qualifications.

I certainly saw it in law school.  While I obviously didnít have access to grades, you could generally tell that there were students who just didnít have the intellect to compete.  And, yes, all of those students ó literally all of them ó were students of color.  And of course, there were also brilliant students of color with overwhelming intellect.

In college, I didnít notice that divide based upon race.  The people I met who ďdidnít belongĒ were members of the football and crew teams.  I was roommates with one.  The guy was average intelligence, but was attending a first tier college.  I liked him, but he didnít belong there, and took some other kidís slot.

I donít think anything is gained by giving underqualified folks slots theyíre not good enough for.

Professionally, weíve seen this in terms of lowering qualifications or test scores necessary for certain jobs, to get a more ďdiverseĒ workforce.  I think thatís extraordinarily flawed.

CRT can lead to affirmative action, and that is the threat?

I've read a lot of words in this thread, but I haven't heard a clear and concise response.

I agree with this comment, and wonder how some might respond:

"Attacks on CRT can be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimize historically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history; to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life; and to retain political power."
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt

Did you see my response re: objectivism?

I'll try to simplify the danger of CRT for you. It rejects objective reality in favor of a reality that it dictates. And it attacks any legitimate critique as oppression.

How about you sell us on the merits of CRT? And again, not just dissection of racial issues in history and culture. The actual proposals of CRT via the tradition of Critical Theory and Marxist influence. What are the benefits of that specific approach?

Why should I sell you Marxist proposals? I'm getting lost.

I don't have an advanced degree in this subject. I'm just wondering why I'm seeing a ton of angry white dudes yelling about CRT on Fox News.

I read A People's History by Howard Zinn (after college), and thought that it was interesting how much info I didn't learn in school. I saw that the Zinn Project is fighting against states that want to ban certain information. In addition, people are freaked out by the 1619 Project. Is this because the focus is off of the founding fathers?

This fear that people of color are going to jump and grab jobs, or college spots, that don't belong to them seems to pale in comparison to the number of people that undeservedly get jobs from their network/family. Why so vocal about affirmative action but quiet about nepotism?

In an argument over whether we should address or deny the country's racist history, I don't see a solid argument for the latter.

Ok, I see. You don't know what CRT is. That's fine. Neither do the people yelling about it on Fox News (most likely).

What it seems like you want is improved curriculum that address racism and racial issues in history more than they have in the past and/or currently do. That sounds good. But if you support CRT because you think that's what it is, you're going to end up with a bunch of destructive post-Marxism because that's what CRT is--to be concise.

People are afraid of CRT because it is Marxism? Gotcha. The outrage from Tucker Carlson (a person born into wealth) makes sense.

According to Cedric Powell (Professor at Louisville), ďTo say that it is totally Marxist is absolutist. I think any academic discipline draws on different theories,Ē he said.

Okay, so I understand what you are trying to say/do here. Also, the poster above clearly doesnít understand crt and is being alarmist. For whatever reason. Itís also okay, there is a lot of dog whistling around crt. As I said in my previous post, some of it justified.

CRT is a Marxist text, thatís no absolutist. CRT is Marxist in the same way a word that we use in the English language but has a complex etymology.

I fundamentally agree that nepotism is a far greater danger to our country. Generally, I find classism to be the greatest risk to American Liberty and freedom.

This is where I am frustrated with the state of discourse, esp coming from the crt perspective. If I say what I just said above I am labeled as an ableist and racist. I am attacked in ad hominems rather that with substance.

It is okay to both say that racisim is a huge issue and say that I do not think it is the widespread, intrinsic extistential threat others do. I place a larger emphasis/ responsibility on a different aspect of what is happening. That needs to be okay in all forums, we are talking about theory.

By casting it off and saying it isnít being taught in schools and isnít this and isnít that, you are enabling it. Trust me, I have been in academia for over ten years now, it is being taught in ever level of education. The only discussion is whether crt is being explicitly taught or implicitly taught. It has absolutely reached and influenced any young teacher that has been in college over the past ten years.

Read my other posts.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2021, 09:31:52 AM »

Offline PaxtonDarcy

  • Enes Kanter
  • Posts: 38
  • Tommy Points: 4
Double

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2021, 10:50:57 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
So, most of the time, anyone who talks about this tends to pick the part that suits them and ignore the rest. That is what you are doing too.

I'm using this post as a catch all for the (actually very good!) discussion happening on this page and throughout the thread -- we are on a basketball forum, so it's a little bit idealistic to expect everyone to bring the same level of refinement to the discussion.

If it's a legitimate discussion, people learn by talking to people they disagree with, and no one should feel they need to be Wittgenstein to participate.

For ex: when Roy says that "So much of the problem isnít inherent racism, but rather poverty and related crime.  We deflect from that, but those are so often the issues," there are a lot of interesting perspectives on this phenomenon, some that agrees with the implicit conclusion (these are two different things) and some that don't (e.g. 'race and class are inherently linked in countries like the US and the UK' and so on).

But I'm not going to expect him to be able to defend his position like it's a thesis - not because he can't, but because we're all busy people who are predominantly here to talk about men putting a funny looking ball through a basket. He doesn't lose imaginary internet points for that, it's just life.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so muchóthe wheel, New York, wars and so onówhilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than manófor precisely the same reasons.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2021, 11:03:31 AM »

Offline td450

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1890
  • Tommy Points: 210
So, most of the time, anyone who talks about this tends to pick the part that suits them and ignore the rest. That is what you are doing too.

I'm using this post as a catch all for the (actually very good!) discussion happening on this page and throughout the thread -- we are on a basketball forum, so it's a little bit idealistic to expect everyone to bring the same level of refinement to the discussion.

If it's a legitimate discussion, people learn by talking to people they disagree with, and no one should feel they need to be Wittgenstein to participate.

For ex: when Roy says that "So much of the problem isnít inherent racism, but rather poverty and related crime.  We deflect from that, but those are so often the issues," there are a lot of interesting perspectives on this phenomenon, some that agrees with the implicit conclusion (these are two different things) and some that don't (e.g. 'race and class are inherently linked in countries like the US and the UK' and so on).

But I'm not going to expect him to be able to defend his position like it's a thesis - not because he can't, but because we're all busy people who are predominantly here to talk about men putting a funny looking ball through a basket. He doesn't lose imaginary internet points for that, it's just life.

Thank you for that, I think it's important to understand the limitations of this debate.

That being said, if you quote and engage with another poster, then you can't just dismiss their perspective as not what this is about.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2021, 11:06:38 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
Entirely agreed.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so muchóthe wheel, New York, wars and so onówhilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than manófor precisely the same reasons.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2021, 11:33:49 AM »

Offline gift

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
  • Tommy Points: 263
I would also add that if the forum topic and original post was "CRT-Let's talk about the theory" you'd get different responses than if you say "tell me what's wrong with it". I've highlighted/emphasized problems with CRT here (while also valuing it as an academic theory and entertaining it's benefit as a thought exercise), because that was what was asked for. I don't think it's alarmist to emphasize a problem when you are asked to speak about the supposed problem.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2021, 05:02:53 PM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2171
  • Tommy Points: 229
I recently saw a video that made what I think is a very good point about the debate about our nationís history and the objections to teaching of the obvious racism involved. Many want to promote a view of American Exceptionalism and point to all the good things that came from our history, while at the same time ignoring all of the negative aspects as the accepted realities of the time. However, thatís trying to have it both ways, as America is then exceptional when it suits the argument but also cannot be judged for times when it was unexceptional. I know itís a folly to judge people based on current morality and accepted truths, but we surely were behind the times when it came to overcoming the stains of slavery and open racial discrimination. It would have to be very difficult to be black or Native American in the American classroom and hear of the great exploits of our Founding Fathers knowing this.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2021, 06:34:32 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47178
  • Tommy Points: -26821
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
I recently saw a video that made what I think is a very good point about the debate about our nationís history and the objections to teaching of the obvious racism involved. Many want to promote a view of American Exceptionalism and point to all the good things that came from our history, while at the same time ignoring all of the negative aspects as the accepted realities of the time. However, thatís trying to have it both ways, as America is then exceptional when it suits the argument but also cannot be judged for times when it was unexceptional. I know itís a folly to judge people based on current morality and accepted truths, but we surely were behind the times when it came to overcoming the stains of slavery and open racial discrimination. It would have to be very difficult to be black or Native American in the American classroom and hear of the great exploits of our Founding Fathers knowing this.

As gift has pointed out, teaching the good and the bad isn't CRT.  Every program should be doing that already.  You can't really teach manifest destiny in a meaningful way if you disregard the wars, and often genocide, of native tribes.

I'm curious from your perspective:  how much context do you teach in that setting?  Is it fair to point out that most of the world was engaging in either colonialism or was frequently with war with one another at the time?  That Western nations were conquering other areas of the world not because they had more evil hearts, but because their societies were more advanced in terms of technology?  That slavery wasn't a Western European / American creation, and that America was hardly alone in utilizing the slave trade (but it was behind the times in terms of abolishing it)? 

Does that context get taught?  And obviously, there are other historical facts, like how America has frequently been unkind to immigrants, despite being a country of immigrants.  Jim Crow needs to be taught.  But also, the expansion of industry that provided jobs to many people that weren't available elsewhere.  There are white heroes, and white villains.  Black heroes, and black villains.  We can't "whitewash" history, but we can't only focus on the bad, either.

We can't simply pick a worldview, and teach that.  It needs to be the good, the bad, and the ugly, but ultimately, it needs to be fair and accurate.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2021, 06:42:47 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1385
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • The voice of reason
CRT is an interesting problem for the Democrats.

Some people view it as the nice version -- "Teaching history from the perspective of Black Americans." Love it, would like to participate in that myself.
Some people view it as the bad version -- The "white people are like this and black people" are like this version. Some other woke topics have been mixed into this, like it or not. For example, it's not enough to talk about what happened and bond over the tragedy together, we need to tear down every monument of any person that has had any connection to slavery.

The bad version is extremely unpopular with moderates and anyone further to the right, so the Democrats have to claim that they only want the nice version BUT can't disavow the bad version because their base wants it to be that.

This is a very big problem for Democrats, and you can tell because the media (part of the Democratic party) is fully focused on being the bad guy and doing the dirty work of presenting only the nice version and saying the bad version doesn't exist.

This will be brought up in every single debate, campaign ad, etc from 2022 through 2024.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 06:50:11 PM by Erik »

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2021, 07:09:15 PM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2171
  • Tommy Points: 229
I recently saw a video that made what I think is a very good point about the debate about our nationís history and the objections to teaching of the obvious racism involved. Many want to promote a view of American Exceptionalism and point to all the good things that came from our history, while at the same time ignoring all of the negative aspects as the accepted realities of the time. However, thatís trying to have it both ways, as America is then exceptional when it suits the argument but also cannot be judged for times when it was unexceptional. I know itís a folly to judge people based on current morality and accepted truths, but we surely were behind the times when it came to overcoming the stains of slavery and open racial discrimination. It would have to be very difficult to be black or Native American in the American classroom and hear of the great exploits of our Founding Fathers knowing this.

As gift has pointed out, teaching the good and the bad isn't CRT.  Every program should be doing that already.  You can't really teach manifest destiny in a meaningful way if you disregard the wars, and often genocide, of native tribes.

I'm curious from your perspective:  how much context do you teach in that setting?  Is it fair to point out that most of the world was engaging in either colonialism or was frequently with war with one another at the time?  That Western nations were conquering other areas of the world not because they had more evil hearts, but because their societies were more advanced in terms of technology?  That slavery wasn't a Western European / American creation, and that America was hardly alone in utilizing the slave trade (but it was behind the times in terms of abolishing it)? 

Does that context get taught?  And obviously, there are other historical facts, like how America has frequently been unkind to immigrants, despite being a country of immigrants.  Jim Crow needs to be taught.  But also, the expansion of industry that provided jobs to many people that weren't available elsewhere.  There are white heroes, and white villains.  Black heroes, and black villains.  We can't "whitewash" history, but we can't only focus on the bad, either.

We can't simply pick a worldview, and teach that.  It needs to be the good, the bad, and the ugly, but ultimately, it needs to be fair and accurate.

This is a nuanced response that I appreciate, even if I have some disagreements.

To your primary question, I do certainly believe there is a need for context when discussing the American experience compared to the entirety of human history. I also believe that there have been some knee jerks to the opposite direction to combat the more neutered version of American History that basically teaches that Jefferson and Washington and the other Founders are glorious heroes without really digging into the inherent contradictions of them owning other humans and taking land from the natural inhabitants.

I think my primary concern is that many of the most prominent voices on the right have no real interest in teaching the nuance either. Look no further than the inane 1776 Report that basically excused any and all transgressions by our Founders and called for a Patriotic telling of American history as one of its core philosophies. If asked to choose between a blindly patriotic history and a blindly critical history, Iíd be more inclined to choose the latter, because itís more intellectually honest. We, like the rest of the world, did some really, really awful things, that reverberate forward to some of our current inequities.

I just donít see how you can look at a history that involved 250 years of enslaving one group and slaughtering another, followed by an additional 100 years of structured, explicit racism and not teach it through the lens of how it affects us to this day. We can say all we want how there isnít explicit, state sponsored discrimination allowed today, but that ignores the impact of having an entire race of people needing to start from an immense position of disadvantage. Does that mean we need to go out of our way to vilify everyone involved? No. But itís hard to look at the totality of American history and have a warm and fuzzy feeling if you arenít a straight white male.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2021, 10:15:14 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1293
  • Tommy Points: 338
TPs aren't just for game threads when we win. Lots of coherent, thoughtful and engaging conversation happening here. Loving the discussion and loving the lack of blind arguing. Educational read, TPs all!!