Author Topic: CRT- where is the controversy?  (Read 3670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #75 on: November 25, 2021, 07:25:09 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
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.

Agreed that a lot of different topics are being put in to one umbrella. TD450 said it best when he said it attracts a lot of "junk philosophy" a few pages ago.

But I also think the good and the bad versions are getting muddled here. I'm nothing close to an expert, but as far as I'm aware CRT is/was a predominantly legal framework that's more or less an assessment on whether or not race-neutral laws can, in fact, be systemically racist. Or, in other words, people's rights are the same on paper, but the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities render them effectively racist.

For ex: : I'm not refusing to rent to non-white people, because that's illegal. I'm just refusing to rent to poor people. The fact that all of the poor people happen to be non-white is 'an unrelated issue'.

This is an example of what our more tech-oriented posters will recognise as a feature, rather than a bug when it comes to extending social inequality.


--------------------------------------------------
Warning, tangly tangent ahead

Where it gets more complicated, though, is in two areas First: the inevitable "realness" debate - whether you're a Real American or a Real Black Person or a Real whatever. In other words, if you are somehow successful as a non-white person, you're losing your grip on your "real" cultural identity. This was something that people lobbed at Obama more or less the entire tenure of his presidency. I don't think Obama is "not a real black person" (utterly meaningless term), but I do think there's something to be said for the fact that he benefited from and further entrenched a system that was antagonistic to his skin colour, rather than benefiting because of it.

Second complication: Americans who can point to Irish (or Italian, or Polish, and so on) forebearers who were discriminated against and claim that as reason why they are antipathetic to some of these conversations. One of my grandparents was an indentured servant/came over and worked in the coal mines/suffered mass discrimination. So on. So forth.

The problem with that, though, is that cultural identity isn't fixed*. For lots of white people, the struggles of your ancestors are no longer your struggles. This isn't necessarily the same for people who find themselves on the outside of the dominant social class (which, in my opinion, has strong links to race whether we like it or not).


*This is an idea I got from Hall, which I don't hear talked about very often (despite the fact that he wrote it in the 90s):

Quote
Cultural identity, in this second sense, is a matter of 'becoming' as well as of 'being'. It belongs to the future as much as to the past. It is not something  which already exists, transcending  place, time, history and culture. Cultural identities come from somewhere,  have  histories.  But,  like  everything which  is  historical,  they undergo constant transformation. Far from being eternally fixed  in  some  essentialised  past,  they  are  subject  to  the  continuous  'play'  of history,  culture  and  power.  Far  from  being  grounded  in  a  mere  'recovery'  of the  past,  which is waiting to be found,  and which, when found, will secure our sense of ourselves into eternity, identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned  by,  and  position  ourselves  within,  the  narratives  of the past.
You can read the whole thing here: https://web.archive.org/web/20181024203436/http://www.rlwclarke.net/Theory/SourcesPrimary/HallCulturalIdentityandDiaspora.pdf

Again, I'm not an expert. Just adding my 2c to the discussion.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst 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 man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #76 on: November 25, 2021, 08:16:15 AM »

Offline td450

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1890
  • Tommy Points: 210
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.

... I'm nothing close to an expert, but as far as I'm aware CRT is/was a predominantly legal framework that's more or less an assessment on whether or not race-neutral laws can, in fact, be systemically racist. Or, in other words, people's rights are the same on paper, but the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities render them effectively racist.

...


This is a big part of various CRT analysis, and where things tend to go off the rails is with what to do about it.

There are some things that can be done about these types of disparate impact problems that fit within the American social contract and some things that can't. Anyone has a right to their own philosophy, no matter how out there, but some CRT essays claim core principles of democracy itself are incompatible with racial justice, and some of that related language does find its way into things teachers say in classrooms.

In the end, we vote and the majority decides a matter. In other words, some disparate impact is actually just.

One of the authors that has attracted the most interest and controversy is Ibrahim X Kendi, who wrote "How to Be an Anti-Racist". His ideas are completely incompatible with normal notions of democracy. His book and his lessons are gaining traction, maybe not directly in K12 classrooms, but certainly one off, in grad classes and in many DEI training sessions in organizations all over the country.

Just like with CRT, he attracts many of the same unfair criticisms and avoids a lot of the fair ones.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #77 on: November 25, 2021, 08:30:30 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18281
  • Tommy Points: 2007
I’m finding that the more I read this thread the less I think I understand CRT. This concerns me a lot since I have no doubt now that what people are generally haranguing about in the political discourse (not talking about here but in stump speeches, political ads, and at school board meetings) has only vague or very generalized connection to what CRT really is.

I wonder if someone who understands CRT can explain whether and how the idea of equality v. equity connects to CRT.  Equality of course being that “fairness” means everyone receives the same - same treatment, opportunity or access, etc. regardless of needs, and equity being that fairness means people are treated with some differentiation in recognition of needs and circumstances.  This image being a simplistic example of the difference:

https://miro.medium.com/max/1838/1*Sbu0UfWk6FZGoUIYFGqrUA.png

Anyone who has had children who are very different from one another in terms of needs probably understand the concept of equity very well. The response given to one may be different than to the other because what it takes to get through to (or support) one is different that what it takes to get through to the other.

Is CRT to some extent about America’s acknowledgment that as a result of generations of cultural evolution that fairness requires greater attention to equity then equality? 

Btw, not trying to make a right or wrong statement about equality v. equity, just trying to place CRT in a context that makes it more understandable to me.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 09:17:47 AM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #78 on: November 25, 2021, 08:41:58 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
I think it's a good question that I'm unequipped to answer very well, but just a head's up: the asterisk is breaking the image link.

Quote
https://miro.medium.com/max/1838/1*Sbu0UfWk6FZGoUIYFGqrUA.png
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst 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 man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #79 on: November 25, 2021, 09:19:09 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18281
  • Tommy Points: 2007
I think it's a good question that I'm unequipped to answer very well, but just a head's up: the asterisk is breaking the image link.

Quote
https://miro.medium.com/max/1838/1*Sbu0UfWk6FZGoUIYFGqrUA.png

Thanks K - I don’t know how to make the link viewable.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #80 on: November 25, 2021, 10:00:28 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6854
  • Tommy Points: 498
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend
Memphis Grizzlies

PG:  Damian Lillard, Devonte' Graham, Delon Wright
SG:  Shai-Gilgeous Alexander, Danny Green
SF:  Mikal Bridges, Bojan Bogdanovic
PF:  Julius Randle, Miles Bridges, Blake Griffin
C:   Karl-Anthony Towns, Al Horford, Serge Ibaka

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #81 on: November 25, 2021, 10:23:00 AM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 43
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

I'm not sure how this goes against the racism narrative you talked about in your first sentence, Tazz.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst 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 man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #82 on: November 25, 2021, 10:31:10 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18281
  • Tommy Points: 2007
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

I get that you think today’s judicial system favors black people.  I doubt it, but I don’t know for sure and I’m open to the idea of it. If true, it’s a correction that isn’t correct.   I hope you aren’t trying to make the case that decades ago the system was fair to all races and we’ve gotten away from the righteousness of our judicial system.   Seems to be what you were suggesting when you speculated about 20 and 50 years ago.

The underlying cultural experience of many African Americans formed the expectation that the system will always side against them based on race.  I think this provides context for why the Arbery verdict felt good to many black people (I’m certain not all) and why recent cases like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Jacob Blake felt (actually, regardless of circumstances) like more of the same old.  Hope you understand that I don’t think there should be favorable treatment in law enforcement or adjudication or media attention based on race.  But race, like it or not, still has an impact and we’re still sorting that out in many contexts.  Likely (though who knows) we’d never have heard the name Gabby Petito if she were black and it’s possible that Ahmaud Arbery would be alive if he were a white man walking through a home under construction.  But these are unknowns and IMO uselessly speculative - other than providing some basis for acknowledgment that, unfortunately, race still figures into the equation in many contexts and we have a long way to go to making things demonstrably better.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #83 on: November 25, 2021, 10:35:30 AM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2171
  • Tommy Points: 229
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

First of all, I’m glad he was found not guilty, and think it’s disgusting he was charged with the murder of his girlfriend when the police killed her. As an aside here, part of the problem in this country is the impunity with which the police can kill citizens. Keep in mind here that in a case where the police killed someone, the question in the courts is whether or not *someone else* should be charged with her murder.

All that said, my primary objection to your post is the framing that because certain things are better than they were that it means there isn’t still a problem. I don’t think anybody serious is arguing that we’re not doing better today with equality than 50 years ago. Rather the arguments are generally that we still have further reforms to make and that the explicitly racist policies of the past have consequences to this day that have led to current inequalities.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2021, 11:41:32 AM by mqtcelticsfan »

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #84 on: November 25, 2021, 11:34:09 AM »

Offline PaxtonDarcy

  • Enes Kanter
  • Posts: 38
  • Tommy Points: 4
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

First of all, I’m glad he was found not guilty, and think it’s disgusting he was charged with the murder of his girlfriend when the police killed her. As an aside here, part of the problem in this country is the impunity with which the police can kill citizens. Keep in mind here that in a case where the police killed someone, the question in the courts is whether or not *someone else* should be charged with her murder.

All that said, my primary objection to your post is the framing that because certain things are better than they were that it means there isn’t still a problem. I don’t think anybody serious is arguing that we’re doing better today with equality than 50 years ago. Rather the arguments are generally that we still have further reforms to make and that the explicitly racist policies of the past have consequences to this day that have led to current inequalities.

I’m a serious person and I absolutely think we are doing better today with equality than 50 years ago.

I’m hoping what you meant was “nobody serious would argue we aren’t doing better today with equality than 50 years ago.”

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #85 on: November 25, 2021, 11:42:04 AM »

Offline mqtcelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2171
  • Tommy Points: 229
In yet another case that goes against the racism narrative pushed the liberal media and talking heads, a black man was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder charges by claiming self-defense on the same day Rittenhouse was found not guilty.  This black man was a convicted felon.  He possessed a gun illegally, for which he was found guilty.  He fired on the police who broke down his door after announcing themselves and his girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. 

Black man, black felon possessing a gun illegally, firing on police found not guilty because he claimed he was asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.  If he didn't possess the gun his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  If he hadn't initiated the shooting, his girlfriend wouldn't have been killed.  And yet he was still found not guilty by claiming self-defense. 

50 years ago, he almost certainly would have been found guilty.  20 years ago, he probably would have been found guilty.  Now 12 of his fellow citizens found that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   

https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

First of all, I’m glad he was found not guilty, and think it’s disgusting he was charged with the murder of his girlfriend when the police killed her. As an aside here, part of the problem in this country is the impunity with which the police can kill citizens. Keep in mind here that in a case where the police killed someone, the question in the courts is whether or not *someone else* should be charged with her murder.

All that said, my primary objection to your post is the framing that because certain things are better than they were that it means there isn’t still a problem. I don’t think anybody serious is arguing that we’re doing better today with equality than 50 years ago. Rather the arguments are generally that we still have further reforms to make and that the explicitly racist policies of the past have consequences to this day that have led to current inequalities.

I’m a serious person and I absolutely think we are doing better today with equality than 50 years ago.

I’m hoping what you meant was “nobody serious would argue we aren’t doing better today with equality than 50 years ago.”

Definite typo. Thank you, I edited my post to fix it.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #86 on: November 25, 2021, 12:03:40 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1385
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • The voice of reason
This is a problem for all groups, though, and was a big problem for Republicans until this left wing extremist group popped up as a blessing. Consider the problem of the Republican Party. They need the votes of right wing extremists but don’t necessarily want their ideology... so they can’t openly dismiss it. They can dismiss racism easily but not the Marjorie Greens who are right on the edge.

Picture how easy of a tactic it is for democratic strategists to say “all racists vote Republican” and to use that to imply “if you vote a Republican, you are aligned with racists.” That has been a problem for decades.

Topics like CRT provides Republican strategists to take the most extreme woke subjects and paint the entire democratic platform as dangerous. Again, this will be their bread and butter in 2022.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #87 on: November 25, 2021, 01:19:32 PM »

Offline celts10

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 506
  • Tommy Points: 24
Picture how easy of a tactic it is for democratic strategists to say “all racists vote Republican” and to use that to imply “if you vote a Republican, you are aligned with racists.” That has been a problem for decades.

Yet the "Democratic strategists" have defended Biden's blatant racism for 47 years. I don't recall Trump ever saying that all African-Americans except Obama were inarticulate, stupid, and dirty. That's strictly a Biden-ism. Biden is an old school KKK-Dem. That's just the way he is.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #88 on: November 25, 2021, 03:12:06 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1385
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • The voice of reason
Picture how easy of a tactic it is for democratic strategists to say “all racists vote Republican” and to use that to imply “if you vote a Republican, you are aligned with racists.” That has been a problem for decades.

Yet the "Democratic strategists" have defended Biden's blatant racism for 47 years. I don't recall Trump ever saying that all African-Americans except Obama were inarticulate, stupid, and dirty. That's strictly a Biden-ism. Biden is an old school KKK-Dem. That's just the way he is.

To be fair thats not exactly what he meant. He was saying that Obama has the opportunity to appeal to white voters who may have had reservations electing a black president because he’s different than any stereotypical black male that those people picture. Not defending it because it’s an idiotic thing to say, but he’s clearly not making that claim you mentioned.

Re: CRT- where is the controversy?
« Reply #89 on: November 25, 2021, 06:21:39 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10956
  • Tommy Points: 1325
CRT is a distorted lens used to view history, not a separate part of the curriculum. It is alive and well in our government schools, leftists dominate these institutions. This is the principle of Newton High school, for example:


https://twitter.com/turnerhj/status/1462592135656579084?s=21