So you don't think the context of the question and the history of the person asking the question should be considered when evaluating a response ?

Do you have any better examples of CRT proponents who are committing the actions that offend you ?

ie. profess that everyone is racist but don't reiterate it when asked specifically if 'they too' are racist ?

I'm sure an academic could answer that question more safely than a person vying for a political appointment.


The thread title is 'critical race theory' not 'politicians aren't always forthcoming'.

it doesnt even make any sense. "Marxism" itself hasnt led to any sort of death as he tries to attribute. but there is no consistency anyway. how much death has Capitalism led to? or the USA? or Britain, France, China etc. they never apply the criteria evenly anyway.

OK, but I’m still going to point and laugh at you.

So I'll try to help out Itshot some and try to generate some actual discussion on CRT. The problem is that I don't know what CRT is and only know about it from reading 2p2 and McWhorter (with the former being ignorant and the latter biased against it).
So with those caveats in mind-- the issue I have with CRT is that it would seem opposed to the MLK raceless society vision, where instead of racial consciousness not being a thing at all, CRT would seem to demand that it be paramount. And given how "race is a social construct" (among other reasons), this seems problematic.

I obviously not going to engage Cupee, or Trolly with their endless streams of questions knowing they have no intention of honestly engaging.

Jame Lindsay does pretty good at encapsulating it:



CRT proponents won't engage with him, or any other intellectually honest critic. If you want another source, Coleman Hughes is fairly honest about it as well.

I'm also not lying when I say proponents won't define it, and they want and expect their critics to define it, then it's same old tired and endless argument about what exactly it is, and the criticism of it is never addressed, or, much more frequent, ad hominems about the person critiquing it.

Here is some more content:

Critical race theory’s toxic, destructive impact on America

In fact, this is a great source:

https://1776unites.com/essays/

Yeah, it doesn't seem like anybody here actually does. Which unsurprisingly makes for a very bad thread on the subject.

That's bullshit, how about you respond to my criticism based on your understanding of CRT? If you don't know what CRT is, or generally what it encapsulates, what good can you be? The fact of the matter is, you know what CRT is, you and other just want to get tangled in a war of definitions without getting anywhere. That you need a precise definition to respond to the criticism is not believable.

1. Utopian visions are fine, but we don't live in a raceless society. Having laws that acknowledge that reality, or studying how laws perpetuate racial injustice given that reality seems good to me.

2. Race being a social construct doesn't imply that a raceless society is a stable equilibrium.

3. How do we achieve this utopia? Does this require that minorities give up their racial identities and assimilate to a hegemonic "raceless" identity? That doesn't seem great.

It worked fine in Star Trek.

Sure, I agree there are parallels, but that doesn't make them the same. Hobbies and Locke both used the idea of a social contract to theorize about the legitimacy and purpose of government, but because of different assumptions about human nature came to different conclusions. Seems to me that marxism and CRT do this as well. You want to equate POC and the working class, but these are different categories and groups of people. These aren't just details, but central to the respective viewpoints.

I'll help LuckBox here....you are correct, society, currently, isn't color blind, but the color blind idea's ultimate goal of reducing and ultimately removing the social significance of race was working. CRT, in many ways, emphasizes and embraces social significance of race, i.e. blackness and whiteness, white always portrayed as bad, and black portrayed as victims of white, this generalizing of racial groups creates resentment and antagonism which will lead to counterproductive behaviors.

So what effect is CRT actually going to have long term ?

As of right now it seems like a sort of academic fad that may just come and go.

It wasn't all that long ago that serous universities studied things like what made Europeans more intelligent.

Is this really the end of the world ?

Then Ferguson occured.

1 & 2 are impossible to argue with. #3 is meh with the assumption that if people don't have a racial identity then they'll need some other new identity to fill that void, which I don't buy although it might be true.

You think scholars writing about the differential impact of law on racial groups shouldn't generalize or point out the social significance of race? Not sure how they are supposed to study their field then.

Also CRT has been around for decades - back in the 1980s it was a big deal at Harvard Law. Even back in the Civil Rights era forerunnersof its ideas were important in the Black Power movement. How are you separating its impact from the impact of the colorblind vision?

I'll also note that the colorblind vision also intense resentment and antagonism and remains controversial still.

It seems like you're operating under a pretty narrow definition of what CRT is whereas Itshot's is going to be a lot broader.
It is interesting that in France, it's apparently illegal for the government to collect statistics on race/ethnicity-- if you live in France and speak French, then you're French and that's it. (Which isn't to say at all that things are rosy in France)
But I doubt anyone here thinks looking at racial issues in an academic setting is problematic. It's the teaching of elementary aged kids about "whiteness" and things of that nature that people take issue with.

"Whiteness" is a social construct, an identity created by CRT, and is an overly broad generalization about white people, almost all of which are negative, and strongly correlates with the criticism the bourgeoisie received. Name one positive aspect of "whiteness", as defined by CRT proponents. As indicated by a previous video that had one of the founders of CRT talking about this, "whiteness" is irredeemable. We've heard **** like that from white supremist, the only difference is, the colors are flipped. These scholars are creating paradigms, not studying race and society.

I know how racial superiority and inferiority goes, our country has dealt with it for centuries.

Maybe so, I'm not really sure what itshotinvegas is referring to by CRT. I'm familiar with it as an intellectual movement/project in law.

Yeah, Japan's government also doesn't collect racial/ethnic demographic information. What I think is characteristic here is a more robust and singular sense of national identity than you find in the US. You also see this difference in how France treats religion in their idea of laicite rather than the US version of freedom of religion.

What criticism? You say CRT has Marxist roots, but that's a tired old conservative attack that was used against Civil Rights activists 60 years ago. I don't feel the need to learn about CRT to refute such an obviously fallacious and trolly criticism of it. Why do you think you deserve a response when what you are doing is neither original nor IMO even in good faith?

You might be surprised but I agree with pretty much all of this.

Society is not more racist now then it was 50 years ago or prior. We have enjoyed steady improvement to the point a decade ago race, outside many hick areas (possibly) was hardly a topic.

That does not mean injustice and inequity were not present, as they were. But when people are busy surviving they have less time to focus on it.

Many of these race issues, like many other Social justice issues as well as the rise in White supremacy are going through what I would call their death throws. And there are advocates on both sides who don't want to see these die in to the quietness of obscurity.

It is a function or comfortableness and degrees of success that allow someone to make many of these things defining issues. Where a parent, who dealt with tremendous racism may have bit their tongue and soldered on just trying to survive and provide for their family, their comfortable kid is a warrior decrying their race challenges.

The rise of white supremacy again is a backlash to it dying, similarly.

Society is much better to embrace Archie Bunker, and gently laugh at him while still allowing him to participate in society than to make him a pariah with no where to go.

in the former Archie can grow to 'love' George Jefferson even as he holds negative stereotypes about him, and more importantly his next generation is far less likely to carry on his bigotry. In the latter Archie finds others who simply hate and they adopt joint victimhood and can justify killing George, given reason and his next generation may be worse than he is.

I disagree that "whiteness" is a social identity created by CRT - that identity existed before CRT was around. I disagree with the view that "whiteness" is irredeemable. I didn't watch your YouTube, but sounds like that person is racist. Not really sure why creating paradigms means someone is not studying race and society, the latter typically involves the former in my view.
Okay.

If whiteness comes from CRT, CRT must predate Marxism. There were pretty clear legal and social distinctions between white and black people since before the US was a country.

Who exactly are these "CRT proponents?"

I think the white race, as a social construct existed, but not "whiteness". I mean, is Chili's a white restaurant, is Churches Chicken a "black" restaurant? What characteristics and attributes makes someone white? CRT will tell you whole bunch of stuff.


I agree that person sounds like a racist, but that person is Derek Bell, and in the video he clearly indicated capitalism is built on exploitation, and he clearly was drawing a parallel between the exploited and black people, and white people as the exploiters, and while he does not explicitly state, but it's pretty clear he means "whiteness" or "white supremacy" as defined by CRT proponents (i.e. white culture prevalent in mainstream society that exploits POC's) that is irremediable. Let's test your idea that whiteness is not redeemable. Name a positive characteristic of "whiteness".

As an aside, it really does not make sense because almost all people don't benefit from this purported exploitation. We can stick with the CJS, I'm not sure how anyone other those directly involved in some aspect of the CJS benefit from sending black people to jail (i.e. earning income from the labor required to incarcerate people which has to be paid for by the middle class.

Robin Diangelo and and Ibrahim Kendi. There might be a couple others.