4 is not a given.

It would be odd if it never happened but it seems more of a game of quantity as the increase in slaves directly effected the GDP in slave states.

Good thing HIV is over it though, otherwise there might be lingering problems.

4 is absolutely a given.

I don't claim in all instances it is true but it is obviously true and given that a big part of 'purposely breeding' in livestock is to emphasize physical traits.

This tendency to see racism as sui generis also generates a resistance to precision in analysis It is fueled by a tendency to inflate the lanuage of racism to the edge of its reasonable conceptual limits, if not beyond. Ideological commitment to shoehorning into the rubric of racism all manner of inequalities that may appear statistically as racial disparities has yielded two related interpretive pathologies.

One is a constantly expanding panoply of neolo-gisms—“institutional racism,” “systemic racism,” “structural racism,” “color-blind racism,” “post-racial racism,” etc.—intended to graft more complex social dynamics onto a simplistic and frequently psychologically inflected racism/anti-racism political ontology. Indeed, these efforts bring to mind [Thomas S.] Kuhn’s account of attempts to accommodate mounting anomalies to salvage an interpretive paradigm in danger of crumbling under a crisis of authority.

From Adolph Reed's Marx, Race, and Neoliberalism.
The argument is basically that you cannot use race to analyze race because race is already not a real thing and is socially constructed, but that because racism is treated as 'sui generis'-- as a thing onto itself-- that we've ended up with this increasingly problematic reification.
Re Marx though: the real Marxists call these people for who they are-- neolibs.

Except that that's not really what the rhetoric is. It's identity politics and not class politics. Your argument is that it's 'class politics through the back door'.
But that doesn't seem right. They are neolibs and not Marxists-- plenty of useful idiots I'm sure too, but they aren't asking for a world in which the 1% do not rule the 99%. They are asking for a world in which 13% of that 1% is black, 18% is Hispanic, etc.
*parity of demographic outcomes is still a fine way to put it and I misread your post some. The allusions to Marxism though misstate what the actual intentions are though imo.

Again, where are you getting this idea that there was some kind of Antebellum selective breeding program to produce guys with a good jump shot. Like, there should be some documentation of this.

Trolly we can save time and move this to the containment thread as well and you can just cut and paste this reply to me into your post asking me to do other than this.

Just like with CV I am not here to play one sided games where you demand responses while refusing to reply. I am happy to debate with people interested in that. I have endless pages of me posting my rationale and replies.

What i WILL NOT do is post thesis for critique only by people who have no interest in giving anything back.

So again, i think I know what your next post will be so do us a favour and put in the containment thread and just copy and post my reply to save time.

Gonna mark this down as “I got nothin’.”

This is a common mistake. Race is socially constructed, but that doesn't mean that race isn't real. For instance, it is true that I am a US citizen, this is a real thing. But what it means to be a US citizen is a social construction. And the fact that it is a social construction doesn't mean that I can just choose myself what it means to be a US citizen, or decide willy-nilly whether I am one or not.

In a similar way, race in CRT is understood as a social construction, a real thing that affects people's lives in often dramatic ways. CRT denies that it is a biological category in the way that eg cats and dogs are distinguished biologically, but nonetheless, it is still real as an ideology or cultural category. However, racial categories are more amorphous and culturally determined than the legal category of citizenship and thus harder to pin down (this is what you were making fun of in that Nikole Hannah-Jones tweet).

Much of what is going on in CRT is pointing out ways in which the removal of most of the legal criteria of "whiteness" in American law during the Civil Rights era did not make this category no longer have an impact on American life. Since much of what it means to be white or black in America has always been cultural, cultural attitudes towards white and black people in America continue to affect people's behaviors in noticeable ways in eg education, policing, housing, and employment.

My guess is that itshotinvegas doesn't like this because he thinks attempts to analyze why disparities between the races exists usually are smuggling in Marxist equality of outcomes thinking. I think this is wrong - the fact that sometimes disparities exist for non-racist or unobjectionable reasons doesn't mean that racism isn't sometimes the cause for such disparities. And I think it is often good to start with noticing that such disparities exist, which is what much CRT scholarship in law is about.

Pulling this from back out of the poo flinger thread, but antisemitism isn't as clear cut as you're saying.
Itshot posted a Slate article (or a tweet that linked to an article) about the need to re-define antisemitism in a way that reduces the ability to call those who criticize Israel antisemitic. And I think everyone would agree that criticizing Israel is not actually antisemitic. But if you do this every day or if this is the only thing you talk about, then you probably have a problem.
But equating denial of systemic racism to Holocaust denial is sort of absurd. I think chances are that in the past you two have had issues on finding common and coming to agreed upon definitions, but that CV is not irredeemable on the issue either.

Obviously Trolly.

I ask you offer something, 'anything' if you want what I got to offer and you reply back with nothing. So your summary of yourself is accurate. You have nothing and will offer nothing. But you will demand.

I am not saying ALL comments are easy to clarify but I am saying SOME are trivially easy to agree upon. Something you agreed to.

So the burden would be on me once we agreed to a definition of something that was 'trivial easy' to see as discrimination (such as Institutional racism in prison stats) to then cite the examples that fit that.

I am fine doing with that with CV who has a host of such racist statements tied to the 'trivial easy'. But unless you will participate in that definition this really goes no where.

It does not attempt, it explicitly does. The focus on racial equity can't be lost on you.

So your vision of how things work is basically that there are 2 extremes focused on a nebulous idea of power that doesn't really exist--and everybody else is just existing in the no power reality?

That was just my paraphrase-- and I think it's an accurate paraphrase-- but you would have to read the full Reed piece to understand the extent of what it means when he is calling it all [by which I mean the full system of modern day left style thinking about race] a reification.
He means it to mean that it's a reification from a Marxist/Historical materialist perspective, and that 'race' as a category cannot be disambiguated from class because it is a category that is born from class. In another section on whiteness he has this to say that should explain the thinking further:

This sort of historical materialist perspective throws into relief a fundamental limitation of the “whiteness” notion that has been fashionable within the academic left for roughly two decades: it reifies whiteness as a transhistorical social category. In effect, it treats “whiteness”—and therefore “race”—as existing prior to and above social context.10 Both who qualifies as white and the significance of being white have altered over time. Moreover, whiteness discourse functions as a kind of moralistic exposé rather than a basis for strategic politics; this is clear in that the program signally articulated in its name has been simply to raise a demand to “abolish whiteness,” that is, to call on whites to renounce their racial privilege. In fact, its fixation on demonstrating the depth of whites’ embrace of what was known to an earlier generation’s version of this argument as “white skin privilege” and the inclination to slide into teleological accounts in which groups or individuals "approach” or “pursue” whiteness erases the real historical dynamics and contradictions of American racial history.

The argument isn't as simplistic as 'race isn't real'. It's that you can't think about race without thinking about class. He is saying that the dichotomy between race and class is a false one, and that in the modern attempt to put race above class, we are reifying it and turning it into something that it is not.

I don't assume that CRT includes a normative assumption that racial disparities are always wrong or based on racism.

I can cite many CRT'ers making similar statements as the above. The focus on narratives to explain disparate results is another example of how they do this.

I don't even buy Marx's stratification of class into economic categories, so I'm predisposed against the claim that race should also be converted into economic categories.

Power, in the context of what we are discussing, is social construct created by ideologues.

Okay? The statement you quoted doesn't imply a position on whether racial disparities are always wrong or based on racism.

I don't necessarily agree with all Marxist conceptions on class either-- or at the very least there needs to be recognition that there is a group above merely the bourgeoisie that is attempting to steer the boat, and that not everything happens 'due to the mechanisms of capital'.
That being said, I think it's hard to argue with the idea that race in America has been (and continues to be) something that is economically expedient for the ruling class. It is a little tougher to go straight from that to saying "race and class are false dichotomies today in 2021".

I mean I'm pretty sure in other convos in the past I've seen you agree that racism/even systemic(which implies the power was there to make that happen) is a thing that Has existed at least at some point correct? If we try to argue that it's just a thing being spun up by the 2 extremes in recent years--I guess my question is when do you think it went away and for what period of time was it gone roughly?

Not explicitly. I could make a literal break down and show you how they do this, but I don't have to, it's obvious in it's function. Everytime a black man is killed by the cops, what narrative gets plastered on the news. The media's immediate focus on white males in regards to the mass shooting in Boulder was yet another example. CRT'er are not exactly disputing these narratives, they embrace them.

Right, when I talk about CRT, I'm referring to an academic movement, not whatever nonsense you see popping up on Twitter and in the media and blame on CRT.

I think you are flipping the context. Do racist get political power and pass laws, yes. That's not really the power we are talking about. Both racist and critical thinkers believe there is this "power" that exist in society that ecompasses all of society, and people are just fighting for their little piece of it, or their group is fighting for it.

Yeah, but it's pervasive in the academia as well. With that said, that cultural response that you seem to be disregarding seems to have originated somewhere.