Is Critical Breed Theory Mostly Just The New Republican Dog Whistle?

Updated on : December 7, 2021 by Amir Wheeler



Is Critical Breed Theory Mostly Just The New Republican Dog Whistle?

To be a dog whistle, a term must be a veiled message; a hidden meaning only understood by a select group.

I don't see how "Critical Race Theory" fits this designation. Most of those who talk about him (including the questioner) seem to understand quite well what he means, at least on a basic level. The meaning of the term was never intended to be concealed as part of something else. If it was meant to be a dog whistle, it was pretty lousy.

Furthermore, the pattern of thought to which the term refers is by no means a republican invention. It is a real set of assumptions and beliefs that have been

Keep reading

To be a dog whistle, a term must be a veiled message; a hidden meaning only understood by a select group.

I don't see how "Critical Race Theory" fits this designation. Most of those who talk about him (including the questioner) seem to understand quite well what he means, at least on a basic level. The meaning of the term was never intended to be concealed as part of something else. If it was meant to be a dog whistle, it was pretty lousy.

Furthermore, the pattern of thought to which the term refers is by no means a republican invention. It is a real set of assumptions and beliefs that have been gaining ground in the United States and that deserves to be talked about.

It raises a big red flag that so many progressive advocates want to advance perspectives that fall under the "Critical Race Theory" but seem dogmatically determined that the Critical Race Theory itself should not be disputed. Almost as if they know that he cannot defend himself.

It sure is. But maybe we should call it a Republican megaphone instead?

Since most Democrats are self-hating white bootlickers or racist blacks, all of whom love to see whites get shamed, all they have left with common sense is Republicans and they need to speak out loud. .

So yes, as Democrats love critical race theory and are declaring war on whites, young and old. All people with a little common sense should use the megaphone and tell everyone what the Democrats are doing.

Fuck the dog whistle, use a megaphone.

No, it really is an insidious movement based on the propaganda techniques of the Marxists, supported by the Marxists and their unwitting supporters, with the intention of altering the status quo. In this case, the status quo includes the 1st Amendment and most other laws, as they were created by oppressors.

Based on that, what you are left with is compatible is Marxism.

Absolutely. He's changing school boards right now from Democrats to Republicans. We'll see next fall if parents vote Democrats again hahaha.

No. Critical Theory of Race is a serious academic approach to studying certain phenomena. The Republican fuss about it is nonsense.

CRT calls for ending merit-based rewards and calls for ending capitalism and promoting segregation. Quite the opposite of all the things Martin Luther King fought for.

Are you suggesting that Republicans are using a dog whistle to denounce this stupid liberal critical race theory?

It is not even new. It is an ancient theory washed away and dusted from 40 to 50 years ago. Bandiesxsbout bu fans back in the 1970s. It just plays on their hateful rhetoric.

Normally I would consider myself liberal / progressive, but my stance on this would make me more moderate.

CRT is a Marxist philosophy that substitutes class for race. It asserts that the United States was built by and for whites and that systemic racism imposed at all levels makes it impossible for non-whites to overcome it unless they become 'white adjacent'. Only whites can change society, non-whites lack any power to do so other than the aforementioned 'white adjacency'.

My take on CRT is ...

  1. It is true that America has been created by white people and that white people have elaborated all levels of
Keep reading

Normally I would consider myself liberal / progressive, but my stance on this would make me more moderate.

CRT is a Marxist philosophy that substitutes class for race. It asserts that the United States was built by and for whites and that systemic racism imposed at all levels makes it impossible for non-whites to overcome it unless they become 'white adjacent'. Only whites can change society, non-whites lack any power to do so other than the aforementioned 'white adjacency'.

My take on CRT is ...

  1. It is true that the United States has been created by white people and that white people have created all levels of society to their liking. At times, whites so dominated blacks and Native Americans that they really lacked the ability to determine their outcome live. The problem is that CRT is too focused on the United States. This is true for all companies, best defined as Controlling Group vs Subjugated Group (s).
    1. Common complaints from SGs around the world: excessive use of police force against them, lack of proportional representation of the government to the media, society designed against their cultural preferences.
    2. Examples of DG and SG around the world: Han Chinese versus Uighurs and Tibetans; Punjabis in Pakistan vs Baluchis; Turks against Kurds in Turkey, Moroccans against natives of Western Sahara.
  2. It places whites at the top of a global hierarchy and dimension a history of empire and innovation of other groups. For a brief window in human history, some white nations dominated much of the world. But before the whites were not more powerful and today many nations around the world are achieving parity. Historically, the Chinese and Arabs have been much more advanced than Europe. North Africans ruled most of Spain for 800 years.
  3. Even in the US, many non-white groups outperform whites on many metrics. The notion that racism in America is so strong right now that non-whites can't get over it seems far-fetched. How could someone who moved from Pakistan 5 years ago and is now running a successful business be described as adjacent white? Especially when white Hispanics and poor Anglos do much worse than dark-skinned Indians or Nigerian immigrants.
  4. There is no question that generations of inherited racism against Blacks and Native Americans continues to be a contributing factor. CRT is wrong to assume that * all * the different results between groups are due to systemic racism, but many critics of CRT are wrong to assume that all the differences are due to things like IQ. (How do Nigerians outperform white students if Africans have low IQs?)

It's the latest thing that people (especially conservatives) are taking the name and using it to do a lot of damage out of hatred and discontent for something that the GREAT majority of people don't really understand.

The thing is, the main focus of most of what you read about CRT online is on conservatives trying to legislate bans on teaching it in public schools. They talk about how, since the words Criticism and Theory are in the title, it must be a reflection of Marxist "Critical Theory" (Yes, there is a connection, but it is not "A to B") and what you keep hearing. of conservatives who criticize

Keep reading

It's the latest thing that people (especially conservatives) are taking the name and using it to do a lot of damage out of hatred and discontent for something that the GREAT majority of people don't really understand.

The thing is, the main focus of most of what you read about CRT online is on conservatives trying to legislate bans on teaching it in public schools. They talk about how, since the words Criticism and Theory are in the title, it must be a reflection of Marxist "Critical Theory" (Yes, there is a connection, but it is not "A to B") and what you keep hearing. One of the conservatives who criticize it is the claim that it should be banned because "it is racist."

Much to unpack here.

But. This is what I promise. I promise to give conservatives reading this article at least one good reason why they should LOOK AT CRT in an effort to understand it and understand what it teaches, and I promise not to try to convince you why you should throw away everything you believe about the world and you worship at the altar of CRT.

Certainly not ... partly because I know I don't understand it well enough to worship at that altar, or to reject it outright. Most people who don't have a Poly Sci JD or MS would probably do well to admit it to themselves.

BUT we can understand it well enough to avoid the trap of letting politicians or experts with a political agenda use what they tell us to irritate and distract us from real problems that they are not offering solutions to.

Then. What is CRT? Teaches? Why do people think it should be banned? and what value can we learn from it?

To begin with, Deepak Purti wrote a good, well-stocked outline with a look at what it is, what the connection is to Marxist critical theory, along with an outline of basic principles that I will repeat in a minute.

It is important to understand that critical race theory is not something that is taught in public schools. It is an academic framework taught at the School of Law and Political Science that examines how political and legal frameworks negatively affect people based on race.

It is not a religion. Like any philosophical concept, it is something that you learn, examine, discuss, find nuggets of truth, and in cases like this, you use it as a lens to examine the world in a particular way. It is a way of learning, not WHAT to think about society and the law, but HOW to think and, in doing so, how to understand a certain perspective, often one that is not yours.

Deepak's answer drew the basics from an American Bar Association article.

A Lesson in Critical Race Theory Coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, critical race theory is the practice of interrogating race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of law. erudition. / crsj / publications / human_rights_magazine_home / civil-rights-reimagining-policing / a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory /

While acknowledging the evolutionary and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines some key principles of CRT, including:

  • Recognition that race is not biologically real, but socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) disproves the idea of ​​biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
  • Recognition that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded in systems and institutions, such as the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This discards the idea that racist incidents are aberrations, but rather manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
  • Rejection of popular understandings of racism, such as arguments that limit racism to a few "bad apples." CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or "color blindness." CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that is primarily responsible for reproducing racial inequality.
  • Recognition of the relevance of people's daily lives for scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting informed research on deficits that excludes epistemologies of people of color.

CRT does not define racism in the traditional way as the sole consequence of inconspicuous and irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals, rather it is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of elections. It exposes the ways in which racism is often hidden in terminology related to “core”, “normal” or “traditional” values ​​or “neutral” policies, principles or practices.

Now. Let's read that and find the part that scares us so much that we need to ban it. Why? Why should a law student or young man who dreams of getting into politics after finishing his master's degree not fully understand what is being talked about here? Disagree or disagree ... Fully understand the perspective of the people who fully buy the ideas taught there and the perspective of the people who don't? "

The core idea of ​​CRT is that racism exists in our society at a systemic level, that it is not just "bad people doing bad things" that is codified in law.

What is meant by that?

A good way to examine this idea is to examine the political climate of the 1980s and early 1990s and the widespread popularity of the War on Drugs, and the support from both sides of the aisle for "tough on crime" legislation. ".

In the 80s and early 90s, it didn't matter if you were a Republican or a Democrat, if you wanted to win, you were "tough on crime." The most common political attack of the time was "soft on crime" and especially "soft on drugs."

The origins of the rising tide often date back to the early 1980s with the rise of the Medellín cartel and a major rallying point that came with the 1986 death of basketball star Len Bias.

Cocaine killed Bias, autopsy reveals: The dose is said to trigger heart failure; University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died of "cocaine intoxication" after ingesting an unusually pure dose of the drug that stopped his heart in minutes, Maryland's chief medical examiner said Tuesday. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-06-25-sp-20106-story.html

In October of that year, Reagan enacted the "Drug Abuse Act." The law allocated funds for prisons, education, and drug treatment. But within the law it was the beginning of something that would have far-reaching consequences and, over the next several decades, adversely affect African-Americans disproportionately: mandatory minimums and especially harsh court sentencing requirements for crack.

In September 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crimes Enforcement and Control Act, introduced in the House by Texas Democrat Jack Brooks and drafted in the Senate by Joe Biden into law. The Act upped the ante on mandatory minimums and added a new wrinkle that would again disproportionately affect black people: the Three Strikes laws.

24 states would add "3-Strikes" laws to their books between 1993 and 1995. 1

You know. Because if you want to legislate fairness in Justice, clearly the best way to do it is "BASEBALL METAPHOR !!!!"

Another small detail in the 1994 crime bill was tougher penalties for youth, including the ability for prosecutors to charge children as young as 13 as adults for certain crimes.

Now. These laws were not racist laws passed with a specific racist intent, for the most part, these laws were passed by well-meaning politicians who were a.) Trying to combat drug abuse, and b.) Trying to be tough on crime to be able to win your next election.

And yes, probably some racists, but that's not the point.

The point is that it is not the individual racists who rubbed their hands and stroked their knobs in anticipation of how they could cause these laws to negatively impact communities of color, it is the laws themselves that created a system that for decades to come had a negative impact. profound unintended impact on the incarceration of people of color, especially African American men and boys.

Three Ways the 1994 Crime Bill Continues to Hurt Communities of Color - Center for American Progress Legislators must dismantle the harmful crime bill policies and enact solutions that reduce reliance on incarceration, avoid unnecessary criminalization and remove the draconian laws that keep millions of Americans in prison. : //www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/05/10/469642/3-ways-1994-crime-bill-continues-hurt-communities-color/ Race, mass incarceration and disastrous war on Drugs Unraveling decades of racially prejudiced drug policies is a monumental project.

The fact is that in both 1986 and 1994, the mandatory minimums were much more severe for crack, used more by African Americans than for cocaine, which was used much more by whites.

The previous Brennan Center article explains where the problem occurred:

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, procedural practices, and legislation resulted in blacks being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for possession and distribution of crack. Five grams of crack cocaine, the weight of a couple of packets of sugar, was considered, for the purposes of the sentence, the equivalent of 500 grams of powdered cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed a higher number of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests came from black communities that were disproportionately affected by crack sentences, facially neutral but illogically harsh.

By 2013, largely as a result of these laws, one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 24 was serving time.

Mandatory Sentencing and Racial Disparity: Assessing the Role of Prosecutors and the Effects of Booker https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/mandatory-sentencing-and-racial-disparity-assessing-the-role-of-prosecutors-and - the-booker-effects

Three strike laws had an equally disparate effect.

More blacks incarcerated under "3 strikes", according to study Penalty system: the rate of incarceration for "third attack" is 13 times higher than that of whites, reports a group of activists. But prosecutors charge that the survey is flawed. 20found% 20similar,% 20 fault% 20a% 20% 20bios% 20rcial. & Text = By% 20contrast% 2C% 20el% 20study% 20 said, from% 20% E2% 80% 9C Third% 20trike% E2% 80% 9D% 20inmates.

When you examine the real world results, what you are seeing are legal frameworks that end up disproportionately affecting black men, not because of "racist judges" but because those judges had no choice due to the way the system was codified. in law.

In this case, understanding the Critical Theory of Race helps legislators not only pass off the problem as "racists in the system," but also have a framework of ideas to examine the system itself and work to pass legislation that help solve some of the problems. issues such as the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

Fair Sentencing Act - Wikipedia The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111–220 (text) (pdf)) was an act of Congress that was enacted into federal law by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, on August 3, 2010, which reduces the disparity between the amount of crack and cocaine powder needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100: 1 weight ratio to an 18: 1 weight ratio 1 and eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. 2 Similar bills were introduced in various US congresses prior to their passage in 2010, and the courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act implemented the initial disparity, reflecting the view that crack cocaine was a more dangerous and harmful drug than powder cocaine. In the decades since, extensive research by the United States Sentencing Commission and other experts has suggested that the differences between the effects of the two drugs are exaggerated and that the disparity in sentencing is unjustified. The additional controversy surrounding the 100: 1 ratio was the result of some describing it as racially biased and contributing to a disproportionate number of African Americans being convicted of crack cocaine offenses. 3 Legislation to reduce disparity was introduced in the mid-1990s, culminating in the signing of the Fair Sentencing Law. The law has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and nonprofits have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and the complete elimination of the disparity (i.e., enacting a sentence ratio of 1: 1). Background edit Crack use increased rapidly in the 1980s, accompanied by an increase in violence in urban areas. 4 In response, the Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included a provision that created a disparity between federal penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, imposing the same penalties for possession of a quantity of crack cocaine as for 100 times the same amount of cocaine powder. The law also contained minimum sentences and other disparities between the two forms of the drug. 5 Disparity and sentencing effects edit In the three decades prior to the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, those who were arrested for possession of crack cocaine faced much harsher penalties than those in possession of powdered cocaine. While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years, a person who had powdered cocaine could receive the same sentence only if they had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At that time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years, a person who had cocaine in powder could receive the same sentence only if it had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act While a person found with five grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years , a person who had powdered cocaine could receive the same sentence only if he had five hundred grams. Similarly, carriers of 10 grams of crack cocaine faced a mandatory 10-year sentence, while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same sentence. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same penalty. 6 At the time, Congress provided the following five reasons for the highttps: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act while possession of 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine was required to impose the same penalty. 6 At that time,

Or the broadly bipartisan First Steps Act of 2018

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text

Then. Why should conservatives work to really understand the CRT instead of just rejecting and banning it?

Aside from the fact that doing so could help prevent them from putting their faces up in public ...

Let's talk for a second about gun control. Or, more accurately, Gun VIOLENCE control.

Hot topic, right? Liberals want to reduce gun violence by restricting access to guns and finding ways to keep the kinds of guns that are most likely to be used to kill other people out of the hands of the kinds of people who are likely to use them for that purpose. Right?

Conservatives have the kind of strong “don't be raped” approach that demands free access to guns and would rather focus on punishing perpetrators of gun violence with stiffer penalties for gun violence-related crimes.

Do not misunderstand. I don't entirely disagree that strict enforcement is part of the solution to reducing gun violence.

But look at the ideas of adding again, mandatory minimums and severe penalties through the CRT lens, NOT to convince yourself that this is a bad idea, BUT to better understand why some people are so hesitant to go down that path. Again. To better look for possible pitfalls before going through a few more decades of a mistake. Find ways to try to avoid those pitfalls.

This is what General Miley was talking about when he replied to Matt, "How the hell am I still in Congress, not in jail?" Gaetz, who somehow brought the issue to a congressional hearing that had nothing to do with systemic racism.

You learn things to understand them. You understand them to gain perspective. And perspective matters. Therefore, forbidding learning institutions to teach things that broaden perspective is always a mistake.

Pretend we have to ban elementary schools from teaching something that is difficult for Harvard law students to understand? I mean. Let's go.

Don't have a real job to do?

Footnotes

1 https://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/Documents/cj/BulletinOct-2010.pdf

Quora seems to increasingly require this standard type of disclaimer. Do not confuse this with my personal belief. The question asks something about conservatives. As I know many conservatives and am aware of what they are talking about, I can summarize their views fairly.

While I can share some of your beliefs, "arguing" with me about what many conservatives think is completely pointless.


My opinion? Critical Race Theory probably doesn't have a "good" place in public education. At best, it could fit it into AP History.

But, in reality, they are not teaching Critical Race Theory. Some educators are trying

Keep reading

Quora seems to increasingly require this standard type of disclaimer. Do not confuse this with my personal belief. The question asks something about conservatives. As I know many conservatives and am aware of what they are talking about, I can summarize their views fairly.

While I can share some of your beliefs, "arguing" with me about what many conservatives think is completely pointless.


My opinion? Critical Race Theory probably doesn't have a "good" place in public education. At best, it could fit it into AP History.

But, in reality, they are not teaching Critical Race Theory. Some educators are trying to apply the activist strategies of some critical race theory to frame early childhood education. And that kind of social activism has no place in public schools.

Conservatives have started calling this practice "Critical Race Theory." But is not. But I'm not sure what you would call it. And this is a critically important part of the discussion. We could also give them different names:

  • There is a left-wing progressive field of study known as Foobar Frooptyloops that applies critical theory to issues of racial practices, institutional structures, and civil rights.
  • Conservatives are upset that some teachers are employing Fizzbuzz Blunderbluss, because they are concerned that teachers will internalize racist attitudes.

The discussion is then:

  • Some conservatives argue that Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss is related to the activist rhetoric of Foobar Frootyloops. So conservatives just call these techniques "Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss".
  • In response, some progressives reply: "But Fizzbuzz Blunderbuss is not Foobar Fruitloops" and "By not teaching some of the underlying facts in Foobar Fruityloops, you are trying not to teach history!"

Both sides are fully talking to each other. The question is:

Should public school teachers use educational techniques that encourage children, based on their skin color, to view themselves as oppressed or oppressive?

Conservatives say no.
They perceive that progressives disagree.
(And some - a very noisy minority of activists - actually do.)

What do conservatives really fear about critical race theory?

Fear? No. It's not really scary. Is to go to.

The problem here begins with communication. Today, people use "critical race theory" to refer to different things. So when you ask what conservatives fear, you need to consider what they specifically oppose. And not what you think "critical race theory" refers to.

Conservatives are outraged that:

  • Some government employees (eg, school administrators) use new materials, which are sometimes described as expressions of "critical race theory."
  • As an excuse to intentionally or unintentionally instill racist values
  • in primary and secondary school children.

Some conservatives worry that telling Johnny he's racist because he's white and telling Tommy that Johnny uses racism to oppress him because he's black is ... well, racist itself. And if that kind of express and shameful labeling is used, it is potentially harmful to children in multiple ways.

“But that is not what they are teaching. They are only teaching the historical context ... "

Well. Stop. You are defending ALL teachers in ALL circumstances. Do you personally have the knowledge of what all the teachers are doing? Do you accept the possibility that some teachers do something else? Why have you instinctively defended ALL teachers?

Snatch before the conspiracy, I say. But don't tell conservatives that doesn't happen. Many and most teachers are teaching history. No problem. Conservatives don't care about that; American history has some nasty warts. But it's our story, so not showing it would be foolish.

However, there are some school districts that teach much more than history. And use materials that include activities that effectively teach young children that they themselves are hopelessly racist or oppressed because of the color of their skin.

When you have people in positions of authority (eg teachers) who tell Johnny that he is racist and who tell Tommy that he is oppressed, you are influencing their personal identities. You are telling them how to see the world. They are children. Not far from learning to tie your shoes. They don't have the metacognition to understand the "historical context" for which you are apologizing. And when adults really demonstrate that this race-based approach to treating people is valid now, you are reinforcing it through the power structure of government schools, and they learn that intentional discrimination is acceptable.

You can say, "It's not racist because ..." But kids just aren't that stupid. They see you do it and they focus your attention on it, and they understand it.

At least, that's the BIG concern. (A small subset of conservatives speak of an anti-white bias. Okay. That is their opinion. Considering some of the material they have complained about, one can see how they might think that. As a general statement, that is not seems correct.)

Now, on the other hand, progressives might say, “What's wrong with that? It's true."

Well, it isn't. To believe it's true, you have to make some generalized assumptions about today's society. And while there are undeniable elements of truth about racial oppression and injustice - we all know this about American history - too broad claims based on a crudely drawn class identity quickly become inaccurate.

All critical theory is class reductionism. Yes, even critical race theory. It is too simplistic a mental model. Which can easily fall apart when you start to dig deep and look at individual people and communities. Yes, even when he makes claims about systemic racism.

Conversely, one of the arguments (which conservatives would do well to acknowledge) is that the system as a whole may still produce disparate racial outcomes, even if no individual possessed any racist spirit.

Both sides are wrong. Both sides are repeatedly mischaracterized. Often on purpose.


So, funny side story. Since COVID-19, we have had many "problems" in our neighborhood. Especially involving drugs. Two heroin dealers on opposite corners. This means a lot of traffic from strangers. A couple of fights and so on. And there is a parking lot near an apartment building and sometimes people park there. The owner is upset and his cars are regularly towed.

A couple of weeks ago, it was around 2am and I was woken up by loud screaming and sobbing outside. So I get up, put on a robe, and go downstairs to check.

And there is a young woman, on her phone, crying or screaming, it was not exactly clear, what was happening. And she was knocking on doors. And he had never seen this person before so he was confused as to what was happening. So I go on the porch to get a better look. And my girlfriend comes down because she also woke up and was curious to know what was going on.

And there's someone in a van (who we can't see) telling him to get back in the car and be respectful. The girl gets into the car, sobbing. There is some kind of discussion. She gets out of the car again. And she sees us, we are about 60 feet away, watching what is happening.

Damn whites. Damn whites. There is nothing better to do than stalk me. Fuck off! FUCK YOU! "

So my girlfriend and I looked at each other, “Huh? We did?

So this girl walks some more, muttering and cursing white people. Every now and then telling us "fucking whites" to stop harassing her. Once again, we are 60 feet apart. I haven't said a word.

Girlfriend mutters, "If I stopped yelling, no one would be trying to figure out what's going on."

“Well, I mean, she's visibly distraught. About something. Maybe your car was towed? I've never seen her before. The parking lot is clearly marked. "

Then someone gets out of the truck. It is the mother of this girl. And she's trying to comfort her, but the daughter doesn't want any of it.

I'm tired of hearing this, so I walk across the street, introduce myself, and ask what the problem is. The daughter goes and sits on a bench, still sobbing.

Mom apologizes for her daughter because

"No, it's okay. She's clearly upset. What's wrong?"

They just moved in a few days before. The daughter works a lot, summer job. He came home. Parked in one of the "junkie" spots, not knowing any better. I walked to another place. And someone called the towing company and they towed the car.

So, mom calls the towing company. I know the boy. I tell him the magic words to say, and boom, the towing company agrees to release the vehicle. They only have to drive 2 miles to get it. It could have been worse.

We exchange phone numbers. I'm sorry you had this bad experience. Welcome to the Neighborhood. Feel free to call me if you need anything.

Did this 16-year-old apologize? Of course, no. However, I was not expecting it. (And I'm just saying: when I was 16 years old working in Flint, Michigan, if I had walked around the neighborhood saying, "Damn blacks!", My mother or my grandmother would have hit me physically. And no, I'm not saying this mother should have done that).

We were his problem because we were white? Supossely Yes.

Do you think he could convince himself otherwise? I do not believe it.

Something terrible to see of a child. Not just heartbreak, which I can understand. But that he had already internalized that we were somehow causing him a problem. Because she is black and we are white.


Conservatives just don't care too much that someone in Ann Arbor or Berkeley is exploring critical race theory. Or even trying to translate those ideas into real and viable political and legal strategies. At least, not in an abstract way.

Sure, they are often on the opposite side of the political aisle. And conservatives can fervently disagree with various parts of their beliefs, writings, research, and so on. Or even question whether some of those beliefs are fundamentally accurate. But that is part of the social dialogue, even if there is disagreement, that is not something to worry about. Or even be upset.

But if your strategy is to "catch the kids while they're little," and you start paying public school teachers to tell Johnny that he's more or less a member of the KKK and that Tommy can never get anywhere and that he will get welfare because Johnny will keep him depressed no matter what he does, conservatives have a serious problem tackling elementary education like that.

And yes, I exaggerate in the previous paragraph. But I hope that illustrates the specific problem that conservatives perceive. That is not history. Those are horrible lessons to demonstrate to children. Conservatives don't want to teach that.

Having public school teachers stuffing prepackaged identities into children's brains based on the color of their skin is indoctrination, not education. And since many conservatives do not want to support that with their money, they will be angry.


Some other content for your reading pleasure:

Considering all nuclear waste, why is nuclear power considered clean? - Science Grok! How clean is nuclear power if it produces so much nuclear waste? People often misunderstand nuclear waste, both the danger and the amount of waste created

LIKE MY THINGS? Send me some coffee (or some rabbit slippers) with Bitcoin: 39wFdvb2jV2JXcwt4k4TuqdwQENj566heX

This is: 1

But before we get into why this is an example of Critical Race Theory (CRT), let's add some context.


CRT is a legal philosophy that originated from German neo-Marxist thought in the 1960s.

Marx generally argued that wealthy businessmen had power over workers, which businessmen used to exploit workers. 2 Critical theorists expanded this to society in general; Everything in life creates an imbalance of power, which the powerful use to exploit the powerless. The goal of critical theory, therefore, is to identify these power imbalances and eliminate them. 3 CRT is just one of many applications of critical theory.

Keep reading

Footnotes

1 NCBE takes bold 'Minorities are not cut out to be lawyers' Consider 2 Marxism - Society Analysis 3 Critical Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This is: 1

But before we get into why this is an example of Critical Race Theory (CRT), let's add some context.


CRT is a legal philosophy that originated from German neo-Marxist thought in the 1960s.

Marx generally argued that wealthy businessmen had power over workers, which businessmen used to exploit workers. 2 Critical theorists expanded this to society in general; Everything in life creates an imbalance of power, which the powerful use to exploit the powerless. The goal of critical theory, therefore, is to identify these power imbalances and eliminate them. 3 CRT is just one of many applications of critical theory. 4

CRT says that race is a manufactured construct used to oppress minorities. 5 The level of oppression a group experiences is called "racial inequity," which measures the overall differences between racial groups. 6 The phenomenon in which African Americans have a disproportionate probability of being arrested is an example of racial inequity 7. Consequently, any policy under which this form of racial inequity exists is racist 8.

Critical race theorists generally believe that "one either allows racial inequities to persist, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist." 9 As a result, anyone who supports policies that create racial inequities is a racist.

History is of vital importance at CRT. These philosophers like to analyze how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow influence contemporary society. 10 As a result, everything that was racist in the past must necessarily be so in the future 11.


This screenshot comes from Above the Law, a blog run by some former attorneys in New York City. All you need to know for this answer is that Above the Law disdains the bar exam. 12 13

The article on which this blog post is based comes from the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the organization that writes and administers the Uniform Bar Exam (an increasingly popular method of evaluating applicants for legal licenses). 14 15

Algunas personas creen que el examen de la abogacía está sesgado, 16 y la NCBE trató de refutar esa proposición. 17 El artículo sostiene que las disparidades en el desempeño de los exámenes de la barra son simplemente un reflejo de las disparidades en la educación mucho antes en la vida. Durante esa explicación, hacen este comentario: 18

El Consejo Nacional de Medición en la Educación (NCME, por sus siglas en inglés) defendió este punto de vista cuando señaló que “existen diferencias en el nivel socioeconómico y la calidad de la educación entre los grupos raciales / étnicos de este país. Criticar los resultados de las pruebas por reflejar estas desigualdades es como culpar a un termómetro por el calentamiento global ".

Put more simply, poor students from bad schools will do poorly on the bar exam, regardless of their race. The fact that black students do disproportionately worse merely shows that black students are more likely to go to bad schools.

Above the Law said the NCBE were racism apologists.19

If you’re confused, it’s because you should be. That statement says nothing about race. And it certainly does not call race “a fundamental determinant of” someone’s ability to pass the bar exam.20

Perhaps Above the Law’s explanation can help you:21

This path to racist apologia is well-worn. Instead of coming right out and bad-mouthing minority students, spend time bemoaning years of structural racism in America’s education system and using that as a pivot to encourage readers to blame Mrs. Herlihy’s kindergarten class to absolve higher education of any responsibility for confronting racial inequities. It’s a stance that’s… transparently less woke than they intend it to sound.

In other words, the claim from the NCBE is racist because it doesn’t do enough to accuse higher education of systemic racism.

They later claim “the bar exam exists in its modern form as part of a licensing regime designed to close off minority access to the profession.”22

Both statements highlight core elements of CRT.

First, the claims highlight that you cannot oppose racism without actively destroying it. Because (according to Above the Law) the NCBE does not want to dismantle itself to end racism in the legal profession, it is necessarily racist itself.

Second, it claims that the bar exam’s racist past is evidence of its current racism. This demonstrates CRT’s core belief that the past necessarily stains the present.


The claims also highlight why CRT is fundamentally flawed.

First, CRT commits the genetic fallacy.23 The bar exam may well have been created to prevent minorities from becoming lawyers (that issue is outside the scope of this answer). But that does not mean the exam is currently racist or that it is currently used to keep minorities out of the legal profession. Under that logic, Ronald Reagan was never a Republican24 and Shaquille O’Neal is not 7′1″.25

Second, it forces us into a false dichotomy: either you support Ibram Kendi’s mission to end systemic racism, or you oppose it. There is no “I don’t know” or “I don’t care.” More perniciously, supporting something that is race neutral, even if it creates an outcome CRT opposes, you are necessarily racist.26 This is particularly problematic because it divides people into camps from which virulent conflict can arise.

Finally, it makes the faulty assumption that racism exists everywhere. Above the Law’s explanation for why the NCBE’s statement is racist illustrates that. It assumes that education is racist, despite a lack of evidence for it. It assumes the NCBE is racist for not openly opposing the non-existent racism. This, too, is problematic because labelling someone as racist is akin to a mark of the beast, which can ostracize people and create further division.


CRT is a flawed ideology that finds racism everywhere, regardless of the circumstance or amount of evidence opposing the claims. It manifests itself in incorrect claims that calling a test race neutral is a form of racism.


Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. War Elephant.

Footnotes

1 NCBE takes bold 'Minorities are not cut out to be lawyers' Consider 2 Marxism - Society Analysis 3 Critical Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 4 What is Critical Theory? 5 criticism of race theory | Definition, Principles, and Facts 6 LibGuides: Black Lives Matter: Anti-Racist Resources: Racism / Anti-Racism 7 Visualizing Racial Disparities in Mass Incarceration 8 LibGuides: Black Lives Matter: Anti-Racist Resources: Racism / Anti-Racism 9 LibGuides: Black Lives Matter: Antiracist Resources: Racism / Antiracism 10 A Lesson in Critical Race Theory 11 Oday Yousif Jr .: The bar exam is tainted with inequality and racism. It needs to be abolished.

My head is spinning over all the "cards" that the left and the Democrats are creating to make things look bad and make people VICTIMS> Are they trying to make WHITES the new slave population? They want reparations for things that their ancestors only had the RIGHT to CLAIM. They want white people who never owned a slave and perhaps none of their family members in history owned a slave to feel guilty about today's inequality. They want equity, that the rich give to the poor so that all are economically equal. BS. I am not a racist I treat people the way I want them to treat me and because I try to follow the coma

Keep reading

My head is spinning from all the “cards” the left and Democrats are creating to make things look bad and people be VICTIMS> Are they trying to make WHITE people the new slave population? They want reparations for things that their ancesters only had a RIGHT TO CLAIM, They want white people who never owned a slave nor perhaps none of their family in history owned a slave to feel guilty for todays inequality. They want equity, the rich giving to the poor so that everyone is equal financially. BS. I am not a racist I treat people as I want to be treated and because I am trying to follow the commandments of Christ. I want to love my neighbor as myself. I believer in equal opportunity under the law. Congress and politicians need to see to it that the existing laws are enforced and if need be changed to fit todays society Do we need some changes SURE but not because of VIOLENCE< DESTRUCTION< RIOTING< LOOTING< BURNING BUILDINGS AND BEATING SOMEONE UP BECAUSE THEY ARE A PARTICUALR RACE (beating up old Chinese women is cowardly) and murder of people like David Dorn, innocent children caught in crossfires of gang shooting. WHY DO WE ALLOW ILLEGAL GANG MEMBERS TO CONTINUE TO STREAM INTO THIS COUNTRY AND NOT DEPORT THEM? I am for immigration, legal immigration. My family immigrated here but respected the laws, came legally and no on in my family was ever in prison because of violence, in fact no one was ever IN PRISON because they respected the laws.

Why do Liberals, Democrats, Socialist want to destroy rather than enforce a working constitution? AMENDMENTS are there if the laws need tweaked. I do no support fixing things to suit your own agenda.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.