Five tenets of CRT and what they mean
One of the problems with discussing and debating CRT is that it’s a complicated set of teachings and beliefs about which people know very little, and which probably vary at least somewhat according to who is doing the trainings. The most pernicious aspects of CRT are often in the details of how the trainings and/or classes go.
Here’s a set of five supposedly basic tenets of CRT, as follows:
(1) Centrality of Race and Racism in Society: CRT asserts that racism is a central component of American life.
(2) Challenge to Dominant Ideology: CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.
(3) Centrality of Experiential Knowledge: CRT asserts that the experiential knowledge of people of color is appropriate, legitimate, and an integral part to analyzing and understanding racial inequality.
(4) Interdisciplinary Perspective: CRT challenges ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary focuses of most analyses and insists that race and racism be placed in both a contemporary and historical context using interdisciplinary methods.
(5) Commitment to Social Justice: CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.
As with so much jargon, one can use these principles in a benign way or a destructive one. From what I know about CRT in actual practice, they tend to be used destructively and somewhat differently than the words in those five principles would indicate.
For example, let’s take principle #1: “CRT asserts that racism is a central component of American life.” Actually, CRT asserts that racism is the central component of American life and pervades every aspect of it.
Or #2: “CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.” Actually, CRT challenges not just the claims of those things, but also challenges the idea that they are worthwhile goals. CRT considers meritocracy, for example, to be utterly bogus and inherently racist and would like to eliminate it as a goal or standard. CRT would like to substitute color awareness and eliminate colorblindness. Same for objectivity and neutrality, which are defined as white values and inherently racist.
Or #3: “CRT asserts that the experiential knowledge of people of color is appropriate, legitimate, and an integral part to analyzing and understanding racial inequality.” Is there anyone who disagrees with that? I think you’d find very few people who don’t think that the experiences of black people and other minorities are worthwhile to hear. However, CRT actually asserts that this “experiential knowledge” is far more important than statistics in the aggregate – in other words, that anecdotal evidence (which, among other things, can be a misperception even if a sincere one) is of far more importance than anything else, and it’s only the anecdotal evidence of “people of color” that matters.
Here’s #4: “CRT challenges ahistoricism and the unidisciplinary focuses of most analyses and insists that race and racism be placed in both a contemporary and historical context using interdisciplinary methods.” That’s so jargon-packed that I can’t quite figure out what it refers to (“interdisciplinary methods”?). But my sense is that it tries to change history by bringing in a perspective that makes history into whatever the CRT people want it to show – a la the 1619 Project, for example.
On #5: “CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.” More jargon that obscures what’s happening. “Social justice agenda” is an example of what Thomas Sowell referred to in his book The Quest For Cosmic Justice (highly recommended by me) as an endeavor that is doomed to create more problems than it solves. As Sowell writes:
In its pursuit of justice for a segment of society, in disregard of the consequences for society as a whole, what is called “social justice” might more accurately be called anti-social justice, since what consistently gets ignored or dismissed are precisely the costs to society.
The costs of achieving justice matter. Another way of saying the same thing is that “justice at all costs” is not justice. What, after all, is an injustice but the arbitrary imposition of a cost—whether economic, psychic, or other—on an innocent person? And if correcting this injustice imposes another arbitrary cost on another innocent person, is that not also an injustice?
Those who are promoting CRT leave out all the costs, and are mum about the anti-white racism inherent in those costs. However, word has been getting out lately, and more people (not enough, but more) are starting to understand what CRT is actually about in practice.
The ridiculous mumbo jumbo is by design. They know they can’t say what they really want in simple, concise language because that gives up the game.
One might describe the foundational dogma undergirding CRT as being tripartite:
1. All whites (and only whites) are racist.
2. Racism is ubiquitous.
3. Racism explains everything.
It is a completely anti-rational form of magical thinking in which something nebulous functions as the essence of a grand theory of everything, as well as being the response of those impervious to empiricism and incapable of logic who, when confronting statistical differences between blacks and whites, regarded collectively, cannot conceive of any causal factor (other than the malevolence of whites, the “legacy of slavery” from the past and today’s “systemic racism”) for disparities of outcome.
“CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.”
Worse, It says that these things do not and cannot exist. That they are only words, covers behind which racists and racism hide.
CRT is a pseudo-intellectual front for taking assets from white people and giving them to black people. If this causes racial conflict, so much the better. CRT advocates want to tear down the government, destroy the economy, rewrite the constitution, and establish a caste system based on race and run by techno-fascists. In other words, like a university.
CRT is a pseudo-intellectual front for taking assets from white people and giving them to black people.
That’s an aspect of it. More, it is an elaborate set of excuses for a particular clerisy (commonly the issue of teacher’s colleges) to harass and abuse the innocent. It’s socially sanctioned aggression, and the target is ordinary white people who don’t belong to certain occupational guilds (as well as dissidents in those guilds). It’s buttressed by elaborate social fictions which impute all matter of evil to these ordinary people. (See the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh for a glaring example, or Sabrina Rubin Erdeley’s calumnies directed at UVa fraternity brothers).
Note that within CRT, as generally with postmodernism, there is absolutely no way to critique CRT. It’s an intellectual black hole that allows no exit.
CRT is judge, jury and prosecutor, thank you very much. Your only standing is on your knees.
One thing that’s been mentioned is that students in grade school and high school are not being taught about CRT. That’s what’s taught in law school.
What’s happening is they’re being taught in CRT.
People are working very hard to confuse the two.
CRT is the pseudo-philosophy of descendants of former slaves who concocted it in order to justify their desire to become the new master. They can not only steal whitey’s stuff on a grand scale, but justify it as a positive good, i.e., “reparations.” Only two types of people buy into it; fools and knaves. You can tell the difference by the color of their skin.
“CRT is a framework that is committed to a social justice agenda to eliminate all forms of subordination of people.”
Equality of outcome is what they desire. Yet hey are promoting black people as superior to whites. Why? IMO, to promote a race struggle that will tear down the system as we know it. To be replaced by the perfect society where everyone (Except the experts who will run the Central Committee) is a comrade, everyone earns the same, everyone is told where they will work, how much they must produce, how many children they can have, where they will live, how much energy they can consume, and more, much more. Such a society has been shown to result in equality of misery. But the argument for it is that it just hasn’t been done right yet.
“CRT challenges the claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy in society.”
Oh yeah, that will work well. Will surgeons be chosen by diversity quotas? Airline pilots? Military pilots? Cruise ship captains? Bus drivers? Heavy crane operators? Seal Teams? Excellence and the pursuit of excellence is part of the West’s “secret sauce.” The lack of incentive to excel has been a good part of the reason why Marxist societies fail so miserably.
When I was in high school and college my best sport was ski racing. I was pretty good and I worked hard at excelling, but I was competing with a skier from Steamboat Springs, CO named Marvin Crawford. In eight years of trying I only managed to beat him twice. He had talent that few of us who skied against him had. Just not fair, heh? But in looking back, I can see how he made us all ski harder and better. He raised the game for all of us. And that’s how it works in a competitive society. The best give us all something to shoot for and it tends to raise everyone’s game.
CRT, IMO, isn’t about race so much as it is about fomenting societal breakdown to pave the way for the “revolution.”
It’s not a bad time to look back into ancient history — 2008 — when Obama was running for president and his pastor, Rev, Wright, and church, Trinity United, came under scrutiny.
Rev.Wright mentioned theologian, James Cone, as one of the important thinkers behind the Black Theology which informed Trinity church, and Cone had been interviewed as saying that Trinity wasthe church which best embodied Cone’s theology.
When I found Cone’s quotes on the web explaining Black Theology they sounded extreme, more than a bit crazy:
________________________________
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
…
Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
…
Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.”
…
Black theology must say: ‘If the doctrine is compatible with or enhances the drive for black freedom, then it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If the doctrine is against or indifferent to the essence of blackness as expressed in Black Power, then it is the work of the Anti-Christ.’ It is as simple as that.
…
Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology.
________________________________
I sent these quotes to my Episcopalian priest (who had a Ph.D from Yale Divinity) asking whether this was real Christianity. He just hemmed and hawed.
And here we are.
This anti-white hatred has been building a long, obvious time and nurtured in high places.
CRT is very simply Marxism reimagined to replace the working class and the bourgeoisie with inborn racial categories. That’s it. That’s all.
BTW Social Justice is the opposite of justice. Justice is the individual getting what he deserves based on his actions. Social Justice is oppressing the individual for actions he did not take and rewarding other individuals for actions they did not take.
#6 Critical Race Theory will not be taught as a THEORY, but rather as established, immutable FACT.
#3: “CRT asserts that the experiential knowledge of people of color is appropriate, legitimate, and an integral part to analyzing and understanding racial inequality.”
I’ve heard all these anecdotes on the radio of black experience of racism. The vast majority of which are not racist.
Ta Nehisi Coates was assigned at an escalator in Manhattan. People are frequently ride and in a hurry in Manhattan. I’d been shoved at the very same escalator multiple, multiple times.
Another man, an alumnus of Dartmouth, describes how men’s track & field was d dropped but collegiate varsity sailing was added. Obviously because track & field appealed to blacks while sailing appealed to whites. The reality is the latest interpretation of Title IX by the federal government had colleges and universities dropping a lot of men’s sports and picking up women’s sports. It wasn’t about color.
Another man described his experience at Princeton, of the students fresh from the pages of the Preppy Handbook, doing Preppy Handbook stuff, and making him feel so alien and out of place. Newsflash: Most non-preppy white students would feel the same as he did. Exactly the same.
The have almost nothing to do with racism
OK even better. No need to refer to CRT or Marxism or anything else. These people are dividing all of us into losers or assholes. According to them, you’re one or the other. Thank you Scott Adams: https://scottadams.locals.com/post/781176/the-persuasive-power-of-simplicity.
huxley correctly states that “there is absolutely no way to critique CRT”. Elevating the “experiential knowledge of people of color” as the sole relevant criteria, renders objections based on “claims of neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy” as definitive proof of systemic racism.
If you disagree, it reveals the motivation to be racist in nature.
As we all know, the goal is not an impossible to achieve ‘equity’, it’s the seizure of control with the power to rule.
Reasoned words are therefore a useless waste of time and energy with CRT advocates.
Whether the low info* voter’s eyes can be opened has yet to be determined. But it will not be pointing out the blatant flaws and dangerous implications of CRT that will open willfully blind eyes. After all, criticism of CRT is proof of racism.
Only the personal impact of truly extreme radicalism has any hope of opening “eyes wide shut”.
*the liberally inclined who voted for Biden.
CRT and its advocates are a mortal threat to Constitutional governance that rests upon the “consent of the governed”. It is a clear and present danger to anyone who values liberty.
If the 2022 and 2024 elections prove as easily corrupted as did the 2020 election, the hope for honest elections will be gone.
Leaving but one remedy remaining. Our choices will have been reduced to acceptance of 1984 or ‘insisting’ upon another 1776.
And so, by a long and commodious vicus of recirculation, we find ourselves back at “When I hear the word “X”, I reach for my Browning.”
Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper.
Zaphod:
Stewart Brand of “Whole Earth Catalog” fame said in the 70s:
__________________________________
Whenever I hear the word “share” I would reach for a gun if I had one. “Share” is frequently followed by the word “feelings”, and I have enough of my own thank you. Please do us both a favor and repress yours.
__________________________________
Brand had a contrarian nature which came out more, the farther he was from the creamy heydays of the 60s.
@huxley:
Late Stage Whole Earth Catalog was ca. My childhood. I remember being fascinated by it. A Hydraulic Ram for Every Backyard!
Huxley…
I’ve mentioned before that back in the mid ’80s to early ’90s that sort of “liberation theology” was taking US seminaries by storm. Romero, Gomez, Gutierrez, Cone, Tutu (to a lesser extent), Farisani, Trible ad nauseam…The current Pope is out of that school of belief.
The basic thrust was a “God is on the side of the victims & oppressed” for the “casting down from their thrones” the oppressors (see the Magnificat). It’s a revolutionary warrior ideology dressed up in the prophetic apocalyptic language of the Bible. And it permits every sort of historic heresy to re-emerge cloaked in “critical ______ theory.” Where the blank can be filled in however one desires: Race Sex Gender Feminist Ecological…all under the “liberation” banner.
None of this is really new. The roots are from the deep despair of the poor in 3rd world countries back in the ’50s & ’60s & the frustrations of the Marxists who found their theories always failed them. So they dressed them in priestly garb, borrowed some parseltongue-apocalyptic verbiage and hey presto!
If your priest has a PhD from Yale…he might not be a Christian. Just sayin’…the hemming & hawing is a good clue.
Thanks, Frank. KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. As Scott Adams points out the progs are in favor of Marxism and they seem to favor white guilt. To persuade that it’s a lose lose proposition has merit. CRT = LOA it is.
Interestingly the mirror image of Marxists adopting the garb of Christianity was How the CIA Held the Line in Thailand in the 50s.
Back in those days, not all anthropologists were corrupted by Boazian Bastardry. Also there happened to be a bunch of highly educated ex-missionaries whose faith had ablated and desiccated under alien tropical heathen skies. Many of them ended up as Company Men. Anyway time was ripe for some cross-fertilization and original thinking.
These guys figured out that a juiced-up revival of Hindu-Buddhist God-King (Deva Raja) Worship would be just the thing with the rural peasantry. Pretty soon there was a framed colour portrait of Kingy Dude in every hut, plus traveling film shoes of Kingy Doing Good Things. Courtesy of Uncle Sam. By a strange quirk of history, the more or less Fascist anti-Royalist government in the 30s/40s had alienated the Chinese merchant class so that they were also primed to become Royalists — thereby defeating the other typical vector for successful Communist takeover.
But it’s generally accepted that it was the glomming onto an age-old sentiment and modernizing and amplifying it that did the trick.
Compare and contrast with Kennedy onwards backing aloof from general populace Catholic Elite in VN. Always the same mistake: talking and dealing with people who talk like you do — Karzai in Afghanistan another cartoonish example.
@ Huxley & Zaphod:
I bought and read every copy of “The Whole Earth Catalog” I could find here in the Midwest back then but now only have a copy of “The Last Whole Earth Catalog” left after over 50 years of moves and life lived since those days.
“Interdisciplinary Methods” means you can make the answer what you want it to be, despite all research done by experts in their fields.
It means that the social workers tell the mathematics expert that the sums don’t matter, tell the economics expert that the cost benefit ratio doesn’t matter, tell the behavioral psychologist that reinforcement of bad behaviors doesn’t matter. The politicians and activists tell the lawyer that the innocent must be convicted, the legal title must be ignored, the police officer must be jailed, and the trespasser must be permitted to remain, because he really, really, wants to.
Late Stage Whole Earth Catalog was ca. My childhood. I remember being fascinated by it. A Hydraulic Ram for Every Backyard!
Zaphod:
Well…yeah!
Lordy, how I loved the Whole Earth Catalog. A high point of my life was working at the Catalog for about four months.
For several years I attended an informal gathering of Whole Earth people which met at the Edinburgh Castle in San Francisco to eat fish’n’chips and knock back pints of lager-and-lime. It was called Odd Sundays, because we met on Sunday nights with odd-numbered dates.
Catalogs… There was also a genre of DIY kit catalogs. I remember reading one had everything from tree-houses, to trailers, to boats, to cabins. Illustrations and photos were endlessly absorbing as a kid.
Also recall a Reader’s Digest Home Design and Decoration DIY manual which was a bible of Mid-Century Modern Everything.
Not to mention Tandy Catalogs and the annual hard bound HP Catalog.
If your priest has a PhD from Yale…he might not be a Christian. Just sayin’…the hemming & hawing is a good clue.
John Guilfoyle:
I never had the heart to ask him, because I was pretty sure of the answer — assuming I could strip away all the packing material.
Everyone at that church was very delicate about their beliefs, unless it came to faith in Obama or climate change.
Godless ministers an Priests are everywhere these days. I remember Billy Graham. And despite Nixon’s noxious Jew bashing (mostly in private, thankfully), one longs for that old society soaked in respectability over this CRT-co-dependency mobocratic kakochristy.
Geoffrey Britain avers: “If the 2022 and 2024 elections prove as easily corrupted as did the 2020 election, the hope for honest elections will be gone.
“Leaving but one remedy remaining. Our choices will have been reduced to acceptance of 1984 or ‘insisting’ upon another 1776.”
Since the enemy had adopted the “by any means necessary” strategy of the Weather men’s “Prairie Fire” manifesto, how will elections stop them?
Our enemies control state and federal hiring and firing bureaucracies, as Trump long learned. They manifest the hive mind of group interest to defeat us. Elections don’t matter because they are allowed to exist, persist, and grow
And the few that aren’t fully collectivist, bent in tyranny, will soon be. So where there any room for trade-offs and cooperation? They demand “Drink That!” from Reverend Jim Jones style Kool-aide pitchers.
We therefore need the cleansing of mass violent uprisings to eliminate them. If we don’t, they aim to do it to us, first.
Zaphod Rules, now. But the countermeasures need to be picked with care.
I never had seen the concept of Motte & Bailey arguments so well exemplified than it has been with the campaign of CRT. The Left exhorts us to believe it as a benign way to educate the masses on the legacy of racism in our culture, and the belief stands – until the subject students of all ages are brought into the room to be educated.
Now the Bailey is on display – unfortunately the actual materials are being leaked and parents or workers are seeing the depths of the disgrace these educators and consultants are trying to put into place. The good news is that fighting the agenda is getting a lot of support, and isn’t too hard to do. Next, will come the unseating of the school boards that have arrogated themselves into thinking they cannot be unseated.
Why the constant refrain of ‘Marxism’? The more I think about the rampant corporatism and the alignment of corporate might, taking actions at the bidding and command of the state against the interests of private citizens, the more I’m convinced we’re actually in an era of some kind of new, horrible Fascism, where the corporate world is an active partner. These aren’t the efforts of collective thinking, controlling production and distribution. Think about Twitter following the commands of California State government to censor political adversaries, or the LMSM essentially working at the instruction of the DNC. They are specific, strategic actions building on the strength and assets of the corporations and the state agencies. Seems more fitting to the model of Fascism to me.
One of your best posts Neo, I’m saving this one. And I’ve been a regular reader since the beginning. Thank you.
“Everyone at that church was very delicate about their beliefs, unless it came to faith in Obama or climate change.”
Ok…that made me laugh…to keep from crying…but a chuckle nonetheless. Thanks. 😉
TJ:
Do you work for the FIB?
Can Do! can make all the “rules” he wants from Hong Kong, Not His Country, and We’re Not His Monkeys.
‘Not my circus, not my monkeys.’
Shorter version: “CRT says Martin Luther King Jr was wrong about everything”
That pretty much sums it up snd everyone 40-45 and older gets it immediately. They created a holiday for him only 30-35 years ago … now he’s trash? GTFO.
@TJ:
Nothing wrong with a bit of Jew Bashing (as you put it).
All Things in Moderation.
Attempting to exterminate them was Very Poor Form and all we got for that misguided effort is the Clown World we live in now — Juice most definitely not worth the Squeeze. Conversely pretending that no Jew ever did a Bad Thing or that Jews are the only ethnic group which doesn’t have discernible group characteristics (yadda yadda bi- or multi-modality can happily agree on) is another kind of recipe for civilizational suicide.
You want to tell me that Boston Irish aren’t terrorist-funding, tribal-voting, contumacious drunks as well as PT-Boat Commanders?
Golden Mean FTW. A healthy society is where everybody gets to bash everybody out in the open.
Or you can have Yugoslavia.
I say hack the Tourette’s Gene and all our problems are mitigated.
@TJ:
“Zaphod Rules, now.”
Now that’ll win ’em over to the cause!
West Bank Rules might work better.
@om:
I don’t make the rules around here or anywhere… and have no desire to make rules.
I do, however, enjoy making Modest Proposals. I’ve got one in mind for you, too, but I majorly suck at sketching diagrams.
From what I understand, CRT apologist, and leftists in general, value “Narrative”,ie, subjective stories. more than objective data. A lot of the things they say sound like they would’ve gotten it from surveys or studies. But now it’s just what their leaders tell them the truth is. It’s a bunch of “Oral traditions,“ passed down by their elders.
Screw all you white mofos, I’m a ginger.
@Sally:
We’re a story-telling species. Who gets to tell the stories rules.
Objective Truth counts for very little unless you’re the Arch Community Songster. Ingesting this objective truth is a step too far for many Conservatives. Which is why they always lose.
Spoken like a true Ginger!
Pingback:What We’re Reading: Voting ‘Wrongs’ Loses, New Virus Threat, CRT’s Dangers . . . And More – Issues & Insights
Aggie:
Motte-and-bailey is spot-on to bring up in relation to CRT. I started to running into it five years ago and wondering how did I miss the existence of a whole fallacy?
I missed it because it was that new. It’s essentially a refinement of bait-and-switch adapted for use against postmodernism. The wiki summary:
__________________________________________
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”).
The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Aggie:
I agree that Fascism is a better fit in terms of the business and central government fusion, as opposed to the end of private enterprise inherent in Communism.
I remember Billy Graham. And despite Nixon’s noxious Jew bashing (mostly in private, thankfully),
Nixon and Graham had a sloppy conversation about Jews controlling the media, sloppy because they don’t distinguish in their own mind between controlling parts and controlling the whole. Ca. 1940, the influence of corporations which were Jewish in ownership or senior management is quite striking. Six of the nine major film studios were founded and run by Jewish businessmen and a seventh (RKO) by a mixed group of investors. The two which weren’t included one which specialized in animation and one which marketed the work of independent producers. The founding president of NBC, who held office for > 40 years, was Jewish. So was the founder and majority owner of CBS. The owners of the New York Times and the Washington Post were Jewish. (Through inter-marriage, the families in question later melted into the large society). OTOH, you had the Hearst syndicate, Mutual Broadcasting, Time-Life, Dow Jones, the Associated Press, United Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, and all manner of local media.
Sadly, I didn’t learn about CRT in law school. Maybe I would have if I’d taken an obscure class like “gender and the law” or “law and literature” but I don’t know. I wonder if students actually should be taught more about critical race theory – at least what it is – so that they’re prepared to face it in the real world.
“Note that within CRT, as generally with postmodernism, there is absolutely no way to critique CRT. It’s an intellectual black hole that allows no exit.” Yup. Well-meaning liberals have already fallen into the trap. Not teaching CRT just means you don’t want to teach about “racism.” Being “objective” or wanting to have a “debate” makes you privileged and insensitive. It’s ingenious, really.
Pingback:Hump Day: “ Gunga Galunga … Gunga … Gunga-Galunga” | The Universal Spectator
Can Do!:
Is the Dust Devil from Hong Kong (I know, none in that climate); he makes a very small mess of small things for a very short time but ultimately he is just hot air and dirt swirling about.
We are so social a species–we yearn to be with others–that anything that causes us to be different from one another causes anger at ourselves and avoidance from others
The difference can be skin color, height, weight, facial features, a cowboy hat, a white feather stuck in the nose….anything.
Of course the anger is projected so that people are mad at themselves and blame it on others.
If these feelings are intense we get wars. If mild, we get bigotry.
To change these old tribal synapses is difficult: it takes good education and a loving and healthy diverse environment while we are growing up.
You could do an experiment: Require 10% of teenagers at a summer camp to wear a red ribbon and seed the campfire with kids who tease them.
You could do an experiment: Require 10% of teenagers at a summer camp to wear a red ribbon and seed the campfire with kids who tease them.
dnaxy:
Don’t give CRT ideas!
Interesting that you post this and almost immediately I find my local small town Texas online paper is republishing this drivel from the Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/22/texas-critical-race-theory-explained/
The article makes CRT sound like a wonderful examination of racial things when it is generally used in the way you describe and not the way they are pretending. I banged my head against the desk when “systemic racism” is described by the way neighborhoods were drawn out back in the 20’s in Austin. As if that is still in effect….as if we are not 100 years removed from actions like that. I have people of all races living around me and am glad that we all got past segregation. And, the article doesn’t say that we see CRT proponents act like reversing that exact type of segregation except for whites or likely conservatives to them is A-Okay. Funny how they leave that out.
Another facepalm moment is this: “Look at how it teaches the history of the Texas revolution — that people like Stephen F. Austin are racially superior to the treacherous Mexican, like Santa Anna,”. omg…..that is so false and frustrating. I never remember my teachers in Texas teaching that people with Mexican heritage were inferior, mostly because nearly everyone here has some Mexican heritage for goshs sake. We were taught that Stephen F. Austin won Texas independence from Mexico by defeating Santa Anna not that he was racially superior.
I sincerely hope that this CRT stuff is a fad that passes. If it does not, we will not be headed for anything good at all.
“Interesting that you post this and almost immediately I find my local small town Texas online paper is republishing this drivel from the Texas Tribune.” – ArmyMom
I was born and bred in small town Texas, and remember our “social studies units” on the Six Flags Over Texas* being as you describe. Santa Ana was not liked by his own countrymen, and many of the Texians fighting for independence were Hispanic.
“We were taught that George Washington won American independence from Britain by defeating (quite a few generals, actually) not that he was racially superior.”
*that’s what the original amusement park was named, and for good reason, before it became a national franchise. Lots of fun when all those attractions were new!
From the Trib home page: “Did you know that The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit newsroom? Your donations help power our public service journalism”
Whenever I hear the word “nonprofit” I would reach for a gun if I had one
“There is no direct reward for fighting powerful interest groups in order to confer benefits on a public that is not even aware of the benefits or of who conferred them. Thus, the incentives for good management in the public interest are weak.” – HumphreyP at
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/06/22/pursuing-vengeance-on-prosecuting-trump/#comment-2561017
This may be why conservatives get so little traction in Federal politics, and why “liberals” don’t start taking action until the “public choices” of the interest groups actually start mugging them up close and personal, as we are seeing in the majority-Democrat school districts where parents are starting to fight back against CRT.
As for creating “incentives for good management,” that is supposedly what elections are for. They seem to be working in Florida and Texas, and a few other states, but as ArmyMom’s example showed, cleaning CRT out of the schools across the state(s) will be a “house-to-house, hand-to-hand” battle even after the “big bombs” are dropped by the governors & legislatures.
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”- Milton Friedman
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/738162-i-do-not-believe-that-the-solution-to-our-problem
Pingback:Biden Executive Order Mandates “Race Training” For Federal Gov’t - United Push Back
Pingback:Biden Executive Order Mandates "Race Training" For Federal Gov't - Victory Girls Blog