https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/the-critical-race-theory-debate-is

 

On 7/8/2021 at 4:34 PM, jsdarkstar said:

the Truth hurts. 

You have strawmen but thats about it. No truth just opinion

As is typical, a lot of the controversy around CRT is related to completely different definitions of what CRT even is. I have yet to see someone provide a consensus definition of what CRT is. Every single time I've seen it defined, regardless of whether it's by a pro or anti CRT person, all that follows is a litany of reasons why that definition is wrong.

At its basic level, CRT purports to be simply academic study into the effects that race has on our laws and vice-versa. This seems something pretty uncontroversial - it's certain worth studying how race has played in to legislation passed throughout out history, and to consider what laws and sentencing guidelines that survive today may continue to disproportionately impact citizens in the basis of race even if race isn't explicitly mentioned in the law.

Extending from some of these studies appear to be outlier takes that venture closer to what the GOP has redefined CRT as: whites are always oppressors and consciously or unconsciously racist, that equity is the goal not equality, that the only way to make progress on racial equity is to tear down existing "white" structures such as the nuclear family, work ethic, and meritocracy.

None of the latter takes are anything approaching mainstream, nor would they be accurately classified as part of CRT from what I can tell. But language being fluid, the right has managed to - in the minds of a critical mass of people at least - place these more extreme viewpoints under the umbrella of CRT. 

And though these viewpoints are out of the mainstream, there are still isolated but legitimate examples of these sorts of viewpoints trickling down to K-12 curriculum.

If we're ever to have a rational discussion about these things, it's better to discuss around specific aspects of what people critical of "CRT" actually "think" they're arguing against, rather than simply using a poorly defined acronym that becomes a Rorschach test for motivated reasoners to project whatever they want onto.

The right needs to acknowledge that they don't really have any idea what CRT ACTUALLY is. So distill down the issues into specific qualms rather than broadly saying "CRT sucks and is ruining our kids!!" as their latest moral panic. (If you want to see a history of power grabs, look no further than the history of BS moral panics and legislation that has been inspired by them)

The left needs to acknowledge that while "technically" CRT is not what right wingers thing it is, that some curriculums at the K-12 level are being influenced by some very radical and divisive racial concepts. This isn't widespread, but it also is happening in a non-zero number of districts (the Atlantic has covered this even, so it's not just something that exists in the minds of delusional right wingers).

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

As is typical, a lot of the controversy around CRT is related to completely different definitions of what CRT even is. I have yet to see someone provide a consensus definition of what CRT is. Every single time I've seen it defined, regardless of whether it's by a pro or anti CRT person, all that follows is a litany of reasons why that definition is wrong.

At its basic level, CRT purports to be simply academic study into the effects that race has on our laws and vice-versa. This seems something pretty uncontroversial - it's certain worth studying how race has played in to legislation passed throughout out history, and to consider what laws and sentencing guidelines that survive today may continue to disproportionately impact citizens in the basis of race even if race isn't explicitly mentioned in the law.

Extending from some of these studies appear to be outlier takes that venture closer to what the GOP has redefined CRT as: whites are always oppressors and consciously or unconsciously racist, that equity is the goal not equality, that the only way to make progress on racial equity is to tear down existing "white" structures such as the nuclear family, work ethic, and meritocracy.

None of the latter takes are anything approaching mainstream, nor would they be accurately classified as part of CRT from what I can tell. But language being fluid, the right has managed to - in the minds of a critical mass of people at least - place these more extreme viewpoints under the umbrella of CRT. 

And though these viewpoints are out of the mainstream, there are still isolated but legitimate examples of these sorts of viewpoints trickling down to K-12 curriculum.

If we're ever to have a rational discussion about these things, it's better to discuss around specific aspects of what people critical of "CRT" actually "think" they're arguing against, rather than simply using a poorly defined acronym that becomes a Rorschach test for motivated reasoners to project whatever they want onto.

The right needs to acknowledge that they don't really have any idea what CRT ACTUALLY is. So distill down the issues into specific qualms rather than broadly saying "CRT sucks and is ruining our kids!!" as their latest moral panic. (If you want to see a history of power grabs, look no further than the history of BS moral panics and legislation that has been inspired by them)

The left needs to acknowledge that while "technically" CRT is not what right wingers thing it is, that some curriculums at the K-12 level are being influenced by some very radical and divisive racial concepts. This isn't widespread, but it also is happening in a non-zero number of districts (the Atlantic has covered this even, so it's not just something that exists in the minds of delusional right wingers).

Conservatives just want a "patriotic” history that’s whitewashed of any negative aspect of America’s history.  It’s straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

I can’t tell you how many times I assigned an essay on some awful aspect of American history and the essay ended with a statement about how great America is.  Literally made me laugh out loud every time.

24 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The left needs to acknowledge that while "technically" CRT is not what right wingers thing it is, that some curriculums at the K-12 level are being influenced by some very radical and divisive racial concepts. This isn't widespread, but it also is happening in a non-zero number of districts (the Atlantic has covered this even, so it's not just something that exists in the minds of delusional right wingers).

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/should-black-lives-matter-agenda-be-taught-school/618277/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/black-lives-matter-curriculum-has-unintended-lesson/618501/

For anyone interested.  The Atlantic has covered the whole issue very well IMO.  Just to "both sides" this thing, here's some articles discussing the strawmanization of the issue and the GOP's response too:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/gops-critical-race-theory-fixation-explained/618828/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/opponents-critical-race-theory-are-arguing-themselves/619391/

For you old farts who want to read these but don't know how to get around a paywall try opening the links in incognito mode if you reach your free article limit.

Republicans new approach is to give everything a patriotic litmus test and if it doesn’t pass they want to ban it.

31 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I can’t tell you how many times I assigned an essay on some awful aspect of American history and the essay ended with a statement about how great America is.  Literally made me laugh out loud every time.

Unfit to teach then

9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Unfit to teach then

Kids are taught to do that throughout middle and high school. I think it’s a normal habit when you consider how they’ve been taught. If properly executed it’s hilarious at the college level though.

 

 

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

As is typical, a lot of the controversy around CRT is related to completely different definitions of what CRT even is. I have yet to see someone provide a consensus definition of what CRT is. Every single time I've seen it defined, regardless of whether it's by a pro or anti CRT person, all that follows is a litany of reasons why that definition is wrong.

At its basic level, CRT purports to be simply academic study into the effects that race has on our laws and vice-versa. This seems something pretty uncontroversial - it's certain worth studying how race has played in to legislation passed throughout out history, and to consider what laws and sentencing guidelines that survive today may continue to disproportionately impact citizens in the basis of race even if race isn't explicitly mentioned in the law.

Extending from some of these studies appear to be outlier takes that venture closer to what the GOP has redefined CRT as: whites are always oppressors and consciously or unconsciously racist, that equity is the goal not equality, that the only way to make progress on racial equity is to tear down existing "white" structures such as the nuclear family, work ethic, and meritocracy.

None of the latter takes are anything approaching mainstream, nor would they be accurately classified as part of CRT from what I can tell. But language being fluid, the right has managed to - in the minds of a critical mass of people at least - place these more extreme viewpoints under the umbrella of CRT. 

And though these viewpoints are out of the mainstream, there are still isolated but legitimate examples of these sorts of viewpoints trickling down to K-12 curriculum.

If we're ever to have a rational discussion about these things, it's better to discuss around specific aspects of what people critical of "CRT" actually "think" they're arguing against, rather than simply using a poorly defined acronym that becomes a Rorschach test for motivated reasoners to project whatever they want onto.

The right needs to acknowledge that they don't really have any idea what CRT ACTUALLY is. So distill down the issues into specific qualms rather than broadly saying "CRT sucks and is ruining our kids!!" as their latest moral panic. (If you want to see a history of power grabs, look no further than the history of BS moral panics and legislation that has been inspired by them)

The left needs to acknowledge that while "technically" CRT is not what right wingers thing it is, that some curriculums at the K-12 level are being influenced by some very radical and divisive racial concepts. This isn't widespread, but it also is happening in a non-zero number of districts (the Atlantic has covered this even, so it's not just something that exists in the minds of delusional right wingers).

That's not an outlier though this is what the entire premise of the book White Fraility is basically about and that book is being presented as the bible from progressives.

51 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

Lenin would be proud

CRT still sucks.

2 hours ago, Eaglesfandan said:

That's not an outlier though this is what the entire premise of the book White Fraility is basically about and that book is being presented as the bible from progressives.

Progressives are an outlier. The number of people in the Democratic base that support this form of progressivism, and agree with the nonsense from DiAngelo is the minority.

A loud and substantial minority. But a minority even in NYC, where you would think (based on conservative rhetoric) radical leftism is the dominant political force, given their election of Adams.

23 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

You have strawmen but thats about it. No truth just opinion

I hope the White Wash doesn't stain your Jeans. 

 

 

 

 

 

Representing the violent nature inherent to everyone who supports this poisonous ideology 

 

 

 

How many lives has CRT taken so far? More than the number of birds killed by windmills?

I reject the premises of CRT, therefore, I reject CRT. Easy Peazy Lemon Squeezy.

Teaching kids to read and do math used to be considered important. 

But not teaching them the chronological order of the months. Clearly was never important for some kids.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But not teaching them the chronological order of the months. Clearly was never important for some kids.

You're not even a challenge fat boy. Go sit down before you strain something.

it’s not about banning controversial topics.  It’s about whitewashing U.S. history (which to be honest is pretty whitewashed already)