WP: "Why conservatives really fear Critical Race Theory"

[StarfishSaver]

Excellent piece. But they are obviously treading lightly. It should be headlined "Why many white people really fear Critical Race Theory" since, as we've seen on this board, this fear isn't limited to conservatives.

One year ago this week, the police killing of George Floyd rocked the country, setting off the largest mass civil rights protests in a generation and inspiring a wave of soul-searching about the roles that race and racism still play in American life.

But as quickly as the wave rose, it crested and crashed — at least among some groups. Since last summer, Republicans and Whites in particular have become less supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement than they were before Floyd’s death.

Why? Because theoretical discussions of racial injustice turned into a more direct personal challenge to the race in power.

It’s one thing to post a black square of solidarity to one’s feed, as over 14.6 million Instagram users did on #BlackoutTuesday last year. But it’s another to defer to Black voices, to change policies that harm Black people, to truly adjust one’s way of existing in the world in response to a critique of American virtue, and of one’s own innocence.

Calls for racial accountability can feel like an attack when you aren’t ready to acknowledge how your behavior, or that of your ancestors, has harmed others. When your priority is to preserve a particular mythology — the United States as a land of equal opportunity — the push to take a critical view of the United States’ racial history becomes a threat. It might result in a real rethinking of the order of things, which might result in culpability, which might result in recognition that recompense is needed. (Hm, recompense — sounds like “reparations,” a subject America remains unwilling to touch with a 10-foot pole.)

For many White people, a year of trying to be non-racist was more than enough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/why-conservatives-really-fear-critical-race-theory/

[Buckeye_Democrat]

1. Many Americans don't want anything to challenge...

... their mythology about this country or themselves.

They can't even tolerate the news media for showing any atrocities committed by USA soldiers, like during the conflict in Vietnam. They even go marching sometimes about it, shouting "My country, right or wrong!"

They seem to demand a completely sanitized view of the world and this country that makes them feel more positive about themselves.

Their country, their religion, their economic ideas or anything else that they've chosen to strongly identify themselves -- behavior that I find strange in itself -- can't be questioned whatsoever.

[BannonsLiver]

2. The entire premise is flawed.

Why would they fear one of their best cudgels? Makes zero sense.

[StarfishSaver]

4. Did you read the article?

[Caliman73]

9. They make it into a cudgel because they fear it.

They know they can count on most people not understanding or taking the time to actually read or learn about what CRT really is. They know they can count on a lot of White people having a knee jerk reaction based on their poor understanding of CRT. So they use it. Just like they use Socialism, Just like they used Liberal in the 80's and 90's. Just like they use Feminism. The Conservative strategy is ALWAYS to rely on the ignorance and lack of curiosity of Americans to turn complex ideas into simple boogeymen.

[SoonerPride]

3. Excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.

For a group with all the power and playing board tilted in their favor, whites sure are fragile.
(those opposed to open discussions about race anyway)

[Mosby]

5. CRT needs to jettison postmodernism and moral relativism.

That this was developed by lawyers shouldn't be a surprise.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Why do you think CRT incorporates post modernism and moral relativism?

Please explain.

FYI, Critical Race Theory was developed by scholars who are lawyers and arose out of critical legal studies, as is appropriate since most of the studies on race and racism in this country are necessarily rooted in and intertwined with legal studies - the law and understanding of it cannot be removed from this because so much of the problems this country faces regarding race were caused and cemented in by the law, courts, and government and by efforts to eradicate the badges of inferiority imposed by these forces. The only way to effectively address and unravel it is through a full understanding of the law and its implications.

So the "this must be suspect because lawyers are involved" smear just doesn't play here - any more than it would make sense to dismiss efforts to better understand and deal with contagious disease in America disease on the ground that medical experts are behind them.

Of course, anyone is free to come up with their own theories and approach to dealing with race in America. But if they don't have any real understanding of the history and manifestations of racism, their "theory" won't be worth the paper it's written on.

[Mosby]

14. Because they do.

Do your own research. I'm busy working right now.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Lol

In other words, you haven't a clue.

Gotcha.

[Mosby]

19. Why is that funny?

[StarfishSaver]

20. I thought you had important work to do?

Run along now.

[Mosby]

21. Wow, that's not condescending.

[StarfishSaver]

23. You're the one who said you were too busy working to answer a question about what you weren't .

too busy to write, but claimed you were too busy to explain.

And yet here you are, still posting.

That's funny.

[Mosby]

51. Ok

[Caliman73]

12. What are your critiques of postmodernism?

Do you think that there is a way to get to "universal, empirical truth" when you are dealing with human relationships and systems? You think that historical, societal structures and power dynamics have zero influence on how we approach history, art, literature, or even math and science?

You think the concepts of mental health and "wellness" are completely empirical and objective so that people from China who are dirt poor, experience mental health exactly the same as wealthy people from the United States?

[Mosby]

17. So you admit CRT is a bourgeois phenomena.

Lawyers love postmodernism because they have a problem dealing with reality. Their entire business model, both criminal and tort, is to lie and twist facts in order to create "narratives" that ignore objective reality. That's how they make their living, but they are hurting western society in the process.

I think the notion of "theory" in the social sciences has been perverted, writing an essay about "white fragility" for example does not qualify as a theory. If might have some truth to it but it hasn't and/or can't be tested. Its not a legitimate theory using any definition in science.

I think that a close approximation of reality can be observed and tested. Postmodernist thought is tautological, it rejects meta narratives, but thats exactly what IT is.

[StarfishSaver]

22. For someone too busy "working" to answer a simple question

you're spending a lot of time posting BS you probably think fools and/or impresses people who don't know any better.

But I see right through your gobbledeegook and know you have not a clue what you're talking about.

[mcar]

27. Wow

Lawyers love postmodernism because they have a problem dealing with reality. Their entire business model, both criminal and tort, is to lie and twist facts in order to create "narratives" that ignore objective reality. That's how they make their living, but they are hurting western society in the process.

That's some serious broad brushing right there.

[Mosby]

31. Its true.

The contingency fee system is a joke. Lawyers have learned how to game the system, they file class action lawsuits in counties that return favorable verdicts, and mine for clients using tv advertising. They are gearing up right now to sue 3M, you know, the company that makes masks? They are suing them over "defective" ear plugs, but they aren't defective at all, just a bad design, but the lawyers have redefined the word. Narratives are all that matter now.

They did this to Johnson and Johnson, now you can't buy talcum powder anywhere in the US. The company gave up.

Lawers in WV are suing drug wholesalers for distributing oxycontin, how many scripts did McKesson write? Zero. Doesnt matter, its about narratives.

Companies like Target and Walgreens ignore shoplifters, why? Lawyers. Walgreens has now closed 17 stores in CA, because of shoplifting. People at the Target I work at steal all day long, nothing is done. Eventually they will go to online only. All because of a lawsuit in CA. We have people filling up carts and just leaving.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Goddamn, that's a lot of bullshit packaged in one post...

Hey, I have the same problem with the talcum powder case, but changing venues has been a long established practice since jurisdictional differences existed. As far as the shoplifting "epidemic" how is that the lawyers fault? A single lawsuit lead to a recent epidemic in shoplifting, I would say a pandemic and economic depression would have a much larger affect. Particularly since it seemed that shoplifting was actually decreasing slightly in the Bay area before the pandemic. Not to mention that the Bay area is one of the most expensive places to live on the planet and people are increasingly becoming unhoused and food insecure in San Francisco. But no, its a lawyer's fault!

[Mosby]

55. Because the retail chains are afraid of lawsuits.

Do you think I'm lying about all the walgreens closing?

I work at Target, I see people shoplifting EVERY day. Our loss prevention people will not stop or touch them. This is a national directive.

Just last week I checked the inventory levels of the powered skate boards, there were 7 missing, prices range from 200-300 each. The guy who is stealing them used to take the box into the bathroom, but now he just opens the box on the sales floor and then leaves with the item.

We are no longer selling luggage or backpacks because they just get stolen.

[mcar]

53. Oh well, if you say so

[StarfishSaver]

33. Hard to take someone's critique of lawyers seriously

When they think law practice is limited to "criminal and tort."

[Mosby]

37. Sorry I left out contract and property law.

I'm so stupid.

[StarfishSaver]

42. You're not stupid. Just ill-informed about the law and the practice thereof

As evidenced by the fact you think tacking on contracts and property law means you've got the field covered.

I guess that "I don't have time to answer your question about what I wrote because I'm busy working" excuse is no longer in play?

[Mosby]

45. Lol, no still at work.

I covered the 4 categories, but the issue i brought up pertains to criminal and tort law.

[StarfishSaver]

46. Critical race studies go far beyond criminal and tort law

As I said, you are ill-informed. Perhaps you should do some more research before trying to educate those of us who have a better understanding of - and in my case, have actually researched and taught - the topic.

[Mosby]

48. Ok.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Surprised that you didn't realize if you post a

differing opinion than OP you will get told you are wrong. LoL.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Uhm, define any of those 3 without using right wing buzzwords please.

I mean, damn, its a method of academic study relating to laws and society, not sure what your problem is with lawyers, but it seems illogical to oppose a methodology without at least having a cursory understanding of it first.

At least read the fucking wikipedia on the overarching theories you are criticizing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_legal_studies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

[Mosby]

32. Read your links

Critical theory (also capitalized as Critical Theory)[1] is a Marxist approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With origins in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation,[2] critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."

What it's not based on is SCIENCE.

They are NOT theoreticians, they are essayists.

Maybe y'all need to learn the differences between theories, hypothesis, and opinions.

CRT is an opinion.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Hmm, you should understand words before posting.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sociology

I mean, if you want me to agree that sociology and offshoots/derivatives don't have the same rigor as physical sciences, I would agree, but that doesn't mean such study is invalid, just that human behavior and society is complicated and messy. Are you honestly saying we get no value from such studies?

[Mosby]

36. Apparently you don't understand the difference between study and essay

Theories are based on testable hypothesis. Like the theory of cognitive dissonance or theory of gravity.

Can you link to experiments that tested CR theory?

Why not?

Can you at least admit its not a scientific theory?

[StarfishSaver]

40. This field is more often called "critical race studies"

CRT is more often just used as a buzzword and distraction.

The objections we see have absolutely nothing to do with it what it's called or whether "theory" is an accurate way to describe the discipline. The problem people have is that race is being critically studied as an integral part of American history and culture. So they try to thwart every discussion of race by engaging in distractions

[Humanist_Activist]

41. Not all scientific theories can be tested in a lab, there's also observational evidence...

but here's a question, do you think Social Sciences are sciences at all?

[Mosby]

50. Ok

[Solly Mack]

43. It never claimed to be a "scientific" theory - which is different from a social science theory,

known as social theory.

They are two different things.

Social theory studies social/societal events, issues etc., by challenging and debating the methodologies of approach to social events, problems, issues, etc..

[Mosby]

49. Ok.

[Solly Mack]

52. OK. Be dismissive. I wasn't being dismissive. I was explaining there is a difference.

[Mosby]

54. My degree is in social science

There is a scientific meaning to "theory" and a common use meaning. That's it.

[Solly Mack]

56. As is mine. And social theory can be tested through experiments, and evidence and data can be

gathered, analyzed, and conclusions drawn. It also allows for change and adaptation as new knowledge/information becomes known/develops.

There exist the data and evidence to say with certainty that there are social (criminal justice, housing, employment etc.) disparities based on race.

And you well know that.

Still, both social theory and scientific theory have different meanings based on approaches to each - yes, both can use qualitative and quantitative data but social theory is mostly qualitative.

If you and I both pick up the same hammer it will weigh the same no matter what. But depending on arm strength, it might feel heavier/lighter to one of us. The hammer weighs the same but the experience is different. The weight of the hammer is the science - how heavy it feels - the social science. And, yes, that does make it different in essential nature.

Yes, theory does have only one meaning. Layman use another.

However, social theory is not a layman use of the word theory. Neither is CRT.

You dismissed CRT as nothing but a collection of essays. You were wrong. It is far more than that and if you had bothered reading the actual books on CRT you would know that. Instead you are relying on what?

CRT has been around since the 70's. A group of academics wrote essays, yes - but that is not what CRT is - it's only how it came into being as an idea. It was the beginning - not the realization.

Those authors didn't even agree with each other on everything. They did come together later on, those not dead, and came up with tenets of CRT: analysis that challenged the historical narrative of race, of racism, and the ways used to address the issue. They did come up with a premise and provided the data and evidence to back it up.

They created a methodology for looking at the systemic discrimination against people for their race, their gender, their religion, and their ethnicity.

The framework of CRT is being used to promote a better and fuller understanding of the racism Asian-Americans have endured, that women have endured, that Jewish people have endured (read Daniel Rubin, University of Redlands), that Native Peoples have endured, that the LGBTQ community has endured.

Because CRT has gone far beyond the white/black paradigm.

[Goodheart]

63. What's the "methodology"?

Sounds to me more like a philosophy than a methodology, and I don't believe anyone has more than a cursory understanding of it.

[Caliman73]

7. Agreed

I listen to Randi Rhodes, who is a radio personality who is typically very good on progressive issues and calling out conservatives. The other day she said something I found very disturbing. I do not have the direct quote but is was something to the effect of, "don't talk about Critical Race Theory around me" It gave a very "Defund the police is a horrible slogan" feeling to it. She basically said that CRT makes "Us" as in progressives look bad. It was sad that she appeared to be accepting the right wing narrative of what CRT is, and how CRT is a "bad look".

There is a lot of misinformation about what CRT is and is not. Much of it is being spread deliberately by right wingers to create another boogeyman, another "poison" term that can mean whatever they want it to mean to their followers and unfortunately, White people who are otherwise liberal allies.

I have had, in the last month, multiple discussion with people who "are concerned" about CRT because it says, "All White people are racist". Literally, 10 people I have engaged with, have said that very thing. When I asked where they heard that, they can't really say, or they point to some analysis by a White lawyer, or some document linked to the Heritage Foundation. So then I challenge them to read actual scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, or Richard Delgado and they glaze over or simply refuse.

[StarfishSaver]

13. It's also very suspicious that people who never thought for a second about "Critical Race Theory"

in the past and can't tell you what it is to save their lives, suddenly in the past few weeks use it as an attack point and comeback in every discussion about race. It's obvious that somewhere a decision was made to add CRT to the lexicon of Luntz-type buzzwords to terrify and provoke conservatives and intimidate progressives into silence.

Unfortunately, like most racially-provocative buzzwords, plenty of progressives have adopted them and are helping to weaponized them in service to racist conservatives to the point that it's sometimes difficult to tell our white allies apart from racists on the other side.

[Caliman73]

15. Yeah, It is unfortunate.

Funny how conservatives always use people like MLK Jr. or Fredrick Douglass to advance these "colorblind" narratives, yet when they were alive they were the absolute worst, most subversive people. The say, "Dr. King wasn't about radicalism like BLM" Dude!! The man literally advocated for some kind of reparation. He literally called America the greatest purveyor of war death around the world for the sake of capitalism. He called out our White allies. Douglass also condemned the hypocrisy of America in his famous "What to the Slave, is the 4th of July?" Conservatives will use Anything or Anyone to enforce the racial status quo. CRT is the latest.

As I responded to another poster, Conservatives count on the ignorance of Americans to advance their agenda. That and racial concerns by White people who would normally be progressive allies.

[apnu]

29. I've seen this in effect many times

People get stuck on buzzwords that sound scary as a replacement for real critical thought and understanding of the topic related to the buzzword.

Conservatives, since they have no real arguments today, regularly do this. Its a form of straw man arguments to avoid the actual topic. Get people scared and confused about some code word or phrase, then yammer on that while avoiding the actual topic.

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

[uponit7771]

10. K&R

[Efilroft Sul]

11. The same people who "tried" to be non-racist also freaked out going 6 weeks without a hair cut.

[gademocrat7]

16. K&R

[mcar]

25. Kick

[apnu]

26. People can only wake when they are ready to wake.

Its frustrating but its true. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

I started my waking in the 90s with Rodney King and it took decades to get it. I had black people yelling in my face that "my daddy owned their daddy" Which was bizarre to me because my family came to America in the 1920s.

I couldn't figure it out, but I got me thinking. Almost two decades later, I started to get it for real. And I am open to ideas and willing to learn and change. Most humans aren't open like that.

We change because something in our environment forces us to or we make a conscious choice to change. This change, which to me is as much racial as it is gender as it is sexual as it is cultural, will require all of us already woke to keep the environment changing so it provides more motivation to wake up those who are still sleeping.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

30. I find no way to engage on this subject - CRT

Based on the theory itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory?wprov=sfla1

And that is a serious problem. It's academic and only appeals to like minded people. How to bring it into daily conversation? Rap music?

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Talking about systems and how it intersects with individual human interaction...

alongside articulating how such systems can adversely affect outcomes for marginalized groups is useful. But best not to use too much in house terminology.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

60. This helped me get to the heart of it.

What is critical race theory?

Critical race theory is an academic framework centered on the idea that racism is systemic, and not just demonstrated by individual people with prejudices. The theory holds that racial inequality is woven into legal systems and negatively affects people of color in their schools, doctors’ offices, the criminal justice system and countless other parts of life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical-race-theory-bans-schools/

[WhiskeyGrinder]

39. K&R. CRT gives us a vocabulary to talk about the white supremacy we live in (and that all white

people benefit from) and makes visible the fact that white supremacy is more than burning crosses and segregated drinking fountains. It gives away the whole game -- and power will always protect itself.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Well said.

[leftstreet]

47. "more than burning crosses and segregated drinking fountains"

Well said

[Mosby]

57. I feel like I should add some thoughts

I think there is systemic racism in the US, and that it affects PoC in a lot of different ways, including laws and the application of social justice.

I think that societal structures and cultural assumptions in the US are affected by many factors like systemic racism, but also by individual and psychological issues.

I think sociology today is more of an adjunct to philosophy than an actual social science.

[tonedevil]

58. Ok

[Mosby]

59. An example of how quasi scientific theories can be dangerously misleading

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016294061

[StarfishSaver]

62. Of course they don't.

Neither do most of the people here agreeing with them. But "race" triggers some white people (almost as much as the term "white people" does) and that's all they need to hear and it's off to the races.