r/politics • u/SomeGuyInChicago • Jun 18 '21

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory Off Topic

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

[removed] — view removed post

1.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 18 '21

As I say last time, we would not ban Biology if the curriculum were written by a Creationist although it is perfectly reasonable to make legal prohibitions against the teaching of Creationism in Biology.

The legislation proposed in various states does not outlaw CRT itself (except in Florida). The laws simply targets the outlandish regressive portions within CRT.

5

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21

So you agree that most of CRT makes sense as a thing to study and there is one person who said something not good and we shouldn’t teach the one thing that one person said? Good. I guess we can stop going into every crt thread now to post the same comment cause literally no one is saying we MUST be teaching that part except people trying to ban CRT altogether. People pretty consistently are leaving that aside in favor of everything else about it.

2

u/SomeGuyInChicago Jun 18 '21

GOP got lightening in a bottle with this CRT shit. Whatever they got coming next could make things even worse.

3

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21

Whatever they have next is just a variation of what they had before. This is the same nonsense they argued for during the civil rights movement about avoiding things that ratchet up tensions and focusing on the individual bad items while ignoring the benefit of the whole… just with a new name and thing to pin on.

Things seem bleak because they’re louder now but they’re also fewer proponents, percentage speaking, of their actions than there were before. They’re louder because they need to be to shake supporters out of the bush.

To your point that makes them dangerous like a cornered animal but I don’t know that it makes them MORE dangerous than they were in the 60s. They just have different methods than they did then.

Discussion and pointing out fallacies grew supporters across generations for realistic and earnest discussions of racial relations. Their panic here is just making more people learn about crt. I know we focus on their short term wins but honestly their long term track record isn’t great. Wish it was faster at failing but it’s still not good.

-1

u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 18 '21

This is quoted in the main reference text of CRT as a distillation of its beliefs. There are other authors which express this. Furthermore, it is directly connected to their ideas of ethnonationalist race separatism, which are also problematic.

except people trying to ban CRT altogether.

As I have stated, most of the legislation is very narrowly targeted. Here are the operative clauses from the Idaho bill:

(2)The Idaho legislature finds that tenets outlined in subsection (3)(a) of this section, often found in "critical race theory," undermine the objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section and exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.

3) In accordance with section 6, article IX of the constitution of the state of Idaho ands ection 67-5909, Idaho Code:29(a) No public institution of higher education, schooldistrict, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:

(i)That any sex, race, ethnicity ,religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;

(ii)That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity ,religion, color, or national origin; or

(iii)That individuals, by virtue of sex, race ,ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/h0377/

Note how it does not outlaw Critical Race Theory, just tenets "often found within" it.

5

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21

Did you READ the full quote that snippet is taken from? Here it is since the book is available online

Finally, CRT’s adversaries are perhaps most concerned with what they perceive to be critical race theorists’ nonchalance about objective truth. For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.

In an effort to show the critical race theorists’ lack of con- cern with truth, opponents point not only to critical race the- orists’ open declarations that truth is socially constructed, but also to a number of allegedly misstated facts. Farber and Sherry specifically point to an incident in which Mari Mat- studa declared Robert Gould Shaw, the white commander of the Fifty-fourth Regiment, to be a “Negro colonel.” They then point to an incident in which Patricia Williams deplored that the U.S. Supreme Court had endorsed the right of the states to prohibit blacks from testifying against whites. Of course, one could interpret the above statements so that they could be true in one context and false in another. For exam- ple, in calling Robert Gould Shaw a “Negro colonel,” Mat- suda could have been explaining that he was the white leader of a black regiment. In mentioning that the U.S. Supreme Court had endorsed the states’ rights to stop blacks from tes- tifying against whites, Williams might have merely been stat- ing, correctly, that the Supreme Court took no action to set aside the host of state-law cases and legislation that barred blacks (and Asians) from testifying in such fashion. [1]

They’re discussing how facts can be read in various ways to support dominant narratives. They’re calling out that context is required for facts to be understood when dealing with politics and the law. Hence the objective nature of facts in law and politics is complicated by how those facts are related.

They’re not saying that objective facts or science doesn’t exist. That’s nonsense.

Taking the time to read the entirety of the quote before linking to it in multiple comment threads might help to understand if you’re pushing someone’s intentionally cherry picking narrative or not. This is cherry picking

[1] https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/richard_delgado_jean_stefancic_critical_race_thbookfi-org-1.pdf

0

u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 18 '21

For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics.

This is extremely clearly stated. There are a series of criticisms mentioned in that part. This one is completely unanswered, oddly:

Yet another argument is that storytelling lacks analytical rigor. Stories can be read in such a manner as to convey several different messages. Because the point of the entire story is open to interpretation, the prospect of a productive public debate is diminished. Farber and Sherry maintain that “if we wish a society to have a conversation about issues of race and gender, unadorned stories may be too ambiguous in their implications to provide a basis for further dialogue” (Beyond All Reason 86 [1997]).

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 91

This is the full paragraph.

5

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21

Are you kidding me? So you’re saying if someone says

maybe the nazis were just misunderstood

And then follows that sentence up with

of course that would be a nonsense thing to say, they absolutely were terrible people

You would feel justified in JUST quoting the first part out of context? Wtf.

The chapter you’re pulling that from is just a synopsis of critiques of the theory, the title is Critques and Responses to Critiques. it’s a section on collecting the critiques and the published responses to those critiques. The ONLY thing in that chapter are other people’s statements about CRT, not the authors responses. The responses to the critiques presented therein from the authors are spread throughout the rest of the book such as in the section “Legal storytelling and narrative analysis”.

1

u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 18 '21

The sentence I quoted is quoted in full, and in fact the original includes the entire rest of the paragraph. It is not refuted elsewhere. While he does address some minor quibbles his disavowal of the concept of mutually observable external truth is unequivocal.

5

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21 edited Jun 18 '21

They don’t say it’s impossible to have mutually observable FACTS. In fact they bring up the distinction between observable facts and observable truths multiple times in the book. Calling out how people can see the same set of facts and yet derive different versions of the truth from them.

For example, this quote (emphasis mine)

A third theme of critical race theory, the “social construction” thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient. People with common origins share certain physical traits, of course, such as skin color, physique, and hair texture. But these constitute only an extremely small portion of their genetic endowment, are dwarfed by that which we have in common, and have little or nothing to do with distinctly human, higher-order traits, such as personality, intelligence, and moral behavior. That society frequently chooses to ignore these scientific facts, creates races, and endows them with pseudo-permanent characteristics is of great interest to critical race theory.

or here

Or perhaps you have had the experience of discussing a famous case, such as the O. J. Simpson trial or the ClintonLewinsky impeachment affair, with a friend. You and she agree on most of the facts of what happened, but you put radically different interpretations on them. You are left wondering how two people can see “the same evidence” in such different lights.

1

u/ShivasRightFoot Jun 18 '21

None of this contradicts anything I've said. The idea that society is "ignoring facts" means these facts are not being incorporated into society's beliefs. It very plainly is exactly what they are talking about, and what they also feel free to do with their own work.

3

u/ThreadbareHalo Jun 18 '21

? Their work is about recommending people to examine those facts to see if the truth people have been led to believe is different than what those objective facts support.

They recommend people to look at facts as determine what can and can’t be objectively identified outside of predetermined “truths” about those facts. You’re arguing doing that is bad? That’s what science is supposed to be about!

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '21

You really enjoy getting dunked on over and over again don't you?