General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNot only do they not know about it, they don't want to know about it.
Graphic mine
1960s racist America looks genuinely like 2021s racist America. White whiney racist privilege has not moved on at all. How is it possible as planet normal embraces the diversity and uniqueness of the 21st Century and works together to find a place of inclusivity and equality, the protest signs of the right-wing racist are effectively interchangeable generations apart? It is quite astounding and exactly why CRT is not only vital but scares the literal shit out of their rotten racist hearts...
czarjak
(11,191 posts)ananda
(28,782 posts)Blecchhh
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)This kind of racism lets people of the hook. They think that unless it manifests like this, it's not racism. And since most people don't think and talk like this, they think they have no role, responsibility or need to address it
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,257 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)And please call me Soph
iluvtennis
(19,756 posts)niyad
(112,432 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)niyad
(112,432 posts)jaxexpat
(6,701 posts)They seem to choose one of two options.
1. They realize how egregiously immoral it is and condemn its ill-use at every turn.
2. They grab the option to monopolize and monetize it.
The phenomenon of racial sloganeering repeating itself over decades and generations is engendered by a preponderance of the option # 2 folks in positions of power. Especially in low-info zip codes.
My grandfather often said that a lie was just a lie though it could occasionally be entertaining. He went on to say, "if one must lie, be sure it's so outrageous that none would believe it. Because it's a lie that has just enough truth in to be feasible that can cause harm."
thesquanderer
(11,953 posts)"Systemic racism" was already a known issue to be considered, and is easy to explain based on the two words that comprise the term. What is the difference between studying "critical race theory" vs. studying "systemic racism"? Unless I am misunderstanding something (which is definitely possible), the word "critical" obfuscates rather than clarifies the topic of systemic racism, and the word "theory" adds nothing.
If "the whole point of critical race theory was to repudiate the idea that we can talk about racism only as a quality of individuals rather than as a structured reality thats embedded in institutions," then, why did we need, not only a new term for something we already had a term for, but even one that does not clearly indicate its meaning, and is therefore that much more easily manipulated to mean what a speaker wants it to? What am I missing?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Apparently they found it in some academic literature on our side, and ran with it.
Agreed, "Systemic Racism" is far more descriptive and is already well-understood.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Critical Race Theory has been around for nearly half a century.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)White-wing whinging on this matter is more than usually off the mark.
Far from 'telling white kids they're responsible and ought to feel bad for being white', this analysis shows that structures built up over the country's history shape the views and options of everyone, in directions which favor one group at the expense of others. It not only does not convict individuals now living of responsibility for this situation, it goes a good way to exonerate them. At its most basic level, it does not require more of white people than open eyes, and acceptance of an indisputable historical record.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)So sadly, that is beyond too much for some people, even supposedly progressives.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Disenfranchisement and suffering of others, which is difficult and confronting. It would also require an ethical and moral person to do their bit to end it, which is hard work.
Much easier to be 'colour-blind' and 'not-racist' and ignore reality. The wilfully ignorant are to be found everywhere.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,437 posts)Or, as the Bible puts it:
KJV
czarjak
(11,191 posts)Marcuse
(7,392 posts)The Dred Scott decision.
[link:https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/history-education-pss-equality-dred-transcription.pdf|
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men--high in literary acquirements--high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them.
The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.